MOnarch; Flight Delay Compensation. What can CAA do

Ich_2

In all the dealings with the CAA do not forget that they are not government funded, but by their users which includes the airlines!

http://www.transport-research.info/web/programmes/programme_details.cfm?ID=3874

They are supposed to be independent but ..... Also as a "private organisation" I doubt they have the power to fine anyone, certainly any air safety cases go through the courts

Vauban

BillLucas wrote: »

I have today received an E Mail response from the CAA saying they would expect to respond to my complaint about Monarch in about 4 weeks. I have even got a reference number which I must quote at all times, which is more than Monarch ever give. They requested I send them copies of all correspondence to/from Monarch which were sent/received by letter/E Mail. If their resonse time is correct it will be infineately quicker than Monarch.

Yes, but ...

I wrote to the CAA, and a few weeks later they replied. But only to say that Monarch had claimed extraordinary circumstances, and that therefore there would need to be an investigation. This would take "months rather than weeks", they said ...

Wishful_Thinker

From all the above posts have I assumed correctly that the CAA will respond to any compaint in around a month but if Monarch claim extraordinary circumstances it could take up to 3 months for them to complete their investigations and come to a decision. If they find Monarch claim for extraodinary circumstances is not the case do they have the power to force Monarch to pay up for the claim. Is there a body from within the EU who passed the ruling, other than the CAA who may be able to decide what is extraordinary circumstances

111KAB

CAA do not have the power to force Monarch, or any other airline to pay up. There is no other body (if flying out of UK) you can seek a comment from regarding your delay other than the airline itself.

DavePollard

There would seem to be hundred maybe thousands of cases that are being referred to the CAA covering a large number airlines. The complaints are nearly all over what the airlines consider as extraordinary circumstances. I would have thought rather than considering individual cases they should be looking at what are extraordinary circumstances under the EU ruling. Have they referred back to the EU court to get some directive on this issue

Mark2spark

DavePollard wrote: »

The complaints are nearly all over what the airlines consider as extraordinary circumstances. I would have thought rather than considering individual cases they should be looking at what are extraordinary circumstances under the EU ruling. Have they referred back to the EU court to get some directive on this issue

I think the Wallentin - Hermann judgement is reasonably clear.

"On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby rules:

1. Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation of a flight is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision, unless that problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control. "

I read it to mean that an unforeseen problem (tech issue) is not the catalyst, ie the stemming, of the EC.
The EC should be weather related, or strike, or terrorism, etc etc.
Just having something break down without warning isn't extraordinary, it happens all the time. Inconvenient, yes, extraordinary, no.

cosmo21

If the delay was on an in-bound flight then the CAA will refer your case to their equivalent in the departure country. Mine was referred to the Spanish aviation body, who after a couple of months wrote to advise me that they had contacted Monarch requesting a reason for the delay and had had no response. There didn't seem to be anything else they could (or would) do and they pretty much advised taking legal action against Monarch.

PaulPonting

I have today E mailed the CAA as Monarch have reduced my claim by 50% as the flight from the Canary Islands was delayed between 3 and 4 hours, which according to them was in line with EU261/2004. This statement completely contradicts what it says on CAA own Web site. I have asked them if there in any substance in Monarch's claim. I cannot believe Monarch would state such facts without the backing of their legal team. Maybe they have a small loophole in the original docuement.

Martin85

What Paul says is quite extraordinary.Either Monarch have found a loophole or the CAA should make an urgent investigation as then Monarch are lying and legal procedures should start against them.

TomLikesSausages

Have the CAA given any indications at all what they do and do not consider to be extraordinary circumstances. Is there any guidance on this issue from the EU court that passed this judgement. It all seems very hit and miss at the moment especially as, probably, the Small Claims Courts do not have any set legal rules/precedents to make their decision against. So it is all a matter of interpretation which is likely to be different from one court to another. Maybe in view of the number of cases the CAA should be more involved on this issue or refer back to the European court of justice. However you look at this issue at present it all very unsatisfactory which I believe was not the intention when the ruling was passed last autumn.