MOnarch; Flight Delay Compensation. What can CAA do

JPears

Ich wrote: »

Just so folk know, the age of an airframe is NO indicator of the reliability of the on-board systems.

True, to an extent. But logic, common sense and experience would dictate that a 25 year old 737 airframe is going to have more reliability issues than a one less than 5 years old.

Ich_2

True, to an extent. But logic, common sense and experience would dictate that a 25 year old 737 airframe is going to have more reliability issues than a one less than 5 years old.

No because by that age all that would be left of the original aircraft will be the basic structure and cableing. Everything else will have been changed on a few occasions.

In fact reliability can be a bigger issue with newer airframes e.g the Boeing 787 & one variant of the Airbus 380. Even Ryanair with a fleet age of under 5 has issues

Or put it another way, if there was an increase in faults due to age, there would then be a lot of crashes involving old aircraft. Does that happen? NO!

NicksTheMan

PaulPonting wrote: »

I phoned the CAA this morning and after being in a queue for over half an hour I eventually spoke to a Human who was very polite. She told me my case was near the top of the queue and I should get some response from them by the end of next week. She told me there was no justification she was aware of for airlines reducing compensation claims for flights delayed between 3 and 4 hours. She suggested I waited to get their response before taking any further action. Whilst she did not actually say so she indicated if Monarch refused to budge I could use their response as "evidence" the Small Claims court. In the circumstances I propose to wait until I heard from them. She was less informative about the other flight where rudder problems were the reason for the claim being denied. She informed me this issue would also be covered in their response.She would not say whether they had Monarch themselves as my case was not fully completed. The average time for the CAA to respond to complaints at the moment is about 4 to 5 months. It is certainly worth phoning the CAA if you have not had a reply near the above time scale.I will post on this forum to let you know what the CAA say.

Well done Paul you actually managed to speak to someone at the CAA. What they have said verbally about reducing flight delay compensation by 50% is what we all thought we knew. Hopefully they will confirm that fact in writing. Then in my view you will have a cast iron case against Monarch, However I fear when they respond they will be ambiguous with their answer and not show their hand completely against Monarch. Having waited so long you may as well wait another 2 weeks to see what the CAA actually say in writing. I think perhaps as many people as possible that are caught under the 50% reduction of their claim by Monarch should phone the CAA to bring this issue constantly to their attention. I gather they is a queuing system for phone calls which may mean a long wait for a call to be answered. I have a day off next week so I will call them then when I will be in my own time and not the office time, Good luck Paul with you claim

AnneMarie4687

I will also try phoning the CAA about this issue. To have any value I would have thought that we needed a reply in writing stating that there is no law saying Monarch can reduce the compensation by 50% for delays between 3 and 4 hours. Do we know if the CAA have been in contact with Monarch on this issue. I will ask them if I manage to speak to a member of their staff. Either the CAA web site is incorrect or Monarch are wrong.

AnneMarie4687

It is not a question of enforcement. But if the CAA put in writing that what Monarch are claiming is false and is contrary to the Sturgeon Case then this can only sad weight to a case when it comes before the Small Claims court. From what I have read no test case for the 50% reduction has been heard in court. Nor can I find on any Forum where someone has issue small claims court proceedings for the 50% reduction in compensation and then as a result Monarch has a change of heart and pays up. Yes Centidede100 I have read your posts and they are most helpful but it is a fact of life not everyone is as aggressive as you.

Vauban

Centipede100 wrote: »

But the CAA are not the ultimate arbiter of the law, only a judge in a court of law can rule on this, and they have ruled on this very point in the ECJ in the Sturgeon case.

There will be no test case in the Small Claims track as the law has been clearly laid out in Sturgeon and any airline facing a claim in this regard will quite simply pay up when faced with a legal claim on this aspect. For an airline to try to defend this, they would lay themselves open to the probability of legal costs so it will ensure that there will be no test case.

Far from being aggressive, I am merely (re)-stating the law as applied by the Sturgeon ruling as it appears on some threads in the forum that some potential claimants don't believe what they are reading!

Centipede is of course right. I can see why claimants might feel that they want the reassurance of a piece of paper from the CAA, but - as he says - the law is utterly unambiguous. Given airlines like Monarch are not daft, one can only conclude that they are doing this to minimuse the amounts they pay out in the belief that only a few people will object.

Of course my own view is that there is a role for the CAA in this. They should, in my view, instruct Monarch et al cease this practice, proactively approach all those who have been underpaid. If the airline fails to do this, the CAA should say, then the CAA will issue a public notice of censure to name and shame the airline concerned and begin legal action to enforce the provisions of the Regulation - as they are in fact mandated to do.

Unless the CAA does this, then there will be serious questions asked about the impartiality and their commitment to upholding the provisions of the Regulation.

Ich_2

Just to get my head right on this, a judgement (and I think Article 251) allows for a reduced 50% payment for flights over 3500km where the delay is between 3 & 4 hours.
Monarch are reducing every payement by 50% irrespective of the flight length for delays between these times

The regulation

2. When passengers are offered re-routing to their final
destination on an alternative flight pursuant to Article 8, the
arrival time of which does not exceed the scheduled arrival
time of the flight originally booked
(a) by two hours, in respect of all flights of 1 500 kilometres
or less; or
(b) by three hours, in respect of all intra-Community flights of
more than 1 500 kilometres and for all other flights
between 1 500 and 3 500 kilometres; or
(c) by four hours, in respect of all flights not falling under (a)
or (b),
the operating air carrier may reduce the compensation

provided for in paragraph 1 by 50 %.

So the first part of the judgement says

63 It is important to point out that the compensation payable to a passenger under Article 7(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 may be reduced by 50% if the conditions laid down in Article 7(2) of the regulation are met. Even though the latter provision refers only to the case of re-routing of passengers, the Court finds that the reduction in the compensation provided for is dependent solely on the delay to which passengers are subject, so that nothing precludes the application mutatis mutandis of that provision to compensation paid to passengers whose flights are delayed.
It then follows on by saying
It follows that the compensation payable to a passenger whose flight is delayed, who reaches his final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled, may be reduced by 50%, in accordance with Article 7(2)(c) of Regulation No 261/2004, where the delay is – in the case of a flight not falling under points (a) or (b) of Article 7(2) – less than four hours.

So that is just confirming and explaining the position of 3 to 4 hours on flights over 3500km , sorry folks. It does not seem to be saying that it only applies to 3 to 4 hours on flights of 3500km only!

Ich_2

I can see your point but the references are contradictory. Perhaps a group of you should get together to take Monarch to court about it to settle it once and for all as they will continue to fight this in each and every small claims court case!

I read the "By three hours" as three hours or more which is possibly the intent and what I see the second paragrah alluding to.
I'm no expert so if wrong will accept a legal opinion, would you?

Ich_2

But you have not answered this in the case of you being correct!!

Just to get my head right on this, a judgement (and I think Article 251) allows for a reduced 50% payment for flights over 3500km where the delay is between 3 & 4 hours.
Monarch are reducing every payement by 50% irrespective of the flight length for delays between these times

I see a number of folk complaining but very few specifying the departure & arrival points so they need to ensure the flight didtance is below 3500 km (measured by the great circle method)

Ich_2

You need to read the preceding words in conjunction with (a) (b) and (c). The key words are:

Long day, yes just re-read it and see the point