MOnarch; Flight Delay Compensation. What can CAA do

Tim_Richmond

I did receive a reply from the CAA stating that will be contacting Monarch for more details regarding the denied claim for extraordinary circumstances relating to Rudder problems and the spare part having to be obtained from France.then tey will give their obion whether the claim for extraordinary circumstances is justified. I have informed Monarch that the CAA are writing to them and they say they will respond with full details It may not be much help but I propose to wait and see what the response is before proceeding any further. I will be quite honest here, to say I am playing "the Wait and See Game" as within the next 2 months a number of cases will have be heard in the Small Claims Court and it will give an indication in whose favour the judgements are passed. I appreciate every case is different and is judgement is based on individual circumstances of the flight in question. Nevertheless I prefer to know that over 60% have come out in favour of the customer rather than Monarch. I am sure I not alone in taking this stance.

zacchaeus_2

I've had a substantive response from the CAA re exceptional circumstances. As it doesn't involve Monarch, however, I've posted it as a new thread.

Martin85

There is a full page article in the Money Mail today about flight delay compensation. It does indicate that the CAA does have some influence. This information seems contrary to what is written on this forum. Is the Money Mail incorrect.

NicksTheMan

Martin85 wrote: »

There is a full page article in the Money Mail today about flight delay compensation. It does indicate that the CAA does have some influence. This information seems contrary to what is written on this forum. Is the Money Mail incorrect.

I read the same article. Is it just paper talk, or are the CAA really taking some action or at least putting something in writing, saying that the airline is incorrect in its interpretaion of extraordinary circumstances. This could the be used in favour of the claiment as eveidence in court

stavros42

NicksTheMan wrote: »

I read the same article. Is it just paper talk, or are the CAA really taking some action or at least putting something in writing, saying that the airline is incorrect in its interpretaion of extraordinary circumstances. This could the be used in favour of the claiment as eveidence in court

All the papers are using sound bites and as for the CAA as you can see in my previous posts complete and utter waste of time.

Martin85

I tried phoning the CAA today with my complaints reference number. There was pre recorded message saying basically because they are inundated with complaints they have stopped taking calls. It added they would be in touch in due course. So far in my case over 3 months. since their last communications saying they were contacting Monarch. What a joke. Maybe they should update their website with any conclusions they have reached generally.

pxxuk

Just about to start a claim with Monarch for our flights to and from Sharm on 26th June and 11th July... Wish me luck!!

It was a 2.5hr delay leaving Birmingham on 26th and a 23hr and 50 minute delay (according to their apology email but in reality we took off 1 minute prior to the 24hrs depending on whose watch you looked at!!) on the 11th July.

We were offered no refreshments or update info on the outbound (which I am not expecting to be considered at all as it was a couple of hours but am mentioning for the customer service complaint point of view) nor were we offered anything whilst sat on the broken plane between our scheduled take off time of 9pm until we were offloaded at 2:15am into the closed airport terminal before being bundled to a hotel nearby (because the staff were over flying hours).

We got to bed at 3.30am tired, hungry and thirsty which I wouldn't normally moan at but I am 4 and a half months pregnant! When I asked about food and drink they told me to order room service and try to claim back the money from Monarch when I got home... I used my money at the airport on gifts for family so had no cash or cards, as a majority of people had done on our flight, so gave up and went to bed... it was only a 3hr wait til breakfast!! The following day we were not given much of an update other than that we were being collected at 12:30 to leave the ground at 3pm. We finally got on the plane, pushed out onto the runway for the same "fixed and tested twice during the night" fault to reoccur. We were allowed back into the terminal where we remained for a further 4 and a half hours (this time with food and 1 drink) before being herded back onto the plane to finally take off at 9.05pm, 24hrs later than expected and just within the staff flying hours rules.

Im guessing that I'll be told to shove off too? The outbound delay was to do with a staff strike in Portugal. The fault on the aircraft was something to do with the flaps on the wings that give lift in flight and slow down for landing... They bodged it on the way home and flew without them in the end to save us being further delayed!!

TomLikesSausages

The following has recently been issued by the CAA. Is any use as it says guidline. What value will have in cases of Extraordinary circumstances for technical reasons.

The UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is today updating passengers about when airlines are liable to pay them compensation following cancellations and long delays. Today’s update follows new European Commission (EC) guidelines.

The guidelines clarify when a delay or cancellation should generally be considered to not be an airline’s fault (so called ‘extraordinary circumstances’). Airlines have to compensate passengers when flights are cancelled within two weeks of departure or arrive more than three hours late, but only if the issue was within the airline’s control. Regardless of fault, airlines are obliged to provide assistance to passengers, including refreshments and accommodation where necessary, even where there is no requirement to pay compensation.

Until now, there has not been agreement on which circumstances are considered extraordinary and which are considered to be within an airline’s control. Following close cooperation between European regulators, engagement with technical experts and discussion with the airline industry, yesterday’s publication of the EC list should allow passengers to have a better idea if disruption they face could lead to compensation, and should also speed up the process of assessing and paying claims.

Iain Osborne, CAA Group Director of Regulatory Policy said: “The vast majority of passengers take flights without any hiccups, but the small proportion who do experience cancellations and delays can find it confusing to work out if they are owed compensation. The EC guidelines should help to inform passengers more about their rights.

“We also hope they will assist airlines to assess passenger claims correctly when they are received, reducing the time it takes for passengers to get their money, and the time spent by the CAA checking airlines’ assessments.”

Since the European Court of Justice ruled in October 2012 that passengers who experience delays of over three hours on arrival should be due compensation as well as those who experience cancellations, the CAA has seen significant increases in the numbers of passengers seeking help when airlines reject their claims. This has led to delays in responding to consumers.

Along with publication of today’s guidelines, the CAA is asking airlines to use it to reassess claims they have previously rejected. This should speed things up for passengers and allow the CAA to focus resources on other support for consumers. The CAA is also considering other measures to reduce the amount of time passengers are left waiting for a decision on their claims and improve airline compliance with the regulations, including ensuring airlines correctly assess more new cases without them needing to be referred to the CAA.

For further media information contact the CAA Press Office on: 0207 453 6030 or email press.office@caa.co.uk

Follow the CAA on @UK_CAA

Notes to editors
1. The EC guidelines can be found here: Extraordinary Circumstances Guidelines.
2. A full suite of information for air passengers, from pre-booking, to the airport and on board the aircraft, to complaining about issues on their return is available on the CAA website at https://www.caa.co.uk/passengers.
3. In assessing cases to date, the CAA has found it has agreed with airlines’ judgements on whether the cancellation or delay’s cause was an extraordinary circumstance in around 50% of cases.
4. More information about passenger rights during long delays and after cancellations can be found here: http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=2211&pageid=12716
5. More information about the October ruling on long delay compensation is available here: http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&newstype=n&mode=detail&nid=2185
6. The CAA is the UK's specialist aviation regulator. Its regulatory activities range from making sure that the aviation industry meets the highest technical and operational safety standards to preventing holidaymakers from being stranded abroad or losing money because of tour operator insolvency.

Yellow_Is_The_Colour

We contacted he CAA as result of the above "Guidelines" and we were advised that we should now lodge an appeal with the airline (Monarch in our case) before progressing in any other way.

PaulPonting

We had a response from AESA in Spain regarding Monarch's 50% reduction in compensation for our flight that was under 3500km and the delay was between 3 and 4 hours. They are in no doubt that the full compensation is due under the terms of EC 261/2004, and have written to Monarch ordering them to pay the full amount. So far nothing. The CAA seem unwilling to commit hemselves on this subject. Why can the Spanish authorites try and do something whilst the CAA are nonplus. regrettably the AESA letter is worth nothing in court if I choose to go down that route. I have written to The Europen parliament to see what they come up with.Very disappointed with the CAA a letter from them stating no reduction is permissible in compensation on any flight under 3500km (not only ours)would bear a lot more weight and help others like myself who are in the same position.