50% reduction in claim for delay between 3 and 4 hours

Vauban

jawslw wrote: »

Hi, I have been given the same offer from Monarch 50% reduction due to being over 3hrs but under 4hrs. Any advice would be great:(:(:(

Assuming it's not a reduction from 600 to 300 Euros, then it is not legal. You will see from the Monarch thread (and the Court Successes thread) than one poster has just won his case against this in the small claims court.

But as there are no precedents, you'll need to do the same thing unfortunately.

PaulPonting

I received a reply from the CAA stating "In response to Monarchs offer of 50% compensation payout for your return flight, we are under the belief because the flight was over 3 hours and your journey was km2768 you are therefore entitled to claim for 400 euros per person." They also added as the flight was from Spain I would need to write to the Spanish NEB for them to contact Monarch but they were pof the opinion than they wou;ld form the same opinion. At least the CAA have indicated that in their view Monarch are wrong. I will now be writing to the Spanish NEB and provided they come back with the same answer I will taking the matter to couurt armed with the responses from both the CAA and the Spanish NEB. although they did not say so in so many words this is the course the CAA reccommmends. They strongly suggested I waited until I received a reply from the Spanish NEB in case they had anything to add or took direct action against Monarch.They could not contact Monarch themselves on this specific case as the rules stated the it is the responsibility of the body where flight depats from. I intend to follow what is recommended by the CAA.

111KAB

PaulPonting wrote: »

I will now be writing to the Spanish NEB and provided they come back with the same answer I will taking the matter to couurt armed with the responses from both the CAA and the Spanish NEB.

I took my matter to Court with support letter from NEB (Madrid) - of no interest to the Judge as NEB have "no jurisdiction over UK Courts". Therefore total waste of time, letter, stamps etc and it took me 132 days for NEB to write back to me.

Tim_Richmond

If the CAA say their web site is correct and Monarch are not complying, why won't the CAA take some action and contact Monarch about this issue. Surely this fact must have some bearing on the court cases. Is it only Monarch that are only paying 50% for delayed flights between 3 and 4 hours or other airlines following suit. If some airlines are paying up in full then they must agree the that CAA web site is correct.

romanby1

Tim_Richmond wrote: »

If the CAA say their web site is correct and Monarch are not complying, why won't the CAA take some action and contact Monarch about this issue. Surely this fact must have some bearing on the court cases. Is it only Monarch that are only paying 50% for delayed flights between 3 and 4 hours or other airlines following suit. If some airlines are paying up in full then they must agree the that CAA web site is correct.

My feelings on this matter are, Monarch have admitted compensation is due. Half the battle is won. Return any cheque with a letter of action if the full amount is not forthcoming within say 7 days. If no response strt the action it should be very simple in a case like this.

111KAB

Tim_Richmond wrote: »

If the CAA say their web site is correct and Monarch are not complying, why won't the CAA take some action and contact Monarch about this issue. Surely this fact must have some bearing on the court cases. Is it only Monarch that are only paying 50% for delayed flights between 3 and 4 hours or other airlines following suit. If some airlines are paying up in full then they must agree the that CAA web site is correct.

Tim there is plenty of information on various pages of this website regarding the failures of the CAA however, just taking Monarch Airlines as an example ....... a) the CAA are funded by the airlines (ie they are not government funded) so part of their wages are paid by Monarch and b) one of the Monarch board members is the ex Chairman of the CAA.

HitAndMiss

I thought that Tim Richmond's question (thread 29) about whether other airlines were reducing claims by 50% for delays between 3 and 4 hours to be a very reasonable one and it is a very salient point. This forum is only about Monarch and it would be useful if someone could at least direct us to some threads that show what other airlines are doing on this particular issue. I am sure if I had hours to spend and I trolled through every airlines forum on compensation for flight delays I could find the answer, but obviously the major and helpful regular contributors who are in the know feel they do not want help the novices like us. Thank you to anyone who can answer this question

JPears

HitAndMiss wrote: »

I thought that Tim Richmond's question (thread 29) about whether other airlines were reducing claims by 50% for delays between 3 and 4 hours to be a very reasonable one and it is a very salient point. This forum is only about Monarch and it would be useful if someone could at least direct us to some threads that show what other airlines are doing on this particular issue. I am sure if I had hours to spend and I trolled through every airlines forum on compensation for flight delays I could find the answer, but obviously the major and helpful regular contributors who are in the know feel they do not want help the novices like us. Thank you to anyone who can answer this question

AFAIK - no , no other airlines are playing the silly, pointless game of reduced compo, but I could be wrong.
Perhaps you would like to suggest a better way of organising the threads? There are many, many already, and as this particular matter only applies to Monarch at the moment then it is sensible to keep it in the Monarch thread. There is an advanced search function on the forum?

Martin85

Tim_Richmond wrote: »

If the CAA say their web site is correct and Monarch are not complying, why won't the CAA take some action and contact Monarch about this issue. Surely this fact must have some bearing on the court cases. Is it only Monarch that are only paying 50% for delayed flights between 3 and 4 hours or other airlines following suit. If some airlines are paying up in full then they must agree the that CAA web site is correct.

If someone knows the answer why are they being so obstructive, no everybody knows there way around the forum as well as big contributors experts. I cannot find this subject covered in the Monarch FAQ. I also think it would be very helpful to know if othere airlines when settling pay 100% compensation for delays of between 3 and 4 hours. Are others reducing compensation to 50% or are Monarch standing alone on this issue, It would great if somebody could give a reply rather than saying the answer is readily available. As far as I can see it is not in an obvious place. Thank you

Vauban

Martin85 wrote: »

If someone knows the answer why are they being so obstructive, no everybody knows there way around the forum as well as big contributors experts. I cannot find this subject covered in the Monarch FAQ. I also think it would be very helpful to know if othere airlines when settling pay 100% compensation for delays of between 3 and 4 hours. Are others reducing compensation to 50% or are Monarch standing alone on this issue, It would great if somebody could give a reply rather than saying the answer is readily available. As far as I can see it is not in an obvious place. Thank you

JP answered this immediately before your post. I have nothing to add to what he says.

But I'm curious why it matters whether any other airlines are doing this? It doesn't affect the legality of the practice, nor the remedy you have to seek to if you want the money owed to you.

Don't go down the wrong rabbit holes ...