Who does the CAA answer to?

JPears

Clearly the CAA in their preliminary "release" of listed ECs are running rough shod (in my view unlawfully) over the whole 261/2004 Regs.
What government body does this industry dictated quango answer to?
Is it time we now started writing to our MPs and/ MEPs to inform them of the scandalous activities of the CAA?

JPears

Interesting that the "proposals" (judges take note NOT established as law or binding) made by the NEBs - http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/passengers/air/doc/neb-extraordinary-circumstances-list.pdf
are in direct conflict with proposals made by the European Council in amending Reg 261/2004 in April of this year. - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0130:FIN:EN:HTML - Specifically Annex 1

JPears

I wonder if there is any way of getting the full or summerised minutes from this meeting of NEBS in April 2013? See what was said and which NEBs from Europe were actually present that produced the draft proposals.
I see one airline, that is using these proposals as evidence, has stated that they are "endorsed by the CAA"! I can't find evidence of that endorsement by the CAA, although it is the CAA who are the NEB for UK!
The cynic in me might suggest the the CAA has been the driving force behind these proposals, or am I just paranoid....:D

Vauban

I've seen the minutes and, like many bureaucratic notes, they don't give a verbatim record. But the minutes do note that some NEBs had further comments on this list, and so it would need to be revisited. Hence "preliminary", presumably.

See my other post on this here:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=62882254&postcount=829

JPears

Can you linky to a copy of the minutes Vauban?

Vauban

JPears wrote: »

Can you linky to a copy of the minutes Vauban?

The minutes are not online, but I am happy to repost here. Paras 13 and 14 refer to the new "guidelines", as does the italicised para immediately after.



Expert group on Passenger Rights

National Enforcement Bodies for air passenger rights

Meeting of National Enforcement Bodies for Regulation (EC) No261/2004 held on 12 April 2013

Revision of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004
1. The Commission summarised the proposed legislativechanges, explaining the Commission’s goal was to build on the benefits theexisting Regulation had brought, developing a transparent and equitablestructure that balanced the interests of passengers with those of industry andNational Enforcement Bodies (“NEBs”).

Financial Impact
2. Whilst the proposals focus on prioritising the provisionof care and assistance to affected passengers, the Commission has beenconscious of the financial burden they place on industry. Ultimately thatburden is met by passengers in the form of either higher charges or a reductionin choice. The Commission has sought to strike an appropriate balance, withmeasures aimed at streamlining the effectiveness of the system (e.g. improvedrouting minimises assistance costs, setting a minimum 5 hour threshold fordelay compensation (as opposed to the 3 hours currently) and those that assistair carriers to obtain third party redress where they are not the cause of anydisruption.

NEB Comments
3. GeneralNEB agreement that airlines and airports should coordinate their individualcontingency planning to improve assistance provided to passengers in situationsof mass disruption. The one NEB thought that the proposals potentially placedsignificant financial obligations on airport managing bodies to providepassenger assistance without any mechanism to recover such costs where theywere not a fault. One NEB queried how passengers would be managed in practiceand highlighted the implications of passenger confusion as to who wasresponsible for their care.

4. Supported deadlines for managing complaints and benefitsin such deadlines being harmonised across the EU.
5. Noted an inconsistency between the Airport Package and therevised Regulation in that each set of legislation used different criteria, interms of passenger numbers, in setting obligations. An airport could thereforebe required to meet obligations under one set of legislation, but not theother.

6. Thought that further consideration needed to be given asto how the 5 hour delay threshold might apply to passengers due to depart lateevening and travelling overnight. Such passengers would be within the 5 hourspre-qualifying period when no assistance, such as accommodation, need beprovided. Considered a definition of “timetabled flight” would be useful toprevent an air carrier later claiming a flight had been “rescheduled” to avoidits obligations

7. Queried whether there was an accepted legal interpretationof what comprised a connecting flight and how the proposals might apply outsidethe Union.

Legal Update

8. The Commission gave an update on Court of Justice of theEuropean Union (CJEU) rulings in relation since the last NEB meeting in May2012.

NEB Harmonisation

Joint Action - Finland
9. Complaint analysis undertaken by the Finnish NEB indicatedthat some air carriers were refusing compensation on the grounds ofextraordinary circumstances, but were not supporting rejected claims with areasoned explanation of what had occurred. This meant affected passengers wereunable to make an informed decision as to whether to take the matter further.Valid claims were therefore being abandoned by passengers at that stage, whilstothers had to seek the assistance of the Finnish NEB in order to obtainresolution.

10. Given that other NEBs had indicated similar problems, theFinnish NEB put forward a draft letter it proposed NEBs adapt and send to allair carriers on their territory reminding air carriers of their obligation tojustify their use of the extraordinary circumstances exclusion. The Finnish NEBconsidered that demonstrating that carriers had been placed on notice on an EUwide basis could facilitate enforcement action if it were subsequently required.

Time Limits
11. The NEB considered that it would be of benefit to collatedetails of any national limitations within which a passenger had to file acomplaint or initiate legal action. There was general NEB support that thisproposal would allow NEBs to decide whether it was worthwhile transferring adelayed complaint to another NEB’s jurisdiction and improve informationprovided to passengers.

Other
12. Considered language remained a major barrier in managingcomplaints and it would also be useful to update the NEB to NEB contact listfor escalated complaints.

Extraordinary Circumstances Sub Group
13. NEBs agreed on 31 May 2012 to form a working group(comprising France, Germany, Ireland, Spain, Switzerland, Netherlands and theUK, supported by Denmark and Italy) to consider the issue of"extraordinary circumstances" and put forward proposals to facilitateconsistent and uniform enforcement in its application.

14. The working-group produced two lists. The first compriseditems accepted by all participants of the group as constituting extraordinarycircumstances and the second comprised items agreed by all participants as notconstituting extraordinary circumstances. The working-group also producedguidance material to assist NEBs in evaluating complaints concerningextraordinary circumstances. The lists and guidance material - which reflectthe CJEU’s rulings to date - are not binding and are intended to assist NEB inimplementing Article 5(3) of the existing Regulation.
Following the meeting, several NEBs made comments on the listand one NEB considered that also the document "best practice guidance noteand flow chart" deserves further discussions. Therefore these documentsare still to be revisited by the NEBs.

List of participants:
European Commission: Representatives from Unit D4"Passenger Rights" DG MOVE
Member States:
• Austria
• Belgium
• Czech Republic
• Denmark
• Estonia
• Finland
• France
• Germany
• Hungary
• Ireland
• Italy
• Latvia
• Lithuania
• Luxembourg
• Malta
• Netherlands
• Poland
• Portugal
• Romania
• Slovakia
• Slovenia
• Spain
• Sweden
• United Kingdom
• Iceland
• Norway
• Switzerland

111KAB

In the early days many delayed passengers (myself included) sought assistance from the CAA only to discover they were a useless, toothless, worthless bunch who were funded by the airlines. It now seems that occasionally, but very rarely, the intervention of the CAA can assist although the vast majority of claimants get no help whatsoever and indeed it is felt by involving the CAA you could well jeopardise a legitimate claim.


I have refreshed this old post as (although not delayed connected) as I have come across some information relevant to the rights of disabled passengers and I only reproduce here in an effort to strengthen the general MSE forum comment regarding the the useless CAA.


"Legislation protecting the rights of disabled passengers came into effect in July 2008. Nobody knows exactly how many complaints have been filed since. Unlike in the United States, UK airports and airlines are not under the obligation to report complaints received to the Civil Aviation authority.

In October 2012 the UK CAA took over the complaint handling task from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Despite the hundreds of complaints received since, not a case has been enforced, not a perpetrator has been brought to justice by the UK CAA."

NoviceAngel

Here's a link from Tyzap, highlighting their powers

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/67103229#Comment_67103229

and one to the Wishlist!

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/passengers/air/doc/neb-extraordinary-circumstances-list.pdf

bagand96

The problem with the CAA is that it wasn't ever a consumer orientated organisation. The CAA regulates aviation safety standards in the UK such as airworthiness of individual aircraft, to airline's operating certificates, aviation maintenance organisations, air traffic control units, pilot licensing, airfield licensing etc etc.


It's not a government funded organisation, it is self sustained from what it gains in charges for all its services (and if you have any experience of dealing with the CAA you'll know its charges are not insignificant.)


The problem is the UK Government lumbered the CAA as the UK NEB. It's not really the right body to be doing it. And of course they received no extra resource to do it with. I suspect that when the CAA considers its priorities with its budgets, they place their regulation of safety roles far higher than dealing with consumer issues.


I'm not excusing the CAA, but that is the situation and is not unique to the UK. I think either the NEB is transferred to a more appropriate body, or a new body set up, or the CAA and the government get together and form a plan of how to properly resource the CAA to discharge the NEB task. The chances of this happening are slim though. I'm sure the government is happy putting it on the CAA, a non government funded body.

NoviceAngel

Vauban wrote: »

Someone should put in an FOI request to see how often the CAA have used this power, and with whom.

I already have an FOI request in asking for papers relating to the CAA's decision to support Jet2.com over the Huzar proceedings. Look forward to sharing those in due course ...

batman44 wrote: »

Here you go Vauban,

Our response:
In assessing your request in line with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(FOIA), we are be able to provide the information below.

1.The CAA has received 59,808 complaints relating to Regulation EC261/2004 since it came into force on 17 February 2005.
2.
The CAA has received 1,790 complaints relating to Jet2.com since Regulation EC261/2004 came into force on 17 February 2005.
3.
There have been no such criminal prosecutions.
4.
The CAA has not commenced such a criminal prosecution against Jet2.com

Vauban, did you ever get your FOI request ?

111KAB

Probably a waste of your time but for those of you delayed in the past 3 years and who complete surveys .....


http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/disruptionsurvey