Each of these is a refusal this regime lets a counterparty attempt, paired with the answer to it. Reading them before you write is worth more than any amount of polish on the letter itself.
"Foi mau tempo — força maior"
high likelihoodThe carrier says the disruption was caused by weather or air traffic control and that it therefore owes nothing at all.
What answers it
Separate the heads. Material assistance under arts. 26 and 27 is owed whatever the cause — Resolution 400 contains no force majeure exception to it, and an airline that left you without food or a hotel because of weather has breached the regulation regardless. The Art. 21 rerouting and refund rights are likewise triggered by the four-hour wait, not by fault. And under art. 14 of the CDC the supplier’s liability is strict, with the burden on the carrier to prove the exclusion it relies on. Weather narrows the moral-damages claim; it does not extinguish the regulatory ones.
Resolução ANAC nº 400/2016, arts. 26–27 — arts. 26 e 27
"Mero aborrecimento — não houve dano moral"
high likelihoodThe airline argues, correctly as a matter of law, that not every flight delay causes compensable moral damage, and that this one was an ordinary inconvenience.
What answers it
This is the defence that wins most often, so meet it with facts rather than adjectives. Do not argue that the delay was long; show what it did. Evidence that moves a Juizado judge: an overnight spent in the terminal, assistance owed under art. 27 and not provided, a missed connection that stranded you abroad, a missed commitment you can document, a child or an elderly or disabled passenger left without support, or the airline’s own failure to communicate. Where the carrier also breached the assistance obligations, say so explicitly — a regulatory breach on top of the delay is what turns aborrecimento into dano moral.
Lei nº 8.078/1990 (Código de Defesa do Consumidor), art. 14 — art. 14
"Já lhe demos um voucher"
high likelihoodThe carrier says a meal voucher, a travel credit or the rebooking it arranged discharges the Art. 24 compensation.
What answers it
It does not. Art. 24 compensation is payable in addition to rerouting or refund and in addition to material assistance, and the passenger chooses the form of payment — bank transfer, voucher or cash — not the airline. A meal voucher issued under art. 27 discharges the food obligation and nothing else.
Resolução ANAC nº 400/2016, art. 24 — art. 24
"A Convenção de Montreal limita a indenização"
medium likelihoodOn an international flight the carrier pleads the Montreal Convention and says its liability limits cap anything you can recover.
What answers it
Half right, and the half that is wrong is the important half. STF Tema 210 (RE 636331) holds that the conventions prevail over the CDC for MATERIAL damages in international carriage. The Court did not extend that to moral damages, which remain outside the Convention’s limits and are fixed under the Constitution, the Civil Code and the CDC. So plead your material loss inside the Convention and your moral damages outside it, and expect the carrier to try to collapse the two.
STF, RE 636331 (Tema 210 de repercussão geral, 2017)
"O senhor não se apresentou a tempo"
medium likelihoodThe carrier says you presented late for boarding, so there was no preterição and no compensation is due.
What answers it
Preterição turns on the passenger having presented for boarding on the flight contracted. Boarding-pass timestamps, the bag drop receipt, security-lane records and the airline’s own app notifications all establish the time you were there. Ask the carrier for the boarding record it relies on: under the CDC the burden of proving the exclusion sits with the supplier, not with you.
Resolução ANAC nº 400/2016, art. 24 — art. 24