Passenger 1 Airlines 0

[mgh 89]

A victory for passengers.In the EU air passengers are entitled to claim compensation from airlines in the event of delayed boarding, and of cancellation or long delays of flights. Until now airlines have avoided paying out under an exception claiming that delays were caused by extraordinary cirumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable precautions had been undertaken.Alitalia cancelled a flight because of a turbine failure discovered the day before. It refused to pay compensation on the grounds that this was "extraordinary". Passengers toook Alitalia to court and won at the highest level in Europe. The European Court (Court of Justice of the European Communities) ruled that extraordinary only applies if the problem stemmed from events which, by their nature or origin, were not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and were beyond its actual control. Basically, if an airline can now no longer claim that faults discovered during maintenance are extraordinary. The Court said that's ordinary and part and parcel of normal operations. The Court also ruled that the frequency of technical problems was not a factor from which the presence or absence of extraordinary circumstances could be concluded. It also ruled that the fact that an airline had complied with the minimum rules on the maintenance of an aircraft cound not in itself suffice to establish that the carrier had taken all reasonable precautions.

[Guest firehawk44]

A victory for passengers.In the EU air passengers are entitled to claim compensation from airlines in the event of delayed boarding, and of cancellation or long delays of flights. Until now airlines have avoided paying out under an exception claiming that delays were caused by extraordinary cirumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable precautions had been undertaken.Alitalia cancelled a flight because of a turbine failure discovered the day before. It refused to pay compensation on the grounds that this was "extraordinary". Passengers toook Alitalia to court and won at the highest level in Europe. The European Court (Court of Justice of the European Communities) ruled that extraordinary only applies if the problem stemmed from events which, by their nature or origin, were not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and were beyond its actual control. Basically, if an airline can now no longer claim that faults discovered during maintenance are extraordinary. The Court said that's ordinary and part and parcel of normal operations. The Court also ruled that the frequency of technical problems was not a factor from which the presence or absence of extraordinary circumstances could be concluded. It also ruled that the fact that an airline had complied with the minimum rules on the maintenance of an aircraft cound not in itself suffice to establish that the carrier had taken all reasonable precautions.

Uh, this is great news (if you're a lawyer)! I bet those lawyers who took Alitalia to court are drinking some big-time cocktails right now! Alitalia's insurance company will pay the bills. Hey! Wait a minute! That's MY insurance company too! What? They're raising my insurance rates? And, when I'm flying Alitalia in the future, why are they charging me $10 more? And because I have to pay more I have to pay a larger VAT for the EU? Something wrong here. I thought we (the passengers) won this lawsuit! IMHO, Corporations, like Alitalia, usually don't suffer from claims like this. In the long run, it's you and I who suffer from these lawsuits and the lawyers make out like bandits. Here in the United States, the ACLU lawyers are really good at this art of making Corporations pay. It all looks good for the consumer but in the long run most will lose. That's usually what happens when governments try to control a corporations [bad] behavior. If an airline is not on time or has a history of long delays and cancellations, wouldn't it be more prudent to just avoid flying on that airline? I hope Alitalia isn't pressured to bring an aircraft into service with potential mechanical problems so that they can avoid possible claims from passengers. I suppose if the flight does end up crashing, the passengers can then sue the airline for flying an unsafe aircraft... Another "victory for passengers".Respectfully,Jim Young

[Chock 17,769]

I would have thought Alitalia should have won such a case, they must have had a crappy lawyer if he couldn't argue that a turbine failure on an aircraft was unusual. If that wasn't the case we'd have planes dropping out of the skies left right and centre and there's no way ETOPS would ever have been approved if turbine failures were common.But, it's the same thing everywhere, people make a claim against a company, organisation or whatever, assuming they just have a big pot of money sat there waiting to be claimed, but sadly that aint so, and their claim ends up being passed on to the customer in the price at the check out.As they say: What do you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? - A good start.

[mgh 89]

firehawk4Presumably you never have, nor ever will, claim compensation for anything, regardless of circumstances? Your reasoning applies to all forms of compensation.Nevertheless, air passengers in Europe are raising their glasses!ChockI don't think Alitalia's lawyers are as crappy as your understanding.The Court said that extraordinary only applies if the problem stemmed from events which were not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of an airline and were beyond its actual control. Therefore ordinary means events which were inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of an airline and were within its actual control.In other words, it is ordinary/usual for an airline to discover faults during inspections. This is, therefore, not extraordinary/unusual.Presumably, you also would never seek compensation?

[Guest firehawk44]

firehawk4Presumably you never have, nor ever will, claim compensation for anything, regardless of circumstances? Your reasoning applies to all forms of compensation.

That's correct. I try not to be part of the problem.Jim

[mgh 89]

That's correct. I try not to be part of the problem.Jim

So you'd never claim compensation from insurance and thus presumably never take out any voluntary insurance?

[scott967 62]

I think on the whole if I wanted some sort of travel insurance, I would want to use a third party insurer, rather than forcing the service provider to provide insurance thereby creating an economic incentive to fudge on safety.scott s..

[Guest firehawk44]

So you'd never claim compensation from insurance and thus presumably never take out any voluntary insurance?

That's correct. Never in my 64 plus years. I have a problem with governments telling commercial enterprises how to run their respective businesses (and this is obviously the EU trying to take further control of airlines. For example, take off in time or else, and don't delay landing on time and getting to the gate on time.... or else!). I have been taken off several flights for unknown reasons (presumably mechanical) but simply picked up my baggage and found another airline to get me to my destination. Once I was stuck on a taxiway in St Louis for 2 hours waiting for an available gate to open. It was the middle of winter and a major snowstorm had just hit the area. I missed a connecting flight but what else was I going to do? It doesn't happen all the time and NOT done on purpose by the airlines. Then, once again, the aircraft I boarded had overbooked and they asked for volunteers to take the next available flight (now that's done on purpose). I did that a couple of times. Got free airline tickets for future flights, free hotel accommodations and vouchers for food, and lots of thanks from the airline staff. But you and the EU are not alone in wanting to take control of the airlines by coming up with more laws. I'm fairly certain the US government has similar controls here in the United States. I know those passengers held outside the arrival gates for a certain length of time (4 hours??) must be compensated. I sort of agree with that because there are alternative methods of getting passengers back to the terminal even if a gate is not open. I have heard the pilots get quite aggravated with ground control for not getting them to a gate sooner. And, even though the US government has advocated that the airlines compensate passengers if held "hostage" for too long, I have seen airline companies voluntarily compensating passengers even before it became a law. I think they are just as upset they had to hold their passengers hostage. Maybe I'm wrong though and they do this on purpose.Best regards,Jim Young

[mgh 89]

You'd never l claim compensation from an insurer - enen if, say, your car was damaged by another hrough no fault of yours?

[Guest firehawk44]

You'd never l claim compensation from an insurer - enen if, say, your car was damaged by another hrough no fault of yours?

As I said above, Never! Just because you have insurance, it doesn't mean you have to use it even if you accidently spill a cup of hot coffee in your lap while driving on the autobahn.Jim

[PelicanHazard 0]

I think mgh is referring to if some bonehead ran a red light and crashed into you (or other such situation), thus rendering your car unusable. Would you claim compensation then?

[mgh 89]

I think mgh is referring to if some bonehead ran a red light and crashed into you (or other such situation), thus rendering your car unusable. Would you claim compensation then?

I thought I'd asked that, but thanks for clarifying it.

[Guest firehawk44]

I think mgh is referring to if some bonehead ran a red light and crashed into you (or other such situation), thus rendering your car unusable. Would you claim compensation then?

Of course I would! But only for fixing the damages to my car and maybe fixing the bones in my body but NOT because this "bonehead" accidentally ran a red light or accidentally ran across the center lane and got me head on. If someone came to my house and intentionally burned it down I would seek compensation too. My property was damaged and the contents inside too. But this idiotic law just created in Europe doesn't even come close to that so stop making the comparison(s). Being delayed getting on an airline doesn't even compare. Should I seek compensation from New York City if I missed an important business meeting because I couldn't get across the street since the traffic lights were broken or the cities metro system was down? Of course not! I could have left earlier or found alternate transportation. Airlines are a good target because many have a lot of money (or use to) or lots of insurance to pay the claims. Why not give some of this wealth to the poor people who have been "damaged" because their flight was delayed or baggage was lost? It's called spreading the wealth and making sure a successful commercial enterprise doesn't become too wealthy. The shareholders are just making too much money as the shares increase in value. Same thing happened in the EU when they successfully sought compensation and received billions from Microsoft who had the ardasity of putting too many features in Windows. And they continue to look at Microsoft with a microscope to see if they can find something else that they can seek even more billions. They are disgusted with people making billions and they want some too. I find most of this extremely disgusting as it's costing me more everyday to do anything because of all the people and governments seeking compensation.Respectfully,Jim

[Chock 17,769]

With regard to 'never seeking compensation', I wouldn't say I would never seek compensation, but I'm not a fan of the culture of seeking compensation for anything and everything. And I do practice what I preach.What I can tell you is that some years ago I had a motorcycle crash, in which I was very badly injured, the guy that caused it drove off and was never found by the police. Anyway, as a result I had to have quite a lot of surgery, and some of it was extremely specialist, including something called a 'bilateral suspension' which is where your jaw is wired on both the top and bottom when it has been shattered badly. In fact, the UK's top medical specialist in this kind of thing actually performed the operation on me, but when it came time to remove the wires some weeks later, he was on holiday and another surgeon did that removal procedure, however, not being the top specialist, he was not familiar with it completely and made a mistake. Basically he cut one of the escape wires that sticks out of your skin near your eyebrow, which is used to withdraw the wire that is threaded through your upper jaw, and so, with this escape wire having no bit sticking out, it could not be used to withdraw the rest of the wire without a further operation to get at things. When this was discovered, the hospital invited me in and were very apologetic and it was obvious from that meeting that they were expecting me to sue them, but I did not and simply accepted it as a genuine mistake which was not done on purpose, and I said that it would be a bit mean to sue the hospital that just months before had actually saved my life. Needless to say the hospital people were extremely relieved at me not taking any action and had firmly expected that I would, and it was apparent to me that I'm in a minority there, but I take the view that if I had done so, the money that they paid out would have been money that could not go to the care of others, and possibly me too, if ever I should need their services again.The people who sued the airline should look up pyrrhic victory in the dictionary, they might learn something.Al

[Guest SkullxBones]

Wouldn't you love to be able to sue these wacky judges every time a court case gets delayed or canceled. Fat chance.