[mars6423]

I feel sorry for the baby, the baby didn't do anything wrong here, but than again neither did the airline, and to some extent neither did the couple, but the couple knew the situation about philly and decided to have a short connecting time with their baby and any delay would put them over and they wouldn't make their connecting flight. They then wanted some "special service" since they had a baby with them, a baby cannot be an excuse for your mistake in a short connecting time, as many people know that it would take longer to go from gate A to gate B with a baby than without, and if they were given special services than where would these special services end? it was unfortunate that they didn't make the flight, but they knew the situation before hand and still booked that flight

they made the choice to fly on another airline that night since they didn't have the food and etc for the baby, and didn't want to spend the night. Even though it would have been cheaper to spend the night in a hotel and if they showed that they were distressed passengers than the hotel room would be much cheaper than a regular priced room due to the discount, and yes many hotels have baby cribs and many times have baby supplies.......also they could have had the baby in the bed so it feels safe and close with his/her mommy

and no it is not a breach, they are still getting you to your destination, and they are not the ones who made you miss the connection, in this case it was ATC, so they offered the next available flight, a breach would be if they didnt offer to get them to their final destination......so are you saying that if my flight was delayed 6hours and missed my connecting flight by 4hours that it is a breach even though i was put on a flight that was 2hours after i landed after the delay? i would say no it isnt because i still got where i wanted, and it wasn't their fault that they were delayed (weather) and i would be suprised and uncomfortable if i made my original plane wait for me, its just commen sense, put you on the nxt flight to your destination, in this case it was the next morning.

if there are 122 people than yes, the airline will wait for them, as long as its not a extensive delay, they will try to make the majority satisfied and having only 6 people on a plane is not effective and is very uneconomical, and it is a very hard situation to get those 122 people to the destination since they need to find all those unbooked seats to put them in, it is easier to find two or three seats on the next flight instead of 122

if the airline had no control over the situation why should they be required to compensate? should they compensate for people who go to the check in desk 10mins before the flight because the person didnt leave for the airport in time? no, and the airline here rebooked them for the morning which was the most they could have done, airlines wont wait 40mins for 2 people, thats just not going to work, it will push everything back, its like many industries, they wont wait for you, they try and keep to the schedule as much as possible

[AirlinesMustPay]

Let me sort this argument into issues, one by one

Issue 1: Was the late arrival of the flight at Philadelphia within the control of the airline?

I think we all now say it was not. It was an ATC problem

Issue 2: Was the departure of the flight out to Jacksonville that left the OP behind within the airline's control?

I am saying it was their decision and from your posts you appear to be agreeing it was their decision, but justifying it because of the 122 odd passengers that would have been delayed, had they waited. So we are all saying that that departure was within the airline's control.

Issue 3: Was the airline justified to depart for Jacksonville even knowing that there were connecting passengers who were late?
We all say it was not practical to delay 122 passengers for the two, so we agree that the airline made the correct decision depart and leave the OP behind

Issue 4: Was the airline in breach of contract by so departing?
Here is where we part company. You say they are not because they offered her another flight the next morning and I say they were in breach because the OPs flight to Jacksonville was for the same evening. Here is where a party to a contract makes a decision to suit the many but find himself in breach of contract with a few.

To answere whether they are in breach, we need to step back a bit to answer this: Was the contract merely for departure or destination points or for dates and times as well. I say it is for dates and times as well. The passenger's corresponding obligation to present himself at the check in counter for a particular date and time must be met with a reciprocal obligation on the part of the airline. Next, to ask if the date and time were part of the contract, what would the officious bystander say if he heard this conversation between a passenger and an airline agent when the agent sold the ticket:
Airline agent: Mr Phx, I trust you know that although your ticket says you are flying from New York JFK to Miami at 9 a.m. on 10th October 2009, remember the date or time is not part of the contract and we can take you there whenever we want while you sleep at JFK
PHX: Sure, Mr Agent. I love sleeping in JFK airport. We all know that when we turn up at the airport for a flight, any kind of delay is acceptable.
The test in law as to whether this is the contract, is what the officious bystander will say when he heard that conversation. He will be positively horrified. And that is because it is within the experience of passengers that when they turn up for a flight, they will travel on time or perhaps with reasonble delays of an hour or two, or even three or four, but any delay more than that would be absolutely unacceptable.

People returning home after a trip often take up work the next day, and it cannot be that the contract is for travel anytime.

The IATA conditions of carriage have been declared void many times by the Court for any number of reasons - writing too small, not drawn to passengers attention, in conflict with the Warsaw Convention, only coming to passengers attention after completion of the contract.

What would the officious bystander say if he heard this converstion:
Agent: Mr Mars, we are selling you a ticket from JFK to MIA on 10th October 2009 at 9 a.m. as you requested
Mars: Not so fast. Let me read that writing on the ticket.
[Mars pulls out his magnifying glass and reads the writing while passengers behind him start complaining]
Agent to passengers behind: Please, our practice at this airline is that everyone must read the conditions of contract written on the ticket otherwise we can't sell you the ticket.

The officious bystander would be most surprised.

It is beyond any question in my mind that the date and time on a ticket are part of the contract, and I would invite any lawyer working for any airline to come on this site and contradict me on this.

Issue 5: Did the OP act reasonably to pay $511 for new tickets when she may have spent the night in a hotel?
This may be her weakest point but I still think she could succeed in this claim.

She would have had to pay at least $120 or so for a hotel room, and that is for the two star Red Roofs and Comfort Inns, and unless it had free airport shuttle, pay, say $20 or so each way from airport to hotel. Then once at the hotel she would have to take a taxi to and from an all night superstore or drugstore to look for her baby formula. Then she would have to find dinner for herself and her husband that night in Philadelphia and breakfast next morning. That is at least $250. When one considers the strain the baby would be put through in this exercise, she decided to spend get her relative to pay the $511 for the new tickets. I can't see that she acted unreasonably. She is not asking for any special favour because of the baby. Once she establishes that the airline was in breach of the contract, she has to act reasonably and this includes ensuring her baby's welfare which is to get home asap.

[mars6423]

again your missing the point, your examples showed for 9AM opposed to the last flight of the day, so either everyone has to be dissatisfied by 2 customers that were inconvenienced by ATC not the airline, and they will not have an extra plane to take 2 people down, thats why they offered the next available flight which was in the morning, so the airline acted responsible by putting them on their next flight.

That when the customer decided to take their business elsewhere, meaning they ended yhe contract and US airs responsibility to get them to the final destination, it is not US airs fault the customers paid for another flight, that is totally the customers responsibility as they CHOSE to do that, and in either case, many parents with babies carry enough food and baby needs for unforseen events

So should they get refunded the $511 or however it was? no, it was the customer who breached the contract, not the airline, again they made other arrangements

and there is something called distressed passengers that get massive discounts at hotels, so they could get a room for $120 at a 4 star hotel in many situations. And even by your math, if they waited for the flight the next morning, it still would have been cheaper, so if they brought the ickets believing that they would be refunded than thats just naiive and they shouldnt be refunded for breaking the contract.

The airline did what they could, and it wasn't good enough for them and now they are expecting the airline to "bail them out" since they went else where, which as a breach in its own mind.

[AirlinesMustPay]

Originally Posted by mars6423

so either everyone has to be dissatisfied by 2 customers that were inconvenienced by ATC not the airline, and they will not have an extra plane to take 2 people down, thats why they offered the next available flight which was in the morning, so the airline acted responsible by putting them on their next flight.

OMG Mars, aren't you paying attention? I have said over and over that my view is that the airline acted correctly and the OP could not have expected that the airline would inconvenience everyone for her sake. The airline has individual contracts with 124 people. Their decision was to fulful their obligations with 122, but they had to know full well that they were breaching their contracts with the two. But I still say they acted correctly to honour their contracts with the 122 and to breach the contracts with the 2.

If I hire you as a photographer and pay you to come at 4 p.m. to photograph my daughter's wedding. You phone me during the day to say, "I can't make it. My mother got a heart attack and i had to take her to the emergency room, but I will come first thing in the morning and take the photographs."

I will answer: I don't need you in the morning. I understand why you cant be here but the wedding is today. I will have to get another photographer.

You were the one in breach. You acted correctly because you cant leave your mother to chase after a contract.

By going to someone else who could do the job, I did not breach the contract. It was your breach (albeit for good reason) that caused me to go elsewhere.

You have to be joking if you think I would be wrong to at least expect a refund of my money.

[mars6423]

um first of all yet again the airline DID NOT BREACH the contract, it had to be modified because they were not present at time of departure and due to the fact it was not the customers fault they booked them on the next flight, as their original flight had already left the gate, modify does not equal breach.....the airline did what was exected of them, and followed their policies, which is understandable, since policies are made to be followed

second, your example again shows differences, it is for another profession in which a horrible cause happened and was understandable and was humane to have the person go be with te family member, and what i have witnessed is that if the photographer was not able to make it, than he would find alternatives such as calling another photographer to fill in for him/her, or if you went through a company they would send a replacement, in either case it most likely would be discounted......where as in a airline industry planes are scheduled and are meant to keep to that schedule as best aspossible, and there are no extra or replacement planes that could be used.

And why would you expect a refund? you went to another airline, ending your contract with the original one, so your the one who breached the contract, so why should they refund the money to you? in that case people would take advantage of the situation, a ticket would be cheaper to go from flyville to barnsville via atlanta compared to flysville to atlanta, so people would just breach the contract and stay in atlanta and ask for a refund, kinda crazy

they made the CHOICE to get out of the contract, they left it not the airline, so its their fault, thus making a refund very unlikely since they were the ones who changed the plans

[AirlinesMustPay]

Originally Posted by mars6423

um first of all yet again the airline DID NOT BREACH the contract, it had to be modified because they were not present at time of departure and due to the fact it was not the customers fault they booked them on the next flight, as their original flight had already left the gate, modify does not equal breach

Well Mr Mars, for your information a modification of a contract by one side that is not agreed by the other side is in fact a breach. At least that is how it is on earth. It might be different on Mars

[mars6423]

considering that the definition is a break of a contract or trust, in which way did the airline break it? they did not break the contract in any way, they were going to get them to their destination in a reasonable amount of time (the next available flight) thus showing that no breach was made by their contract, and if you read the conditions than you will see that no breach was made and they followed the policy, instructions, and rules for when a ticket is purchased and a delay is involved

as for the passengers, they are the ones who breached the contract, they broke it by canceling the contract in Philly and going on another airline

so yeah point proven, thank you, and i am sure that if you have taken any business law classes in university and any where in form of higher education, than you would understand what a breach is and how it is applied, the only breach here was by the passengers, they had the resources to check the rules and conditions, if they did they would have understood the situation, and they knew that the connection was tight and that philly is notorious for delays

so yeah i know what a breach is, what about you

[AirlinesMustPay]

Originally Posted by mars6423

so yeah i know what a breach is, what about you

Well I don't know who can trust your knowledge of the law. You were earlier expressing a view contrary to the judgment in Lisi v Alitalia a landmark case that reached the US Supreme Court.

You don't regard the opinion of the United States Supreme Court, so what can I say?

If the passengers file a case against US air, the airline can always appeal to the Mars High Command and you will rule in their favour

[mars6423]

well let me see, that case was created in the late 1960's (1968) and some parts have been kept while others have either been editted for better words or are not used to a great amount of deal since it does not effect people today, thats not saying i dont regard it, it is saying that times have changed and the industry now is completely different than 40 years ago so new policies and laws have been created

and in this case the airline was following its policy which is completely legal and it is shown on the airlines website and under their terms and conditions

and i ll take you to basic business law 101 from university, as i was a business major and took some classes that are helpful

What is a breach of contract?
A breach of contract is a cancelation of the contract by both parties mutually or by one of the parties, the contract was not completed as stated and was ended, any damages caused would be at an expense, such as a refund if a company was involved and ended the agreement, or if the customer broke the contract than they forfeit the money owed and are not eligable for a refund, unless prior arrangements or notifacations have been made available


........this again bringing us to the point that, the customer breached the contract and that the airline complied to its policies which the customer should have read prior to purchase as it is in the contract, making the airlines case that there was no breach on their part

thank you

[AirlinesMustPay]

Originally Posted by mars6423

i was a business major and took some classes that are helpful

Did you complete it or did you dropout? I think you should go back and complete it.

Now I can't help think from the way your posts are constructed that you are a child. If so, is it that your daddy is an executive in an airline and you feel that you have to stand up for the airlines no matter what?

You need to realise that you live in a world where consumers are becoming more and more aware of their rights. Aggrieved passengers often walk away when airlines refuse to compensate them, and don't go to even a small claims court, but they will bad mouth the airline and cause them more damage. This OP will not easily forget the $511, and the damage she can do to the airline by bad publicity will easily cost them much more than the $511.

You should tell your daddy, that in these competitive times, to stay afloat, airlines need their customers goodwill and repeat business.

I think I have said all I could in this thread, and the OP would have enough of the arguments on both sides to assist her to decide what if anything she should do about her claim.

[mars6423]

haha funny, as i said before i majored in business (economics) and minor in marketing, and yeah i finished it

how do you define breach of contract?

the OP again i will have to point it out, chose to pay the $511 by getting out of the first contract and paying southwest or whoever it was to get them to the destination that night, so why would the first airline pay for their ticket on another airline when they were supposed to fly with them as to what their original contract said? 2 different contracts that are seperate, meaning the first one has nothing to do with the new one

and yea i guess you could kinda say my dad is an executive, he is president in his area in the company he works for, but i am sorry to dissapoint you yet again, he doesn't work for any airline and his company has absolutely nothing to do with airlines other than when they fly accross the world for meetings

so stop coming up with these stories that have nothing to do with anything, and understand what breach really means, since you clearly wont answer what it is, and that you are basing things on a law that passed 40years ago where things were completely different, and read the terms and conditions of each airline and you will clearly see that your wrong

[Silent Bob]

Breach of contract is a legal concept in which a binding agreement or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with the other party's performance.

Since airlinesmust pay didn't answer it, well I did it for you. heh. And by that definition the airline offered to rebook the pax, albeit a day later, they cannot be considered in breach of contract only if they decided not to honor the ticket. 2nd, all flights are subject to change, which includes connecting flights as there are such issues as air traffic, weather, hell even mechanical delays can cause a disruption in an itinerary. Maybe a passernger bill of rights might change that? doubtful, but we can hope.

Plain and simple, it was an air traffic delay, no airline assumes responsibilty for it (I can't speak for european market with that warsaw act and such). I would think as parents, no matter the situation, they would be more prepared for such situations when dealing with a child, obviously not. But that's another issue all together. But in this case, a decision was made, an expensive one, but a decision nonetheless.

[AirlinesMustPay]

Originally Posted by mars6423

What is a breach of contract?
A breach of contract is a cancelation of the contract by both parties mutually or by one of the parties, the contract was not completed as stated and was ended, any damages caused would be at an expense, such as a refund if a company was involved and ended the agreement, or if the customer broke the contract than they forfeit the money owed and are not eligable for a refund, unless prior arrangements or notifacations have been made available

Bob, I didnt define it because he did above, and although his definition did not make too much sense to me, it came from a Business major, so I assumed he did not need any assistance from me in a legal definition.

The difficulty here is not in knowing what a breach of contract is, but in knowing what are the terms of the contract. I have tried to identify this as an issue but our friend whose daddy is a President of a company in Singapore, is not addressing this and assuming that the contract is not for a specific date and time. He bases his reasoning on the printed conditions of carriage. This happens all the time not only in air travel and those printed conditions are not valid.

You take a suit to the laundry and they give you a receipt and when you come to collect it there is a hole or a burn mark on it and the little chinese guy says, "But sir, we are not responsible, look at the back of your receipt it says that we are not responsible for any damage to your clothes."

Well who is?

[mars6423]

airlinesmustpay, do yourself a favor and stop coming up with examples that dont work with the situation

and it even says in the terms of the contract what happens if your flight is delayed due to ATC or weather or something that is not controlable, in that it says that the passengers will be put on the next available flight (next day in this case) and i clearly stated what the breach here was

and also yeah my dad works in singapore but is constantly traveling between there, switzerland, london, and here in new york, but fail to see the importance of why you bring that up

and i asked YOU to define what you believe a breach is, because than you would realize by definition you would see that the airline was correct in what they did and the passangers were wrong so this means they dont recieve any refund since it was them changing the plans, and they should have read the terms to see that in a situation like that than they would be in that predicament

[AirlinesMustPay]

Originally Posted by mars6423

my dad works in singapore but is constantly traveling between there, switzerland, london, and here in new york, but fail to see the importance of why you bring that up

It is very relevant, Mars my young friend. Let me hazard a guess. You have a degree in Business, moved with your dad when he went to take an executive job in Singapore. Now you don't work, enjoy all the good life that Singapore has to offer and sometimes jet around the world on the strength of your dad's wallet. If the airline costed you $511 unnecessarily, you would just pull out the gold credit card your dad gave you and pay it without question.

I myself grew up many years ago in a middle class family in England, enjoyed all the good things for many years and would in my earlier days have always sided with the establishment, which would include airlines, and against the consumer. But there comes a time when you pause and ask yourself whether all of what you support is right, expecially when you see advantage being taken of people by large corporations.

Now I am not saying that you necessarily will take the same direction as me in your thinking. When you reach the point when you begin to think independently, you may still side with the airlines. But at least you would be thinking independently and your opinion would be worth something. At the moment, when you express a view, especially when you are rehashing and rehashing and rehashing the same arguments over and over without even trying to address what the other side is saying, I can see not an independent voice speaking, but the voice of someone who doesn't want to upset the apple cart he is riding on and is depending on for all the good things he enjoys.

[mars6423]

well i dont see what my fathers job has to do with anything of importance here, especially since i am perfectly fine by myself and didn't need any help to get to where i am today, i have a very successful job and i love what i do

so dont talk about people you dont know, because if you have no info than i can make you look like a headless chicken when it comes to your remarks about me and my family

and in situations i do the same, but the consumer/customer here is the one who made the mistake, not the airline (once again) and i have looked at both sides, and guess what, it was still the customers "mistake" to leave the contract believing they would receive a refund

so i suggest you make sure you know some info before you jump to conclusions since everything you assumed about me is wrong, thank you but i think i can handle myself

[AirlinesMustPay]

Originally Posted by mars6423

i have a very successful job and i love what i do

I can only hope that that job is not in customer relations.

[mars6423]

na its not, its mainly in finance and economics, but i do give people advice when they come to me

[PHXFlyer]

Boys, I really think it's time to zip 'em up and put this pi$$ing match to and end. Obviously the barrister isn't going to give up. That's what they're paid to do! That's why there are appeals courts. Prisons are just chock full of innocent people and every one of them has at least one attorney working for him or her.

I remember my grandfather, a lawyer, had an old dear friend, a judge. My grandparents would invite him and his wife for cocktails and dinner at their summer home since they both had a house on the same island. The afternoon/evening consisted of my grandmother, the judge's wife, and any other female guests sitting on the outdoor deck, grandchildren at play, while granddad and the judge would argue for hours on end about cases, politics and such. It would cycle from calm civil discourse to outright yelling at each other at the top of their lungs. Unfortunately the judge didn't carry his gavel!

I come from a family of attorneys. It's just how they are. No matter how wrong they my be!

[airhead]

As far as law and liability, the airline is not legally obligated to compensate under conditions of acts of God. They are, however, supposed to provide reasonable accommodations if available at a reduced price "distressed passenger rate."

I believe their is an inn keepers law that requires a hotel to find such accommodations if all rooms are full but that pertains to travelers on the road for the safety of the traveler and others on the road. The laws that covers interstate commerce provide that hotels ARE NOT responsible for loss that are a result of acts of God or terrorism or even other guests' neglect as long as the hotel acted in a manner of reasonable care. Though the laws for airlines are different, the differences are applied when terrorism strikes and even then , the airlines liability is limited. As long as the airline can prove they acted with more than enough reasonable care, they are off the hook. But we all know from past accidents or acts of terror, when the airline is not obligated to do so, they still do something..I think most of it is publicity but the facts still remains.

In this case, the passenger neglected to pack a reasonable amount food for the child and an act of God caused the delay to the destination. How is the airline's at fault? Even if the employees knew the passenger was on the way, they are charged with the responsibility to act in the best interest for the majority already on board.

The airlines contract obligation is to get the passenger from point A to B in a reasonable amount of time.

In my opinion, from experience, I think the passenger had too much faith that everything would go smoothly. If it takes 2 days to travel hundreds of miles it is still a good thing. Just think how long it would take on a horse and buggy, but that is comparing apples and oranges.

[kasius11]

What an interesting thread. I had worked for the airlines during the 70s, a very long time ago. Back then we would certainly have housed the family if they mis-connected.

This is a) typical of US Airways, from my experience and b) clearly an issue where a judge would rule against US Airways.

All of this defending US Airways is truly pathetic. A family misconnected. US Airways knew they were on the aircraft and were going to misconnect. They chose to send the other flight to JAX and did nothing for the misconnects and are wrong, very very wrong.

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by kasius11

What an interesting thread. I had worked for the airlines during the 70s, a very long time ago. Back then we would certainly have housed the family if they mis-connected.

Yes, back then. When fewer people were traveling on much higher fares. With the number of people traveling on fares that sometimes just barely cover the cost of providing transportation it's impossible to provide everyone who misses a connecting flight with a hotel and meals. That is why the airlines will not do so if the reason for the delay is weather or air traffic control related.

[kasius11]

What we need in the US is something akin to the bill of rights that exist for Europeans. European carriers, except for the low cost Ryan Air, and even they have to abide by the EU laws, can not get away with 1/2 of what US carriers get away with.

Rather than having a debate on airline financing I've been a long time believer that if customer service comes first, eg Jet Blue and Continental, the money will follow. It's no big surprise that US is as bad off as they are.

[mars6423]

i am not sure if continental is really customer first

each time i have flown them (not many times, as i mainly fly Singapore Airlines and Virgin Atlantic) i have always wondered if this is supposedly one of the most customer friendly US airlines than what about the other ones, how bad must they be?

My co-workers, friends and I have all had problems with Continental (lost bags, rude flight attendants, check in agents taking personal calls, and some other things) Many of us were a little shocked to see things like this in a pretty good airline, at least its the best US airline i have been on

I have heard horrific stories about other US airlines, so i won't even take the chance to take them, unless it is absolutely necessary

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by kasius11

What we need in the US is something akin to the bill of rights that exist for Europeans. European carriers, except for the low cost Ryan Air, and even they have to abide by the EU laws, can not get away with 1/2 of what US carriers get away with.

Rather than having a debate on airline financing I've been a long time believer that if customer service comes first, eg Jet Blue and Continental, the money will follow. It's no big surprise that US is as bad off as they are.

Even under EU rules one isn't compensated for weather related delays or cancellations.