[AirlinesMustPay]

Originally Posted by PHXFlyer

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

I don't think that's quite true.

The wording of the EU legislation is that airlines must show "extraordinary circumstances" to escape liability. it says nothing about weather, although weather may contribute to or constitute extraordinary circumstances.

[JR in Orlando]

I went to the University of Michigan Law School and Penn State for undergraduate. I practice American law both civil and criminal. I finally had to respond to the rubbish served up by the British Barrister from Trinadad.

Airline travel by its very nature is subject to delays, two cause of which are ATC and weather. Both parties to the contract for carriage contemplate delays and this issue is expressly dealt with in the contract. In essence, if it is the airlines fault there is compensation. If not, there is no compensation. Further, both parties contemplate and agree that if the passenger is delayed on the first leg of their flight, the second flight will take off as scheduled and compensation, if any, will be based on why the first flight is delayed. In part this is because the contract provides the passenger must be at the gate prior to the scheduled flight time, without regard to whose fault it is for not making it. These are scheduled flights, as compared with a charter flight (helicopter) which contemplates the flight will wait for the passenger.

One must remember also that the passenger has almost complete control over how much risk of delay they want to accept. They can buy a close connection, or they can fly the earliest segment one, so that they have hours at the connecting airport prior to the second flight. The extreme example would be to fly from State College to Philadelphia the evening before, so as to be ready for the final flight the next morning.

In Lisa v. Alitalia, 390 So.2d 455 (1968) the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed without opinion (per curium) the Second District decision at 370 F.2d 508 (2nd Cir 1966). Under Article 3(2) of the Warsaw Convention, there were limits on liability for death or personal injury unless a ticket was not provided to the passenger. The Second District held that a provided ticket without adquate notice of the limitation was the same as no ticket at all. The passenger did not have an opportunity to protect himself from the limit by buying more insurance or not taking the flight. (Note the Warsaw convention applied only to international flights, and the Court believed people use to flying only domestically, would not know or appreciate that there were limits on flights internationally.)

When the Russians shot down a Korean airliner in 1983, the issue came before the Supreme Court in Chan v. Korean Air Lines, 490 U.S. 122 (1989). The Supreme Court rejected the rationale of Alitalia v. Lisa, and held that an inadequate warning was not the equivalent of no ticket being issued, even though the tickets in question failed to comply with the Warsaw Convention as subsequently expressed in the Montreal Agreement, i.e. type size too small. Thus, the liability limits still applied.

Liability limits are normal in contracts, e.g. airlines don't cover electronics in checked baggage, garages aren't responsible for personal items left in cars. There is nothing improper about the agreement herein. If the passenger did not want to accept the contract with these limits, the family could have chartered a flight, driven, or taken the bus.

The family in this situation accepted the terms of the contract, and failed to prepare for delays which certainly are possible in air travel. There should be no compensation, nor is any needed. Americans for the most part are pretty self-sufficient and do not need any nanny-state airlines to feed us and tuck us into bed at night when travel plans don't go right.

[AirlinesMustPay]

Mr JR, are you not aware of the common law principle in contract law that exclusion clauses on a ticket are not valid unless they have been brought to the attention of the customer prior to his entering of the contract? I would really like to hear an american lawyer tell me that there is not such a principle of law.

If you practice both criminal law and civil law, maybe you have forgotten the principles of contract law.

I have already referred to the subsequent cases that dealt with Lisi, but as I already said, Lisi was modified only to the extent that the Courts now say that the failure to deliver a ticket, does not invalidate the Warsaw Convention which is supreme law. This cannot affect domestic carriage or this particular case.

Courts have many times found airlines in breach of contract for delays notwithstanding this writing on the ticket. I recently referred to the New York case of McMurray v Capitol International airways in another thread dealing with Virgin Australia, In that case the passenger and his wife's flight on Capitol from Brussels to New York that he had paid $300 for was cancelled and he immediately purchased new tickets on another airline for $1065. Capitol offered a refund of the $300 and sought to rely on the conditions of carriage, but the Court found that Capitol was liable to him for the new tickets and awarded him $1,000 the then limit of the New York small claims court.

Judge Thomas Dickerson of New York who while at the bar did many cases involving airlines, has written an article "Flight delays: The airline passengers rights and remedies". It's on the internet. He refers to a number of cases where courts have disregarded this writing on the ticket, albeit that a few courts have agreed that they provided the airline with a defence.

Mr JR have you even done a single case involving airlines and passengers?

[AirlinesMustPay]

Originally Posted by JR in Orlando

Americans for the most part are pretty self-sufficient and do not need any nanny-state airlines to feed us and tuck us into bed at night when travel plans don't go right.

Are you sure you live in America JR? Unless you are living under a rock, you must be aware of the lobby in the United States for a passengers Bill of Rights, and the cries of american passengers for justice from airlines, on this site, and even the OP on this thread to which you have replied.

[Gromit801]

As always, you HEAR of the complaints. You don't HEAR about what I think are the overwhelming majority of fliers that don't have a problem.

Legitimate problems need to be dealt with. They do exist, and I am on the customer's side on that issue.

Passengers who don't perform due diligence fall into the category of "I refuse to be accountable for my actions or lack thereof." They don't deserve legislation that tosses the baby out with the bathwater.

[JR in Orlando]

Mr. Barrister, what you overlook is that the issue of time and date are not limitations on tickets, but actual terms of the agreement that directly relate to the service provided by the contract. If a manufacturer sells a machine to a factory and the contract states it includes delivery, but not installation, that is not a limitation but a term of the contract. A limitation would more properly be something not related to the sale and delivery, but a collateral issue - machine must be returned in original packaging to get refund. The same would be true herein, where the contract for carriage (which is the contract, not just the ticket) states that time and date are not part of the contract, thus it is not taking away or limiting anything because the airlines never promised to get one to the destination at that time and date to start with. Certainly you know there is no breach of contract for failing to do an act not originally required by the contract.

LISA dealt with a limitation on the payment for death or injuries which could occur if the plane crashed. It had nothing to do with the actual transportation of the passenger. Such a limitation on a side issue, may have to be pointed out, but certainly not the actual terms relating to the passenger's transportation which are in the contract of carriage.

Additionally, most airline requirements and contract conditions are filed with the DOT so that any passenger or potential passenger has constructive, if not actual knowledge of them. That is sufficient. Following your logic, the airlines would have to point out each and every part of the ticket: "you know you will be flying to St. Louis." "You know you will be on an airplane." That's absurd. I know you have been called to the Bar in Britain, but you may not want to stay so long indulging.

The fact that under certain circumstances courts may have found that airlines did not act in good faith on the contract under the circumstances, does not mean that such contract provisions are in and of themselves improper.

Finally, yes we have wimps and whiners in America, but for the most part we are pretty self sufficient.

[AirlinesMustPay]

Mr JR

I don't think you know what is going on here. From the time I saw that you practice criminal law, I know that you had no idea what is going on in the law of carriage by air. I have met several lawyers in New York who practice in this area, and they for the most part are civil litigation attorneys and do not practice any criminal law. I get the feeling you didn't even hear of the Lisi (not Lisa) case before I quoted it on this site.

Case law in the United Sates show that courts mostly find that that writing on the ticket is not part of the contract or a valid exclusion clause. It is not a question of proper or improper. It must be brought to the attention the passenger before he enters the contract for it to be binding on him. An no he doesnt have to be told its an airplane or that he is flying to St Louis. He is the one who asked the price of the flight to St Louis. Where did you get that one, from Mickey?

in fact what is seen by the passenger are the departure and arrival points and the date and time. The other writing is in fact an attempt by the airline to exclude liability for delays and cancellations. I asked you if you can tell me that it is not a principle of contract law in America that writing on a ticket that have not been brought to the attention of the passenger and I didn't see your answer. These conditions of carriage on the ticket is neither part of the contract or an exclusion clause binding on the passenger.

In the very case of McMurry v Capitol the airline sought to rely on the fact that the writing was not only on the ticket, but Capitol had filed its conditions of contract with the Civil Aeronautics Board - your very argument .

But that did not impress the New York Court.

So stay with what you know Mr JR. "Your honor my client did not resist arrest. He just kicked the police officer and ran."

Yes I know it's very complex law and very exciting, but its not what we are about here.

Take care and say Hi to Mickey and Shamu for me.

[mars6423]

airlinesmustpay.......you never answered my question before (when i asked you to define breach) and now your complaining that JR didn't answer a question? i dunno but sounds like a possible double standard to me.....or is that just gonna bring another story/scenerio that doesnt seem to be relevant?

besides JR may have made a typo, he most likely meant Lisi

i see that you keep going on about a somewhat ancient case in the industry as it was made 40 odd years ago, and things have changed, things have been added, subtracted, modified, so that it is relevant to todays world......given that it seems that in many cases it feels taht laws are a few years behind

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by mars6423

airlinesmustpay.......you never answered my question before (when i asked you to define breach) and now your complaining that JR didn't answer a question? i dunno but sounds like a possible double standard to me.....or is that just gonna bring another story/scenerio that doesnt seem to be relevant?

besides JR may have made a typo, he most likely meant Lisi

i see that you keep going on about a somewhat ancient case in the industry as it was made 40 odd years ago, and things have changed, things have been added, subtracted, modified, so that it is relevant to todays world......given that it seems that in many cases it feels taht laws are a few years behind

And he keeps quoting the Warsaw Convention as if it applies currently. It does not. The Montreal Convention is the most current where liability fo rloss or damage to baggage or loss of life or injury are concerned. Both the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions do not address any damages/claims resulting from delay, schedule change or cancellation of flights.

[AirlinesMustPay]

Originally Posted by PHXFlyer

And he keeps quoting the Warsaw Convention as if it applies currently. It does not. The Montreal Convention is the most current where liability fo rloss or damage to baggage or loss of life or injury are concerned. Both the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions do not address any damages/claims resulting from delay, schedule change or cancellation of flights.

You can say Montreal convention or Warsaw convention. The Montreal protocol is an amendment of the WArsaw convention. Some say Montreal convention.

The Warsaw convention still applies to those countries that are not signatories to the Montreal protocol. I was responding to an OP this morning from Beirut. His/Her country, Lebanon, has not ratified the Montreal protocol, so what would apply to his/her case is the Warsaw Convention as amended at the Hague.

There are even a few countries that have adopted only the unamended Warsaw convention of 1929, and none of the amendments. For those countries, what would apply is the unamended Warsaw convention of 1929.

You say that the Warsaw Convention and Montreal Convention do not address delay. What utter nonsense!! What utter nonsense!! Look at Article 19 of the unamended Warsaw Convention, the Hague amendment, the Guadalajara Amendment and the Montreal protocol. They all say: "The carrier is liable for delay."

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by AirlinesMustPay

You can say Montreal convention or Warsaw convention. The Montreal protocol is an amendment of the WArsaw convention.

Wrong. It is not!

Originally Posted by AirlinesMustPay

The Warsaw convention still applies to those countries that are not signatories to the Montreal protocol. I was responding to an OP this morning from Beirut. Her country, Lebanon, has not ratified the Montreal protocol, so what would apply to her case is the Warsaw Convention as amended at the Hague.

Wrong again. Not only is a baggage claim filed with the last airline one travels on, but the airline she flew to the EU on is EU based. All EU nations are signatories to the Montreal Convention.

There are even a few countries that have adopted only the unamended Warsaw convention of 1929, and none of the amendments. For those countries, what would apply is the unamended Warsaw convention of 1929.

Originally Posted by AirlinesMustPay

You say that the Warsaw Convention and Montreal Convention do not address delay. What utter nonsense!! What utter nonsense!! Look at Article 19 of the unamended Warsaw Convention, the Hague amendment, the Guadalajara Amendment and the Montreal protocol. They all say: "The carrier is liable for delay."

Why bother looking at a document drafted when trans-oceanic service was on clippers which had to make multiple stops en route in order to reach their destinations. You are a quack and a fraud and anyone who even considers retaining your services is throwing their money away.

Nice try...Sunil! Yes, I said it and I'm exposing you for the fraud you are. Selling your "strategies to sue the airlines" over the internet. Tell us the truth, Sunil. Is your internet business your only source of income now? Because I can do a little Googling to find out just how many countries you've been dis-barred in! You were already banned once from this website for spamming. Take your quack legal advise elsewhere. You've shown your incompetence here and we're sick of it.

[AirlinesMustPay]

Originally Posted by PHXFlyer

Not only is a baggage claim filed with the last airline one travels on, but the airline she flew to the EU on is EU based. All EU nations are signatories to the Montreal Convention.


Nice try...Sunil! .

Obviously you don't read. Look at Article 30.3 of the Montreal protocol. It gives the passenger a right of action against the first carrier. But that would be up to the OP in that thread if she wants to take advice from someone who got his knowledge of law from overhearing arguments between his granddaddy and a judge.

And who is Sunil, pray tell? Sounds like the guy operating the curry shop in downtown Phoenix. If you phone him, tell him I'll have the chicken curry and rice. Thanks

[AirlineComplaints.org]

Originally Posted by PHXFlyer

You are a quack and a fraud and anyone who even considers retaining your services is throwing their money away.

Nice try...Sunil! Yes, I said it and I'm exposing you for the fraud you are. Selling your "strategies to sue the airlines" over the internet. Tell us the truth, Sunil. Is your internet business your only source of income now? Because I can do a little Googling to find out just how many countries you've been dis-barred in! You were already banned once from this website for spamming. Take your quack legal advise elsewhere. You've shown your incompetence here and we're sick of it.

PHXFlyer, this is a very serious accusation against another member.

Do you have evidence to back up your statement? If you do not provide evidence within 48 hours, your post will receive an Infraction.

[AirlineComplaints.org]

The "evidence" provided privately by PHXFlyer proved to be unfounded.

sunil00719, whom we banned last month, is not the same person as AirlinesMustPay.

We know when users register multiple accounts on this forum, and that is not the case in this instance.

As such, PHXFlyer's accusation is false and he has received an infraction as a result (which has also resulted in an automatic 1-Day Ban as this is his 3rd infraction in a year).

Such unfounded accusations to attempt to discredit another member (and this one is not the first) will not be tolerated on this forum, regardless of who is making them or who is the target.