[nasan]

My parents flew from chicago to beijing ( china) 14 hour flight. They had a medication worth 3500 dollars that needed to be refrigerated. All the medications were in a box size of a DVD box, and it had a doctors prescription with two little ice packs. The flight attendant refused to refrigerate it and the medications were ruined. What do I do? Can I have United pay for my damages?
I called the airline two times before the flight just make sure they would allow this medication to be refrigerated, and both times the representative told me that they don't see a reason why the flight attendant would refuse to do so. Now they are telling me that they are not required to do it, and they can actually refuse to do so, if there is not enough room in the refrigerator. Common, a little box like that? Didn't they cut on all the foods and drinks, so wouldn't there be more room than ever? I can't imagine any humane person refuse on this, unless it concerned the safety of passengers, which in this case obviously did not. Pure laziness and insensitiveness. Thats all I can say.

[PHXFlyer]

It's a simple matter of liability. Suppose after they put the medication in their refrigeration your parents claimed some was missing? Or the refrigeration was too cold and damaged the medication? Or there was a claim of tampering with the medication? As you can see, accepting anything on-board, especially medication, opens the airline up to litigation should something go wrong.

Would it have been the right thing to do? Of course, but I don't blame them for acting as they did.

The medication should have been packed in dry ice in their checked luggage. There are allowable limits on items packed in dry ice. Otherwise if the medication was so perishable it should have been shipped by a professional shipper who is used to handling such sensitive items.

[jimworcs]

I called the airline two times before the flight just make sure they would allow this medication to be refrigerated, and both times the representative told me that they don't see a reason why the flight attendant would refuse to do so.

Phx.. did you miss this part of the OP's post.

The customer had a specific need and asked the airline, twice, ahead of time whether there was any reason why the airline should not accommodate them. If the airline had a "liability" fear, they could have said no and suggested alternatives. They did not. The more likely reason for the refusal... ATTITUDE... it seems to be endemic throughout the US airline industry

[PHXFlyer]

If the OP called United reservations, then they were most likely given wrong information by one of their outsourced agents in India. I'll ask my flight attendant neighbor next time I see him but I'm pretty sure that there is a liability issue when a customer wants anything "refrigerated." Also depending on the type of aircraft there might not have been a proper refrigerator anyway. The perishables used for the in-flight food service is usually packed in either regular ice or dry ice.

[justme]

Originally Posted by PHXFlyer

Would it have been the right thing to do? Of course, but I don't blame them for acting as they did.

The medication should have been packed in dry ice in their checked luggage. There are allowable limits on items packed in dry ice. Otherwise if the medication was so perishable it should have been shipped by a professional shipper who is used to handling such sensitive items.

I agree... one would think it would be easy enuf to just pop it in the fridge and case closed, but who knows why the FA didn't want to. Jim, you're right, it could have been a simple case of a bad attitude, but I find that to be the most improbable scenario. More likely is the case that the FA had a rational, sane, common-sensical reason to refuse. I can think of many, none of which need mention since they could all be refuted as I was not on the flight. Unfortuneately it looks like this boils down to a reservations agent "promising" something when they had no idea if it was actually even possible. Good intentions gone wrong. Next time I would advise the same as PHX, make arrangements on your own to ensure the medication is transported properly. Up to about 20lbs of dry ice is allowed on board most aircraft. It does depend on the A/C type, so make sure to specifically ask if, and how much, dry ice is allowed on board each segment of the trip.

[Jetliner]

Actually 20 pounds total should be standard across the board, but there is a limit of 4 pounds per passenger. That's still a good size chunk of dry ice

As stated before, you probably got ahold of the res center in India. And I don't think this is something that is a very common question. Keep in mind that not all aircraft even have refrigeration to begin with, but most international flights do just because of the length.

Write to corporate, and explain that you were given wrong info to start with, and what happened.

[cortney]

One thing to keep in mind is that there really is no "refridgerator" on board. depending on the type of a/c there maybe a chiller or chiller carts. it helps keep things cool but not cold, ice still melts in there and when i fly to germany for work, our dry ice melts half way through the trip so not even that lasts. however, what we do is we make the passenger put the medication into a bag write their name and we put it where we can to keep it cool or whatever but we tell the passenger that we have no liability for it. I can see both points. the liability issue and the passengers point. I have a feeling though the agent on the phone told you wrong. its like when an agent tells passengers that yes we can hang up their wedding dress in the closet....uh, what closet? lol

[The_Judge]

Just looked up UA's rules on dry ice and it says you are allowed 5.5lbs in your carryon or checked baggage. Appropriate packing required. However, the fee is 125 bucks. And for tickets purchased after Oct 2 for travel after Nov 9th, it's 175 bucks. More for some international travel. Would have been worth it for the OP if the medicines were worth 3500 dollars.

[The_Judge]

Sorry....not that it matters a whole lot but those dates I gave above were for 2008. So it's 175 bucks per one way journey. Up to 250 bucks internationally.

[jimworcs]

This thread appears to be developing a theme which suggests that because an airline has outsourced it's customer services to India, it is ok to mis-inform customers about policies and procedures. If this misinformation causes the customer losses of $3,500 well then we can just shrug and say "lesson learned". In future, just accept that the word of airline employee is worth nothing and if you have any special needs then you should charter a private jet or something.

Why should we accept this? If United mis-informed the customer after he asked TWICE, then I think they should have some liability for the losses. I am not sure what the laws are in the US on Data Protection, but in Europe he could write to the airline and demand any records held in relation to him for a small fee (in the UK maximum £10). I would guess there would be a similar protection in US law. This would show that he had called the airline, and may even have a recording of the calls. Once he has got this evidence, I think he would have a high chance of winning a damages claim in small claims court.

Airlines cannot "outsource" legal responsiblity for their actions, nor can their defenders or employees imply or suggest that it is "caveat emptor" just because the employee was in India.

[PHXFlyer]

Point well taken, Jim, but also consider this. Is it really wise to turn over something worth, as stated, $ 3500 USD to the care and custody of an airline crew? Add to that the fact that it's highly perishable. If I had that much invested in perishable medications I would pay to have an experienced, insured shipper pack it and guarantee it's safe delivery.

Let's also think of the position the airline crew was put in by this request. We're not talking about a baby bottle here but a box, likely the original pharmaceutical packaging, of something they probably know nothing about. Does the box really contain what it says? Even if the contents are what is labeled it is an international flight and there are other liabilities involved. Suppose it is later learned that the drug being imported is illegal. Would the airline crew then be an accessory to smuggling contraband?

Regardless of the information given on the phone I think the OP should have taken better care to ensure the safe transport of their expensive and perishable item and also be more personally accountable for what happened. Also try to see it from the perspective of the airline crew. If you were handed a box containing an unknown substance and asked to store it with other perishables that other passengers, for which your primary duty is their safety, would be consuming during the flight would you take that risk? If informed they were expensive medications would you risk being held liable if they were damaged or spoiled in any way as a result of their handling? Would you be afraid that you could lose your job and/or be arrested by customs officials in China if it turned out to be illegal substances and now you had a part in their illegal importation? The person on the phone is not the crew. The person on the phone is not the one charged with the safety of the passengers and not the one being asked to take the risks I've pointed out. The crew has the final say in such matters.

[jimworcs]

Regardless of the information given on the phone I think the OP should have taken better care to ensure the safe transport of their expensive and perishable item and also be more personally accountable for what happened.

This makes no sense. The passenger knew he had a perishable and expensive item and so set out to check if it could be carried and was advised TWICE that it would be ok. That is taking responsibility. In the past, PHX you have criticised passengers for not checking, or because the rules are clearly shown on the website. This is a clearly unusual request and not covered by normal standard terms of carriage, so the OP sought specific advice from the the airline and asked for clarification on whether the item could be refridgerated. The airline reassured the passenger it could. A deal was done.. and the airline then walked away from it.

In your terms, no customer could ever rely on anything any company representative said to them. We have to be able to rely on instructions given just to be able to trade effectively, either that or only conduct our business in writing. If that was the case, much of our normal trade and business dealings would grind to a halt. It is ridiculous.

On the issue of what was in the container, this argument does not stack up. The TSA screens the contents of all bags, but the airline cannot know if a passenger has put drugs in them. If the airline carries a bag in the hold with drugs in, are they responsible? No. If the passenger carries drugs in the hand baggage which is stored in the overhead compartment is the airline responsible? No. If the passenger puts drugs in his suit bag and the flight attendant takes it from the passenger and places in the suit closet is the airline responsible? No. So what makes this different to the scenario you outline? Is it because it is refridgerated?

Which country has a law which says that when an airline accepts responsibility for a passengers belongings that it becomes legally responsible when it is refridgerated? Why would drugs stored in a fridge create any legal liability for the FA, when drugs stored in a suit locker not. Both are in the "custody" of the FA's, but I don't believe any country would perceive this to be the legal responsibility of the airline.

Sometimes PHX, airlines screw up. Frankly, the mistake here was not really by the FA. The mistake was by the customer service representative. The passenger should have been advised that the airline would not be able to guarantee to carry the medication and that alternative arrangements should be made (such as dry ice, advance shipping or whatever). As they failed to do this and indeed reassured the customer, then they should take legal responsibility for the actions of their employee. It is a well established legal principle in law, that a company can be responsible for the actions of their employees and in this case, I would encourage the OP to take them to court and get them to face their responsibilities.

[JR in Orlando]

Mr. Jimmy: You misread the original post. The airline did not "reassured the passenger it could" as you state. If fact the poster stated:

"I called the airline two times before the flight just make sure they would allow this medication to be refrigerated, and both times the representative told me that they don't see a reason why the flight attendant would refuse to do so."

This is selective hearing by the op. There is a distinct difference between yes we will, and the negative I don't know of any reason they would refuse. There was no promise or guarantee by the airlines that the medication would be refrigerated. That means the passengers should have sought other means to transport this if they absolutely wanted to make sure this was refrigerated.

Also, accepting medication for refrigeration is fraught with legal risks. If the attendants put milk in the refrigerator, one could smell if it went bad. The problem with drugs is that a) you cannot detect by the senses if it went bad, and b) it is injected into the person without opportunity to tell if it went bad as one would could when taking a swallow of spoiled milk. If the airlines had, they would have been blamed for everything that happened to this passenger.

There legal liability is different based on knowledge of what is in the airlines possession. If a valuable ring is in your suitcase and stolen, too bad. If you tell and give a valuable ring to a flight attendent to hold and it is lost, there is liablity because the airlines assumed responsibility for the ring.

[jimworcs]

JR, I think you have misunderstood my position. My position is, the passenger called and asked for advice. If the airline did not want to take any responsibility for the item, it was a simple solution. Advise the passenger that they could not accept responsibility and what the alternatives were, such as dry ice, etc. Instead, they offered reassurances to the passenger and then sought to walk away from them. That was very costly to the passenger. The airline representative twice reassured the passenger. Mealy mouthed "legalistic" phraseology does not change that reality. The passenger advised the airline ahead of time what he was carrying and what he needed. Not once, but twice. The airline had ample opportunity to give him alternative advice.

[AirlinesMustPay]

This is an international flight and the provisions of the Warsaw convention will apply. Under Article 19 the airline is strictly liable without the passenger having to prove any fault on the part of the airline. To escape liability the airline must show that it took all measures it could to avoid the damage, which is not the case here. There are other considerations which relate to the limits of liability and the weight of that passenger's baggage.