Sue over flight delays?

[green73]

You can now in the UK...


Families who have their holidays ruined by long flight delays will at last be able to claim compensation.

A landmark ruling has opened the floodgates for hundreds of thousands of claims, and could cost airlines millions.

It demonstrated that Britons have the right to compensation of up to £480, plus expenses, for hold-ups longer than three hours.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270725/Now-sue-flight-delays-Landmark-ruling-mean-payouts-hold-ups-3-hours.html

[Philhelm]

It won't cost airlines millions. It will cost the customers millions when the price of tickets are raised.

[green73]

It won't cost airlines millions. It will cost the customers millions when the price of tickets are raised.

If only there were competition...

[Danke]

Great idea for safety, pressure the airlines to get the bird in the air.

[Brian4Liberty]

There's really nothing that can be done about bad weather. If that is the real reason for the delays, no lawsuit should succeed.

Now holding you prisoner for 12 hours on the runway is an entirely different situation...

[Danke]

There's really nothing that can be done about bad weather. If that is the real reason for the delays, no lawsuit should succeed.

Now holding you prisoner for 12 hours on the runway is an entirely different situation...

Delays for weather are exempt.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Delays for weather are exempt.

Mechanical problems?

"Ignore that strange noise, we gotta get in the air now or we could be sued!"

[HOLLYWOOD]

US Government already sues the Airlines... on your behalf, uh, Uncle Sugar jacks up the price of tickets and pockets the money on your suffering.

Simply: You the traveling serfs/mundanes get; water, peanuts, piss breaks & Higher future ticket prices... Washington DC bureaucrats gets $27,500.


Airline Passenger Bill of Rights Act Requires each air carrier and airport operator to submit for approval by the Secretary of Transportation (DOT) a proposed contingency plan meeting minimum standards established by the Secretary. Requires an air carrier to provide passengers on a departure- or arrival-delayed grounded aircraft with:

(1) adequate food, water, restrooms, ventilation, and medical services; as well as
(2) a time frame under which passengers may deplane a delayed aircraft after three hours, except in specified circumstances.
Requires an airport operator plan to describe:
(1) how passengers will be deplaned following a long tarmac delay, and
(2) how facilities will be shared and gates made available to aircraft that experience such delays.
Authorizes the Secretary to assess a civil penalty against air carriers and airport operators that fail to submit, obtain approval of, or adhere to a contingency plan.
Requires public access to such plans.
Directs the Secretary to establish a consumer hotline telephone number for air passenger complaint


New Rights for Fliers
Over the past couple of years, the U.S. Department of Transportation has issued several federal rules to expand rights for fliers. As of April 2010, airlines operating flights within the U.S. may no longer keep a plane on the tarmac for more than three hours, and they will have to provide "adequate food and potable drinking water" for any delays longer than two hours. There must also be functioning lavatories onboard during the delay, as well as medical attention when necessary. (The three-hour rule is waived if safety or security is at stake, or if air traffic control reports that airport operations will be disrupted if the plane returns to the gate.) Airlines who violate this rule must pay a penalty of $27,500 per passenger, to the Federal Government(not the stranded passenger)

[Anti Federalist]

Great idea for safety, pressure the airlines to get the bird in the air.

They will do just the opposite, like they did here.

Cancel your ass.

Before, you're gonna be late.

Now, you aren't gonna be anything at all, except sleeping on some shit stained airport carpet.

[green73]

Mechanical problems?

"Ignore that strange noise, we gotta get in the air now or we could be sued!"

or "If we crash not only will we be dead but the airline may go out of business". Ok, the airline owners may care more about the last part. Hence they would do all they could to make sure there aren't "noises" etc.

[LibertyEagle]

They will do just the opposite, like they did here.

Cancel your ass.

Before, you're gonna be late.

Now, you aren't gonna be anything at all, except sleeping on some shit stained airport carpet.

Yeah, that's exactly what they will do. Cancel the flight. And frankly, with this type of legislation, I wouldn't blame them one bit.

[LibertyEagle]

Airlines who violate this rule must pay a penalty of $27,500 per passenger, to the Federal Government(not the stranded passenger)

Wow, that is screwed up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Danke]

They will do just the opposite, like they did here.

Cancel your ass.

Before, you're gonna be late.

Now, you aren't gonna be anything at all, except sleeping on some shit stained airport carpet.

"If your flight is delayed by more than three hours, cancelled or overbooked, you may be able to claim."

Flights here are now proactively cancelled now with adverse weather forecasts more than in the past exactly because of the new laws.

[green73]

Yeah, that's exactly what they will do. Cancel the flight. And frankly, with this type of legislation, I wouldn't blame them one bit.

Yes but the great equalizer would be competition. Too bad the state snuffs that out.

[Danke]

or "If we crash not only will we be dead but the airline may go out of business". Ok, the airline owners may care more about the last part. Hence they would do all they could to make sure there aren't "noises" etc.

You don't understand the mentality of the managers and bean counters. It doesn't work that way with the airlines.

[Anti Federalist]

"If your flight is delayed by more than three hours, cancelled or overbooked, you may be able to claim."

Flights here are now proactively cancelled now with adverse weather forecasts more than in the past exactly because of the new laws.

That's what I was getting at.

I missed the part about being cancelled you can collect as well.

More bailouts and bankruptcies coming up.

[Anti Federalist]

Wow, that is screwed up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Try flying regularly in an area of the country that has snow and bad weather to see how it's really screwed things up.

[green73]

You don't understand the mentality of the managers and bean counters. It doesn't work that way with the airlines.

I understand. It's a gov't operation.

[Danke]

Try flying regularly in an area of the country that has snow and bad weather to see how it's really screwed things up.

What is your status on United?

[Danke]

I understand. It's a gov't operation.

??

[Anti Federalist]

What is your status on United?

Premier Gold.

Off Topic...I think those fuckers set a record over the last few months.

Six consecutive flights.

Six delays over 2 hours.

All six mechanical issues.

All six...frakking Airbuses. :mad:

[TheGrinch]

Thank you people for making it to where no one can conduct business without having to worry about a frivolous lawsuit, and have every damn thing spelled out because people can't be responsible for themselves and hold others liable...

Anyways, rant over, but the only way this should be lawsuit-worthy is if it can be shown that they're delaying flights unnecessarily. And even then, I'm sure they have spelled out on their TOS that flights can and will be delayed or cancelled. I mean shit, take every precaution necessary before you fly my ass up thousands of feet.

Of course nowadays I do my best not to fly and get molested by the TSA, but still...

[Danke]

Premier Gold.

I'll see if I can get one of our senior flight attendants to give you a lap dance on your next flight.

[green73]

??

"You don't understand the mentality of the managers and bean counters. It doesn't work that way with the airlines."

The mentality of mangers and bean counters. That's sound like the creeps in government, or an industry heavily regulated by government. My earlier statement was, if the government were out of the way, competition would cure the problem.

[TheGrinch]

"You don't understand the mentality of the managers and bean counters. It doesn't work that way with the airlines."

The mentality of mangers and bean counters. That's sound like the creeps in government, or an industry heavily regulated by government. My earlier statement was, if the government were out of the way, competition would cure the problem.

Good point, they went with subsidized monopoly over making flying not suck ass...

[Danke]

Good point, they went with subsidized monopoly over making flying not suck ass...

Airlines have paid more than other produces and services, more than the "sin" taxes even.

It was a net plus for the federal coffers before 9/11 with all the additional security costs now.

[Anti Federalist]

I'll see if I can get one of our senior flight attendants to give you a lap dance on your next flight.

Ummm...no thanks.

I'm not into 70 year old grandmothers and gender confused black men.

[Danke]

Ummm...no thanks.

I'm not into 70 year old grandmothers and gender confused black men.

I'll see what I can do to get one of our junior 60 year olds then. Comp, no miles deducted.

[TheGrinch]

Airlines have paid more than other produces and services, more than the "sin" taxes even.

It was a net plus for the federal coffers before 9/11 with all the additional security costs now.

I don't understand which part you dispute, that they're a subsidized monopoly, or that they don't give a shit about travel being enjoyable?

I also don't understand what you mean that they've "paid" to get preferential treatment.

[Anti Federalist]

I'll see what I can do to get one of our junior 60 year olds then. Comp, no miles deducted.

Yer a sport.

[Danke]

I don't understand which part you dispute, that they're a subsidized monopoly, or that they don't give a shit about travel being enjoyable?

I also don't understand what you mean that they've "paid" to get preferential treatment.

I'm just saying airlines, before 9/11, paid (well passengers ultimately did) more to the governments than they received back towards the infrastructure they relied on, so no net "subsidizes." The so-called sin taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, etc. used to be less as a percentage than what the tax airlines paid.