Airlines in the courts

[medhead]

Procedural argument on damages claim for alleged personal injuries after being seated next to an overweight pax in Y on EY - would be interesting to know the final outcome.

Bassos v Etihad Airways [2015] QDC 185 (29 July 2015)

That would be interesting, would love to use this against Qantas.

BTW, are you making coffee for airlines or something?

My reading of excerpt is different. " training need not be provided by an accredited organisation (full stop)" There is no further qualification.

This will lead to the silly situation in LOTFAP

That highlights the inherent failure of not reading the full sentence. The bit you've quoted is clearly qualified by the requirement to demonstrate certain things. Then reading the second sentence, I assume that the physical standards listed in the first sentence below (underlined) are what is required by s9(2)(c). The animal must be
1) an assistance animal, and
2) trained to meet standards of hygiene and behaviour appropriate for an animal in a public place, and
3) the airline has the power to demand proof of the requirements in 1 and 2.

But is not required to have been trained by an accredited organisation - i.e. the little bit after the comma.

The outcome has to be achieved and it does not matter how it is achieved.

First, as we have emphasised above, although the airline is entitled to request evidence that Willow is an assistance animal and that she is trained to meet standards of hygiene and behaviour that are appropriate for an animal in a public place, that training need not be by an accredited organisation. If Virgin Australia was not satisfied that Willow was trained in the sense referred to in s 9(2)(c) it could use its powers to request evidence under s 54A(5) of the DDA.

 

[froggerADL]

I'm interpreting it to mean that the training given to an assistance animal need not be from a body accredited by CASA or Virgin.

Yeah, yeah, what would a coffee maker know? .

I think this could turn into a very well read thread.

 

[JessicaTam]

Certainly lots of information here. Now where is the court decision that requires AU261 to be legislated?

Slow day at work, Anna?

 

[jb747]

Unsuccessful attempt by legally unrepresented QF32 pax to sue for damages

Kern v Qantas Airways Limited [2015] NSWSC 1565 (27 October 2015)

"....the plaintiff seeks damages in the sum of $3,301,502,000,000"

 

[Timtammi]

Seriously interesting, loving reading these!

 

[Timtammi]

"....the plaintiff seeks damages in the sum of $3,301,502,000,000"

Ah yes, definitely some screws loose there, and I'm not talking about engine or plane screws!

 

[Anna]

"....the plaintiff seeks damages in the sum of $3,301,502,000,000"

I know right (as the young people say)

 

[medhead]

"....the plaintiff seeks damages in the sum of $3,301,502,000,000"

I know right (as the young people say)

hey, those designer undies with the white band that sits about the top of the strides ain't cheap you know.


As in they would've had to buy a new pair.

 

[Quickstatus]

"....the plaintiff seeks damages in the sum of $3,301,502,000,000"

Another frootloop

 

[JessicaTam]

"....the plaintiff seeks damages in the sum of $3,301,502,000,000"

It is exciting reading. The legal arguments are quite detailed:

“APPLICANT: Right. I didn’t want to go into that. So, this is a very exciting area, and I had to figure out a way where I could keep everybody happy. So, guess what I did? If Montreal could have a convention, so can I, so I called it the Sydney Convention, and I propose what the Sydney Convention, basically, is all about. And you know what it is? No statute of limitations, and everybody gets covered. And there's no, yeah. No statute limiting for how long, and no limitation as to how much - it depends on how much money we have available in the till. That’s it. That was - the amount of money that we would save by eliminating a huge bureaucracy would be enough to cover it all. ...” (T10.10.18).​

Sorry, I lied.

 

[williamsf1]

"....the plaintiff seeks damages in the sum of $3,301,502,000,000"

Ah yes, definitely some screws loose there, and I'm not talking about engine or plane screws!

it gets even better ... he expected the airline to warn him that RR knew of a fault

APPLICANT: Normally, when you buy a ticket, it will list a list of exclusions and accidental. The situation like this, it was not accidental. This was planned - not that they - it wasn’t accidental. They knew about these faulty situations and didn’t do anything about it. At least, they should have written out, “The plane that you are about to go on has this problem, that problem, and there's a certain chance that you may not get there.” If I owned one of those airlines , and I heard that, what do you think would happen to ticket sales? Everybody would be afraid to fly. So, therefore - and it’s interesting that Airbus and Qantas and RollsRoyce, they had the ability to pull out temporary aeroplanes to fix the problem, and yet be able to shovel people all around the world using conventional aircraft.” (T6.38-6.48)

 

[MEL_Traveller]

it gets even better ... he expected the airline to warn him that RR knew of a fault

The general principle probably deserves some consideration. If a fault is identified, should passengers be told so they can make a decision based on that information? Or, for example, if a passenger wants to know if an airline if it is going to overfly a conflict area, should they be given that information?

I recall ANA's handling of a situation of an in-flight incident back in 2011 - pilot error caused a plane to bank steeply. ANA subsequently issued a statement allowing a 10-day window for any ANA passenger to cancel their flights irrespective of an ticket conditions. Details of the incident here: Japan's All Nippon Airways Nearly Flips Over Mid-Air Due to Pilot Error
ANA statement here: https://www.ana.co.jp/topics/notice110929/index_int_e.html

 

[JohnK]

Pax rebooked himself and family on QF when TT flight cancelled rather than accepting TT's offer of hotel and flight next day - not entitled to claim the $305 fare difference

Chanel v Tiger Airways Australia Pty Ltd (Civil Claims) [2016] VCAT 84 (19 January 2016)

That is an interesting decision.

We must accept whatever alternate flights the online offers even if they will affect current plans? I certainly wouldn't be happy sitting around if I needed to be somewhere else.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

That is an interesting decision.

We must accept whatever alternate flights the online offers even if they will affect current plans? I certainly wouldn't be happy sitting around if I needed to be somewhere else.

the terms and conditions state that the passenger can either fly on the next available service or get a full refund.

here, the passenger chose to take the full refund and book alternative flights. the decision outlines the reasons why the additional balance (the $305) is not going to be awarded.

 

[JohnK]

the terms and conditions state that the passenger can either fly on the next available service or get a full refund.

here, the passenger chose to take the full refund and book alternative flights. the decision outlines the reasons why the additional balance (the $305) is not going to be awarded.

Understood. Full refund of cheap flights doesn't help with walk up last minute airfares.

Terms and conditions are heavily stacked in airlines favour.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Understood. Full refund of cheap flights doesn't help with walk up last minute airfares.

Terms and conditions are heavily stacked in airlines favour.

no, but in this case an alternative flight and overnight accommodation were offered. the passenger chose not to accept that.

Tiger successfully argued that the limit of compensation to one of those options (new flight or full refund) was legitimate to protect its interests. Whether or not we agree with that, something like EU261 would go a long way to solve the problem.

 

[williamsf1]

The general principle probably deserves some consideration. If a fault is identified, should passengers be told so they can make a decision based on that information? Or, for example, if a passenger wants to know if an airline if it is going to overfly a conflict area, should they be given that information?

I guess where do you draw the line? One would have to assume that the rules and regulations related to things like maintenance , training , duty hours etc are followed. As a general traveler would you expect to see the detailed maintenance record of the aircraft you are about to board? Unless you understand the details it would not make any sense to a normal traveler. Also when it comes to crew , would you expect to be told the captains experience hours, last 20 days of duty , his medical history (think of Germanwings).

Re the ANA experience – it is very common when a airline has a incident that they allow refunds or changes in such situations

 

[Anna]

Over the last little while since I updated this thread, most of the airline litigation seems to have been in the Fair Work Commission or to relate to industrial issues like that.

But I did find a couple of interesting ones.

Ivanovic v Qantas [2016] VCAT 2202 - pax refused to board a QF flight in SIN after an altercation in the QF lounge to which police were called (pax at first argued he was not allowed to board but then admitted he refused to board), and was then issued a no fly notice by QF, later reduced to a 12 month no fly warning. Pax's claim for compensation for having to purchase an EK ticket dismissed.

Koskinas v Qantas [2016] VCAT 2024 - pax broke a tooth on a QF muffin on an int flight. Claim for dental costs dismissed because VCAT cannot hear claims brought under the Montreal Convention. Those need to be brought in a federal court (I would suggest the Federal Circuit Court probably?)

Gibson v MAS [2017] FCA 1164 - interesting because it suggests litigation by bereaved family members over MH70 is protracted and worldwide.

Anyone who wants to read the actual cases can find them on austlii.edu.au. The Ivanovic one in particular is worth reading the facts if you've got nothing better to do

 

[JessicaTam]

So he was looking for compensation for being a pratt?

 

[moa999]

Link for Ivanovic.
Ivanovic v Qantas Airways Limited (Civil Claims) [2016] VCAT 2202 (23 December 2016)

Looks like he has also had another incident
Passenger sues Qantas over broken inflight entertainment system
Actually referred to in the VCAT case above.