Delta SkyMiles (Pre-WorldPerks Merger) [closed to posting] - Delta Employee Caught Stealing from Luggage, Delta Refuses Compensation

Found over at consumerist:
http://consumerist.com/consumer/complaints/man-tracks-down-and-gets-prosecuted-baggage-handler-who-stole-his-camera-delta-still-wont-refund-234548.php

I think Delta is being RIDICULOUS here...they deserve the bad press they are going to get from this...

I've heard of such things happening in India and other parts of Asia but out here?!? Wow.

Btw, this was freakin hilarious:
"Using that rationale, it wouldn't matter if a stewardess stabbed you repeatedly in the chest and barfed on your wounds. As long as you got to where you were going, everything is copasetic."

Also, was the guy working for DL or some third-party contractor?

He wants money back for two tickets when only one passenger had his things noted as stolen?

I'm a bit confused. From the article it appears he is asking for a refund of the ticket price, rather than asking for a refund of the value of the camera?

He will get his camera back after the police are done using it as evidence, so in reality he is only out the time and effort of tracking down the thief. DL should have given him a voucher for a couple hundred as an apology, and thanked him for identifying a bad employee (whom they had promptly fired), but I don't think reimbursement of the full ticket is appropriate.

What would have happened if DL had promptly reimbursed him for the camera, and then the camera was recovered? Would he have had to pay them back? At that point, he'd have nothing from them; the end result here is the same. Not a happy solution for any involved, but it does make some sense.

Btw, this was freakin hilarious:
"Using that rationale, it wouldn't matter if a stewardess stabbed you repeatedly in the chest and barfed on your wounds. As long as you got to where you were going, everything is copasetic."


... if not antiseptic.

The victim's in this situation's thought process is flawed.

a) He's going to get the camera back.
b) He's not asking for compensation for the item that was stolen

I really like the part of his letter to Delta that states:
"I am writing to request a full refund for the cost of my trip, in the amount of $585.00, or else I will be forced to pursue other means to make me whole, such as litigation and public media exposure"...... "I have already had an offer from a columnist at the New York Metro, which averages 850,000 daily readers, to publish this story. I also have access to a blog with thousands of daily readers. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter."

If this moron thinks that Delta (or any other company) is going to react favorably to being blackmailed, he's got some things to learn.

My thought.. Delta did the right thing, they fired the employee and aided in the prosecution. Case Closed.

"Using that rationale, it wouldn't matter if a stewardess stabbed you repeatedly in the chest and barfed on your wounds. As long as you got to where you were going, everything is copasetic."


That tidbit was written by the author of the article and not the person that lost the camera. @:-)

IMHO, DL should offer to reimburse him the cost of one ticket as a good will gesture. The negative press that they will receive from this will cost them much more than that amount. This type of solution is what many of us would call exercising common sense.

IMHO, DL should offer to reimburse him the cost of one ticket as a good will gesture. The negative press that they will receive from this will cost them much more than that amount. This type of solution is what many of us would call exercising common sense.

I think that is an excellent solution.

Mike

This whole thing is ludicrous. It is not an expensive digital camera at $250, and you are not supposed to put valuables into checked luggage.

The letter to Delta is ridiculous, especially the threat of public media exposure, the reference to the heinous situation and the demand to have two tickets refunded.

IMHO, DL should offer to reimburse him the cost of one ticket as a good will gesture. The negative press that they will receive from this will cost them much more than that amount. This type of solution is what many of us would call exercising common sense.I think it would be a good gesture to give him something, but make it Delta Dollars or a voucher for a free ticket. I wouldn't give him cash.

I admire his tenacity in chasing down and prosecuting a thief. ^

I do not admire his attitude that the loss of a $250 camera has been a life altering event. :td:

David

That tidbit was written by the author of the article and not the person that lost the camera. @:-)

IMHO, DL should offer to reimburse him the cost of one ticket as a good will gesture. The negative press that they will receive from this will cost them much more than that amount. This type of solution is what many of us would call exercising common sense.

Yes, but once he started trying to blackmail DL, he lost any chance of receiving compensation. I don't know about you, but I react negatively to threats and it doesn't suprise me that DL has as well. Should DL have offered something up front? Probably, but we all know that you usually have to complain a little bit to get something. It is the threat that puts this one over the top.

That tidbit was written by the author of the article and not the person that lost the camera. @:-)

IMHO, DL should offer to reimburse him the cost of one ticket as a good will gesture. The negative press that they will receive from this will cost them much more than that amount. This type of solution is what many of us would call exercising common sense.

RSSrsvp, always an intelligent man! (Well, almost always:D )

This is a good example as to why many conservatives urge litigation reform in the United States. Excesss litigation (in the form of suing Delta) will eventually force Delta to raise fares on everyone to pay for this dude's plane tickets. A corporation should not be liable when an employeee breaks the law unless the company knew about it and did nothing.

Yes, but once he started trying to blackmail DL, he lost any chance of receiving compensation. I don't know about you, but I react negatively to threats and it doesn't suprise me that DL has as well. Should DL have offered something up front? Probably, but we all know that you usually have to complain a little bit to get something. It is the threat that puts this one over the top.

While it would have been a nice gesture on DL's part to offer a small token voucher, I totally agree that once the scent of blackmail is in the air, all bets are off.

I think the should send him something. How about $200 redeemable on the USAirways flight of his choice?

I think the should send him something. How about $200 redeemable on the USAirways flight of his choice?

Perfect Answer....

Don't the T&C of the ticket tell you not to pack cameras and that DL isn't responsible for them? Beyond that, agree with the above that the person was an idiot asking for their flight refunded, one has nothing to do with the other. Delta did their part, the employee was fired and prosecuted. Good will gesture should go to normal human beings not idiots like this one.

This is a good example as to why many conservatives urge litigation reform in the United States. Excesss litigation (in the form of suing Delta) will eventually force Delta to raise fares on everyone to pay for this dude's plane tickets. A corporation should not be liable when an employeee breaks the law unless the company knew about it and did nothing.

The employee was stealing while on company time, while performing his duties. Of course the corporation should be liable. Delta should have paid for the camera, I suspect the OP replaced the camera during the 8 month period and/or given him a travel voucher.

It's a shame that litigation may be the only way to force the airline to adequately supervise their employees.

The employee was stealing while on company time, while performing his duties.There is that pesky old contract of carriage: http://images.delta.com.edgesuite.net/delta/pdfs/contract_of_carriage_dom.pdf

Page 32 deals with Fragile, Perishable, or Precious items.

David

The poster I was responding to was making a generic conservative arguement that a corporation isn't responsible for the actions of their employees.

The CoC might limit the airlines legal obligation but it doesn't change the fact that the airline is responsible.

I did a search of the linked CoC in your post. I can't find the language, that we assume is there, that limits Delta's liability. The issue is proving the camera was ever in the checked luggage. Delta can't use that excuse.





There is that pesky old contract of carriage: http://images.delta.com.edgesuite.net/delta/pdfs/contract_of_carriage_dom.pdf

Page 32 deals with Fragile, Perishable, or Precious items.

David

Perfect Answer....

Don't the T&C of the ticket tell you not to pack cameras and that DL isn't responsible for them? Beyond that, agree with the above that the person was an idiot asking for their flight refunded, one has nothing to do with the other. Delta did their part, the employee was fired and prosecuted. Good will gesture should go to normal human beings not idiots like this one.

Nothing like blaming the victim...

The CoC might limit the airlines legal obligation but it doesn't change the fact that the airline is responsible.The airline is "responsible" in that context, but so is the passenger. The passenger put an undeclared valuable item in his checked baggage, and is at fault for doing that.

The passenger also lost any moral high ground with the publicity threat, IMO.

I did a search of the linked CoC in your post. I can't find the language, that we assume is there, that limits Delta's liability. The issue is proving the camera was ever in the checked luggage. Delta can't use that excuse.Page 40, Section 5b. I guess a court could decide if "loss" includes theft by an employee or contractor.

David

Nothing like blaming the victim...

They wouldn't be a victim if they hadn't put the camera in there. Obviously the DL employee was wrong (and was prosecuted appropriately) but the traveller was also wrong and has to hold some responsibility. Playing the "blame the victim" card does not absolve people for taking responsibility for their own actions!!!

Nothing like blaming the victim...

Nothing like fishing for dollars with empty threats...

They wouldn't be a victim if they hadn't put the camera in there. Obviously the DL employee was wrong (and was prosecuted appropriately) but the traveller was also wrong and has to hold some responsibility. Playing the "blame the victim" card does not absolve people for taking responsibility for their own actions!!!

Yes, the airline should not have to be responsible for anything inside checked luggage or damage to the lugggage itself; after all, he could have shipped it overnight to his destination if he didn't want to carry it on or it was too heavy or bulky. And putting items worth more than $50 in checked baggage provides too much temptation to certain of their employees. And this guy has cost them alot of money in their time spent dealing with this, including terminating the employee - so perhaps he should pay them.

BTW, the man says about his request:

That said, my strategy for getting some compensation was flawed. I figured with such an air-tight case, Delta would definitely take some action, so my demand for a refund was an attempt to stake a high initial claim in the negotiation. I figured they'd be apologetic and offer me a bag of peanuts. Then I'd ask for two vouchers with no restrictions, etc, etc. Also, by the time I wrote my letter, I had been jerked around by customer service on the phone so much already that my tone was far angrier than it should have been....

This is a good example as to why many conservatives urge litigation reform in the United States. Excesss litigation (in the form of suing Delta) will eventually force Delta to raise fares on everyone to pay for this dude's plane tickets. A corporation should not be liable when an employeee breaks the law unless the company knew about it and did nothing.

IANAL, but if a Delta employee damaged the OP in the course and scope of his duties as a baggage handler, then Delta has an obligation to make the OP whole. This includes not only return of the camera, but compensation for the OP's time to get the camera returned, compensation for the anxiety he now suffers worrying about baggage theft and of course compensation to his wife for loss of consortium while the OP was preoccupied with the recovery of his camera.;)

I wouldn't have checked the camera but I'm not sure if a $250 camera qualifies as a "precious item". The fact that an employee has time to open a bag and steal items without being observed by a camera or supervisor isn't right. This isn't a TSA agent that has a right to open the bag. Many department stores check every bag an employee takes out of a store. Employees in many department stores have to use a clear bag for personal items. Delta was not only wrong in not supervising the employee but in having a system that allowed the employee to get the stolen stuff out of the airport.


The OP didn't have use of a camera for about 8 months. The OP filed an immediate claim. The OP is responsible for a dishonest employee being fired. Giving the OP some kind of travel voucher, although not legally required, sounds very reasonable to many of us.

The airline is "responsible" in that context, but so is the passenger. The passenger put an undeclared valuable item in his checked baggage, and is at fault for doing that.

The passenger also lost any moral high ground with the publicity threat, IMO.

Page 40, Section 5b. I guess a court could decide if "loss" includes theft by an employee or contractor.

David

IANAL, but if a Delta employee damaged the OP in the course and scope of his duties as a baggage handler, then Delta has an obligation to make the OP whole. This includes not only return of the camera, but compensation for the OP's time to get the camera returned, compensation for the anxiety he now suffers worrying about baggage theft and of course compensation to his wife for loss of consortium while the OP was preoccupied with the recovery of his camera.;)

I disagree, since Delta had already told the traveller (don't believe it was the OP, think they were just sharing the story) not to put that stuff in the bag and that they weren't responsible for it, the traveller decided to take the risk themselves.

I disagree, since Delta had already told the traveller (don't believe it was the OP, think they were just sharing the story) not to put that stuff in the bag and that they weren't responsible for it, the traveller decided to take the risk themselves.

Nope, that's wrong. Under Tort Law, vicarious liability applies to the employer (here, Delta) regardless of their policy against the action taken by the employer, so long as the employee was acting within the general scope of his job duties, which he was. Delta is liable, and I believe an action by the victim here would be easily successful. Delta should just refund the damn tickets and save themselves the bad press.

This is a good example as to why many conservatives urge litigation reform in the United States. Excesss litigation (in the form of suing Delta) will eventually force Delta to raise fares on everyone to pay for this dude's plane tickets. A corporation should not be liable when an employeee breaks the law unless the company knew about it and did nothing.

This is a bad example.

1. There has been no litigation on this matter against Delta as of yet.
2. There has been no legal judgment against Delta on this matter as of yet.
3. Employers are responsible for the on-the-clock behavior of their employees in a variety of circumstances.
4. Ignorance and lack of timely and complete action is no excuse.

RSSrsvp, always an intelligent man! (Well, almost always:D )

Well I have been accused in the past of associating with some shady people on this board. :)

Would seem to me that this empty threat came after several difficult correspondences from the airline.

If I was this guy and eight months of being nice was getting me not even an apology from the airline, I might try a threat to take this to a higher level myself.

It's not even about the camera anymore - I think a lot of people misunderstand that. It's about the principle now. It's about the corporation refusing to take responsibility for what their employee did in their name while in the process of doing the job that they've done.

If putting a $250 camera in checked luggage is an unacceptable risk for most travelers, why would anyone consider sending anything of any value through Delta as cargo? Wouldn't that be unacceptable risk as well?

Delta may not necessarily be "responsible" under their Terms and Conditions - but they ought to do the right thing. Fire the employee, reward the person who was victimized by their bad seed by making amends for long term loss of property.

Would seem to me that this empty threat came after several difficult correspondences from the airline.

If I was this guy and eight months of being nice was getting me not even an apology from the airline, I might try a threat to take this to a higher level myself.

It's not even about the camera anymore - I think a lot of people misunderstand that. It's about the principle now. It's about the corporation refusing to take responsibility for what their employee did in their name while in the process of doing the job that they've done.

If putting a $250 camera in checked luggage is an unacceptable risk for most travelers, why would anyone consider sending anything of any value through Delta as cargo? Wouldn't that be unacceptable risk as well?

Delta may not necessarily be "responsible" under their Terms and Conditions - but they ought to do the right thing. Fire the employee, reward the person who was victimized by their bad seed by making amends for long term loss of property.

Keep in mind that we are only getting his side of the story. And, even he admits that he made an error in his "strategy" when he made threats. Just like anything else you always are better off being nice.

Nope, that's wrong. Under Tort Law, vicarious liability applies to the employer (here, Delta) regardless of their policy against the action taken by the employer, so long as the employee was acting within the general scope of his job duties, which he was. Delta is liable, and I believe an action by the victim here would be easily successful. Delta should just refund the damn tickets and save themselves the bad press.

Good one, you beat me to it. If you have employees, as I know many of you do, then it's your job to not hire complete lops who're going to get you into trouble by ripping off your customers. You're judged by the company you keep, literally in this case.

Blaming the guy for putting his $250 camera in his bag, saying he was asking for it, is a little absurd. Everyone should keep in mind the chain of events here. Regardless of whether or not he put the camera in his bag, I'd bet that this particular employee was a thieving scumbag before the guy checked his bag. So I guess you're right, had the guy not checked his camera he could've avoided this situation. However, since the employee is the first link, I think it would be more prudent--and logical--to blame him. I mean, but that's just me.

Also, just because Delta says "we're not responsible for X Y Z if you fly with us" doesn't make it so. Once you point out that the actual law trumps their TOS they're more than willing to negotiate. Though, nine times out of 10 they'll not admit they were wrong and simply say they're doing it out of goodwill. They figure, again, nine people out of 10 will just go "gee whiz, you're right, I did agree to this... it must be the law." I think this guy just went about it wrong, but regardless Delta should've just vouchered him up and moved him along.

Perfect Answer....

Don't the T&C of the ticket tell you not to pack cameras


Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Warsaw Pact sets fixed limits on the liability that airlines have for the contents of checked bags. I seem to remember that for domestic flights, it's $500 per passenger.

I had a cell phone battery charger taken out of my bag. My bag was an old duffle bag and the charger was wrapped up to protect it. I was wondering how it was found and taken. I thought possibly it was detected and taken by the TSA as a suspicious item. Maybe it could have been by a baggage handler. Who knows. Could the handler be carrying some kind of metal detector to find these items?

This is pretty entertaining. Maybe some actual lawyers can shed some light.

1) Is the Contract of Carriage in fact a contract? BTW, noting that the complainant did not comply with the COC does not equate to saying that "he deserved it." It does mean that he possibly may not be entitled to compensation.

2) If the complainant had gone to court, what were his damages? He was not a professional photographer, so there was no loss of income. He got his camera back, so there are no damages there. He got his transportation and his vacation. While he wants to be "made whole", I'm not sure what Judge Judy would have given him. :rolleyes:

3) No matter the provocation, this type of statement is indefensible:

"I am writing to request a full refund for the cost of my trip, in the amount of $585.00, or else I will be forced to pursue other means to make me whole, such as litigation and public media exposure"...... "I have already had an offer from a columnist at the New York Metro, which averages 850,000 daily readers, to publish this story. I also have access to a blog with thousands of daily readers. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter."

Delta has thousands of employees and they of course will have some bad apples as does every large company. The guy did a service by identifying one bad apple and helping to get rid of him. If you want to make a case out of theft from luggage, I understand Miami is far and away the biggest offender there.

Should the complainant have packed his camera into his luggage - certainly not.

Should Delta have done something to make him happy - probably. For whatever reasons, the airlines are just hard-nosed beyond belief about any claim that involves the word "baggage". Fortunately I have not (yet) experienced this first-hand.

David

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Warsaw Pact sets fixed limits on the liability that airlines have for the contents of checked bags. I seem to remember that for domestic flights, it's $500 per passenger.

Warsaw Convention. Not Warsaw Pact -- that's so Cold War. :D

Domestic caps can exceed the Warsaw Convention limits, since the Warsaw Convention, when it comes to luggage, is primarily applicable to international travel and not domestic-only-type itineraries.

That tidbit was written by the author of the article and not the person that lost the camera. @:-)

IMHO, DL should offer to reimburse him the cost of one ticket as a good will gesture. The negative press that they will receive from this will cost them much more than that amount. This type of solution is what many of us would call exercising common sense.
Ooh, why didn't I think about that?!? :p

DL should give the guy a couple of free tickets and thank him for helping them catch the bad guy.

No other response is even reasonable.

DL should give the guy a couple of free tickets and thank him for helping them catch the bad guy.Note his letter of December 16, 2005 in the link from the OP. In the same letter where he notified DL that "I now have definitive proof that my camera was taken by a Delta employee who has since confessed to his crime, been arrested, and fired" he made the blackmail threat. As many have agreed above, that threat killed any chance of compensation.

He does not post any previous coorespondence with DL. That letter states that he previously contacted customer service and was "told that Delta is not liable for any lost property". That was true- Point 1: the contract of carriage says not to check electronics. Point 2: up to that point, he was trying to get reimbursed by the TSA, not DL, so he hadn't presented any previous evidence to DL that they had caused the loss.

The posted article only presents one side of the story, but reading between the lines there I conclude that they guy overplayed his hand and killed his own case. If he sent a nice, non-confrontational letter on Dec. 16 '05 he might well have gotten compensation.

Note that further down, the content of the Dec. 16 2005 letter is reprinted with a Feb. 6 2007 date, making this appear to be a current story when it is really a 14 month old story.

He was without his camera for 8 months. Many of us would have replaced the camera. I suspect Judge Judy would award him $250 and give Delta the option of getting the old camera.




2) If the complainant had gone to court, what were his damages? He was not a professional photographer, so there was no loss of income. He got his camera back, so there are no damages there. He got his transportation and his vacation. While he wants to be "made whole", I'm not sure what Judge Judy would have given him. :rolleyes:

BTW, I like the way that in his letter to DL he refers to his "expensive digital camera". Sorry, but (especially since he bought it no later than summer 2005) a $250 Fuji is an inexpensive entry-level digital camera. It was around that time I bought a Nikon D2X for 20x that amount.

Just one more reason I don't consider the original story to be credible or convincing.

Is the CoC even valid given the criminal action on the part of a Delta employee?

In real estate there is the 6F principle: Faithless fiduciary forfeits fat fiduciary fee. The CoC might protect Delta if it had disappeared at the hands of interline baggage handlers or outsourced operations, but I think an argument can be made that the entire CoC is voidable when the other party itself engages in criminal activity. A refund of his ticket price is a reasonable request.

I don't think DL is in debt for the refund of the ticket but a goodwill gesture would be nice.

Although I am sure it is not legally required.

The posted article only presents one side of the story, but reading between the lines there I conclude that they guy overplayed his hand and killed his own case. If he sent a nice, non-confrontational letter on Dec. 16 '05 he might well have gotten compensation.



Agree. However, getting in a pi55ing match with a customer who has a fairly damaging claim against you isn't very good PR. This guy flew Delta. A Delta employee stole from him. Delta figured out that the perpetrator was stealing and fired the employee. Delta now refuses to acknowledge the flyer's help in apprehending its own bad apple, let alone thank him.

Delta could have defused the situation by giving the flyer a couple of tickets. A couple of restricted "free" tickets cost the airline essentially nothing.

Instead, it appears that Delta treated this case like an irritation to be brushed off rather than taking a look at the substance of what happened. Now they're the subject of a consumerist article; consumerist gets about as much traffic as flyertalk does.

Oops.

This is the part I don't understand:

Charles: I contacted the Port Authority Police Investigation Unit ... they had to buy it back from the winning bidder on Ebay

Since when do the police buy stolen merchandise? So any eBay buyer who discovers that he bought stolen goods can call the police and sell it to them?

I don't know what Delta should have done prior to it, but after the guy attempted to blackmail Delta, all bets are off. Delta should do nothing for this guy (well, maybe send him a PMU :D )

This is the part I don't understand:



Since when do the police buy stolen merchandise? So any eBay buyer who discovers that he bought stolen goods can call the police and sell it to them?
How did the cops pay that guy? Paypal? Or did they just raid his house in the middle of the night? :p

I don't know what Delta should have done prior to it, but after the guy attempted to blackmail Delta, all bets are off. Delta should do nothing for this guy (well, maybe send him a PMU :D )

:D PMUs. :D

:D PMUs. :D
...along with some fish to wrap 'em later on when he realizes their true value.

How do you think the Port Authority Police would be able to get a search warrant or otherwise be able to obtain the merchandise in another part of the country? For a camera worth under $250? Fly an officer to wait at the ebay buyers house? Jurisdiction? Send the buyer a letter? We understand you bought a stolen camera, please send it to us?

Buying it is probably the cheapest, easiest and maybe the only way to obtain it.

The article has enough documentation to be credible.



This is the part I don't understand:



Since when do the police buy stolen merchandise? So any eBay buyer who discovers that he bought stolen goods can call the police and sell it to them?

What is more presious a $250 camera or a $250 pair Gucci shoes? The problem is that we all put expensive items in our bags. More often than not we have no choice. I quit thinking about how much it would cost me to replace the gear that I have to check for my trips (and lets say this my best pair of mtneering boots are 3X the cost of the Gucci shoes but my toes are worth it). I would be much happier if I could take stuff on board but the TSA has funny rules.

That said I admire the guy's detective work. And it was nice to see the TSA's openness. Rather refreshing. That said I wish I could see everything as the guy's letter to Delta was not the best. A different approach would have gotten him what he wanted. Perhaps not a refund. But once threated I can see Delta saying sorry.

What is more presious a $250 camera or a $250 pair Gucci shoes?
GREAT POINT. In the past I'd say the camera would be easier to sell but Gucci shoes may sell well on ebay.