China Airlines threatening to sue me over a blog post.
Aug 6, 2013, 8:45 pm
#1
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: DFW
Programs: UA Pleb, HH Gold, PWP General Secretary
Posts: 23,199
China Airlines threatening to sue me over a blog post.
of the day
Aug 7, 2013, 10:02 am
#2
Join Date: Oct 2012
Programs: Dynasty Frequent Flyer (Elite Plus),Accor Platinum
Posts: 1,866
Well this is a tough one. I would be interested to see if China airlines wants to sue others like you stated yahoo for the previous publications.
While facts do tell a good amount there are many flaws in the approach and actually this should be controlled at the source (JACDEC) It was very unfair to CI and the bottom 10 airlines as I am sure they must me half decent airlines even lower than 60-100 range.
As i said its a tricky business about what is damaging to a company or not.
I personally will be flying on China airlines this Saturday and Sunday and i have no worries. Maybe 20 years ago i would.
One other thing that is a little unfair is airlines that have started up since like the 1990's most of these like the middle eastern airlines. No doubt flying has become much safer since the late 80's.
Going through all the communications between all parties. And seeing Yahoo did bring down the article i think its fair to bring down your article. Because while you did put doubt of Korean airlines and 1 or 2 other airlines you didn't exactly defend all of them.
There is no need to stand your ground i think. Just it was bad reporting by yahoo that you picked up and to avoid clearing the damaging parts did need to state clearly that it was actually the safest 60 airlines in the world. I know you did edit it below.
Anyway i can understand from both sides their valid points but it was still damaging to the airline as you have to understand there are many people who would have still thought CI was the worst airline in the world.
I hope anyway for CI this will not be a problem very soon as they have improved greatly and the last incident was handled very well without any loss in life.
I could go on and on about all the specifics and how the law can be an pain but just think if you was shareholders or working for CI might be more concerned.
Anyway i think any other airline put in position 60 would have maybe issued a similar request.
While facts do tell a good amount there are many flaws in the approach and actually this should be controlled at the source (JACDEC) It was very unfair to CI and the bottom 10 airlines as I am sure they must me half decent airlines even lower than 60-100 range.
As i said its a tricky business about what is damaging to a company or not.
I personally will be flying on China airlines this Saturday and Sunday and i have no worries. Maybe 20 years ago i would.
One other thing that is a little unfair is airlines that have started up since like the 1990's most of these like the middle eastern airlines. No doubt flying has become much safer since the late 80's.
Going through all the communications between all parties. And seeing Yahoo did bring down the article i think its fair to bring down your article. Because while you did put doubt of Korean airlines and 1 or 2 other airlines you didn't exactly defend all of them.
There is no need to stand your ground i think. Just it was bad reporting by yahoo that you picked up and to avoid clearing the damaging parts did need to state clearly that it was actually the safest 60 airlines in the world. I know you did edit it below.
Anyway i can understand from both sides their valid points but it was still damaging to the airline as you have to understand there are many people who would have still thought CI was the worst airline in the world.
I hope anyway for CI this will not be a problem very soon as they have improved greatly and the last incident was handled very well without any loss in life.
I could go on and on about all the specifics and how the law can be an pain but just think if you was shareholders or working for CI might be more concerned.
Anyway i think any other airline put in position 60 would have maybe issued a similar request.
Aug 10, 2013, 3:17 pm
#4
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,969
I wonder whose law applies and how the law governs these things.
In Taiwan, they have some strange laws. For example, if someone is rude to you on the street and you say something bad to the person back (even something like "stupid"), that person can sue you for damages. If you put bad reviews up against an establishment without proof, you can be sued. Yet, the Taiwanese news media is extremely shallow, inaccurate and irresponsible on many things...
There was a case where this woman said a bunch of bad things to another person and she had to spend a decent amount of money to buy a first page ad on a major newspaper to apologize. In the ad, she repeated what she said (i.e. "I apologize for calling xxx %&(, &*() and &*("). It was really funny.
There is no doubt CI is a lot safer now and seemed to have broken the 7 year curse. However, many of the past incidents were inexcusable. Does CI really want to sue and have its safety record rehashed?
This definitely reminds me of OZ wanting to sue the SFO TV station for the whole "Sum Ting Wong" fiasco. Isn't the best thing to do to let these things just fade away?
In Taiwan, they have some strange laws. For example, if someone is rude to you on the street and you say something bad to the person back (even something like "stupid"), that person can sue you for damages. If you put bad reviews up against an establishment without proof, you can be sued. Yet, the Taiwanese news media is extremely shallow, inaccurate and irresponsible on many things...
There was a case where this woman said a bunch of bad things to another person and she had to spend a decent amount of money to buy a first page ad on a major newspaper to apologize. In the ad, she repeated what she said (i.e. "I apologize for calling xxx %&(, &*() and &*("). It was really funny.
There is no doubt CI is a lot safer now and seemed to have broken the 7 year curse. However, many of the past incidents were inexcusable. Does CI really want to sue and have its safety record rehashed?
This definitely reminds me of OZ wanting to sue the SFO TV station for the whole "Sum Ting Wong" fiasco. Isn't the best thing to do to let these things just fade away?
Aug 10, 2013, 4:15 pm
#5
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
This is BS on someone's part:
1. Law firms don't send "cease-and-desist" e-mails.
2. Law firms don't tell potential tortfeasors that someone else has threatened to sue them.
3. When a law firm sends a cease-and-desist letter, it identifies the specific conduct that is asserted as illegal. The purpose of a cease-and-desist letter is not only to cause the recipient to stop the alleged unlawful conduct, but to establish a basis for alleging that such conduct is intentional.
4. The e-mail is not, remotely, lawyer-like. I know Squire Sanders well -- it is a well-respected firm that employs very skilled and capable lawyers. I can't imagine any of them drafting correspondence like this.
5. As a rule, lawyers don't sign professional correspondence with their first names unless they are writing to someone with whom they have a pre-exisiting relationship for which such informality is appropriate. It is NEVER appropriate to do so in an initial cease-and-desist correspondence.
In short, I don't believe that either this email was received or, if it was, it is what it purports to be.
1. Law firms don't send "cease-and-desist" e-mails.
2. Law firms don't tell potential tortfeasors that someone else has threatened to sue them.
3. When a law firm sends a cease-and-desist letter, it identifies the specific conduct that is asserted as illegal. The purpose of a cease-and-desist letter is not only to cause the recipient to stop the alleged unlawful conduct, but to establish a basis for alleging that such conduct is intentional.
4. The e-mail is not, remotely, lawyer-like. I know Squire Sanders well -- it is a well-respected firm that employs very skilled and capable lawyers. I can't imagine any of them drafting correspondence like this.
5. As a rule, lawyers don't sign professional correspondence with their first names unless they are writing to someone with whom they have a pre-exisiting relationship for which such informality is appropriate. It is NEVER appropriate to do so in an initial cease-and-desist correspondence.
In short, I don't believe that either this email was received or, if it was, it is what it purports to be.
Aug 10, 2013, 5:38 pm
#6
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York and Vienna
Programs: PA WorldPass Platinum, AA, DL, LH. GHA Black, SPG and HHonors Gold
Posts: 3,870
This is BS on someone's part:
1. Law firms don't send "cease-and-desist" e-mails.
2. Law firms don't tell potential tortfeasors that someone else has threatened to sue them.
3. When a law firm sends a cease-and-desist letter, it identifies the specific conduct that is asserted as illegal. The purpose of a cease-and-desist letter is not only to cause the recipient to stop the alleged unlawful conduct, but to establish a basis for alleging that such conduct is intentional.
4. The e-mail is not, remotely, lawyer-like. I know Squire Sanders well -- it is a well-respected firm that employs very skilled and capable lawyers. I can't imagine any of them drafting correspondence like this.
5. As a rule, lawyers don't sign professional correspondence with their first names unless they are writing to someone with whom they have a pre-exisiting relationship for which such informality is appropriate. It is NEVER appropriate to do so in an initial cease-and-desist correspondence.
In short, I don't believe that either this email was received or, if it was, it is what it purports to be.
1. Law firms don't send "cease-and-desist" e-mails.
2. Law firms don't tell potential tortfeasors that someone else has threatened to sue them.
3. When a law firm sends a cease-and-desist letter, it identifies the specific conduct that is asserted as illegal. The purpose of a cease-and-desist letter is not only to cause the recipient to stop the alleged unlawful conduct, but to establish a basis for alleging that such conduct is intentional.
4. The e-mail is not, remotely, lawyer-like. I know Squire Sanders well -- it is a well-respected firm that employs very skilled and capable lawyers. I can't imagine any of them drafting correspondence like this.
5. As a rule, lawyers don't sign professional correspondence with their first names unless they are writing to someone with whom they have a pre-exisiting relationship for which such informality is appropriate. It is NEVER appropriate to do so in an initial cease-and-desist correspondence.
In short, I don't believe that either this email was received or, if it was, it is what it purports to be.
I know this because Business Insider threatened to sue me today.