Rambuster

EU claim will take care of it if you have a legit claim. They only take their cut if successful ! http://www.euclaim.co.uk/

docbert

It's impossible to say without having the full details, but that most likely negates the EU compensation requirements - or at least, that's what United will claim (and possibly correctly).

In general, "Safety" issues are exempt from the compensation requirements, so as long as UA didn't know about the failure in advance, and as long as they can in some way consider it a safety concern, then all bets are off.

It's a nice loophole for the airlines, but also one that obviously needs to exist.

Passmethesickbag

Only it doesn't exist. See Wallentin-Hermann vs Alitalia—Linee Aeree Italiane SpA (Case C-549/07, 22 December 2008).

fivesixseven

On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby rules:

3. The fact that an air carrier has complied with the minimum rules on maintenance of an aircraft cannot in itself suffice to establish that that carrier has taken ‘all reasonable measures’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 and, therefore, to relieve that carrier of its obligation to pay compensation provided for by Articles 5(1)(c) and 7(1) of that regulation.

EsquireFlyer

This. ^

Often times, laws are passed imposing penalties in excess of the loss to an individual victim, because the government believes that it is in the state's best interest to discourage certain conduct (the conduct being punished), and that requiring the offender to compensate individual victims for their actual losses is insufficient because: (1) not all victims will spend the time to file a complaint, (2) not all victims know the law, and (3) the conduct being punished has a negative effect on society, beyond the negative effect on individual victims.

So, in effect, it's like a government fine, but the government gives the fine money to the victims who have suffered some harm (even if it's a smaller amount of harm than the amount of the fine), rather than just mixing it into the treasury. And by giving the penalty to the victims, the government saves the expense of having to hire people to enforce this law (police, prosecutors, etc.) because the government gives the victims a financial incentive to enforce the law themselves (as "private attorneys general").

But, in order for this system to work, victims have to stand up for their rights under the law and seek the statutory compensation from the offender when the conduct that the law seeks to punish occurs. If victims refrain from filing complaints, or request only smaller amounts of compensation, because they do not want to be "greedy" (or because other people try to make them feel guilty for being "greedy"), the entire system fails to work, and the government must either let the harmful activity continue, unregulated, or impose more draconian regulations and spend government funds enforcing them.

For this reason alone, I think everyone who qualifies for compensation under this EU regulation should seek it, and should feel entitled to do so, even if the amount of compensation exceeds their personal loss.

And of course, the flip side is that if there are specific individuals who suffer losses in excess of €600 (for example, missed a critical business meeting and lost a €100,000 contract) as a direct result of the airline's failure to properly maintain its aircraft, this regulation (and other laws and international conventions) protect the airline by limiting the airline's liability to a relativy small amount that the airline can foresee and can reasonably afford.

Passmethesickbag

Thank you mahasatmatman and Collegeflyer for answering more eloquently than I could have. As for


all I have to add is, why does UA feel entitled to keep my fare (and taxes) if my ticket is non-changeable? Why does UA otherwise feel entitled to charge me change and cancelation fees? Why does UA feel entitled to charge me "copay" in considerable excess of the additional taxes and catering costs for an upgrade to a seat that would otherwise be empty? The answer is that they're not a registered charity, and neither am I. Our relationship may be codependent (mostly on my part ), but it's still a business relationship. But if they are willing to waive all fees and copays for me in perpetuity, I'm certainly willing to make a deal!

planemechanic

That's just a circular argument, and does nothing to actually answer the question.

Why do you feel it is justified that the law forces any airline to pay 600 euros, when you car dealer, your baker, your butcher are not forced to pay you 600 euros when THEY disappoint you? Why are the airlines special?

mahasamatman

So if you say you deserve to be paid because your contract stipulates it as long as you do your job (because, quite frankly, there is no other reason your employer should pay you), is that also circular reasoning?

Because nobody passed a law punishing those other industries for decades of customer abuse and mistreatment.

But as I said, if you're interested in why the EU passed the law, the arguments are a matter of public record.

planemechanic

You seem to be quite the master of missing the point and not understanding the question. Great Job!

GoAmtrak

He's not alone. I still don't understand what you're getting at. If you entered into any business contract and the other party reneged in a way that the governing law prescribed very specific compensation, would you really put yourself at further disadvantage by not pursuing such damages out of some sort of principle? No sane actor in a capitalist society would leave money on the table like that. Airlines certainly don't, and neither should their customers in cases like this.

ETA: This is especially true when you're David and the other guy is Goliath. Shame on CO/UA for stonewalling legitimate claims under this law.

mahasamatman

If you'd actually make a point instead of just ranting about nothing, maybe it would work better. I and others have answered you many times over now, but obviously since we don't agree with you, we must all be wrong and missing your non-point. Right?

planemechanic

You have failed to answer my question each time you have posted, instead you have answered the question in your mind, which doesn't do me any good.

If you feel it is fair to penalize airlines specifically for disappointing you, why do you limit your disappointment to airlines, and not to every company you do business with?

keithguy

It's not passengers that are penalizing airlines. It's the European Commission. Passengers receive compensation that is awarded by the European Commission.

Other businesses do get 'penalized'. In the EU, compensation may also apply for delayed international train services. In the US, one can sue.

Tarpie

Is your problem that the government fine does not go to the government, but goes to the abused directly?

EPA fines companies for violations. OSHA fines companies for violations. Same with the SEC.

All kinds of laws apply just to train operators. Same can be said for trucking companies. Also taxis and bus operators. I don't think airlines are unique in having specific laws regulating their business.

Many companies I do business with have laws regulating them to protect me (keep me from being disappointed). Sunoco's pumps are inspected. Restaurants have health inspectors. The electric and gas company are highly regulated. Banks too.

Pretty much every company I deal with will be fined for disappointing me.

EsquireFlyer

Indeed. The US has many similar statutes, just not for airlines. For example, many (most?) states have landlord-tenant statutes which say that if a landlord locks a tenant out of an apartment (e.g. over a rent dispute, but without going to court--simply changing the locks), the landlord automatically owes the tenant 2-3 months' rent as statutory damages, even if the tenant's actual loss was only a couple nights' hotel stay.

Similarly, American qui tam statutes allow private citizens to file lawsuits against government contractors who are defrauding the government, and gives the citizen who files the claim a percentage of the government funds recovered.

If tenants who were locked out were criticized from the peanut gallery for collecting penalties that they were not "entitled" to, or qui tam plaintiffs (relators) were bullied by random passersby asking them why they felt entitled to take a cut of the government's money, when it wasn't their money that the contractors had fraudulently taken...then these statutes would cease to function.

So, not only do I think anyone who is legally entitled to collect damages under a consumer-protection statute should feel entitled to those damages, but I actually think that it may well be the citizen's civic duty to collect those damages, because that is what the legislature and the President have stated that they want the citizen to do, in order to help the government punish behavior that the government has declared to be wrongful.