Originally Posted by
CZAMFlyer
A bit strong, do you think? AC's response was entirely voluntary, and the heat of public pressure - outside of this thread - was no higher than a very low simmer. Perhaps the vaulter's status with the airline may have been a factor in the settlement; she claimed to have spent a lot of money on flights. Perhaps the airline is actually responsible for the damage.
Like most stories, there's often a lot of information we don't know. But it's less fun to sit quietly and wait for details instead of rushing to make completely unfounded declarations such as:
It doesn't matter whether the airline "is actually responsible for the damage." If it occurs between the time that you check it at your origin and when it is returned to you at your destination, the airline is liable -- and the amount for which it is liable is stated in your CoC or the relevant international convention. As I stated, unless AC offered additional insurance coverage to the vaulter and the vaulter accepted and paid for this additional coverage, the amounts that AC is paying in excess of its ordinary liability of ~US$1500 is strictly a goodwill gesture -- and as longtimeflyin observed, one that can only be paid for by excess revenues collected from other pax -- at least in the business world of which I am aware. But because I only have about 7 twitter followers and not 117K, I doubt that if AC damages my $10K of camera equipment, they will offer me more than squat.