JeffS

I don't think you have not considered my line of argument at all before provding this response. My point is this: allowing the late arrival of equipment to be classified as weather related can lead to abuse. The LHR-SFO-NRT-SIN is an extreme scenario but it does fall within "late arrival = weather related delay." It is as simple as that.

Now how does your perception of the flaw in my logic tie to this or are you referring to something else? Please elaborate.

Futhermore, by allowing late arrival of eqiupment to be classifed as weather, what's stopping an airline from doing what robinhood pointed out? What about what I pointed out on the post posted ast 06-26-2001 06:41 PM?


Next, you have to point out exactly how I discarded the "spare part" defense. Please elaborate.

My point on the spares is that UA's inability to have a spare does not qualify it as a Force Majeure Event. I disagree with SuzanneSLO's definition of "facilities" because if a "shortage of facilities" is referring to equipment, then every single mechancial can then be classifed as a Force Majeure Event and UA would really not have to do anything except to provide refunds for all types of delays.

Then why is there even a Rule 240 if the "facilities" is referring to aircraft? If facilities is referring to aircraft, Rule 240 might have just been written that a Force Majeure Event is any type of delay.

I believe what facilities is referring to is airport and takeoff/landing slots. Shortage of facilities explains how ATC delays are Force Majeure Events. ATC delays are the temporary shortage of takeoff/landing slots.

[This message has been edited by seawolf (edited 06-27-2001).]