AC owes Oakville family $70,000 for passenger rights violation
Sep 7, 2018, 4:52 pm
#31
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 17,404
The whole incident reeks of reprisal for causing a difficulty. And maybe for not being deferential enough to the cabin crew.
Sep 7, 2018, 6:22 pm
#34
Join Date: May 2012
Location: BKK/SIN/YYZ/YUL
Programs: DL, AC, Bonvoy, Accor, Hilton
Posts: 2,917
India may have been late to ratifying the Montreal Convention (2009), but it ratified. This judgment is a gone. The Convention exists to protect a critical part of the worldwide economy from petty local squabbles. It is what the Convention refers to as a "purely psychiatric" injury and thus, at worst the family gets whatever IDB gets you in India or perhaps Canada.
This was a rather brutal case as the commissioners found the conduct of some of the airline personnel cruel and deficient.
The implicated crew were found to have bullied/humiliated etc. a minor. Compounding the issue was that the family was abandoned at the airport with no luggage, and no assistance. I think part of the issue was how Air Canada handled this matter after the family was tossed. Perhaps the decision is contrary to the Montreal Convention. However, the Commission addressed that when it stated that the airline's deficient acts of service were a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Sorry to say, but that's a rather smart way around the Montreal Convention. An agreement to limit civil liability cannot put aside an international agreement on basic human rights.
Besides, the Air Canada defense did not rely on the Montreal Convention
it seems that none of the forum super elites understood that salient point.Apparently counsel was present and the legal defense was part of the reason why the commission decided against Air Canada. Counsel argued that because Jet Airways received the airfare, there was no contract of carriage between the plaintiffs and Air Canada. That argument was rightfully dismissed. Laughable too. (I suspect some articling student was used.
)BTW, I don't know where the $75,000 comes from. Jet Airways and Air Canada were found jointly and severally liable for 3,500,000 rupees which is about $65,000 or $32,000 each. It's Jet Airways that should be complaining since it is being held vicariously liable for the actions of Air Canada.
Sep 7, 2018, 6:30 pm
#35
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,791
Retired judges obviously have too much time on their hands.
http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetPdf.do?method=getPdf&cid=12%2F0%2FCC%2F820%2F20 17&dtOfHearing=2018-07-23
Makes for fun reading.
A few points:
1. The judge denies airlines the right to deplane sick passengers without more careful screening. One would hope that does not stand.
2. Guess what, they invoke racism without a shred of evidence beyond them being non-white. The AC statement in the respect sounds reasonable to me.
3. On the other hand they should have been dealt with better after they deplaned.
I cannot imagine that ruling with stand in appeal.
http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetPdf.do?method=getPdf&cid=12%2F0%2FCC%2F820%2F20 17&dtOfHearing=2018-07-23
Makes for fun reading.
A few points:
1. The judge denies airlines the right to deplane sick passengers without more careful screening. One would hope that does not stand.
2. Guess what, they invoke racism without a shred of evidence beyond them being non-white. The AC statement in the respect sounds reasonable to me.
3. On the other hand they should have been dealt with better after they deplaned.
I cannot imagine that ruling with stand in appeal.
Sep 7, 2018, 7:02 pm
#36
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: perth
Programs: SPG(LTG), QANTAS gold, Korean, Accor Plat
Posts: 1,500
If I saw someone throw up before a 14 hour flight, I wouldn't want them on board. And given what happened the other day with EK in NYC, I don't think the airline or government would want them on board either.
II haven't read the article, but clearly the humiliation must have been severe.
The last thing I'd want if I'm sick is to be humiliated for it. I threw up on a flight within the past year. Everyone around already knows it's happening. I don't need the crew to rub it in.
II haven't read the article, but clearly the humiliation must have been severe.
The last thing I'd want if I'm sick is to be humiliated for it. I threw up on a flight within the past year. Everyone around already knows it's happening. I don't need the crew to rub it in.
I totally agree that medical reason is sufficient to remove some passengers from the flight, as the EK incident at JFK mentioned above (and all those zombie movies :P ). However it's very often that the cabin crew did not handle these situations properly, or the rebooking process is less than satisfactory.
Sep 7, 2018, 7:33 pm
#37
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2017
Programs: AC
Posts: 2,167
I fully agree with you that Post B has every right to state that in his opinion Post A is ridiculous. But, that isn't what happened. Post A stated his opinion based on his review of the data. Post B stated that the poster in Post A had no right to his opinion unless he was a judge in the court. That it what I am commenting on. Everybody is entitled to their opinion and it doesn't require being a judge in a court to have one.
I believe someone smarter than me once said (and there are many who are smarter than me). Opinions are like......everyone has one. And quite frankly, there are seldom opinions that are "wrong", but quite often opinions may not be one that others agree with, but that does not make it wrong, at all.
Sep 7, 2018, 7:37 pm
#38
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC SE MM, Bonvoy Plat, Hilton G,Nexus, Amex MR Plat,IHG Plat
Posts: 4,417
Retired judges obviously have too much time on their hands.
http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetP...ing=2018-07-23
Makes for fun reading.
A few points:
1. The judge denies airlines the right to deplane sick passengers without more careful screening. One would hope that does not stand.
2. Guess what, they invoke racism without a shred of evidence beyond them being non-white. The AC statement in the respect sounds reasonable to me.
3. On the other hand they should have been dealt with better after they deplaned.
I cannot imagine that ruling with stand in appeal.
http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetP...ing=2018-07-23
Makes for fun reading.
A few points:
1. The judge denies airlines the right to deplane sick passengers without more careful screening. One would hope that does not stand.
2. Guess what, they invoke racism without a shred of evidence beyond them being non-white. The AC statement in the respect sounds reasonable to me.
3. On the other hand they should have been dealt with better after they deplaned.
I cannot imagine that ruling with stand in appeal.
For point 1, seems like AC deplaned the passenger because they assumed sickness because she threw up. What the ruling said was that AC threw them off without even ascertaining that she was sick. As they said, she threw up from the noxious smell from the closed washroom. Berating the kid and family was extra.
Point 3, I think we all agree. This was likely the biggest catalyst for the harsh amount awarded.
Poor Jet Airways, caught in the crossfire.
Sep 8, 2018, 8:32 am
#39
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: West
Posts: 3,357
On the basis what is in the article, the ruling of the compensation is justified and the amount is insufficient. This opinion is based on putting my self in the same situation as the family. The stench could (and did in a different circumstance) cause me to have an involuntary spasmic movements without being ill prior to boarding. The cause of the event is squarely on AC, as reported.
Sep 8, 2018, 11:06 am
#40
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
Nope. read the basis of the award.
This was a rather brutal case as the commissioners found the conduct of some of the airline personnel cruel and deficient.
The implicated crew were found to have bullied/humiliated etc. a minor. Compounding the issue was that the family was abandoned at the airport with no luggage, and no assistance. I think part of the issue was how Air Canada handled this matter after the family was tossed. Perhaps the decision is contrary to the Montreal Convention. However, the Commission addressed that when it stated that the airline's deficient acts of service were a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Sorry to say, but that's a rather smart way around the Montreal Convention. An agreement to limit civil liability cannot put aside an international agreement on basic human rights.
Besides, the Air Canada defense did not rely on the Montreal Convention
Bingo. You are one of the few who get's it. That's what the commissioners saw, and that's what I believe happened. Nonsuprisingly,
it seems that none of the forum super elites understood that salient point.
Apparently counsel was present and the legal defense was part of the reason why the commission decided against Air Canada. Counsel argued that because Jet Airways received the airfare, there was no contract of carriage between the plaintiffs and Air Canada. That argument was rightfully dismissed. Laughable too. (I suspect some articling student was used. )
BTW, I don't know where the $75,000 comes from. Jet Airways and Air Canada were found jointly and severally liable for 3,500,000 rupees which is about $65,000 or $32,000 each. It's Jet Airways that should be complaining since it is being held vicariously liable for the actions of Air Canada.
This was a rather brutal case as the commissioners found the conduct of some of the airline personnel cruel and deficient.
The implicated crew were found to have bullied/humiliated etc. a minor. Compounding the issue was that the family was abandoned at the airport with no luggage, and no assistance. I think part of the issue was how Air Canada handled this matter after the family was tossed. Perhaps the decision is contrary to the Montreal Convention. However, the Commission addressed that when it stated that the airline's deficient acts of service were a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Sorry to say, but that's a rather smart way around the Montreal Convention. An agreement to limit civil liability cannot put aside an international agreement on basic human rights.
Besides, the Air Canada defense did not rely on the Montreal Convention
Bingo. You are one of the few who get's it. That's what the commissioners saw, and that's what I believe happened. Nonsuprisingly,
it seems that none of the forum super elites understood that salient point.
Apparently counsel was present and the legal defense was part of the reason why the commission decided against Air Canada. Counsel argued that because Jet Airways received the airfare, there was no contract of carriage between the plaintiffs and Air Canada. That argument was rightfully dismissed. Laughable too. (I suspect some articling student was used.
)BTW, I don't know where the $75,000 comes from. Jet Airways and Air Canada were found jointly and severally liable for 3,500,000 rupees which is about $65,000 or $32,000 each. It's Jet Airways that should be complaining since it is being held vicariously liable for the actions of Air Canada.
The UDHR is asserted routinely. It too is simply a treaty obligation of India.
All of this also protects AI aircraft from the sticky fingers of local jurisdictions where it flies.
Last edited by Often1; Sep 8, 2018 at 11:14 am
Sep 8, 2018, 12:33 pm
#41
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: トロント
Programs: IHG Gold
Posts: 4,818
On the basis what is in the article, the ruling of the compensation is justified and the amount is insufficient. This opinion is based on putting my self in the same situation as the family. The stench could (and did in a different circumstance) cause me to have an involuntary spasmic movements without being ill prior to boarding. The cause of the event is squarely on AC, as reported.
Sep 8, 2018, 1:10 pm
#42
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: West
Posts: 3,357
If my doing causes you to retch on my premises and I then humiliate you publicly, kicking you off the premises, preventing you from getting to the destination you paid for; you for sure will thank me for it and smile. ^
Last edited by tcook052; Sep 8, 2018 at 8:39 pm
Sep 8, 2018, 4:06 pm
#43
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: トロント
Programs: IHG Gold
Posts: 4,818
No I won't. I don't view life as some kind of "get as much as you can" out of every inconvenience. Some do, but not me.
Last edited by tcook052; Sep 8, 2018 at 8:39 pm
Sep 8, 2018, 5:36 pm
#44
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: MEX/YVR/YYF
Programs: AS MVP/AC75K/AM Gold/UA*S/SPG-Marriott Lifetime Titanium/Accor-FPC Gold/HHDiamond/Hyatt Exp
Posts: 5,035
I am still thinking about the AC crew berating a child.
I have witnessed AC crew screaming at adults in English, while departing a non-English destination, and that was only about carry-on bag issues. I can only imagine what happened with this crew, when they realized there was vomit to clean-up at the start of a long-haul flight.
Perhaps I am wrong.
I have witnessed AC crew screaming at adults in English, while departing a non-English destination, and that was only about carry-on bag issues. I can only imagine what happened with this crew, when they realized there was vomit to clean-up at the start of a long-haul flight.
Perhaps I am wrong.
Sep 8, 2018, 6:43 pm
#45
Join Date: Aug 2012
Programs: AC E35K, NEXUS
Posts: 4,368
The vomiter was a child. Children should be forgiven for not having cultivated the ability to tolerate fetid odours without retching. An inclination to vomit can be aggravated by motion sickness (perhaps still feeling a previous flight segment, or the car ride to the airport), seeing others retching, smelling odours reminiscent or suggestive of others retching, and general "stomach awareness" such as on a roller coaster (where it is not typical motion sickness but feeling the acceleration on the stomach contents) or even having an over-full stomach from a recent meal. I had the latter recently when I mis-timed my last meal before a long run. It was all I could do, as a seasoned adult, not to vomit in the bushes, but it was a race, and there were reasons why I had to stick it out. I thought of nothing else for the first 8K. I can only imagine if I had been just 11 years old and situated next to inescapably objectionable odour.
The monetary award is not compensation for being forced to vomit. It is compensation for being deliberately humiliated and unilaterally "reaccommodated" with insufficient emphasis on the "accommodation" part. Within the scope of the Montreal convention, the conclusion makes sense to me.
The monetary award is not compensation for being forced to vomit. It is compensation for being deliberately humiliated and unilaterally "reaccommodated" with insufficient emphasis on the "accommodation" part. Within the scope of the Montreal convention, the conclusion makes sense to me.