Dean Cooperfield_West

If they win $500k I would not mind being on a plane in a similar situation. An initial "oh look, the engine is on fire and the fire engines are there putting it out" followed by a slide down the slide does not strike me as hard work for $500k.

rapidex

Trouble is,fire is rather unpredictable.Next time it may not be quite so simple.

JohnnyColombia

I completely agree. Reroutes, emergency descents, go arounds, bags missing for a few days, IFE not working, turbulence spilling my drink etc. They are all part and parcel of flying that we take into account when we buy the ticket.

I would draw the line though at the plane bursting into flames during the take off roll. That's not something I signed up for. I have no idea what the cause was but I would expect whoever was responsible to compensate the pax for what must have been a terrifying experience, and no, I do not think $500K is excessive.

I am British but be damned my stiff upper lip, if someone asked me right now whether I would like half a million dollars or a guarantee that I am not in a 180mph fireball that I might not get out of alive then I think I would take that assurance and forego the money.

Global321

Silly comment. Zero harm done by those passengers.

Sue BA as well! History of fires on their planes. A culture of indifference towards safety because they have had other mishaps. Where is the line?

It could be, but where do we draw the line? Car accident on the way to work... give me money for the rest of my life because I have a fear of driving.... Mom and Dad were too tough... or no mom and dad... PTSD from childhood... give me money.

I am not doubting people get effected by all sorts of things - and paying for some counseling may be appropriate and fair... but money for your PTSD is too fare IMHO.

Can I sue FT for PTSD for all the flames I am going to get from this post?!?!

UncleDude

Likewise Zero harm is done by 99.9 per cent of drivers who go through on Red lights..Its the people like me who lose a loved one to the small minority who choice to ignore rules they should follow.

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

It's this.

Accident reports come out with the caveat that they don't assign blame... they are to help the industry learn and be safer.

But if we didn't, as consumers, have legal recourse, and hold people accountable, who will?

Sure the system isn't perfect. Some would argue commercial considerations alone would be enough to promote safety. But without legal recourse, without legal examination, where does the consumer go to get answers and, for those directly affected, at least an attempt at closure?

Consider MH17. Would the issue of the choice of flight path ever get seriously examined if there wasn't a pending course case? Who knows, but a court case will force the issue, it will force the airline to defend its actions.

Or do the doubters advocate we go back to the system 100 or so years ago where we had no workers' protection, no consumer protection, and few rights?

Global321

Completely different. However, IF someone can PROVE they were physically harmed specifically because of those carrying bags, by all means, they should sue them. But we have zero documented cases of direct harm coming from bag carriers. And there are so many other factors that would have higher potential. (i.e. delay in shoots being deployed, doors not opening quick enough, comfort dogs!, the obese, etc.)

Flexible preferences

I don't think your post is very balanced. The line will be naturally drawn where the law allows. You mention paying for counselling may be appropriate and fair, yet not for PTSD, even though this can be one of the most extreme and debilitating of conditions and can be successfully treated with Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, but CBT isn't cheap.

I'm curious why you feel so strongly against people being awarded compensation for injury? Lol @ sueing FT

Armodeen

Because whilst a number of people will have suffered genuine mental injury in the incident, still more will not and will be joining in for a fat payout only. Do you really think the lawyers haven't been ringing round all the pax convincing them to sue? That is what bothers people, this compensation culture.

And also whilst CBT isn't free it isn't $M expensive, the vast majority won't require endless treatment.

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

I think the question has to be 'why, exactly' it troubles people? Holding others accountable is a well established legal principle.

I see no problem with the compensation culture in so far as it (a) can genuinely compensate those who need it and (b) provides accountability, and (c) hopefully provides incentive to avoid similar situations occurring again in the future.

Armodeen

Because the amount sought is usually considered excessive by the layperson.

The internet is littered with stories of spurious lawsuits which garner resentment due to the sheer audacity of the claimants. Some of this resentment is naturally then applied to more genuine claims when the amount asked for is seen as excessive.

Dean Cooperfield_West

The fire crews were there within 90 seconds, the fire never penetrated the fuselage, the internal cabin of the aircraft was pretty much intact, and the plane did not take off, nor did the pilot lose control.

$500k is excessive. It is useless to say fire is unpredictable as we are not predicting what would happen again, we are looking at what did happen. The compensation needs to reflect the event. As it stands, JohnnyColombia, ask yourself this: Would you take $500k or would you be in a 180mph plane which stops and you need to jump down the slide, and everyone will be safe?

I actually reject you claim fire is unpredictable. It is not that simple. The worst that could have happened is all the fuel ignited in the tanks after the fire spread down fuel lines. Not only is this very unlikely but the systems are designed to prevent this. Secondly, there could be concerns about what if the engine casing failed to contain as much of the blast as it did, or the fire suppression system stopped working, or the pilot lost control, or the pilot panicked, or the fire service were not there within 2 minutes: all of these ifs are irrelevant, as one of them failing would be against what they were designed to do.

If you allow questions about something not doing what it was meant to do to arise in a claim for compensation, to be coherent you must start asking yourself in the case of being given a bad meal "what if the food gave me food poisoning and was not cooked right" Using your ridiculous logic of things happening differently, receiving a bad meal should be treated the same as being given food positioning as things could happen differently. We all know how unpredictable the quality of Gate Gourmet is.

FrancisA

I despair!

If there is anyone else on this board who thinks it is acceptable to remove hand luggage (including full size wheelies) from the overheads during an emergency vacation, please speak now!

I for one do not want to be on a plane with you.

Whether any harm was done or not is entirely irrelevant - the person doing this selfish act could not know (and probably didn't care) whether it would harm (and quite possibly kill) someone else.

How can saving your hand luggage (from probably nothing more than smoke damage) be worth killing someone?

The 1985 Manchester air disaster killed 55 people. Most of them died of smoke inhalation during an emergency evacuation for fire on the ground. How many more would have died if those at the front had slowed things down by retrieving hand luggage?

If there is a silly comment being made in this thread, I'd look a lot closer to home than my comment.

BA Humbug

I think(hope) 110pgl is not saying that at all. S/he is saying that it's frivolous to take action against those people for the fire on the plane.

While I agree with the sentiment that those who take hand baggage with them should be shot, there's also not much that can be done when they do so and nothing happens. Until laws/regulations/fines are passed, they're not breaking the law (Lawyer types: could this count as reckless endangerment?). And, unfortunately, until you/someone gets hurt by this, there's not much recourse you can take. Using an upthread example, if someone continuously runs red lights but doesn't hurt anyone, is it possible to sue them? Yes, they broke the law, and the law can prosecute based on that. But can someone who was not affected by it, take action against the driver? It's highly unlikely.

If you could sue someone for endangering your life, bungee jumping would have never taken off.

FrancisA

As I said in my original post, these people ignored the lawful command of the captain (not to take hand luggage). They are therefore potentially guilty of a criminal offence, for which I really do think they should be prosecuted to set an example to other selfish people.

In this case the lack of physical injury is irrelevant. If I were on that flight, desperate to get out, the sight of people obstructing my exit by removing hand luggage may have caused me considerable fear and mental trauma. If I were a person who were aware of previous smoke-related air disasters like Manchester, that knowledge may have exacerbated my mental anguish.

Beginning to sound like a case?

To be honest we are moving to a society where no rules matter and if no one is harmed, who's bothered if the rules are broken?

Of course, that won't always be the case and as with the jumping red lights example, there will be innocent victims of someone's selfish behaviour.