Supreme Court Tosses Lawsuit by Disgruntled Frequent Flier
Apr 4, 2014, 9:49 am
#241
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: CT
Programs: DL DM 2MM, MR LTT, Hilton D, Hertz PC. National Emerald Exec, UA Silver(thanks to Marriott)
Posts: 2,026
Supreme Court Tosses Lawsuit by Disgruntled Frequent Flier
the guy needs to see a therapist and learn to let go of crap. I can't believe he took it this far. any reasonable person could see that it was an abuse of benefits and take their lumps. DL had to finish it because he wouldn't let it go
Apr 4, 2014, 10:01 am
#242
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: HKG
Programs: DL FO, UA, AA, AsiaMiles, SPG, HHonors
Posts: 7,982
Over the years on this (and other FF boards), many real and armchair lawyers have argued that much of the airlines COC do not matter as they violate (state) common law.
For better or worse, this is now clear. Your "contract" with DL (or any airline) now stands even if the terms and/or execution go against anything you might assume would restrict such contracts.
So now, many common sense protections established through centuries of Judicial ruling can no longer be used against the airlines on this matter.
I actually agree with the SCOTUS, but am not happy about the result.
For better or worse, this is now clear. Your "contract" with DL (or any airline) now stands even if the terms and/or execution go against anything you might assume would restrict such contracts.
So now, many common sense protections established through centuries of Judicial ruling can no longer be used against the airlines on this matter.
I actually agree with the SCOTUS, but am not happy about the result.
Apr 4, 2014, 10:05 am
#243
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: HKG
Programs: DL FO, UA, AA, AsiaMiles, SPG, HHonors
Posts: 7,982
Ha ha, so read the whole thread and even the links to other threads, and even read the entire SCOTUS ruling..
Please oh please, where is Ptravel now....how about a big slice of humble pie to wash down that big yummy plate of crow!
HongKonger, my next Woodford I will tilt slightly in your direction...heh heh heh..
Of course in my mind I have this sick fantasy of HongKonger actually being on the Supreme Court and we just didn't know it!
And yes this was my first post after years of lurking this thread finally moved me to post! Have to say Karma is a **tch! Heh heh hee!
Please oh please, where is Ptravel now....how about a big slice of humble pie to wash down that big yummy plate of crow!
HongKonger, my next Woodford I will tilt slightly in your direction...heh heh heh..
Of course in my mind I have this sick fantasy of HongKonger actually being on the Supreme Court and we just didn't know it!
And yes this was my first post after years of lurking this thread finally moved me to post! Have to say Karma is a **tch! Heh heh hee!
Apr 4, 2014, 11:34 am
#244
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ATL
Programs: Delta PlM, 1M
Posts: 6,365
Not true. This ruling only pertains to claims made on a basis preempted by the ADA. The terms of a contract with DL (or anyone) cannot "go against anything you might assume would restrict such contracts." For example if a contract provision is illegal it is unenforceable.
The airline clearly can impose a contract provision that is illegal, as long as it is only illegal under state, not federal, law.
Apr 4, 2014, 1:00 pm
#245
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
But the preempted claims includes anything based on state law or state common law. AFAIK, federal common law is fairly limited, and there are only a few federal protections that come in play (outside of DOT airline regs).
The airline clearly can impose a contract provision that is illegal, as long as it is only illegal under state, not federal, law.
The airline clearly can impose a contract provision that is illegal, as long as it is only illegal under state, not federal, law.
Apr 4, 2014, 1:31 pm
#246
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,688
I have to say I am disappointed with the ruling. Essentially now any company can hide behind the ToS of dropping a customer and taking away their FF miles for "no reason at all".
Contracts are becoming more standardized and "take it or leave it". The supreme court has weakened consumer protection, even if it is almost nonexistent. With only 4 major airlines left, it is not like consumers have that much choice.
Also, were his complaints legit? He could have had a lot of "bad luck", getting the flights that get delayed, have late baggage, etc. Northwest could have said he won't get any compensation for 1 year. That would be a reasonable way of handling it.
Something definitely needs to change.
Contracts are becoming more standardized and "take it or leave it". The supreme court has weakened consumer protection, even if it is almost nonexistent. With only 4 major airlines left, it is not like consumers have that much choice.
Also, were his complaints legit? He could have had a lot of "bad luck", getting the flights that get delayed, have late baggage, etc. Northwest could have said he won't get any compensation for 1 year. That would be a reasonable way of handling it.
Something definitely needs to change.
Apr 4, 2014, 1:34 pm
#247
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,688
But the preempted claims includes anything based on state law or state common law. AFAIK, federal common law is fairly limited, and there are only a few federal protections that come in play (outside of DOT airline regs).
The airline clearly can impose a contract provision that is illegal, as long as it is only illegal under state, not federal, law.
The airline clearly can impose a contract provision that is illegal, as long as it is only illegal under state, not federal, law.
Apr 4, 2014, 2:29 pm
#248
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: SoCal
Programs: Mileage Plus 1K, 1 Million Miler, AA ExPlat
Posts: 70
Here's an observation:
After a couple of times complaining and getting compesnation the rabbi saw opportunity and try to get compensation at any opportunity he could regardless of whether justified until NW had enough.
Now he is trying to stick it to them one more time and get the final payoff. The sad this is there is no real way to prove that intent and he will probably get something.
After a couple of times complaining and getting compesnation the rabbi saw opportunity and try to get compensation at any opportunity he could regardless of whether justified until NW had enough.
Now he is trying to stick it to them one more time and get the final payoff. The sad this is there is no real way to prove that intent and he will probably get something.
Apr 4, 2014, 3:10 pm
#249
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: DL PM, MM, NR; HH Diamond, Bonvoy LT Gold, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Diamond, others
Posts: 12,159
Nothing wrong with that, if he intends to fly (eventually). The most successful case I know of was 5 bumps in one day (before the GA got tired of him). That was before airlines learned only to rebook on flights with space rather than on the next flight.
Apr 5, 2014, 6:54 am
#251
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AVL
Programs: AA/BA/DL/US Air
Posts: 426
Not sure what you are trying to say here? Nothing I've ever said on this issue has been rendered incorrect by the SCotUS ruling. This ruling did not make it impossible to sue an airline. It only made it impossible to sue an airline using a legal foundation that has been preempted by the ADA. The ruling even stated that the rabbi could have continue to pursue a breach of contract claim, and that its ruling did not prevent such claims.
Apr 5, 2014, 8:41 pm
#252
Join Date: Apr 2014
Programs: Delta kryptonium, marriott something, Hilton something, some casino thing etc etc
Posts: 44
HongKonger you rock!
Not sure what you are trying to say here? Nothing I've ever said on this issue has been rendered incorrect by the SCotUS ruling. This ruling did not make it impossible to sue an airline. It only made it impossible to sue an airline using a legal foundation that has been preempted by the ADA. The ruling even stated that the rabbi could have continue to pursue a breach of contract claim, and that its ruling did not prevent such claims.
In short I was toasting you...and giggling at another member who made an *ss of himself..
The context of the statement being that I had read the entire thread...and was shocked at how a FT member attacked you personally, and then a year later only for "mister big shot" to be proven wrong by the SCOTUS...tis yummy for me...I like seeing the good guys win..
I have no pony in this race, but I love it when arrogant trolls get taken down a few notches...the jerk running you down and basically telling everyone else to not comment...ehh..anyways was meant as a compliment to you..
Apr 6, 2014, 8:03 am
#253
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Be careful what you wish for. It's easy enough for Congress to enact a statute which:
1. Makes FF miles/points the property of the passenger;
2. Classifies them as income when earned; and
3. Taxes them as income; and
4. Gives the passenger/owner a right to some kind of neutral arbitration.
For the 99.999% of FF who just go about their daily business and interact with the carriers on a normal basis, the current situation is just fine. There are the outliers such as the rabbi and some of the rabble-rousers here, who might prefer the above approach. Not me.
1. Makes FF miles/points the property of the passenger;
2. Classifies them as income when earned; and
3. Taxes them as income; and
4. Gives the passenger/owner a right to some kind of neutral arbitration.
For the 99.999% of FF who just go about their daily business and interact with the carriers on a normal basis, the current situation is just fine. There are the outliers such as the rabbi and some of the rabble-rousers here, who might prefer the above approach. Not me.
Not familiar with how concentrated interests in DC tend to be far more powerful and effective in their lobbying than diffuse interest that in the aggregate have more at stake to gain or lose than the narrow, concentrated interests that oppose regulation? Anyone properly familiar with the functioning of our legislative process would have a clue that changes like these aren't easy to pass into law as the general public participating in these programs aren't as interested in what's at stake in the aggregate for consumers as the narrow corporate interests that have a more concetrated stake in the matter.
Apr 6, 2014, 9:18 am
#254
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: HKG
Programs: DL FO, UA, AA, AsiaMiles, SPG, HHonors
Posts: 7,982
Uh..think you are missing the context HongKonger, my observation was the restraint you showed after the (imho) the personal attack and rude behavior inflicted on you by another member months and months ago ...the ruling justified and spoke volumes about your earlier comments and possibly your jurisprudence.
In short I was toasting you...and giggling at another member who made an *ss of himself..
The context of the statement being that I had read the entire thread...and was shocked at how a FT member attacked you personally, and then a year later only for "mister big shot" to be proven wrong by the SCOTUS...tis yummy for me...I like seeing the good guys win..
I have no pony in this race, but I love it when arrogant trolls get taken down a few notches...the jerk running you down and basically telling everyone else to not comment...ehh..anyways was meant as a compliment to you..
In short I was toasting you...and giggling at another member who made an *ss of himself..
The context of the statement being that I had read the entire thread...and was shocked at how a FT member attacked you personally, and then a year later only for "mister big shot" to be proven wrong by the SCOTUS...tis yummy for me...I like seeing the good guys win..
I have no pony in this race, but I love it when arrogant trolls get taken down a few notches...the jerk running you down and basically telling everyone else to not comment...ehh..anyways was meant as a compliment to you..