Originally Posted by jdrtravel
(Post 29964451)
This could very well be a mental health emergency. In other words, the cause for the diversion could be medical. In fact, unless a pax has become intoxicated and that is the reason for their loss of control, I would suspect that the vast majority of cases in which a pax is so disruptive as to cause a diversion could be very fairly classified as mental health emergencies.
I don't know the details of this particular case, so I'm not commenting on that. I'm just making the point that human behavior is more complex than you suggest and that mental health issues can lead to very real unanticipated (by the pax) medical emergencies. |
Originally Posted by kop84
(Post 29962613)
An extra take off, landing, taxi, I wouldn't be surprised at all it was an extra $9K in fuel...you can't just take someone's educated guess for fuel burn at cruise for what's needed at take off and landing and taxi time.
And that's still before wages, vouchers, airport landing fees, etc. I bet the true cost of the diversion was likely in the neighborhood of $90k when everything is factored in, and the court charged him 10% as virtually no one has $90K . https://thepointsguy.com/guide/how-m...plane-diverts/ If a diversion only cost the airlines $9K they'd happen WAY more often. "Federal prosecutors in Tulsa say 29-year-old Bolutife Olorunda of Vancouver, Washington, pleaded guilty Tuesday and will pay Delta Airlines $9,118 for the cost of diverting the aircraft." The article states the cost of the diversion was $9,118. In this article: https://thepointsguy.com/2017/08/haw...ssenger-fined/ The Hawaiin Airlines A330 (wide body) had to turn around in flight and return to Honolulu, fine was $97,181. "The fine is meant to reimburse Hawaiian for the losses incurred to turn the plane back. Costs included fuel, maintenance, ground crew, a new flight crew and re-accommodating passengers on other flights." So, a wide-body that had to turn-around after being in-flight for 2+ hours (thus 4+ hours of wasted fuel) and had to pay a new crew and re-accommodate passengers on other aircraft had a total cost of $97,181 (this doesn't include meal vouchers the airline had to give once the passengers were taken off the aircraft). Yet, you think a narrow-body aircraft that used a relatively small amount of additional fuel, since it stopped en-route, where it then continued on without changing crews or disembarking passengers, would cost about the same? No way. During landing the fuel consumption is minimal as the engines are running at much lower power levels during the entire landing process. |
Originally Posted by readywhenyouare
(Post 29964487)
A friend of mine was traveling DCA-MSP-OMA and was trying to get home to Omaha to see her grandmother before she died. She was up against the clock. When she got to her gate for the flight to OMA the agent said the flight to MKE has been cancelled because the aircraft went mx. So they pulled the plane from OMA and gave it to the MKE flight. I think that is a situation where damages may be warranted. My friend should have been able to get to Omaha on time. There was nothing wrong with their scheduled aircraft. Delta took it away and rerouted it. They took away something that can never ever be compensated appropriately. It's quite sickening to see the undying support for Delta no matter how awful and unethical they act. However, once again, it's a matter of contract law. When you buy the ticket you agree to a contract with the airline. Delta will not be liable under any circumstances for any special, incidental or consequential damages arising from the foregoing. |
Wow! I did not hear that. We heard on radios. This guy that he will get a lifetime ban from Delta. He had to pay $9,000 to Delta.
|
Originally Posted by readywhenyouare
(Post 29964487)
A friend of mine was traveling DCA-MSP-OMA and was trying to get home to Omaha to see her grandmother before she died. She was up against the clock. When she got to her gate for the flight to OMA the agent said the flight to MKE has been cancelled because the aircraft went mx. So they pulled the plane from OMA and gave it to the MKE flight. I think that is a situation where damages may be warranted. My friend should have been able to get to Omaha on time. There was nothing wrong with their scheduled aircraft. Delta took it away and rerouted it. They took away something that can never ever be compensated appropriately. It's quite sickening to see the undying support for Delta no matter how awful and unethical they act. |
Originally Posted by readywhenyouare
(Post 29963822)
Aglreed. It could also come back to bite them. If Delta can sue and win for financial lossew incurred then so should passengers. If a plane breaks and Delta doesn't get me to my multi-million dollar business deal then shouldn't I have the right to sue Delta for those damages?
Originally Posted by jdrtravel
(Post 29963869)
Good point. It really does open a whole can of worms.
|
Originally Posted by ATOBTTR
(Post 29968675)
How this “unethical”? Crappy situation? Yes but your post implies Delta maliciously pulled the plane to screw over your friend. But that’s pretty unlikely. Delta has no idea your friend was flying to see a dying relative. Unless it’s a charter, Delta probably has little to no insight on why any passengers are traveling specifically. And far all you know, someone on the MKE flight was able to make it to see a dying relative in MKE because of the swap. Here Delta made an operational decision, not an unethical one. For all you know Delta was carrying critical cargo to MKE or needed to get the jet to MKE to bring critical cargo back to MSP. What would have been less unethical? Putting passengers on a plane that had MX issues? This is not to say it doesn’t suck for your friend or that your friend can’t feel disappointed in the MX cancellation and swap or disappointed and frustrated at DL in general but to go as far as calling the swap “unethical” on DL’s part is way out there. I would really like to see the contract of carriage challenged in court. It shouldn't be allowed to be so broad. The only beneficiary of it is the airline. Essentially it says that Delta just has to get me to my destination at some point. Why shouldn't the airline have to face a failure to perform lawsuit when they royally screw up? I have to pay Delta immediately when I book a ticket. I am at their mercy from that point on. Delta should be allowed a small margin of error for weather delays but beyond that they should be required to get me to my destination on time and perform all services advertised. Otherwise it is a failure to perform and they should be prepared to pay up. |
Originally Posted by readywhenyouare
(Post 29969771)
Valid points but then it could also be argued that the passenger wasn't acting maliciously but suffering from some sort of medical or mental episode.
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:00 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.