Passenger who caused flight diversion is paying for it
#16
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Huntsville, AL
Programs: DL DM 1.929MM, Hilton Lifetime Diamond, IHG Platinum, Avis CHM, Marriott Titanium (lifetime gold)
Posts: 7,859
For example, here is an old post with estimates of fuel per hour for different aircraft. Even adding in another climbout, there is no way this diversion cost over $9000 just for fuel.
How Much Fuel Do Different Aircraft Burn? - Airliners.net
#18
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: San Antonio
Programs: DL DM, Former AA EXP now AY Plat, AC 75K, NW Plat, Former CO Gold, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 27,042
Courts don't make up numbers out of thin air. I expect this is the additional operating costs that Delta could justify to the court.
For example, here is an old post with estimates of fuel per hour for different aircraft. Even adding in another climbout, there is no way this diversion cost over $9000 just for fuel.
How Much Fuel Do Different Aircraft Burn? - Airliners.net
For example, here is an old post with estimates of fuel per hour for different aircraft. Even adding in another climbout, there is no way this diversion cost over $9000 just for fuel.
How Much Fuel Do Different Aircraft Burn? - Airliners.net
#19
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,394
Courts don't make up numbers out of thin air. I expect this is the additional operating costs that Delta could justify to the court.
For example, here is an old post with estimates of fuel per hour for different aircraft. Even adding in another climbout, there is no way this diversion cost over $9000 just for fuel.
How Much Fuel Do Different Aircraft Burn? - Airliners.net
For example, here is an old post with estimates of fuel per hour for different aircraft. Even adding in another climbout, there is no way this diversion cost over $9000 just for fuel.
How Much Fuel Do Different Aircraft Burn? - Airliners.net
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.
#21
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 70
Delta does the right thing to discourage jackasses from behaving like this and half the people here have to complain about it.
If $9k is not a big deterrent to you and others, then I guess you all will stick with Delta if they raise all economy class tickets to at least $9k while the other airlines stay in hundreds, right? It's no big deterrent afterall.
If $9k is not a big deterrent to you and others, then I guess you all will stick with Delta if they raise all economy class tickets to at least $9k while the other airlines stay in hundreds, right? It's no big deterrent afterall.
#22
Join Date: Mar 2010
Programs: DL PM, Bonvoy Gold
Posts: 8,414
Second: People who can't behave themselves on planes are a special breed. The fine could be $9M, plus 1Y in jail, plus a lifetime air travel ban, plus their dog gets shot into the sun, but it's likely to make very little difference. Rationally it makes sense that it would be a deterrent, but it's an inherently irrational act. And there in lies the problem.
This is a really important point, and is part of a debate in legal theory and criminal justice theory. Do deterrents work or do people break laws/rules because they are in some way out of control of their own behavior?
#23
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IND
Programs: DL DM, SPG AMB, National EE
Posts: 1,301
According to LinkedIn, the guy is a Nuclear Construction Engineer. Somehow I think that DL will get their money. But I agree that $9k seems extraordinarily low in terms of the costs associated with causing a diversion. Surely the lawyers figured out that number (or a % of some number) that worked as part of a plea deal. The article does state that he plead guilty. I'm sure DL had to weigh the costs of fighting a prolonged legal battle to get more cash as well...
#24
Join Date: Mar 2010
Programs: DL PM, Bonvoy Gold
Posts: 8,414
Heading down the path of expecting an individual pax to cover the full and true cost of a diversion seems dangerous to me. I'm sure that after everything is said and done it was more than $9K, especially if DL elected to offer pax any type of compensation.
Occasional diversions are part of the cost of doing business as an airline. $100K is a loss that will be meaningless on DL's books but could be financially catastrophic for an individual or a family. I'm not saying that the pax should not have some accountability, but I don't think we want to go down the very slippery slope of exposing pax to this type of liability.
Occasional diversions are part of the cost of doing business as an airline. $100K is a loss that will be meaningless on DL's books but could be financially catastrophic for an individual or a family. I'm not saying that the pax should not have some accountability, but I don't think we want to go down the very slippery slope of exposing pax to this type of liability.
#25
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orlando, FL Area
Programs: Delta SkySponge ExtraAbsorbent, SPG Gold
Posts: 29,988
Heading down the path of expecting an individual pax to cover the full and true cost of a diversion seems dangerous to me. I'm sure that after everything is said and done it was more than $9K, especially if DL elected to offer pax any type of compensation.
Occasional diversions are part of the cost of doing business as an airline. $100K is a loss that will be meaningless on DL's books but could be financially catastrophic for an individual or a family. I'm not saying that the pax should not have some accountability, but I don't think we want to go down the very slippery slope of exposing pax to this type of liability.
Occasional diversions are part of the cost of doing business as an airline. $100K is a loss that will be meaningless on DL's books but could be financially catastrophic for an individual or a family. I'm not saying that the pax should not have some accountability, but I don't think we want to go down the very slippery slope of exposing pax to this type of liability.
#26
Join Date: Mar 2010
Programs: DL PM, Bonvoy Gold
Posts: 8,414
Agreed. 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?
Good point. It really does open a whole can of worms.
#27
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minneapolis
Programs: AA EXP, Hyatt Diamond, SPG Gold, GlobalEntry, Admirals Club, United Club
Posts: 1,948
Agreed. 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?
#28
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 413
Agreed. 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?
The second false parallelism is level of awareness of the financial consequences. A disruptive passenger (especially the ones who say things like "I need to get out of here") are aware that their actions will cost the airline money, so they have culpability of that loss. The airline has no idea that you're going to close a multi-million dollar deal. On this one I'm not sure of the legal ramifications, but it seems to me that there would be less culpability for costs that you had no way of knowing existed compared to ones that are a known quantity (you know the airline has to pay for fuel, personnel, etc)
#29
Join Date: Mar 2010
Programs: DL PM, Bonvoy Gold
Posts: 8,414
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.
#30
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orlando, FL Area
Programs: Delta SkySponge ExtraAbsorbent, SPG Gold
Posts: 29,988
I think you're drawing a false parallel here in two ways. First, while aircraft maintenance is considered the airline's fault for the purposes of accommodation, etc., it's nowhere near the level of legal culpability of a drunk and disorderly passenger. It's more akin to a medical emergency, and I don't believe anyone would claim the passenger should reimburse the airline for a diversion for illness. Experientially that's also the case, i.e. when the airline announces that the plain is going MX and we're going to have to stay the night, I'm annoyed, but I take my voucher and go get a good night's sleep, I don't think that the airline messed up - that's part of flying. But when a passenger causes a disruption and we have to divert, I am justifiably angry at that customer because they made a decision to inconvenience me.
The second false parallelism is level of awareness of the financial consequences. A disruptive passenger (especially the ones who say things like "I need to get out of here") are aware that their actions will cost the airline money, so they have culpability of that loss. The airline has no idea that you're going to close a multi-million dollar deal. On this one I'm not sure of the legal ramifications, but it seems to me that there would be less culpability for costs that you had no way of knowing existed compared to ones that are a known quantity (you know the airline has to pay for fuel, personnel, etc)
The second false parallelism is level of awareness of the financial consequences. A disruptive passenger (especially the ones who say things like "I need to get out of here") are aware that their actions will cost the airline money, so they have culpability of that loss. The airline has no idea that you're going to close a multi-million dollar deal. On this one I'm not sure of the legal ramifications, but it seems to me that there would be less culpability for costs that you had no way of knowing existed compared to ones that are a known quantity (you know the airline has to pay for fuel, personnel, etc)