Passenger who caused flight diversion is paying for it
 

I didn't see this covered elsewhere but the unruly passenger who caused a PDX-ATL flight to divert to TUL back in May will pay DL $9,118 for the diversion. He also pleaded guilty to a federal assault charge. This is the first time I'm reading about someone who caused a diversion having to pay the airline for it.

https://www.seattlepi.com/news/crime...m-13064233.php

-RM

Happens frequently. This issue is do they actually pay it. The order to pay is one thing, collecting another.

It's too bad they couldn't make him pay for the hotels, meals, misconnect time etc. A little over $9,000 isn't a deterrent to most people, but when you see the airline charging a few hundred thousand, people might actually grow up and be a little more respectful in the airport and airplane.

for "most people" $9k and $9M are the same thing, they're gonna default on it either way.

but 9k is 1/25th of 250k, thus it should be easy for most. :rolleyes:

Will this count towards his MQD?

Is this PWM eligible? If paid via Delta Amex CC, would this qualify for 2x miles?

This was a restitution order as part of a federal criminal judgment. The judgment stands for 20 years. Even if one does not have that much money, all it takes is a relative dying and leaving $10K and that money is gone. You would be surprised at how much restitution is actually collected.

lol

it happens to most people two or three times a year

Either way, I doubt this person is penniless. Generally speaking people in poverty aren't flying transcons. It may be hard to believe but 15-20% of the adult US population have never taken a flight (at least per a study back in 2003 - may be slightly dated now). I would imagine that there is a strong correlation to long term poverty to that percentage.

I think the issue is two fold:

First: $9K is no where near the amount of what a diversion costs DL. It probably doesn't even account for the extra fuel much less everything else

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.

If that's all it takes then I'm sure we'll see an uptick in diversions.

Well, as the sentencing date has not been set yet he MIGHT want to consider quickly paying up to reduce the likelyhood of jail time in addition to another $5K.

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

You get 20K - 30K a year from dying relatives?

Not just another climb out, but another landing. Also time added to route due to diverting from planned route, and anytime in approach pattern/holding. Plus now needing to have enough fuel to meet legal reserve requirements in case of needing to divert to alternate. Which now must be meet based on current forecast conditions at takeoff from TUL.

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.

Perhaps he gets diverted 2 or 3 times a year?

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.

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?

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...

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.

Good point. It really does open a whole can of worms.

Isn't it just a matter of contract law? In many other situations you could sue and potentially be awarded consequential damages. But iirc they're excluded in Delta's and most other airline's CoC. Is there anything otherwise special about air travel where those types of damages aren't awarded as a matter of law? I.e. an FAA rule?

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)

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.

But what if the person became intoxicated due to an underlying alcohol use disorder (a mental health diagnosis). Then the diversion once again is medical as it is related to an emergency created by a mental health condition.

The cost of the diversion was not even remotely close to $90k, where are you getting this from? Much more likely closer to the $9k figure. Per the article linked by the OP:

"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.

You aren't wrong per se, and I think most would agree that there are circumstances someone should be liable for these types of damages.

However, once again, it's a matter of contract law. When you buy the ticket you agree to a contract with the airline.

Your example seems to be the types of damages they're referring to. I'm not saying anything about the enforceability of that clause, but it is there. People aren't necessarily supporting Delta's actions, just saying this is how it works, and the reason is because you "agreed" to that.

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.

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.

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.

IANAL but couldn't he have pleaded that during the trial or have the court determine he was unfit to stand trial because of his mental state? Either the court determined that wasn't the case or he or his lawyer chose not to go that route.