Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Live and Lets Fly [merged]

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jan 3, 2018, 9:51 am
  #91  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 4,506
Originally Posted by Lack
Based on a couple rulings in 'mistake fare' category I've seen, I have plenty of doubt.
Citations?
JetAway is offline  
Old Jan 3, 2018, 9:58 am
  #92  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,859
Originally Posted by JetAway
Citations?
2YN75483 is the highest profile without any sort of an NDA that I know of.
Lack is offline  
Old Jan 3, 2018, 10:05 am
  #93  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: DL PM; IHG PlatAmb; Hilton Dia; Marriott Plat; Hyatt Discoverist
Posts: 7,310
Originally Posted by Lack
You sure it's not in the from of a palm reader final exam? Seems like some of the facts stated could only be sourced to a crystal ball, and the others are simply wrong (or 'altered for dramatic effect').



Based on a couple rulings in 'mistake fare' category I've seen, I have plenty of doubt.

I actually acknowledged that some of the facts were altered to make it fit into a meaningful hypo. The underlying legal doctrines are all the same. Of course there are unresolved factual questions. Or facts that Matthew will characterize differently than others. But the goal is to identify the relevant legal issues.
Adam1222 is offline  
Old Jan 3, 2018, 10:09 am
  #94  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: DL PM; IHG PlatAmb; Hilton Dia; Marriott Plat; Hyatt Discoverist
Posts: 7,310
Originally Posted by Lack
2YN75483 is the highest profile without any sort of an NDA that I know of.
A court ruling doesn't have a NDA. That would violate the first amendment.
Adam1222 is offline  
Old Jan 3, 2018, 10:10 am
  #95  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South Park, CO
Programs: Tegridy Elite
Posts: 5,678
Originally Posted by Lack
How exactly did you deduct that?
He posted back in ~Nov that after the family Christmas holiday in Germany, they were considering going to Israel or Jordan prior to returning to the US. Something had come up back home to where they weren't going to have time for an extended trip but had not yet booked the return flights. The LX F award was booked only after this sudden "availability" became known. In fact he stated that they had to return to the US one day earlier than planned in order to find bookable LX F awards.

So in other words, had this "opportunity" (for lack of a better word) not popped up, he wouldn't otherwise be flying this LX F flight. Yet now he is claiming that this was his only viable option for the Germany-US return flight.
84fiero is offline  
Old Jan 3, 2018, 10:24 am
  #96  
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Benicia CA
Programs: Alaska MVP Gold 75K, AA 3.8MM, UA 1.1MM, enjoying the retired life
Posts: 31,849
Originally Posted by ckx2
He actually bought First class tickets on his own, to pursue compensatory damages lol.
Could be an interesting legal case if it goes forward. With Air Canada's mileage program spun off to a separate Canadian entity, where would you commence court proceedings? I don't have any miles with them, but could they have something in their terms of service that any litigation must be in Canada? I kind of wish it would go forward just to see the jurisdiction issue addressed.
tom911 is offline  
Old Jan 3, 2018, 10:26 am
  #97  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,859
Originally Posted by Adam1222
I actually acknowledged that some of the facts were altered to make it fit into a meaningful hypo. The underlying legal doctrines are all the same. Of course there are unresolved factual questions. Or facts that Matthew will characterize differently than others. But the goal is to identify the relevant legal issues.
I think approaching this from the other side of the dispute would be far more interesting (since Matt will probably blog about this, and I doubt LX will plead their cases publicly).

Originally Posted by Adam1222
A court ruling doesn't have a NDA. That would violate the first amendment.
My bad. I should have used 'cases' rather then rulings.

Originally Posted by 84fiero
So in other words, had this "opportunity" (for lack of a better word) not popped up, he wouldn't otherwise be flying this LX F flight.
So to book an award you have to demonstrate that you'd otherwise buy a ticket? I take he intended to travel on this route (or close enough) and the availability made him commit to it. By the time the dust settled, other options may not have been on the table, so why does he have to settle for less?

Originally Posted by 84fiero
Yet now he is claiming that this was his only viable option for the Germany-US return flight.
You are missing the purpose of those claims.
​​​
Lack is offline  
Old Jan 3, 2018, 10:37 am
  #98  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 4,506
Originally Posted by Lack
2YN75483 is the highest profile without any sort of an NDA that I know of.
Seriously-a British 2013 County Court Case? How about a U.S. or Canadian citation?

An NDA would only be in a Settlement and, given the loquacious nature of this blogger, I doubt it would last long.

Appropriate forum is a key starting point here as is the relevance of spending thousands of $$ on a First Class ticket for a family of three when there are obviously much cheaper yet comfortable alternative means of getting from point A to point B. Arguing that you needed a 3 suitcase luggage allowance as opposed to 2 won't cut it. Much cheaper to just spend the $$ for excess baggage.

I imagine Aeroplan's lawyers are getting a huge chuckle out of this.
JetAway is offline  
Old Jan 3, 2018, 10:49 am
  #99  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,859
Originally Posted by JetAway
Seriously-a British 2013 County Court Case? How about a U.S. or Canadian citation?
Would you like fries with that?
Was it not ruled by a judge? Also, was it not ruled against the parent company of LX?

Originally Posted by JetAway
Appropriate forum is a key starting point here as is the relevance of spending thousands of $$ on a First Class ticket for a family of three when there are obviously much cheaper yet comfortable alternative means of getting from point A to point B. Arguing that you needed a 3 suitcase luggage allowance as opposed to 2 won't cut it. Much cheaper to just spend the $$ for excess baggage.

I imagine Aeroplan's lawyers are getting a huge chuckle out of this.
I'd get a huge chuckle seeing Aeroplan or LX lawyers argue their products and services can be bought cheaper or easily substituted.
Lack is offline  
Old Jan 3, 2018, 12:02 pm
  #100  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: DL PM; IHG PlatAmb; Hilton Dia; Marriott Plat; Hyatt Discoverist
Posts: 7,310
Originally Posted by Lack
Would you like fries with that?
Was it not ruled by a judge? Also, was it not ruled against the parent company of LX?



I'd get a huge chuckle seeing Aeroplan or LX lawyers argue their products and services can be bought cheaper or easily substituted.
Have you ever read an antitrust pleading? They do all the time.
Adam1222 is offline  
Old Jan 3, 2018, 12:10 pm
  #101  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: DL PM; IHG PlatAmb; Hilton Dia; Marriott Plat; Hyatt Discoverist
Posts: 7,310
Originally Posted by Lack
I think approaching this from the other side of the dispute would be far more interesting (since Matt will probably blog about this, and I doubt LX will plead their cases publicly).

​​​
Matt has been pleading his case publicly. He has a law degree. Let him explain why he would win in light of the doctrines of mutual mistake, unclean hands, failure to mitigate, and preemption, as well as the actual terms of the contract he has with Aeroplan. I will try and post a thorough analysis some time in the next few weeks, but that will take me far longer than the 10 minutes it took me to type up the hypo.
Adam1222 is offline  
Old Jan 3, 2018, 5:12 pm
  #102  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South Park, CO
Programs: Tegridy Elite
Posts: 5,678
Originally Posted by Lack

So to book an award you have to demonstrate that you'd otherwise buy a ticket? I take he intended to travel on this route (or close enough) and the availability made him commit to it. By the time the dust settled, other options may not have been on the table, so why does he have to settle for less?

You are missing the purpose of those claims.
​​​
That's not at all what I said. I was merely responding to your questioning of the evidence for this...

Originally Posted by Adam1222
Lol. Buying a ticket to manufacture damages when you had no intention of traveling until you tried to take advantage of what you knew to be a mistake. Probably a good thing he isn't a member of a bar, as this sort of conduct would cause trouble with the disciplinary authorities.
...with the blogger's statements that show why he wasn't intending to fly LX F until the mistake availability arose...nothing more than that. Not sure why you're putting other words in my mouth.

I'm not missing the purpose of asserting that his only option to return home was on LX F, just expressing my opinion that it's a ridiculous statement to make.
84fiero is offline  
Old Jan 4, 2018, 3:19 am
  #103  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,859
Originally Posted by Adam1222
Have you ever read an antitrust pleading? They do all the time.
I have never read (or heard) an antitrust pleading where the airline in question depreciates their first class product. As it would make quite an entertaining material in my opinion, please do share if you have an example.

Originally Posted by 84fiero
...with the blogger's statements that show why he wasn't intending to fly LX F until the mistake availability arose...nothing more than that. Not sure why you're putting other words in my mouth.
Because the initial statement made it seem like flying LX on an award was the end game.

Originally Posted by 84fiero
I'm not missing the purpose of asserting that his only option to return home was on LX F, just expressing my opinion that it's a ridiculous statement to make.
Is it? Even though they may not apply to his case, the European laws that LX theoretically should follow require recommendation in comparable conditions so I don't find that ridiculous.
Lack is offline  
Old Jan 4, 2018, 3:34 am
  #104  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: DL PM; IHG PlatAmb; Hilton Dia; Marriott Plat; Hyatt Discoverist
Posts: 7,310
Originally Posted by Lack
I have never read (or heard) an antitrust pleading where the airline in question depreciates their first class product. As it would make quite an entertaining material in my opinion, please do share if you have an example.


Not sure why I'm continuing to engage, but you're moving the goalposts. You said an airline wouldn't admit in court that there is a comparable substitute for its product (which would be the standard for a failure to mitigate). They do so all the time. Perhaps you should join Matthew's legal team.
84fiero likes this.
Adam1222 is offline  
Old Jan 4, 2018, 7:57 am
  #105  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South Park, CO
Programs: Tegridy Elite
Posts: 5,678
Originally Posted by Lack
Is it? Even though they may not apply to his case, the European laws that LX theoretically should follow require recommendation in comparable conditions so I don't find that ridiculous.
He's presenting this as a fight with Aeroplan, not LX. And it isn't about re-accommodation, it's about his assertions that this was his "only option" for booking a flight back to LAX and that he "never intended to fly any other way home". It's just his preferred option and his own earlier blog posts document that he was in fact planning to fly home through other means before this error arose - so the statement that he never intended to fly any other way home is inaccurate. I understand he thinks he's setting up his baseline for reimbursement, but he should simply stick to that basic rationale, which is at least honest, and not rewrite history and come up with goofy rationale (e.g., my little one can only travel in an F suite) that supposedly forced him to book this LX F cash ticket.
Adam1222 likes this.
84fiero is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

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.