United claims Goose strike, Passenger sues because 'they're lying.'
Jan 24, 2019, 12:32 pm
#31
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: LAX
Programs: DL PM etc
Posts: 74
This Plaintiff is going to have a hard time getting far. Plaintiff pleads two claims under the Montreal Convention, alleging that the flight experienced an "accident" and that United is liable for his damages under both strict liability and negligence theories (negligence being the alleged lax windshield maintenance as described by the pilot). I'm not a Montreal expert, but what are his damages? He alleges 1) bodily injury to his back as a result of the landing (para. 20 of complaint), 2) bodily injury in the form of "exhaustion" and "cramps" from being confined to the plane for 8 hours (para 21), and 3) emotional distress in the form of nightmares and panic attacks as treated by psychologists (para 27). He also alleges that United told him to board an onward flight to Zanzibar without a return ticket which caused him to be detained by authorities and questions for one hour (para 29).
He was offered $500 from United, which he declined (para 35).
Lots of hurdles. There seems to be some disagreement as to whether the Montreal Convention covers psychiatric damages. I also have no idea whether this counts as a Montreal "accident" like the plaintiff alleges, especially since it appears the plane landed fine. The bodily damages are vague and I doubt anyone gets compensated for "cramps," especially since a Chicago to London flight would have necessarily required confinement to a plane for over 8 hours anyway. And getting detained by law enforcement is probably way too tenuously connected with the incident to hold United liable.
Important to note that Plaintiff is not suing because United "lied." Plaintiff alleges that the emergency landing was caused by negligence, which caused him physical and mental damages. Under his story, United tried to cover it up, but the lying isn't an actionable harm by itself.
He was offered $500 from United, which he declined (para 35).
Lots of hurdles. There seems to be some disagreement as to whether the Montreal Convention covers psychiatric damages. I also have no idea whether this counts as a Montreal "accident" like the plaintiff alleges, especially since it appears the plane landed fine. The bodily damages are vague and I doubt anyone gets compensated for "cramps," especially since a Chicago to London flight would have necessarily required confinement to a plane for over 8 hours anyway. And getting detained by law enforcement is probably way too tenuously connected with the incident to hold United liable.
Important to note that Plaintiff is not suing because United "lied." Plaintiff alleges that the emergency landing was caused by negligence, which caused him physical and mental damages. Under his story, United tried to cover it up, but the lying isn't an actionable harm by itself.
Jan 24, 2019, 12:37 pm
#33
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bellingham/Gainesville
Programs: UA-G MM, Priority Club Platinum, Avis First, Hertz 5*, Red Lion
Posts: 2,808
the lawsuit including the article, has been referenced in nearly every post in this thread, it is public knowledge. I did cite it in my post.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Jan 24, 2019 at 3:05 pm Reason: snark removed
Jan 24, 2019, 12:56 pm
#34
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: MBS/FNT/LAN
Programs: UA 1K, HH Gold, Mariott Gold
Posts: 9,630
https://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2019/0...0Complaint.pdf
When was the last time they used the term "co-pilot"?
Courageously, Flight 931’s co-pilot
quickly pushed his weight againstwhat was left of the third and last layer of the cockpit window,
Physics question: wouldn't you want to PULL on the window? rather then push? (and I am asking, not stating).
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Jan 24, 2019 at 3:09 pm Reason: quote update to reflect Moderator edit; removed snark; let's maintain civility
Jan 24, 2019, 12:59 pm
#35
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: NYC/Northern NJ
Programs: 1K - UAL, Platinum DL, Marriott, Hilton, SPG
Posts: 1,815
Interesting thread...
UA circumvents EU Passenger Rights & Rules (it was flying to UK I believe) by declaring this flight was delayed by unnatural disaster vs. mechanical. Automatically, each passenger would have those rules and reimbursement applied. That is a legitimate concern if the issue was mechanical and not act of God.
Next, his other stuff or issues I can't speak to.
I've been on a UA flight which had mechanical issues which took 2 hrs to return to gate -> resolve/part replacement/validate -> paperwork -> resume attempt taxi. Once it was resolved they encountered weather ATC delay which resulted in flight crew time-out. The flight was eventually cancelled which they were not accountable for lodging or accommodations or meal. At the time it was my home airport so I left and went home, however it is funny how the narrative was flipped from real cause to blaming acts of God.
I applaud this passenger for doing his due diligence and identifying the root cause of the flight disruption but he got greedy and took it too far with claims of PTSD, etc.
This is all consequences of UA and Dr. Lau situations which made every passengers seeking a payout for anything.
UA circumvents EU Passenger Rights & Rules (it was flying to UK I believe) by declaring this flight was delayed by unnatural disaster vs. mechanical. Automatically, each passenger would have those rules and reimbursement applied. That is a legitimate concern if the issue was mechanical and not act of God.
Next, his other stuff or issues I can't speak to.
I've been on a UA flight which had mechanical issues which took 2 hrs to return to gate -> resolve/part replacement/validate -> paperwork -> resume attempt taxi. Once it was resolved they encountered weather ATC delay which resulted in flight crew time-out. The flight was eventually cancelled which they were not accountable for lodging or accommodations or meal. At the time it was my home airport so I left and went home, however it is funny how the narrative was flipped from real cause to blaming acts of God.
I applaud this passenger for doing his due diligence and identifying the root cause of the flight disruption but he got greedy and took it too far with claims of PTSD, etc.
This is all consequences of UA and Dr. Lau situations which made every passengers seeking a payout for anything.
Jan 24, 2019, 1:02 pm
#36
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,369
EC 261 does not apply on flights to the EU operated by non-member airlines. LHR to ORD, it would apply. ORD to LHR on UA, it does not.
Jan 24, 2019, 1:07 pm
#37
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: NYC/Northern NJ
Programs: 1K - UAL, Platinum DL, Marriott, Hilton, SPG
Posts: 1,815
Jan 24, 2019, 1:08 pm
#38
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: LAX
Programs: DL PM etc
Posts: 74
Interesting thread...
UA circumvents EU Passenger Rights & Rules (it was flying to UK I believe) by declaring this flight was delayed by unnatural disaster vs. mechanical. Automatically, each passenger would have those rules and reimbursement applied. That is a legitimate concern if the issue was mechanical and not act of God.
Next, his other stuff or issues I can't speak to.
I've been on a UA flight which had mechanical issues which took 2 hrs to return to gate -> resolve/part replacement/validate -> paperwork -> resume attempt taxi. Once it was resolved they encountered weather ATC delay which resulted in flight crew time-out. The flight was eventually cancelled which they were not accountable for lodging or accommodations or meal. At the time it was my home airport so I left and went home, however it is funny how the narrative was flipped from real cause to blaming acts of God.
I applaud this passenger for doing his due diligence and identifying the root cause of the flight disruption but he got greedy and took it too far with claims of PTSD, etc.
This is all consequences of UA and Dr. Lau situations which made every passengers seeking a payout for anything.
UA circumvents EU Passenger Rights & Rules (it was flying to UK I believe) by declaring this flight was delayed by unnatural disaster vs. mechanical. Automatically, each passenger would have those rules and reimbursement applied. That is a legitimate concern if the issue was mechanical and not act of God.
Next, his other stuff or issues I can't speak to.
I've been on a UA flight which had mechanical issues which took 2 hrs to return to gate -> resolve/part replacement/validate -> paperwork -> resume attempt taxi. Once it was resolved they encountered weather ATC delay which resulted in flight crew time-out. The flight was eventually cancelled which they were not accountable for lodging or accommodations or meal. At the time it was my home airport so I left and went home, however it is funny how the narrative was flipped from real cause to blaming acts of God.
I applaud this passenger for doing his due diligence and identifying the root cause of the flight disruption but he got greedy and took it too far with claims of PTSD, etc.
This is all consequences of UA and Dr. Lau situations which made every passengers seeking a payout for anything.
Jan 24, 2019, 1:11 pm
#39
Join Date: Dec 2014
Programs: UA GS ,QF Plat
Posts: 686
Either one though could have been visiting another goose in Canada at the time and traveling home at the time of the incident
Jan 24, 2019, 1:15 pm
#41
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,444
Plaintiff has some tough sledding with those claims under Montreal.
Windshields fail with some degree of regularity for a number of different reasons, including shorted window heat elements. The plaintiff can't recover for the possibility that the pilots might have been "sucked out." Nor will he likely prevail on the psychological damages claims, though a few cracks have appeared in that dam as of late. The back injuries seem frivolous; it's not likely the landing at YYR was subject to any unique or unusual forces.
Windshields fail with some degree of regularity for a number of different reasons, including shorted window heat elements. The plaintiff can't recover for the possibility that the pilots might have been "sucked out." Nor will he likely prevail on the psychological damages claims, though a few cracks have appeared in that dam as of late. The back injuries seem frivolous; it's not likely the landing at YYR was subject to any unique or unusual forces.
Jan 24, 2019, 1:16 pm
#42
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: KEWR
Programs: Marriott Platinum
Posts: 794
From the suit, #4 of the summary of allegations is my personal favorite.
“Courageously, Flight 931’s co-pilot quickly pushed his weight against what was left of the third and last layer of the cockpit window, which may have prevented the entire window from breaking during the descent to Goose Bay. Had that last layer disappeared, both pilots would have likely been sucked out of the plane and Flight 931’s passengers would have been doomed.”
So from a seated, sealtbelted position the co-pilot was able to apply enough pressure from the inside of the window to counteract the force of a 500 mph wind vector from a B767 airplane in cruise to keep the remaining cockpit window in place?
Additionally, the window in question is on the left side of the aircraft. So this co-pilot courageously did this from the right seat of the plane? Or perhaps this heroic action was done while sitting on the Captain’s lap while he was at the controls also in the left seat (that must have been really awkward!)
“Courageously, Flight 931’s co-pilot quickly pushed his weight against what was left of the third and last layer of the cockpit window, which may have prevented the entire window from breaking during the descent to Goose Bay. Had that last layer disappeared, both pilots would have likely been sucked out of the plane and Flight 931’s passengers would have been doomed.”
So from a seated, sealtbelted position the co-pilot was able to apply enough pressure from the inside of the window to counteract the force of a 500 mph wind vector from a B767 airplane in cruise to keep the remaining cockpit window in place?
Additionally, the window in question is on the left side of the aircraft. So this co-pilot courageously did this from the right seat of the plane? Or perhaps this heroic action was done while sitting on the Captain’s lap while he was at the controls also in the left seat (that must have been really awkward!)
Last edited by clubord; Jan 24, 2019 at 1:41 pm
Jan 24, 2019, 1:44 pm
#43
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 2,279
Except it is unlikely UA keeps a spare plane at LHR. So the LHR-ORD flight would have been delayed/cancelled. Either way if UA claims a bird strike vs. mechanical, but it was actually mechanical, they are avoiding the payout under EU; if not for the actually affected flight, for the downstream flight departing the EU which relies on the damaged aircraft.
Jan 24, 2019, 1:47 pm
#44
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 8,178
That claim doesn't make any sense. If a window were to fail, it would fail outward due to the pressurization and low pressure from the air moving along the outside of the airplane. Pushing against it would not reinforce it, it would push it closer to failure.
Jan 24, 2019, 1:50 pm
#45
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: KEWR
Programs: Marriott Platinum
Posts: 794
Which goes back to my original post, anyone with a semblance of aviation knowledge can see right through this.