DeltaAir From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1094 posts, RR: 0 Posted (14 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2530 times:
SOME PASSENGERS ANGRY OVER RECENT UNITED AIRLINE CANCELLATIONS ARE NOW SUING THE CARRIER.
UNITED HAS BEEN NEGOTIATING PILOT AND MECHANIC CONTRACTS FOR MONTHS CREATING DELAYED AND CANCELLED FLIGHTS.
SOME PASSENGERS. WHOSE FLIGHTS WERE CANCELED. NOW SAY UNITED KNEW THE NEGOTIATIONS WOULD PUT FLIGHT ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES IN JEOPARDY.
SO THEY ARE SUING AND CLAIMING UNITED TOOK PART IN DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES AND HAD A BREACH OF CONTRACT WITH ITS CUSTOMERS.
Sorry About the Caps, this was taken directly from the SF Times, it should also be noted that all talks have been cancelled and that there is no hint of a resolution soon.
Bruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5083 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (14 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2464 times:
Sounds like more people trying to collect money. The "blame" game. When you buy an airline ticket there is no SOLID guarantee that you will get where you're going. They'll try to re-route your itenerary but conditions "beyond their control" such as winter weather delays, mechanical breakdowns, and Pilots calling in sick.
The sick-out was not a union-sanctioned event - its just lots of Pilots calling in sick, so they cannot be held responsible, even if the reason they call in sick is because they don't want to work O/T without a contract.
Now here is one example of where they COULD be held responsible: if the Union organized a sick-out, causing employees to disrupt the company's schedules.
Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
Cba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4531 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (14 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2427 times:
I agree with Bruce. This is no reason to sue. These things happen. It is beyond the airline's control. The airline can do nothing to prevent it, so we cannot hold them responsible. And remember, there are tons of other airlines one could travel on. It's not like United has a monopoly or anything.
Goingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (14 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2416 times:
I'd really like to know what their "legal basis" was for suing. Inconvenience isn't against the law, and, if they had read the contract of carriage sometime, the airline makes NO GUARANTEE that the flights will occur.
Judgment for the defense.
Of course, they're betting that rather than going to court, UAL is willing to offer some settlement to make them go away. Note to UAL legal staff - DON'T!
Panamfanatic From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (14 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2417 times:
What you claim is rediculous. when you buy a plane ticket, you are paying someone to take you from HERE to THERE. You are not paying $600 for a cancelled flight. When you say that their pilots are calling in sick is beyond their control, I think you are wrong there too. Obviously UAL has done their pilots wrong for someone and that is why they are striking. So if UAL would never had done anything wrong with their pilots, this situation would not be happening. They are in control of that. I hope this UAL/USA merger fails, if UAL cant fly the routes they have now, how can they fly the routes of both UAL and USA?
AC_A340 From Canada, joined Sep 1999, 2251 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (14 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2407 times:
By Panamfanatics logic, we can conclude that you can sue any company because an employee fails to show up for work. Lets say you go to a full serve gas station and there is no gas-jockey for his reasons and you have to pump your own gas. Are you going to sue the gas station? I sure hope not!
ILUV767 From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3141 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (14 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2409 times:
I agree with Bruce. The delays are out of the airlines hands, and the passengers have no right to sue United. Flights are cancled by all airlines, and there are labor disputes at all airlines. Dosn't any one remember Northwest and there pilot strike? They did not get sued for it.
I personaly hope that United sues the Pilots Union, because they are in breach of contract. The pilots bid for a line every month. If they bid to work 110 hours that month, they are committed to it. BTW 110 hours is over the limit and the pilots are now making overtime, but they do it by choice, unless they are reserve, and then a different set of rules applies. The UAL pilots have been writing up maintence problems with each plane that would then ground the plane. Some of these are un-called for. They just do it because they don't want to work the overtime that they bidded for. This is where a lot of the delays happen, others are from weather.
AAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3527 posts, RR: 44
Reply 7, posted (14 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2389 times:
Please calm down folks.
Now, can we get a few facts correct:
1. UA pilots are not calling in sick. Certainly not as AA pilots did in Feb.
2. UA pilots are refusing to fly overtime. There is nothing in their contract that _requires_ them to fly overtime. They are complying with the terms of their contract.
3. UA pilot union (ALPA) is not (reportedly) actively telling UA pilots to refuse to fly overtime. Even if ALPA was actively telling pilots to not fly overtime, since refusing overtime is not a violation of their contract it would not be illegal for the pilot union to tell pilots to comply with their contract.
4. Terms of Carriage (usually on the back of the ticket book) is the contract between airline and passenger. Since pilots are doing nothing illegal and UA is (or should be) doing everything it is capable of doing to get passenger to destination as close to original times as contracted for, any breach of contract lawsuit must show: a) prior knowledge by UA of pilot actions, b) intent by UA to not comply with the Terms of Carriage (i.e. do nothing in reaction to pilot actions), and c) intent to hide that fact (the previous a & b) to potential customers. A very difficult task under any situation. Highly unlikely in this one.
5. Anybody can file a lawsuit against anybody for any reason - at least in the USA. Whether the case is allowed to proceed forward is another matter entirely.
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
J32driver From United States of America, joined May 2000, 399 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (14 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2385 times:
Okay... theres alot of people out there that obviously do not understand what the United pilot's are doing with their schedules. This is a simple explanation.
Every month a pilot is awarded a line of flying that is worth about 85 hours. In a normal month, that pilot would then volunteer to pick up extra flying above those 85 hours up to a max limit of 100 hours.
The United pilots are simply refusing to pick up that extra 15 hours of work. There is NOTHING that says the pilots must pick up open flight time. They are not calling in sick, there is no organized sick out, the Union can not be held responsible because a pilot only works his normal schedule.
There is no basis for United to sue ALPA. United did this to themselves by not hiring enough pilots to begin with. If they had proper staffing ALPA would not be able to cause these problems. And please don't anyone say there are no qualified pilots to hire. United has more than 6000 applicants on file who are screaming for a job. They should have hired some of those pilot's years ago. United has simply shot themselves in the foot. Tough luck!!!!!!!!!
PS. I'm not a United pilot, as a matter of fact I'm a commuting pilot whos gotten just as screwed by United as everyone else!
Goingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (14 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2353 times:
I checked and most airlines don't have their contract of carriage on-line. TWA and Southwest do, so lets look at what your $600 gets you:
TIMES SHOWN IN TWA'S TIMETABLES AND ELSEWHERE ARE NOT GUARANTEED AND ARE NOT PART OF ITS CONDITIONS OF CARRIAGE. TWA may without notice substitute alternate carriers or aircraft, and may alter or omit stopping places shown on the ticket in case of necessity. Schedules are subject to change and flights subject to cancellation without notice.
A. Cancelled Flights or Late or Irregular Operations - In the event Carrier cancels or fails to operate any flight according to Carrier's published schedule, or changes the schedule of any flight, Carrier will, at the request of a passenger confirmed on such flight:
1. transport the passenger on another of Carrier's flights on which space is available at no additional charge; or
2. refund the unused portion of the passenger’s fare in accordance with Article 90 below.
B. Except to the extent provided in Article 85.A. above, CARRIER SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY FAILURE OR DELAY IN OPERATING ANY FLIGHT due to causes beyond Carrier’s control, including but not limited to, acts of God, governmental actions, fire, weather, mechanical difficulties, Air Traffic Control, STRIKES OR LABOR DISPUTES, or inability to obtain fuel for the flight in question. Carrier shall use its best efforts to notify all affected passengers promptly of planned schedule changes and service withdrawals.
Most other carriers are the same...they just don't put the contract of carriage on their website. Given this information - ....Judgement is STILL for the defendant