trogerwilliams From United States of America, joined Feb 2011, 19 posts, RR: 0 Posted (4 years 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2111 times:
Every accident is different, of course, with different causes, locations, and companies involved.
Are there any standard compensation offerings that you're aware of for families of victims? Do airlines usually need to have a lawsuit brought upon them, or are they and their insurance companies ready to doll out some pre-determined amount?
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7678 posts, RR: 33
Reply 2, posted (4 years 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1908 times:
Even the airlines recommend that each family of a deceased have a lawyer, simply to avoid charges of conflict of interest.
In the US, there have developed some pretty standard calculations as to the 'worth' of a deceased person. Those are based upon the person's age, their salary or position, their life expectancy, the number of minor children survivors, the age of their spouse or partner. A the family of a 30 year father of four who earns $150K would get a higher award than the family of a child, or a 65 year old retiree.
The basic amounts of the eventual settlements with the airline are close to those calculations.
Lawyers will file suit seeking to prove gross negligence against the aircraft, engine, instruments and other component manufacturers. Those sometimes result in larger awards, however, they almost always are knocked during the appeal.
Lawyers also don't like that most such suits are consolidated, so they don't get an individual jury to hear about one 'victim' - but the individuals are included in a large group, so individual sob stories tend to get lost in the process.
Also, most result in settlements paid out over a period of years. This is especially true for minor children survivors whose money is almost always put into a trust with small payouts until they reach age 18 and start college. The full remaining trust amount is usually not paid until age 25 or age 30.
But deceased victims are not the expensive ones for an airline insurance company after a crash - it is survivors.
In many cases of severe injuries, the airline and insurance company can end up paying $500,000 or more per year for medical car and support for 30 or more years. On top of damage awards.
In that article on the Montreal Convention, it mentions that it was replaced in 2010 by the Beijing Convention.
The Beijing Convention seems to deal with terrorism and criminal acts, not liability and compensation. Could somebody clear up the difference there? Has Montreal been "replaced" or are they two separate acts?
The 1955 Hague agreement amended, added, updated and changed parts of the Warsaw Convention.
The 1975 Montreal agreement amended, added, updated and changed parts of the Warsaw Convention and the Hague Agreement.
The 1999 Montreal Convention consolidated the various changes into one new Convention to replace Warsaw and the other two supplementary agreements.
The 2010 Beijing Convention was to replace the Montreal Convention, though the information released indicated much of the focus would be related to terrorism and illegal acts.
From several press releases available in a Google search, it appears that the Beijing Convention did not make any changes to the liability and compensation sections of the Montreal Convention.
It appears the Wiki statement that Beijing replaced Montreal is misleading. Beijing appears to be an addendum, or supplement of Montreal, though the possibility that Beijing did replace Montreal by incorporating the relevant sections of Montreal without change in a final document is a possibility.
trogerwilliams From United States of America, joined Feb 2011, 19 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1507 times:
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 4): Beijing appears to be an addendum, or supplement of Montreal, though the possibility that Beijing did replace Montreal by incorporating the relevant sections of Montreal without change in a final document is a possibility.
Thanks, that's what it looks like to me as well. Darned if Wikipedia doesn't lead me astray periodically.
If a country has not signed the Montreal Convention (or previous versions, as far as I have found), are they still held by it in any way? The example upon which I am working is an Indonesia crash (domestic) that killed 102 people. All were nationals except for 3 Americans.