PDA

View Full Version : I SOOO want to co-chair this case



LegalSmash
05-28-2008, 03:36 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080528/us_nm/airlines_delta_suit_dc

Red
05-28-2008, 04:16 PM
"$21,000 on unused hotel rooms"

Where the fuck were they going to stay, The Ritz Penthouse Suite??

Doubt he needs the 1mil.

Roth, lol.

Captain Colon
05-29-2008, 09:57 AM
"$21,000 on unused hotel rooms"

Where the fuck were they going to stay, The Ritz Penthouse Suite??

Doubt he needs the 1mil.

Roth, lol.
Seriously...that's more than I've ever made in a YEAR.

It'll mostly depend on why exactly they weren't allowed to board their connection, I think. Looks similar to the McDonald's Hot Coffee (lol hot coffee) case where they got hit with a big penalty because they basically said that hey had something like 40 or 50 cases a year where customers got badly burned by their coffee and they flat-out told the court it was an acceptable number and they didn't care that they were severely injuring their customers. If Delta says anything like that they gonna get raped

LegalSmash
05-29-2008, 02:26 PM
Seriously...that's more than I've ever made in a YEAR.

It'll mostly depend on why exactly they weren't allowed to board their connection, I think. Looks similar to the McDonald's Hot Coffee (lol hot coffee) case where they got hit with a big penalty because they basically said that hey had something like 40 or 50 cases a year where customers got badly burned by their coffee and they flat-out told the court it was an acceptable number and they didn't care that they were severely injuring their customers. If Delta says anything like that they gonna get raped

Let me weigh in here:

This is a pretty plausible case, its a problem that is capable of repeating itself, which has until now, escaped review. Airline companies, much like any common carrier have a degree of responsibility to their consumers, their person, belongings, etc. If for WHATEVER reason, a plane is late, doesnt show, crash-lands, explodes, etc. the company has an obligation to accomodate the consumer as best as possible. The problem with the airline is that they feel because they are federally subsidized, have been bailed out 9900000 times and are generally the *only* (in their minds) way to travel to a far off land like argentina, that they can generally treat you like total ass. They forget, however that they are a private company, and rather than having a "citizen-government" relationship, they have a "customer-merchant/common carrier" relation which essentially makes THEM responsible for THEIR WORKER'S fuckups. The airlines in general here have this holier than though attitude regarding consumer service, and it will lead to many more cases like this.

Its not a matter of lack of ability, its honestly a lack of respect for the consumer and efficiency. Red tells me all the time about Singapore Air: like clockwork, hot stewardesses, good service, a little more expensive, but nonetheless worth it. Here, we have american airlines, delta, etc. which wants to charge you for checked luggage now (passing price of fuel onto consumers, amirite?!), charge you for the drag fat people put on the plane, hire fugly stewardesses, and STILL want to charge you OUT THE ASS, AND treat you like shit while you are there. It isnt something we just "have to deal with", its offensive, and Im glad to see someone had the balls to bring case. 9-11 was 6-7 years ago people, and its time to stop using it as an excuse for shitty air carrier service. I can understand the security checkpoints, which are taken care of by HLS, but NOT airline imbecility. The two are not linkable, and once I am in the gate, past security it is MOSTLY the airlines deal (barring a rogue air traffic controller).

Here, the individual getting fucked over on the plane has the duty to mitigate the damages he is hit by in the event of something like "this" occuring. If this attorney had prepaid the rooms, was supposed to get to his hotel, etc. slightly later and he was unable to cancel the rooms, IF the airline is found liable for his losses they would have to pay for them. Further, the elderly woman's mood, condition, and torment IS a real injury, and possibly actionable as well.

As for mcdonalds, that case was lost because their attorney was a fucktard: there are certain things you NEVER admit:
1. Fault, if you are going to fight a case, and if you WANT to admit fault for whatever reason, do it as part of an offer to settle so its inadmissible.
2. that it was "cheaper" NOT too take care of a glaring problem that caused the injury of the plaintiff
3. that ANY injury suffered by an American citizen is "acceptable loss", especially in front of a jury.

That is THE EASIEST way to end up with a 50 Million dollars + (oh my ass) verdict in the US. It is downright retarded to EVER admit that ANY loss of life is acceptable in front of 6-12 retards who need to be TOLD how to think, and who identify with burned coffee people, it totally alienates the company and makes them look like Hitler. They taught us that week 2 in law school, I guess he was at some rally for something or other that week. Its important to remember however, that as long as the jury is giving the verdict its not a penalty per se, its rather what the jury thinks you can get. In the Ford Pinto case, the judge pushed punitive damages, which are technically a penalty, to be paid to the injured party, for the grave, depraved nature of the conduct.

Red
05-29-2008, 03:16 PM
In the end we (the customers) will end up paying for this lawyer's ritz suites

LegalSmash
05-29-2008, 04:09 PM
Yep, but that should drive the consumer to hold the company responsible. It is them, the asshole airlines, in the end, that are causing the problem.

Red
05-29-2008, 04:30 PM
Hopefully Delta doesn't bend over backwards.

edit: or forwards

also it doesnt help that Delta has to compete, basically with the government which keeps propping up failed airlines.

So in the end we get fucked by the government, which fucks the airlines, which fucks customers, some more than others who then sue the airlines who then fuck us even more.

All goes back to good ole Uncle Sam.

Captain Colon
05-30-2008, 01:38 PM
also it doesnt help that Delta has to compete, basically with the government which keeps propping up failed airlines.
Last time I checked, Delta WAS one of the failed airlines, hence the attempt to merge with Northwest.


I've never once had a negative experience with an actual carrier...the only things that ever piss me off about flying are fat people and TSA.

Red
05-30-2008, 02:34 PM
delta went bankrupt BECAUSE of American Airliens and United which failed first and then got government bailout monies. They had to compete against airlines which basically were rewarded for failure.

dpgpowerlifter
05-30-2008, 02:35 PM
wow thats gay

LegalSmash
05-30-2008, 03:02 PM
yep, very. protectionism in business is like terminal lung cancer on society. You defeat the whole whip of capitalism (you suck = you fail, not you suck = govt bailout)

Red
05-30-2008, 03:07 PM
yep, very. protectionism in business is like terminal lung cancer on society. You defeat the whole whip of capitalism (you suck = you fail, not you suck = govt bailout)

read: welfare

LegalSmash
05-30-2008, 03:13 PM
QFMFT
I really wonder however, WHAT would occur, arise, etc. IF we actually allowed the airlines to have at each other, and NOT have govt subsidizing.

Red
05-30-2008, 04:42 PM
Airlines with better customer service and fiscal planning would survive and become more economically viable therefore providing better prices, routes, airplanes, happier employees, more savings for customers and an overall better atmosphere for travelers?

As opposed to the ones now that currently have to cut corners EVERYWHERE just to compete with floated airlines and higher fuel prices, where customers have to pay for luggage on American airlines (which shouldn't even exist anymore) and overall shitty ass service and dependability.

Italian Jew
05-30-2008, 06:31 PM
Get your own plane...and laugh at the ants beneath your wings!!!!!!:rlol:

LitKey
05-30-2008, 06:42 PM
that's practical

Italian Jew
05-30-2008, 07:10 PM
One day it will be...but until then, the non super upper class people of the world will have to wait for the airlines to take it like a man and realize they need to rethink their whole entire operations.

Lux
05-30-2008, 08:44 PM
QFMFT
I really wonder however, WHAT would occur, arise, etc. IF we actually allowed the airlines to have at each other, and NOT have govt subsidizing.

When it comes to a company so big as airlines, you have to think first before just letting them go bankrupt.

I'm not sure if you know but the UK "Northern Rock" crises which I think was caused from American bank declines, had a terrible effect on the economy. People started making rumours, and the press didn't help either because soon everyone wanted to withdraw their money from Northern Rock afraid they would lose their money. But if no one withdrew their money, Northern Rock would have been fine.

The Bank of England had to grant them in excess of £22billion, which is a massive amount of money.

I don't exactly know the full extent of what would happen should they have not been given that grant but when a company is big enough to cause economic effect you have to take precautions, especially with the economy being so unstable at the moment.

That said however I wouldn't think that Delta are as big as Northern Rock, but you could replace economic trouble with flight trouble, the loss of a big airline would mean many people not being able to go on holiday, and it would then lead to increases in prices from shrewd airlines because people will be fighting for a flight.

Red Tampon:
"Airlines with better customer service and fiscal planning would survive and become more economically viable therefore providing better prices, routes, airplanes, happier employees, more savings for customers and an overall better atmosphere for travelers?"

If only, but more likely there would be the opposite effect. With competition the airlines have to try harder to please their costumers or they will go elsewhere, when there is only a few airlines they can afford to charge more and have worse services, because they can't go anywhere else.

LegalSmash
05-31-2008, 12:54 AM
When it comes to a company so big as airlines, you have to think first before just letting them go bankrupt.

I'm not sure if you know but the UK "Northern Rock" crises which I think was caused from American bank declines, had a terrible effect on the economy. People started making rumours, and the press didn't help either because soon everyone wanted to withdraw their money from Northern Rock afraid they would lose their money. But if no one withdrew their money, Northern Rock would have been fine.

The Bank of England had to grant them in excess of £22billion, which is a massive amount of money.

I don't exactly know the full extent of what would happen should they have not been given that grant but when a company is big enough to cause economic effect you have to take precautions, especially with the economy being so unstable at the moment.

That said however I wouldn't think that Delta are as big as Northern Rock, but you could replace economic trouble with flight trouble, the loss of a big airline would mean many people not being able to go on holiday, and it would then lead to increases in prices from shrewd airlines because people will be fighting for a flight.

Red Tampon:
"Airlines with better customer service and fiscal planning would survive and become more economically viable therefore providing better prices, routes, airplanes, happier employees, more savings for customers and an overall better atmosphere for travelers?"

If only, but more likely there would be the opposite effect. With competition the airlines have to try harder to please their costumers or they will go elsewhere, when there is only a few airlines they can afford to charge more and have worse services, because they can't go anywhere else.


That is assuming that these airlines as you have set would collude to provide less services:
1. To do so in the US under the eye of the Federal Trade Commission invites severe penalties, something called treble damages, which are ridiculously, company ending judgment awards (damages times three), possible prison time for executives, and the airlines coming under heavy government scrutiny (Again)
2. Colluding would not help ANY domestic airline, rather, it would give a strong, perhaps decisive advantage to foreign companies with companies like Toyota killing American cars in the compact market, what would stop an asian airline like singapore from expanding and covering the slack? You assume that these companies WANT to form a monopoly or a cartel and intend to do this. This country is probably the LEAST friendly place to that sort of business conduct. While outside the US you only really hear about the Enrons and the Worldcoms, the Federal Government is quite vigilant, not because they care but because the average imbecile middle class white person here DRIVES their congressman to wag his finger at the corporations and scrutinize them. The same applies for the holders of securities in these companies. Most are not the risk happy cowboys that people like to make them out to be on CNN, but are risk averse. Generally speaking: Antitrust Law Suit v. Company = investors pull out.
4. The companies here dont need bailout, they need to get their just desert for once. The airlines have throughout history enjoyed US protection, just like vehicle manufacturing, steel, and shipbuilding. In the Federal Code it actually stipulates that NO foreign company may create ships for the federal government, no matter what the savings. Its not efficiency, its plain old protectionism. This needs to be relaxed in this case, not to the extent of letting our own industries fester, but rather, enough to cull the weakest of the group and let the able companies that WANT to compete for customers have robust competition on more than just price, but service (see the Leegin v. PSKS, Kays Kloset, et. al. case by the US Supreme Court to see a very in depth discussion of the concept of "NONprice competition".

Lastly, I'll be honest, as a recent law grad, I do NOT have the ability to choose on anything BUT price, but its not ALWAYS going to be like that. The average TRAVELLING american doesnt ALWAYS have to look at only price. By providing alternate services and competing at a level HIGHER than just price, the companies can attract these consumers rather than alienate them.

Just ask this guys: would you rather get the nice hot asian chick who wants to rub your feet and give you sushi? Or some fat, full on-bad-ass, 180 mile an hour crippled bulldyke that wont even give you some ice with your PURCHASED water? Obviously, unless you are completely fucktarded, the former is better than the latter...

Red
05-31-2008, 12:58 AM
If only, but more likely there would be the opposite effect. With competition the airlines have to try harder to please their costumers or they will go elsewhere, when there is only a few airlines they can afford to charge more and have worse services, because they can't go anywhere else.

There is still plenty of competition without United and American airlines.

With those two airlines gone, the rest of the airlines would have a bigger customer base increasing the revenue versus cost for each airline. They would then pass along that increased revenue along to the customers via free peanuts, headphones, food, better overall service in order to win even more customers.

As opposed to now where they're just struggling to compete with those failed companies that shouldn't even exist anymore, basically subsidized air travel.

Lux
05-31-2008, 05:06 AM
Ok I see your points, I didn't know the full extent of how big the companies actually are so I left others to answer that for me which you did.

I myself don't believe in hand outs, state pensions, unemployment benefits and so on. I think taxes are ok in cases where you are paying for a public service which you actually use, but why would I want to contribute to letting lazy stupid people having no job, and people who were too stupid to save for a pension?


I think if you fail you should take the fall and the government shouldn't make people around you pay for your own failiure.

When it comes to deciding what service you want based on money or quality, I look for a balance.

I personally would pick an airline that has good leg room as I am quite tall and then after that I really don't care. I would be next to someone I know anyway, if not oh well it is only for a few hours, I'm not so bothered about a few hours of worse quality that I pay extra money not to have it. I'd rather use it on the holiday itself.

I would draw line however at when you don't actually get on your flight or you lose your luggage and they are of no help.