Reroute plane without telling passengers - go to jail!

[Julian Hensey]

MILAN (Reuters) - A Milan court handed out suspended jail sentences to two managers and a pilot at Italian airline AirOne for re-directing a flight without telling passengers until they were on board.
In a first for Italy, they were found guilty of aggravated fraud for not alerting passengers about the change of destination.
In July 2004 passengers on a late night plane from Milan to the Sardinian city of Cagliari were told mid-flight they would land in Alghero instead, on the other side of the island.
The reason given was that because the flight was delayed, it could not land in Cagliari where the runway was closed at night for maintenance.
The next day, some passengers decided to sue the airline.
"Passengers are thinking human beings and not merchandise," prosecutor Marco Ghezzi told the court. "They are people whose rights have to be respected."
The airline's lawyers said they would appeal the ruling.

[WHBM]

So ......

The passengers are delayed a couple of hours and that is seen by the legal profession in the court as Very Bad.

The legal profession themselves however have subsequently managed to drag the affair out for THREE YEARS until this decision ! Presumably they think that is OK :rolleyes:

[PenTito]

THREE YEARS is quick in Italy, ask Berlusconi. By the way, I agree with the ruling.

[Julian Hensey]

If this is accepted you can imagine the vipers nest it will unleash... what about the times when bags are not loaded onto a plane due to a baggage handling problem and the plane takes off without bags otherwise it would miss its slot, and they inform the passengers only during flight that bags would be sent over 24/48hrs later! sue sue sue.....

[SpannerInTheWerks]

Interesting case.

Presumably the only difference between being sued and not being sued is whether there is pre-knowledge of the change of destination (can be sued) or a genuine diversion (cannot be sued).

Otherwise any diversion would be deemed a breach of contract and the floodgates would open for all kinds of spurious claims?

SITW :)

[ISO100]

WHBM

The implication of the statement is that the Airline knew full well before departure that the flight was to be diverted and chose not to inform the passengers until it was too late for them to make alternative travel arrangements if necessary.

Missed connections

Taxis, family, friends meeting them at the wrong airport etc.

Had the customers known in advance of the change they would have been able to mitigate against the consequences of the delay/diversion.


Lastly if this assumption is correct, this is just plain dishonest and no doubt done to prevent complaints prior to departure and to avoid cancelled tickets or other associated costs.

Such a cavalier attitude to customers appears to be endemic in modern management and quite rightly should be open to challenge by those who receive a service that is not as described on the ticket that they have paid for.

[Whitehatter]

Before jumping up and down on the court, consider this. In somewhere like the USA (with extremely sophisticated lawyers to spin it) there could be a case made in court for kidnapping!

The aircraft was IN FLIGHT before passengers were told of the change. Not a diversion, a planned change. The circumstances seem to be that the airline made a decision to only tell the people on board after departure when they had no choice but to continue to the new destination.

By forcing this upon them, and removing their choice to not travel, then the passengers were taken against their wishes to a place they did not want to be. That sounds like it could be constructed into a kidnapping charge to me.

[cwatters]

Imagine if they had taken them to another country. The possible tax consequences could be dire for someone close to the limit for residency.

[FougaMagister]

I'm so glad I fly cargo - NOT passengers! :ok:

[Hudson Bay]

And Rightly so. The crew should never try to hide the facts from the pax. I find it shocking to think the crew set out to another destination without telling the pax. Jail is too good for these fraudsters. May this be a lesson to all those corrupt airlines.

Globespan, Flybe, Ryanair are you listening?

[Phileas Fogg]

Nothing to do with the crew, you can't blame them, they are instructed to fly from A to B, it's the people that instructed the crew to fly to B, or indeed C, that are responsible.

[YYZ]

Hudson Bay,

I agree the initial part of your statement but remember you can be held responsible for any comments made on this forum should they be deemed slanderous...

YYZ

[PaperTiger]

Am I missing something ?

Isn't Alghero to Cagliari about 200kms by road ? And if the runway is "closed at night", it might suggest this was the last flight out. I think I'd rather be taken to the same island than stranded on the mainline overnight. Maybe.

[Haven't a clue]

Happened to me about 10 years ago. Manx Airlines from LHR (ahhh) to IoM.

G-MIMA the faithfull 146 broke down. ATP and J41 dispatched. Crew got on the J41, which left OK. ATP was further delayed when a pax urgently needed medication stowed in hold baggage. On board at a remote stand in high summer for some two hours. No APU so no aircon. Crew asked whether we were going to IoM and pax told yes. Aircraft eventually departs and pax are told by Captain of IoM arrival time (hurray!). Then after half an hour or so Captain announces Ronaldsway closed, and we are diverting to LPL.

Subsequently learned that IoM had closed BEFORE our departure from LHR!

All pax very p***ed off because no options given. Loads of complaints.

To be fair Manx refunded me the cost of the whole round trip in cash, not vouchers, which I thought was a reasonable gesture.

And I suspect the crew may well have been unaware of the closure, so the black mark should stick with those who, having embarked on a strategy, slavishly followed it despite indications that it wouldn't work. (Or maybe they knew that LPL hotac was cheaper than LHR??)

[Canada Goose]

and you get night out in LPL ;-)

Go on giz a job ......... go on larr, I can fly dat any day !!

;)

[PenTito]

Paper Tiger, but wouldn't U prefer to have been informed at the time when it would have been U to decide what option to take?
Haven't a clue, the crew should be aware of the closure time, no?

[Skybloke]

Until the appeal has been heard the whole thing is pie in the sky!
Many rulings like this are often overturned because once the initial judgement has been made suddenly the implications for the whole industry become obvious. If the judgement stands (doubt it) then OK, but expect to pay a bit more on the ticket in future or you'll spend the night at the departure airfield (at your own expense). The vast majority of regional airfields throughout Europe close at night believe it or not. You can't have your pie and eat it!

[flyblue]

Just to be more precise:

Isn't Alghero to Cagliari about 200kms by road ?
The trip takes about 3.30 hours. The aircraft toook off at 23.55 with a 2 hours delay, and the bus arrived in Cagliari after 5AM.

they are instructed to fly from A to B, it's the people that instructed the crew to fly to B, or indeed C, that are responsible.
The crew, knowing full well where they were going, made announcements saying they were going somewhere else.

[PaperTiger]

wouldn't U prefer to have been informed at the time when it would have been U to decide what option to take?Yes, that's why I said "maybe". Would there be an option with AirOne, or are they one of the use-it-or-lose-it merchants ?

[gdiphil]

What an interesting case. My research has not found anything like it in the English legal system involving an aviation scenario. Kidnapping in English law was defined in a 1984 House of Lords decision as "an attack on, and infringement of, the personal liberty of an individual." Their Lordships said it consists of four ingredients "1. the taking or carrying away of one person by another, 2. by force or fraud, 3. without the consent of the person so taken or carried away and 4. without lawful excuse." If there is no force or fraud when the individual is deprived of his liberty then the criminal offence is false imprisonment and this offence can be committed both intentionally and recklessly. The latter concept should be understood as a situation where the defendant knew he was taking an unjustifiable risk of taking away someone's liberty without their consent and of course without lawful excuse.

[Nubboy]

Wouldn't fraud cover the act of saying you're taking the pax to ABC, when really you intend to land at XYZ?

I thought fraud was the act of promising something you never intended to deliver?

[Pub User]

Surely the act of kidnap involves some sort of imprisonment once the intital abduction has taken place?

[SpannerInTheWerks]

Whether there is a case for kidnapping, false imprisonment or fraud is interesting in itself.

There is a breach of contract, whether a criminal act has been committed or not.

This incident seems this covers a multitude of legal sins - breaches of criminal law, contract law and maybe a tort if negligence could be proved.

Just shows the responsibility carried by crews and management. Easy to be blase on day-to-day operations but a legal nightmare awaits the unwary, inept or careless.

SITW :)

[Bangkokeasy]

I would have said the legal case was extremely thin here. In theory, by selling tickets for transport on a plane to that destination on that day, the airline could reasonably be said to have a duty of care to carry the SLF to that destination on that day.

It is obviously not ideal, but I would have said that, given the circumstances, the airline had gone to sufficient lengths to perform the contract (they did, after all, get the passengers to the intended destination, albeit very late and by a roundabout route). The sin is merely not keeping the SLF fully informed. Big deal. Happens all the time. :rolleyes: Is it the fact that this judgement was a punishment to the airline for not keeping the passengers informed? If so, as JH said at the start of this thread - a nest of vipers!

[4on4off]

It's the deception here that is the problem. Sentences for the managers quite right in my opinion. Room for appeal in the case of the Captain.

[cwatters]

Pre 9/11 I was on a flight out of Italy that was delayed about 6 hours in total. After about 4 hours a group of about six people decided not to fly because they would have arrived too late for the family dinner they were going to. I can't imagine what would have happened had someone told them in the airport that they "have to fly anyway" even though the trip would have been pointless.

[puddle-jumper2]

This one can be a real can of worms.

I have been in a situation where we are running late, our destination airfield will only stay open until a particular time and you start boarding having rushed a very quick turn around knowing you still have a good chance (15-30mins) of making it on time. After most of the passengers and bags are on you are told that because of the delay some of the passengers have gone walk about and they have bags checked in. ...........Check Mate !

You have 2 choices -

1) Start looking for their bags (at least 15 mins) and risk not getting to destination in time.

2) Wait in the hope that they turn up and risk not getting to your destination in time.

Now lets say they turn up after 15 mins, had that one before too. Do you.....

1) Do a PA to all the passengers saying that there is now a risk that we won't make it to destination in time (you would be surprised how many little things can delay take-off by 5-10mins). This will then lead to some passengers refusing to fly resulting in them getting off and then having to off load their bags (having looked for them for 20 mins in the holds).......result = Absolutely not getting to destination and being even more delayed.

2) Saying nothing to the passengers as there is still a chance of making it to destination before closure and risk an additional delay and the rath of the passengers afterwards as they accuse you of not telling them that they were going to a different airfield......and now of course the possibility of jail.


So there we have it. I would have to admit that on a few occasions I have chosen option 2 and just managed to get in on time. The passengers arrive slightly cheesed off all be it late and I end up with a few more gray hairs but satisfied in the knowledge that I got them to where they were supposed to go.

Nowadays I choose option 1. (Having been involved in an 'option 2' that turned sour. :sad:) This means that the passengers go nowhere, get back off the A/C and get dealt with by the ground staff. I have a few less gray hairs and the Cabin crew don't get shouted at. The knock on affect is that we also end up night stopping......the A/C is then out of position for the morning flight from base and yet even more passengers are cheesed off !! :{ but hey, at least I haven't committed an act of fraud.:=

[PaperTiger]

It is obviously not ideal, but I would have said that, given the circumstances, the airline had gone to sufficient lengths to perform the contract (they did, after all, get the passengers to the intended destination, albeit very late and by a roundabout route). The sin is merely not keeping the SLF fully informed. Big deal. Happens all the time. Is it the fact that this judgement was a punishment to the airline for not keeping the passengers informed? If so, as JH said at the start of this thread - a nest of vipers!Exactly. I believe that the contractual obligation is transport from A to B; by any available (and reasonable) means. Obviously it's supposed to be by air but not necessarily (AIUI) in exigent circumstances. There are rules for compensation following such a 'schedule irregularity', but they change so often and need a law degree for comprehension.

I'd like to see the actual charges and judgement.

[ISO100]

Puddle jumper,

I would suggest that your situation is slightly different as neither you nor your management checked in passengers knowing full well before they did so that they would not be travelling to the ticketed destination.

In my opinion your efforts to make the destination before closure are to be commended but perhaps practical realities dictate that “the no grey hair” approach would be the most prudent option. Maybe your managers should review the schedule to prevent a recurrence and the associated hassles of aircraft out of position etc. There again, perhaps there is some pressing operational reason why the last flight of the day has to be to an airport with an inflexible closure time.

[puddle-jumper2]

ISO100,

With reference to the Italian flight in question, the passengers would have been checked in way before the flight departed. As far as the Pilots and management are concerned at this point they probably thought the flight was going to destination.
Trust me, you can be really close to destination and still not get in. I have had an airport turn the runway lights off on me and I was only 5 miles away.

If the flight did indeed land at the alternate airfield 20 mins after the destination airfield closed it could be that the pilots tried for 'Option 2'. As the passengers were boarding the pilots probably believed they still had a chance - they probably got further delayed after this point.

Now imagine the sort of mood the passengers were already in because of the delay and then imagine what happens when you do a PA telling them that after waiting for hours in the terminal, fighting their way through security and then finally boarding the A/C when you tell them that we have run out of time and there is no chance of getting to destination before closure so it's off the A/C folks .........oh and don't forget the apology ! :mad::mad:
lets just say you don't want to be on the receiving end of it.

My guess is (and it's just a guess) that they went for option 2 and it went sour. It doesn't justify jail.:yuk:

[flyblue]

Here's (http://milano.repubblica.it/dettaglio/Condannati-i-vertici-di-Air-One-Il-pm:-i-passeggeri-non-sono-merci/1317465) a link to an article (in Italian) about the matter. Just to clarify about the objections that have been raised here:

-The airplane departed at 23.55 from Milan, when Cagliari airport was due to close at 00.00. Air One had obtained an extention only for 20 minutes. So when the flight departed they already knew (management and pilots, that is why they all got sentenced) that the flight would not have made it to Cagliari in time.
-The reason why the matter was considered a fraud (the judge explained) is that the pax cannot be considered like "freight", but "thinking human beings" and had the right to chose if they wanted to take the flight or not given the circumstances (and not lied to saying they were going to Cagliari when they knew full well they weren't).

[cactusbusdrvr]

There is a big difference in trying to get into an airport with marginal weather and a possible diversion and taking off with absolutely no possibility of reaching your destination. The managers should do some time or pay hefty fines.

[autobrake3]

Under the rules of the Warsaw convention which governs the conditions of carriage an airline an is only obliged to deposit it's passengers in the country of original destination no more, no less. Caveat emptor.

[cwatters]

The convention isn't the whole story though. You have to look at the contract between passenger and airline as well. The convention only covers certain aspects of air travel liability. I don't believe it covers a passengers right to cancel for example.

[Firestorm]

My company regularly flies passengers to a different destination, and then busses them to their original destination so that the company can postition aircraft for maintenance swaps and so on. I can imagine that the passengers are mightily upset: I would be! I have no idea at what point they tell the passnegers that they aren't going to where they had booked to go, or what they tell them. I only know that the changes to destination are from abroad to the UK, and the destinations are within 50 miles of each other, anly 35 minutes or so by road, but that's enough to add about 1 1/2 hours or so to a journey. As I say, I would be a bit perplexed if it happened to me as a passenger.

[cwatters]

The AirOne web site says..
"Regulation (EC) 261/2004 in force since 17/02/2005, sets common standards for assistance and compensation.."
That regulation doesn't appear to cover the exact situation here but does say..
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32004R0261:EN:HTML

(20) Passengers should be fully informed of their rights in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, so that they can effectively exercise their rights.
and
(17) Passengers whose flights are delayed for a specified time should be adequately cared for and should be able to cancel their flights with reimbursement of their tickets or to continue them under satisfactory conditions.

The issue being... were they fully informed so as to be able to "effectively exercise their rights".

[ISO100]

Puddle Jumper 2

If your scenario is how it actually happened I would have some sympathy but the implication seems to be that this was far from being the case!

Yes I do know what it is like to be down wind “of The Fan” when the S**T hits but If its our fault then….. …. its our fault right! Thick skins needed all round.

[puddle-jumper2]

ISO100,
I would have to agree with you.
If the details are as 'Flyblue' suggests and the take off time was only 25 mins before airfield closure (including extensions) for what must be around an hour flight time, then they must have known before push back that they were not going to make it.:= not good.

Jail still seems too harsh to me though. A slap on the wrists, even demotion and a company fine would be more fitting.

The point in all this is that the end result will be much more cancellations and allot more cheesed off passengers as Capt's who are in with a small chance of not arriving to the destination in time simply say "I'm not risking jail, flight cancelled".

The sad thing is that when I have been close to not getting in but still in with a chance, I have occasionally taken a quick vote via the PA and asked how many passengers still want to have a go......the result is always a resounding YES.
If these guys go to jail our future passengers won't even get the choice.:(

[ISO100]

Puddle Jumper 2

I believe that the point here is that in your case, you are being honest and upfront when there is a real chance of making your destination and giving your passengers choice and involvement in the decision making. The subject of this thread appears to involve deliberate premeditated deception and what you are suggesting does not fall into this category.

I agree that jail is a harsh response. The alternative would perhaps be to fine the Airline a punitive sum if this is possible under the applicable laws. The punishment needs to override the economic benefit to the airline of diverting the flight, otherwise the bean counters will take the fine every time!!!

[blackmail]

the crew acted in good faith, in very difficult circumstances,( long delay & double aircraft change including pax & bags transfer from one aircraft to another).
they were told by their operations an extension was granted & could depart.
so they asked & received a start up & enroute clearance for ... cag.(can you receive a clearance for a place that is closed?)
the passengers were extremely nervous & some on the edge of unruling pax.
the fraud theory is a pure invention of the judge, as the crew was more busy trying to solve all the problems that befell them & were lightyears away from thinking of aggravated fraud practices.
seems to me that for the italian justice it is easier to lock up airline staff, aircrew & atc controllers(linate md 80 collision), than to put the real mafiosi ( banco ambrosiano etc.) behind bars. if this is " aggravated fraud", what than to think about the swissair boys? oh, yes, they were acquitted isn' t it & with substantial bonusses as a gift. ok last remark is off topic.

[TotalBeginner]

the crew acted in good faith, in very difficult circumstances,( long delay & double aircraft change including pax & bags transfer from one aircraft to another).
they were told by their operations an extension was granted & could depart.
so they asked & received a start up & enroute clearance for ... cag.(can you receive a clearance for a place that is closed?)
the passengers were extremely nervous & some on the edge of unruling pax.
the fraud theory is a pure invention of the judge, as the crew was more busy trying to solve all the problems that befell them & were lightyears away from thinking of aggravated fraud practices.
seems to me that for the italian justice it is easier to lock up airline staff, aircrew & atc controllers(linate md 80 collision), than to put the real mafiosi ( banco ambrosiano etc.) behind bars. if this is " aggravated fraud", what than to think about the swissair boys? oh, yes, they were acquitted isn' t it & with substantial bonusses as a gift. ok last remark is off topic.

I agree 100%

Give them a fine, or make them pay some compensation, but lock them up! Utterly ridiculous!

[blackmail]

what is equally disturbing & possibly detrimental to flight safety is the continuing trend for the justice departements to criminalise more & more whatever touches aviation. first it was aircraft accidents, e.g. the md80 collision in linate where atc controllers were given heavy real imprisonment sentences. the definition of "criminal" is intentional & premeditated behaviour to do harm. it is difficult to believe that atc controllers willfully crashed these two planes into each other. putting controllers behind bars didn`t solve the problem in linate as same accident in same conditions could happen again.
then one of the last terrible accidents was the brazil collision, where the us pilots are send to a criminal court even before the crash investigation is completed, in total breach of icao, annex13. but here one could say:" oh, yes, but brazil is a third world country"(false argument in my view).
and now even operational incidents (a simple airborne diversion) is criminalized.

[Bad Robot]

Italy was a 1st world country, then became a 2nd world country. ( you will have look up the official definitions)

"Try getting off an airplane once it's airborne"

We were held for 7 hours on the ground, on board a 767 in Calcutta in April, (Tom 2171, earlier post.)

Is that constituted as imprisonment, kidknap, or held againt our will? :confused:

BR.

[Bangkokeasy]

There is some seriously flawed logic in this ruling.

I've said I don't think fraud was committed in this case.

Furthermore, there are two sides to a contract of carriage for SLF. It's all well to say that the airline must do this, or must do that, but there is also an obligation on the SLF to subject themselves to certain conditions, while the airline endeavours to fulfill its side of the bargain. Thus, words like "kidnap" and "imprisonment" are totally inappropriate. Basically, we have to sit in the lounge, the metal tube, or the substitute bus for that matter, while they get on with it.

There may be a case for compensation if the conditions are too onerous, but to convict in a court of law for such supposed "crimes" is wrong.

[cwatters]

Well they were found guilty of agrivated fraud so perhaps there is more to this story than meets the eye. It would be interesting to read the reasons the court gave.

The EEC law does appear to give passengers the right to cancel and not fly if a delay is excessive.

I was thinking of a similar situation...

Lets say you call up and book your car into the garage for a service the following week. The garage tells you on the phone that it should take three hours. Next week arrives and you deliver the car to the garage - but the garage doesn't tell you that the parts have just gone out of stock and that it will take a week to get them. When you call to colect the car later you are told you can't have it back as the parts haven't arrived and the car is in bits. You are without a car for a week. Had you known about the parts problem you could have delayed the service or gone to another garage just as some people might have choosen not to fly. Fraud or not? I guess that depends if they deliberatly decided not to tell you about the parts problem knowing you might have gone elsewhere.

[RAT 5]

Just curious, as with this and other threads, comparisons are often made to other industries.

My wife bought a train ticket to a town in S. Belgium. She needed to change trains in central Brussels. She bought the ticket having been told when and where to change trains, and how long she would have etc. i.e. a timetable.

Approaching Brussels she was informed that due to the late running of the trip, and the need for the train to return to XYZ on time, the train would stop short of central Brussels. She then had to make her own way to the change-over station. As there were no 'handling agents' or 'crew' to help, inform & make arrangements, you just get on with it. To find someone to complain to would achieve nothing and only delay the onward journey.
In UK it is generally the case that if trains do not make it to their planned destination, buses are provided for the onward portion. Does anyone throw there hands up in shock horror at this? Or is the Dunkirk spirit alive and well on the trains.

Digressing slightly; what is the case if a change of schedule, be it time or routing, causes you to miss an onward connection? This would most likely involve quite some cost to the pax.

[cwatters]

Generally if the UK train companies know that part of the route will be replaced by bus they tell you. They put up posters at stations and it's broadcast on the TV travel reports etc. They don't usually wait until you are onbord the train half way there.

Train companies and airlines designate trains as "connecting" or "non-connecting". This generally means they wait for earlier trains/planes or not. If the train/plane isn't designated as a connecting service there is usually no compensation either if the connection is missed. I believe many of the low cost airlines don't designate any flights as "connecting" and give no compensation for missed connections. I believe your contract with them is on a per flight basis not end to end so buyer beware.