Seatbelt Signs
An interesting comparison.
European airlines staff get very upset when the seatbelt sign is ignored. Yet US airline staff do not seem to care a all. Some might say that is a good thing as the sign was left on for 7 out of 8 hours on a recent flight... What gives? |
The Americans live in a much more litigious society compared to Europe. In Europe the signs go on when there's a need or perceived risk of turbulence occuring. In America it stays on a lot more and therefore it is not enforced as much as they changes are there is no turbulence and it is safe to move about the cabin.
|
......so if the sign is on and someone is injured, the airline can rightly say, they ignored the sign and clear instruction.
;-) On the way with BA positioning to Malaga the other day, sign came on literally 5 minutes (I hit the stopwatch function) before wheels on ground. I could see we were low and know the visual cues of the approach.....wondered what was going on.... Add in 2 hen dos and a stag group, the cabin crew made a mad dash to make a semblance of order before landing! |
I think mockingjay sums it up. At my airline, the seatbelt sign is generally used in a very measured way. It is slightly irritating when people ignore it without asking the crew, particularly when they start to rummage in the overhead lockers.
|
......so if the sign is on and someone is injured, the airline can rightly say, they ignored the sign and clear instruction. In the US, there would probably be a very expensive lawsuit if someone was to get injured because of it, whereas in Europe it seems to be based more on common sense regarding responsibility. |
On all EU flights the last 4..5 years the seatbelt sign was only on when turbulences are imminent. Yet, along the common security notice about belts, emergency exits and so on it's always "please keep belts on while seated, even when the sign is off".
For myself I untighten the belt a bit after the sign goes off, but dont put it off completly unless I need to leave the seat. Two occurences of a sudden drop learned me that. |
Liability for death or injury on international flights is goverened by the Montreal Convention 1999 (successor to Warsaw Convention 1929).
In the EU/EEA/CH these rules also apply to domestic flights. It is neccesary because international air transport always involves two (and often more) judicial systems. A British passenger flying from Rome to Toronto on an Ethiopian airline is injured in Swiss airspace. Which judicial system applies? |
Flight global archive, 1983 - "Thai Airways ... cleared of recklessness and negligence in a case brought by a passenger injured in clear air turbulence." I believe that was actually a judgement on appeal, overturning a previous decision.
Interestingly, "Without proof of negligence, the injured passenger could claim compensation for his injuries up to a limit of 250,000 francs". If I remember correctly, the "Warsaw Convention francs" would be of the French gold franc variety, and complete with a defined gold fineness too. I believe in the UK at least, government "Statutory Instrument" equivalents might have been applicable. 1983 | 0880 | Flight Archive However, the message has always been clear, "In any event, the passengers had been warned before flight to keep their seatbelts fastened whenever seated." Edit: I had some trouble aligning the Flight archive link, but eventually got there! |
Seafire
You are absolutely correct the Warsaw Convention did specify liability in French Gold Francs. but it was 125,000 FGF for death or injury. Remember that gold had a fixed price in 1929. Much case law exists on the equivalency of the FGF since gold was unpegged in the '60s with the general view that the liability limits were not related to the actual price of gold, after the unpegging, but were set in a unit that was easily converted at the time using fixed exchange rates. If you are interested have a read here: http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/...&context=wlulr MC99 which replaces Warsaw in most countries fix the limits in SDR! Also note these are limits, or maximums, not standard payouts. You are unlikely to be given the maximum if you break your little toe in a turbulent event. |
Thanks ExXB - fortunately my days of Warsaw, ("as amended by", and with all the various etceteras) are behind me now - and certainly no "alas" about that!
However, although realising the quoted sums weren't fixed payments (i.e. could claim), I was nevertheless surprised by the wording "Without proof of negligence ...". As you say, doubtless in reality it's not that simple, otherwise, especially in litigative society, the queues for the courts would be around the block! Also Flight magazine wasn't renowned for getting things absolutely right. Thanks for your link which although I've just quickly scanned through, includes some interesting cases and references. I'd thought that Franklin Mint always believed they had their own license to make money! |
Just returned from Australia; flew out with Emirates LGW - DBX - MEL and back with Qantas SYD - SIN - LHR.
At no point during my 42 hours in the air did the seat belt signs come on (apart from takeoff and landing). Of course there were a few wobbles en route, but nothing serious. Even Afghanistan was quiet. Is this some kind of record? |
Is this some kind of record? |
All times are GMT. The time now is 09:28. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.