Reroute plane without telling passengers - go to jail!
Bellwether&cloudbuster
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reroute plane without telling passengers - go to jail!
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.
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.
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
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
Bellwether&cloudbuster
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.....
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: United kingdom
Age: 65
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: XUMAT
Age: 61
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Globespan, Flybe, Ryanair are you listening?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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??)
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??)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: next to U
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Haven't a clue, the crew should be aware of the closure time, no?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to be more precise:
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.
The crew, knowing full well where they were going, made announcements saying they were going somewhere else.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wouldn't U prefer to have been informed at the time when it would have been U to decide what option to take?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lawyer here
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.