On Sep 11, 9:33 am, john_k...@hotmail.com (John Kulp) wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 05:28:08 -0700, me
> wrote:
> >On Sep 10, 10:26 pm, john_k...@hotmail.com (John Kulp) wrote:
> >> This suit has about the same merit at that nutbar judge in DC who sued
> >> a Korean cleaners for 50 some million for a lost pair of pants.
> >[snip]
>
> > I'd bet not. Their performance as of late is so far above the
> >"industry standard", they are definitely at risk here. The
> >case would hinge on how much BA can represent their troubles
> >as being related to government directed, security related,
> >operational requirements. (something I would think was
> >near and dear to your heart). The problem they'll have is
> >that their performance is bad compared to their direct
> >competitors, who presumably operate under the same
> >government directions. They could try to argue that they
> >are prevented from making their case in US court since
> >much of what they want to present as evidence may be
> >considered restricted information by the UK government.
> >They might actually get somewhere with such a claim.
>
> I don't think so. First, it is far from easy getting a case certified
> for class action. Just what makes two different people's losing
> luggage in two different flight on two different flights the same?
> Luggage gets lost for all kinds of reasons and even if BA's rate is
> twice the rate of the average US airline, they are operating in a
> different environment which may well have different reasons for the
> difference,
Well, you're arguing the case, but your point was getting
certified
to start with. Yes, class action is hard, and getting harder
actually.
Their problem is the magnitude. What you are suggesting is
that the "cause" has to be represented as "single" cause.
> Second, the luggage loss rate is infintesimal even at this higher
> rate. Hardly a major issue except to those unfortunates who get
> theirs lost
1 in 36 probably isn't going to be seen as infinitesimal.
> Third, the vast majority of loss luggage is recovered and returned to
> the owner, so where's their damage? This makes any real loss even
> more infitesimal.
Well, this is where BA is particularly exposed. Their "lost"
rate was huge here recently. This is what distinguished them from
other operators.
> Fourth, why isn't this just a normal risk of travel of which virtually
> everyone is aware. That means they knew about and accepted the risk.
Again, the difference between them and their competitors is where
their risk lies. "Normal" risk is their problem.
> Fifth, there are treaties and laws covering this to limit the
> airlines' risk that are in effect. Good luck trying to overthrow
> those.
Those treaties do have exclusions for particularly bad behavior.
You're right though, the flip side of this is that the "class" may
be difficult to determine and much of it may be as likely to have
no claim in the US. Or more importantly it may be hard for
them to establish that they do have a claim.
> This is just some slimey lawyaer trying to make money off a
> non-existent case. Go look at the DC case and see what the judge said
> about situations like this.-
This has little to do with that case. However, it is easy to some
extent to make these filings. The serious money doesn't get spent
until
it is certified as a class action.
|