Edmonton family suing Air Canada

[Old fella]

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Alber ... story.html

[Legacy]

Counter-suit for wasting taxpayers money.

[slowstream]

Come on, a counter-suit, for a waste of time? I would expect my family or anyone to be able to get off an aircraft that they felt was unsafe!

A faulty Cabin door is not a small thing and I am curious to know how they could MEL such a thing.

Is my family or yours or someone else's suppose to remain on a flight with a drunk crew, or an a/c that had not been properly de-iced or about to depart in weather that is not safe? These are just a few conditions that have happened in the past few years, claiming numerous families and lives.

I would have been asking questions, and if I was not happy with the answers I would have been demanding to be taken off the flight too, good on them.

[KAG]

glad they didn't fly on us, we'd probibly be sued for smiling too much and making him feel uncomortable.
Fu@king lame.

[rigpiggy]

I'm terribly sorry but due to the fact that you have filed suit, our corporate council, has advised us that we are unable to provide service you.

That said if they want off the plane, let them off.

[Old fella]

As I have posted many times here, I never worked for any airline in any capacity and have no knowledge of its internal operations but I do have a hard time believing that a flight crew with AC/WJ/JAZZ et al would knowingly depart in an unsafe condition that would have a very real possibility of jeopardizing the safety and well being of their passengers and themselves. I will let you airline blokes defend your turfs on this very subject.

Such individuals who would threaten legal action against an airline on that particular subject usually have a 'history" attached. They probably know this will never hit a court room but they anticipate/hope AC will settle for a few thousand dollars or less. Believe it or not, in my advancing years I have had the miss-pleasure of knowing such individuals like the one who was litigating everything but had the bank re-possess his car cause he couldn't make the required payments. Like I said there is "history".

[whiteguy]

Come on, a counter-suit, for a waste of time? I would expect my family or anyone to be able to get off an aircraft that they felt was unsafe!

A faulty Cabin door is not a small thing and I am curious to know how they could MEL such a thing.

Is my family or yours or someone else's suppose to remain on a flight with a drunk crew, or an a/c that had not been properly de-iced or about to depart in weather that is not safe? These are just a few conditions that have happened in the past few years, claiming numerous families and lives.

I would have been asking questions, and if I was not happy with the answers I would have been demanding to be taken off the flight too, good on them.

All the information is coming from the people filing the law suit. They have no idea what was wrong with the door. Obviously it wasn't serious enough that they were able to fly it to YYZ. Probably cheaper to fly it to a MTC base than across the pond and have it fixed. Next time walk!!!

[prop2jet]

In all likelihood it was a problem that could be resolved with MEL relief however there might have also been a time restriction thereby necessitating the trip to YYZ where the aircraft could be swaped and repaired. Obviously someone just wants to extort some cash out of AC figuring they may get a settlement out of court.

[CD]

True, except that the aircraft had to return to Edmonton...

Cadors Number: 2008C1736

ACA 898, an Air Canada B767-300, departed Edmonton for Toronto and when 85 NM east of CYEG climbing to FL 310 the flight crew advised Edmonton ACC Controller they were having pressurization problems. They advised that they needed to descend and return to CYEG. The aircraft was given descent clearance and clearance back to CYEG.

Of course, the pressurization problem could have been unrelated to the earlier problem.

Still, a lawsuit over this is way over the top...

[kevind]

http://www.globaltvcalgary.com/world/Ed ... story.html

Edmonton family suing Air Canada, claiming aircraft took off with defective doorJulianna Cummins, Edmonton Journal: Friday, June 4, 2010
Share

EDMONTON — An Alberta family has filed a $1.5 million lawsuit against Air Canada, alleging they were mistreated by airline staff when they asked to get off a flight they felt was unsafe.


The plaintiffs, the Khan family of Edmonton, allege in their statement of claim that they were first-class passengers on Air Canada Flight 898 from Edmonton to London the evening of June 2, 2008, when the aircraft was delayed on the ground for two to three hours while onboard staff unsuccessfully attempted to fix the main cabin door, which was not closing properly.


Around 10:30 p.m., "not withstanding the fact that the door did not close," Air Canada decided to fly the plane to Toronto because it wasn't allowed to fly overseas with the broken cabin door, the statement of claim alleges.


The Khan family, concerned about safety, asked to get off the plane before it left for Toronto "in the defective condition" but the Air Canada employees would not allow them to leave, "thereby falsely imprisoning the Plaintiffs for an hour," alleges the statement of claim.


The plaintiffs also claim that they were "threatened by the Defendant . . . of the dire consequences to their valuable checked in baggage, stating it would be lost forever and the Plaintiffs would never see it again if they deplaned."


The Khan family was eventually allowed to leave the plane, but the Air Canada employees "threatened and intimidated" them, alleges the lawsuit. The plane took off without the Khan family aboard, but landed back at the Edmonton International Airport soon after due to depressurization problems when air started to leak into the plane, according to the statement of claim.


None of these allegations have been proven in a court of law. No statement of defence has been filed by the defendant, Air Canada.


The lawsuit, filed with the Court of the Queen's Bench on May 27, alleges negligence on the part of Air Canada for forcing the plaintiffs and other passengers to fly in an "unairworthy" plane, violating regulations of baggage handling, and "failing to properly inform all passengers of inherent danger to their lives."


The lawsuit alleges that "the Plaintiffs suffered severe emotional trauma, flying phobia, psychological harm, depression, anguish and general malice," as a result of the experience.


The members of the family have sued as individual plaintiffs for damages; their claims total $1.5 million.


Air Canada has received the lawsuit documents, and has declined any further comment as the case is before the courts.

[Pratt]

I am sure that lawsuit will go far. You would think they lived in the States.

[Bede]

This is what will happen:

Before the motion for summary judgement (dismissing the claim) both parties will go through about $50K in legal costs for discovery (exchangne documents, etc). AC will decide it's cheaper to settle than to litigate this frivalous suit. The settlement will be, lets say paltry, $10K+legal costs for the plaintiff. Lawyers walk away with $100K, Khan walks away with $10K and AC is on the hook for $110K. This is why insurance premiums are as high as they are.

[yousuck]

Congrats yousuck, you get a vacation for your ignorant, racist post - Sulako

[slowstream]

Is a law suit over the top? I don't know? I don't know all the facts.

The bottom line and the one thing I do know, is that the passengers should have been allowed to get off the a/c when they asked to!

I don't know if the a/c didn't pressurize because of the door or if it was related but it seems a like too much of a coincidence to me and it returned. Was the aircraft safe to fly, again I don't know, the only people who do are the engineers and the crew, the rest are armchair quarterbacks.

I am also not suggesting that the airline, crew or engineers deliberately put people in danger, but hind site and prudence would suggest the a/c should have been ferried for Maintenance.

Sadly, I have known and seen enough pilots that I would never put my family in an aircraft that they were flying, I also know that some of these pilots have managed to squeak through the cracks and secure positions with our national airlines.

[North Shore]

^ If you are going to insult them based on their ethnicity, at least get the food names correct...

[Liquid Charlie]

Air Canada should request a venue of maybe Iqaluit for the discovery hearing and see if the plaintiffs show up -- I'm sure they will offer 2 passes anywhere in their system with black out restrictions -- -- BTW -- no such thing as F class on AC --

I'm thinking this is more about the flight delay and the re-route through YYZ than anything else --

[Brick Head]

Door fixed in YEG. Delay caused duty limits on crew to reach LHR. Flew to yyz, a crew base, to stay within duty limits and then recrew.

[Mike B]

Air Canada racists....!!!

Definately wouldn't have happened on Westjet or Transat....

[fanspeed]

If someone genuinely fears for their life, let them off the goddamn aircraft guys. Plain and simple!

[CpnCrunch]

Perhaps we don't have all the facts, but from the news story it sounds like the family had more knowledge about the aircraft than the pilot. Door not closing = depressurisation, and they had to turn back to Edmonton. Duh! I would also have wanted off, and so would most people here, unless the pilot explained to me how and why it was safe and legal.

But we don't have any word from Air Canada, so it is possible that AC thought they had in fact fixed the door and the family were just being paranoid.

[Jaques Strappe]

Just as a sidebar: When someone gets deplaned and has checked luggage, the luggage must also be taken off. This would mean emptying out the hold of an A330 to locate and remove their bags, then reload the hold once again. This would obviously put further time pressures on a crew duty limitation at a non crew base which could have placed the entire flight and all other passengers in jeopardy of never making it to their destination. If the MEL provided relief, then so be it. Is someone going to sue every time an item is put under MEL relief for fear it isn't safe?

[Rowdy]

Another group of shmucks looking for a handout. I hope the court (if it goes that far) rules in favor of the company and the plaintiff is left holding the tab for his lawyers. Good grief.

[Legacy]

Come on, a counter-suit, for a waste of time? I would expect my family or anyone to be able to get off an aircraft that they felt was unsafe!

A faulty Cabin door is not a small thing and I am curious to know how they could MEL such a thing.

Is my family or yours or someone else's suppose to remain on a flight with a drunk crew, or an a/c that had not been properly de-iced or about to depart in weather that is not safe? These are just a few conditions that have happened in the past few years, claiming numerous families and lives.

I would have been asking questions, and if I was not happy with the answers I would have been demanding to be taken off the flight too, good on them.

Sorry slowstream. What I meant for my response to sound like was I don't believe this family for a second.

[slowstream]

Legacy, no need to say sorry.

Based on some of the comments by a few people on this post, I would suggest some people need to ask some questions and question their motivation though.

Its disappointing to still see arrogant and narrow-minded thinking on this site.

[yycflyguy]

Congrats yousuck, you get a vacation for your ignorant, racist post - Sulako

Missed it again.