Didn't expect this to be my breaking point, but it finally came!

[MEL_Traveller]

Just saw this thread and thought I'd chime in here. On the face of it, Qantas may have violated Australian Consumer Law. Namely the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (1999 Montreal Convention and Other Measures) Act of 2008 which codifies into Australian law all of the provisions of the 1999 Montreal Convention. Most notably Article 19 of the convention states that carriers like Qantas are liable for damages of up to 5,346 special drawing rights (equivalent to $10,700 AUD). These damages would cover anything caused by the delay. So if you need to get a hotel, or book a new flight, well that's on Qantas'. If I were taking that to VCAT I would certainly cite this as a breach of law. I would also be very punitive and extract every single nickel I incurred in out of pocket expenses related to the delay since Qantas decided to drag this out rather than do the right thing.

Qantas and frankly all airlines in the world need to realize that they have no god given right to transport passengers internationally. It is a privilege that is granted to them only when two nations agree to accept their traffic and by extension the rules and regulations surrounding such transport including adherence to national and international laws like the Montreal Convention. Heck, the United States requires foreign airlines flying into their country to waive caps on bodily injured imposed by these conventions just to be granted the privilege to fly there. It's why you'll never see airlines stiffing injured passengers the way a certain Southeast Asian airline did.

-RooFlyer88

Do you habe a link to where the USA requires airlines to waive caps on bodily injury? If the USA requires that, do all countries with reciprocal air agreements allowing US carriers to fly to their countries, also have that waiver?

I’ve checked a couple of US law firms, they mention the caps in place for strict liability, and the uncapped liability where the passenger can show negligence.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Do you habe a link to where the USA requires airlines to waive caps on bodily injury? If the USA requires that, do all countries with reciprocal air agreements allowing US carriers to fly to their countries, also have that waiver?

Specifically, it is 14 CFR Part 203 which obligates carriers to waive those caps. It is my understanding that the right to travel between countries is not based on the principle of reciprocity. If that was the case then there would be a lot of major international airlines that would be out of business (ME3 come to mind). The U.S. gets to dictate these rules because they can. The United States represents a very lucrative market for many carriers that the cost of fulfilling these requirements is minor compared to the benefits. It's the same reason why air carriers don't whine about having to pay the United Kingdom's Air Passenger Duty. No doubt it has sucked some money out of their bottom line but they keep eating up the costs.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Specifically, it is 14 CFR Part 203 which obligates carriers to waive those caps. It is my understanding that the right to travel between countries is not based on the principle of reciprocity. If that was the case then there would be a lot of major international airlines that would be out of business (ME3 come to mind). The U.S. gets to dictate these rules because they can. The United States represents a very lucrative market for many carriers that the cost of fulfilling these requirements is minor compared to the benefits. It's the same reason why air carriers don't whine about having to pay the United Kingdom's Air Passenger Duty. No doubt it has sucked some money out of their bottom line but they keep eating up the costs.

That’s the Warsaw convention. Which was replaced by the Montreal Convention for countries that ratified it, of which there are now around 135.

The link you provided requires airlines to have a minimum liability of USD75,000 under warsaw, which is still significantly lower than the strict liability limits imposed by Montreal.

Airlines require permission to fly to a country. This may be covered by a general agreement, or be more specific to a route lr certain cities. Either country can impose conditions as part of that.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

That’s the Warsaw convention. Which was replaced by the Montreal Convention for countries that ratified it, of which there are now around 135.

I'm unsure if there is something similar for the Montreal Convention for foreign carriers transporting passengers to the US, but I think my point still stands. Countries can and sometimes do require airlines to go above and beyond what is set out in these conventions. Another great example EU261's entitlement to cash when an airline delays your flight. Now some might argue that Article 19 provides a similar benefit (i.e. the ability to claim around $10,000 in damages due a flight disruption) but there you would have to prove the damage caused by the airline. EU261, on the other hand, is an entitlement. It makes no assessment of whether the passenger was inconvenienced, other than to say if the airline got you to your final destination more than 3 hours later, they are on the hook for this entitlement.

Airlines require permission to fly to a country. This may be covered by a general agreement, or be more specific to a route lr certain cities. Either country can impose conditions as part of that.

Well, technically it goes even further than that, airlines need permission to operate flights of which sectors form the basis of an itinerary. even for domestic flights, the Montreal Convention can and does come into play (as does flights outside the EU become subject to EU261). For instance, prima facie flying Melbourne to Sydney on Qantas does not subject Qantas to the Montreal Convention. However, if that flight was a connecting flight with the itinerary being Singapore to Sydney (via Melbourne) then yes that flight then becomes subject to Montreal Convention. Similarly Singapore to Sydney on Qantas does not prima facie subject Qantas to EU261. However, if that flight was part of a connecting itinerary from Frankfurt to Sydney it does all of a sudden become an EU261 covered flight (ask me how I know that).

-RooFlyer88

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I'm unsure if there is something similar for the Montreal Convention for foreign carriers transporting passengers to the US, but I think my point still stands. Countries can and sometimes do require airlines to go above and beyond what is set out in these conventions. Another great example EU261's entitlement to cash when an airline delays your flight. Now some might argue that Article 19 provides a similar benefit (i.e. the ability to claim around $10,000 in damages due a flight disruption) but there you would have to prove the damage caused by the airline. EU261, on the other hand, is an entitlement. It makes no assessment of whether the passenger was inconvenienced, other than to say if the airline got you to your final destination more than 3 hours later, they are on the hook for this entitlement.

Well, technically it goes even further than that, airlines need permission to operate flights of which sectors form the basis of an itinerary. even for domestic flights, the Montreal Convention can and does come into play (as does flights outside the EU become subject to EU261). For instance, prima facie flying Melbourne to Sydney on Qantas does not subject Qantas to the Montreal Convention. However, if that flight was a connecting flight with the itinerary being Singapore to Sydney (via Melbourne) then yes that flight then becomes subject to Montreal Convention. Similarly Singapore to Sydney on Qantas does not prima facie subject Qantas to EU261. However, if that flight was part of a connecting itinerary from Frankfurt to Sydney it does all of a sudden become an EU261 covered flight (ask me how I know that).

-RooFlyer88

The removal of the cap on Warsaw is because that treaty goes back to 1929. The compensation levels are woefully inadequate by today's standards.

That's why the US removed the cap. But note the new minimum is still way below Montreal.

I'm not aware of the US removing the cap on Montreal. Warsaw might be relevant to a handful of countries.

The reason EU261 extends in some cases to include flights to or within third countries is because that's the law, as interpreted by the courts.

 

[QF_Flyer]

The reason EU261 extends in some cases to include flights to or within third countries is because that's the law, as interpreted by the courts.

It is, and that’s why it’s imposed on European carriers at all times and non European carriers departing the EU only - “you want to use our airports, you’ll follow our rules”.

I’m not 100% sure why it doesn’t cover inbound, but I guess because the UK/EU have no jurisdiction over what goes on outside of those territories (since things like the pilot calling in sick are deemed to be within the airlines’ control, I.e. they should have a spare), it might be a bit of a stretch to try an impose that extraterritorially, whereas UK/EU all agreed on it.

It has been incredibly well tested in court as to what is and isn’t within the airlines’ control too, so case law helps a lot here too. Some airlines do like to drag it out though, while some pay up straight away (if they know realistically it is within their control, of course).

 

[Cynicor]

[@FlyingKangaroo] , So can anyone say if QF have refunded NCAT fees or other costs or merely settled the outstanding, ignoring all the time wasted in getting that far?

What a terrible airline to deal with

 

[MEL_Traveller]

[@FlyingKangaroo]So can anyone say if QF have refunded NCAT fees or other costs or merely settled the outstanding, ignoring all the time wasted in getting that far?

What a terrible airline to deal with

Good question. I wondered about this. I guess you could add it to your claim, if allowed by the rules? Or add it as part of your agreed settlement?