FF Points/Miles Calculations When Plane Crashes

[Oneworldplus2]

Qantas QF72 accident | Plunge passengers win payout from Airbus

 

[whatmeworry]

I was looking at the t&c's of a competition where the prize was a trip to London and it specifically said no FF points were to be earned on the tickets.

 

[shearsense]

Correct, the flight needs to be closed off as finalized for points to post.

How much more finalized can a crash landing get? :shock: I guess hardcore frequent flyers would be hoping that at least it would crash on the destination airport (i.e. original routing)...............

 

[Awesom Andy]

How much more finalized can a crash landing get?

I supposed it's still "landed" technically speaking, albeit more violent than the usual variety.

 

[JohnM]

Qantas QF72 accident | Plunge passengers win payout from Airbus

Quote from that report:

Mrs Mitchell was seated in business class with a friend, and was not wearing her seatbelt as it was just after the meal service.


I have to ask WTF has the meal service got to do with not wearing your seatbelt? How hard can it be to take the basic precaution of leaving your seatbelt comfortably fastened? I'd rather not contemplate my cranium cratering the overhead structure and have no payout from Airbus.

OK, there are going to be some people that were out of their seats when it happened who get caught but those in seats should never have had the problem of being launched if they had been: 1. sensible, 2. followed the usual advice to keep your seatbelt on :evil:. It's the crew I feel for most. <end rant>

Apart from this, what a novel thread .

 

[ckck]

Quote from that report:

Mrs Mitchell was seated in business class with a friend, and was not wearing her seatbelt as it was just after the meal service.


I have to ask WTF has the meal service got to do with not wearing your seatbelt? How hard can it be to take the basic precaution of leaving your seatbelt comfortably fastened? I'd rather not contemplate my cranium cratering the overhead structure and have no payout from Airbus.

OK, there are going to be some people that were out of their seats when it happened who get caught but those in seats should never have had the problem of being launched if they had been: 1. sensible, 2. followed the usual advice to keep your seatbelt on :evil:. It's the crew I feel for most. <end rant>

Apart from this, what a novel thread .

Just thinking. What would happen if that cranium injury caused permanent brain damage. No matter how great the payout from Airbus methinks your quality of life would be pretty bad after that kind of injury.

Leads me to wonder, do some people ever think about their own actions and are they prepared to take responsibility for themselves?

Oh, and another thought what would happen to hypothetical J passenger who had seat belt off "because it was meal service" and there was damage to the fuselage, a nice big hole and massive decompression... again... quality of life in this case is not an issue.

In the Army we were taught a saying. God gave you two ends. One end is for thinking with and the other end is to sit on. Heads you win, tails you lose. It's your choice. Methinks there are quite a few people out there thinking with the wrong end. Doesn't matter though does it, we will just wait for the payout from Airbus :shock:

 

[shearsense]

I supposed it's still "landed" technically speaking, albeit more violent than the usual variety.

Sometimes it can be hard to tell the difference.....

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Quote from that report:

Mrs Mitchell was seated in business class with a friend, and was not wearing her seatbelt as it was just after the meal service.


I have to ask WTF has the meal service got to do with not wearing your seatbelt? How hard can it be to take the basic precaution of leaving your seatbelt comfortably fastened? I'd rather not contemplate my cranium cratering the overhead structure and have no payout from Airbus.

OK, there are going to be some people that were out of their seats when it happened who get caught but those in seats should never have had the problem of being launched if they had been: 1. sensible, 2. followed the usual advice to keep your seatbelt on :evil:. It's the crew I feel for most. <end rant>

Apart from this, what a novel thread .

the issue here is the difference between a natural act, and the fault of the plane.

if the passenger had been injured by normal, unforeseen turbulence, then not wearing a seatbelt may be an issue.

however, this injury was man made. if someone hits you on the head with a hammer, the accused can't say 'oh, but if you had been wearing a helmet you wouldn't have been injured'. that's the case here.

to restate it... if I don't wear a seatbelt then I am (partially) accepting the responsibility if we enter severe turbulence and I injure myself (it would depend however if the pilots knew there could have been severe turbulence ahead but didn't warn passengers).

on the other hand, I cannot accept responsibility for an injury which is caused by the actions of the defendant caused by their own doing.

 

[medhead]

on the other hand, I cannot accept responsibility for an injury which is caused by the actions of the defendant caused by their own doing.

True. However, regardless of the cause of the accident individually we still need to accept responsibility for taking reasonable actions within our control to prevent the injury. ie wearing the seat belt when seated.

BTW I wish you were around when another car ran into me a couple of weeks ago. Apparently, I'm an A-hole because I didn't ask if the other driver was ok. I'm sorry but if you blatantly ignore the road markings and rules and run into me I feel absolutely no responsibility for your well being - that's what I was thinking on the inside. I might have been slightly less verbose in my verbal response.


Sent from the Throne

 

[MEL_Traveller]

True. However, regardless of the cause of the accident individually we still need to accept responsibility for taking reasonable actions within our control to prevent the injury. ie wearing the seat belt when seated.

BTW I wish you were around when another car ran into me a couple of weeks ago. Apparently, I'm an A-hole because I didn't ask if the other driver was ok. I'm sorry but if you blatantly ignore the road markings and rules and run into me I feel absolutely no responsibility for your well being - that's what I was thinking on the inside. I might have been slightly less verbose in my verbal response.


Sent from the Throne

you are right in thinking there may be an issue of contributory negligence here, but it would be tiny, purely because of the cause of the incident.

if it was a case of injury due to regular turbulence, the issue of contributory negligence would be much bigger. again, if there was injury due to turbulence, and the pilot was aware of the upcoming turbulence (the aircraft in front reporting it) but didn't advise passengers, then the contributory negligence on behalf of the passenger would be reduced.

I think the wording requesting passengers to keep their seat belt fastened is something along the lines of 'for your safety in the event of turbulence'... not 'in the event one of our systems suffers a failure causing the plane to plunge'.

I'd need to read the case to see what the arguments were.

 

[Awesom Andy]

the issue here is the difference between a natural act, and the fault of the plane.

if the passenger had been injured by normal, unforeseen turbulence, then not wearing a seatbelt may be an issue.

however, this injury was man made. if someone hits you on the head with a hammer, the accused can't say 'oh, but if you had been wearing a helmet you wouldn't have been injured'. that's the case here.

to restate it... if I don't wear a seatbelt then I am (partially) accepting the responsibility if we enter severe turbulence and I injure myself (it would depend however if the pilots knew there could have been severe turbulence ahead but didn't warn passengers).

on the other hand, I cannot accept responsibility for an injury which is caused by the actions of the defendant caused by their own doing.

The way I see it is that the seatbelt is there for safety reasons, and protects the pax from turbulences and all sort of other things, including, God forbids, man-made issues. The fact remains no creation can be 100% perfect and free from defect at all times. And if Airbus can show that they have manufactured the plane to the relevant standards of its days, then I believe the company doesn't have a case to answer at all in relation to pax's contributory negligence. Qantas also has inflight announcements stating that it is a "requirement" that seatbelts must be fasten when pax are in their seats. Of course, there should be protection for those who were out of their seats for legitimate reasons, such as going to the lavatory. But for those who were in their seats and chose not to wear their seatbelts, they really should be left on their own.

 

[medhead]

you are right in thinking there may be an issue of contributory negligence here, but it would be tiny, purely because of the cause of the incident.

I should say, I wasn't really thinking of negligence. More about the idea that no one wants to be injured and being able to blame someone else doesn't make it any better. From a practical point of view everyone should take all reasonable steps to protect themselves, even if they can ultimately blame someone else.


Sent from the Throne

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The way I see it is that the seatbelt is there for safety reasons, and protects the pax from turbulences and all sort of other things, including, God forbids, man-made issues. The fact remains no creation can be 100% perfect and free from defect at all times. And if Airbus can show that they have manufactured the plane to the relevant standards of its days, then I believe the company doesn't have a case to answer at all in relation to pax's contributory negligence. Qantas also has inflight announcements stating that it is a "requirement" that seatbelts must be fasten when pax are in their seats. Of course, there should be protection for those who were out of their seats for legitimate reasons, such as going to the lavatory. But for those who were in their seats and chose not to wear their seatbelts, they really should be left on their own.

thankfully the law does not agree with you! if you took your argument to the extreme, then no one could be held accountable for any defect because people should have taken more care, or you could argue that no compensation is due sometimes planes crash, or sometimes doctors make mistakes.

bottom line is that prima facie if you are injured by another, you have a case.

 

[oz_mark]

I'd need to read the case to see what the arguments were.

I was under the impression it was an out of court settlement, with some still pursuing more.

For me, I regard an uncommended nose down on the aircraft as an unacceptable behaviour of the aircraft.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I should say, I wasn't really thinking of negligence. More about the idea that no one wants to be injured and being able to blame someone else doesn't make it any better. From a practical point of view everyone should take all reasonable steps to protect themselves, even if they can ultimately blame someone else.


Sent from the Throne

I agree. obviously prevention is better than the cure, but if the injury does occur, then you should be compensated appropriately.

 

[medhead]

thankfully the law does not agree with you! if you took your argument to the extreme, then no one could be held accountable for any defect because people should have taken more care, or you could argue that no compensation is due sometimes planes crash, or sometimes doctors make mistakes.

bottom line is that prima facie if you are injured by another, you have a case.

Of course, there is apparently this perverse legal concept in a vehicle accident that even if one does everything by the road rules they are still 15% at fault because the accident wouldn't have happened if that person wasn't on the road.

As I said it is perverse to suggest that someone who fulfills all of their responsibilities of obeying the road rules is not allowed to exercise their right to use the road, without fear of being blamed for an accident.


Sent from the Throne

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Of course, there is apparently this perverse legal concept in a vehicle accident that even if one does everything by the road rules they are still 15% at fault because the accident wouldn't have happened if that person wasn't on the road.

As I said it is perverse to suggest that someone who fulfills all of their responsibilities of obeying the road rules is not allowed to exercise their right to use the road, without fear of being blamed for an accident.


Sent from the Throne

errr... I would be very surprised if that was in fact true

 

[medhead]

errr... I would be very surprised if that was in fact true

Maybe only in South Oz. But I worked with someone who ended up in court over a road accident where a car drove out of a shopping center across 2 lanes through a traffic island gap and into their car. The court said 15% their fault because they were on the road.

The same has been said to me after my recent accident, luckily not officially.


Sent from the Throne

 

[Berlin]

I guess this is probably one of the weirdest topic here, but it just came to my mind... how are ff points calculated if, God forbids, the plane crashes? Does the pax receive the full points entitlement, receive nothing, or get given points based on the distances the plane actually flew (say... if it crashes at half-way, you get half the points)?

Awesom Andy- in my eyes you've just won the prize for the most awesome thread ever, this is absolutely hilarious, love it!

Those kind of questions usually occur to me about 5 hours into a flight once I had my good serve of champers in the Flounge followed by more alcoholic beverages onboard

 

[ozbeachbabe]

BTW I wish you were around when another car ran into me a couple of weeks ago. Apparently, I'm an A-hole because I didn't ask if the other driver was ok. I'm sorry but if you blatantly ignore the road markings and rules and run into me I feel absolutely no responsibility for your well being - that's what I was thinking on the inside. I might have been slightly less verbose in my verbal response.

IIRC she seemed to be more preoccupied at the time at insisting her car was a Mercedes not a Ssangyong so I'd say she wasn't too badly injured. As my Mum would say "if you're too sick to go to school, you're too sick to watch tv".