DL sued over hunting trophy ban

[topDawg]

will go nowhere... but if it does, send the case to a jury and see how fast the dentist ends up paying for legal fees and court costs.

There is absolutely no jury of Americans that is going to agree that a doctor or anyone else that can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to hunt in a foreign company is being harmed in the least by being unable to ship its catch on an airline.

and then you have the legal issue that DL has absolutely no connection or responsibility with what someone paid to get into the hunt. Goes right up with the consequential damages part of the conditions of carriage clause that is part of every airline and transportation company. They get you there but have no liability if you miss, are delayed, or cannot do what you bought a ticket to go do. iow, what you do after you get off the plane is not an airline's responsibility.

I'd probably go against Delta here. (or AA/UA) 
 
Legal hunt, legal kill. Delta is just playing the political game I wish they would keep there noses out of. 
 

A dentist in MSP who spent $350,000 just to have the right to go kill a lion is and won't ever be seen as an underdog by any representative jury anywhere in the world.

But it will never get to a jury because airlines have consistently and successfully limited their liability for any consequential damages related to the services they provide or do not.

If the rich, spoiled dentist had an airway bill for transportation that was cancelled, then there might be even the basis for a conversation. Companies can't be held liable for services that they never agreed to provide.

you are kidding right? 
He is spoiled because he did something legal? yeah what a terrible person. He should be more like you and Leo..... 
 

It is very difficult to have an intelligent business discussion with somebody that doesn't even have the mental horsepower to read the article, but instead jumps at the chance to defend and worship DL at all times.  
The man in the lawsuit is a different individual than the MSP dentist.  
Talk about a lack of mental horsepower to grasp the issues.

Lol. 
 

He cites to federal statutes and a decision of the US Supreme Court that all disagree with you.

Why do you believe he's seeking $350k? Because in the narrative of his complaint he mentioned the $350k he paid?

As others have said, an intelligent discussion with you appears to be impossible.

FWAAA don't you practice law? 
If so you should know Delta is above the law. they do whatever WT says.

 

[eolesen]

If so you should know Delta is above the law. WT does whatever DL says.

FIFY

 

[Hatu]

The case here is why DL thinks they can chose what they carry.

DL does carry other prepared animal hides and artifacts like antlers, etc. from Alaska, so where's the logical argument in banning a subset of species?

If they can pick & choose within a commodity code (and from what I've seen in cargo acceptance documents, there's no distinction in the commodity code used for a large mounted trophy for a deer or moose than there'd be for a rhino or elephant), it's willful discrimination.

If they can pick and choose on what someone can or can't ship based on context, then what's to say that they won't allow shipments of, say, Bibles? Or, to give equal treatment, legal pornography?

Could DL decide that in order to gain business from the New York Times, they won't allow shipments of NY Newsday to be sent as freight?

That's the slippery slope that DL just went down.

For livestock and hazardous materials, DL is indeed free to pick and choose what they carry for liability or safety reasons, but it's not like this is commodity that could place the flight or handlers at risk (i.e. venomous snakes, or cases of muriatic acid), or be at risk itself (certain types of livestock unable to survive transport).

Taken a step further, it's like DL deciding they won't carry athiests or Hindus.

Common carriers simply don't get to project their ethics onto what they accept. That's the whole notion of having a common carrier standing -- anyone can tender a non-hazardous/non-perishable shipment without fear of discrimination.

Thank you for explaining this.

 

[Hatu]

Taken a step further, it's like DL deciding they won't carry atheists or Hindus.

FIFY

 

[FWAAA]

Taken a step further, it's like DL deciding they won't carry atheists or Hindus.

Exactly. Eolesen explained it well. What if an airline was pressured by its conservative Christian base to refuse shipments of RU-486 but the airline continued to ship other pharmaceuticals? That's the kind of discrimination that a common carrier is not permitted to practice. Works the other way, also. Say a liberal anti-death penalty airline decides to refuse shipments of the lethal injection drugs used to administer capital punishment? Again, that would be prohibited discrimination between cargo, which federal law does not permit. Common carriers can't discriminate, and it goes further than the categories listed by WT.

The DOT recently ordered Kuwait Airways to sell tickets to holders of Israeli passports on their USA-London flights while acknowledging that it would be ok for the airline to discriminate against Israeli passports on nonstop USA-Kuwait flights (where the DOT said it would not get in the middle of the political issues surrounding the boycott). On USA-London flights, however, they have to carry Israeli passport holders.

https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/us-department-transportation-finds-discrimination-kuwait-airways

At first, the DOT refused to find discrimination, a court case was filed, and the DOT suddenly changed its mind and saw the light.

The Delta case isn't about the popularity of rich hunters who "murder" lions and rhinos. It's about airlines forgetting what the phrase "common carrier" means. The Dallas hunting club may not win this one, but IMO, it's a pretty easy case. DL continues to carry some animal corpses, just not the "big five" that anti-hunting activists have targeted. That's discrimination.

As topDawg mentioned, it's a legal trophy, not an illegal poached carcass, and thus common carriers must accept the tendered shipment.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Airlines have the right to selectively carry cargo; they do not have that right for persons. All of the analogies above fall apart under that reality.