Didn't the f/a's moved them several times during the course of flight? They probably wanted f/c seating w/o paying for it.FWAAA said:
Couple Sue American Airlines For 'cramped Seating'
- Thread starter TWAnr
- Start date
upsilon
Senior
- Aug 20, 2002
- 372
- 2
twasilverbullet, You posted "Didn't the f/a's moved them several times during the course of flight?"
This is the first time I have heard about any movement. The cited seats are very bad. You post it as a question; but I would be interested in the basis. Can you cite any source?
This is the first time I have heard about any movement. The cited seats are very bad. You post it as a question; but I would be interested in the basis. Can you cite any source?
Cest vrai. Americans are spoiled, and fat. 64% of the US population is overweight.It's not the seats that are cramped. It's your size. Puhleaze. I can't count the number of times I've been asked for seatbelt extensions. These New Yorker's need to get a life, get on the South Beach, and quit complaining.Are there gyms in Cook County?
Czerny
Czerny
I felt cramped in the womb.FWAAA said:
Think I'll sue my Mommy!!!!!!
This is pathetic beyond the power of expression. This is a great example of why we need "loser pays" laws. Whatever these clowns are asking in the manner of "compensation," they should have to pay when they lose.
Actually, considering the pathetic juries that love to see the "little guy" beat up on big, mean companies like AMR that are just drowning in cash, I have to amend that "when" to a rather halfhearted "if."
A person's weight has nothing to do with legroom.czerny said:
If they were offered alternate seats and refused them, their hands are unclean and their suit will end up in the trash.
To the victors go the spoils. Judges DO award legal fees to prevailing parties in frivilous suits. You just have to hope the judge isn't a fan, or stockholder, of an AA competitor.
They may award "legal fees" - by which I think you mean court costs.WingNaPrayer said:
What they DON'T - and should - offer is the exact award the whiners themselves sought.
Example - if the plaintiff is asking for $1,000,000 for "pain and suffering," then loses, they should have to cough up the million. That will put a halt - overnight - to frivolous lawsuits.
In most cases, the legal fees alone are just as bad, not just the court costs - but the cost of the sheisters themselves.
In this instance, I am sure that AA has legal counsel on retainer for when things such as this nature comes up. I believe if the judge finds that this is a frivilous suit, that the retainer should be the award to the defendants - I don't care if it's a million dollars with only 5K spent to defend.
On top of that, suits such as this do add up to where corporations end up with higher insurance premiums. Even if the corporation wins, their propensity to get sued a lot does have bearing on their premiums.
Counter-awards in suits like this should also take that into full consideration.
Now - I'm stuck in a position to defend AA on this one, but there is one thing I have to make clear. I am an advocate of when you have been wronged, and all else fails, sue the crap out of them! But, when you are wrong, or your suit doesn't have enough merit to warrant the type of damages you seek, then you should likewise get your ass kicked in kind, especially if it is determined that you are nothing more than a deep pocket shopper.
While this couple may very well have a legitimate complaint regarding the leg room, the fact that the old fart fell down away from the airline, off airline property, and nowhere near the airport is his own damn fault and AA had nothing to do with it. If he went touring right off the plane rather than giving himself a little time to let the jet lag pass or to adjust to being on the ground again, then much of what appears to have happend was his own doing.
These folks will have a hard play in prosecuting this suit, and proving that AA and/or a lack of leg room on board was directly responsible for injury. But most of all, any clever lawyer is going to cause the plaintiff to prove that the same thing would not have happend after riding any other carrier.
These people were clearly offered alternate seating on several instances. The fact that they didn't take them tells me they were shopping for a lawsuit, i.e.; unclean hands.
I hope AA stands their ground and sends a message to greedy passengers that they will not be bullied or bad publicied into forking over sums of money that they are not liable for.
If you ask me, I think AA goes too damn far to placate passengers as it is. There is just so much butt you can kiss before you run out of ChapStik!
Bad Publicity is like stomach gas - it passes quickly and cheap fare shopping travelers have very short memories.
In this instance, I am sure that AA has legal counsel on retainer for when things such as this nature comes up. I believe if the judge finds that this is a frivilous suit, that the retainer should be the award to the defendants - I don't care if it's a million dollars with only 5K spent to defend.
On top of that, suits such as this do add up to where corporations end up with higher insurance premiums. Even if the corporation wins, their propensity to get sued a lot does have bearing on their premiums.
Counter-awards in suits like this should also take that into full consideration.
Now - I'm stuck in a position to defend AA on this one, but there is one thing I have to make clear. I am an advocate of when you have been wronged, and all else fails, sue the crap out of them! But, when you are wrong, or your suit doesn't have enough merit to warrant the type of damages you seek, then you should likewise get your ass kicked in kind, especially if it is determined that you are nothing more than a deep pocket shopper.
While this couple may very well have a legitimate complaint regarding the leg room, the fact that the old fart fell down away from the airline, off airline property, and nowhere near the airport is his own damn fault and AA had nothing to do with it. If he went touring right off the plane rather than giving himself a little time to let the jet lag pass or to adjust to being on the ground again, then much of what appears to have happend was his own doing.
These folks will have a hard play in prosecuting this suit, and proving that AA and/or a lack of leg room on board was directly responsible for injury. But most of all, any clever lawyer is going to cause the plaintiff to prove that the same thing would not have happend after riding any other carrier.
These people were clearly offered alternate seating on several instances. The fact that they didn't take them tells me they were shopping for a lawsuit, i.e.; unclean hands.
I hope AA stands their ground and sends a message to greedy passengers that they will not be bullied or bad publicied into forking over sums of money that they are not liable for.
If you ask me, I think AA goes too damn far to placate passengers as it is. There is just so much butt you can kiss before you run out of ChapStik!
Bad Publicity is like stomach gas - it passes quickly and cheap fare shopping travelers have very short memories.
Why, I think we agree nearly 100% on this issue - could be a first!!!WingNaPrayer said:
Happy friday.
Dont call me Shirley
Veteran
I am sure that the "more leg room throughout coach" ads had disclaimers/fine print concerning aircraft type or configuration.kirkpatrick said:
Similar threads
