So some may remember they had a flight attendant who was filming kids in the bathroom. One of the families sued, and AA’s (at least partial) defense is to blame the 9 year old by saying she should have known the camera was there. MSN this is going to cost them light years more business than simply settling would have, a prime example of letting your legal team win out over your PR team and management. Cutting off your nose to spite your face, they lose any way this goes now.
If its the cheapest flight to wherever someone is going I don't think it will cost them much. You'll just hop on that unsafe Boeing they murdered people to keep unsafe and enjoy the ride (and pray it doesnt autopilot into a mountain).
Since we are on the subject of airlines, this is the most terrifying story I've read recently: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-...ing-bangkok-30-injured-thai-media-2024-05-21/
All it will take is a few thousand people worldwide passing on them once and they will lose money. If they lose one decent sized corporate account over it they will lose many times over. It’s a dumb strategy.
I assume they are in court rather than settling because they think it will cost less fighting. They are obviously just throwing stuff out there to see what sticks defense-wise. So, ultimately I find this hard to believe. People fly on Ryanair because its cheap, and the customer experience with that airline is basically like aerial fascism. You are assuming people even remember this story in 3-6 months when they are booking vacations or work travel. I suppose time will tell, but will we remember this thread in 3-6 months either?
That’s not what I am saying. To litigate it is one thing, to blame a 9 year old for one of their pervert employees filming her is something completely different. Claim you’re not responsible for his bad behavior, claim you had no way of knowing, that you have background checks in place, anonymous tip lines for employees to raise issues they see, thwt you regularly inspect aircraft to avoid stuff like this…fine. But don’t blame a child for their own assault, that’s sickening.
Have you no experience with the legal system? This seems like a normal thing corporations do when they defend themselves in court, blame the victim for not using their product/service right. Blaming a kid is pretty low, but not unexpected when it comes to stuff like this. I just have a hard time believing people will choose a $400 flight from Delta over a $300 American flight simply because of some bad press. I'm pretty sure any airline would resort to debasing themselves to avoid a legal judgement, and I'm pretty sure most people see them as interchangeable. Like what is the "good" airline?
I think his point is it would only take a few groups to boycott to make this legal defense not worth it. Doesn’t take a huge boycott to make the legal strategy nonsensical from a $$$ perpective. Although I recognize part of the strategy is sending the message: “we will fight all lawsuits to the death”. Discouraging lawsuits generally is also part of their math, it can’t possibly be the math just from one settlement. You’d think the MAGA chuds who were all over Bud Light would be lining up to fight this actual corporate evil doing. Right? RIGHT?
Maybe it would maybe it wouldnt, but again, maybe they will lose money, but that wont be because people spend more to fly on another airline because they are indignant about their corporate strategy. Now if they have to raise costs to cover their screw ups, then yes, that will probably impact them, but again, that's more about people taking the cheaper flight not being mad because their lawyers lack shame.
The pervert who put a camera in the lavatory needs to be behind bars and the airline should be fined a shit ton of money.
Scummy move by AA, but no one is going to boycott an airline. It's not like you can get an identical flight with another carrier.
Could be wrong, but I feel like this was probably asserted as one of many affirmative defenses which could be dropped before the trial or maybe even before the corporate representative of the defendant is deposed. I recall a case (wasn't my case) that involved the sexual battery of a child by a corporate insured's employee/worker. One argument was to try to apportion some percentage of fault on the kid's mom by naming her as a Fabre Defendant, alleging she should have some responsibility for abandoning her child and leaving her with the worker. I know lawyers like to throw all defenses they can think of out early, especially if the case can be settled. But I would never want the jury to hear that argument, particularly in a high profile case. Their better defense here seems to be whether vicarious liability even applies. In another case I can think of, I was debating blaming a co-Plaintiff with a loss of consortium claim for not warning his wife about a dangerous condition that he admitted he saw but she said he didn't. Even that was quite tricky and that didn't even involve a kid.
They’ve already asked it to be removed. Was the only thing they could do really. My guess is that there wasn’t sign off from senior management on the defense strategy, they just trusted the lawyers to get it done. Or the full understanding of what would be done was not there. American Airlines releases groveling statement after BLAMING nine-year-old girl when she was 'filmed in a toilet by one of their flight attendants' | Daily Mail Online
When AA merged with US Air several years ago, the combined company took on all of the bad things about US Air and got rid of all of the good things about AA.
just like when Boeing merged with mcdonnell douglas. let the bean counters run the business instead of people who know the business
