This article, personally really shocked me. How the airline doesn't even have to refund the cost of her flight, for negligence in the care of the animal. I'm assuming that they will appeal this to a higher court. But regardless, United should think about writing their animal COC like this!

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... b6915.html

Delta was originally ordered to pay more, but an appeals court overturned the lower court's rejection of a damage cap, but then the appeals court ruled DL was only responsible for $50. I imagine this will be appealed again, but it seems to me DL appealed the lower court's decision.

evank516 wrote:

Delta was originally ordered to pay more, but an appeals court overturned the lower court's rejection of a damage cap, but then the appeals court ruled DL was only responsible for $50. I imagine this will be appealed again, but it seems to me DL appealed the lower court's decision.

Wow, that seems very strange. With something arguably so small, in the grand scheme of things, I am very surprised that Delta, or any corporation do that matter, wouldn't just settle the matter, or just go along with the first court ruling. Surely, they're spending more on the legal fees than if they just payed for the dog's surgery? And on top of that, now they possibly will have to face some bad press. Just seems very odd to me.

ual763 wrote:

This article, personally really shocked me. How the airline doesn't even have to refund the cost of her flight, for negligence in the care of the animal. I'm assuming that they will appeal this to a higher court. But regardless, United should think about writing their animal COC like this!

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... b6915.html

Oh man, with your namesake (I think it's pretty safe to assume who you work for..), and some of your recent posts on 'the other thread' I think you might be looking for trouble, or at least some unwanted attention with this....

Be careful, and watch your back: the fanboys are out there!!!!

You know, you just don't talk badly about DL over here

A contract is a contract. The entire point of the contract is so that both parties understand the agreement and what is involved.

ual763 wrote:

evank516 wrote:

Delta was originally ordered to pay more, but an appeals court overturned the lower court's rejection of a damage cap, but then the appeals court ruled DL was only responsible for $50. I imagine this will be appealed again, but it seems to me DL appealed the lower court's decision.

Wow, that seems very strange. With something arguably so small, in the grand scheme of things, I am very surprised that Delta, or any corporation do that matter, wouldn't just settle the matter, or just go along with the first court ruling. Surely, they're spending more on the legal fees than if they just payed for the dog's surgery? And on top of that, now they possibly will have to face some bad press. Just seems very odd to me.

From the article:

But the four-judge appeals court said the "air waybill" for shipping the kitten via Delta's cargo service limited the Atlanta-based carrier's liability, and Lentini did not buy or show she was prohibited from buying more coverage.

Seems like they're trying to set a precedent.

Is the contract print 4 point type. If the pet owner does not want the added coverage, the customer should be required to sign the shipping contract or bill of lading rejecting the additional coverage. If the coverage is wanted the customer should need to sign stating that the additional coverage is wanted. The only exception would be if the animal was deliberately abused.

ual763 wrote:

evank516 wrote:

Delta was originally ordered to pay more, but an appeals court overturned the lower court's rejection of a damage cap, but then the appeals court ruled DL was only responsible for $50. I imagine this will be appealed again, but it seems to me DL appealed the lower court's decision.

Wow, that seems very strange. With something arguably so small, in the grand scheme of things, I am very surprised that Delta, or any corporation do that matter, wouldn't just settle the matter, or just go along with the first court ruling. Surely, they're spending more on the legal fees than if they just payed for the dog's surgery? And on top of that, now they possibly will have to face some bad press. Just seems very odd to me.

So we just throw contracts out the window now? At least the animal survived, unlike some other airline.

LOL, here is how much we charge to ship your animal. Here is how much we charge if you want your animal undamaged, and here is how much if you also want it alive. Got it!

NWAROOSTER wrote:

Is the contract print 4 point type. If the pet owner does not want the added coverage, the customer should be required to sign the shipping contract or bill of lading rejecting the additional coverage. If the coverage is wanted the customer should need to sign stating that the additional coverage is wanted. The only exception would be if the animal was deliberately abused.

You are, in effect, arguing that the contract isn't legal. The Appeals Court already decided it is.

777Mech wrote:

ual763 wrote:

evank516 wrote:

Delta was originally ordered to pay more, but an appeals court overturned the lower court's rejection of a damage cap, but then the appeals court ruled DL was only responsible for $50. I imagine this will be appealed again, but it seems to me DL appealed the lower court's decision.

Wow, that seems very strange. With something arguably so small, in the grand scheme of things, I am very surprised that Delta, or any corporation do that matter, wouldn't just settle the matter, or just go along with the first court ruling. Surely, they're spending more on the legal fees than if they just payed for the dog's surgery? And on top of that, now they possibly will have to face some bad press. Just seems very odd to me.

So we just throw contracts out the window now? At least the animal survived, unlike some other airline.

How old are you? 10? Real solid argument...

777Mech wrote:

So we just throw contracts out the window now? At least the animal survived, unlike some other airline.

As an airline customer, if the airline damages our baggage, we are given $1500 no questions asked. If the items in the bag are worth more than that, we can go through a claims process to recover that money. However, in this particular instance, the airline damages a cat (which is basically baggage, since it is flown in the cargo hold), and the airline only has to shell out $50... I know that their legal team threw in somehow jargon in the CoC that only means they are liable for $50. That's brilliant on Delta's part. But, does that make it right? We shouldn't have to pay more to ensure the pet arrives at the destination intact.

If it would be any comfort to anyone United treats its customers in Y only a little better than guitars or animals.

ual763 wrote:

evank516 wrote:

Delta was originally ordered to pay more, but an appeals court overturned the lower court's rejection of a damage cap, but then the appeals court ruled DL was only responsible for $50. I imagine this will be appealed again, but it seems to me DL appealed the lower court's decision.

Wow, that seems very strange. With something arguably so small, in the grand scheme of things, I am very surprised that Delta, or any corporation do that matter, wouldn't just settle the matter, or just go along with the first court ruling. Surely, they're spending more on the legal fees than if they just payed for the dog's surgery? And on top of that, now they possibly will have to face some bad press. Just seems very odd to me.

Delta is an airline run on ego and it doesn't matter the cost as long as Delta comes out smelling like a rose.

777Mech wrote:

ual763 wrote:

evank516 wrote:

Delta was originally ordered to pay more, but an appeals court overturned the lower court's rejection of a damage cap, but then the appeals court ruled DL was only responsible for $50. I imagine this will be appealed again, but it seems to me DL appealed the lower court's decision.

Wow, that seems very strange. With something arguably so small, in the grand scheme of things, I am very surprised that Delta, or any corporation do that matter, wouldn't just settle the matter, or just go along with the first court ruling. Surely, they're spending more on the legal fees than if they just payed for the dog's surgery? And on top of that, now they possibly will have to face some bad press. Just seems very odd to me.

So we just throw contracts out the window now? At least the animal survived, unlike some other airline.

Geeze at least the cat didn't die hope you're not in customer service with that heartless reply. In case you don't realize some people treats their pets as family obviously the life of an animal and it's well being isn't of high priority to you over the well being of a large corporate powerhouse.

ual763 wrote:

I know that their legal team threw in somehow jargon in the CoC that only means they are liable for $50. That's brilliant on Delta's part. But, does that make it right? We shouldn't have to pay more to ensure the pet arrives at the destination intact.

No, if you want your cat to get their alive don't treat it like cargo and ship it like that. It is no different at any airline, FedEx or UPS. You want cargo you get cargo. You can insure it--just in case your pet does come damaged (injured)--for various amounts and pay more. And there is no guarantee that even if you pay more, your pet will make it. You just make more money on kitty's demise. I would not ship my pet as cargo. But, to each his own.

TVNWZ wrote:

ual763 wrote:

I know that their legal team threw in somehow jargon in the CoC that only means they are liable for $50. That's brilliant on Delta's part. But, does that make it right? We shouldn't have to pay more to ensure the pet arrives at the destination intact.

No, if you want your cat to get their alive don't treat it like cargo and ship it like that. It is no different at any airline, FedEx or UPS. You want cargo you get cargo. You can insure it--just in case your pet does come damaged (injured)--for various amounts and pay more. And there is no guarantee that even if you pay more, your pet will make it. You just make more money on kitty's demise. I would not ship my pet as cargo. But, to each his own.

The point is though, if the airline damages our luggage, we get $1500 automatically. And can get even more by going through a process. Last time I checked, we don't have to insure our checked bags. Why should a checked pet be any different?

klm617 wrote:

In case you don't realize some people treats their pets as family obviously the life of an animal and it's well being isn't of high priority to you over the well being of a large corporate powerhouse.

I would never ship a family member as cargo.

TVNWZ wrote:

klm617 wrote:

In case you don't realize some people treats their pets as family obviously the life of an animal and it's well being isn't of high priority to you over the well being of a large corporate powerhouse.

I would never ship a family member as cargo.

It depends. I have some family members I would ship by cargo. Preferably one way!

klm617 wrote:

777Mech wrote:

ual763 wrote:

Wow, that seems very strange. With something arguably so small, in the grand scheme of things, I am very surprised that Delta, or any corporation do that matter, wouldn't just settle the matter, or just go along with the first court ruling. Surely, they're spending more on the legal fees than if they just payed for the dog's surgery? And on top of that, now they possibly will have to face some bad press. Just seems very odd to me.

So we just throw contracts out the window now? At least the animal survived, unlike some other airline.

Geeze at least the cat didn't die hope you're not in customer service with that heartless reply. In case you don't realize some people treats their pets as family obviously the life of an animal and it's well being isn't of high priority to you over the well being of a large corporate powerhouse.

Not in customer service but thank you for playing. It's just an animal. Now, if I can just get an answer to my first question, are we throwing away contracts?

777Mech wrote:

klm617 wrote:

777Mech wrote:

So we just throw contracts out the window now? At least the animal survived, unlike some other airline.

Geeze at least the cat didn't die hope you're not in customer service with that heartless reply. In case you don't realize some people treats their pets as family obviously the life of an animal and it's well being isn't of high priority to you over the well being of a large corporate powerhouse.

Not in customer service but thank you for playing. It's just an animal. Now, if I can just get an answer to my first question, are we throwing away contracts?

Who said anything about throwing away the contract? We're arguing what the contract says though. Frankly, it's bullsh*t. We shouldn't have to insure our pet's safety when we're paying for their transport. We don't insure our baggage when checking a bag. Sure we can buy travel insurance which covers this, but Delta and other airlines reimburse you anyways for damaged goods. Why buy insurance? We sure as hell don't insure our safety when buying a ticket. Why should a customer have to buy insurance to cover damages caused by the airline. It is literally no different than a damaged bag. Only this is a living animal. Yet they only have to shell out $50 because of their negligence. Please...

But, my other point was, that it just doesn't make sense for Delta to fight in court over something so trivial. But as another poster said, their ego is everything over at Delta apparently. Your comments show that.

TVNWZ wrote:

klm617 wrote:

In case you don't realize some people treats their pets as family obviously the life of an animal and it's well being isn't of high priority to you over the well being of a large corporate powerhouse.

I would never ship a family member as cargo.

I would NEVER ship my dog as cargo either.

ual763 wrote:

TVNWZ wrote:

ual763 wrote:

I know that their legal team threw in somehow jargon in the CoC that only means they are liable for $50. That's brilliant on Delta's part. But, does that make it right? We shouldn't have to pay more to ensure the pet arrives at the destination intact.

No, if you want your cat to get their alive don't treat it like cargo and ship it like that. It is no different at any airline, FedEx or UPS. You want cargo you get cargo. You can insure it--just in case your pet does come damaged (injured)--for various amounts and pay more. And there is no guarantee that even if you pay more, your pet will make it. You just make more money on kitty's demise. I would not ship my pet as cargo. But, to each his own.

The point is though, if the airline damages our luggage, we get $1500 automatically. And can get even more by going through a process. Last time I checked, we don't have to insure our checked bags. Why should a checked pet be any different?

The last CoC I read was $300. Who pays $1500? Or is that Just tickets?

I Know as there was a $600 text book in a missing suitcase! Luckily, the undamaged luggage was found.

A contract is a contract. In today's world, paying more is discrimination unless everyone gets the maximum

Lightsaber

PS
Late edit. The cost of luggage includes insurance on the base amount. What percentage of luggage is list? A percent? I don't recall the PHL meltdown with thousands of lost pieces costing so much. We're talking a $15 set asside per piece of luggage at $1500.

This is like benefits and taxes. A coworker was shocked after benefits, liability, and other costs, he cost $170,000 per year to employ. Workers comp is $9/hr. Yes, almost minimum wage!

My favorite airline charges a minimum of $100 per pet. No exceptions. Every pet is compensated willingly. Then blacklisted.

ual763 wrote:

As an airline customer, if the airline damages our baggage, we are given $1500 no questions asked.

ual763 wrote:

The point is though, if the airline damages our luggage, we get $1500 automatically.

You can type that all you want but I think everyone knows it isn't exactly true. I have never personally had to deal with damaged baggage, but I have several friends and work colleagues who have. In every case they were compensated much less than $1500. There were lots of questions asked. Nothing was automatic. And it took a lot of time, effort, and energy to get the airlines involved to eventually pay anything.

ual763 wrote:

The point is though, if the airline damages our luggage, we get $1500 automatically. And can get even more by going through a process. Last time I checked, we don't have to insure our checked bags.

$1500 automatically? That's a very generous airline you've got there. Please, name names. Who is it?

After a little research of my own, I came up with...

According to the Montreal Convention, airlines are responsible for the bags they allow you to check in, although their liability is limited.

If you're carrying something valuable, either get a 'special declaration of interest in the delivery of your luggage' from the airline or carry the item in your hand luggage.

For mishandled baggage claims, the liability limit of airlines is around $1500, £1,200 or €1,130 per passenger. This is a maximum limit

I'm really looking forward to getting an automatic $1500 next time my old & very battered suitcase acquires another scuff mark on it's posterior.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

If it would be any comfort to anyone United treats its customers in Y only a little better than guitars or animals.

10/10 made me chuckle, kind sir

ual763 wrote:

777Mech wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Geeze at least the cat didn't die hope you're not in customer service with that heartless reply. In case you don't realize some people treats their pets as family obviously the life of an animal and it's well being isn't of high priority to you over the well being of a large corporate powerhouse.

Not in customer service but thank you for playing. It's just an animal. Now, if I can just get an answer to my first question, are we throwing away contracts?

Who said anything about throwing away the contract? We're arguing what the contract says though. Frankly, it's bullsh*t. We shouldn't have to insure our pet's safety when we're paying for their transport. We don't insure our baggage when checking a bag. Sure we can buy travel insurance which covers this, but Delta and other airlines reimburse you anyways for damaged goods. Why buy insurance? We sure as hell don't insure our safety when buying a ticket. Why should a customer have to buy insurance to cover damages caused by the airline. It is literally no different than a damaged bag. Only this is a living animal. Yet they only have to shell out $50 because of their negligence. Please...

But, my other point was, that it just doesn't make sense for Delta to fight in court over something so trivial. But as another poster said, their ego is everything over at Delta apparently. Your comments show that.

If you're arguing what contract says, and want Delta to pay more that the obligated amount because of feelings, that's throwing away the contract.

Both parties agreed to the terms, and both can walk away at any time.

If an animal is that precious, and its like a member of your family, DONT CHECK IT AS CARGO! You can drive it or buy a ticket in the cabin if it's small enough, and on UA they'll make you shove it in the overhead to get more legroom.

Maybe I'm thinking of lost baggage. But regardless, even if you have to go through a process, one is able to recover the value of goods damaged in baggage. Why can't the same be said for a pet whose hip was shattered?

All I can think about is this poor, poor cat and how Delta abused it..

777Mech wrote:

Both parties agreed to the terms, and both can walk away at any time.

Have you ever tried walking away from an airline ticket? Unless you purchased a very expensive fully refundable fare, you are going to forfeit a lot of money.

Currently, customers don't have much a reasonable choice. All airlines basically say: "once you pay us, you will not get your money back. Even if we don't provide you with the service you purchased. Even if we destroy your belongings. Even if we beat you up. Even if we force you to listen as your dog is suffocated and crushed to death. We are not responsible for any of it." At some point, I think there's an argument to be made for collusion because no sane passenger would sign such a contract if offered an alternative.

The airlines got into this not long ago and the result was the 3h tarmac rule. If they don't get their act together, they could very well be looking at a Passenger Bill of Rights in the next FAA reauthorization act.

DocLightning wrote:

777Mech wrote:

Both parties agreed to the terms, and both can walk away at any time.

Have you ever tried walking away from an airline ticket? Unless you purchased a very expensive fully refundable fare, you are going to forfeit a lot of money.

Currently, customers don't have much a reasonable choice. All airlines basically say: "once you pay us, you will not get your money back. Even if we don't provide you with the service you purchased. Even if we destroy your belongings. Even if we beat you up. Even if we force you to listen as your dog is suffocated and crushed to death. We are not responsible for any of it." At some point, I think there's an argument to be made for collusion because no sane passenger would sign such a contract if offered an alternative.

The airlines got into this not long ago and the result was the 3h tarmac rule. If they don't get their act together, they could very well be looking at a Passenger Bill of Rights in the next FAA reauthorization act.

Why would I when I fully know what to expect when buying a ticket? Regardless, what you're saying here is irrelevant, as this was checked at a cargo counter, and it was not a passenger.

In this case, is she didn't agree to the terms, she's more than welcome to go over to UA, or whoever else will ship animals. Nobody forced this lady to decline the insurance on this AWB.

Generally in contract law there is some concern that both parties have somewhat equal power. Airports, cities, states, and the FAA are in fact the agents ensuring an appropriate power and they have failed at the job. As they have in the medical field. And as they have in arbitration clauses most often.

[twoid][/twoid]

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Generally in contract law there is some concern that both parties have somewhat equal power. Airports, cities, states, and the FAA are in fact the agents ensuring an appropriate power and they have failed at the job. As they have in the medical field. And as they have in arbitration clauses most often.

No. They did not fail. Everyone decided $50 was the appropriate amount for cargo---but, if you want, you can buy more. Her power was she could buy more. She didn't. You just don't like the outcome.

I suspect that even the most cynical politician would not support an airlines right to suffocate an animal so long as they pay $50. And no, I don't like the outcome - an animal dying a slow death deliberately.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Generally in contract law there is some concern that both parties have somewhat equal power. Airports, cities, states, and the FAA are in fact the agents ensuring an appropriate power and they have failed at the job. As they have in the medical field. And as they have in arbitration clauses most often.

UA offered a contract and the pet owner accepted it. Both parties had "equal power" to agree/not agree to the contract. They agreed. Said contract has been upheld by courts. UA should counter sue for lawyer fees (but they won't because they don't need the negative media attention at the moment).

TVNWZ wrote:

[twoid][/twoid]

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Generally in contract law there is some concern that both parties have somewhat equal power. Airports, cities, states, and the FAA are in fact the agents ensuring an appropriate power and they have failed at the job. As they have in the medical field. And as they have in arbitration clauses most often.

No. They did not fail. Everyone decided $50 was the appropriate amount for cargo---but, if you want, you can buy more. Her power was she could buy more. She didn't. You just don't like the outcome.

This. For what it's worth, the amount is $100 at UPS if you don't buy insurance.

RDUDDJI wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Generally in contract law there is some concern that both parties have somewhat equal power. Airports, cities, states, and the FAA are in fact the agents ensuring an appropriate power and they have failed at the job. As they have in the medical field. And as they have in arbitration clauses most often.

UA offered a contract and the pet owner accepted it. Both parties had "equal power" to agree/not agree to the contract. They agreed. Said contract has been upheld by courts. UA should counter sue for lawyer fees (but they won't because they don't need the negative media attention at the moment).

Wrong incident.

Here is what no one knows.. did Delta offer to pay for the surgery, but the owners decided they wanted the $2300 they paid for the kitten instead?
Not that surgery on a animal is necessarily inexpensive, but compared to humans, in my experience with my dog who has had multiple surgeries and procedures, it has been about 90% less. So this went to court and Delta appealed in order for a precedent not to be set?
Clearly the legal fees for both parties were incredibly more than the disputed amount.

klm617 wrote:

ual763 wrote:

evank516 wrote:

Delta was originally ordered to pay more, but an appeals court overturned the lower court's rejection of a damage cap, but then the appeals court ruled DL was only responsible for $50. I imagine this will be appealed again, but it seems to me DL appealed the lower court's decision.

Wow, that seems very strange. With something arguably so small, in the grand scheme of things, I am very surprised that Delta, or any corporation do that matter, wouldn't just settle the matter, or just go along with the first court ruling. Surely, they're spending more on the legal fees than if they just payed for the dog's surgery? And on top of that, now they possibly will have to face some bad press. Just seems very odd to me.

Delta is an airline run on ego and it doesn't matter the cost as long as Delta comes out smelling like a rose.

To the contrary. Delta is a well run airline by US by just about any wolrd standard. The fact that you have problem with is indicative of a poor thought process. Like all airlines, they make mistakes but fewer than most.

Generally pets are treated as property. This case appears to be nothing more than Delta defending its limited liability contract, not unlike the limited liability they accept for damaged luggage. You can put a $10,000 computer in your luggage and if it gets lost, the airline will not refund that. It’s your reponsability to insure it.

Disturbing that the lower court doesn’t understand this.

RDUDDJI wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Generally in contract law there is some concern that both parties have somewhat equal power. Airports, cities, states, and the FAA are in fact the agents ensuring an appropriate power and they have failed at the job. As they have in the medical field. And as they have in arbitration clauses most often.

UA offered a contract and the pet owner accepted it. Both parties had "equal power" to agree/not agree to the contract. They agreed. Said contract has been upheld by courts. UA should counter sue for lawyer fees (but they won't because they don't need the negative media attention at the moment).

Legally, I don't think it's equal power if one side writes the contract with no input from / negotiations with the other side, and all the other side can do it to sign or not sign the contract. It's also not equal power if say, you agree with the majority of the terms but not all of them, you have no power to negotiate or change the contract. It's pretty binary, either you sign or you don't. So I'm not sure where this equal power comes from.

An analogy I can think of is, when you sign up for Internet service, there are only two providers. And both of them, in the contract, say that they can call you after you've become a customer to for feedback, which basically means they can call you to annoy you about promotional deals an such. And as a customer, your choices are, either take one of the contracts as is, even though you don't want any calls from them, or no internet service. That's what the United situation is like.

NeBaNi wrote:

RDUDDJI wrote:

UA offered a contract and the pet owner accepted it. Both parties had "equal power" to agree/not agree to the contract. They agreed. Said contract has been upheld by courts. UA should counter sue for lawyer fees (but they won't because they don't need the negative media attention at the moment).

Legally, I don't think it's equal power if one side writes the contract with no input from / negotiations with the other side, and all the other side can do it to sign or not sign the contract. It's also not equal power if say, you agree with the majority of the terms but not all of them, you have no power to negotiate or change the contract. It's pretty binary, either you sign or you don't. So I'm not sure where this equal power comes from.

An analogy I can think of is, when you sign up for Internet service, there are only two providers. And both of them, in the contract, say that they can call you after you've become a customer to for feedback, which basically means they can call you to annoy you about promotional deals an such. And as a customer, your choices are, either take one of the contracts as is, even though you don't want any calls from them, or no internet service. That's what the United situation is like.

I'd actually argue the customer has more power, since they have other options and control the $. The customer could draw up their own contract to move the cat and look for bidders. Highly unlikely they'd find anyone at the price they paid UA, but if they offered enough $ they would.

In this case, since UA is providing the service, of course they would write the contract. Just like when UA pays for a service, it's agreeing to the service provider's terms.

Your analogy is also flawed. You could very easily just not have internet or you agree to their terms. You have that power. But neither you or the provider can change the contract unless it's specifically allowed in said contract or legally renegotiated (incl. consideration). FWIW: My ISP has never called me.

ual763 wrote:

As an airline customer, if the airline damages our baggage, we are given $1500 no questions asked.

Correct, but this shipment was CARGO. "But the four-judge appeals court said the "air waybill" for shipping the kitten via Delta's cargo service limited the Atlanta-based carrier's liability, ... " http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... b6915.html

The US3 all distinguish between cargo and checked baggage, and use the same IATA limitation on damages. All airlines offer additional insurance... like going to the post office. In the case of UA, up to $25,000.00.
https://www.unitedcargo.com/shipping/pr ... iabilities

WPvsMW wrote:

ual763 wrote:

As an airline customer, if the airline damages our baggage, we are given $1500 no questions asked.

Correct, but this shipment was CARGO. "But the four-judge appeals court said the "air waybill" for shipping the kitten via Delta's cargo service limited the Atlanta-based carrier's liability, ... " http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... b6915.html

The US3 all distinguish between cargo and checked baggage, and use the same IATA limitation on damages.
https://www.unitedcargo.com/shipping/pr ... iabilities

Thanks for the clarification. Interesting stuff in those articles.

RDUDDJI wrote:

I'd actually argue the customer has more power, since they have other options and control the $. The customer could draw up their own contract to move the cat and look for bidders. Highly unlikely they'd find anyone at the price they paid UA, but if they offered enough $ they would.

In this case, since UA is providing the service, of course they would write the contract. Just like when UA pays for a service, it's agreeing to the service provider's terms.

Yes, I get what you're trying to say, I still say the customer doesn't have more power. The term I was looking for is "Inequality of bargaining power". I guess the way you argued, it could be applied both ways. You think the customer has more power due to other options, that's fine and I see where you're coming from. But if all other options are the same or similar, then there is no power for the customer. We can agree to disagree.

RDUDDJI wrote:

Your analogy is also flawed. You could very easily just not have internet or you agree to their terms. You have that power. But neither you or the provider can change the contract unless it's specifically allowed in said contract or legally renegotiated (incl. consideration). FWIW: My ISP has never called me.

Maybe YOU can easily not have internet, but I personally believe I cannot make do without internet, just in terms of work, keeping in touch with family, and entertainment. So to me, that means I'm stuck between Provider A and Provider B, and the very similar terms they provide. I'm sure I could if I really tried, but in 2018, I don't think an average person in a major city in the US can be expected to live reasonably without internet.

Also, I'm not really sure what the last part is supposed to mean - great for you I guess? When moving here, I looked into all of these things carefully, read the contracts, found that one point that bothered me, went online, and lo and behold, there were people on forums complaining about getting calls. And sure enough, it started happening till my roommate took over the contract - now he gets the calls. So you don't get calls - great for you. But I don't think it has anything to do with how you read/ negotiated a contract or anything. I think it just has to do with where you live and your options for ISPs.

ual763 wrote:

TVNWZ wrote:

ual763 wrote:

I know that their legal team threw in somehow jargon in the CoC that only means they are liable for $50. That's brilliant on Delta's part. But, does that make it right? We shouldn't have to pay more to ensure the pet arrives at the destination intact.

No, if you want your cat to get their alive don't treat it like cargo and ship it like that. It is no different at any airline, FedEx or UPS. You want cargo you get cargo. You can insure it--just in case your pet does come damaged (injured)--for various amounts and pay more. And there is no guarantee that even if you pay more, your pet will make it. You just make more money on kitty's demise. I would not ship my pet as cargo. But, to each his own.

The point is though, if the airline damages our luggage, we get $1500 automatically. And can get even more by going through a process. Last time I checked, we don't have to insure our checked bags. Why should a checked pet be any different?

Actually that is not correct. The maximum an airline has to pay out is $1500 on a bag. The passenger has to prove there was $1500 of items in the bag if it's determimed the items are worth $150 and the suitcase list for $100 thats what they pay out $250. Insurance uses the same general figures.