Couple Sue American Airlines For 'cramped Seating'

[twasilverbullet]

I'm not a fan of frivolous lawsuits (and I hope they lose), but this couple did sit in 19AB on the 3 class 763 prior to its conversion to 2 classes. For those who remember that row, it wasn't comfortable even if you had no legs. It was clearly the worst row of seats on any AA mainline jet.

Two years ago, because of an equipment substitution (763 subbed for the 738 we were expecting), my spouse and daughter were assigned to that hell-hole. Fortunately, a friendly FA noticed that it was just ahead of the exit and insisted that under-15 year olds could not be seated in that row and convinced the occupants of 17AB to switch seats with them.

The couple claims that they were suckered by the MRTC advertising and then were assigned seats unfit for midgets. I can't blame them for being pissed.

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.

 

[upsilon]

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?

 

[twasilverbullet]

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? [/QUOTE


http://www.wbbm780.com/asp/ViewMoreDetails.asp?ID=39172

Hope this helps.

 

[czerny]

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

 

[upsilon]

twasilverbullet , thanks for the link. I initially had a bit of sympathy for anyone that had endured 19A/B trans-Atlantic. But not if they had other MRTC seats.

 

[orwell]

I'm not a fan of frivolous lawsuits (and I hope they lose), but this couple did sit in 19AB on the 3 class 763 prior to its conversion to 2 classes. For those who remember that row, it wasn't comfortable even if you had no legs. It was clearly the worst row of seats on any AA mainline jet.

Two years ago, because of an equipment substitution (763 subbed for the 738 we were expecting), my spouse and daughter were assigned to that hell-hole. Fortunately, a friendly FA noticed that it was just ahead of the exit and insisted that under-15 year olds could not be seated in that row and convinced the occupants of 17AB to switch seats with them.

The couple claims that they were suckered by the MRTC advertising and then were assigned seats unfit for midgets. I can't blame them for being pissed.

I felt cramped in the womb.
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."

 

[WingNaPrayer]

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.

A person's weight has nothing to do with legroom.

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.

 

[orwell]

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.

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.

 

[WingNaPrayer]

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.

 

[orwell]

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.

Why, I think we agree nearly 100% on this issue - could be a first!!!

Happy friday.

 

[Wretched Wrench]

I think dealing with people like that would be the worst part of a FA's job.

 

[IMADINK]

I think dealing with people like that would be the worst part of a FA's job.

Well, there I'd have to disagree. Dealing with people like that - while not the best part of the flight attendant job - is certainly not the *worst* part. It ranks far below : Being continuously afraid for one's life from potential terrorists; getting insufficient sleep, nutrition, and other basic human needs; being uncomfortably hot and/or cold pretty much all the time on an aircraft; being forced to work with #### pilots (a minority - but assholes nonetheless)... The list is longer, but you get the gist. Not that I'm complaining mind you, just putting this incident into perspective, as I'm sure at least one poster on this board would have chimed in with the "If you don't like it, get a different job" piece of friendly advice.. (You know who you are)

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

I hope the judge throws this out in a NY minute. There should be a penalty for filing frivolous lawsuits.

MK

I am sure that the "more leg room throughout coach" ads had disclaimers/fine print concerning aircraft type or configuration.