So you’ve decided to sue the airline you believe wronged you.
One option is to do so in small claims court.
A plus is you don’t need an attorney. In fact, you’re barred from bringing in an attorney. You represent yourself, which means you don’t have to pay an attorney–either up-front or at the end of the case.
Another plus: It will cost you far less to represent yourself than it will cost the airline to send a representative.
If you file in California and the airline is headquartered in New York, it will be expensive for them to send a rep to attend the proceedings. If the airline fails to send someone as its representative–which is highly unlikely–it loses by default.
A minus is that you may not be the confrontational type. You may also feel intimidated by the legal process–and afraid of looking like an idiot if you lose.
Another minus is that each state sets a different amount you can win in damages.
To learn about the rules applying to small claims courts in your state, consult the following link: Click here: 50 State Overview of Small Claims Rules | Nolo.com.
A second option is to take your case to civil court.
A plus is that the dollar-amount you can obtain at this level is far higher than in small-claims court.
A minus is that you’ll definitely want to retain an attorney.
True, you can legally represent yourself. But aviation law is complex. The airline will definitely have an attorney, so if you don’t, you’re bringing a knife to a gunfight.
If you can find an attorney willing to represent you on a contingency fee basis, you don’t have to pay him unless you win. His fee will then come out of your settlement amount.
Another minus: If you can’t find an attorney willing to take your case on this basis, you’ll have to pay him by the hour, after first putting up a retainer fee, which can be quite large.
A third minus is that the courts are clogged with cases, and it can take months or even years before yours will be heard.
And remember: The vast majority of cases–civil and criminal–are settled outside of court. In civil cases especially, judges strongly urge both sides to reach a compromise rather than duke it out in court.
And both sides are usually willing to do this, since there’s no telling how a jury might rule.
Finally, there’s the option of filing a class-action lawsuit.
A plus to this is that you’re not alone in your charge against the airline. Other passengers who have been similarly wronged are seeking damages, and so the spotlight is not on any one plaintiff.
A minus is that such cases are extremely complex and must be handled by experienced attorneys.
Typically, federal courts are thought to be more favorable for defendants, and state courts more favorable for plaintiffs. Many class actions are filed initially in state court. The defendant will frequently try to remove the case to federal court.
Another minus: If your side prevails, the amount of money each plaintiff receives will be far smaller than if the award were to be divided between a single plaintiff and his attorney(s).
Finally, even if you win, you can be certain the airline will appeal the verdict. Such appeals can go on for literally years.
On a more far-reaching basis, you can demand that your Congressional representatives support passenger rights through legislation.
Protections are especially needed when a single airline official–such as a steward–kicks a passenger off an airplane for reasons that have nothing to do with security.
(Examples:
- Two women kissing;
- a steward demanding whether a woman is wearing underwear;
- another steward taking offense at a passenger’s request for help.)
During the administration of President George H.W. Bush, Congress overrode only one of his 44 vetoes. In that case, Congress put a cap on the rates cable TV companies could charge.
They did so because their constituents had made clear their rage about high-priced fees.
Members of the Senate and House of Representatives will respond to constituent demands:
- If enough voters make their specific demands known; and
- If those voters make clear that ignoring their demands will guarantee defeat at the next election.
There are consumer rights organizations now pressing for vitally-needed passenger protections. These organizations need support–both in terms of members and money.
Only then can they counter the legalized bribes (known as “campaign contributions) the airlines offer to members of Congress.
An example is Flyers Rights, which can be reached at: FlyersRights.ORG – Largest Non-Profit Airline Consumer Organization.
Above all, remember: Airlines are run by corporations.
Their foremost concern is not your comfort or even safety as a passenger. It’s with further enriching their key executives.
You must be willing to stand up for your own rights–because the airline couldn’t care less about them.



ABC NEWS, BARACK OBAMA, BENGHZI, CBS NEWS, CHRISTMAS, FACEBOOK, FOX NEWS, J. CHRISTOPHER STEVENS, JESUS, MEGYN KELLY, NBC NEWS, SANTA CLAUS, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, THOMAS RICKS, TWITTER, WAR ON CHRISTMAS
PERPETUAL “WAR ON CHRISTMAS”
In Bureaucracy, Business, Entertainment, Social commentary on December 17, 2013 at 3:57 pmIt’s that time of year again–a time of
And, if you’re an employee of Fox News, creating fresh ways to stir up controversey over a non-existant “war on Christmas.”
Stirring up false controversies is a daily assignment for the alleged reporters of this company owned by Right-wing patriarch Rupert Murdoch.
Consider the attack on the American diplomatic mission at Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012.
The attack caught the United States by surprise. Clearly, with the 11th anniversay of the 9/11 attacks approaching, America should have beefed up security at its diplomatic missions throughout the Middle East.
But Fox News wasn’t content to simply make that claim. Instead, it accused President Barack Obama of deliberately sacrificing the four Americans killed in Benghazi that night–including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.
So long as Fox “reporters” spoke only with other Right-wing critics of the Obama administration, the slander went unopposed.
But then Fox News interviewed Tom Ricks, the Pulitzer Prize-winning warfare expert who had covered the U.S. military for the Washington Post from 2000 to 2008, and the author of The Generals.
Thomas Ricks
The exchange between Ricks and Jon Scott, co-host of Fox News Happening Now went as follows:
SCOTT: Pressure mounting on the Obama administration over its response to the deadly attack on our consulate in Benghazi….
Two senators even expressing concerns about a possible White House cover-up. Let’s talk about it with Tom Ricks. He is author of The Generals. He has spent decades covering our military. He joins us now….What do you make of it?
RICKS: I think that Benghazi generally was hyped, by this network especially, and that now that the campaign is over, I think he’s backing off a little bit….
SCOTT: When you have four people dead, including the first dead U.N. ambassador–U.S. ambassador in more than 30 years, how do you call that hype?
RICKS: How many security contractors died in Iraq, do you know?
SCOTT: I don’t.
RICKS: No. Nobody does, because nobody cared. We know that several hundred died, but there was never an official count done of security contractors dead in Iraq. So when I see this focus on what was essentially a small firefight, I think, number one, I’ve covered a lot of firefights.
It’s impossible to figure out what happens in them sometimes. And second, I think that the emphasis on Benghazi has been extremely political, partly because Fox was operating as a wing of Republican Party.
SCOTT: All right. Tom Ricks, thanks very much for joining us today.
* * * * *
But Christmas is special, so, each year, the executives at Fox find a new way to stir up emotions by resurrecting the “war on Christmas” slander.
This year, it fell to Fox hostess Megyn Kelly to carry the ball. And she did so on December 11 on “The Kelly File,” her popular Fox News program.
Referring to an article by Slate writer Aisha Harris on “Santa Claus Should Not Be a White Man Anymore,” she said:
“When I saw this headline, I kinda laughed and I said, ‘Oh, this is ridiculous. Yet another person claiming it’s racist to have a white Santa.’
“And by the way, for all you kids watching at home, Santa just is white. But this person is maybe just arguing that we should also have a black Santa. But, you know, Santa is what he is, and just so you know, we’re just debating this because someone wrote about it, kids.”
Of course, Santa Claus is a completely fictional character. Arguing about his skin color is as pointless as arguing about his weight.
But Kelly wasn’t content to talk only about Santa. So she turned next to Jesus, a historical figure about whom we have not a single reference to his appearance, let alone a picture.
“Just because it makes you feel uncomfortable doesn’t mean it has to change. You know, I mean, Jesus was a white man, too,” Kelly said.
“He was a historical figure; that’s a verifiable fact–as is Santa, I want you kids watching to know that–but my point is: How do you revise it, in the middle of the legacy of the story, and change Santa from white to black?”
Santa Claus a verifiable historical figure? Not even Charlie Brown, in the annually telecast “Peanuts” special, would make that claim.
In George Orwell’s classic novel, 1984, Oceania is always at war with Eurasia or Eastasia. Its citizens are kept in a constant state of frenzy as they’re directed to search for endless “enemies of the state.”
This, in turn, allows the unseen rulers of Oceania to run their dictatorship without interference.
It’s a blueprint for power not lost on the men who run Fox News.
Share this: