I May Be Able To Beat United

"tromoly" (tromoly) 04/25/2017 at 19:29 • Filed to: United, Funny Car, Oakley, Stop Breaking Stuff United

1

10

As an update to !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , doing some snooping around the Internet on small claims court I may have found an article that really helps my case. But first, here’s another dragster.

In a !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , the DOT finds excluding damage to wheels or handles violates 14 CFR 254 and is an unfair practice under 49 U.S.C. § 41712.

We remind carriers and the public that for domestic transportation, “an air carrier shall not limit its liability for provable direct or consequential damages resulting from the disappearance of, or damage to, or delay in delivery of a passenger’s personal property, including baggage, in its custody to an amount less than $3,500 for each passenger.” 14 CFR 254.4. The Enforcement Office has long interpreted this section as precluding any lower arbitrary limits on the amount of reimbursement for damages resulting from carrier actions. The Montreal Convention, applicable to international transportation, also prohibits lower limits on reimbursement for such damages. Imposing an arbitrary limit on losses within the carrier’s control constitutes a violation of Part 254 and the Montreal Convention, and is an unfair practice under 49 U.S.C. § 41712.

The Enforcement Office considers categorical exclusions for damage to specific parts of the checked baggage to be arbitrary limitations of liability in violation of Part 254. Although carriers are not required to cover fair wear and tear, damage to handles, straps, wheels and zippers often extends beyond what is appropriately categorized as fair wear and tear resulting from ordinary handling of baggage. In such cases, carriers should be prepared to reimburse the passenger appropriately.

Now the plan tomorrow is to again call United’s customer care and reiterate these laws, and if they still refuse then I’m heading to the courthouse. Only problem is in 13 days I’m leaving the country for a week for work, might make it a bit interesting if a trial is needed.

For Sweden > tromoly 04/25/2017 at 19:44

0

Did you book the flight with a credit card? Some cards have pretty good travel insurance.

tromoly > For Sweden 04/25/2017 at 19:48

0

Company booked it.

For Sweden > tromoly 04/25/2017 at 19:50

0

Does their card have insurance?

tromoly > For Sweden 04/25/2017 at 19:51

0

Don’t know, I haven’t asked around yet. It’s certainly worth a shot.

FTTOHG Has Moved to https://opposite-lock.com > tromoly 04/25/2017 at 20:49

0

First, let me say that I hope this ends with United paying for your bag. It broke while they had it, it clearly wasn’t in terrible shape already, and it’s just the right thing to do. That being said, I think you are fighting an uphill battle here and I wouldn’t get your expectations too high. First, looking at the photos in your original post, this bag has an incredibly cheesy handle design. I know it made it made it 15 months, but in my opinion it was bound to fail pretty soon. Oakley ceased making quality goods when Luxottica bought them. It’s a fashion brand now - just because the bag cost $250 does not mean it is a durable bag and I think the photos of the failure prove that. I paid about the same for a Patagonia Black Hole bag that has a lifetime wear and tear warranty compared to Oakley’s one-year defect only warranty that covers stuff like this when the airlines won’t. Second and more importantly: don’t count on United not sending a lawyer to small claims court to fight you. And if they do they will wipe the floor with you so you’ll be out the court fee and the cost of the bag. I’ve seen UPS fly in lawyers from Chicago to a small claims court just to fight about a damaged package worth maybe $500. Again, if it was my company, I would just pay for the bag and I hope United does. But this is United who have a history of just being assholes when the mood suits them.

tromoly > FTTOHG Has Moved to https://opposite-lock.com 04/25/2017 at 21:25

1

That’s what I’m fearing. At this point all I can hope is they acknowledge by law they are responsible for the damage and that it isn’t just normal wear-and-tear or manufacturing defects like they’ve been telling me.

I have a plan on how to fix the bag, right now it’s more the principal of the matter than anything.

FTTOHG Has Moved to https://opposite-lock.com > tromoly 04/25/2017 at 21:31

0

Yeah I’d keep fighting even if it goes nowhere. If nobody fights them they can get away with whatever they want. Your fix sounds good. Epoxy alone won’t hold it but it will make it look better. Using a washer on the inside and a bolt outside will make it not very noticeable. If it were me, I’d limp it along like that for a year or two and move on from Oakley when I was ready for a new bag. I used to be a huge Oakley fan and even still wear a few pairs of old made in the USA frames I have, but their newest stuff just isn’t worth the price tag they charge now that the durability isn’t there in my opinion.

tromoly > FTTOHG Has Moved to https://opposite-lock.com 04/25/2017 at 21:37

0

That’s exactly my plan, epoxy the piece back in then put the largest fender washers I can inside and out, then Grade 8 bolts with Nyloc or deformed thread nuts on the inside. If it works well I may eventually do it to the side handle even though that one is (currently) fine.

A lot of people I work with have the Ogio Rig 9800, I would have bought one but no one sells Ogio in northern Illinois and I didn’t have time to wait for one to be shipped in.

BigBlock440 > tromoly 04/25/2017 at 22:02

0

You don’t need a grade 8 for a suitcase.

tromoly > BigBlock440 04/25/2017 at 22:06

2

Oh definitely not, it’s a “because I can” thing.