Oops, killed your cat -- here's $50.00
- Thread starter tharpdevenport
- Start date
Wow. That's horrible.
Sphinxes aren't cheap, she should at least get market value for a new Sphinx, plus airfare, plus vet bills. $50 is an insult.
Yeah, and it's a sphinx we're talking about. Those cats are pricey. And sweet, too.
Before anyone makes a joke about it, no, I'm not considering going over there and punching those people. But if I were in that owner's shoes I'd have to resist the urge...
Before anyone makes a joke about it, no, I'm not considering going over there and punching those people. But if I were in that owner's shoes I'd have to resist the urge...
We'll get you, Mr. T, and Chuck Norris, go punch 'em. ;-)
There, joke made.
There, joke made.
Two days ago I was just some kid in college. Now someone on the internet is bunching me with Mr. T and Chuck Norris.
This too shall pass but for the moment it's all kinds of bizarre.
^Exactly. Poor kitty. If I were the owner, I would be outraged at the offer of $50. On the other hand, I don't think I would allow my own cats to fly as cargo in the first place.
I'm not a fan of cats, so my opinion will not count. If not the cargo hold, where does one put a pet when flying? I wouldn't want the darn thing in my passenger area.
Legally, I smell a lawsuit. The airline made a reasonable offer, then rescinded it. She will probably sue for the original amount offered, attorney's fees and of course her "pain and suffering" and the cat's "pain and suffering". The attorneys will have a field day.
Joke: One down, 9 billion cats to go!
Legally, I smell a lawsuit. The airline made a reasonable offer, then rescinded it. She will probably sue for the original amount offered, attorney's fees and of course her "pain and suffering" and the cat's "pain and suffering". The attorneys will have a field day.
Joke: One down, 9 billion cats to go!
As I see it, the owners took the risk by putting their pet in cargo. Is there reason why the airline should offer more compensation than what they have?
I guessing the airline has a policy that says something like pets lives are worth no more than equivalent weight of cargo?
The owners should have made themselves familiar with this rule and considered paying for life insurance for the cat if didn't feel their compensation policy was adequate.
I guessing the airline has a policy that says something like pets lives are worth no more than equivalent weight of cargo?
The owners should have made themselves familiar with this rule and considered paying for life insurance for the cat if didn't feel their compensation policy was adequate.
A
Amaris
Guest
It was a living creature? More specifically, a cherished pet? If that's not enough, how about the animal is expensive, the door latch failure was the responsibility of the airline, and it is standard policy for pets to go in the cargo hold in most airlines?
I doubt they do, but they probably will now.
Perhaps she didn't realize the airline considers pets to be worth nothing more than dead cargo weight. Yes, that's her fault, I agree, but this policy sounds an awful lot like a policy where nothing is taken into account other than some base standard that is ill fitting for all around. Think zero tolerance or 3 strikes as an example.
Jeff O'Connor's tears could bring this cat back to life. Too bad Jeff has never cried.
Jeff O'Connor single-footedly put UPS and FedEx out of business, and all his deliveries are same-day.
I must admit I didn't look up Air Canada's rule on this when I sent my cats cargo from Canada to the UK (I wasn't even on the same flight with them). The airline charged me $900CDN and I'd spent over $700CDN on getting their rabies paperwork done. Surely airlines should at least refund the price they charged the owner if the airline is at fault for the animal's death?
As I see it, this compensation is nothing other than a form of insurance that the airline is obligated to pay if a passenger's property is damaged in transit.
Concepts like "cherished" don't matter in the insurance legalese. "Living" cargo will either have it's own subsection in that legal book, or will be considered cargo like everything else.
"Expensive" would require declaring the cargo as valuables, and I'm sure the airline does have a policy on that. If your genuine Ming vase breaks, they're not going to be forking out several million dollars to compensate you. They'd insist you have your own insurance.
That's how I see this case. Readers may feel upset by the story, but must understand that things being cherished is irrelevant to how much the airline has to pay out.
A
Amaris
Guest
Which is why it's an ill suited baseline regulation. I mean, god forbid a human being get in there and the same thing happen. I don't think "Well, your grandfather couldn't have been more than 120 lbs, so, what's that, a couch? Eh, $300 should do it."
The airline should fire whoever dealt with this accident. That is a whole lot of very bad publicity. So much better to have gone with the original offer and a sincere apology.
The rules governing people are different to those governing animals. People are either crew, passengers or stowaways.
If the person is crew, who died while in the cargo area, then they died at work. They'll surely have some sort of insurance as part of their employment contract.
If passengers/stowaways are in cargo, they're there illegally, so completely different rules apply. It wouldn't be an insurance issue ~ It would be a police investigation, seeking prosecutions of whoever put the old man in the luggage.
Similar threads
