Summary
In Lee v. American Airlines, 2004 WL 2624647 at *3-4 (N.D. Tex. 2004), for example, the court rejected the argument that "because American secured alternate transportation for between thirty and fifty passengers.... American should have secured similar alternate arrangements for Plaintiffs" and instead engaged in an individualized analysis of whether rebooking was feasible for the individual plaintiff.
Summary of this case from Rambarran v. Dynamic Airways, LLCOpinion
Civil Action No. 3:01-CV-1179-P.
November 17, 2004
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Now before the Court is Defendant American Airlines, Inc.'s ("American") Motion for Summary Judgment, filed July 9, 2004. After careful consideration of the Parties' briefing and the applicable law, the Court hereby DENIES in part and GRANTS in part American's motion.
APPLICABLE LAW
Plaintiff Darren M. Lee and twenty-eight other plaintiffs ("Plaintiffs") filed this lawsuit against American for damages caused by cancellation of Flight 100 from New York to London on May 18, 2001. Because this involves an international flight, Plaintiffs' claim is governed by the Warsaw Convention, which preempts state law claims arising out of international air travel. See El Al Israel Airlines v. Tsui Yuan Tseng, 525 U.S. 155 (1999). Specifically, Article 19 of the Warsaw Convention imposes liability on air carriers for damages "occasioned by delay in the transportation by air of passengers . . ." 49 U.S.C. § 40105 Art. 19 ("The carrier shall be liable for damage occasioned by delay in the transportation by air of passengers, baggage or goods"). An air carrier can escape liability if it proves that it "[took] all necessary measures to avoid the damage . . ." Id. § 40105 Art. 20(1) ("The carrier shall not be liable if he proves that he and his agents have taken all necessary measures to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for him or them to take such measures.")
The phrase "all necessary measures" has been interpreted to mean "all reasonable measures." See, e.g., Verdesca ex rel., v. American Airlines, Inc., 3:99-CV-2022-BD, 2000 WL 1538704, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2000) (Kaplan, J.); Obuzor v. Sabena Belgian World Airlines, 98 Civ. 0224 (JSM), 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5317, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. April 16, 1999); Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. Alitalia Airlines, 429 F. Supp. 964, 967 (S.D.N.Y. 1977), aff'd, 573 F.2d 1292 (2d Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 98 S.Ct. 1612 (1978). The carrier need only show that it took "`all precautions that in sum are appropriate to the risk, i.e. measures reasonably available to defendant and reasonably calculated, in cumulation, to prevent the subject loss.'" Verdesca, 2000 WL 1538704, at *3 (citing Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 429 F.Supp. at 967). The failure to take any particular precaution that might have prevented the loss does not necessarily prevent the carrier from relying on this defense. Id.
FACTS
On May 18, 2001, American Flight 100 was scheduled to depart from New York's JFK Airport to London's Heathrow Airport at 6:35 p.m. Flight 100 was delayed and ultimately cancelled at approximately 1:10 a.m. on May 19, 2001 due to maintenance problems on two different aircraft (aircraft nos. 7BB and 7BC).The passengers of Flight 100 boarded the first aircraft, aircraft 7BB, at approximately 6:30 p.m. According to American, somewhere between 5:30 and 6:30 p.m., Mr. Bill Gatsiadis, an American Airframe and Power Plant Mechanic, noticed that the aircraft's wingtip position lights were not functioning. Upon discovering the malfunctioning lights, Mr. Gatsiadis began work to repair the problem. When he realized he would be unable to repair the problem himself, Mr. Gatsiadis called for assistance from his crew chief, Mr. Richard Ramirez (of American's avionics department) and possibly others.
Mr. Ramirez arrived at 7BB close to the 6:35 departure time and worked on the light malfunction until approximately 9:30 p.m.
During this time, Flight 100 was also delayed because there was no captain to fly the aircraft. The original captain was unavailable to fly and was replaced by Captain Hall. Because Captain Hall was late arriving on a flight to La Guardia, and then had to make a transfer from La Guardia to JFK, Captain Hall did not arrive for Flight 100 until approximately 8:00 p.m. Furthermore, Captain Hall would not be able to captain Flight 100 unless it was ready for departure by 9:00 p.m., due to mandatory crew rest considerations. When Captain Hall did arrive at 8:00 p.m., he informed the waiting passengers of the maintenance issue.
During this time, the passengers were permitted into the terminal.
Meanwhile, American's System Operational Control Manager, Steve Gorey, began looking for another qualified 777 aircraft to substitute for 7BB in case the lights could not be fixed. Gorey also had to locate another 777 cockpit crew because of his concern that the current crew would be unable to fly due to duty time restrictions.
Ultimately, 7BB's light problem could not be resolved and 7BB was pulled from service by American.
After some deft maneuvering, Mr. Gorey found another aircraft (7BC) and another crew for Flight 100. Before 7BC could make the flight to London, it had to be inspected, fueled, cleaned, and catered, while baggage, passengers, and crew had to be moved to the aircraft. The passengers were directed to the new gate at approximately 9:00 p.m.
During the inspection of 7BC, a computer system malfunction in the cockpit was detected. The passengers were told of the computer problem. After unsuccessful attempts to repair the problem, 7BC was taken out of service. At 1:10 a.m. on May 19, 2001, Flight 100 was cancelled. American placed 19 of the 244 passengers on other flights prior to the cancellation of Flight 100. American secured alternate transportation for between thirty to fifty passengers to Heathrow that evening.
DISCUSSION
The only issue before the Court is whether American took all necessary measures to avoid the damage caused by the delay. Plaintiffs argue that American failed to take all necessary measures because it (1) failed to begin repairs on the first aircraft in a timely manner; (2) failed to secure alternate transportation for Plaintiffs for that evening; (3) failed to have a reasonable number of spare aircraft available; and (4) failed to disclose to passengers that the delay was caused by an out-of-service aircraft.
A. The 7BB "Out of Service" Issue.
According to American's records, Aircraft 7BB was listed as "out of service" at 3:00 p.m. (Def.'s App. at 16.) In his deposition, Mr. Gorey explains that his normal course of business in such a case was to have spoken to maintenance and equipment personnel several times between 3:00 and 6:00 to check on the status of the aircraft — and he must have been repeatedly assured that the maintenance issues would be resolved and the plane would be ready to go by the scheduled departure time. (Pls.' App. at 140, 174-75.) At 5:40 p.m., Mr. Gorey noted that the plane was awaiting a captain who would be 55 minutes late. (Pls.' App. at 129.) At 7:55 p.m., Mr. Gorey noted that the plane was 75 minutes delayed due to the maintenance issue. (Pls.' App. at 130.) This delay caused the captain to become ineligible to fly, thereby requiring Mr. Gorey to find a replacement captain. (Pls.' App. at 130.) Mr. Gorey's records indicate that at that time, he decided to find a new crew and a new aircraft to handle Flight 100. (Pls.' App. at 131.)
While Mr. Gorey was handling the crewing issues for Flight 100, Mr. Gatsiadis was handling the maintenance issues of 7BB. According to Mr. Gatsiadis' testimony, Mr. Gatsiadis began his shift sometime between 2:30 and 3:00 p.m. (Pls.' App. at 205.) Mr. Gatsiadis testified that he spent at least three hours performing routine maintenance and repairwork on the aircraft. (Pls.' App. at 228.) Only after completing his work did he realize the wing tip position lights were not functioning. (Pls.' App. at 223-25.) Based on this testimony, Mr. Gatsiadis could not have discovered the light malfunction before 5:30 p.m. This testimony appears to conflict with American's own records that characterize aircraft 7BB as "out of service" at 3:00 p.m. After discovering the malfunctioning position lights, Mr. Gatsiadis attempted to solve the problem (around 5:30 or 6:00 p.m.). (Pls.' App. at 212.)
Plaintiffs seek to reconcile the 3:00 "out of service" entry and Mr. Gatsiadis' testimony by contending that American found the light malfunction at 3:00 p.m., yet failed to commence repairs until 5:30 or 6:00 p.m. (Pls.' Resp. at 10.) Plaintiffs contend that this three-hour delay is unreasonable and fails to meet the "all necessary measures" standard. ( Id.)
The law requires the Court to view the evidence and all justifiable inference in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). Plaintiffs have inferred from the 3:00 p.m. "out of service" document entry that someone at American other than Gatsiadis discovered the light malfunction, and that it was discovered as early as 3:00. The Court finds this inference justifiable, especially in light of Mr. Gatsiadis' difficulty in recalling the maintenance issue and aircraft in question and in light of Mr. Gorey's unequivocal testimony that he would have relied on the 3:00 entry.
Mr. Gorey relies on Plaintiffs' assumption that the "out of service" document accurately reflected the status of the aircraft at 3:00 p.m. Mr. Gorey testified based on the 3:00 p.m. document that his normal course of business would have been to speak to maintenance personnel regularly between 3:00 and 6:00 p.m. to check on the status of the repairs. (Pls.' App. at 174.) He also testified that based on his log entries, he "had to be reassured may times over and over again that the plane would be ready for an on-time departure." (Pls.' App. at 175.) This indicates that American maintenance personnel would have been working on the problem between 3:00 and 6:00 p.m.
Because a conflict exists between Mr. Gorey's testimony and Mr. Gatsiadis' testimony concerning the status and schedule of the maintenance work, the Court hereby DENIES summary judgment on this issue.
B. Alternative Flight Accommodations.
Plaintiffs argue that because American secured alternate transportation for between thirty and fifty passengers to Heathrow that evening, American should have secured similar alternate arrangements for Plaintiffs. (Pls.' Resp. at 10.) They further argue that because competing carriers such as United Airlines ("United") an 8:50 p.m. flight that evening from JFK to Heathrow with seats available, American should have inquired about and secured seats for Plaintiffs on that flight.
The evidence indicates that in order for Plaintiffs to make this flight, American would have had to book the seats early enough to give Plaintiffs enough time to get their bags, transfer terminals by bus, check in, and present themselves at the gate within United's 45 minute deadline. (Pls.' App. at 408-10.) For this to happen, American would have had to choose to book Plaintiffs on the United flight rather than attempt to make repairs and secure another aircraft. The Court finds that American acted reasonably in attempting to repair 7BB and in attempting to secure another American crew and aircraft rather than immediately — upon notice of a delay — transferring all passengers to another airline's flight.
C. Representations about the Delay.
Plaintiffs contend that American's decision to withhold from passengers that 7BB was experiencing mechanical problems/was out-of-service and instead telling them that they were merely awaiting arrival of a captain, does not meet the "all necessary measures" requirement. (Pls.' Resp. at 10.) It appears that Plaintiffs are arguing that had American been forthcoming with the reasons for the delay of 7BB earlier in the evening, some passengers may have chosen to seek alternate transportation to avoid the damage caused by the delay.
According to Customer Service Manager Ajay Patel who was responsible for Flight 100, the passengers were not told prior to 7:50 p.m. that there was a maintenance problem on 7BB. (Pls.' App. at 283-84, 304.) Likewise, American did not tell passengers prior to 7:50 p.m. that American did not know how long it would take to make the repairs on 7BB. (Pls.' App. at 283-84, 338.) Until then, passengers were told only that they were waiting for a pilot who had been delayed. (Pls.' App. at 283-84, 531.)
Defendant argues that none of this is relevant as to whether American took all necessary measures to avoid the delay and Plaintiffs' damages. The Court disagrees. According to American, the only passengers who were accommodated on other flights were those who asked to be put on another flight. (Pls.' App. at 326.) Communicating accurate information is a reasonable measure American should have taken to enable passengers to avoid the damage caused by the delay. Moreover, American has not presented any evidence to demonstrate that communicating this information was not a reasonably necessary measure it could have taken to avoid the damage caused by the delay. American has failed to demonstrate that this information would have made no difference to Plaintiffs and/or that Plaintiffs would not have chosen and not been able to switch to another flight at that time. Therefore, American's Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby DENIED with respect to this issue.
D. Spare Aircraft.
Plaintiffs argue that American's decision to hold only 1% of its fleet in reserve to be used as spare aircraft in the event of a maintenance failure does not meet the "all necessary measures" standard. (Pls.' Resp. at 7, 10.) Yet Plaintiffs have not provided any evidence to demonstrate that this is not a reasonable number of spare aircraft under the circumstances.
E. Evidentiary Issues.
Because the Court does not rely on the affidavit of Sarah E. Clark in its conclusion of this issue, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs' objections as MOOT.
For the reasons stated herein, American's Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.
It is so ORDERED.