FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1962
1962 - 0771.PDF
ILIGHT International, 17 May 1962 769 Al R COMMERCE . . . that both the contracting carrier and the actual carrier (and their servants and agents) can all claim the benefit of the Warsaw limits, either in the original form or as amended at the Hague 1955. From the plaintiff's point of view it doesn't matter whether he sues the actual carrier or the contracting carrier or both: he will only get one 5er of damages, which will normally be subject to the Warsaw limits, or. perhaps one day, the Hague limits. The Guadalajara Convention also makes other simplifications of the plaintiff's task; briefly, it may suffice to say that the airlines are more vulnerable legally. Suppose BEA agree to carry a passenger to Athens and issue a BEA ticket. The aircraft appears to be BEA, but the crew are Olympic. Is it BEA or Olympic or both who "perform" the carr iage? Suppose that the aircraft has a flat tyre at Rome, and Olympic arrange for the transfer of the passenger (with his consent) to Italian airline X, who use an aircraft leased from a Panamanian Z, and an American freelance crew. For the purposes of the conven tion, is BEA or Olympic, or X, the contracting carrier from Rome onwards? Is it X or the Americans who "perform" the carriage, or perhaps neither of them, since they had no authority from BEA ? Are any or all of them protected by the convention? Who cares? At the moment possibly nobody cares. But when the airlines have had a chance to study the Guadalajara Convention they will see that nearly as many problems are raised as are apparently solved. The passenger will not worry: each area of doubt is a fruitful field for exploration by his lawyers in search of damages unhindered by any convention. Once again the French text of an international convention is to be scheduled to an English Act of Parliament as the supreme text for use in the event of any inconsistency. Possible inconsistencies are already apparent which may require exploration in the courts. For example, is "servants and agents" an adequate translation of "preposes'' ? Why does the English text include the word' 'principal'' in its definition of contracting carrier? Members of the English legal profession may need to relearn centuries-old skills in Norman French and consult law reports from Tahiti to Timbuktu. Mr Airey Neave in introducing the Bill said, "In the interests of the travelling public it should come into force as soon as possible," and succeeding speakers accepted and re-echoed this heartwarming sentiment. In fact the ordinary public gain nothing substantial from this Bill because the main purpose of the Guadalajara Convention is to seal up some of the holes in the original Warsaw Convention for the benefit of air carriers. Suppose a woman was unfortunate enough to lose her husband overseas in a flight conducted by a foreign operator outside the jurisdiction of British courts. The tour promoter in England who chartered the aircraft might be the only substantial person who could be sued and if the promoter was found to be negligent, damages would be limited only by British law relating to remoteness and assessment of damages. This could be tens of thousands of pounds if her husband had substantial earning capacity. But if the Guadala jara Convention were operative, she would be limited at present to £3,000 and it would be little consolation to say that her task of proving liability had been simplified. The ostensible advantage for the widow is that if Guadalajara became law she could sue the tour promoter even if the sole blame lay with the operator who remains out of effective reach. But from the tour promoter's point of view is it right to have artificial liabilities imposed by law where none had previously existed ? Using the English text of the convention no tour promoter or charterer or freight forwarder will ever enter into a contract "as principal": he will be agent of the passenger, the shipper or the airline as the case may be. Situation stalemate. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation made it quite clear why the Bill was being rushed. The two national corporations, he said, "see every advantage in having the conven tion ratified as quickly as possible from the operator's point of view," and now that the ambiguities in the original convention could be "publicly seen there is a danger that litigation might be started." This is quite different from the "interests of the travelling public" which all members thought they were supporting. No one can now change the text of the Guadalajara Convention and the Bill will undoubtedly pass both Houses of Parliament in due course. It hardly matters whether the convention comes into operation anywhere: it is now in existence for all to see, and its failure to deal comprehensively with current and future interchanges of aircraft and crew will be an inspiration to future plaintiff's lawyers. H. AIREY IMPROVEMENTS AT BIRMINGHAM FOLLOWING the completion and opening of Birmingham Air port's new International Building on April 28, work began on the original terminal building to provide improved facilities for pas sengers and airlines. The whole scheme involving the two buildings is estimated at approximately £221,000, of which the Ministry of Aviation will contribute 60 per cent in accordance with the agree ment between the Ministry and the Birmingham Corporation for the operation of the airport by the municipality. An additional £39,500 has been spent by the Birmingham Cor poration without any grant from the Ministry of Aviation on fur nishings and other ancillary facilities in order to bring the airport up to accepted international standards. The alterations and exten sions to the main terminal building have trebled the space available for the reception of passengers, increasing the area in the main concourse from 1,680 sq ft to 5,200 sq ft. This should do much to ease the congestion experienced in recent years, particularly at the height of the season, when the number of passengers rises to a peak of over 3,300 in one day and averages almost 2,000 daily. Considerable improvements have been made in the amenities offered to travellers, including the provision of a new bar and buffet situated in the nose of the building. The bookstall in the main concourse has been re-sited in larger premises and accommo dation has been allocated to Lloyds Bank Ltd to provide currency exchange and other banking facilities. BEA now have reception space on the ground floor amounting .to 1,100 sq ft, compared with 380 sq ft previously, whilst other air line operators have been allocated a total area of 800 sq ft, an increase of 600 sq ft. This is how the BAC One-Eleven's two-crew flight deck appears in the full-scale engineering mock-up at Hum. Progress with the One-Eleven was recorded on page 720 of last week's issue
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
