[Defeated] International air travel compensation

[Goobergunchia]

Introduction

1. This is basically a transplant of the Montreal Convention (1999) version for aircraft conditions of carriage, specifically related to compensation clauses.
   https://www.iata.org/en/programs/passenger/mc99/
   
2. In real life, the current compensation even under the Montreal Convention is quite low (SDR 113,100 , so about USD 177,000).
   
3. This basically defines a decent level of compensation depending on sapient species, and makes the airline responsible for paying first (indirectly through their insurance company), and then chasing after the responsible parties later, making the payment process significantly easier for the passengers. (The cost to the airline should not be significant assuming they have purchased adequate insurance). Everything on top depends on your life and travel insurance, litigation, etc.
   
4. The AAAV would be substantially higher than what the current cap on compensation is under the Montreal Convention for a typical human being. (The wording is adjusted to account for differences in specie).
   
5. The IRL impact on a ticket in terms of death would be minuscule. For US commercial airliners excluding very small aircraft or charters, which are more dangerous, there had only been two US fatal accidents in the last 10 years on large commercial aircraft on a scheduled flight, Asiana 214 and Southwest 1380, with a total of four deaths. US airliners carried 853 million passengers in 2022 alone (that counts small aircraft).
   
6. A carrier is not liable for compensation beyond those stated in clause 2 if the carrier can prove, subject to due process, that such damage was not due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the carrier or its servants or agents;

Notes

1. The regulation excludes domestic flights because that's Natsov as far as I am concerned.
   
2. The word "compensation" is used in the title for simplicity reasons, even though the payment of relief is not technically a form of compensation (unless the airline is at fault) but instead if any compensation is eventually paid, the relief serves as an advanced payment.
   
3. There is a specific exception to prevent terrorists (or anyone who opens a plane door during a flight and jumps out of the plane) that cause bodily injury or death on a plane (September 11, 2001 for example) to receive any ex-gratia payments. The WA is not here to pay compensation to people going to rot in hell for eternity.
   
4. There is no general war exception. If you are in a warzone, flying is probably not a good idea anyway.
   
5. Draft 3 simplified the definition of "trips" to simply "anything departing from, arriving at, or travelling through" a WA state. Note that WA airspace itself is defined in GAR#464.
   
6. There are no discussions on safety of the equipment because of the blocker on 342. If you fly via White Hungry Bear Airways (slogan: the passengers are for the consumption of the pilots), that's really your fault.

Last call

Category: Regulation/Transportation

The World Assembly (WA),

Noting its efforts to regulate international air travel through GARs such as #34, #342, #464;

Concerned that no payment is available on a expedited basis in the event of death or bodily injury of the passengers, or loss of baggage and/or cargo during a flight;

Believing that, in an incident involving a flight, carriers are generally in a better position to pay compensation to passengers first, and then pursue legal redress with other parties if the carrier is not at fault;

1. Defines:
   
   1. Aircraft to mean any device defined as such by the ITSC;
      
   2. Carrier to mean any operator of aircraft on international trips;
      
   3. Incident to mean any incident that causes death or bodily injury to a passenger, or loss and/or damage to cargo;
      
   4. International trip(s) to include any aircraft departing from one point and arriving at another point, and these two points are in different states;
      
   5. ITSC to mean the WA International Transport Safety Committee;
      
   6. Passenger to mean an individual travelling on a carrier, and "baggage" means any baggage checked in or carried by the said passenger;
      
   7. Shipper to mean the entity (individual or legal) that has paid for the right to ship goods ("cargo") on the carrier, and accepted as such by the carrier, excluding baggage;
2. Requires a carrier to compensate for the death or injury of a passenger and/or loss of baggage/cargo, if the incident took place on the aircraft or during embarking or disembarking, and/or loading/unloading of baggage/cargo:
   
   
   1. For the death of a passenger, to an amount that is no less than the median age-adjusted actuarial value (AAAV) of the passenger of any of the following, whichever is higher:
      
      
      1. the AAAV of the WA state for which the passenger is a citizen (if applicable); or
         
      2. the AAAV of the WA state at which the incident occurs; or
         
      3. any AAAV determined by ITSC from time to time;
   2. For the bodily injury of a passenger, to an amount that is no less than the following, whichever is higher:
      
      
      1. the actual incurred cost of medical treatment for the said bodily injury, up to the AAAV defined in clause (2)(a); or
         
      2. any AAAV determined by the ITSC from time to time;
   3. For the loss or damage on baggage and/or cargo, to an amount no less than the minimum set by ITSC from time to time;
      
   4. A carrier is required to make compensation payments as stated in clause 2:
      
      1. as soon as reasonably practicable, subject to verification; and
      2. can call upon its insurers to meet any cash needs of the carrier to make such compensation if required;
   5. A carrier is required to remind all passengers and shippers in writing prior to departure that any loss they may suffer from any incident(s) may not be fully covered by any compensation by the carrier and that additional insurance for loss of life or bodily injury or property is recommended;
3. Further requires:
   
   
   
   1. A carrier must issue an air ticket (for passengers), a baggage tag, and an airway bill (for any freight cargo) for verification purposes;
      
   2. A carrier must carry adequate insurance with a reputable insurer in a WA state with good standing for the purposes of compensation payments that may be required under this resolution;
      
   3. A carrier is not required to pay any compensation payment to a passenger and/or a shipper if it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt in a due process of law that their loss is caused by the gross negligence and/or deliberate malfeasance of the passenger and/or shipper;
   
   
4. Clarifies:
   
   1. The carrier is not liable for compensation beyond those stated in clause 2 if the carrier can prove, subject to due process, that such damage was not due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the carrier or its servants or agents;
      
   2. If a carrier is found to be ultimately (partly or wholly) negligent for the incident after due process, any compensation already paid pursuant to clause 2 shall be deducted from any additional compensation due and payable;
      
   3. This resolution does not apply to the following, subject to extant WA resolutions:
      
      1. any postal traffic;
      2. any traffic for humanitarian aid; and/or
      3. any non-civilian air traffic;
   4. This resolution asserts jurisdiction as long as one of the following is at a WA state, and jursidiction priority shall be in the same order:
      
      1. The state (including its airspace) where the incident took place is a WA state;
      2. The state where the aircraft is registered is a WA state;
      3. The state where the carrier is registered is a WA state;
      4. The state of the scheduled departure point is a WA state;
      5. The state of the scheduled arrival point is a WA state;
   5. In case of conflicting rulings between WA states, the Independent Adjudicative Office shall adjudicate as a matter of law but not of fact.

[Simone Republic]

Reserved to store future drafts, if any.



Draft 3

The World Assembly (WA),

Noting its efforts to regulate international air travel through GARs #34, #342, #464;

Concerned that no payment is available on a expedited in the event of death or bodily injury of the passengers, or loss of baggage and/or cargo during a flight, to provide reasonably expedient relief to passengers for their loss;

Hereby defines as follows:
"Aircraft" means any device defined as such by the ITSC;
"Carrier" means any operator of aircraft on "international trips" carrying passenger(s), baggage, and cargo, regardless of whether the carrier has a legal ownership relationship with a WA state;
"Incident" means any incident that causes death or bodily injury to a passenger, or loss and/or damage to cargo;
"International trips" to include any aircraft departing from, traveling through, or arriving at, a WA state, and that, either:
the departure and arrival points are in different states (as long as either one is in a WA state), or
the departure and arrival points are in the same state (regardless of whether that state is a WA state) but the aircraft travels through a different WA state;
"ITSC" means the WA International Transport Safety Committee;
"Passenger" means an individual travelling on a carrier, regardless of whether the said individual is a citizen of a WA state, and "baggage" means any baggage checked in or carried on by the said passenger;
"Shipper" means the entity (natural or legal) that has paid for the right to ship goods ("cargo") on the carrier, and for which the carrier has accepted the shipment, excluding baggage;
Hereby requires the following regarding passengers:
A carrier is required to make an ex-gratia payment, as soon as reasonably practicable, subject to verification, for the death or injury of a passenger and/or cargo if the incident took place on the aircraft or during embarking or disembarking, and/or loading/unloading of cargo;
A carrier is required to make an ex-gratia payment for the death of a passenger, to a minimum amount that is no less than the median age-adjusted actuarial value (AAAV) of the passenger of any of the following, whichever is higher:

the AAAV of the WA state for which the passenger is a citizen (if the passenger is a citizen of a WA state); or
the AAAV of the WA state at which the incident occurs; or
any AAAV determined by ITSC;
A carrier is required to make an ex-gratia payment for the bodily injury of a passenger, to a minimum amount that is no less than either of the following, whichever is higher:

the actual incurred cost of medical treatment for the said bodily injury;
any ex-gratia payment determined by the ITSC;
Hereby requires the following regarding baggage and cargo:

A carrier is required to make an ex-gratia payment for the loss or damage on baggage and/or cargo in accordance with standards to be set by ITSC;
A carrier is required to remind all shippers in writing that the carriage of cargo of significant value may not be fully covered by any ex-gratia payment by the carrier;
Hereby further requires:

A carrier must issue an air ticket (for passengers), a baggage tag (for any baggage carried or checked in by a passenger), and an airway bill (for any freight cargo) for verification purposes;
A carrier must carry adequate insurance for the purposes of ex-gratia payments that may be required under this resolution;
A carrier is not required to pay any ex-gratia payment to a passenger and/or a shipper if it has been conclusively proven beyond reasonable doubt in a due process of law that the death and/or bodily injury of the passenger, and/or damage to the baggage and/or cargo, is caused by the gross negligence and/or deliberate malfeasance of the passenger and/or the shipper;
The ITSC to periodically review the ex-gratia payment that may be payable pursuant to clauses 1 and 2 to account for changes in economic conditions across all WA states;

Hereby clarifies:
The payment by a carrier pursuant to clauses 1 and 2 is a payment ex-gratia, is not a form of compensation and merely as a gesture of goodwill, and does not prejudice, or preclude, any litigation and/or any other due judicial process by any party against any other party;
This resolution does not apply to the following:
any postal traffic (even if carried on an aircraft also carrying passengers and/or cargo);
any traffic for humanitarian aid; and/or
any non-civilian air traffic;
This resolution does not prohibit a WA state from refusing entry to any aircraft for any reason;
In case of conflicting rulings between WA states, the Independent Adjudicative Office shall adjudicate on a de novo basis.

[Tinhampton]

If Joe (a passenger, not a pilot or cabin crew) beats Steve to death on a World Assembly Airlines flight from Tinhampton to Londinium, is WAA responsible for his death and/or still liable to pay Steve's family compensation?

Many real-world airlines will not deliver in-flight announcements about travel insurance. Instead, during the online ticket-booking process, you will go to a page where you are asked if you want travel insurance (alongside other things, such as a hotel room and car rental) before you check in. Does this feature of the booking process comply with 1g?

Why is it important that flights from non-WA to WA states by non-WA airlines comply with this resolution?

Why is 3d necessary? Can the ITSC-determined AAAV not just be an "AAAV of last resort" in the event of disputes rather than a figure it must generate in every eligible instance of a passenger death?

Article 3a contains an inexplicable linebreak after the word "do." Also, 3ca misspells "rationale."

[Simone Republic]

If Joe (a passenger, not a pilot or cabin crew) beats Steve to death on a World Assembly Airlines flight from Tinhampton to Londinium, is WAA responsible for his death and/or still liable to pay Steve's family compensation?

I've taken out the words "compensation" in favor of "ex-gratia payment". I stopped the italics on "ex-gratia" since that's supposed to be English now, not Latin as per IA. I am sure if there is a fight between Joe and Steve, the relevant judicial authorities can sort themselves out, if not send it to IAO. World Assembly Airlines is only responsible for the ex-gratia payment.

Many real-world airlines will not deliver in-flight announcements about travel insurance. Instead, during the online ticket-booking process, you will go to a page where you are asked if you want travel insurance (alongside other things, such as a hotel room and car rental) before you check in. Does this feature of the booking process comply with 1g?

They are required to inform their passengers. I assume they'd want to sell travel insurance along with hotels, cars, safari tours and what not. That's a commercial decision for the carrier. Travel insurance is usually quite profitable so I assume they'd sell it, but if they don't, that's up to them too.

Why is it important that flights from non-WA to WA states by non-WA airlines comply with this resolution?

In case of a flying tin can coming down on WA territory and carrying a lot of passengers from WA states. Also because of the blocker on 342 I can't explicitly regulate the quality of the aircraft itself.

Why is 3d necessary? Can the ITSC-determined AAAV not just be an "AAAV of last resort" in the event of disputes rather than a figure it must generate in every eligible instance of a passenger death?

Article 3a contains an inexplicable linebreak after the word "do." Also, 3ca misspells "rationale."

I simply don't want to deal with any of the 17-year old cicada that lives for four weeks, that 65 million year old apatosaurus dinosaur, or that 1 billion old asexual blob on Uranus in Alpha Centauri.

Also, the modelling is on a specie basis and is not actually that hard if you look at all the regression modelling done on Python over on Academic Senate.

I've taken out most of the insurance stuff due to running over char count.

[Simone Republic]

First bump.

(IC)

I am now using the official World Assembly Bumper! Available while stocks last at WAHQ or until that resolution gets repealed!

[Separatist Peoples]

Introduction

This is basically a transplant of the Montreal Convention (1999) version for aircraft conditions of carriage, specifically related to compensation clauses.
https://www.iata.org/en/programs/passenger/mc99/

This basically defines a minumum level of compensation depending on sapient species. The Montreal Convention is quite stingy in real life as well. Everything on top depends on your life and travel insurance, litigation, etc.

Notes

1. This regulation does not apply to purely domestic flights, for Natsov reasons.
   
2. There are a number of slight exceptions, largely to take care of terrorist accidents - the burden of proof is high, but if (unfortunately) your flight is shot down by a missile (Malaysia Airlines 17 for example), you do get compensation, but if your flight is blown up by terrorists, the terrorists do not get ex-gratia payments
   
3. There is also a clause to specifically prevent terrorists (or anyone who opens a plane door during a flight and jumps out of the plane) that cause bodily injury or death on a plane (September 11, 2001 for example) to receive any ex-gratia payment. The WA is not here to pay compensation to people going to rot in hell for eternity.
   
4. There is no general war exception. If you are in a warzone, flying is probably not a good idea anyway unless you bring your own fighter jets and nuclear weapons.
   
5. This resolution applies to flights that cross borders, so for example anything going from continental US to Alaska, or from Britain/France to other places under its jurisdiction, as long as it flies over WA airspace. This is to avoid unusual issues over geography.
   
6. There are no discussions on safety of the equipment because of the blocker on 342.

Category: Regulation/Transportation

The World Assembly (WA),

Noting its efforts to regulate international air travel through GARs #34, #342, #464;

Concerned that no payment is available on a expedited in the event of death or bodily injury of the passengers, or loss of baggage and/or cargo during a flight, to provide reasonably expedient relief to passengers for their loss;

1. Hereby defines as follows:
   
   1. "Aircraft" means any device defined as such by the ITSC;
      
   2. "Carrier" means any operator of aircraft on "international trips" carrying passenger(s), baggage, and cargo, regardless of whether the carrier has a legal ownership relationship with a WA state;
      
   3. "Incident" means any incident that causes death or bodily injury to a passenger, or loss and/or damage to cargo;
      
   4. "International trips" to include any aircraft departing from, traveling through, or arriving at, a WA state, and that, either:
      
      1. the departure and arrival points are in different states (as long as either one is in a WA state), or
         
      2. the departure and arrival points are in the same state (regardless of whether that state is a WA state) but the aircraft travels through a different WA state;
   5. "ITSC" means the WA International Transport Safety Committee;
      
   6. "Passenger" means an individual travelling on a carrier, regardless of whether the said individual is a citizen of a WA state, and "baggage" means any baggage checked in or carried on by the said passenger;
      
   7. "Shipper" means the entity (natural or legal) that has paid for the right to ship goods ("cargo") on the carrier, and for which the carrier has accepted the shipment, excluding baggage;
2. Hereby requires the following regarding passengers:
   
   1. A carrier is required to make an ex-gratia payment, as soon as reasonably practicable, subject to verification, for the death or injury of a passenger and/or cargo if the incident took place on the aircraft or during embarking or disembarking, and/or loading/unloading of cargo;
      
   2. A carrier is required to make an ex-gratia payment for the death of a passenger, to a minimum amount that is no less than the median age-adjusted actuarial value (AAAV) of the passenger of any of the following, whichever is higher:
      
      
      1. the AAAV of the WA state for which the passenger is a citizen (if the passenger is a citizen of a WA state); or
         
      2. the AAAV of the WA state at which the incident occurs; or
         
      3. any AAAV determined by ITSC;
   3. A carrier is required to make an ex-gratia payment for the bodily injury of a passenger, to a minimum amount that is no less than either of the following, whichever is higher:
      
      
      1. the actual incurred cost of medical treatment for the said bodily injury;
         
      2. any ex-gratia payment determined by the ITSC;
3. Hereby requires the following regarding baggage and cargo:
   
   
   1. A carrier is required to make an ex-gratia payment for the loss or damage on baggage and/or cargo in accordance with standards to be set by ITSC;
      
   2. A carrier is required to remind all shippers in writing that the carriage of cargo of significant value may not be fully covered by any ex-gratia payment by the carrier;
4. Hereby further requires:
   
   
   
   1. A carrier must issue an air ticket (for passengers), a baggage tag (for any baggage carried or checked in by a passenger), and an airway bill (for any freight cargo) for verification purposes;
      
   2. A carrier must carry adequate insurance for the purposes of ex-gratia payments that may be required under this resolution;
      
   3. A carrier is not required to pay any ex-gratia payment to a passenger and/or a shipper if it has been conclusively proven beyond reasonable doubt in a due process of law that the death and/or bodily injury of the passenger, and/or damage to the baggage and/or cargo, is caused by the gross negligence and/or deliberate malfeasance of the passenger and/or the shipper;
      
   4. The ITSC to periodically review the ex-gratia payment that may be payable pursuant to clauses 1 and 2 to account for changes in economic conditions across all WA states;
   
   
5. Hereby clarifies:
   
   1. The payment by a carrier pursuant to clauses 1 and 2 is a payment ex-gratia, is not a form of compensation and merely as a gesture of goodwill, and does not prejudice, or preclude, any litigation and/or any other due judicial process by any party against any other party;
      
   2. This resolution does not apply to the following:
      
      1. any postal traffic (even if carried on an aircraft also carrying passengers and/or cargo);
      2. any traffic for humanitarian aid; and/or
      3. any non-civilian air traffic;
   3. This resolution does not prohibit a WA state from refusing entry to any aircraft for any reason;
      
   4. In case of conflicting rulings between WA states, the Independent Adjudicative Office shall adjudicate on a de novo basis.

Char count: 4,932

"Any such payment ought to set off any judgment from litigating to prevent double compensation. We question the utility of these ex gratia payments, but, assuming they are valuable, they should not form the basis of an unjust windfall."

[Simone Republic]

*snip*

"Any such payment ought to set off any judgment from litigating to prevent double compensation. We question the utility of these ex gratia payments, but, assuming they are valuable, they should not form the basis of an unjust windfall."

Added as clause 5(b). The payments are largely to provide a reasonable lump of cash to take care of funeral expenses etc., and for cargo shippers, a lump of cash to meet working capital needs especially for small and medium sized businesses.

I am still thinking about whether to extend this to domestic flights.

[Simone Republic]

[Draft 2]

Category: Regulation/Transportation

[box]The World Assembly (WA),

Noting its efforts to regulate international air travel through GARs #34, #342, #464;

Concerned that no payment is available on a expedited in the event of death or bodily injury of the passengers, or loss of baggage and/or cargo during a flight, to provide reasonably expedient relief to passengers for their loss;

1. Hereby defines as follows:
   
   1. "Aircraft" means any device defined as such by the ITSC;
      
   2. "Carrier" means any operator of aircraft on "international trips" carrying passenger(s), baggage, and cargol;
      
   3. "Incident" means any incident that causes death or bodily injury to a passenger, or loss and/or damage to cargo;
      
   4. "International trips" to include any aircraft departing from, traveling through, or arriving at, a WA state, and that, either:
      
      1. the departure and arrival points are in different states (as long as either one is in a WA state), or
         
      2. the departure and arrival points are in the same state (regardless of whether that state is a WA state) but the aircraft travels through a different WA state;
   5. "ITSC" means the WA International Transport Safety Committee;
      
   6. "Passenger" means an individual travelling on a carrier, regardless of citizenship and "baggage" means any baggage checked in or carried on by the said passenger;
      
   7. "Shipper" means the entity (natural or legal) that has paid for the right to ship goods ("cargo") on the carrier, and for which the carrier has accepted the shipment, excluding baggage;
2. Hereby requires the following regarding passengers:
   
   1. A carrier is required to make an ex-gratia payment, as soon as reasonably practicable, subject to verification, for the death or injury of a passenger and/or loss of baggage/cargo if the incident took place on the aircraft or during embarking or disembarking, and/or loading/unloading of baggage/cargo;
      
   2. A carrier is required to make an ex-gratia payment for the death of a passenger, to a minimum amount that is no less than the median age-adjusted actuarial value (AAAV) of the passenger of any of the following, whichever is higher:
      
      
      1. the AAAV of the WA state for which the passenger is a citizen (if the passenger is a citizen of a WA state); or
         
      2. the AAAV of the WA state at which the incident occurs; or
         
      3. any AAAV determined by ITSC;
   3. A carrier is required to make an ex-gratia payment for the bodily injury of a passenger, to a minimum amount that is no less than either of the following, whichever is higher:
      
      
      1. the actual incurred cost of medical treatment for the said bodily injury;
         
      2. any ex-gratia payment determined by the ITSC;
3. Hereby requires the following regarding baggage and cargo:
   
   
   1. A carrier is required to make an ex-gratia payment for the loss or damage on baggage and/or cargo in accordance with standards to be set by ITSC;
      
   2. A carrier is required to remind all shippers in writing that the carriage of cargo of significant value may not be fully covered by any ex-gratia payment by the carrier;
4. Hereby further requires:
   
   
   
   1. A carrier must issue an air ticket (for passengers), a baggage tag, and an airway bill (for any freight cargo) for verification purposes;
      
   2. A carrier must carry adequate insurance for the purposes of ex-gratia payments that may be required under this resolution;
      
   3. A carrier is not required to pay any ex-gratia payment to a passenger and/or a shipper if it has been conclusively proven beyond reasonable doubt in a due process of law that the death and/or bodily injury of the passenger, and/or damage to the baggage and/or cargo, is caused by the gross negligence and/or deliberate malfeasance of the passenger and/or the shipper;
      
   4. The ITSC to periodically review the ex-gratia payment that may be payable to account for changes in economic conditions across all WA states;
   
   
5. Hereby clarifies:
   
   1. The payments by a carrier pursuant to the said clauses is a payment ex-gratia, is not a form of compensation and merely as a gesture of goodwill, and does not prejudice, or preclude, any litigation and/or any other due judicial process by any party against any other party;
      
   2. If a carrier is found to be ultimately (partly or wholly) at fault for the incident after due process, any ex-gratia payments already paid to a passenger and/or shipper shall be deducted from any compensation paid by a carrier to the said passenger and/or shipper;
      
   3. This resolution does not apply to the following:
      
      1. any postal traffic (even if carried on an aircraft also carrying passengers and/or cargo);
      2. any traffic for humanitarian aid; and/or
      3. any non-civilian air traffic;

[*]This resolution does not prohibit a WA state from refusing entry to any aircraft for any reason;

[*]In case of conflicting rulings between WA states, the Independent Adjudicative Office shall adjudicate on a de novo basis.

[States of Glory WA Office]

1. Hereby defines:
   
   1. International trip(s) to include any aircraft departing from one point and arriving at another point, and that, either:
      
      1. the departure and arrival points are in different states (as long as either one is in a WA state), or
      2. the departure and arrival points are in the same state (regardless of whether that state is a WA state) but the aircraft travels through the airspace of a different WA state;

Neville: 'This term does not appear anywhere within the proposal so any definition is pointless.'

For the purpose of this resolution, a trip means any travel between one scheduled departure point and one scheduled arrival point;

Neville: 'Why isn't this part of the definitions section?

'We are not opposed to a proposal dealing with compensation when it comes to international air travel, but we see no reason why the World Assembly can do a better job of regulating purely domestic flights than the individual member states themselves. Therefore, we are opposed to this proposal in its current form. We would also suggest that the title is a misnomer as the proposal deals with domestic flights as well.'

[Separatist Peoples]

*snip*

"Any such payment ought to set off any judgment from litigating to prevent double compensation. We question the utility of these ex gratia payments, but, assuming they are valuable, they should not form the basis of an unjust windfall."

Added as clause 5(b). The payments are largely to provide a reasonable lump of cash to take care of funeral expenses etc., and for cargo shippers, a lump of cash to meet working capital needs especially for small and medium sized businesses.

I am still thinking about whether to extend this to domestic flights.

"Is there any provision for a claw-back under the circumstance that an airline took reasonable precautions after all? If the carrier was not negligent, why should it pay for said luggage or harm? I imagine a scenario where a civilian airliner is perhaps shot down by an incompetent and aggressive military force paying out without having acted at all negligent.

"You, have a provision for nonpayments where there is no fault but apply the criminal standard of proof (unreasonably) and you have already required payments proceed as fast as reasonably possible. Litigation takes years, it is very likely an airline will pay out money well in advance of any final judgment and then have no grounds to claw it back once exhonorated. At every turn, this seems like a question of individual business preference and not one suited to legislative directive."

[Simone Republic]

"Is there any provision for a claw-back under the circumstance that an airline took reasonable precautions after all? If the carrier was not negligent, why should it pay for said luggage or harm? I imagine a scenario where a civilian airliner is perhaps shot down by an incompetent and aggressive military force paying out without having acted at all negligent.

"You, have a provision for nonpayments where there is no fault but apply the criminal standard of proof (unreasonably) and you have already required payments proceed as fast as reasonably possible. Litigation takes years, it is very likely an airline will pay out money well in advance of any final judgment and then have no grounds to claw it back once exhonorated. At every turn, this seems like a question of individual business preference and not one suited to legislative directive."

I have decided to broadly follow the wording of the Montreal Convention with regards to carrier liability:

Clause 4b:

"The carrier is not liable for compensation beyond those stated in clause 2 if the carrier can prove, subject to due process, that such damage was not due to the negligence or other wrongful act of the carrier;"

Montreal Convention Article 21(2):

"The carrier shall not be liable for damages arising under paragraph 1 of Article 17 to the extent that they exceed for each passenger 100 000 Special Drawing Rights if the carrier proves that:
(a) such damage was not due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the carrier or its servants or agents; or
(b) such damage was solely due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of a third party"

Generally speaking I am not concerned about the airline having issues with immediate payments - there should be adequate insurance cover under clause 3b (and the insurer should have adequate liquidity to make the payment) even if (heaven forbid) there is something significant like the B737-Max ones. (346 deaths). Obviously between the insurers (and Boeing etc) the litigation is still going on.

I make the judgment that the insurance cost for the airline is not going to be significant compared to (1) resolving cases in its favour (2) goodwill generated.

[Australian rePublic]

But three questions:

1. How does this apply to communist states?
2. What about vessels or any other mode of international transit?
3. Not in war zones? What about civilain planes eho are ferrying refugees out of war zones? Shouldn't they get some kind of special dispensation? Or any other host of reasons why a plane might fly through a war zone?

[Simone Republic]

But three questions:

1. How does this apply to communist states?
2. What about vessels or any other mode of international transit?
3. Not in war zones? What about civilain planes eho are ferrying refugees out of war zones? Shouldn't they get some kind of special dispensation? Or any other host of reasons why a plane might fly through a war zone?

1. The biggest Communist domestic air travel market in the world is China and China is a member of the Montreal Convention (joined in 2005). The Soviet Union was a member of the Warsaw Convention back in 1929 which allowed for compensation of 25,000 francs for every life lost at maximum.

2. Maritime cargo is in "Maritime cargo general average", another of my resolutions. It's very different because maritime cargo's assumption is that if you throw goods overboard to keep the boat from sinking, everyone pays for the cargo jettisoned on the grounds that everyone benefits from the boat not sinking. That's from the Hammurabi Code, 3,800 years ago.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=535293

3. It excludes anything not operated for civilian purposes. The issue is 3(b) - no one would usually sell insurance into a warzone.

4. If a plane flies through a warzone, that should count as negligence. Especially given MH17. Or the Korean Air 902, 007, both shot down by the Soviet Union (since North and South Korea are still technically at war).

[The Ice States]

But three questions:

1. How does this apply to communist states?
2. What about vessels or any other mode of international transit?
3. Not in war zones? What about civilain planes eho are ferrying refugees out of war zones? Shouldn't they get some kind of special dispensation? Or any other host of reasons why a plane might fly through a war zone?

1. The biggest Communist domestic air travel market in the world is China and China is a member of the Montreal Convention (joined in 2005). The Soviet Union was a member of the Warsaw Convention back in 1929 which allowed for compensation of 25,000 francs for every life lost at maximum.

Ooc: We all know China is not a good example of a communist nation, rather one which merely calls itself that.

"Should this resolution pass, the Ice States shall institute a procedure which allows compensation for international air travel to be provided as an increase to the annual quota on purchases by each individual. We thus tentatively support this measure, although we strongly prefer there to be an actual definition of aircraft, rather than merely leaving it up to some committee to decide."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Question: if a member nation has no aviation industry of its own and merely maintains a few airports at its borders (jointly with bordering nations), and all operating and owning of aircraft as defined, is done by foreign non-member operators, then does this proposal place any burden on the member nation?

Asking OOCly because it's a 10+ years part of Araraukarian RP that the mainland is a no-fly zone (coast guard has search and rescue helicopters but they can't fly inland either) for motorized aerial vehicles. (But the proposal doesn't apply to hang-gliders and such anyway.)

[Simone Republic]

OOC: Question: if a member nation has no aviation industry of its own and merely maintains a few airports at its borders (jointly with bordering nations), and all operating and owning of aircraft as defined, is done by foreign non-member operators, then does this proposal place any burden on the member nation?

Asking OOCly because it's a 10+ years part of Araraukarian RP that the mainland is a no-fly zone (coast guard has search and rescue helicopters but they can't fly inland either) for motorized aerial vehicles. (But the proposal doesn't apply to hang-gliders and such anyway.)

Depends on if the airport is under Araraukar jurisdiction or not. if not, then no. If the airport's runway departs via Araraukar airspace, since Araraukar is a WA state, you'd be caught by 464 and not just this. If the runway is outside of your territory and is in the territory of a non WA state, no. GAR#464 is likely to create more problems for you than this.

I very specifically said "departure point" and "arrival point" in the sense of "that's where the aircraft lands".

[HoldersOfLife]

I am sorry but this is stupid we don't need this and the average person in the US doesn't get this it should only be regulated by the private airline. Period

[Simone Republic]

[quote="Australian

"Should this resolution pass, the Ice States shall institute a procedure which allows compensation for international air travel to be provided as an increase to the annual quota on purchases by each individual. We thus tentatively support this measure, although we strongly prefer there to be an actual definition of aircraft, rather than merely leaving it up to some committee to decide."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

There's issues with the GA#342 blocker about regulating fitness of aircraft so drafting that definition of aircraft is kind of difficult, plus I assume there may be near future technologies in airflight that may not fit however I define it.

[The Ice States]

There's issues with the GA#342 blocker about regulating fitness of aircraft so drafting that definition of aircraft is kind of difficult, plus I assume there may be near future technologies in airflight that may not fit however I define it.

Just ignore RP wank. I see nothing in 342 which makes it illegal to define a certain term.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Question: if a member nation has no aviation industry of its own and merely maintains a few airports at its borders (jointly with bordering nations), and all operating and owning of aircraft as defined, is done by foreign non-member operators, then does this proposal place any burden on the member nation?

Asking OOCly because it's a 10+ years part of Araraukarian RP that the mainland is a no-fly zone (coast guard has search and rescue helicopters but they can't fly inland either) for motorized aerial vehicles. (But the proposal doesn't apply to hang-gliders and such anyway.)

Depends on if the airport is under Araraukar jurisdiction or not. if not, then no. If the airport's runway departs via Araraukar airspace, since Araraukar is a WA state, you'd be caught by 464 and not just this. If the runway is outside of your territory and is in the territory of a non WA state, no. GAR#464 is likely to create more problems for you than this.

I very specifically said "departure point" and "arrival point" in the sense of "that's where the aircraft lands".

OOC: Thank you, then it has no relevance for Araraukar in IC. Yes, I know my RP is weird at times, but I try to be consistent at least.

[Harboredge Island]

PLEASE SUPPORT THIS

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: In the event that this fails and the author wishes to try again with this proposal, we would suggest limiting jurisdiction to those carriers that are registered in member states, given the impracticality of attempting to enforce these provisions on carriers based in non-member states.

[Makko Oko]

"His Emperor's Government condemns this resolution for allowing blatant overreach of the ITSC to decide compensation amounts and ex-gratia as they deem fit. In addition, it is the government's prerogative that AAAV not be based on a foreign member of the assembly, rather, base it off of the home incorporation of the carrier in question. Some governments may have more money than the home nation and could therefore cause bankruptcy and inexcusable levels of compensation that one cannot afford from a richer nation's perspective. The government intends to enact local legislation suiting our needs shall this resolution not draw the required support."

[The Forest of Aeneas]

Ooc: I think there is a reasonable argument to be made in opposition regarding the burden of proof being on airlines, rather than the victim to sue (as raised on the XKI forums). Would the author like to share their perspective on this matter?

[Simone Republic]

Neville: In the event that this fails and the author wishes to try again with this proposal, we would suggest limiting jurisdiction to those carriers that are registered in member states, given the impracticality of attempting to enforce these provisions on carriers based in non-member states.

The corresponding shipping one ("Maritime Cargo General Average") was changed to WA ships only because GA168 does not define jurisdiction properly. This one does have an extra-territorial element in that it applies to anything travelling to/from a WA state since WA airspace is defined by GA464.

"His Emperor's Government condemns this resolution for allowing blatant overreach of the ITSC to decide compensation amounts and ex-gratia as they deem fit. In addition, it is the government's prerogative that AAAV not be based on a foreign member of the assembly, rather, base it off of the home incorporation of the carrier in question. Some governments may have more money than the home nation and could therefore cause bankruptcy and inexcusable levels of compensation that one cannot afford from a richer nation's perspective. The government intends to enact local legislation suiting our needs shall this resolution not draw the required support."

The legislation specifies the "highest of" home carrier, ITSC or wherever the incident happens.

Ooc: I think there is a reasonable argument to be made in opposition regarding the burden of proof being on airlines, rather than the victim to sue (as raised on the XKI forums). Would the author like to share their perspective on this matter?

I am trying to take a balance between being capitalist and being practical - it seems easier to place the burden of proof on airlines than to place the burden of proof on passengers. (And at least IRL modern air travel is extremely safe anyway, 737-max incidents notwithstanding. The last time someone died on a US major airline was Southwest 1380 and that was due to a very unusual situation regarding sonar scanning of engine failures.)

So the cost of the burden of proof on an airline should not be significant relative to profits (or insurance costs). This also accounts for complaints IRL that the folks in Ethiopia and Indonesia (that faced the issues with 737-max) found it difficult to sue Boeing in the US.