Read the forum code of contact
By: - 17th April 2003 at 10:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That sounds quite dramatic. Never head of this one. Surely, with a war building up, British Airways would have happily refunded the cost of each passengers' ticket.
But, in all fairness, they paid to get to Kuwait and they got there. The fact they had problems which were not in any way BA's responsibility is not going to get them compensation.
By: - 17th April 2003 at 11:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Found this on an Irish paper: The Irish examiner
===========================================
BRITISH AIRWAYS was yesterday ordered to pay £2.5 million to 61 French passengers used as human shields by Iraqi troops in Kuwait the day the Gulf War began.
The ruling by France’s highest court ends a long running dispute during which the passengers accused the airline of making an unscheduled stop in ß
Kuwait to drop off British commandos a charge both the airline and the British Government denied.
The court concluded that the airline had exposed without good reason passengers to the risk of war, thereby not fulfilling its obligation to ensure their security.
Flight BA149 was headed from London to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on August 2 1990, when it made an unplanned landing in Kuwait City.
Iraq had declared war on Kuwait several hours earlier, and by the time the plane landed, Saddam Hussein’s troops occupied the capital.
The Iraqis who controlled the airport took the plane’s 360 passengers and crew hostage, some for up to three months. Most were used as human shields to protect strategic sites from potential bombing by US led forces.
In 1995, when the case first came to court, a French judge held British Airways entirely responsible, ordering a payment of £40,000 to each hostage held for up to a month; £60,000 to those detained for up to three months, and £6,000 to 48 family members.
That decision was upheld on appeal in November 1996, when a judge said that the British carrier had exposed its passengers in a reckless manner to a risk of war.
=============================================
I just wonder if there is any lawsuit filed in the UK?
By: - 17th April 2003 at 21:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I assumed this was a recent event, it would seem I was wrong.
I also assumed that this flight was bound for Kuwait, therefore, the passengers were treated incredibly unfairly and deserve every bit of compensation they could get. I surprised there wasn't even more severe action taken against the airline.
By: - 17th April 2003 at 21:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
BA was reckless and the Army were irresponsible.
I'm a little surprised only BA were sued. Perhaps that's why the damages were so small, because a bigger settlement would have encouraged a case against the British Army.
By: - 17th April 2003 at 22:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I say sue the Iraqis for their recklessness!
By: - 17th April 2003 at 23:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That logic depends on BA back in London being unaware, which they weren't. They could and should have told the Capt. not to land at Kuwait.
By: - 18th April 2003 at 13:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i think it was a B747-136 (G-AWNC?) Which was subsiquently blown up!
Posts: 4,333
By: Hand87_5 - 17th April 2003 at 08:49
I have a question for you my dear fellas.
You remember of this BA flight which landed in Koweit the first day of the 1st Gulf war.
People there were Saddam's hostages for weeks.
I read somewhere that some passengers planned to suit BA for that.
Does anyone has a status of this case?