Aer Lingus Complaint - Abandoned - Flight from London to Bucharest
DUBLIN, IRELAND -- Defendant Aer Lingus Inc whose business address is Dublin Airport in Dublin Ireland and may be one of many addresses used. The defendant is being demanded by the Plaintiffs to justly compensate them for the abandonment in Burgas, Bulgaria off a flight that was purchased to Bucharest, Romania. It is understood that the Defendants claim it was due to weather conditions that the Flight 972 was diverted but due to the fact that all other planes from all other airlines did indeed land in Bucharest on the same night in question. Against the Defendants as a company of official capacity, we the plaintiffs demand restitution for the following charges: We charge that the Defendant committed acts of public exposure to possible harm, unlawful detainment, mental anguish, sleep deprivation, possible immigration legal issues, putting it’s passengers at risk of accident on roadways not yet cleared, denying passengers the right to lodging, food and further discomfort, misrepresentation of intentions to fulfill their obligations to transport their passengers from London, England to Bucharest, Romania, and lastly the abject willingness to abandon it’s passengers in a closed airport facility without luggage or means of accommodations.
B. NATURE OF THE CASE
1) On December 19, 2009 around 11:00 P.M. local time in Bulgaria the Plaintiffs arrived at the Burgas Airport with tickets for a flight to Bucharest Romania. Once landing in Burgas after being told the Bucharest Airport OTP (Otopen Airport) was closed, many of the Plaintiffs made phone calls to loved ones and friends in Bucharest to find out that OTP was not closed and some demanded to be flown to Bucharest. The crew had initially tried to convinced those of the Plaintiffs that wanted off the plane to move to the air terminal where their bags would remain on the plane to be flown in the following day. For those wanting to continue from Burgas could at their own expense while the rest could fly back to Gatwick Airport in London where they would be flown into Bucharest the following day. Those people that wanted off did not agree to this as it was Aer Lingus’s responsibility to fly them to Bucharest. The pilot then went back into the cockpit for further communication with the corporate office it seemed. The crew had after some time convinced the Plantiffs to move to the air terminal where their bags would be unloaded and that Aer Lingus would provide an alternative flight to Bucharest since the crew had already reached their time limit on shift. Once this was said the Plaintiffs were under the impression that it was ok to leave the plane and did so. The Plaintiffs were then transported to the terminal and were instructed to wait. After considerable time had elapsed the ticket counter representatives as well as Bulgarian Immigration Services were asked what was to come of our luggage still on the plane or what were the plans of Aer Lingus. Their response was that they knew nothing. The conditions at the airport included only a place to sit, and bathrooms. There was no water or food available and after a phone call was made by one of the Plaintiffs to the United States Embassy in Sofia, Bulgaria it was found that Aer Lingus had no intention of unloading the luggage for those that may have wanted to stay and find their own way, or load the passengers that wanted to return to the Gatwick Airport. The email sent to the passengers via the air terminal in Burgas clearly showed that not only is the crew guilty of the charges the plaintiffs claim but the corporation that runs Aer Lingus is also guilty. As the plane left all passengers stranded in the Burgas Airport they directly caused the mental breakdown of many of the passengers. Parents spent hours comforting their small children, a pregnant woman was under stress causing her unborn to kick, squirm and suffer secondary stress response, an elderly couple had difficulty getting proper breathing under control and all had to go through a greater expense in the arrangement of transportation they would not have otherwise had to pay. This extra cost to some was a great deal of unaffordable stress on their budgets. Some of the Plaintiffs have shared with the Defendant in an attempt to receive just compensation have been met with only minimal offers to the extent of £36 for the bus fair and £100 towards credit to fly with them at a later date. This offer is not acceptable and the Plaintiffs want what is truly fair.