Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by RegnisGnaw | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

RegnisGnaw

Based on the article, it looks like this is what happened:

1) Couple arrived with no bags.

2) Couple put in "lost bag" notice with Air Canada.

3) Air Canada didn't find the bag within 30 days and paid compensation (per law).

4) Couple deposited compensation.

5) The bag (along with others) in a big pile was donated to charity.

The status of the bag is iffy once compensation is paid.

IANAL, but I think its like the cases where a car is stole, insurance pays out, and then the car is recovered. You don't own that car in that case.

View on HN

Since we're not lawyers, let's forget the legalities and just talk about what's fair.

It seems terrible that people should be forced to sell their luggage to an airline... because the airline lost it.

At the time the airline offers compensation, the choice is between nothing and whatever the airline offers. That's can hardly be considered a fair exchange of ownership. Obviously, it's built in to the situation that there is a low chance the luggage will be recovered.

I'd say if the luggage is recovered, the airline could request money back, minus an amount to compensate the travelers for the inconvenience and the temporary loss of the items. Consider, e.g., that they may have needed to replace some items on short notice. If the amount the airline paid is as small as is suggested here, it doesn't sound like they should get much of anything back. Note that the travelers recovered the luggage themselves.

> The status of the bag is iffy once compensation is paid.

This is at least partially addressed in the article.

> “So I looked into the terms and conditions to see if me accepting compensation changed over ownership to Air Canada, and there’s nothing,” she said, adding that their bag has been “wrongfully donated.”

I think this is reasonable. Just because the airline paid compensation doesn't mean they can donate bags that they don't own. At the very least, they should have some kind of publicly accessible database to list these for a while before donation.

IMO they should still return the bag. They payment is for their trouble of having to rebuy anything during that time the bag was missing

That is incorrect. The "delayed baggage" compensation is separate from the "lost baggage" compensation. The couple got the "lost baggage compensation".

Is there any evidence of this? The article states the couple was compensated for 25% of the value of the luggage, whereas the passenger's bill of rights seems to say that the airline is liable for the full value of the lost luggage, up to a limit. Further, the article states that the terms of the compensation made no mention of this being a transfer of ownership to the airline.

What's the basis for asserting it was lost baggage compensation?

The “delay bag” is only paid if it’s delayed. If it’s lost then it’s not paid and then “lost” is paid.

You're not addressing the part about the article stating 25%.

A shirt you paid $100 three years ago is not valued at $100 now. They don’t give you $100 for it but value of a comparable one from a second hand store.

This is similar to how car insurance or home content insurance works. Most people think the value of something for insurance or compensation is the price they paid, which is wrong. The value is the price currently of a comparable item for sale.

If the car you paid $50K for 8 years ago gets stolen, they don't give you $50K for it but instead the price of comparable 8 year old car.

Same thing with home insurance. If someone comes in and steals your MacBook Pro which you paid $5000 for 8 years ago, they don't give you $5000. They find out how much a similar MacBook Pro sells for on ebay, etc and give you that.

Again, you are ignoring this part:

The article states the couple was compensated for 25% of the value of the luggage, whereas the passenger's bill of rights seems to say that the airline is liable for the full value of the lost luggage, up to a limit.

Which was submitted in response to your previous comment that The “delay bag” is only paid if it’s delayed. If it’s lost then it’s not paid and then “lost” is paid.

I am not interested in your exposition of how insurance works, which is a distraction from the simpler question of 'lost or delayed'. Out of courtesy, I think you should respond to that other poster's point instead of grinding your axe on mine.

Sure, depreciation is a thing. But I'm not sure how they arrive at 25% of the original value as being fair. It's not reasonable to assume that the average MacBook Pro is 8 years old.

Paying out 25% of the value is not a fair compensation when they're too lazy to retrieve a tracked bag.

> 4) Couple deposited compensation.

I'm not familiar with the canadian banking system but it looks like the money was directly posted ("push") rather than provided in a way that required positive action on the part of the recipient.

Interac e-Transfer is Canada's funds transfer system that allows users to send money via email or text message. Upon receiving a fund transfer, receiving party would normally log into the bank account to receive the money. The receiving party also has the option to register their email/sms so that the money is deposited automatically, and this option touted as more secured in the event that the email is compromised.

Therefore, if the money was indeed sent through e-Transfer, then it is possible that the Couple received the compensation without any positive action. I am not sure if one could make the argument that the onus is on the Couple to actively reject the compensation and reverse the transfer.

They would have had to provide the information in the lost baggage claim.

I can confirm this. Any money sent via e-Tranfer is auto deposited.

If they knew they had a lost bag it shouldn't have been donated at all.

In no scenario does donating bags that they have misplaced make sense, should be enough data on the luggage to know who it belongs to and at least ask them to collect it or offer to post it.

Again how if the tag is torn or missing?

Yes, exactly. Major airlines are going to accumulate a sizeable number of bags which can't be matched to their owner with detective work that is going to cost more than the bags are worth. And they can't store bags forever waiting in case the owners use their own detection mechanisms. Paying compensation and donating the bags seems fine, as long as the compensation is reasonable.

Have a website with photographs/info of found bags and where they were found, which gives you a decent guess about where they were lost. IF you lose a bag, you submit a description of bag type/color and you get and email showing the most likely candidates to be your bag.

If someone went as far as to put an AirTag in their luggage, they've almost certainly put something else identifying in the luggage.

It's not my fault that the airline luggage handling system tore off their tag.

I don't care if it costs the airline $5000 to reunite me with my $50 luggage. Tough noogies for the airline.

We need to get out of this mindset that companies get to inconvenience individuals and then get to set the compensation level, too.

If airlines had to pay out $10,000 per lost bag, they'd be stellar about tracking bags.

Also how was the compensation only 25% of the value?

A shirt that you bought for $100 3 years ago is not valued at $100 now.

But, it costs $100 to replace it. (Or more likely $110-120 due to inflation)

I’d check your car or home insurance then. They don’t work that way.

Many do. "New for old" is fairly standard for home insurance, at least in the UK. Maybe it differs for car insurance?

Your car insurance works that way, in the sense that they generally have to pay you enough to replace the car like for like. A shirt is a bit different in that there is not a robust used shirt market where you can go out and buy a nearly exactly equivalent shirt. Given that, it seems reasonable that they would pay for the replacement via a similar new shirt.

Home insurance actually works _exactly_ this way. As long as you have a mortgage in the US, you're going to be required to carry enough insurance to pay for the full cost of completely rebuilding a similar brand new home in the event the home is destroyed.

I’m talking about the contents. If someone comes in and steals your MacBook Pro, they are not gonna give you the value of a new one.

Okay, that I'm less sure on the car insurance, but again theft of belongings from your home is absolutely something that can be covered by home owner's or renter's insurance.

Yes, its covered by the home owner's or renter's insurance. The issue is most people don't understand the value of an item.

Let say you buy brand new MacBook Pro for $5000 in 2016. Someone breaks into your home and steals it. Most people when they file the insurance claim thinks the value of the MacBook Pro is $5000 (what they paid for it), but that's not true. The value is the price of a similar 2016 era MacBook Pro on second hand market places (ebay, etc). So lets say that 2016 MacBook Pro similar to yours is selling for $800 on ebay, insurance will compensate you $800.

Most insurers in the US offer a choice between actual cash value (ACV) or replacement cost value (RCV) coverage. You are describing ACV. Premiums are higher for RVC coverage but usually not a lot higher.

With RCV coverage they will pay for a new MacBook Pro with similar RAM and storage and screen.

I’d guess that most people on HN go for RCV on their homeowners’ insurance. I remember once looking into how much I would save if I switch the personal property coverage of my homeowner’s policy from RCV to ACV and while I don’t remember the amount I remember my reaction was “it’s that little!?” and I kept it RCV.

To replace like for like, you go to a thrift store and buy a used shirt for $5. Or not. But a used shirt isn't worth the same as a new shirt.

The legal question seems to be whether “compensation” constitutes “purchasing the bag.”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com