Air Travel

Question:

> The representatives in Japan have made it known to me that they really > do not care as to the extent of the damage, while I believe that this > SHOULD be a factor of how the airline responds.

Uh, why?  This is the *precise* scenario for which maximum liability is set. > Maximum liability in > these cases should not apply to a piece of luggage that is pounded with > a baseball bat by some bored employee as it appears that mine was (not > saying it did… just saying that that’s how it appears).

But that’s a key point: Was it negligence or deliberate vandalism by an employee?  THAT is what should determine whether maximum liability should apply.  It doesn’t matter HOW IT APPEARS; what actually happens matters, and since you acknowledge that it isn’t likely that it was deliberate vandalism by an employee (and surely couldn’t prove it, since you don’t have any tell-tale splinters), I still see no foundation for your assertion that maximum liability doesn’t apply. > Also in this case, the purchaser of the bike, my dad, is also a > frequent Continental Airlines customer therefore I do consider it a > factor in this matter, and the airline should as well.

Perhaps, but think about it.  Just about everyone knows someone who is a frequent flyer on some airline.  If they applied that logic, then every case would be an "exception." just bicker