Will lightning strike twice for flight delay claims?

On the face of it this a seems like a perverse judgement. Should every airline have enough spare aircraft at each airport they serve just in case there is an occurrence like this? Lighting strikes that cause damage are rare and I would not expect them to be regarded as events that an airline should be expected to deal with without delay.

I wonder whether this sort of judgement should be examined by others with more knowledge of the industry and its operational factors either before being pronounced. Was expert opinion sought? I imagine the airline concerned would appeal so that reason prevails.

Were this judgement to be extended all that will happen is airline costs will increase to cover the additional compensation paid. That will mean higher fares. I don’t suppose that bothers a judge, though.

“Edward J. Rupke, senior engineer at Lightning Technologies, Inc., (LTI) in Pittsfield, Mass., provides the following explanation:
It is estimated that on average, each airplane in the U.S. commercial fleet is struck lightly by lightning more than once each year. In fact, aircraft often trigger lightning when flying through a heavily charged region of a cloud. In these instances, the lightning flash originates at the airplane and extends away in opposite directions. Although record keeping is poor, smaller business and private airplanes are thought to be struck less frequently because of their small size and because they often can avoid weather that is conducive to lightning strikes.
The last confirmed commercial plane crash in the U.S. directly attributed to lightning occurred in 1967, when lightning caused a catastrophic fuel tank explosion. Since then, much has been learned about how lightning can affect airplanes. As a result, protection techniques have improved. Today, airplanes receive a rigorous set of lightning certification tests to verify the safety of their designs.” Scientific American article 2006

So not unexpected then. It strikes me that due to passenger nervousness the industry does not discuss it much though fatal damage is very rare.

I don’t think the judge was all wrong. It was a rare lightning strike on the particular occasion but it could have been any other incident or malfunction [like having to call the police to remove a disruptive passenger]. Airlines that have deliberately set their schedules on the basis of rapid turn-rounds and no emergencies are taking a risk in the event of delays for whatever cause. I am sure the industry could come up with a way of ensuring that a relief aircraft was available at major airports even if it had to be chartered from another operator. Passengers could also be transferred to other operators in some cases. Obviously, any of these measures would impact on fares such is the cut-throat competition among the tour operators and the ‘no frills’ carriers; air fares per kilometre are a fraction of land travel so I feel there is room for better contingency provision.

It amazes me that plane departures and arrivals still depend on having to file 250 people and their carry-ons through a single doorway which doesn’t help when timings are tight. Sometimes the rear doors are also used where mobile steps are available but not at airports where air-bridges are the only way on or off.

There is a culture in some industries of having such a long a list of exclusions that it might be simpler to say “there is no compensation at all for anything that goes wrong even when you think it’s our fault”.