MAS Reacts On Published Article About Compensation

22nd Sep 2014

​Malaysia Airlines (MAS) was not pleased by an article written by certain Nick Miller who worked for Australian Fairfax Media group.

The airline deemed the article, which was published on September 14, as inaccurate and legally incorrect. The embattled carrier regretted the publication of the article which bore the title 'MH17 families denied full compensation by Malaysia Airlines'.

The carrier was particularly dismayed by the publication of the article even before Mr. Miller could receive appropriate responses by the airline's lawyer. Though the article was republished soon after the lawyer sent a formal reply to Mr. Miller as originally agreed.

However, the updated article omitted the comments and factual information contained in the lawyer's reply.

The airline has exercised its utmost moral and legal obligations to the victims of the deadly incident and never did it try to dodge its obligations to compensate them in accord with the law.

To recall, flight MH17 burst into flames on July 17 this year while airborne above Ukrainian air space allegedly hit by an air-to-surface missile. All people on board, including the 283 passengers and 15 crew, perished in the deadly incident. It was the second deadly air tragedy for the airline in less than five months when another flight, MH370, mysteriously vanished literally into thin air on March 8. No trace of the plane were ever recovered.

The airline claimed that Mr. Miller and his lawyers failed to understand fully the law governing the nature of the case based on the Montreal Convention of 1999 which has been in effect in Australia since January 2009.

Airline officials said their lawyers had been coordinating with LHD Lawyers in Sydney questioning why the airline only offered US$50,000 instead of the maximum payment of US$183,000 which is the just compensation. However, the airline's lawyers argued that the analysis of  the legal position of Mr. Michael Hyland (of LHD Lawyers) is inaccurate.

The airline insist that the advance payment of US$50,000 to the family of each victim is not, in any way, conditional contrary to what the lawyers of the plaintiff claimed as written on the article. Rather, it was part of the final damage payable by the airline company, and they (plaintiff lawyers) are aware of that, the airline officials alleged.