I just heard on the BBC news in the Uk that investigations into the concorde crash in Paris a few years back could be down to a piece of titanium that fell off a previously departed CO flight.

It has been said that all the claims people have made could become Continentals problem.

I only saw a little on this and have not seen it discussed before.

Is this possible? I find it hard to believe a UK news agency would speculate that a major American company might go bust without good reason.

Info would be good.

Chris

While I do not believe that Continental will ultimately be held responsible for this crash, this is the reason why airlines pay massive amounts of insurance every year.

J

I seriously doubt this would cause Continental to go "bust". At any rate, the federal govt might have something to say about the French trying to shutdown a major American airline.

Moman

Yeah, just watched the same report - scary forecast for them. I cant really comment on this specific case but costs and compensation claims can easily become crippling.

We may be jimping to conclusions here. This is just one accident report. Frankly, potential for FOD is a reality for any airport and aircraft are designed to sustain damage caused by it. The Concord wasn't.

Continental's blame for this should be held in perspective. Wosrt case is Continentals financial liabilty to those who were killed and they are well insured so I doubt it will have any significant financial impact on the company.

My two cents...



________________
Aggies WIN!

Yeah, just watched the same report - scary forecast for them. I cant really comment on this specific case but costs and compensation claims can easily become crippling.

Uhh not likely... the probable outcome (if anyone is charged) would be criminal charges on select employees responsible for maintenance programs and fines for the pain, suffering, ect.

An airline like CO can sweat this without much of any trouble. The stock might dip, but the long-term health of CO is not in question.

Not likely in the least. First off, authorities at CDG were responsible for clearing FOD from the runway before each Concorde takeoff. It either wasn't done, or wasn't done properly in the AF4590 case. Either way, they're ultimately responsible for the metal still being on the runway at the time of F-BTSC's takeoff roll.

Worst case scenario? CO is found negligent and their liability insurance pays off whatever damages. Their bottom line isn't in danger.

By the way, they're firing back with both barrels in the media:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/12/14/france.concorde/index.html

(CNN) -- Continental Airlines has rejected the blame for causing a Concorde supersonic jet to crash near Paris leading to the deaths of 113 people.

Earlier Tuesday an official French report was published saying a metal strip that fell off a Continental DC-10 and a fuel tank design fault on Concorde caused the disaster in July 2000.

But Continental later released a statement in which the airline, based in Houston, Texas, denied any responsibility for the crash and vowed to defend itself in court.

"We strongly disagree that anything Continental did was the cause of the Concorde accident, and we are outraged that media reports have said criminal charges may be made against our company and its employees," the statement said.

I don't even know what to think about the French government even implying that they would bring charges to the table. If I did not know better, I'd say it was just a political play based on what the Bush administration said last week about filing a case with the WTO.......just speculating!

Anyways, to answer the question, CO would not be affected by this in the long term, as mentioned before, that's why they pay obscene insurance premiums. Plus I hate to say it, but French and USA relations are not exactly the best they've ever been, so I have a feeling that this is not going to affect America's public opinion about CO.

Figures...
They didn't design the plane right.
They didn't clean the runway right.
And somehow, this is all America's fault.
Merry Christmas, France.

"Figures...
They didn't design the plane right.
They didn't clean the runway right.
And somehow, this is all America's fault.
Merry Christmas, France."


Well said!

Might get to court...might not.....

in either case the single most important fact is that ANY piece of debris which could have fallen off ANY plane, which was of sufficient size and strength, could have downed that jet.

Was it faulty CO maintenance? Doubt it. Aircraft are hugely complex and things work loose.

Was it a deliberate act of negligence by CO? Impossible to prove as the answer is surely no.

Bottom line is that the accident should have been survivable. Air France maintenance and the actions of the crew of the Concorde both have major roles in why it crashed (I tend to side with the British Airways pilot opinions on how they failed to properly control the aircraft). The metal fragment could have come from any aircraft including Air France jets; it was the inherent faults in the Concorde fuel tank and undercarriage design which brought it down.

The operative word here is circumstance

Continental may be adjudged liable in the case and pursued by the insurers, but their appportioned blame will be a very low percentage. So stop the xenophobic "why do you hate America" crap.

So, some where out there a few fisherman should sue AF and BA because their boats was sunk when the rudder fell off the Concordes in flight.

...and how many tires have come apart in the Concordes life and caused a near catastrophic accident...?? Four or five...??

[Edited 2004-12-15 02:49:34]

An obvious design flaw doomed the Concorde. I'm sure other airplanes have tires rupture from various causes and none of the fuel tanks of other well made American and European designs have fuel tanks that crap out when hit by rubber debris.

The French are doing this because, as usual, they have a knot in their panties over American politics. The WTO fued over Airbus subsidies has more to do with this than you and I will ever know.

This investigation and suit has as much merit as the Germans suing the US over downed Luftwaffe aircraft in WWII because they were hit by flying projectiles from American aircraft.

I seriously doubt this would cause Continental to go "bust".

Although it could become CO's "ticket" to malinger in bankruptcy for who-knows-how-many-years ala UA and US. Given the totally flawed (corrupt is a more fitting choice of words IMO) nature of U.S. bankruptcy laws, such a development could actually work to CO's advantage, wrong as it may be.

At any rate, the federal govt might have something to say about the French trying to shutdown a major American airline.

Especially a Texas-based airline and a President from Texas in the White House vs. the French.

Yeah...don't look for Franco-US relations to improve anytime during this decade!  

in either case the single most important fact is that ANY piece of debris which could have fallen off ANY plane, which was of sufficient size and strength, could have downed that jet.

Aren't we overlooking here that the airport (or some other party) was under contract to clear the runway before each Concorde take-off? Seems like a pretty big responsibility.

"Although it could become CO's "ticket" to malinger in bankruptcy for who-knows-how-many-years ala UA and US. Given the totally flawed (corrupt is a more fitting choice of words IMO) nature of U.S. bankruptcy laws, such a development could actually work to CO's advantage, wrong as it may be."

No chance of this happening - CO addressed the issue of potential liability from the Concorde case in a previous annual report, and made clear that the company is insured for any liability, and that it would have no impact upon the company's business.

This case against CO is nothing more than utter bullsh*t smearing. I doubt anything will come out of it, but you wouldn't believe how much stuff gets ejected from aircraft (take a look at Boeing Bombs*, engine falling off...) hehe, and how few aircraft get downed BECAUSE of it on the runway, if at all.Becuase if the object is noticably big, its cleared. No offence, but i really believe the concorde can't take off or land in anywhere but a sparkling runway as smooth as silk.
Discovery Wings (RIP) and other reports all put the fuel tank design and other PLANE factors mainly at fault.

Sure and Brooklyn can sue airbus for a poor rudder design...Some lawyer needs a job.Elliot Spitzers French ego is on the lose.

Here here AA737-823

here here

The fire department at CDG was responsible for doing a runway sweep before every Concorde departure. Before this particular departure, it didn't happen. The fire department was watching a movie instead.

It would be helpful to have an understanding of what outcomes are possible under French law. Imputing British and US rules of evidence and liability to the French may not support any likely outcome. The little I know of French law is that it is very logical but much more prescriptive than British or US; also grandstanding US legal buffoons are NOT typical lawyers in the French court system.

If the Americans promise not to attack, is there a Frenchman who can help here?

All of this is becoming too silly to believe.

By comparison, this whole lawsuit is as if the US would send the French the bill for D-Day and the taking back of Paris. France as a nation is suffering from Amnesia, I don't think I need to explain that.

The part about the CDG fire department watching a movie, is that a fact or just speculation? Where did you get this info? If it's true than, they all ought to have been fired a long time ago. Now there's a nice Parisian scandal!

BTW, can I geet FFries with that? to go please.

I think someone mentioned this already in a similar thread (can't find it now) but if the French where to take some action, CO should take reciprocal action on both AF and French authorities for 1) building an aircraft with such glaring vulnerability, and 2) not taking remedial action after the incident in IAD a few years previous.

7LBAC111

Can't hold CO responsibile if CDG doesn't clean their runways . . . whether it's required 3 times a day as one member mentioned or for every Concorde departure as another mentioned. Shit happens, things fall off of aircraft, the world keeps spinning. I'm not trying to belittle the loss of life or the aircraft in any way, I simply don't see COs fault in this.

As with any catastrophe, it turns into a "blame game." The French authorities are seriously barking up the wrong tree though. I don't anticipate they will get very far with this, but it will do nothing for already strained US-French relations.

Figures...
They didn't design the plane right.
They didn't clean the runway right.
And somehow, this is all America's fault.
Merry Christmas, France.

 

Classic! That's it in a nutshell...


This whole thing is tragic, but finding blame for what was an ACCIDENT is just ludicrous. there is no criminal negligence, and what I'm most irritated about is the attempt to accuse CO of impropriety and the sullying of its good name.

But somehow, it's our fault because the French are covering their own asses.

Moman : Why do you say that France try to shut down an american airline?

The conclusions on the inquiry, as read this morning in a french newspaper, put the blame on both Continental and Concorde.

Why Continental? Because the piece that fell from CO DC10 was previously "changed" despite unauthorization by the american authorities.

Why Concorde? Because back in 1979, after an accident, the inquiry gave some recomendation such as modifying the thickness of the wings, do some things on the tanks.... Little things were done, both by AF & BA, but not the whole because it'd have stop flying the birds for several times!!

After these conclusions, one thing disturbs me (and make me angry) : no words against ADP, that was, and still is, in charge of the maintenance of the runways!!!
Is is because it's a state owned company that will be soon privatize?

1) Continental will not be affected financially by this claim. Why because they are properly insured.

2) Does Continental share some of the blame for the Concord crash? Yes because if the part from the DC-10 had not fallen off, the crash would not have happened. Like a lot of accidents, there is a chain of events that cause a catastrophe.

3) Will Continental pay damages? Most likely yes, and the amount will be for what ever percentage Continental is found negligent for their DC-10 shedding parts on to an active runway.

4) Want to piss off the French? Ship the Statue of Liberty back to Paris.

btw Saber Tech was brought up on criminal charges after they caused the crash of an ValueJet DC-9.

"Why Continental? Because the piece that fell from CO DC10 was previously "changed" despite unauthorization by the american authorities."

Ah another one who takes what the media says as the truth. Now I have asked this many times, I guess I will ask it one more time. What makes you think the part was "unauthorized"?

Continental Airlines, like many large American Carriers has their own Engineering department in-house. They don't need to get FAA approval for many repairs, and mods, nor do they need it for material subsitution. The AMM, and the FARS allow it. Have you ever heard the term "as good or BETTER in strength than original"? Its in the FARS. Normally the only time they would need to go to the FAA for approval is if it was a MAJOR repair or mod. A rub strip hardly qualifies as a major repair. You people really need to understand the the FARS before you make statements like this. Besides, what if it was a FAA approved part? The Concorde would still have crashed. Bottom line, FOD on the runway, bad design, equaled disaster.

N1120a:

Re-read my post. I said "I seriously doubt this would cause Continental to go "bust". At any rate, the federal govt might have something to say about the French trying to shutdown a major American airline."

This is all circumstance. My post infers what COULD happen "at any rate".

Moman