Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million  
User currently offlineVirgin747 From Canada, joined Oct 1999, 319 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 8227 times:

An article in Kansas states.....

Quote:

Family of pilot sues Cessna over crash
BY MOLLY MCMILLIN
The Wichita Eagle
The family of the pilot killed in a crash of a Cessna Caravan airplane has filed suit against Cessna Aircraft Co. alleging fraud, product liability, negligence and breach of warranty.

The family is seeking $25 million in punitive damages for the loss of their mother, Nancy Chase Allen, an air cargo pilot for a FedEx feeder airline.

Cessna's policy is not to comment on any litigation, spokesman Doug Oliver said.

The Canadian Transportation Safety Board is investigating the crash on Oct. 6, 2005, near a major intersection in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

The board has cited in-flight airframe icing as a factor in the crash, according to the Nolan Law Group, a Chicago law firm representing the family.

Cessna is marketing the Caravan as a safe and secure plane for winter operations, the law firm said in a statement. But lives are being lost.



continued here....
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/bus...source=rss&channel=kansas_business


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Matthew Capina



Another article states according to figures 33 people have died in the last 15 years in caravan accidents due to icing....

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?c...03b8e3-a4ae-49cd-b418-0ad625ad5a82

50 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDL787932ER From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 597 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 8223 times:

Cessna will probably have to pay a couple million dollars to make this go away, which will just bump up the cost of their airplanes and pilots' insurance policies that much more. How sad that a person could die doing the thing she probably loved best and then have her family take an action like this that will only increase the cost of that activity for everyone else. It would be nice if they would think about what she would have wanted, not how they can become rich off this tragedy.


F L Y D E L T A J E T S
User currently offlineSLCPilot From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 585 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8180 times:

The C-208 is generally known for it's abilty to pick up large amounts of ice, and the speed/performance loss that goes with it. A couple of years ago one was lost out of SLC on it's way to ID with the loss of both on board. Icing was suspected. Most pilots are aware of this charactoristic, and are trained with respect to it.

I would hope this was not a case of icing if it was just after T/O. If so, there might be other issues (i.e. the pilot's pre-flight and de-icing efforts prior to flight).

It would be interesting to hear the plantiff's arguement in it's entirety.

Fly Safe,

SLCPilot



I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
User currently offline71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3082 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8151 times:

Agreed. They didn't define "shortly" after take-off but that generally does not fit with airframe icing, but rather a take-off with a contaminated wing.


The good old days: Delta L-1011s at MSY
User currently offlineBushpilot From South Africa, joined Jul 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8129 times:

Cessna was in a lawsuit over a similar situation about a KS Caravan crashed with 10 aboard due to icing shortly after take off in 2001. Cessna won the lawsuit because it was found that the pilot did not properly inspect the wings for icing in his pre-flight. The carrier settled out of court on the issue. I lost a very close friend in that crash.
http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/v...te=10102001®=N9530F&airline=Penair


User currently offlineBeech19 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 936 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8072 times:

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 4):
Cessna won the lawsuit because it was found that the pilot did not properly inspect the wings for icing in his pre-flight.

As many times is found, the pilot gets in a rush or gets lazy and screwed up. Its not the first time and it won't be the last.

/Start of Rant/
The airlines and manufacturer should be sueing the pilots family when this happens. (no i don't think they really should because its as absurd as the family sueing Cessna.)

Its the airlines job to make sure the aircraft is airworthy. Its not cessna's job to keep track of every aircraft they have ever manufacturered. Once its delivered its the owners problem. If they don't keep up to date and bring it in for maintence and repairs its the same if your axle falls off because you never brought your car in for a bad joint. I don't know of any recalls on C-208 (the only time the manufacturer is at fault).

The family needs to get real and stop being greedy. Sueing for money that can't make you happy with never bring back your family member. AHHH!!!

/End of rant/



KPAE via KBVY
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9104 posts, RR: 75
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8003 times:

Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 3):
Agreed. They didn't define "shortly" after take-off but that generally does not fit with airframe icing, but rather a take-off with a contaminated wing.

Or it may have collected a lot of ice shortly after takeoff.

An aircraft that is certified for flight into icing conditions, is not certified for flight into severe icing conditions.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7905 times:

Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 2):
The C-208 is generally known for it's abilty to pick up large amounts of ice, and the speed/performance loss that goes with it.

Well I agree, 208's have a pretty bad reputation for ice up here. An Otter is a much better Ice aircraft.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7862 times:

What is it about the Caravan that makes it so prone to icing, the wing cannot be that specific can it? Why can't Cessna come up with a desing implentation of future build aircraft?

User currently offlineDL787932ER From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 597 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7810 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 8):

There is nothing specific to the design that makes the Caravan more susceptible to icing. If I had to guess, I'd say its use as a freight hauler, typically flown single-pilot by pilots who have no union or other job protection and feel the most pressure to complete missions because they know they will be replaced if they say no, puts it in a relatively higher-risk category. But the Caravan meets the legal requirements for known-ice certification, which includes the fact that you must have a clean airframe before you take off and you must avoid severe icing conditions and get out of them immediately if they are inadvertently encountered.

The information in the article doesn't provide enough information to determine whether the pilot felt pressure to complete the mission despite her better judgment, whether she was under time pressure that caused her to neglect to clean the wings, tail, prop, etc. before takeoff, whether she wanted a different heading or altitude but was intimidated by ATC, or whether she was simply overconfident and continued flight into conditions into which she should not have continued. In any case, though, the crash was not the manufacturer's fault, and it was certainly not the fault of the Cessna customers and pilots who will bear the higher costs caused by her family's choice to sue.



F L Y D E L T A J E T S
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7777 times:

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 9):
But the Caravan meets the legal requirements for known-ice certification

Agreed, but will you also agree that different designs can preform better then others and still meet certification.


One factor that I think is the fact that most modern airfoils are thinner then then older designs.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26497 posts, RR: 75
Reply 11, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7744 times:

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 1):
Cessna will probably have to pay a couple million dollars to make this go away, which will just bump up the cost of their airplanes and pilots' insurance policies that much more.

A couple million will increase the cost of aircraft in a miniscule way given Cessna's scale. Further, increasing the price of insurance is not the fault of those who have filed the suit, rather insurance companies.

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 1):
How sad that a person could die doing the thing she probably loved best and then have her family take an action like this that will only increase the cost of that activity for everyone else.

Oh please. How dare you say what this family should or shouldn't do. Unfortunately, the only remedy for this is money, given that we can't send coroprations to jail.

Quoting Beech19 (Reply 5):
Its not cessna's job to keep track of every aircraft they have ever manufacturered.

Actually, yes it is. Ever heard of strict liability?

Quoting Beech19 (Reply 5):
I don't know of any recalls on C-208 (the only time the manufacturer is at fault).

That is not the only time the manufacturer is at fault. If they build an aircraft with faults, it is their issue, recall or not.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5417 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7699 times:

As much as I'm normally against these kind of lawsuits, some research does show many issues with the C208 and icing:

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/media/fact_s...0187/recs_a05c0187_a0603_a0604.asp

...and many other reports and FAA documents if you google it.


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineSlimChance From United States of America, joined May 2006, 62 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7644 times:

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 1):
It would be nice if they would think about what she would have wanted

After reading this thread, I told my mother that if I am ever seriously injured or killed in a motorcycle accident, I wouldn't want her to try to go after the manufacturer like that.
Perhaps we should tell loved ones know about the passion that drives our love of flying/riding/whatever. Instead of hoping that our families would think about what we want, let them know what we want.


User currently offlineDL787932ER From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 597 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7588 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 10):
Agreed, but will you also agree that different designs can preform better then others and still meet certification.

Of course. But it would be nice to have a law stating that aircraft (and any other items) that meet the legal standards of certification are presumed to be safe in certified circumstances absent concrete evidence that such certification was obtained fraudulently.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 11):
A couple million will increase the cost of aircraft in a miniscule way given Cessna's scale.

Cessna stopped building general aviation airplanes for ten years because of that "miniscule" cost. They only started again because the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1996 was passed, creating a 17-year "liability tail" that cut off the liability of manufacturers after that time outside of certain circumstances. Today, we have Cessna 172s starting at $150k and up for an update of a 50-year-old design that includes fewer raw materials than the average economy car. Fully half of the cost of a new general aviation airplane is the liability cost.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 11):
Oh please. How dare you say what this family should or shouldn't do.

I say it as a pilot, and as the son of a pilot, and as the family and friend of many pilots. If, God forbid, something should happen to my father on his next flight the day after tomorrow, I know for a fact that suing the manufacturer of his airplane would cause no increase in aviation safety and would do nothing more than embarass his memory. I don't know any pilot who would favor a huge tort action to bring riches to their family at the expense of the vocation they had loved for their entire lives.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 11):
Unfortunately, the only remedy for this is money, given that we can't send coroprations to jail.

Yeah, too bad we can't just assassinate people who design, build, and market anything as complicated as an airplane that could in any way cause harm to any person, animal, or plant anywhere on the planet.  sarcastic  In all honesty, your attitude disturbs me.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 11):
Ever heard of strict liability?

Yes, and it's a crap legal concept when applied to products whose design and manufacture are already strictly regulated. When you tell a company how they have to build a product, it's utterly absurd to then pursue them for damages after having made a product that met or exceeded those standards. It's unfortunate that our current legal system permits such abuses, but I would love to see some legislation that completely eliminates the concept of strict liability in tort law, at least insofar as it applies to products that already have statutory requirements that define the fiduciary duty that the manufacturer is not permitted to breach before said manufacturer may even sell the product.



F L Y D E L T A J E T S
User currently offlineVirgin747 From Canada, joined Oct 1999, 319 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7487 times:

Where the crash site is, its in downtown winnipeg, a 10 minute drive to the airport... And where she radioed is near my house... I had friends scraping off frozen drizzle of their cars at about the time she crashed... Apparently rumors were she was under pressure as previous flights were cancelled... theres threads about this crash already from a year ago... hopefully the links are still alive since they have recordings from liveatc.net i'll do a look up and let ya all know.

User currently offlineVirgin747 From Canada, joined Oct 1999, 319 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7470 times:

http://media.putfile.com/fedex-caravancrash

I had to upload a copy... go to 10 minute mark


User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7373 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 8):
What is it about the Caravan that makes it so prone to icing, the wing cannot be that specific can it? Why can't Cessna come up with a desing implentation of future build aircraft?

The Caravan has a lot of surface on which to collect ice, and not it protected. Also, the aircraft will lose speed rapidly, which will diminish the effectiveness of the boots. The aircraft is also not blessed with an over abundance of power, especially with the inertial seperator extended, which would be the case in icing conditions. Looking at all of the vortex generators on the tail, I have to wonder how sensitive the airflow is there and how prone to seperation it is. The point is, it may have met the standard for icing protection, but just barely. Other aircraft will exceed the minimums by a greater margin.

I think the only reason the family is going after Cessna is because they have the deepest pockets and they cannot sue the FAA or CAA. If Cessna constructed, certified, and supported the aircraft in accordance with the relavant regulations, I don't think they should bear any liability. If they followed the rules, they should not be held responsible for the actions of the operator. Where are all the people who were screaming "PIC Responsibility" at the Comair crash?



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5417 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7271 times:

Well, it's a different case.

Do a Google search on Cessna 208 icing, and you'll find many references to a large number of icing accidents. There are even NTSB and FAA reports on the problems and their recommendations.

This isn't a 'normal' icing issue...it's obvious that the Caravan has some inherent icing problems...

Now, can these icing problems be avoided by pilot training etc. Yes, they can. Did this pilot have Ce208 specific icing training?

As always, we need to understand what happened here before making assumptions about who is at fault.

I don't know the full story, so I'm not passing judgment.


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7155 times:

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 1):
essna will probably have to pay a couple million dollars to make this go away, which will just bump up the cost of their airplanes and pilots' insurance policies that much more.

I though the government passed a law in 1994(?) that limited the liabilities of the GA companies, since they were often wrongfully blamed and thus sued in crashes.

By the way, did any of you guys know that approximately $30,000USD of a brand new Cessna 172 goes towards paying off legal fees, lawsuits, etc...


User currently offlineDL787932ER From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 597 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 7103 times:

Quoting N231YE (Reply 19):
I though the government passed a law in 1994(?) that limited the liabilities of the GA companies, since they were often wrongfully blamed and thus sued in crashes.

It's a 17-year liability tail, which means that the law only protects manufacturers after the airplane is 17 years old. Caravans were first certified in 1984 or 1985, I think, so it's possible but not very likely that this airplane was old enough to be protected.

The law isn't a panacea, though - you can still sue and try to show that the 17-year limit doesn't apply. For example, if Cessna issued a service bulletin ten years ago mandating a change to the deicing boots, the case would probably be allowed on the grounds that the clock on liability for the icing systems was reset when that change was ordered ten years ago. More needs to be done to bring down the brutal cost of civil liability in general aviation.



F L Y D E L T A J E T S
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26497 posts, RR: 75
Reply 21, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7011 times:

Quoting N231YE (Reply 19):
By the way, did any of you guys know that approximately $30,000USD of a brand new Cessna 172 goes towards paying off legal fees, lawsuits, etc...

Who lied and told you that?

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 14):
Yeah, too bad we can't just assassinate people who design, build, and market anything as complicated as an airplane that could in any way cause harm to any person, animal, or plant anywhere on the planet. In all honesty, your attitude disturbs me.

The point I was making is that we don't do that and shouldn't do that. In France, there was a chance that the Concorde designers would be thrown into jail over the AF crash. The point is, that we in the United States choose private market based action over intense regulation to deal with these kinds of issues, and it has worked very well.

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 14):
Fully half of the cost of a new general aviation airplane is the liability cost.

Did Cessna tell you that?

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 14):
I don't know any pilot who would favor a huge tort action to bring riches to their family at the expense of the vocation they had loved for their entire lives.

It isn't at the expense of their vocation or even their recreation. What they do becomes safer when irresponsibility is punished. Take a look at the amazing development in GA, airplanes like the Cirrus SR-20 and SR-22, immeasurably safer than aircraft in the past.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6922 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
It isn't at the expense of their vocation

But it is. What is the single biggest barrier to entry into aviation? Money. Not only for the aspiring pilot, but also for students that the new flight instructor can teach. This in turn limits the number of flight schools that can stay in business and reduces the availability of training. It make insurance more expensive not only for the manufacturer, but for the flight school and for the flight instructor as well. There are a number of schools that have ceased teaching based on liability insurance cost alone. It used to be quite easy to find multi-engine or tailwheel instruction. Now those are become niche markets. This reduces the number of clients not only for Cessna and other manufacturers, but related companies such as Telex, Bendix, David Clark, Jeppesen, and various FBOs. Lawsuits such as these drive up cost for everyone. Too bad we will probably never see meaningful tort reform in this country.



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26497 posts, RR: 75
Reply 23, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6877 times:

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 22):
What is the single biggest barrier to entry into aviation? Money.

Yeah, money. Money because oil prices are high and because people are willing to pay a high rate for flight training, not because people get sued when they screw up

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 22):
Lawsuits such as these drive up cost for everyone.

No they don't. Lawsuits lower costs for everyone by making things safer.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 22):
There are a number of schools that have ceased teaching based on liability insurance cost alone.

Then you blame the insurance market, not lawsuits. When someone is liable, they have to pay for said liability, if insurance companies are charging idiotic amounts, then blame them and their record profits.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4682 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6846 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 6):
An aircraft that is certified for flight into icing conditions, is not certified for flight into severe icing conditions.

A dumb question: Are there aircraft which are certified for flight into severe icing conditions ? I guess in the event of a war, military aircraft might have to do it.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
25 DL787932ER : I've seen figures putting the cost of manufacturer's liability insurance at anywhere from $30,000 to $100,000 per aircraft for new certified single-e
26 Bond007 : Lawsuits have absolutely nothing to do with safety....or lowering costs ?? Please be kind enough to give us some examples, and then I'll explain how
27 Post contains images DL787932ER : Okay, you have to be a litigator even to say something like that. Half the trial lawyers I know don't even buy that nonsensical party line. Do you ho
28 N1120A : You've "seen figures". Where? How were these determined? Unless demand is already outstripping supply, and I don't see a problem with the order books
29 Bond007 : I don't think we're doubting your lack of law knowledge....it's knowledge of everything else that seems lacking. Law actually has little to do with t
30 Robsawatsky : So you don't see the connection between payouts by insurance companies on behalf of their sued clients and insurance rates? Anyway, I can see an unde
31 Starrion : Well, Cessna's certainly got safer after 86. They stopped building them. A aircraft not built because of liability costs is certainly safe. It also ca
32 Goaliemn : Wow.. I have no idea where that came from. Last major lawsuit Cessna had, they closed. Prices of planes skyrocketed as a manufacturer closed down. It
33 Post contains images N1120A : That is your problem. First, show those examples. Second, if Cessna did nothing wrong, they should have fought the claims. Law has everything to do w
34 Bond007 : Please explain any correlation between lawsuits and the Cirrus aircraft??? I am puzzled. Some examples and facts?? Worse case, manufacturers actually
35 Bond007 : ...that I know what I'm talking about? One that comes to mind is the Carnahan case (where the family asked for $100 million), where Cessna settled, a
36 Post contains links DL787932ER : I spent a few minutes on Google to find you some links and located the following: This article by a Harvard Law School professor states in its first
37 RaginMav : One thing not mentioned above is that this aircraft operates almost exclusively at altitudes where it is very prone to icing - An example is today's
38 Lowrider : It was expensive when oil was relatively cheap. The cost of putting fuel in the plane is relatively small compared to the cost of insuring it. What d
39 N1120A : That is a question of fact, not law And you blame products liability? How about blaming manufacturers who knew decided to gouge the consumer, or perh
40 Post contains images Bond007 : Yes, you're right, they were wrong Jimbo
41 N1120A : Hey, if they were innocent and had such an interest in supposedly ever escalating insurance rates, Cessna should have fought it tooth and nail.
42 KELPkid : If anything, the SR-20 and SR-22 are proving to have a worse safety record compared to types that have been in the GA fleet for 30-40 years. It is a
43 Bond007 : They didn't because the outcome of a lawsuit, where these 'victims' have bottomless pockets and are politicians, have little to do with who was really
44 DL787932ER : So? If your point is that my sources are wrong, perhaps it's time for you to provide some evidence of your claim that liability insurance is not a si
45 N1120A : Yet those advances have sprung from many years of experience with people crashing GA aircraft and how to combat that. It also highlights pilot error
46 Bond007 : Sorry, it's not obvious. Jimbo
47 Aerodog : Many believe as do I, that when a lawsuit is settled in favor of the plaintiff, actual damages should be paid to plaintiff and punitive damages to the
48 N231YE : Actually, a professor with a Ph.D (doctor?) in a college class that I am taking now: Air Transportation.
49 Post contains links Virgin747 : The transport Canada webpage on the investigation.... some good reading.... http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/media/fact_s...0187/recs_a05c0187_a0601_a0602.asp
50 Yellowtail : No icing that I know of here..but we've lsot a couple in BZE of the last few years...mostly due to weather or cowboy piloting depending on who you bel
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
American Sued For $50 Million posted Mon Apr 8 2002 22:37:55 by AmericanF100
Korean Air Being Sued For $51m Compensation posted Mon Apr 8 2002 02:44:55 by Jiml1126
Delta Sued For Being Seated Next To An Obese Man posted Tue Mar 22 2005 08:29:39 by UA777222
Air Canada To Be Sued For 1 Million Dollars posted Thu Mar 21 2002 04:09:01 by Fly_yhm
Dornier 728 - What Is It Being Used For? posted Wed Oct 25 2006 21:27:34 by DeltaDAWG
Silverjet Signs Letter Of Intent For $37 Million posted Wed Sep 20 2006 11:47:25 by 777ER
Varig Sold For USD400 Million posted Fri Apr 14 2006 22:14:28 by Hardiwv
Southwest/Boeing Being Sued? posted Tue Apr 11 2006 10:03:48 by BoeingFever777
Boeing Sued For Helios Crash posted Fri Feb 24 2006 21:10:53 by Solnabo
Senator Evan Bayh Pushes For $42 Million For GYY posted Fri Dec 23 2005 22:36:45 by KarlB737