Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Sued Over "Dangerous" Aircraft  
User currently offlineBabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 18835 times:

I was browsing through the Daily Telegraph ( as you do) and came across this rather interesting article.I noticed it hasn't been discussed before.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ing-sued-over-Kenya-air-crash.html

What are the chances of a case like that getting through? And are Boeing having problems with safety issues on the 737-800?

62 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineVirginblue4 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 904 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 18696 times:

A dangerous aircraft? There are loads of 738's out there and im sure i wouldnt consider it a dangerous aircraft at all! Your thoughts?

Jordan



The amazing tale of flight.
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3592 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 18653 times:



Quoting Babybus (Thread starter):
What are the chances of a case like that getting through?

Getting through what? In the USA, anyone can sue for anything. Just another lawyer looking to get paid off via a nuisance suit.

Quoting Babybus (Thread starter):
And are Boeing having problems with safety issues on the 737-800?

No, but when has the truth ever be allowed to interfere with a heart-string tugging news story or law suit?


User currently offlineDurangoMac From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 725 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 18611 times:

I suspect that because the investigation has taken so long the families are desperate to find out what happened. One of their course which I don't agree with but understand is to sue someone for an explanation.

I doubt there is anything really wrong with the airframe other than the law of averages catching up with it because you're going to eventually have a bad apple.


User currently offlineN623JB From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 703 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 18591 times:

I believe that SWA has B737-8's right?


Bring JetBlue To Mexico City! (TLC and/or MEX would be great)
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16872 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 18567 times:



Quoting N623JB (Reply 4):
I believe that SWA has B737-8's right?

No,

737-300s, 737-500s, 737-700s.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineFlybyguy From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 1801 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 18460 times:

I wonder if the lawyers representing those families actually gained access to the data that the Canadian and Cameroon Authorities obtained in their investigations? As far as I'm aware there is not conclusive cause to the accident other than incliment of weather... and that should be the Captains fault for electing to take off in bad weather not Boeing. Unless the families lawyers can prove that there was some intrinsic fault in production of 737 aircraft that contributed to the crash, then this is nothing more than a fishing expedition for the deepest pockets.

My guess is that since Cameroon officials had lead a mostly incompetent investigation and the results may possibly be politically damning to Kenyan civil aviation oversight, there was a lot of red tape and roadblocks to the truth in this event. The lawyers are probably hoping that Boeing would rather pay hush money than have its name smeared in the press before the long delayed 787 enters service.



"Are you a pretender... or a thoroughbred?!" - Professor Matt Miller
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 18329 times:

Quoting Babybus (Thread starter):
What are the chances of a case like that getting through? And are Boeing having problems with safety issues on the 737-800?

Anytime an accident occurs, you can bet your boots that the aircraft manufacturer will be named in the ensuing litigation, along with others. Hell, if a falling meteor took out an aircraft at cruise, the manufacturer would still get named in the lawsuits---deep pockets, doncha know..

Quoting N623JB (Reply 1):
Thats why I dont use SWA at all!..and My Mom wanted me to use SWA on the route- MCO-RSW. But, I rather stick with JB.

Fair use excerpt from the linked article:

"The nature of the crash has led the group to speculate there could have been a problem with the spoilers – flaps on the wing which control the plane's speed – causing the aircraft to lose thrust as it climbed."

If that stunning piece of aeronautical knowledge (which is total nonsense, BTW) is the basis for your fearing 737s, you (like FDR once said) really have nothing to fear but fear itself. I'm not saying that because my airline exclusively flies 737s, just that the media is so prone to make outright mistakes and not putting things in the proper context that it's nearly impossible for anyone to have an informed opinion on anything. Spoilers are not "flaps" on the wing, but panels on the top of the wing whereas the flaps are, well, flaps that are on the trailing edge of the wing and part of the leading edge. In any event, I sure don't see any connection between spoilers and engine thrust depicted in my 737 systems manual.

The fact is that there was an accident in Cameroon, and the cause is not yet known. The crash site was never secured, and the wreckage was looted, and in so doing, were some of the wreckage pieces that may have ruled possible failure modes in/out may have been carted off? Did they also cart off the CVR or DFDR as well? I have no idea, but it should be obvious that this crash and its aftermath have been dissimilar from those that have occurred elsewhere, and also obvious why this investigation is taking so long.

A couple of other informational "gems" from the linked article:

"In this case the plane in question was the 737-800, the latest and most sophisticated member of the family. It was even equipped with radar to enable the pilot to fly in bad weather."

The inference here is that the 737-800 had this new-fangled thing called radar which should have made it even less susceptible to an accident, when in fact weather radars have been standard equipment on western-built airliners for literally decades, not that it's conclusively known whether the weather was involved as a possible cause in the Cameroon accident or not.

"On that occasion [In reference to a Ryanair incident] Irish investigators pinpointed the pilots' comparative lack of experience on the sophisticated instrumentation displays 737-800, which differed radically with the older versions of the aircraft with which they were familiar."

It's imporant to note that any aircraft that is not operated or maintained properly by those responsible to do so shouldn't make folks conclude that the aircraft is automatically an "unsafe" aircraft should an accident result. I'm not saying that's what happened in Cameroon, since I (along with everyone else) don't have any idea, but I point out that passage in the article to highlight another common media misconception and error in making conclusions.

Whether you fly jetBlue, SWA, or any other airline, go forth and enjoy yourself, and don't fret...



[Edited 2009-05-31 10:22:46]

User currently offlineTylerDurden From United States of America, joined May 2008, 852 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 18312 times:



Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 2):
Getting through what? In the USA, anyone can sue for anything. Just another lawyer looking to get paid off via a nuisance suit

Yes, how silly of them to sue for killing family members. Shame on them.
It amazes how little people know about the law but complain about lawyers all the time.

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 2):
No, but when has the truth ever be allowed to interfere with a heart-string tugging news story or law suit?

Geez...get a grip.

Quoting Babybus (Thread starter):
What are the chances of a case like that getting through?

Yes, it will 'get through.' It's a very common tactic to force discovery in accident investigations where information is less than forthcoming. At the point where the cause is determined and any contributory negligence is confirmed, the suit will be amended to include those parties.

It's both actionable and recoverable. Hardly a 'nuisance' suit.


User currently offlineKhobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 18061 times:



Quoting TylerDurden (Reply 8):
It's both actionable and recoverable. Hardly a 'nuisance' suit.

It's only actionable and recoverable if it has provable merit. Otherwise it is a nuisance case.


User currently offlineLuv2cattlecall From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1650 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 18050 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Babybus (Thread starter):
And are Boeing having problems with safety issues on the 737-800?

OT, but what's the protocol for speaking about Boeing/Airbus? Just as you have done, The History Channel always says "Airbus are" or "Boeing are...". However, The Discovery Channel says "Airbus is" or "Boeing is...". I would have thought the 2nd way makes more sense, since you would say "An airplane IS flying in the sky," not ARE flying...

Quoting TylerDurden (Reply 8):

Yes, it will 'get through.' It's a very common tactic to force discovery in accident investigations where information is less than forthcoming. At the point where the cause is determined and any contributory negligence is confirmed, the suit will be amended to include those parties.

It's both actionable and recoverable. Hardly a 'nuisance' suit.

Exactly... by naming all parties that are even remotely involved, it makes it much harder for the main party (the airline in this case) to point the finger at someone else (i.e. Boeing) to try to get things to go away. Since the airlines know that Boeing is also involved in the suit, they are also aware that Boeing has much more of an incentive to prove that they are not at fault, which, by default, would tend to paint the operator as the guilty party.



When you have to breaststroke to your connecting flight...it's a crash!
User currently offline787kq From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 549 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 17287 times:



Quoting TylerDurden (Reply 8):
Yes, it will 'get through.' It's a very common tactic to force discovery in accident investigations where information is less than forthcoming. At the point where the cause is determined and any contributory negligence is confirmed, the suit will be amended to include those parties.

That is the point of the suit. Since information is not forthcoming, this is a way to force disclosure.


User currently offlineSCCutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5521 posts, RR: 28
Reply 12, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 16653 times:



Quoting Luv2cattlecall (Reply 10):

OT, but what's the protocol for speaking about Boeing/Airbus? Just as you have done, The History Channel always says "Airbus are" or "Boeing are...". However, The Discovery Channel says "Airbus is" or "Boeing is...". I would have thought the 2nd way makes more sense, since you would say "An airplane IS flying in the sky," not ARE flying...

Both correct, depending upon local usage.

American English regards the organization as an individual (as does corporate law on both sides of the pond), adopting the "is" accordingly;

British English (English English?) regards the organisation as a collection of the individual persons affiliated therewith, adopting the "are" as a consequence.



...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3592 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 15707 times:



Quoting TylerDurden (Reply 8):
Yes, how silly of them to sue for killing family members. Shame on them.
It amazes how little people know about the law but complain about lawyers all the time.

I probably have more legal experience in my lifetime than you do.

It always amazes me how some lawyers will happily sue anyone with deep pockets without a shread of evidence. Ambulance chasers like these (and politicians) are leaches on society without any redeeming social value.

Quoting TylerDurden (Reply 8):
Yes, it will 'get through.' It's a very common tactic to force discovery in accident investigations where information is less than forthcoming.

You are right that it is a very common tactic, but mostly as a method of extortion. This is simply another disgusting case of amoral personal injury lawyers utilizing the tragic deaths of innocent accident victims for their own personal financial gain (on a contingency basis I am sure).

What "information" is Boeing not being "forthcoming" with? The accident scene was not looted by Boeing employees, and the lead accident investigators are government employees of several countries. Why not sue the governments in question? Because the scum lawyers cannot extort them for money because they hold immunity.

Quoting 787kq (Reply 11):
That is the point of the suit. Since information is not forthcoming, this is a way to force disclosure.

How? Boeing is not the investigatory body. Boeing does not have the plane remnants. If the paintiffs wanted answers they should be suing the respective government agencies in charge of the investigations.


User currently offlineAirbuseric From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 4269 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 14955 times:



Quote:
The writ also claims the altimeter gave a false reading of the aircraft's height which led to the plane reducing power too fast.

This let me thinking of the TK B738 crash at AMS in late February this year. Since Boeing is partly blamed for this accident as well.



"The whole world steps aside for the man who knows where he is going"
User currently offlineThumper From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 550 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 14831 times:

How in name can anyone blame Boeing ! Why would anyone be afraid to fly SWA ? They fly nothing but 737 and they have never had a passenger fatallity ! Most 737 crashes are pilot error or bad maintance. For the amount off take-off and landings per day,the 737 is probably one of the safest airliners !

User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 14282 times:



Quoting Thumper (Reply 15):
How in name can anyone blame Boeing !

A sleazy lawyer will try, whether he actually can or not.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9109 posts, RR: 75
Reply 17, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 14168 times:



Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 7):
Spoilers are not "flaps" on the wing, but panels on the top of the wing whereas the flaps are, well, flaps that are on the trailing edge of the wing and part of the leading edge.

To use plain English interpretation, a spoiler is a "flap", i.e. something that is thin and attached to one side. The term "flap" as we all know also has specific aeronautical meaning.

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 7):
The fact is that there was an accident in Cameroon, and the cause is not yet known.

That is the issue, from the rumors I hear, the probable cause is know, but the authorities are refusing to make the report public. It would be unusual for any authority to make a finding of a absolute cause for such an accident.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6453 posts, RR: 54
Reply 18, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 13983 times:



Quoting Thumper (Reply 15):
How in name can anyone blame Boeing

Because that's the only place where you can gamble on big money.

This whole case is about money and a lawyer with too little work to do. He contacted the family and said something like: "Gimmi fifty grand up front and we will gamble on ten million of which I will only take fifty percent".

It is jackpot justice at its worst.

If the article wasn't about such a tragic accident, then the Telegraph reporter David Millward should have a medal for one of the funniest articles ever in that paper. He should stay a million miles away from anything related to aviation.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3592 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 13653 times:



Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 18):
This whole case is about money and a lawyer with too little work to do. He contacted the family and said something like: "Gimmi fifty grand up front and we will gamble on ten million of which I will only take fifty percent".

Close, but in the USA the attorney is allowed to say "Nothing up front, and I will take 60% plus expenses"


User currently offlineYVRLTN From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 2469 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 13622 times:



Quoting Airbuseric (Reply 14):
Quote:
The writ also claims the altimeter gave a false reading of the aircraft's height which led to the plane reducing power too fast.

This let me thinking of the TK B738 crash at AMS in late February this year. Since Boeing is partly blamed for this accident as well.

I noticed that too, maybe this lawyer knows something that has not been publicly made known yet, and there is some common ground with the TK crash with inaccurate altimeter readings. The way I interprete the above quote is that the altimeter recorded a certain height too early and the engines spooled down from TOGA power way too early and caused the aircraft to loose sufficient momentum for it to stall, with thunderstorm conditions no doubt playing a part. Is that possible? If thats the case, then maybe Boeing do need to look at a couple of things. Maybe the TK crash could have been prevented if this had been dealt with earlier (which is not Boeing's fault of course that it hasnt been).

However, after only 30 seconds of flight an inaccurate altimeter reading should be fairly obvious, particularly if the engines spooled down when they shouldnt and the crew should have immediately rectified the situation. So that probably boils down to pilot error again - not to mention that they decided to go when everyone else decided to stay, which begs the question why not sue KQ ahead of Boeing if anyone 'needs' to be sued?



Follow me on twitter for YVR movements @vernonYVR
User currently offlineOA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5279 posts, RR: 25
Reply 21, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 13401 times:

Why in the world would Boeing try to conceal the fact that the 738 is a "dangerous" aircraft and risk another accident that would bring untold negligence suits against the company? When the Lauda 767 went down over Thailand due to a faulty thrust reverser deployment, the problem was quickly identified and corrected.


Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23029 posts, RR: 20
Reply 22, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 13082 times:



Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 13):
It always amazes me how some lawyers will happily sue anyone with deep pockets without a shread of evidence. Ambulance chasers like these (and politicians) are leaches on society without any redeeming social value.

They're probably suing Boeing for jurisdictional reasons-- it may have nothing to do with deep pockets.

While it's certainly possible that this is an ambulance chasing lawsuit that is designed to get someone to pay, it may also be that the attorney is telling the truth:

Quote:
The families are desperate for answers and taking a case to the American courts seems to be the only way we can get to truth.

If that's so, they'll get the investigation results from Boeing in discovery. If Boeing was not negligent, they'll drop the suit. If Boeing was negligent, the suit will continue (and should continue).

I hate ambulance chasers as much as the next guy, but at this point it isn't at all clear that this is a case of ambulance chasing.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23029 posts, RR: 20
Reply 23, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 12412 times:



Quoting TDubJFK (Reply 23):
Why are these families suing Boeing and NOT the airline that -OPERATED AND MAINTAINED- the aircraft?

...and I answered your question, though I didn't know I had (thanks to your post disappearing).

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 22):
They're probably suing Boeing for jurisdictional reasons--

US courts likely don't have jurisdiction over KQ.

Now, the next obvious question is why they are suing in the U.S. given the lack of jurisdiction over KQ. The answer to that is probably that they want to avail themselves of U.S. discovery law to get the information they're after.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineRwy04LGA From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 12011 times:



Quoting SCCutler (Reply 12):
American English regards the organization as an individual (as does corporate law on both sides of the pond), adopting the "is" accordingly;

British English (English English?) regards the organisation as a collection of the individual persons affiliated therewith, adopting the "are" as a consequence.

 checkmark  Exactly correct and very well explained!



Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
25 StasisLAX : According to the article link provided; "Normally the crash scene would be secured. On this occasion, however, that was not done and the wreckage was
26 ThirtyEcho : This is a big myth in America. Lawyers can get heavily fined, disbarred and even jailed for filing a "nuisance suit." Technically, I could sue you fo
27 NAV20 : I would have thought that it's most certainly not any such thing. The crash occurred two years ago and so far no report - not even the usual 'prelimi
28 Ikramerica : "Other questions over the aircraft's safety were raised following an incident at Knock Airport in County Mayo in which a Ryanair plane nearly crashed
29 NAV20 : No, Ikramerica. The investigating body is the Cameroon Civil Aviation Authority, with 'assistance' from the Kenyans, the NTSB, and the Canadian Board
30 Pellegrine : Ironic, I was just reading about this crash a few days ago. And I was sort of wondering what happened, and why nothing was uncovered still. Apparently
31 Ikramerica : In the USA, it's the NTSB. As part of the investigation, they are "our link" to the report. If they wanted to release more intermediate information,
32 NAV20 : Sure, about Boeing. And, as a 'junior partner' in this case, the NTSB probably can't either, if (as one expects) there's a disagreement. That leads m
33 Zeke : The main role of the NTSB is to represent the state of manufacture and design, they cannot go around releasing their own accident reports without the
34 EDICHC : Not only that but it may well be that the authorities in Cameroon may choose not to divulge to the NTSB certain information related to the crash, so
35 Babybus : Let's not detract from the thread with petty grammar points. As noted we tend to think of groups and teams as a whole. There are many people who work
36 Pellegrine : In a capitalist system people are motivated by money. Period. Good or bad. I'm just saying that Boeing/KQ/Kenyan investigators/Cameroonian investigat
37 NAV20 : Sure - but maybe you would want to delay everyone ELSE hearing about it? In any case Kenya Airways has a pretty good reputation - it's one of the few
38 Mrocktor : Because corporations are evil. No one mixed in the dirty business of making money can be trusted. Didn't you get the memo?
39 TylerDurden : Doubtful. Don't blame all lawywers because your ex-wife got better counsel!
40 Virginblue4 : Fair enough, but its harldy Boeings fault! If someone you knew was in a car crash would you go and sue Renault? No, so (in my opinion) it is kinda a
41 Babybus : Especially when it comes to keeping reputations too. No one wants to be accused of building "dangerous' aircraft. No doubt they will blame pilot erro
42 787kq : Because the government bodies have not been forthcoming with information, you turn to another party that has been involved in the investigation and c
43 DLPMMM : A stupid and uninformed comment for 2 reasons: 1. I never blamed all lawyers, just the specific ambulance chaser in this case. 2. I have never been d
44 TylerDurden : I can tell you are very serious person. So serious that you may have neglected that little smiling face that means "hey, bud...just kidding..it's a j
45 PGNCS : There is nothing new under the sun... Truth does matter, but manipulation of the truth and shaping the story occurs all the time from all parties. No
46 Post contains links 787kq : The three families are among 10 claimants who have filed a writ in Chicago with a view to having the cause of the accident made public. The victims ar
47 TylerDurden : So all news stories are false...and all lawsuits are without merit? Enlighten all of us---apparently you know exactly what the cause of the accident
48 Cubsrule : Under what law can attorneys be jailed for filing a nuisance suit? Let me suggest another possible chain of events... 1) Victims' families (either on
49 Ikramerica : That is strictly your opinion and you have provided no facts to support that all people and all companies are solely motivated by money, period. It's
50 AirNZ : Again, you need to understand law and the actual reason for naming them before jumping to 'defensive' conclusions as if they simply are infallible.
51 Post contains links NAV20 : A lot of people contributing to the thread appear to have flown off the handle just on reading, "Boeing sued......" Whereas, as both Cubsrule and I ha
52 Post contains links VirginFlyer : I know there is an issue with aviation safety in Africa, but that strikes me as an extremely unlikely figure. Do you have any source for this? Lookin
53 Pellegrine : Yes, all publicly-traded corporations and profit making entities are motivated by money. This is the reason they exist. This is not opinion this is f
54 Thumper : According to this dumb lawsuit I suppose Airbus should be sued for the A-330 that just went down ! "All the poor souls rest in peace" They even sued U
55 NAV20 : Sorry, you're right, VirginFlyer - misread a quick google. 92 airlines, mostly African. In addition, the EU banned many of the older aircraft in some
56 Pellegrine : But with all fairness, this is Cameroon not USA/Europe. Sounds like someone just said that to remove any possibility of blame from them. But the trut
57 Post contains links NAV20 : Funny what you find once you look......... (Excerpts - link to full article below) "The former Camerounian minister for transport, Dakolé Daïssala,
58 Pellegrine : Thank you NAV20, you are a true sleuth, no wonder...you are a writer! I wouldn't want you doing an investigative piece on me!!! " target=_blank>http:/
59 NAV20 : As a matter of fact (and, I hope, interest) even that isn't normal practice. It's more usual for the parties most likely to be at fault to share the
60 Brilondon : This is not "dangerous aircraft". If it was they would be falling out of the sky in droves.
61 Babybus : We know people are desparate for money but sueing Boeing seems like a long shot. It will be interesting to see how all this turns out.
62 787KQ : It is not about the money. It is about getting disclosure about what happened to the flight, information which is not forthcoming. And this is not ju
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...
Qantas Being Sued Over A330 Plunge posted Wed Nov 5 2008 23:30:32 by Chrisrad
AA Being Sued Over Diversion And Delay posted Wed Jan 2 2008 09:32:40 by Contrails
Boeing Sued For Millions After Thai Crash posted Thu Oct 4 2007 11:57:07 by Thai744
B6, TSA Sued Over Arabic T-shirt Incident posted Fri Aug 10 2007 19:00:52 by PROSA
Virgin In Talks With Boeing/Airbus On New Aircraft posted Fri Mar 2 2007 15:42:56 by Pilot21
Jennifer Lopez Sued Over Jet Bills posted Sat Oct 7 2006 05:04:50 by FlyingTexan
Airbus, Boeing Clash Over Jumbo Freighters posted Fri Jul 21 2006 17:35:47 by NYC777
Boeing's Victory Over MDD, Lockheed - Inevitable? posted Sun Jun 18 2006 06:55:57 by AerospaceFan
Boeing Flys Over On Evening Of 9-11-2001 posted Thu May 4 2006 05:02:26 by L1329II
Boeing Rolling Over Airbus In Orders posted Thu Apr 27 2006 20:58:37 by MrComet
Jennifer Lopez Sued Over Jet Bills posted Sat Oct 7 2006 05:04:50 by FlyingTexan
Airbus, Boeing Clash Over Jumbo Freighters posted Fri Jul 21 2006 17:35:47 by NYC777
Boeing's Victory Over MDD, Lockheed - Inevitable? posted Sun Jun 18 2006 06:55:57 by AerospaceFan