Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus To Pay Out $mills In QF A330 Horror Flight  
User currently offlineSandgroper From Australia, joined Mar 2008, 74 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 27011 times:

150 QF A330 Passengers on flight QF72 have won millions of dollars in compensation settlement from Airbus & Northrop Grumman:

http://www.watoday.com.au/travel/tra...ut-from-airbus-20111220-1p3o7.html

[Edited 2011-12-21 00:58:38]


Sandgroper
92 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3501 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 26839 times:

Well good for her! When make a product that hundreds of people will use, it at least should be safe.

User currently offlinejollo From Italy, joined Aug 2011, 212 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 26638 times:

Well, round-the-world free tickets could be seen as an acceptable compensation for anyone having suffered only a big fright from the incident, but for those physically injured I think QF must have offered sizable damage compensations in $$$. Probably not the millions passengers were awarded in court, but still not trivial amounts: anyone knows how much?

User currently offlineslinky09 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2009, 826 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 26561 times:

Interesting that the header of this thread mentions Airbus but not Northrop Grumman. As the news article says, the injured passengers would have received less had the US companies not been pursued, so I wonder how they are sharing the financial burden?

User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1562 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 26479 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 1):
Well good for her! When make a product that hundreds of people will use, it at least should be safe.

It is safe.. Millions have flown on A330's and arrived safely as did the PAX on this flight, if a bit bruised. BTW the flight safety message before take off would have said please keep your seatbelt fastened at all times when seated.

The computer error has happened 3 times for 2 seconds over 128 million hours of operation.



BV
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 5, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 26389 times:

Quote:
"I thought 'oh my god, this is it.' It felt like we were falling so far. We were saying our prayers and I was thinking 'I hope they find where I've put my will.' These are the things that go through your mind when you're falling."

Okay, first of all.. free zero G flight..awesome?

Second of all, how about a little less praying and a little more seat belt wearing?

As far as the ''millions of dollars'' are concerned, I highly doubt anybody has walked away with more than a couple grand. As it should be. If the seat belt signs were not on, it goes without saying injured passengers are entitled to have their medical bills taken care of and to receive an adequate severence check. Millions of dollars however are just ridiculous. Also, why was the lawsuit filed in the USA when Airbus is a European company, Qantas an Australian company, the flight took place in Australia and the passengers were Australian and Singaporean?



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlineAutothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1591 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 26324 times:

   ??? Why has to pay Airbus? If someone should pay then Northrop.

[Edited 2011-12-21 02:50:25]


“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineAirbusA370 From Germany, joined Dec 2008, 253 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 26217 times:

Quoting Autothrust (Reply 6):
If someone should pay then Northrop.

Because Northrop may send an fighter drone to your house instead 


User currently offlineSandgroper From Australia, joined Mar 2008, 74 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 26066 times:

Quoting something (Reply 5):
As far as the ''millions of dollars'' are concerned, I highly doubt anybody has walked away with more than a couple grand.

If you read the article further down the highest individual is expecting several $million at least in one payout!



Sandgroper
User currently offlineUAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2392 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 25804 times:

Quoting jollo (Reply 2):
Well, round-the-world free tickets could be seen as an acceptable compensation for anyone having suffered only a big fright from the incident, but for those physically injured I think QF must have offered sizable damage compensations in $$$. Probably not the millions passengers were awarded in court, but still not trivial amounts: anyone knows how much?

I don't know, round the world tickets would be nice but it kind of seems like a bad joke after what these people went through! I would imagine the last thing I would want after this experience would be to get back on that airline a fly even further... Being on the outside looking in we know that QF is perfectly safe and was not the cause of the horror but if you were on that flight that day and offered the ticket a few days later it might not seem so clear.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 4):
It is safe.. Millions have flown on A330's and arrived safely as did the PAX on this flight, if a bit bruised. BTW the flight safety message before take off would have said please keep your seatbelt fastened at all times when seated.

The computer error has happened 3 times for 2 seconds over 128 million hours of operation.

You are wrong in trying to downplay what happened to these passengers and implying that there is/was nothing wrong with the A330. Passengers on this flight suffered much more than just a few bruises and those who weren't hurt still had to live through the horror of what happened. The plane dropping from the sky would be a truly horrible experience then you add to that the fact that several passengers had broken bones, it would have been terrifying being a passenger waiting for that plane to land.

Quoting something (Reply 5):
Okay, first of all.. free zero G flight..awesome?

Second of all, how about a little less praying and a little more seat belt wearing?

As far as the ''millions of dollars'' are concerned, I highly doubt anybody has walked away with more than a couple grand. As it should be. If the seat belt signs were not on, it goes without saying injured passengers are entitled to have their medical bills taken care of and to receive an adequate severence check. Millions of dollars however are just ridiculous. Also, why was the lawsuit filed in the USA when Airbus is a European company, Qantas an Australian company, the flight took place in Australia and the passengers were Australian and Singaporean?

I don't think that the passengers settling for "millions of dollars" were "ridiculous" at all. In todays world that is about the only way to send a clear message to a big corporation. The companies involved put out a bad product that resulted in severe injuries both physical and mental, they have to be responsible for their bad decision.



/// UNITED AIRLINES
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1562 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 25467 times:

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 9):
You are wrong in trying to downplay what happened to these passengers and implying that there is/was nothing wrong with the A330. Passengers on this flight suffered much more than just a few bruises and those who weren't hurt still had to live through the horror of what happened.

Oh the humanity!.....

It was the equivalent of bad turbulence and the PAX Should have been strapped in period, I fly QF we are all told this in the briefing. Thats the reality of this but the way of the world is tabloid headlines "OMG we nearly died and I prayed to god for one more day of life... and he answered!" and sue, sue, sue.

If you are in a car not wearing your seat belt when your partner jams on the brakes and you bang your head do you get to sue Ford? I doubt it. (Toyota maybe...)



BV
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4705 posts, RR: 38
Reply 11, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 25386 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 10):
It was the equivalent of bad turbulence and the PAX Should have been strapped in period,

Agreed. When I fly (and I fly twice every week) I am always strapped in. It is the normal and sensible thing to do. Of course the passengers had a very bad experience, but I do not think BoeingVista tried to downplay the incident.

On the other hand the FBW-computers are as safe as they can be. The numbers of the statistics speak for themselves.


User currently offlineAngMoh From Singapore, joined Nov 2011, 478 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 25295 times:

Quoting Sandgroper (Reply 8):
If you read the article further down the highest individual is expecting several $million at least in one payout!

They go to the US trying to collect more money. But if it gets awarded and if it gets paid (both big if's, it is going to take another 5 years till everyone has settled), then the lawyer walks away with 50-70% of the total payout....

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 9):
You are wrong in trying to downplay what happened to these passengers and implying that there is/was nothing wrong with the A330. Passengers on this flight suffered much more than just a few bruises and those who weren't hurt still had to live through the horror of what happened. The plane dropping from the sky would be a truly horrible experience then you add to that the fact that several passengers had broken bones, it would have been terrifying being a passenger waiting for that plane to land.
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 9):
I don't think that the passengers settling for "millions of dollars" were "ridiculous" at all. In todays world that is about the only way to send a clear message to a big corporation. The companies involved put out a bad product that resulted in severe injuries both physical and mental, they have to be responsible for their bad decision.

It is a US concept that you yourself are never at fault and it is always somebody else's fault. The problem here in suing is that there is no negligence. Yes, there was a technical fault but it is not negligence. Insurance will have to pay for injuries and these cost can be significant, but why companies have to "receive a clear message" is beyond me.


User currently offlineSandgroper From Australia, joined Mar 2008, 74 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 25216 times:

Already the whole draft of the original press release has now changed. Sorry I didnt get a screen shot.


Sandgroper
User currently offlineBoeing767-300 From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 659 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 25191 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 12):
On the other hand the FBW-computers are as safe as they can be. The numbers of the statistics speak for themselves.

I would disagree with the above statement and even argue that there may be fault in the way the flight computers are programmed.

Quite simply one moment everything is fine and the next minute (faulty or otherwise) the pitots (both) have failed and are potentionally showing zero thereby causing the aircraft to believe it had stalled and therefore throw the aircraft into a dive to recover.

Logic tells us you can't be doing 850km/h one second and zero the next. And why wouldn't you factor in a GPS ground speed data into the equation????

Food for thought??????


User currently offlineAutothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1591 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 24458 times:

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 9):
there is/was nothing wrong with the A330.

Nonsense.There is nothing wrong with the A330. Look at the 737 accident statistics there was something wrong.

People without knowledge tend to underestimate the amount work and money Airbus invested all for safety in their FBW software.

The software was written in 5 different languages in 5 different companies running at several computers. Millîons of km's have been flown with this software.

Unlike the 777 where the software is on all computers the same.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineBabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 23827 times:

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 9):
I don't think that the passengers settling for "millions of dollars" were "ridiculous" at all. In today's world that is about the only way to send a clear message to a big corporation.

If a company makes a mistake it has to pay up. That's how companies are forced / encouraged to do the right thing.

I'd like to hear the argument the lawyer gave the court why some passengers are worth millions in compensation? In fact I'd like to know which lawyers they used just in case......

Quoting Autothrust (Reply 15):
Unlike the 777 where the software is on all computers the same.

Oh dear  


User currently offlineGrid From Kazakhstan, joined Apr 2010, 624 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 23100 times:

Quoting something (Reply 5):
Okay, first of all.. free zero G flight..awesome?

Second of all, how about a little less praying and a little more seat belt wearing?

As far as the ''millions of dollars'' are concerned, I highly doubt anybody has walked away with more than a couple grand. As it should be. If the seat belt signs were not on, it goes without saying injured passengers are entitled to have their medical bills taken care of and to receive an adequate severence check. Millions of dollars however are just ridiculous. Also, why was the lawsuit filed in the USA when Airbus is a European company, Qantas an Australian company, the flight took place in Australia and the passengers were Australian and Singaporean?

Was the seat belt sign on? The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. because Northrup is a U.S. company and a defendant in the case, as well for other reasons.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 10):
Oh the humanity!.....

It was the equivalent of bad turbulence and the PAX Should have been strapped in period, I fly QF we are all told this in the briefing. Thats the reality of this but the way of the world is tabloid headlines "OMG we nearly died and I prayed to god for one more day of life... and he answered!" and sue, sue, sue.

If you are in a car not wearing your seat belt when your partner jams on the brakes and you bang your head do you get to sue Ford? I doubt it. (Toyota maybe...)

I'm not sure why passengers should have been strapped in. Perhaps I missed where the article states that the sign was illuminated and passengers were told not to get up to go to the bathroom etc.

Turbulence (caused by nature) is not the same as a man-made object malfunctioning, which results in the injury of dozens of people.

As for the seat belt example, that's not even close - more like you are in a car and not wearing your seat belt and the assisted braking system malfunctions and you are injured.

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 12):
They go to the US trying to collect more money. But if it gets awarded and if it gets paid (both big if's, it is going to take another 5 years till everyone has settled), then the lawyer walks away with 50-70% of the total payout....

Why would the award not be paid by Northrup? 50 - 70 percent of the payout? Seriously ... that would great. You are a little off though.

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 12):
It is a US concept that you yourself are never at fault and it is always somebody else's fault. The problem here in suing is that there is no negligence. Yes, there was a technical fault but it is not negligence. Insurance will have to pay for injuries and these cost can be significant, but why companies have to "receive a clear message" is beyond me.

It sound like you are not familiar with comparative fault and contributory negligence, both of which can reduce or wipe out plaintiff's award because of the plaintiff's actions.

As for the technical fault, how did that fault occur? Was it not because of negligence by the manufacturer?



ATR72 E120 E140 E170 E190 Q200 717 727 737 747 757 767 777 A319 A320 A321 A330 A340 MD11 MD82 MD83 MD88 MD90
User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1596 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 22503 times:

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 9):
You are wrong in trying to downplay what happened to these passengers and implying that there is/was nothing wrong with the A330

I just flew TATL in a GE powered A330, maybe I should sue Airbus for such a harrowing experience even when despite no turbulence, the captain kept reminding people that they should remain seated with their seatbelts fastened at all times...  

Some of you are ridiculous.


User currently offlinefrmrcapcadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1710 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 22302 times:

It is odd that certain incidents have more liabilities than others. Airplane related, including 9/11, produce huge settlements. Whereas other accidents often leave victims out in the cold, or only modestly reimbursed for injuries. Any liability specialists out there to explain this?


Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlineGrid From Kazakhstan, joined Apr 2010, 624 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 22162 times:

Quoting frmrcapcadet (Reply 19):
It is odd that certain incidents have more liabilities than others. Airplane related, including 9/11, produce huge settlements. Whereas other accidents often leave victims out in the cold, or only modestly reimbursed for injuries. Any liability specialists out there to explain this?

Not sure what other accidents you are referring to ... but airline incidents often create a higher number of plaintiffs which requires greater compensation. A Texas jury just awarded a plaintiff $150 billion .. one person.



ATR72 E120 E140 E170 E190 Q200 717 727 737 747 757 767 777 A319 A320 A321 A330 A340 MD11 MD82 MD83 MD88 MD90
User currently offlineshufflemoomin From Denmark, joined Jun 2010, 471 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 22123 times:

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 14):
Quite simply one moment everything is fine and the next minute (faulty or otherwise) the pitots (both) have failed and are potentionally showing zero thereby causing the aircraft to believe it had stalled and therefore throw the aircraft into a dive to recover.

What are you talking about? Failed pitots? Stalls? From the report:

"...one of the aircraft's three air data inertial reference units (ADIRUs) started outputting intermittent, incorrect values (spikes) on all flight parameters to other aircraft systems. Two minutes later, in response to spikes in angle of attack (AOA) data, the aircraft's flight control primary computers (FCPCs) commanded the aircraft to pitch down."


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9503 posts, RR: 52
Reply 22, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 21872 times:

It has been established in the past that Airbus & Boeing have to pay the airlines compensation for design defects. This was a incident that had the airplane pitching violently after a single sensor malfunctionsed. Passengers are lucky the airplane didn't have the fate as some other well known incidents when airspeed indication failed.

Usually I am opposed to people getting large sums of money for incidents like this, but in this case there were violent pitch changes and dozens of people seriously injured who went through ceiling panels. There were physical injuries on top of the typical emotional stress of the situation.

Hopefully this will put an end to this specific incident and the lessons learned will make the rest of the fleet safer.

Quoting Autothrust (Reply 15):
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 9):
there is/was nothing wrong with the A330.

Nonsense.There is nothing wrong with the A330. Look at the 737 accident statistics there was something wrong.

People without knowledge tend to underestimate the amount work and money Airbus invested all for safety in their FBW software.

Airbus did eventually fix the software control logic, which is akin to them acknowledging a problem. The problem was that a single erroneous entry resulted in the incident where redundancy control laws should have been in place. I think that can be categorized as a design defect.

Does that make the A330 unsafe? Of course not. But in this case something was wrong with the design. The 737 has plenty wrong with its design too. A similar fault was the radio altimeter failure causing thrust reductions that resulted in the crash of a Turkish 737 in AMS. That resulted in a similar situation where a design change happened to fix the problem.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineAquila3 From Italy, joined Nov 2010, 251 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 21776 times:

Quoting Grid (Reply 20):
A Texas jury just awarded a plaintiff $150 billion .. one person.


Are you sure? billions? for personal injuries?
That would fix (temporary of course) the Italian economy problems. I can't believe it.



chi vola vale chi vale vola chi non vola è un vile
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 21586 times:

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 9):
I don't know, round the world tickets would be nice but it kind of seems like a bad joke after what these people went through! I would imagine the last thing I would want after this experience would be to get back on that airline a fly even further

The best thing they can do after such an accident is get back up flying as soon as possible again. Get back on the horse as they say.

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 9):
I don't think that the passengers settling for "millions of dollars" were "ridiculous" at all. In todays world that is about the only way to send a clear message to a big corporation. The companies involved put out a bad product that resulted in severe injuries both physical and mental, they have to be responsible for their bad decision.

If the millions of dollars is to pay for medical and other expenses caused by the accident them I'm all for it. If it is to punish the big bad company for not having covered everything much less so.

Clarification, I'm all for punishing companies who intentionally or ignorantly fail but I do not think that is the case here.

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 14):
I would disagree with the above statement and even argue that there may be fault in the way the flight computers are programmed.

Quite simply one moment everything is fine and the next minute (faulty or otherwise) the pitots (both) have failed and are potentionally showing zero thereby causing the aircraft to believe it had stalled and therefore throw the aircraft into a dive to recover.

Nothing is perfectly safe. Not even staying home in bed all your life is perfectly safe. I think you will find it hard to display FBW is less safe than alternatives.


25 Grid : Not just personal injuries, but punitive damages and medical expenses. Collecting that judgment will be another thing.
26 astuteman : The article title is phrased as such. Which is in itself interesting of course Indeed. From the article Unless 1 in 28 million today classifies as "u
27 tommytoyz : When you get up and go to the bathroom? Or get a glass of water? Or get something out of your overhead bin? Was the fasten seat belt light illuminate
28 Grid : Right. However, the rest of what I said was: I'm not sure why passengers should have been strapped in. Perhaps I missed where the article states that
29 Aquila3 : If at Airbus they where so dishonest like many here believe they should say "the problem is unknown and we could not repeat it". Very hardly somebody
30 747400sp : I thought about it, and may be I should have thought my reply though, because the A330 is a safe a/c. I still think it is good that this woman got mi
31 RoseFlyer : I'm not trying to imply that at all. It likely went through their safety investigation review process as soon as the incident happened (this is requi
32 TJCAB : And this is the reason why they keep reminding us to remain strapped in while seated. The cannot keep the sign illuminated or else we would not be ab
33 RoseFlyer : I don't think I understand what you are saying (might be a language barrier). I do not believe that Airbus is being dishonest in any way at all. Anyo
34 cmf : I don't think it was. I do think many passengers were injured because of their own negligence, not strapped in when in seat. Which is a good example
35 ljupco : after such a horror flight, I'm doubt anyone is going to accept round-the-world the world tour. Inflight trauma, situations which lead our mind to th
36 YULWinterSkies : Right, but the crew also reminds pax that they should wear it when seated, just in case, and also just in case they fall asleep and the seat belt sig
37 francoflier : For a few seconds of aerobatics? That's it. I'm only flying Airbus from now on...
38 Aquila3 : Yes, there is. You are the mother tongue, so I am at fault I admit it. I have to read three times some sentence of yours to get them. My bad. But mor
39 jollo : Ah, thank you, you finally gave an answer to my question (30-some posts back). In this case, for a single component failure causing a significant fli
40 SSTeve : Hyperbole, yet an accurate portrayal of the mindset of some. The US concept that pisses me off more is that cases like this never see adjudication in
41 Grid : It's not that easy to calculate, even if you aren't going to take into account pain and suffering. The problem is that you may go to the hospital ini
42 fiscal : The lady noted in the interview said that she did not have her seat belt on as the meal service had just finished. Maybe she meant to say that the mea
43 Grid : A lawyer worth his salt would say, "Now, if you were out of your seat for no reason at all, your award may be reduced because you contributed to your
44 BoeingVista : No, you missed the safety briefing. The safety briefing contains important information that should be followed to ensure your safety and on QF part o
45 bluebus : OMG. Wear your seat belt already. Even if it is really lose, it will stop your head from going into the ceiling. If you decide not to wear it -- cool,
46 Grid : No.
47 Ruscoe : The hull loss rate with fatalities for the 737NG is 0.18 per million departures and total hull loss 0.30/million dep. The figures for the 330 are 0.4
49 cam747 : I agree with you - if people are injured due to normal turbulence and you don't have your belt on and get injured, then you shouldn't go suing. Its p
50 BoeingVista : Sorry but the principle is the same, you have a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure your safety, i.e buckle up, if negligence cannot be proved an
51 cam747 : I don't think the principle is the same. One cause is a known natural risk of flying, the other cause is a man-made programming fault. You can say th
52 Zkpilot : There were practically no injuries to those that were seated with seat belts on (except for those who were impacted by non-strapped in pax hitting th
53 ChazPilot : I third this motion. Everyone should always have their seatbelt on whenever seated. You can leave it loose during flight so that it's there but unnot
54 sunrisevalley : The reality is that Airbus ( and any other manufacturer) has product liability insurance and it is the carrier of that insurance who dictates who say
55 fiscal : In fact I think that the wording goes something like "Qantas REQUIRES you to keep your seat belt fastened whilst you are seated..."
56 AngMoh : Negligence is either knowingly not doing enough to prevent a problem or knowing there is a problem and not doing enough to address it. Neither is the
57 Grid : That's not the definition of negligence used in the U.S. which is where the suit was filed.
58 N1120A : Yeah, don't bring things up out of context. A 12 year old boy was burned alive by an out of control kid who had sexually assaulted another. No one is
59 cmf : What was done is horrible. But a judgement at 150 billion is not reasonable by any standard. If it going to be collected or not is a different issue.
60 ATCtower : While I digress, this was likely uncomfortable for the passengers, I have given restrictions to aircraft to maintain 4000'/min climbs or descents (150
61 jollo : Well, insurance companies get paid fees "in exchange" for liability coverage. "Taking the lumps" in this case could include signing an insurance cont
62 neutronstar73 : Don't know why my post was deleted, but I guess I must say this again: Subsequent remedial measures taken by Airbus and NG is not admitting fault and
63 SSTeve : Uh, no court involved. Bunch of lawyers got together and batted around numbers until they settled.
64 neutronstar73 : thanks for the clarification!
65 BoeingVista : To say that a court awarded anybody any money in this case is idiotic, nonsensical and just plan wrong. Also to say that no problem = no money paid i
66 neutronstar73 : I was involved in several cases where companies had to pay, and no, I don't think you know the process. Perhaps going to law school, getting a degree
67 skygirl1990 : Exactly. I have little sympathy for people who take off their seatbelts (while sitting) mid-flight. I have spent many years flying and 'after a meal
68 BoeingVista : LOL, you were clearly wrong about the process here in asserting that a court had awarded a settlement, you admit so in post 64. Please try to get the
69 BoeingVista : Its been a while since I flew NZ, but I seem to remember words in their safety briefing to the effect of you are required by law to follow the direct
70 skygirl1990 : Which it would be
71 liftsifter : So wait. Passengers are being rewarded for not following international law about seat belt rules? Cool.
72 Post contains images CXB77L : Last time I checked, the aircraft involved in this incident was built by Airbus ... But this isn't just turbulence. To use your analogy ... if you're
73 loalq : Hmmm so it seems that in the end it actually pays off not to wear seatbelts...even though they have all gone through the same scary situation, the rec
74 neutronstar73 : I admit I was incorrect about the forum (court or out of court settlement) but you were completely lost on the law, its application, its effect, the
75 Post contains images BoeingVista : Nope, you assert a whole bunch of things that are not true and expect them to stand simply because you say so... You could indeed be a lawyer... I am
76 Post contains images cmf : I think there is a not missing or this doesn't make sense
77 BoeingVista : Yep, missing a "not". It should read 'seated and not wearing their seat belts were actually committing an offense by not following the direction of a
78 CXB77L : Every aircraft have certain design issues. That's what service bulletins and airworthiness directives are for - correcting those defects when they ar
79 wn700driver : Seriously. Melodrama much? Hopefully the next Judge will... Well, according to the article, it went "Haywire." Haywire, that was the problem...
80 BoeingVista : And you are arguing that a reasonable person ought to have known of an error that might happen 3 times for 2 seconds over 28 million hours (thats 319
81 RoseFlyer : I think he does know the correct definition since he is describing it relatively accurately as it relates to aviation and airplane certification. A d
82 CXB77L : You do not file a suit for damages in a criminal action. You're either filing a suit for damages under tort, in which case the Crimes Act does not ap
83 neutronstar73 : Wrong. You can't sue for damages in a criminal action. A criminal action is when you commit a crime against a person, but the offense is an offense a
84 Daysleeper : As BoeingVista states, Wouldn't they be able to file a seperate cival suit?
85 neutronstar73 : You could, for the injuries you may have suffered, but (this is my ballpark guess) I don't think you would get too much traction for it. A court in a
86 Daysleeper : I agree in that I don't think it would be worth their while, I was more confused by your post stating he was "wrong" when in fact he wasn't.
87 neutronstar73 : He is wrong on the suing for "criminal assault". You can sue in a civil suit for a tort claim, not a criminal claim.
88 BoeingVista : I know this... I didn't say that you could. You would use the criminal conviction as a basis for filing a civil suit, you claim to be a lawyer but yo
89 BoeingVista : You would use the criminal prosecution to establish the offence, even if the criminal prosecution was not successful a damages claim may still succee
90 Post contains links BoeingVista : Courts continue to define 'negligence' and 'reasonably foreseeable' http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/america...can-be-sued-over-flying-body-parts
91 ikramerica : Brain injury. Lifetime of care. Very expensive. Read the article... If it were simply a scare, sure. But many got injured, a few severely. That means
92 Ruscoe : On the ABC (Oz) news last night it was stated the most seriously injured passengers are not going to accept the pay out figure and are starting a sepa
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...
Airbus To Announce Mega Order In Brazil! posted Tue Nov 13 2007 08:04:34 by Dellatorre
Airlines To Pay $300M Fine In Price Probe posted Thu Aug 2 2007 11:16:47 by Robbie86
Airbus To Hire 1,000 People In Hamburg To Keep A38 posted Mon Apr 23 2007 17:53:49 by GRIVely
Airbus To Build A320 Completely In Hamburg posted Mon Jan 15 2007 15:53:45 by LHStarAlliance
Airbus To Dump 8 Out Of 10 Suppliers? posted Tue Nov 7 2006 03:07:16 by Dougloid
Xinhua: Airbus To Take 51% Stake In China Plant posted Mon Oct 9 2006 08:14:01 by N328KF
Airbus To Top 305 Deliveries In 2004 posted Mon Jul 19 2004 03:41:53 by YUL332LX
BAe In Talks To Sell Out Of Airbus posted Tue Mar 21 2006 15:20:47 by NAV20
Airbus Damage Of QF A330 Resulted In Delay? posted Fri Apr 11 2003 00:52:50 by Bd1959
Airbus To Launch ''New'' HGW A330-300 (235T) posted Thu Nov 25 2010 03:51:14 by WINGS
Airbus To Hire 1,000 People In Hamburg To Keep A38 posted Mon Apr 23 2007 17:53:49 by GRIVely
Airbus To Build A320 Completely In Hamburg posted Mon Jan 15 2007 15:53:45 by LHStarAlliance
Airbus To Dump 8 Out Of 10 Suppliers? posted Tue Nov 7 2006 03:07:16 by Dougloid
Xinhua: Airbus To Take 51% Stake In China Plant posted Mon Oct 9 2006 08:14:01 by N328KF
Airbus To Top 305 Deliveries In 2004 posted Mon Jul 19 2004 03:41:53 by YUL332LX
BAe In Talks To Sell Out Of Airbus posted Tue Mar 21 2006 15:20:47 by NAV20
Airbus Damage Of QF A330 Resulted In Delay? posted Fri Apr 11 2003 00:52:50 by Bd1959