julesmusician
Posts: 378
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 3:25 am

Toronto Crash Update News - Limitation On Claims?

Thu Nov 17, 2005 7:35 pm

After todays press release I thought that passengers had a maximum payout for compensation in the event of accidents and crashes? I thought that was what we all sign to when we fly, based on Warsaw Convention. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Also do airlines that were not involved insurers send out people to examine the facts and consider whether they are still prepared to cover aircraft flying into that airport based on the fact that people are accusing the airport authorities of negligence?

J

Jet not at fault in Toronto crash

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 Posted: 1625 GMT (0025 HKT)

OTTAWA, Ontario (Reuters) -- The crash of an Air France jet in Toronto on August 2 does not appear to have been caused by problems with the Airbus A340 itself, Canada's Transport Safety Board said Wednesday.

All 309 people on board survived the crash in which the plane ran off the end of the runway as it landed during a severe thunderstorm.

"To date, investigators have not found significant anomalies of the aircraft systems," the agency said in a preliminary report. "Review of digital flight data recorder data has not revealed any system troubles or malfunctions."

"No problems were detected with the flight controls, spoilers, tires and brakes, or thrust reversers," the report said.

It described the events as follows: "After landing long, the aircraft overran the end of the runway and came to rest in a ravine just outside the airport perimeter."

Some aviation analysts have said the ravine, about 200 meters (650 feet) beyond the end of the tarmac, should be filled in or covered to extend the runway's safety zone. The ravine was the site of an Air Canada crash in 1978 that killed two people.

The Air Line Pilots Association has complained about the ravine, saying obstacle-free safety areas are needed beyond the runway.

Passengers have filed a class-action lawsuit against Air France, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority and air-traffic control agency Nav Canada, alleging negligence.

The suit, filed in Ontario Superior Court on behalf of the 297 passengers, is seeking C$325 million ($273 million) in general and special damages.
African Civil Aviation Commission president "You don't want to fly out as a passenger and come back as cargo."
 
sudden
Posts: 3934
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2001 5:20 pm

RE: Toronto Crash Update News - Limitation On Claims?

Fri Nov 18, 2005 2:18 am

If I were a pax. on that aircraft I would say that I had already got my reward,
as everybody survived it!

Do not really see the point of this thread, to be honest!?
Money issue!?

Maybe you should have posted this in Civil Aviation instead.

Aim for the sky!
Sudden
When in doubt, flat out!
 
backfire
Posts: 3467
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:01 am

RE: Toronto Crash Update News - Limitation On Claims?

Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:21 am

Quoting Julesmusician (Thread starter):
After todays press release I thought that passengers had a maximum payout for compensation in the event of accidents and crashes? I thought that was what we all sign to when we fly, based on Warsaw Convention. Please correct me if I am wrong.

The Montreal Convention of 1999 was drawn up to update the old Warsaw Convention - its central aim was to remove the limit on carriers' liability in the event of an accident.
 
darrenthe747
Posts: 387
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 4:40 pm

RE: Toronto Crash Update News - Limitation On Claims?

Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:23 am

Quote:
If I were a pax. on that aircraft I would say that I had already got my reward,
as everybody survived it!

disagree with you here. frivilous lawsuits are a horrible thing, but if the crash was hypothetically caused by gross human error, negligence, and poor judgement, then i believe a lawsuit is very appropriate.
All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
 
joness0154
Posts: 650
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 12:56 am

RE: Toronto Crash Update News - Limitation On Claims?

Tue Nov 22, 2005 1:10 am

Quoting Darrenthe747 (Reply 3):
disagree with you here. frivilous lawsuits are a horrible thing, but if the crash was hypothetically caused by gross human error, negligence, and poor judgement, then i believe a lawsuit is very appropriate.

Ahh the 'American Way'. Get rich easy, sue everyone!

This lawsuit is looking for almost 1 mil per person. No one needs that amount of money, especially for something that they escaped out of unscathed.
I don't have an attitude problem. You have a perception problem
 
jush
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 2:10 am

RE: Toronto Crash Update News - Limitation On Claims?

Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:22 pm

Quoting Darrenthe747 (Reply 3):
disagree with you here. frivilous lawsuits are a horrible thing, but if the crash was hypothetically caused by gross human error, negligence, and poor judgement, then i believe a lawsuit is very appropriate.

True. We all hate these ludicrous lawsuits but if it's true that by bad judgement the pilot or co-pilot landed the plane half way down the runway addtitionally to these weather conditions i think you have a case.
I still would be happy to have survived though.

Quoting Joness0154 (Reply 4):
This lawsuit is looking for almost 1 mil per person. No one needs that amount of money, especially for something that they escaped out of unscathed.

True as well. That amount of money is ridiculous. No one needs nearly this or is entitled to it IMHO.

Regds
jush

[Edited 2005-11-22 14:24:46]
There is one problem with airbus. Though their products are engineering marvels they lack passion, completely.
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Toronto Crash Update News - Limitation On Claims?

Wed Nov 23, 2005 12:02 am

Quoting Joness0154 (Reply 4):
This lawsuit is looking for almost 1 mil per person. No one needs that amount of money, especially for something that they escaped out of unscathed.

If it were in US courts and the full amount was awarded I doubt that each person would see a quarter of that. Lawyers certainly don't need the money.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
MissedApproach
Posts: 678
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:12 am

RE: Toronto Crash Update News - Limitation On Claims?

Wed Nov 23, 2005 9:01 am

Quoting Jush (Reply 5):
That amount of money is ridiculous. No one needs nearly this

I agree. There was at least one passenger who refused to take part in the suit & said he felt it was motivated purely by greed.
As for the "ravine" at the end of the runway, how is that a factor? Airports need drainage. You may as well say the airport should have an 8 mile runway for pilots with bad judgement. This is just an attempt to shift blame IMO.
Can you hear me now?
 
airfoilsguy
Posts: 3485
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:28 am

RE: Toronto Crash Update News - Limitation On Claims?

Wed Nov 23, 2005 10:12 am

Quoting Julesmusician (Thread starter):
Some aviation analysts have said the ravine, about 200 meters (650 feet) beyond the end of the tarmac, should be filled in or covered to extend the runway's safety zone. The ravine was the site of an Air Canada crash in 1978 that killed two people

Sue the ravine. It was defanitly the cause of the runway over run. Bad weather and a late touch down had nothing to do with the accedent.  banghead 
It's not a near miss it's a near hit!!
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17115
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Toronto Crash Update News - Limitation On Clai

Wed Nov 23, 2005 1:05 pm

Quoting Darrenthe747 (Reply 3):
Quote:
If I were a pax. on that aircraft I would say that I had already got my reward,
as everybody survived it!

disagree with you here. frivilous lawsuits are a horrible thing, but if the crash was hypothetically caused by gross human error, negligence, and poor judgement, then i believe a lawsuit is very appropriate.

We could argue this one six ways to Sunday. But what I don't get is how surviving uninjured gets you these sums (even if the lawyers take most of it). What, exactly, are they suing for? Suffering? Apart from the obvious emotional distress, what is the extent of the injuries? AFAIK most people got off completely unscathed.

It feels a bit, you know, vulgar. Or as someone mentioned, "motivated by greed". That's my problem. Most of these people aren't looking for compensation, they're seeing a way to make a quick buck.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Stoicescu
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 2:39 pm

RE: Toronto Crash Update News - Limitation On Claims?

Wed Nov 23, 2005 1:14 pm

What happened with the pilots?
 
sudden
Posts: 3934
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2001 5:20 pm

RE: Toronto Crash Update News - Limitation On Claims?

Wed Nov 23, 2005 5:55 pm

Quoting Stoicescu (Reply 10):
What happened with the pilots?

They are now having an early pension at the Maldives as they took Airbus to court and got sh*t loads of money!

I stand behind my first post as I find this all to be totally out of proportion.

Aim for the sky!
Sudden
When in doubt, flat out!
 
beowulf
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:22 am

RE: Toronto Crash Update News - Limitation On Claims?

Mon Nov 28, 2005 10:46 pm

Quoting Darrenthe747 (Reply 3):
Quote:
If I were a pax. on that aircraft I would say that I had already got my reward,
as everybody survived it!

disagree with you here. frivilous lawsuits are a horrible thing, but if the crash was hypothetically caused by gross human error, negligence, and poor judgement, then i believe a lawsuit is very appropriate.

If the aircraft was malfunctioning, the manufacturer should be ordered to fix whatever problem. If the crew or whoever on the ground made a mistake (human error, negligence, or poor judgement) and caused the accident, those responsible should face disciplinary or penal sanctions.

However, I fail to see the logic behind suing AF or whoever on the basis of a civil lawsuit as a means of "punishing" them. Such lawsuits are motivated by greed. If someone had died or had been seriously injured, yes, AF or whoever should compensate for whatever damage, but in this case everybody was lucky and walked off the plane. Thus, what's the point of such a civil law suit? Will it recommend Airbus to change something about its airplanes or will it suggest AF to train its pilots differently? Probably not. It will only award the passengers money!

Nick
 
A350
Posts: 1012
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:40 am

RE: Toronto Crash Update News - Limitation On Claims?

Tue Nov 29, 2005 5:24 am

Quoting Julesmusician (Thread starter):
The suit, filed in Ontario Superior Court on behalf of the 297 passengers, is seeking C$325 million ($273 million) in general and special damages.

This is roughly one million per pax as compensation for lost baggage. A realistic amount seeing that everyone coming from Paris has filled his suitcase with jewels from Cartier  banghead 

A350
 
TheSorcerer
Posts: 1003
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 3:35 am

RE: Toronto Crash Update News - Limitation On Claims?

Tue Nov 29, 2005 7:10 am

I wonder how pilots (all pilots not only the AF pilots) feel when they know that if they make a mistake that a bunch of greedy passengers will sue the airline. Maybe it was pilot error but the pilots still did a good job (considering the circumstances), this shouldn't have happened but I think the passengers should be grateful that they got out alive. Pathetic how they think they are entitled to a million dollars while the pilots have lost their jobs, their income.
What has actually happened to the pilots? I assume they were fired.
Thanks
Dominic
ALITALIA,All Landings In Torino, All Luggage In Athens ;)
 
TPEcanuck
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 9:24 pm

RE: Toronto Crash Update News - Limitation On Claims?

Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:23 am

Quoting Joness0154 (Reply 4):
This lawsuit is looking for almost 1 mil per person. No one needs that amount of money, especially for something that they escaped out of unscathed.

Hi everyone!

I don't want to sound like I support frivolous lawsuits and outrageous sums. But....I actually don't think $1 million is totally outrageous.

I don't think the passengers of that flight are unscathed. I'm sure many are too scared to fly again, or if they have to fly, I can only imagine the trauma they might face. For me, if I were unable to fly because of fear caused by the negligence of someone(if that is proven true), I would be unable to do my current job. I would likely suffer much more than $1 in lost wages over the foreseeable future.

I'm not sure how one puts a price on that. But I also think it's too much for us to write-off their suffering simply because most were fortunate enough to escape without physical injuries.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Starlionblue, SXI899 and 9 guests