The first of many lawsuits, especially against Boeing.

Just read through the Southwest lawsuit. They are saying that southwest and boeing have colluded on several levels throughout the entire history of WN, which ultimately ended up with the troubled MAX we see today.

They say the evidence can be found with WNs continuous and remarkable financial performances, when the industry is typically volatile, when they merged with other airlines and spent billions getting rid of planes to keep being a sole aircraft type, even giving planes to competitors (I guess the DL deal). The lawsuit goes as far to say

"It took government intervention—the grounding of the entire fleet of 737 MAX 8
airplanes by the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”)—for Southwest to publicly
acknowledge a problem. But in reality, Southwest knew the 737 MAX 8 was fatally flawed and
had worked with Boeing to cover it up and falsely tout the safety of the airplane"

There is more, but its going in on WN.

Can WN be held liable for an agreement with Boeing? They cannot control the actions of Boeing surely?

What are the damages the plaintiffs are claiming?

This seems like a typical attempt at a class action lawsuit. I find it interesting they didn't add United (which also has 73Max equipment), and which also has bought Boeing over the years. Damages claimed and damages awarded are going to come out much later; the possibility is really that the lawyers make a fortune, the actual plaintiffs (people who claimed they were hurt when they booked on 73Max flights without knowing they were unsafe) will get next to nothing (maybe a $25 coupon toward a flight). Just my 2 cents worth.

Pudelhund wrote:

What are the damages the plaintiffs are claiming?

Nothing. Its a complaint.

superjeff wrote:

This seems like a typical attempt at a class action lawsuit. I find it interesting they didn't add United (which also has 73Max equipment), and which also has bought Boeing over the years. Damages claimed and damages awarded are going to come out much later; the possibility is really that the lawyers make a fortune, the actual plaintiffs (people who claimed they were hurt when they booked on 73Max flights without knowing they were unsafe) will get next to nothing (maybe a $25 coupon toward a flight). Just my 2 cents worth.

They won't even get your two cents worth. No damages. The US legal system: Envy of the world!

Bricktop wrote:

superjeff wrote:

This seems like a typical attempt at a class action lawsuit. I find it interesting they didn't add United (which also has 73Max equipment), and which also has bought Boeing over the years. Damages claimed and damages awarded are going to come out much later; the possibility is really that the lawyers make a fortune, the actual plaintiffs (people who claimed they were hurt when they booked on 73Max flights without knowing they were unsafe) will get next to nothing (maybe a $25 coupon toward a flight). Just my 2 cents worth.

They won't even get your two cents worth. No damages. The US legal system: Envy of the world!

Yeah, it is. There are countless legal jurisdictions where powerless plaintiffs have no hope to resolve their legitimate disputes. I’ll take the frivolous lawsuits any day in exchange for a system that routinely vindicates the little guy.

SimProgrammer wrote:

Pudelhund wrote:

What are the damages the plaintiffs are claiming?

Nothing. Its a complaint.

Actually it is a "Complaint", not a "complaint". The difference is that with the upper case "C" it identifies the originating document for a lawsuit (sometimes also called a "Petition"; a "complaint" is simply an expression of dissatisfaction by the complaining individual(s) or entity(ies). Under U.S. Court rules, they don't necessarily have to claim a specific amount in the initial pleading; they can add that later. I haven't read this particular Complaint, so don't know exactly how they've alleged their claim(s), other than what's said earlier in this thread, but basically that's the procedure in the U.S. Federal Court system.

I love the whole collusive history angle.

Took a quick look through:

I made it to paragraph 4 in the WN lawsuit, and basically, WN is included in this lawsuit is basically as a complaint that WN has most favored customer status with Boeing.

The best part is when you dig through the claims and basically a part of this is that WN should pay damages AA customers.
COUNT SEVEN:
Negligence
(The Nationwide American Airlines Consumer Class against Defendant Southwest)

Surprised this took so long - should be a slam-dunk, especially based on what Boeing has publicly stated since the fallout began (which essentially amounts to an admission of guilt for many of the bullet-points listed in the suit).

Pretty sure they've already set aside funds for legal action like this, which was obviously expected.

I'm not sure about the collusion angle here, but it's possible if they can prove that a) WN (due to their MAX-heavy fleet) decided to ignore clear or likely safety concerns with the MAX (this can be implied through MX communications, management or pilot concerns, etc) and b) through subsequent talks with Boeing, decided to hold off on any groundings, reassignments, etc. due to their relationship and the possible hit it might have on Boeing and WN (due to being 737-exclusive).

I'm not saying I agree with it, but I'm in a family full of lawyers soo.. just playing the hypotheticals here.

I'm guessing they waited this long to see what information would come out, whistleblowers, etc - which was probably a good move.

This might have legs so don't discount what appears on the surface as a frivolous lawsuit. SWA was the driving customer force behind the minimalistic approach to differences training and Boeing complied. The 737 MAX Chief Technical Pilot who oversaw the development and certification of the MAX left Boeing to join up with SWA as a line pilot with special MAX oversight. It's his name who appears in the FCTM and FCOM so some low life attorney may be able to turn this into some nefarious, sinsiter plan.

I don't understand how a lawyer even took the time to file this. I could see a stockholder lawsuit based on these claims maybe but not passenger.

In order to be awarded anything (in any US jurisdiction that I know of) the plaintiffs have to prove they were harmed in some way. Choosing to buy a ticket on WN and arriving safely on a MAX is not harm. I'm sure this will get tossed and is likely a publicity stunt for the law firm.

Even if WN had a crash of the MAX, passengers who weren't on the flight can't sue WN or Boeing.

I'm going to sue AA and Boeing because the MAX led to the project Oasis interior. Therefore I suffered harm flying an AA 737 post conversion.

I flew on a WN MAX a few weeks after Lion Air. I wouldn't join this lawsuit if they guaranteed me $1 million. So ridiculous.

planecane wrote:

I don't understand how a lawyer even took the time to file this. I could see a stockholder lawsuit based on these claims maybe but not passenger.

In order to be awarded anything (in any US jurisdiction that I know of) the plaintiffs have to prove they were harmed in some way. Choosing to buy a ticket on WN and arriving safely on a MAX is not harm. I'm sure this will get tossed and is likely a publicity stunt for the law firm.

Even if WN had a crash of the MAX, passengers who weren't on the flight can't sue WN or Boeing.

I'm going to sue AA and Boeing because the MAX led to the project Oasis interior. Therefore I suffered harm flying an AA 737 post conversion.

I flew on a WN MAX a few weeks after Lion Air. I wouldn't join this lawsuit if they guaranteed me $1 million. So ridiculous.

It is a ridiculous lawsuit but it could end up really nasty for both companies if it goes to court even if there is no money claimed. All the points will have to be ruled over and if only one cannot be defended a massive can of worms is opened for later lawsuits. This is the real danger of the above mentioned lawsuit. It almost looks like a straw men lawsuit for later to test out if it is possible to cash in.

BravoOne wrote:

This might have legs so don't discount what appears on the surface as a frivolous lawsuit. SWA was the driving customer force behind the minimalistic approach to differences training and Boeing complied. The 737 MAX Chief Technical Pilot who oversaw the development and certification of the MAX left Boeing to join up with SWA as a line pilot with special MAX oversight. It's his name who appears in the FCTM and FCOM so some low life attorney may be able to turn this into some nefarious, sinsiter plan.

You do realize that it was actually American Airlines that drove Boeing to develop the MAX in the first place. At the time AA was going to place their entire narrow body order with Airbus until Boeing then presented American with the MAX concept as an option and American agreed to split the order between the two OEM’s.

FluidFlow wrote:

planecane wrote:

I don't understand how a lawyer even took the time to file this. I could see a stockholder lawsuit based on these claims maybe but not passenger.

In order to be awarded anything (in any US jurisdiction that I know of) the plaintiffs have to prove they were harmed in some way. Choosing to buy a ticket on WN and arriving safely on a MAX is not harm. I'm sure this will get tossed and is likely a publicity stunt for the law firm.

Even if WN had a crash of the MAX, passengers who weren't on the flight can't sue WN or Boeing.

I'm going to sue AA and Boeing because the MAX led to the project Oasis interior. Therefore I suffered harm flying an AA 737 post conversion.

I flew on a WN MAX a few weeks after Lion Air. I wouldn't join this lawsuit if they guaranteed me $1 million. So ridiculous.

It is a ridiculous lawsuit but it could end up really nasty for both companies if it goes to court even if there is no money claimed. All the points will have to be ruled over and if only one cannot be defended a massive can of worms is opened for later lawsuits. This is the real danger of the above mentioned lawsuit. It almost looks like a straw men lawsuit for later to test out if it is possible to cash in.

There will be a motion to dismiss it and I'd imagine almost any judge will dismiss with prejudice because there are no grounds for the claims.

The USA tort system is screwed up but it isn't THIS screwed up.

planecane wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

planecane wrote:

I don't understand how a lawyer even took the time to file this. I could see a stockholder lawsuit based on these claims maybe but not passenger.

In order to be awarded anything (in any US jurisdiction that I know of) the plaintiffs have to prove they were harmed in some way. Choosing to buy a ticket on WN and arriving safely on a MAX is not harm. I'm sure this will get tossed and is likely a publicity stunt for the law firm.

Even if WN had a crash of the MAX, passengers who weren't on the flight can't sue WN or Boeing.

I'm going to sue AA and Boeing because the MAX led to the project Oasis interior. Therefore I suffered harm flying an AA 737 post conversion.

I flew on a WN MAX a few weeks after Lion Air. I wouldn't join this lawsuit if they guaranteed me $1 million. So ridiculous.

It is a ridiculous lawsuit but it could end up really nasty for both companies if it goes to court even if there is no money claimed. All the points will have to be ruled over and if only one cannot be defended a massive can of worms is opened for later lawsuits. This is the real danger of the above mentioned lawsuit. It almost looks like a straw men lawsuit for later to test out if it is possible to cash in.

There will be a motion to dismiss it and I'd imagine almost any judge will dismiss with prejudice because there are no grounds for the claims.

The USA tort system is screwed up but it isn't THIS screwed up.

Hopefully you are correct abut as recent legal events here in the US have happened, it's always worth throwing it out to see if it sticks and maybe....Boeing/SWA will throw some money at it to see it go away?

I always thought that some parts of the American legal system was a tool, very much abused, whereas countless of people wanting to sue anything under the sun.
I am no lawyer, but if any sorts of collusion can be established between both defendants for what ever reasons they may have had, and most likely benefited from it in this process, perhaps even hiding what ever was going on with the MAX, then, they both have blood on their hands.
Not to mentioned that WN if this is the case, willingly put their own employees and the flying public at risks.

This entire lawsuit is based on the claim that a ticket each named plaintiff paid for and actually used to actually fly to their destination was in fact worthless because of the safety issues surrounding the MAX. It should (but judges do dumb things sometimes) be thrown out as I don't see how actually getting the service you paid for can be considered being damaged.

Side note - I'd love to see each one testify under oath as to what date they knew they had indeed flown on a MAX. I'd bet for most it's not until some lawyer came looking for plaintiffs.

TTailedTiger wrote:

Probably brought by the same people who are going to storm area 51 in a few days. They have about as good a chance of seeing some aliens as they do being taken seriously on their collusion allegations.

Why are you in so much denial About Boeing’s obvious negligence?

WN have had a huge influence in the development of the various 737s, which has resulted in the extreme grandfathering/limitations implemented by Boeing. The most obvious one being the prohibition of sim training resulting in the need for MCAS.

Is there a clause in SWAs contract with Boeing that will pay SWA $1M each aircraft if the MAX requires SIM training?

bgm wrote:

WN have had a huge influence in the development of the various 737s, which has resulted in the extreme grandfathering/limitations implemented by Boeing. The most obvious one being the prohibition of sim training resulting in the need for MCAS.

WN did not prohibit sim training, they just reflected the cost of sim training back to Boeing. It was up to Boeing to say "that's just the way it is" or "we'll find a way around that cost". Boeing chose the later.

zuckie13 wrote:

This entire lawsuit is based on the claim that a ticket each named plaintiff paid for and actually used to actually fly to their destination was in fact worthless because of the safety issues surrounding the MAX. It should (but judges do dumb things sometimes) be thrown out as I don't see how actually getting the service you paid for can be considered being damaged.

Side note - I'd love to see each one testify under oath as to what date they knew they had indeed flown on a MAX. I'd bet for most it's not until some lawyer came looking for plaintiffs.

Also, right after the Lion Air crash, WN realized that some people might be nervous about flying MAXs, so it offered pax the ability to switch flights AT NO COST to any other flight with available seas (regardless of the cost of those seats) within 2 weeks of the original date of departure.

Revelation wrote:

bgm wrote:

WN have had a huge influence in the development of the various 737s, which has resulted in the extreme grandfathering/limitations implemented by Boeing. The most obvious one being the prohibition of sim training resulting in the need for MCAS.

WN did not prohibit sim training, they just reflected the cost of sim training back to Boeing. It was up to Boeing to say "that's just the way it is" or "we'll find a way around that cost". Boeing chose the later.

The $1m per aircraft penalty for sim training was pretty prohibitive, don’t you think? Not that I’m denying Boeing’s culpability, but to say that Southwest had no effect in the mess the MAX is in now is being either obtuse or dishonest.

But WN only needed the -8. The re-engine with larger diameter engines was driven by the -9. They need to sue United or Alaska instead.

bgm wrote:

Revelation wrote:

bgm wrote:

WN have had a huge influence in the development of the various 737s, which has resulted in the extreme grandfathering/limitations implemented by Boeing. The most obvious one being the prohibition of sim training resulting in the need for MCAS.

WN did not prohibit sim training, they just reflected the cost of sim training back to Boeing. It was up to Boeing to say "that's just the way it is" or "we'll find a way around that cost". Boeing chose the later.

The $1m per aircraft penalty for sim training was pretty prohibitive, don’t you think? Not that I’m denying Boeing’s culpability, but to say that Southwest had no effect in the mess the MAX is in now is being either obtuse or dishonest.

What an awful post.

I show your statement that WN prohibited sim training is wrong, you then back down to "pretty prohibitive" and make a totally different straw man statement that WN had no effect and then challenge people to either accept that or get labeled as obtuse or dishonest.

Really, dude?

bgm wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

Probably brought by the same people who are going to storm area 51 in a few days. They have about as good a chance of seeing some aliens as they do being taken seriously on their collusion allegations.

Why are you in so much denial About Boeing’s obvious negligence?

WN have had a huge influence in the development of the various 737s, which has resulted in the extreme grandfathering/limitations implemented by Boeing. The most obvious one being the prohibition of sim training resulting in the need for MCAS.

It doesn't matter how negligent Boeing was or what Southwest influenced. The people filing this suit suffered no harm and therefore have no grounds for the claims. It is that simple. You can file any suit you want by paying the court fee. That doesn't make it legitimate.

You can't just win a suit a company for negligence if you haven't been harmed by the negligence. It will be dismissed.

This is as frivolous a lawsuit as it gets. I flew on the MAX 2 times. My first flight was on a brand new one from MDW-DAL. My sister's second ever commercial flight was on a new WN MAX that we took from MDW-LAS. We both arrived safely on our flights. The DAL-MDW flight was slightly delayed for a weight and balance issue. Is that related to the engine location and the need for MCAS or is baggage loading critical on the MAX because of the MAX's engine configuration? I guess what they are trying to somehow prove is that Boeing sorta told WN all the details of the MAX and told them to keep this quiet.

Revelation wrote:

bgm wrote:

Revelation wrote:

WN did not prohibit sim training, they just reflected the cost of sim training back to Boeing. It was up to Boeing to say "that's just the way it is" or "we'll find a way around that cost". Boeing chose the later.

The $1m per aircraft penalty for sim training was pretty prohibitive, don’t you think? Not that I’m denying Boeing’s culpability, but to say that Southwest had no effect in the mess the MAX is in now is being either obtuse or dishonest.

What an awful post.

I show your statement that WN prohibited sim training is wrong, you then back down to "pretty prohibitive" and make a totally different straw man statement that WN had no effect and then challenge people to either accept that or get labeled as obtuse or dishonest.

Really, dude?

Their post was not awful, it was informative. Anyone just reading your response would be completely unaware there was a contractual arrangement which imposed penalty costs on Boeing to be paid to Southwest if sim training was required. That is not 'they just reflected the cost back to boeing' as if they just had a little chat and said 'it'd be awfully nice if we didn't have to give anyone extra training'.

As has been well established, that contract made Boeing executives effectively demand that the plane required no additional, training. So effectively, Southwest did prohibit training in the effect it had in Boeing internal processes in designing the plane. As you well know.

Why do people always engage in the Internet as if the only thing that matters is never been seen to be wrong, rather than actually learning from other people. Someone brought new information to the thread, which should be welcomed rather than trying to belittle them just for your own ego.

Imagine how much better the world would be if occasionally people in Internet forums said 'oh, I wasn't aware of that, thanks for the info'. People actually come off as far better people when they do that rather than all kinds of logical distortions to avoid admitting they are ever wrong, which just makes people look more and more ridiculous. Noone is ever fooled.

Planetalk wrote:

Their post was not awful, it was informative. Anyone just reading your response would be completely unaware there was a contractual arrangement which imposed penalty costs on Boeing to be paid to Southwest if sim training was required. That is not 'they just reflected the cost back to boeing' as if they just had a little chat and said 'it'd be awfully nice if we didn't have to give anyone extra training'.

As has been well established, that contract made Boeing executives effectively demand that the plane required no additional, training. So effectively, Southwest did prohibit training in the effect it had in Boeing internal processes in designing the plane. As you well know.

Why do people always engage in the Internet as if the only thing that matters is never been seen to be wrong, rather than actually learning from other people. Someone brought new information to the thread, which should be welcomed rather than trying to belittle them just for your own ego.

Imagine how much better the world would be if occasionally people in Internet forums said 'oh, I wasn't aware of that, thanks for the info'. People actually come off as far better people when they do that rather than all kinds of logical distortions to avoid admitting they are ever wrong, which just makes people look more and more ridiculous. Noone is ever fooled.

"Reflected" does cover "contractual arrangement" in that the contractual arrangement did reflect the cost WN would incur if they had to run all their NG pilots through sim training, as you well know.

And I don't agree on the "effect" you bring up twice. Boeing could have come to the conclusion that sim training was still needed and ate the cost. Marketing doesn't always gets what it wants.

Also, thanks for scolding others while also asserting the correctness of your point of view. That's quite an amazing display of rationalization.

bgm wrote:

The $1m per aircraft penalty for sim training was pretty prohibitive, don’t you think? Not that I’m denying Boeing’s culpability, but to say that Southwest had no effect in the mess the MAX is in now is being either obtuse or dishonest.

Even if one was to accept this most straw-clutching reach of logic, can you point out the damage caused to these plaintiffs in this action?

bgm wrote:

Revelation wrote:

bgm wrote:

WN have had a huge influence in the development of the various 737s, which has resulted in the extreme grandfathering/limitations implemented by Boeing. The most obvious one being the prohibition of sim training resulting in the need for MCAS.

WN did not prohibit sim training, they just reflected the cost of sim training back to Boeing. It was up to Boeing to say "that's just the way it is" or "we'll find a way around that cost". Boeing chose the later.

The $1m per aircraft penalty for sim training was pretty prohibitive, don’t you think? Not that I’m denying Boeing’s culpability, but to say that Southwest had no effect in the mess the MAX is in now is being either obtuse or dishonest.

Even if the victims of the crashes tried to sue Southwest it would be dismissed. It doesn't matter what they asked for or what Boeing agreed to sell them. Boeing designed the plane. Boeing is liable for the design.

If I order 1000 chicken sandwiches from a sandwich shop and making them all for me causes the shop to have the chicken unrefrigerated for too long and another customer gets salmonella, the customer can't sue me even if the shop told me that might happen.

Bricktop wrote:

bgm wrote:

The $1m per aircraft penalty for sim training was pretty prohibitive, don’t you think? Not that I’m denying Boeing’s culpability, but to say that Southwest had no effect in the mess the MAX is in now is being either obtuse or dishonest.

Even if one was to accept this most straw-clutching reach of logic, can you point out the damage caused to these plaintiffs in this action?

Sure. They continued to allow an unsafe aircraft to fly, even after the rest of the world grounded it. They were putting profit before safety. Doesn’t take a genius to see that.

They were putting passengers’ lives in danger. I can’t believe I’m having to spell this out. Good grief.

bgm wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

bgm wrote:

The $1m per aircraft penalty for sim training was pretty prohibitive, don’t you think? Not that I’m denying Boeing’s culpability, but to say that Southwest had no effect in the mess the MAX is in now is being either obtuse or dishonest.

Even if one was to accept this most straw-clutching reach of logic, can you point out the damage caused to these plaintiffs in this action?

Sure. They continued to allow an unsafe aircraft to fly, even after the rest of the world grounded it. They were putting profit before safety. Doesn’t take a genius to see that.

They were putting passengers’ lives in danger. I can’t believe I’m having to spell this out. Good grief.

Nothing happened to the passengers. Therefore there are no damages to claim. How many times does this need to be said for you to believe it? Good grief.

bgm wrote:

Revelation wrote:

bgm wrote:

WN have had a huge influence in the development of the various 737s, which has resulted in the extreme grandfathering/limitations implemented by Boeing. The most obvious one being the prohibition of sim training resulting in the need for MCAS.

WN did not prohibit sim training, they just reflected the cost of sim training back to Boeing. It was up to Boeing to say "that's just the way it is" or "we'll find a way around that cost". Boeing chose the later.

The $1m per aircraft penalty for sim training was pretty prohibitive, don’t you think? Not that I’m denying Boeing’s culpability, but to say that Southwest had no effect in the mess the MAX is in now is being either obtuse or dishonest.

The sim for the Max doesn’t even exist yet

planecane wrote:

bgm wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Even if one was to accept this most straw-clutching reach of logic, can you point out the damage caused to these plaintiffs in this action?

Sure. They continued to allow an unsafe aircraft to fly, even after the rest of the world grounded it. They were putting profit before safety. Doesn’t take a genius to see that.

They were putting passengers’ lives in danger. I can’t believe I’m having to spell this out. Good grief.

Nothing happened to the passengers. Therefore there are no damages to claim. How many times does this need to be said for you to believe it? Good grief.

Just because no incident happened that’s A-OK? They put passengers AT RISK.

It’s all about intent. At least in the legal sense.

bgm wrote:

Revelation wrote:

bgm wrote:

The $1m per aircraft penalty for sim training was pretty prohibitive, don’t you think? Not that I’m denying Boeing’s culpability, but to say that Southwest had no effect in the mess the MAX is in now is being either obtuse or dishonest.

the questions are:

IF that penalty wasnt created by southwest ... would boeing have made the SIM training mandatory?
i guess yes

IF there would have been mandatory SIM training ..... would the two planes have crashed and would all those people have died?
i guess no

make your own decition what that means in a legal way
maybe it means nothing at all

Edited from original:

I'm not a lawyer but having read the news article and much of the actual court filing, I don't see how this will stand in court as filed. The plaintiffs would seem to need substantial evidence on two key points: 1) proof that actual collusion occurred between Boeing and Southwest with the development, safety, and certification of the 737-MAX, and to falsify or suppress information, or mislead the public and its employees with specific regard to the 737-MAX; and, 2) that Southwest knew in advance of the aircraft groundings that the MCAS was flawed and they purposely operated the aircraft despite knowing the MCAS was faulty. If they can't prove those two points, I don't see how they can show Boeing and Southwest are liable for any damages to the plaintiffs.

WayexTDI wrote:

bgm wrote:

planecane wrote:

Nothing happened to the passengers. Therefore there are no damages to claim. How many times does this need to be said for you to believe it? Good grief.

Just because no incident happened that’s A-OK? They put passengers AT RISK.

It’s all about intent. At least in the legal sense.

Then the plaintiff need to prove that WN did that intentionally. That is impossible, and it goes against any and all aviation regulations.
What's next? File a suit against the FAA, the Airport Authorities and the websites who sold the tickets? After all, they were aware of the dangerous nature of the 737 MAX; right?
How about a suit against the method of transportation they used to go to the airport? They must have known, right?
Or, how about the banks/financial institutions that allowed the purchase of the ticket? They must have knows as well, right?

Where does this insanity stops?

The buck clearly stops with Boeing, as they were the ones who ultimately designed the plane, and the FAA who (via Boeing) certified it. But WN has had a big role in all the 737 regurgitations. The Frankenstein creation that is the 737 MAX is largely in part due to Southwest’s requirements. Being a large and important Boeing customer, they most definitely held significant leverage over the design.

Regarding the grounding, WN could have chosen to ground the MAX after the rest of the world did. But they chose to keep flying those aircraft, simply because grounding it would cost them money. This decision put thousands of passengers in unnecessary danger.

bgm wrote:

planecane wrote:

bgm wrote:

Sure. They continued to allow an unsafe aircraft to fly, even after the rest of the world grounded it. They were putting profit before safety. Doesn’t take a genius to see that.

They were putting passengers’ lives in danger. I can’t believe I’m having to spell this out. Good grief.

Nothing happened to the passengers. Therefore there are no damages to claim. How many times does this need to be said for you to believe it? Good grief.

Just because no incident happened that’s A-OK? They put passengers AT RISK.

It’s all about intent. At least in the legal sense.

How were harmed? No harm, no suit.

GF

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

bgm wrote:

planecane wrote:

Nothing happened to the passengers. Therefore there are no damages to claim. How many times does this need to be said for you to believe it? Good grief.

Just because no incident happened that’s A-OK? They put passengers AT RISK.

It’s all about intent. At least in the legal sense.

How were harmed? No harm, no suit.

GF

So if I put your family in a car with faulty breaks, seatbelts that might fail due to hardware issues, with a driver that wasnt trained properly for the vehicle because the training simulators were wrong - thats fine then. Good to know.

bgm wrote:

planecane wrote:

bgm wrote:

Sure. They continued to allow an unsafe aircraft to fly, even after the rest of the world grounded it. They were putting profit before safety. Doesn’t take a genius to see that.

They were putting passengers’ lives in danger. I can’t believe I’m having to spell this out. Good grief.

Nothing happened to the passengers. Therefore there are no damages to claim. How many times does this need to be said for you to believe it? Good grief.

Just because no incident happened that’s A-OK? They put passengers AT RISK.

It’s all about intent. At least in the legal sense.

So sue every single airline that did not willingly ground the MAX then. It is more than just Southwest, right? How about AA? UA? Or even non American airlines?

How about sue IAG for signing a LOI for MAX airplanes?

As the other poster stated - where does the insanity stop? You can sue literally any branch from the MAX tree with this logic.

SEU wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

bgm wrote:

Just because no incident happened that’s A-OK? They put passengers AT RISK.

It’s all about intent. At least in the legal sense.

How were harmed? No harm, no suit.

GF

So if I put your family in a car with faulty breaks, seatbelts that might fail due to hardware issues, with a driver that wasnt trained properly for the vehicle because the training simulators were wrong - thats fine then. Good to know.

I didn’t say it was fine, I said they didn’t suffer any damages. If you owned the car, not in common carriage, and had an accident, fine sue. I’m driving a car now subject to recall due to Takata airbags, should I sue Mercedes and for what exactly?

Someone show “intent” on Boeing’s part. Does anyone believe they decided they’d try to ruin their business reputation, kill their customers, lose $10 billion in an effort to enhance their profits. Does anyone really believe they or anyone is that idiotic?

GF

SEU wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

bgm wrote:

Just because no incident happened that’s A-OK? They put passengers AT RISK.

It’s all about intent. At least in the legal sense.

How were harmed? No harm, no suit.

GF

So if I put your family in a car with faulty breaks, seatbelts that might fail due to hardware issues, with a driver that wasnt trained properly for the vehicle because the training simulators were wrong - thats fine then. Good to know.

From the standpoint of legal liability for damages, yes. As long as nothing happens there is no harm done and there are no damages to sue for.

Some of you need to understand that the laws exist in every state in the US that I know of that make this a fact.

Southwest could have dispatched a flight on a MAX with both AoA sensors smashed on purpose by a sledgehammer and if the flight didn't crash and nobody was injured none of the passengers would have a winnable suit.

Stop posting things from fantasy land. This suit will be dismissed.

I'm surprised there haven't already been lawsuits, warranted or not.