Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
apodino
Topic Author
Posts: 4070
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Thu Sep 29, 2011 5:44 pm

A very interesting development in the aftermath of Colgan flight 3407. A federal judge has ruled that Continental must hand over its training documents and related materials of the mainline operation to the Colgan families

http://www.wkbw.com/video/Continenta...Hand-Over-Documents-130742103.html

The basis for this is a negligence lawsuit being brought against Continental by the 3407 families. What the attorneys for the families are trying to establish is that Continental outsourced flying to a different outlet knowing that the Quality of training at Colgan was lower and thus outsourced the flying to Colgan to save money and thus are liable for the accident.

I believe that Continental will try to settle this, as they don't need this going into a merger. I suspect though that the families are not out to make a quick buck and will not settle (Nor do I think they should). If they settle with CO, then the whole outsourcing thing gets quietly buried with no admission of guilt (which is what the Major's want), but if this gets to a Jury and Continental is found liable, this will open up a new pandoras box. Do the majors want to continue to outsource the flying when they are liable, and also play several different roles over a regional if they are liable for their own actions? Or will the beancounters finally say it isn't worth the extra headache to outsource all this flying.

Keep an eye on this one folks.

[Edited 2011-09-29 10:45:52]
 
FlyASAGuy2005
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Thu Sep 29, 2011 5:46 pm

Quoting apodino (Thread starter):
I suspect though that the families are not out to make a quick buck and will not settle (Nor do I think they should).

Not saying that they are "out for money" and I feel for everyone involved but I do think they will eventually settle. Undisclosed, IDK but I think they will settle. Just my opinion.
What gets measured gets done.
 
apodino
Topic Author
Posts: 4070
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Thu Sep 29, 2011 6:38 pm

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 1):

Not saying that they are "out for money" and I feel for everyone involved but I do think they will eventually settle. Undisclosed, IDK but I think they will settle. Just my opinion.

The problem is settling won't do anything here. There would be no admission of guilt, Majors would continue to be unliable for the actions of their codeshare partners despite the Paint on the side of the plane and the name on the ticket, and business as usual continues.

If you let this get to a Jury and the jury finds Continental liable for the actions of Colgan, then suddenly the precedent is set where any time a flight is operated by a regional partner, the Major carrier is still liable. One of the cost savings of outsourcing is the Major's get rid of that liability, which lowers their insurance premiums. If they are liable all of a sudden, then insurance premiums go up, and a lot of the other cost savings go away. The Major's don't want to deal with this. But I have been saying, if the companies paint is on the airplane, they are liable. That is why I hope the families don't settle, and even though I am not a lawyer, I would take this case pro bona if I was one for that very reason.
 
DualQual
Posts: 742
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:10 pm

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Thu Sep 29, 2011 7:00 pm

I don't see them settling. This isn't about money. This is about proving a point. A point that I believe needs to be made.
There's no known cure for stupid
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Thu Sep 29, 2011 7:10 pm

Quoting apodino (Reply 2):
If you let this get to a Jury and the jury finds Continental liable for the actions of Colgan, then suddenly the precedent is set where any time a flight is operated by a regional partner, the Major carrier is still liable. One of the cost savings of outsourcing is the Major's get rid of that liability, which lowers their insurance premiums. If they are liable all of a sudden, then insurance premiums go up, and a lot of the other cost savings go away. The Major's don't want to deal with this. But I have been saying, if the companies paint is on the airplane, they are liable.

I don't think any precedents need to be set here as I've no doubt Continental and Colgan would be viewed as one and the same from a liability standpoint. There's nothing unusual or precedent setting going on here.

Given the unprofessionalism displayed by 3407's flight crew, and the obvious gaps in training and operating standards displayed by Colgan, Continental has no doubt in their mind that they are going to have to pony up some cash. The issue at this point is what the amount of that cash will be if they settle vs. the amount they would have to pay - and pay with some probability (meaning the chances of them not prevailing) - if it goes to trial. Even a trial will not, IMO, revolve around liability but, rather, the amount of the liability.

Quoting apodino (Reply 2):
That is why I hope the families don't settle, and even though I am not a lawyer, I would take this case pro bona if I was one for that very reason.

  

Quoting DualQual (Reply 3):
I don't see them settling. This isn't about money. This is about proving a point. A point that I believe needs to be made.

  
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
User avatar
TVNWZ
Posts: 2305
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:28 am

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Thu Sep 29, 2011 7:38 pm

Weather or not Colgen has less training than CO may or may not be valid. It may be just immaterial.

It seems to me all Colgen has to do is prove that the crew did not act up to Colgen training standards to win. Any higher standard would prove nothing.

Did the crew behave up to Colgen's standards at that time?
 
tommy767
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Thu Sep 29, 2011 7:51 pm

Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 5):
Did the crew behave up to Colgen's standards at that time?

I recall the crew was extremely fatigued which was a big factor in the crash itself.
"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
 
mcg
Posts: 1152
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 11:49 am

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Thu Sep 29, 2011 7:54 pm

The question becomes, should CO have prevented that crew from flying that flight, due to fatigue?
 
FlyASAGuy2005
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Thu Sep 29, 2011 7:58 pm

Quoting mcg (Reply 7):
The question becomes, should CO have prevented that crew from flying that flight, due to fatigue?

What does CO have to do with the matter though. That question needs to be asked of 9L.
What gets measured gets done.
 
User avatar
usxguy
Posts: 1917
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:28 pm

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Thu Sep 29, 2011 8:34 pm

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 6):
I recall the crew was extremely fatigued which was a big factor in the crash itself.

And not the best aviators as well....
xx
 
Rdh3e
Posts: 3636
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:09 pm

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Thu Sep 29, 2011 9:17 pm

From the article:

"The families hope the documents will prove their claim that regional carrier Colgan Air, which operated Flight 3407 on Continental's behalf, had lower training and safety standards than its parent airline."

Continental never has been and never will be the "parent airline" of Colgan. Business partner perhaps...
 
User avatar
TVNWZ
Posts: 2305
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:28 am

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Thu Sep 29, 2011 9:31 pm

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 6):

That was the cause of the accidient? Was that the determination?

I thought it was pilot error.
 
mcg
Posts: 1152
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 11:49 am

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:08 pm

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 8):
Quoting mcg (Reply 7):
The question becomes, should CO have prevented that crew from flying that flight, due to fatigue?

What does CO have to do with the matter though. That question needs to be asked of 9L.

That get's right to the heart of the whole regional thing; did CO hire Colgan to operate a flight for them, or was CO simply marketing some other airlines services? In the former case CO probably has some duty to provide safe transport, in the latter probably not.
 
YYZRWY23
Posts: 309
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 4:33 am

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Thu Sep 29, 2011 11:28 pm

Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 5):
Weather or not Colgen has less training than CO may or may not be valid. It may be just immaterial.

I think the argument of validity will be based around the question "Why would Continental put their customers onto an airline that isn't as safe as their own?". Accessing CO documents will allow them to compare standards, procedures, training, etc. However, if the procudures and training of 9L are proven to adequate and legal, then the burden shifts to 9L.

Then:

Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 5):
all Colgen has to do is prove that the crew did not act up to Colgen training standards

If everything at 9L is legal in those regards, then you have two pilots who were reckless, irresponsible, and caused death.

Quoting mcg (Reply 12):
That get's right to the heart of the whole regional thing; did CO hire Colgan to operate a flight for them, or was CO simply marketing some other airlines services?

I don't see a way for me to book a 9L flight unless I book through a major (CO, US, etc). This means the later is not valid, and it is clearly the former. And even if it was the later, the lawsuit could say that CO had a duty of care to not market the services of an airline that wasn't up to their safety standards, which then brings us full circle to my first paragraph.

Quoting mcg (Reply 7):
should CO have prevented that crew from flying that flight, due to fatigue?

The issue with this question is that CO did not operate the flight. It would be a bit much to have CO workers checking the status of regional crew before flights to see if they deem them good to go (by sheer volume this would be impossible). I don't know what the contract between CO and 9L is, but I am sure liability is spelled out somewhere. And I would be willing to wager that 9L is fully responsible for the operation of the flight.

With regards to fatigue, this is an industry problem. Pilots commuting results in fatigue, and the airlines need to develop a system to safeguard this practice. I don't know how (and this would be another thread), but this needs to be solved.

YYZRWY23

*As an aspiring law student, I will be watching this case as close as possible, seems like it will be very interesting.
If you don't stand behind our troops, feel free to stand in front of them.
 
futureualpilot
Posts: 2406
Joined: Thu May 25, 2000 10:52 am

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Thu Sep 29, 2011 11:51 pm

Quoting mcg (Reply 7):
The question becomes, should CO have prevented that crew from flying that flight, due to fatigue?

It wasn't CO's call, it wasn't even their flight to operate. Colgan was and still is an independently run company with an independent training department, and operations center.

Quoting YYZRWY23 (Reply 13):
With regards to fatigue, this is an industry problem. Pilots commuting results in fatigue, and the airlines need to develop a system to safeguard this practice. I don't know how (and this would be another thread), but this needs to be solved.

  

The new duty and rest rules supposedly address this issue but they seem to conveniently be swept under the rug and/or brushed aside at the moment. Fatigue is a tough problem, not one that has any simple solution. I can almost promise the new duty time rules we're waiting on won't be adequate either but they will be leaps and bounds better than where we are now.
Life is better when you surf.
 
m11stephen
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:16 am

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:34 am

Quoting apodino (Thread starter):
I believe that Continental will try to settle this, as they don't need this going into a merger. I suspect though that the families are not out to make a quick buck and will not settle (Nor do I think they should). If they settle with CO, then the whole outsourcing thing gets quietly buried with no admission of guilt (which is what the Major's want), but if this gets to a Jury and Continental is found liable, this will open up a new pandoras box. Do the majors want to continue to outsource the flying when they are liable, and also play several different roles over a regional if they are liable for their own actions? Or will the beancounters finally say it isn't worth the extra headache to outsource all this flying.
Quoting apodino (Reply 2):
If you let this get to a Jury and the jury finds Continental liable for the actions of Colgan, then suddenly the precedent is set where any time a flight is operated by a regional partner, the Major carrier is still liable. One of the cost savings of outsourcing is the Major's get rid of that liability, which lowers their insurance premiums. If they are liable all of a sudden, then insurance premiums go up, and a lot of the other cost savings go away. The Major's don't want to deal with this. But I have been saying, if the companies paint is on the airplane, they are liable. That is why I hope the families don't settle, and even though I am not a lawyer, I would take this case pro bona if I was one for that very reason.
Quoting YYZRWY23 (Reply 13):
The issue with this question is that CO did not operate the flight. It would be a bit much to have CO workers checking the status of regional crew before flights to see if they deem them good to go (by sheer volume this would be impossible). I don't know what the contract between CO and 9L is, but I am sure liability is spelled out somewhere. And I would be willing to wager that 9L is fully responsible for the operation of the flight.
Continental is ABSOLUTELY liable in this accident. The Dash 8 Q400 involved in the accident had the Continental name and logo plastered all over the aircraft. In essence Continental sold a product to the victims of the CO3407 crash. Those victims purchased a product from Continental, NOT Colgan Air. Yes, it may have said in one point font on the Continental website and on their boarding passes that "Continental Flight 3407 is operated by Colgan Air D.B.A. Continental Connection" but Continental is still every bit liable for overseeing the product they are selling and ensuring the quality and safety of that product.

Say for example a family member of yours went to the local McDonalds, ordered a hamburger and died because the hamburger was improperly cooked and was contaminated. Of course you are going to sue McDonalds right? Well it turns out that that local "McDonalds" wasn't owned by McDonalds, it was owned and operated by a franchise company that you have never heard of. Is the McDonalds corporation liable for the operations of that restaurant? Absolutely!

When most passengers step onto a regional aircraft they probably have no idea that the aircraft they are flying on isn't actually operated by the company whose logo and name are plastered all over the aircraft. Say you live in Newark, NJ and want to fly to Buffalo, NY. You know that Continental has a hub in Newark, NJ so you log onto Continental.com and find Continental flight 3407 from EWR-BUF. In tiny, nonconspicuous writing it says ,"Continental Connection 3407 is operated by Colgan Air D.B.A. Continental Connection." Like most people you are probably paying attention to the price and times listed. Not which outsourced regional carrier is actually flying the flight. Unless you are paying attention and looking for this writing you will probably miss it. You purchase the ticket from Continental.com and Continental sends you a confirmation email with details about your trip. Again, in small writing the name of the airline that is actually flying the flight is listed but you just purchased a ticket through Continentals website with a Continental flight number so why wouldn't you be on a Continental aircraft with highly trained and highly qualified pilots?

A few months later you go to the airport, look for a curbside sign that says Continental. You proceed inside to a Continental ticket counter where an agent wearing a Continental uniform and a Continental name tag (the agent may very well not work for Continental either) hands you a boarding pass displaying the trademark Continental globe and Continental name. Again in small writing under the Continental name "Operated by Colgan Air" appears. You proceed to a gate where the display says, "Continental Connection 3407." An agent makes a boarding announcement welcoming customers aboard Continental Connection flight 3407 to Buffalo. You look outside and there is an airplane proudly displaying the Continental name and trademark Continental globe. It's night time so you don't notice the small writing next to the door that says, "Operated by Colgan Air." You board the aircraft, sit down, and the magazine in the seatback pocket proudly displays the Continental name. Even your glass of soda and the napkin have the Continental name on it. You get into an accident in which you are severely injured, sue Continental, and Continental tells you that they aren't responsible since it isn't wasn't their airplane. How could they not be responsible? I booked a ticket through their website, my ticket said their name on it and the airplane was painted in their colors and had their name on the side.

Continental needs to own up and take responsibility. They chose to contract certain flights out to Colgan Air. If Continental allows an airline to fly it's passengers with aircraft displaying their name and their logo on it then they are 100% liable and responsible should an accident take place.

IMO, regional flying has gotten way out of hand. If airlines want to continue to outsource flights to regionals then changes need to be made. Airplanes need to be painted in and CLEARLY display the name and logo of the airline actually operating the flight. If it's operated by Colgan Air then the side of the airplane needs to CLEARLY say Colgan Air and Continentals name and/or logo should not be allowed to be displayed anywhere on the aircraft.
My opinions, statements, etc. are my own and do not have any association with those of any employer.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 15044
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:45 am

Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 5):
Weather or not Colgen has less training than CO may or may not be valid. It may be just immaterial.

This is my concern too. I'd expect 9L and CO to have drastically different training programs. 9L isn't flying to MEX, TGU, SNA or PEK or flying widebodies. Conversely, CO isn't flying to many smaller stations and may not have the same operational challenges 9L has (the Q400 not being able to get above weather while the CO aircraft can, for instance). The fact that the training is different shouldn't be, without more, a basis for CO to be liable.

Quoting m11stephen (Reply 15):
Is the McDonalds corporation liable for the operations of that restaurant? Absolutely!

Careful. It depends on a lot of factors including what state we're talking about and the precise wrong. It's not correct that McDonalds is "absolutely" liable for the actions of a franchisee.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
User avatar
N62NA
Posts: 4512
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Fri Sep 30, 2011 1:32 am

I've hated these codeshares from day 1.

You are NOT flying CO when you book on one of these regional airline's flights. Not that I have a problem with all these regional airlines, it's just the whole concept - to me it is extremely deceptive. It's not a mainline crew flying the plane, it's not mainline's flight attendants and in most cases, the regional isn't in any way corporately connected to the mainline (American Eagle is a notable exception - at least for now).
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:04 am

Quoting N62NA (Reply 17):
I've hated these codeshares from day 1.

They're not even really codeshares. If you buy a DL ticket for a codeshare on AF, once you get to the airport nobody is trying to convince you that you're not flying a completely different airline. Not the case with the regionals.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
m11stephen
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:16 am

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:22 am

Quoting N62NA (Reply 17):
I've hated these codeshares from day 1.

You are NOT flying CO when you book on one of these regional airline's flights. Not that I have a problem with all these regional airlines, it's just the whole concept - to me it is extremely deceptive. It's not a mainline crew flying the plane, it's not mainline's flight attendants and in most cases, the regional isn't in any way corporately connected to the mainline (American Eagle is a notable exception - at least for now).

  There are some regionals where the experience between flying on the mainline carrier and flying on the regional carrier is very seamless. These regionals typically only fly for one mainline carrier and the flight and cabin crews usually provide service just as good and sometimes better than that of the mainline carriers. American Eagle, Comair, ASA, and the old ExpressJet are good examples of this (I am aware that these two carriers are in the process of merging).

However regional carriers like Chautauqua, who fly for multiple carriers, do not create a very good brand image for the mainline carrier. Right now Chautauqua flies for AA, CO, DL, F9, US. They have in the past also flown for UA, TW and AW. For example, I recently flew on "Continental Express" operated by Chautauqua from CLE-LGA. Yet the E145 that I was on was obviously a former United Express aircraft (The aircraft fuselage was white with a blue tale). Also, the F/A was wearing an AA name tag and pair of wings and kept mentioning "US Airways Express" in her announcements. The captain also said, "Ladies and gentlemen welcome aboard Frontier Ex... er uh Continental Express to New York Laguardia." You know it's pathetic when the captain doesn't even know what airline they are suppose to be pretending to be. Also, the aircraft had apparently just flown a couple Frontier trips because the F/A had some of those famous Frontier/Midwest chocolate chip cookies leftover which she handed out. The safety cards also said, "Chautauqua Airlines, a Republic Airways Company." Several passengers said things like, "Shanequa airlines! What is that? I'm supposed to be on Continental!" I wonder if the majors realize the scope of the damage these "identity crisis regionals" are doing to them...

[Edited 2011-09-29 19:26:36]
My opinions, statements, etc. are my own and do not have any association with those of any employer.
 
Prinair
Posts: 638
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 1999 7:28 am

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:54 am

Quoting apodino (Thread starter):
I suspect though that the families are not out to make a quick buck and will not settle

You would have to be very naive to believe this statement. It is always about the money and forever will be in any lawsuit like this one.
PRINAIR - Puerto Rico International Airlines
 
User avatar
N62NA
Posts: 4512
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Fri Sep 30, 2011 3:06 am

One other point.... It would be great if these regional airlines would be flying with their OWN name and their OWN colors/logos because it would make spotting much more interesting!  
 
apodino
Topic Author
Posts: 4070
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:58 am

Quoting N62NA (Reply 21):
One other point.... It would be great if these regional airlines would be flying with their OWN name and their OWN colors/logos because it would make spotting much more interesting!

Supposedly, the airplane that Air Wisconsin is in the process of adding to their fleet is going to be painted in the old Air Wisconsin colors. Since rumor has it that this plane will be parted out in 2 years, better spot this one now.

Quoting Prinair (Reply 20):
Quoting apodino (Thread starter):
I suspect though that the families are not out to make a quick buck and will not settle

You would have to be very naive to believe this statement. It is always about the money and forever will be in any lawsuit like this one.

To an extent it is, but these families don't want the current culture to do what it did to their loved ones. Settling won't accomplish that.

Quoting m11stephen (Reply 19):
There are some regionals where the experience between flying on the mainline carrier and flying on the regional carrier is very seamless. These regionals typically only fly for one mainline carrier and the flight and cabin crews usually provide service just as good and sometimes better than that of the mainline carriers. American Eagle, Comair, ASA, and the old ExpressJet are good examples of this (I am aware that these two carriers are in the process of merging).

Horizon Air is another great example.

Quoting m11stephen (Reply 19):
However regional carriers like Chautauqua, who fly for multiple carriers, do not create a very good brand image for the mainline carrier. Right now Chautauqua flies for AA, CO, DL, F9, US. They have in the past also flown for UA, TW and AW. For example, I recently flew on "Continental Express" operated by Chautauqua from CLE-LGA. Yet the E145 that I was on was obviously a former United Express aircraft (The aircraft fuselage was white with a blue tale). Also, the F/A was wearing an AA name tag and pair of wings and kept mentioning "US Airways Express" in her announcements. The captain also said, "Ladies and gentlemen welcome aboard Frontier Ex... er uh Continental Express to New York Laguardia." You know it's pathetic when the captain doesn't even know what airline they are suppose to be pretending to be. Also, the aircraft had apparently just flown a couple Frontier trips because the F/A had some of those famous Frontier/Midwest chocolate chip cookies leftover which she handed out. The safety cards also said, "Chautauqua Airlines, a Republic Airways Company." Several passengers said things like, "Shanequa airlines! What is that? I'm supposed to be on Continental!" I wonder if the majors realize the scope of the damage these "identity crisis regionals" are doing to them...

Where this is really getting out of control is that airlines like Republic are positive spacing crew members on their flights for one airline to protect a flight for another airline. For example, in one instance you will have RAH positive space a crew on a Shuttle America Delta flight from IND to DTW, and when they get to IND they will go to the North Terminal to operate a USAirways flight to PHL. I am sure DL isn't too fond of RAH taking seats away from DL passengers to protect a US flight.

On the same note, I was in an OO jumpseat on a recent ORD-IND flight. When we were in contact with IND approach, he asked the crew who they were flying for that day. We got a chuckle out of it.

Your post prior to the one I quoted is spot on too. I couldn't have summed it up any better than you did.
 
YYZRWY23
Posts: 309
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 4:33 am

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Fri Sep 30, 2011 6:07 am

Quoting m11stephen (Reply 15):
Continental is ABSOLUTELY liable in this accident.

That needs to be determined in court, and then to what extent. If the court decides it was CO selling a 9L product, then their liability will probably become limited or non-existent. Example: You go buy a Sony Tv from Best Buy. The tv wiring has a fault and causes a fire, and your house burns down. You can't sue Best Buy for this. The retailer has limited liability as it isn't "their" product. While this situation is different in the sense that the CO logo and banner was painted on the aircraft, that point could be moot.

Quoting m11stephen (Reply 15):
Yes, it may have said in one point font on the Continental website and on their boarding passes that "Continental Flight 3407 is operated by Colgan Air D.B.A. Continental Connection"

I just went onto the CO site. You can clearly see that it says d.b.a. Those font sizes are legal (the legal department at any company makes sure of it). This will not be relevant in court anyway, as any of the plaintiffs would be lying if they said their parent/spouse/child would not have taken the flight if they knew it was operated by someone different. They would have booked it anyway. I am fairly certain it is almost exclusively a.nutters that look at which regional carrier is flying and adjust flight choices based on it.

Quoting m11stephen (Reply 15):
Say for example a family member of yours went to the local McDonalds, ordered a hamburger and died because the hamburger was improperly cooked and was contaminated. Of course you are going to sue McDonalds right? Well it turns out that that local "McDonalds" wasn't owned by McDonalds, it was owned and operated by a franchise company that you have never heard of. Is the McDonalds corporation liable for the operations of that restaurant? Absolutely!

As I said in my first post:

Quoting YYZRWY23 (Reply 13):
I don't know what the contract between CO and 9L is, but I am sure liability is spelled out somewhere. And I would be willing to wager that 9L is fully responsible for the operation of the flight.

I guarantee the franchise contract has similar text and clauses. While McDonalds would hold limited liability (as I said CO could above), it is clearly signed in franchise owned restaurants that it is owned and operated by ABC Inc. While McD's would have some potential liability (as their name is on the store-front), they didn't hire the employee who made the contaminated burger. The franchisee did. Making the franchisee liable. While McD's would have a duty of care to ensure that health and safety standards were up to their requirements (like CO in 9L training and procs), they weren't actually operating there. Someone else was.

Quoting m11stephen (Reply 15):
then they are 100% liable

I am not a lawyer (aspiring one), nor do I have a formal legal education. however, in my opinion, I doubt any court of law will hold CO 100% responsible for this. It wouldn't be fair to CO, as they went and contracted the flying to a legitimate airline. The operator of the aircraft is responsible as well as they put those pilots in the cockpit, not CO. 9L hired them, trained them, and allowed them to operate their aircraft (regardless of the logo and banner on it). 9L will hold the majority of liability in this case.

YYZRWY23
If you don't stand behind our troops, feel free to stand in front of them.
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 4486
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Fri Sep 30, 2011 9:58 am

It seems a little unfair to go after CO when the real issue is much larger. No one went after DL after the Comair crash at LEX...I understand the situation is different, but I'm sure some idiot in a suit could spin pure negligence to poor training, which does make them somewhat similar.

My point is that this debate is much bigger than CO. Win or lose, this case won't change anything, plain and simple. It's just reality. Americans care about the criminal case against Michael Jackson's doctor; they don't care about the civiil case about a crash that happened three years ago involving the training and working conditions of regional crews relative to mainline carriers. Frontline already tried, and I'm sure people shook their heads in disbelief, then went back to eating their dinner. If something is going to change, it needs to be done at the federal level to affect the entire industry.

Personally, I think making the connection between Continental's training standards and those of Colgan is a stretch and will have a hard time holding up in court, particularly when finding against CO when it is Colgan's legal burden and theirs alone. At the time, Continental and Colgan were playing by the rules just like every other contracted carrier to a mainline. Negligence can easily be proven with the pilots and, to an extent, to Colgan for not providing training on certain components of the cockpit, as well as not checking pilot backgrounds more thoroughly. CO has taken enough of a hit image-wise because their logo and name were on the airplane, therefore they're directly associated in the eyes of the public. In a court of law, connecting those dots is shaky at best. It's hard to say if the families are in it for the money or not, but typically in cases like these, they are. If they're out to set some new precedent, they're wasting their time. **Just my opinion**
 
ezalpha
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:35 pm

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:17 pm

If Air Canada code shares with Lufthansa, is Air Canada now responsible for enusing Lufthansa's training is up to snuff?
 
ezalpha
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:35 pm

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:21 pm

Quoting ezalpha (Reply 25):
for enusing Lufthansa's

sorry. I meant to say "is Air Canada now responsible for ensuring Lufthansa's training is up to snuff"
 
Fabo
Posts: 1174
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 1:30 am

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Fri Sep 30, 2011 1:19 pm

Ezalpga: As long as the primary flight number is ACsomething, aeroplane is covered in Air Canada colours, and the crew will welcome you on Ze Air Canada flight operated by Lufthansa.
The light at the end of tunnel turned out to be a lighted sing saying NO EXIT
 
tommy767
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Fri Sep 30, 2011 1:29 pm

Quoting m11stephen (Reply 15):
Continental is ABSOLUTELY liable in this accident. The Dash 8 Q400 involved in the accident had the Continental name and logo plastered all over the aircraft. In essence Continental sold a product to the victims of the CO3407 crash. Those victims purchased a product from Continental, NOT Colgan Air. Yes, it may have said in one point font on the Continental website and on their boarding passes that "Continental Flight 3407 is operated by Colgan Air D.B.A. Continental Connection" but Continental is still every bit liable for overseeing the product they are selling and ensuring the quality and safety of that product.

I completely agree. It's not like CO operates their own metal between EWR and BUF, so if you want to fly CO, you are forced to fly Colgan or one of the other regionals. Also a lot of express ops at EWR have gone from Express to Colgan so CO is responsible for that shift, and the well being of the passengers they are flying on with one of their regional affiliates out of any of their hub airports.

I also think it's a shame that people have literally forgotten about this crash. There's a lot to learn from this specific incident and it was overshadowed by the "Miracle on the Hudson"
"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 15044
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Fri Sep 30, 2011 1:36 pm

Quoting YYZRWY23 (Reply 23):
Example: You go buy a Sony Tv from Best Buy. The tv wiring has a fault and causes a fire, and your house burns down. You can't sue Best Buy for this.

That depends where you are. In some states, you absolutely can.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
Rdh3e
Posts: 3636
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:09 pm

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Fri Sep 30, 2011 1:48 pm

Quoting apodino (Reply 22):
Where this is really getting out of control is that airlines like Republic are positive spacing crew members on their flights for one airline to protect a flight for another airline.

They are doing it, but we do look for it, and they do pay for it. If RAH positive spaces a crew on our UA flight for a DL flight and we find out about it, they receive a substantial fine. There are audits done for this as they do have to formally fill out forms detailing the necessity for the positive space tickets. Ultimately they are less "positive space-ing" than just buying tickets at a discount.
 
Grid
Posts: 253
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:26 am

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:49 pm

Quoting apodino (Reply 2):
The problem is settling won't do anything here. There would be no admission of guilt, Majors would continue to be unliable for the actions of their codeshare partners despite the Paint on the side of the plane and the name on the ticket, and business as usual continues.

Admission of guilt or not, a hefty payment to families might encourage the airline to change its ways so the same thing does not happen again.

Quoting apodino (Reply 2):
That is why I hope the families don't settle, and even though I am not a lawyer, I would take this case pro bona if I was one for that very reason.

That would be very expensive. I hope you've built a war chest prior to undertaking such a task or have a lot of other clients.

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 14):
It wasn't CO's call, it wasn't even their flight to operate. Colgan was and still is an independently run company with an independent training department, and operations center.

Continental is able to exert pressure on Colgan because their business relationship.

Quoting Prinair (Reply 20):
You would have to be very naive to believe this statement. It is always about the money and forever will be in any lawsuit like this one.

You'd have to very naive to think that people who lost loved ones are all about the money, unless you mean that they want justice and punishment meted out and the best way to accomplish that is by getting money from the other party.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 29):
Quoting YYZRWY23 (Reply 23):
Example: You go buy a Sony Tv from Best Buy. The tv wiring has a fault and causes a fire, and your house burns down. You can't sue Best Buy for this.

That depends where you are. In some states, you absolutely can.

Yeah, I'd say in most states you can.
ATR72 E120 E140 E170 E190 Q200 717 727 737 747 757 767 777 A319 A320 A321 A330 A340 MD11 MD82 MD83 MD88 MD90
 
Lufthansa411
Posts: 351
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:54 am

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Fri Sep 30, 2011 3:38 pm

Quoting ezalpha (Reply 25):
If Air Canada code shares with Lufthansa, is Air Canada now responsible for enusing Lufthansa's training is up to snuff?

The two scenarios are completely different. In the case of Colgan, they are operating the aircraft under contract for CO. It is only CO that is paying them, not the codeshare partners. How CO their codeshare on the flight divide revenue among themselves is generally not the problem of Colgan. Colgan just provides the crew and the plane.

In your example, buying a ticket as "AC5999 operated by Lufthansa German Airlines" is where my AC experience generally ends. Usually it will say something along the lines of "Please check in directly with Lufthansa". After that point, everything is marked with LH branding and not AC branding. It is very clear that although you purchased your ticket with AC and it begins with AC's 014 ticket code, everything else about the flight is LH. If your baggage doesn't show up, you file your report with LH and not AC.

Plus, in the case of LH and AC, the two carriers have revenue sharing across the Atlantic, so you couldn't even make the argument that AC was trying to cut costs, as the two share any profit/loss that the flights make.
Nothing in life is to be feared; it is only to be understood.
 
apodino
Topic Author
Posts: 4070
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Fri Sep 30, 2011 3:54 pm

Quoting atcsundevil (Reply 24):
It seems a little unfair to go after CO when the real issue is much larger. No one went after DL after the Comair crash at LEX...I understand the situation is different, but I'm sure some idiot in a suit could spin pure negligence to poor training, which does make them somewhat similar.

The difference between Comair and the Colgan crash is that Comair is actually owned by the major partner, in this case Delta, where Colgan is just an outside contractor.

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 28):

I completely agree. It's not like CO operates their own metal between EWR and BUF, so if you want to fly CO, you are forced to fly Colgan or one of the other regionals. Also a lot of express ops at EWR have gone from Express to Colgan so CO is responsible for that shift, and the well being of the passengers they are flying on with one of their regional affiliates out of any of their hub airports.

I also think it's a shame that people have literally forgotten about this crash. There's a lot to learn from this specific incident and it was overshadowed by the "Miracle on the Hudson"

Agreed to an extent, but this incident certainly isn't forgotten in Buffalo. As for the miracle on the Hudson, that is proof what a well trained crew can do. Remember USAirways got a lot of positive publicity for that, Continental got a lot of negative publicity for Colgan.
 
User avatar
TVNWZ
Posts: 2305
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:28 am

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Fri Sep 30, 2011 4:02 pm

Maybe this accident was just caused by the actions of two bad employees.

And, if that is the case, should the families sue the pilot and co-pilots estates? If we are about changing "ways" maybe it would encourage other bad pilots and co-pilots to straighten up and fly right if they know their estates may be sued.
 
DCA-ROCguy
Posts: 4212
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2000 5:03 am

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Fri Sep 30, 2011 4:26 pm

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 6):
I recall the crew was extremely fatigued which was a big factor in the crash itself.
Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 11):
That was the cause of the accidient? Was that the determination? I thought it was pilot error.

It never hurts to have actual NTSB findings in this sort of discussion:

"The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the captain's inappropriate response to the activation of the stick shaker, which led to an aerodynamic stall from which the airplane did not recover. Contributing to the accident were (1) the flight crew's failure to monitor airspeed in relation to the rising position of the lowspeed cue, (2) the flight crew's failure to adhere to sterile cockpit procedures, (3) the captain's failure to effectively manage the flight, and (4) Colgan Air’s inadequate procedures for airspeed selection and management during approaches in icing conditions."

And:

"The pilots' performance was likely impaired because of fatigue, but the extent of their impairment and the degree to which it contributed to the performance deficiencies that occurred during the flight cannot be conclusively determined."

Pilot error, as TVNWZ noted, and Colgan procedures was the finding. The NTSB could only speculate that fatigue likely contributed, and did not have sufficient evidence to reach a determination.

When does Pinnacle Airlines plan to phase out the Colgan name?

Jim

[Edited 2011-09-30 09:30:01]
Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
 
Grid
Posts: 253
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:26 am

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Fri Sep 30, 2011 4:35 pm

Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 34):
And, if that is the case, should the families sue the pilot and co-pilots estates? If we are about changing "ways" maybe it would encourage other bad pilots and co-pilots to straighten up and fly right if they know their estates may be sued.

No, no way.
ATR72 E120 E140 E170 E190 Q200 717 727 737 747 757 767 777 A319 A320 A321 A330 A340 MD11 MD82 MD83 MD88 MD90
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1810
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Fri Sep 30, 2011 4:49 pm

Quoting Lufthansa411 (Reply 32):
The two scenarios are completely different.

They're not. If I buy an AC ticket YOW-YYZ-FRA and the YYZ-FRA sector is operated by LH, my contract of carriage is legally still with AC, not LH. I contract with and pay AC, and AC purchases a seat for me on LH. The fact that the plane is painted with polka dots or zebra stripes has no effect on my contract of carriage with AC. Nor does the fact that I check in with LH in YYZ - AC has simply subcontracted (code-shared) all aspects of my YYZ-FRA flight to LH.

I expect CO to fight this tooth and nail (and maybe other airlines to join as interveners) precisely because of the potential effect for code-share partners.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 15652
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Fri Sep 30, 2011 4:57 pm

Quoting Grid (Reply 36):
Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 34):
And, if that is the case, should the families sue the pilot and co-pilots estates? If we are about changing "ways" maybe it would encourage other bad pilots and co-pilots to straighten up and fly right if they know their estates may be sued.

No, no way.


American federal and state law is clear that the employer is responsible for the acts of it's employees during normal duties. If however the pilot was intoxicated, that is working in a way not following the rules of the airline or federal/state law, then it might be possible to sue the pilot's estates.

As to the issues of trying to sue CO vs. Coglan, you have to recognize that CO has a lot more assets and probably much higher levels of liability insurance to be able to get a civil Judgment against - that is a 'deep pocket' of more money for the Plaintiffs. In another example, if with the terrible crash of the Concorde many years ago at CDG, if they could get a Criminal conviction in France as to CO for the part that fell off the CO flight that contributed to that disaster, the victims' families could sue CO in the USA Federal courts (although statutes of limitations may prevent that), possibley getting a lot more $$$'s that they could in a civil judgement in France as well as even if lose, they won't have to pay for their or CO's attorneys for the legal bills.

I would expect that CO will appeal this motion decision as to the requirement of having to produce these documents to the Circuit Court for that district.

[Edited 2011-09-30 09:59:46]
 
ezalpha
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:35 pm

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:05 pm

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 35):
When does Pinnacle Airlines plan to phase out the Colgan name?

Remember Pinnacle Airlines 3701 at Jefferson City?
 
Grid
Posts: 253
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:26 am

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:05 pm

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 37):
Nor does the fact that I check in with LH in AC has simply subcontracted (code-shared) all aspects of my FRA flight to LH.

If it was subcontracted, then it can be liable. I think airlines that codeshare using this word precisely for that reason.

I think the relationship between Continental and Colgan are very different - there is more interaction, sharing of resources, co-branding etc and probably a different revenue structure that makes these situations different.

[Edited 2011-09-30 10:06:21]
ATR72 E120 E140 E170 E190 Q200 717 727 737 747 757 767 777 A319 A320 A321 A330 A340 MD11 MD82 MD83 MD88 MD90
 
m11stephen
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:16 am

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:19 pm

The AirTran/SkyWest codeshare that just recently ended is a perfect example of how regional flying should be done. When flying on one of these flights it was very clear that it was not actually an AirTran aircraft or crew. The signs in the gate area said "SkyWest airlines in partnership with AirTran" and the planes were painted in SkyWest colors and clearly showed the SkyWest name. Nothing in or on the plane said AirTran, it all said SkyWest. It was not at all misleading to the passenger. All gate and F/A announcements said, "SkyWest Airlines flight xxxx in partnership with AirTran Airways." This is how regional airlines should legally be required to operate.
My opinions, statements, etc. are my own and do not have any association with those of any employer.
 
Grid
Posts: 253
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:26 am

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:24 pm

Quoting m11stephen (Reply 41):
The AirTran/SkyWest codeshare that just recently ended is a perfect example of how regional flying should be done. When flying on one of these flights it was very clear that it was not actually an AirTran aircraft or crew. The signs in the gate area said "SkyWest airlines in partnership with AirTran" and the planes were painted in SkyWest colors and clearly showed the SkyWest name. Nothing in or on the plane said AirTran, it all said SkyWest. It was not at all misleading to the passenger. All gate and F/A announcements said, "SkyWest Airlines flight xxxx in partnership with AirTran Airways." This is how regional airlines should legally be required to operate.

So would you say AirTran can be liable for SkyWest crash if SkyWest's pilots were negligent? Because when I read "partnership" I think yes.
ATR72 E120 E140 E170 E190 Q200 717 727 737 747 757 767 777 A319 A320 A321 A330 A340 MD11 MD82 MD83 MD88 MD90
 
User avatar
N62NA
Posts: 4512
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:27 pm

Quoting ezalpha (Reply 26):
"is Air Canada now responsible for ensuring Lufthansa's training is up to snuff"

If "snuff" is "Air Canada standards" then yes (in my opinion).
 
DCA-ROCguy
Posts: 4212
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2000 5:03 am

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:31 pm

Quoting ezalpha (Reply 39):
Remember Pinnacle Airlines 3701 at Jefferson City?

What does that incident have to do with this discussion? I was asking about the date of a well-known planned action by the current owner of Colgan Air. I couldn't find a date by searching it myself. As of the last discussion of the topic at this site that started Sept. 1, there wasn't a date.

Jim
Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
 
User avatar
N62NA
Posts: 4512
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:35 pm

Quoting m11stephen (Reply 41):
The AirTran/SkyWest codeshare that just recently ended is a perfect example of how regional flying should be done. When flying on one of these flights it was very clear that it was not actually an AirTran aircraft or crew. The signs in the gate area said "SkyWest airlines in partnership with AirTran" and the planes were painted in SkyWest colors and clearly showed the SkyWest name. Nothing in or on the plane said AirTran, it all said SkyWest. It was not at all misleading to the passenger. All gate and F/A announcements said, "SkyWest Airlines flight xxxx in partnership with AirTran Airways." This is how regional airlines should legally be required to operate.

Yes!
 
apodino
Topic Author
Posts: 4070
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Fri Sep 30, 2011 6:02 pm

Quoting m11stephen (Reply 41):
The AirTran/SkyWest codeshare that just recently ended is a perfect example of how regional flying should be done. When flying on one of these flights it was very clear that it was not actually an AirTran aircraft or crew. The signs in the gate area said "SkyWest airlines in partnership with AirTran" and the planes were painted in SkyWest colors and clearly showed the SkyWest name. Nothing in or on the plane said AirTran, it all said SkyWest. It was not at all misleading to the passenger. All gate and F/A announcements said, "SkyWest Airlines flight xxxx in partnership with AirTran Airways." This is how regional airlines should legally be required to operate.

Years ago, back in the late 80s and the early 90s this is exactly how all Delta codesharing was done. Delta in that time had four regional partners, and none of them (Comair, ASA, SkyWest, Business Express) were painted in Delta colors at all, but rather they were actually painted in the operating carriers colors. Signage at the gates had their logo, and it was much more transparent. Where it appeared that things started to change is when the RJ's came around. Delta had gone away from their classic paint scheme to a new one right around the time of the Olympics. The regional partners started painting their planes with a blue tail that incorporated the operating carriers logo, but the rest of the plane looked more like a Delta connection plane. Then the Wavy Gravy scheme came along and the RJ's at that point moved the operating carriers logo to a small logo next to the entrance. Now with the PM Delta paint scheme, its reduced even further to some very small print next to the door, and almost any transparency is gone. (I can't figure out who is operating the flight from any monitor in the airport, which is a big deal to me when I am flying them and I try to figure out which flight to take)

The only airline these days that seems to have that same type of codeshare now is Horizon.
 
Rdh3e
Posts: 3636
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:09 pm

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Fri Sep 30, 2011 6:08 pm

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 44):
I couldn't find a date by searching it myself. As of the last discussion of the topic at this site that started Sept. 1, there wasn't a date.

Not sure on flying, but they have pretty much re-labeled the ground handling as "PinnPro".
 
tommy767
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Fri Sep 30, 2011 6:21 pm

Quoting apodino (Reply 33):
Remember USAirways got a lot of positive publicity for that, Continental got a lot of negative publicity for Colgan.

Actually I don't think they did. This crash is largely forgotten, even here on the forum. CO was actually working off great publicity from that crash they had in DEN about 2 months prior where a 735 caught fire on takeoff and broke into pieces. A successful evacuation with no deaths provided by the crew led to great publicity.

For an airline (both Continental and United) which forces so many of it's customers to fly on regionals within their network and filter into mainline flights -- it's a no brainer that CO should be somewhat responsible for this crash.
"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
 
m11stephen
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:16 am

RE: CO Must Release Training Docs To 3407 Families

Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:46 pm

I would be curious to know what percentage of passengers flying on regionals actually know that the airplane they are flying on isn't actually owned, operated or inspected by the carrier whose name is on the side of the plane... I work at a regional and have been instructed to NEVER say the name of the regional I work at. When asked who I work for I should always say the name of the mainline carrier who we have a contract with. Also, when making announcements I am strictly forbidden from saying my companies name. It is misleading and false advertising and it needs to change.
My opinions, statements, etc. are my own and do not have any association with those of any employer.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos