One more lawsuit
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the road
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed, 100% support.
Whats the worst that can happen? She doesn't win and we all have to do another online course?
Or: CX are forced to have some sort of crew support plan, post incident, that doesn't involve a finger pointing sessions and libellous press releases to protect the brand.
Whats the worst that can happen? She doesn't win and we all have to do another online course?
Or: CX are forced to have some sort of crew support plan, post incident, that doesn't involve a finger pointing sessions and libellous press releases to protect the brand.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: On a few nerves apparently
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. The article mentions "causing the incident". Was there a history of failure of the Recirc Fan and maintenance kept signing it off without adequate repair/replacement and thus it eventually failed in this manner and caused this bad possible scenario? I don't know. But we all know maintenance at cx has been declining rapidly and many many discrepancies keep getting signed off without adequate action being taken and the problem keeps occurring over and over again. This is actually a well known indicator of pending serious incidents/accidents to accident investigations when they look back in the records.
2. As the culture of lie is the the most core culture of cx, none of us know the real details of this incident so going past curiosity about what might have actually happened and openly judging is not appropriate. So please take the rest of what I say as hypothetical when it comes to the crew. Admittedly, I don't know ALL the facts since this organization does not inform and educate us after the fact so we can learn and not allow mistakes to be repeated in the future. I'll stick to the things I personally know first hand. I'm sure there's much more to the story.
3. Sticking to the facts, One thing is for sure if you take a step back and look at the big picture. An aircraft having successfully landed after such and event (smoke/fire on-board) taking off again without maintenance addressing the discrepancy on-site is a major mistake of several levels . Cx mx did not get to the aircraft before it departed for ANC. No qualified person was there to release the aircraft back into service. The departure of that aircraft from Shemya was illegal on many levels. The aircraft departed with several open discrepancies. The cause of the smoke was not known as it was not troubleshot by a qualified person on-site. It's very ignorant to think mx action or troubleshooting can be performed over the phone, especially regarding such a serious event. Cx mx was half way there on a chartered flight when the 777 took off for ANC. They were shocked to find out it had departed. Who re-stowed the oxy masks? This is a mx action and NONE of the crew are qualified or knowledgeable to perform it. IF smoke in-flight had occurred again and it easily could have since nobody qualified to perform mx troubleshooting touched the aircraft, would those oxy masks have deployed having been stowed by the flight crew or cabin crew who aren't qualified or authorized to perform mx action? Several sever lapse of judgement occurred from various directions. Mx control should have never relinquished it's professional responsibility and should have kept the aircraft grounded until properly released back to service after proper mx action was performed. Dispatch (yes i know, we don't have a dispatch department at cx since we don't have licensed dispatchers and they're a joke) should have never allowed this to happen. The fleet office individual or reportedly the GMO at the time who has on other occasions similar threatened the Capt. of the flight to operate or else should have been outed a long time ago and should now be investigated and put on record for his actions. This is very likely a big part of the lawsuit.
4. The decision to go along with this very bad decision willingly albeit via threats and coercion, is something the Capt. owns and the rest of the crew along with her. Any and all of them had could have showed some professional integrity and remove themselves form the flight to ANC. They chose not to have professional integrity by being willing participants. It's very possible they had no idea of seriousness of what they were doing especially if they started their professional careers as cx cadets and have no clue about the real world of aviation outside cx and never will unless they leave cx at some point. Either way, very embarrassing.
5. Knowing from personal experience, at other airlines, when a serious incident like this happens, there's transparency at an organizational level very early on to inform and educate the rest of the crew body about what occurred and lessons learned so the next incident can be avoided or handled better in the future. At cx, details are never made known and only rumors abound. There's a serious ORGANIZATIONAL problem at this outfit for such things to be possible to happen without any effort to prevent these decisions and events from happening in the future. It is the organization's responsibility to set the tone and demand it be followed. We all know this place has a big problem setting the right tone when it comes to safety. The tone they forcefully set is for COMMERCIAL reasons much more than SAFETY. This will catch up with them rile sooner or later in a bad way. It is the professional responsibility to have the integrity it takes to refuse to be part of such and event until reality of a horrible event due to willful disregard for regulations/SOPs, fatigue, etc. will force the organization to flush itself out.
2. As the culture of lie is the the most core culture of cx, none of us know the real details of this incident so going past curiosity about what might have actually happened and openly judging is not appropriate. So please take the rest of what I say as hypothetical when it comes to the crew. Admittedly, I don't know ALL the facts since this organization does not inform and educate us after the fact so we can learn and not allow mistakes to be repeated in the future. I'll stick to the things I personally know first hand. I'm sure there's much more to the story.
3. Sticking to the facts, One thing is for sure if you take a step back and look at the big picture. An aircraft having successfully landed after such and event (smoke/fire on-board) taking off again without maintenance addressing the discrepancy on-site is a major mistake of several levels . Cx mx did not get to the aircraft before it departed for ANC. No qualified person was there to release the aircraft back into service. The departure of that aircraft from Shemya was illegal on many levels. The aircraft departed with several open discrepancies. The cause of the smoke was not known as it was not troubleshot by a qualified person on-site. It's very ignorant to think mx action or troubleshooting can be performed over the phone, especially regarding such a serious event. Cx mx was half way there on a chartered flight when the 777 took off for ANC. They were shocked to find out it had departed. Who re-stowed the oxy masks? This is a mx action and NONE of the crew are qualified or knowledgeable to perform it. IF smoke in-flight had occurred again and it easily could have since nobody qualified to perform mx troubleshooting touched the aircraft, would those oxy masks have deployed having been stowed by the flight crew or cabin crew who aren't qualified or authorized to perform mx action? Several sever lapse of judgement occurred from various directions. Mx control should have never relinquished it's professional responsibility and should have kept the aircraft grounded until properly released back to service after proper mx action was performed. Dispatch (yes i know, we don't have a dispatch department at cx since we don't have licensed dispatchers and they're a joke) should have never allowed this to happen. The fleet office individual or reportedly the GMO at the time who has on other occasions similar threatened the Capt. of the flight to operate or else should have been outed a long time ago and should now be investigated and put on record for his actions. This is very likely a big part of the lawsuit.
4. The decision to go along with this very bad decision willingly albeit via threats and coercion, is something the Capt. owns and the rest of the crew along with her. Any and all of them had could have showed some professional integrity and remove themselves form the flight to ANC. They chose not to have professional integrity by being willing participants. It's very possible they had no idea of seriousness of what they were doing especially if they started their professional careers as cx cadets and have no clue about the real world of aviation outside cx and never will unless they leave cx at some point. Either way, very embarrassing.
5. Knowing from personal experience, at other airlines, when a serious incident like this happens, there's transparency at an organizational level very early on to inform and educate the rest of the crew body about what occurred and lessons learned so the next incident can be avoided or handled better in the future. At cx, details are never made known and only rumors abound. There's a serious ORGANIZATIONAL problem at this outfit for such things to be possible to happen without any effort to prevent these decisions and events from happening in the future. It is the organization's responsibility to set the tone and demand it be followed. We all know this place has a big problem setting the right tone when it comes to safety. The tone they forcefully set is for COMMERCIAL reasons much more than SAFETY. This will catch up with them rile sooner or later in a bad way. It is the professional responsibility to have the integrity it takes to refuse to be part of such and event until reality of a horrible event due to willful disregard for regulations/SOPs, fatigue, etc. will force the organization to flush itself out.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
V for V
So many valid points in there, I for one will wait until after suitable rest period before commenting further. You have hit so many nails squarely on the head and clearly have some accurate knowledge or insight into this incident. Those of you condemning this Captain as a snowflake, demonstrate exactly the qualities of the Monday Morning Quarterbacks which you so readily condemn in other circumstances. If a single one of you can claim to have the knowledge as V for V in his/her posting perhaps you can demonstrate how and your postings may then also claim some validity.
So many valid points in there, I for one will wait until after suitable rest period before commenting further. You have hit so many nails squarely on the head and clearly have some accurate knowledge or insight into this incident. Those of you condemning this Captain as a snowflake, demonstrate exactly the qualities of the Monday Morning Quarterbacks which you so readily condemn in other circumstances. If a single one of you can claim to have the knowledge as V for V in his/her posting perhaps you can demonstrate how and your postings may then also claim some validity.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: No where
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couldn't agree more. Let's not demonstrate the appalling qualities of our management. I hope she has a strong case, and holds CX management to account, if indeed her claims are valid. The main point is this: none of us know all the facts, nor her specific claims against the company. I for one hope she gives them a bloody nose, as there is obviously a profound change of management style needed at this airline. Good luck to her.
After this pilot wins the case for personal injury maybe there are a few candidates motivated to try a personal injury legal challenge for health/fatigue impacts of the incredulously bad rostering and regard for basic human needs on some of the published roster patterns?
Might be more successful than whinging on the AOA forums, yammer and pprune?
Might be more successful than whinging on the AOA forums, yammer and pprune?
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: HK-CRoC
Posts: 749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice try FB
Nobody, not the AoA or individual crew, or Cabin Attendants or Office Workers has the stones to fight back (in HK) against this septic company... Let's start with Age Discrimination and go from there. It's blatant and this other BS is just a minor distraction..
#CXit
#CXit
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aahhh, so now do you want a safe space with kittens and puppies for all the greedy crumblies Flex? Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seldom agree with V for V, but I think his post is spot on. Sadly, this case will undoubtedly be argued in a HK court which by default sides with employers over employees. Even if the pilots win, it will be appealed by CX for years all the way to the high court. Since the event occurred in US airspace, perhaps it should be litigated there, in full view of the FAA, NTSB, and American press / public. That would almost certainly be a better venue. Best of luck to the pilots!
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Location Location
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: HK-CRoC
Posts: 749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm for penalty boxes NOT #SafeSpaces
#CXit
Last edited by Flex88; 29th Jul 2018 at 08:51.
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: All over
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can only imagine the repercussions if esteemed counsel for the diverting captain comes to realize US nationals (pax and/or crew) may have been involved, may have incurred damages, the incidents all allegedly occurred on US soil, and the matter as such might potentially be adjudicated in a US court with these individual’s assistance. Not to mention the involvement of regulatory agencies there if this thing escalated.
I think perhaps it might be wise for the company to reach out to the aggrieved captain and find a way to amicably solve their differences before plaintiff’s lawyer might go down this road. The fact she initiated legal action to me indicates she felt there was no other way to justly solve the issue.
I think perhaps it might be wise for the company to reach out to the aggrieved captain and find a way to amicably solve their differences before plaintiff’s lawyer might go down this road. The fact she initiated legal action to me indicates she felt there was no other way to justly solve the issue.
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=VforVENDETTA;10207765]1. The article mentions "causing the incident". Was there a history of failure of the Recirc Fan and maintenance kept signing it off without adequate repair/replacement and thus it eventually failed in this manner and caused this bad possible scenario? I don't know. But we all know maintenance at cx has been declining rapidly and many many discrepancies keep getting signed off without adequate action being taken and the problem keeps occurring over and over again. This is actually a well known indicator of pending serious incidents/accidents to accident investigations when they look back in the records.
CX Maintenance has been declining rapidly, really? How do you you know? I never had to accept an aircraft that I wasn’t happy with. Ever. I never saw anything dodgy in the ACM book. Ever. I never witnessed negligence or any serious mistake by egineering. Ever. On what base do you rectify your claim? You mix up frictions in the grey area between clear ddg rules and reality with negligence. Any airline run with an engineering department of your dreams would be bankrupt in a week.
2. As the culture of lie is the the most core culture of cx, none of us know the real details of this incident so going past curiosity about what might have actually happened and openly judging is not appropriate. So please take the rest of what I say as hypothetical when it comes to the crew. Admittedly, I don't know ALL the facts since this organization does not inform and educate us after the fact so we can learn and not allow mistakes to be repeated in the future. I'll stick to the things I personally know first hand. I'm sure there's much more to the story.
Have you ever asked the responsible gents in the fleet office directly about what happened? Did you speek to engineering about wha happened? I did actually, and the answer I got were more satisfying. Culture of lies? This has nothing to do with contract negotiations or other industrial matters, this is a technical issue, and it was handled extremely well.
3. Sticking to the facts, One thing is for sure if you take a step back and look at the big picture. An aircraft having successfully landed after such and event (smoke/fire on-board) taking off again without maintenance addressing the discrepancy on-site is a major mistake of several levels . Cx mx did not get to the aircraft before it departed for ANC. No qualified person was there to release the aircraft back into service. The departure of that aircraft from Shemya was illegal on many levels. The aircraft departed with several open discrepancies. The cause of the smoke was not known as it was not troubleshot by a qualified person on-site. It's very ignorant to think mx action or troubleshooting can be performed over the phone, especially regarding such a serious event. Cx mx was half way there on a chartered flight when the 777 took off for ANC. They were shocked to find out it had departed. Who re-stowed the oxy masks? This is a mx action and NONE of the crew are qualified or knowledgeable to perform it. IF smoke in-flight had occurred again and it easily could have since nobody qualified to perform mx troubleshooting touched the aircraft, would those oxy masks have deployed having been stowed by the flight crew or cabin crew who aren't qualified or authorized to perform mx action? Several sever lapse of judgement occurred from various directions. Mx control should have never relinquished it's professional responsibility and should have kept the aircraft grounded until properly released back to service after proper mx action was performed. Dispatch (yes i know, we don't have a dispatch department at cx since we don't have licensed dispatchers and they're a joke) should have never allowed this to happen. The fleet office individual or reportedly the GMO at the time who has on other occasions similar threatened the Capt. of the flight to operate or else should have been outed a long time ago and should now be investigated and put on record for his actions. This is very likely a big part of the lawsuit.
Sticking to the facts? You just said you don’ t know the facts, now you want to stick to them. Interesting. Dispatch are a “joke”? How dare you. These guys are hard working professionals, very helpful and contientious. Never had a problem with them.Ever. There was surely no threat, what a load of BS. Facts you say? Then come forward with your evidence, can’t wait!
By the way, masks in the cabin are useless in a smoke situation. Funny you don’t know this.
4. The decision to go along with this very bad decision willingly albeit via threats and coercion, is something the Capt. owns and the rest of the crew along with her. Any and all of them had could have showed some professional integrity and remove themselves form the flight to ANC. They chose not to have professional integrity by being willing participants. It's very possible they had no idea of seriousness of what they were doing especially if they started their professional careers as cx cadets and have no clue about the real world of aviation outside cx and never will unless they leave cx at some point. Either way, very embarrassing.
Why did she operate the flight then? Who threatened her ? GL?? No way, impossible. By the way, she looked quite proud and content the weeks afterwards and on all those pictures. Traumatized? Give me a break. With what? You claim to have the facts. Bring it on. I say you got nothing, absolutely zero. It was a voluntary decision, the entire crew agreed.
5. Knowing from personal experience, at other airlines, when a serious incident like this happens, there's transparency at an organizational level very early on to inform and educate the rest of the crew body about what occurred and lessons learned so the next incident can be avoided or handled better in the future. At cx, details are never made known and only rumors abound. There's a serious ORGANIZATIONAL problem at this outfit for such things to be possible to happen without any effort to prevent these decisions and events from happening in the future. It is the organization's responsibility to set the tone and demand it be followed. We all know this place has a big problem setting the right tone when it comes to safety. The tone they forcefully set is for COMMERCIAL reasons much more than SAFETY. This will catch up with them rile sooner or later in a bad way. It is the professional responsibility to have the integrity it takes to refuse to be part of such and event until reality of a horrible event due to willful disregard for regulations/SOPs, fatigue, etc. will force the organization to flush itself out.]
A recirc fan got damaged, as it happens a thousand times, bit of a smell , which is also very common. Then the fan got deactivated, all indications were normal and the aircraft continued the flight, hours later. Do you really think Boeing never thought about the possibility of a fan having a short? Really? In your phantasy you see a burning fan wreaking havoc in the deep belly of your aircraft, ready to explode like the challenger or TWA any minute. Ridiculous. Imagine you evacuate your house because of a short circuit in the living room. And then you wait 10 hours outside until the fire department and the buliding company has cleared and checked the building. Thats you. There was no risk, do you understand that? I say iy again: there was no risk. Uncomfortable atmosphere during descent ? Yes, surely. I don't want to belittle the perceived risk. But actual risk? Zero. Just because you have Swissair in mind anytime you read or hear the word smoke doesn’t make it true, you need to understand, you are beeing paranoid. The transfer flight was of course double checked with engineering, again there was no risk ( at the time of the “ incidence”, during the " emergency landing” ( it was in fact a NORMAL landing at an unusual airport with a 10000 ft runway with suitable weather...) and during the flight onwards. Zero. And that is a fact.)
Your real motive is in your name. Vendetta. You are blindly shooting at everything that moves. Pure reflex.
Just because YOU feel treated unfairly you dare to throw sh. at everybody else, maintenance, dispatch, fleet office, you name it. How dare you. This has nothing, absolutely NOTHING to do with our current problems, contractual issues. NOTHING. You are blindly in rage, indiscriminately accusing every soul in Cx. That is not only morally wrong, it is also counter- productive. With your exaggerated claims you devaluate our very reasonable claims in other areas. Your blind Vendetta is childish, rightous and makes us a laughing stock. PTSD ( if that is really the base of the suit which I don't know !) 3 years after a precautionnairy landing involving zero actual danger?
You got to be kidding. Ridiculous.
[/QUOTE
CX Maintenance has been declining rapidly, really? How do you you know? I never had to accept an aircraft that I wasn’t happy with. Ever. I never saw anything dodgy in the ACM book. Ever. I never witnessed negligence or any serious mistake by egineering. Ever. On what base do you rectify your claim? You mix up frictions in the grey area between clear ddg rules and reality with negligence. Any airline run with an engineering department of your dreams would be bankrupt in a week.
2. As the culture of lie is the the most core culture of cx, none of us know the real details of this incident so going past curiosity about what might have actually happened and openly judging is not appropriate. So please take the rest of what I say as hypothetical when it comes to the crew. Admittedly, I don't know ALL the facts since this organization does not inform and educate us after the fact so we can learn and not allow mistakes to be repeated in the future. I'll stick to the things I personally know first hand. I'm sure there's much more to the story.
Have you ever asked the responsible gents in the fleet office directly about what happened? Did you speek to engineering about wha happened? I did actually, and the answer I got were more satisfying. Culture of lies? This has nothing to do with contract negotiations or other industrial matters, this is a technical issue, and it was handled extremely well.
3. Sticking to the facts, One thing is for sure if you take a step back and look at the big picture. An aircraft having successfully landed after such and event (smoke/fire on-board) taking off again without maintenance addressing the discrepancy on-site is a major mistake of several levels . Cx mx did not get to the aircraft before it departed for ANC. No qualified person was there to release the aircraft back into service. The departure of that aircraft from Shemya was illegal on many levels. The aircraft departed with several open discrepancies. The cause of the smoke was not known as it was not troubleshot by a qualified person on-site. It's very ignorant to think mx action or troubleshooting can be performed over the phone, especially regarding such a serious event. Cx mx was half way there on a chartered flight when the 777 took off for ANC. They were shocked to find out it had departed. Who re-stowed the oxy masks? This is a mx action and NONE of the crew are qualified or knowledgeable to perform it. IF smoke in-flight had occurred again and it easily could have since nobody qualified to perform mx troubleshooting touched the aircraft, would those oxy masks have deployed having been stowed by the flight crew or cabin crew who aren't qualified or authorized to perform mx action? Several sever lapse of judgement occurred from various directions. Mx control should have never relinquished it's professional responsibility and should have kept the aircraft grounded until properly released back to service after proper mx action was performed. Dispatch (yes i know, we don't have a dispatch department at cx since we don't have licensed dispatchers and they're a joke) should have never allowed this to happen. The fleet office individual or reportedly the GMO at the time who has on other occasions similar threatened the Capt. of the flight to operate or else should have been outed a long time ago and should now be investigated and put on record for his actions. This is very likely a big part of the lawsuit.
Sticking to the facts? You just said you don’ t know the facts, now you want to stick to them. Interesting. Dispatch are a “joke”? How dare you. These guys are hard working professionals, very helpful and contientious. Never had a problem with them.Ever. There was surely no threat, what a load of BS. Facts you say? Then come forward with your evidence, can’t wait!
By the way, masks in the cabin are useless in a smoke situation. Funny you don’t know this.
4. The decision to go along with this very bad decision willingly albeit via threats and coercion, is something the Capt. owns and the rest of the crew along with her. Any and all of them had could have showed some professional integrity and remove themselves form the flight to ANC. They chose not to have professional integrity by being willing participants. It's very possible they had no idea of seriousness of what they were doing especially if they started their professional careers as cx cadets and have no clue about the real world of aviation outside cx and never will unless they leave cx at some point. Either way, very embarrassing.
Why did she operate the flight then? Who threatened her ? GL?? No way, impossible. By the way, she looked quite proud and content the weeks afterwards and on all those pictures. Traumatized? Give me a break. With what? You claim to have the facts. Bring it on. I say you got nothing, absolutely zero. It was a voluntary decision, the entire crew agreed.
5. Knowing from personal experience, at other airlines, when a serious incident like this happens, there's transparency at an organizational level very early on to inform and educate the rest of the crew body about what occurred and lessons learned so the next incident can be avoided or handled better in the future. At cx, details are never made known and only rumors abound. There's a serious ORGANIZATIONAL problem at this outfit for such things to be possible to happen without any effort to prevent these decisions and events from happening in the future. It is the organization's responsibility to set the tone and demand it be followed. We all know this place has a big problem setting the right tone when it comes to safety. The tone they forcefully set is for COMMERCIAL reasons much more than SAFETY. This will catch up with them rile sooner or later in a bad way. It is the professional responsibility to have the integrity it takes to refuse to be part of such and event until reality of a horrible event due to willful disregard for regulations/SOPs, fatigue, etc. will force the organization to flush itself out.]
A recirc fan got damaged, as it happens a thousand times, bit of a smell , which is also very common. Then the fan got deactivated, all indications were normal and the aircraft continued the flight, hours later. Do you really think Boeing never thought about the possibility of a fan having a short? Really? In your phantasy you see a burning fan wreaking havoc in the deep belly of your aircraft, ready to explode like the challenger or TWA any minute. Ridiculous. Imagine you evacuate your house because of a short circuit in the living room. And then you wait 10 hours outside until the fire department and the buliding company has cleared and checked the building. Thats you. There was no risk, do you understand that? I say iy again: there was no risk. Uncomfortable atmosphere during descent ? Yes, surely. I don't want to belittle the perceived risk. But actual risk? Zero. Just because you have Swissair in mind anytime you read or hear the word smoke doesn’t make it true, you need to understand, you are beeing paranoid. The transfer flight was of course double checked with engineering, again there was no risk ( at the time of the “ incidence”, during the " emergency landing” ( it was in fact a NORMAL landing at an unusual airport with a 10000 ft runway with suitable weather...) and during the flight onwards. Zero. And that is a fact.)
Your real motive is in your name. Vendetta. You are blindly shooting at everything that moves. Pure reflex.
Just because YOU feel treated unfairly you dare to throw sh. at everybody else, maintenance, dispatch, fleet office, you name it. How dare you. This has nothing, absolutely NOTHING to do with our current problems, contractual issues. NOTHING. You are blindly in rage, indiscriminately accusing every soul in Cx. That is not only morally wrong, it is also counter- productive. With your exaggerated claims you devaluate our very reasonable claims in other areas. Your blind Vendetta is childish, rightous and makes us a laughing stock. PTSD ( if that is really the base of the suit which I don't know !) 3 years after a precautionnairy landing involving zero actual danger?
You got to be kidding. Ridiculous.
[/QUOTE
Last edited by STW; 30th Jul 2018 at 04:39.
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: hong Kong
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is my clear understanding that the case will be referred to US durisdiction. But initialy it must be started in HKG and then the judge will allow US authorities to seize the case since it occurred in an American built aircraft in American airpsace.
Method in her madness.
Method in her madness.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: No where
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Well said"....ummm, well...up until point #5, where you mentioned "transparency at an organizational level". How long have you worked at CX? If it's more than a week you will know that is laughable. I surely don't recall much in the way of "transparency" regarding the facts of the incident. Years later, most of us are STILL in the dark as to what really happened. I suspect that this suit will be settled out of court, and WELL before it hits the USA legal system. At least, if CX doesn't want a complete (and expensive) circus on their hands. MTCW.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Profit. Good response. However, CX seems to LOVE expensive legal circuses (personally, would love to see them torn to pieces in a US court, and I hope Annabelle is heading in that direction).
nb: regarding STW's post. Only 5 posts to his name, so most likely a management lackey.
nb: regarding STW's post. Only 5 posts to his name, so most likely a management lackey.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gosh, really heated discussion over very little in the way of facts. Original news article refers to an "accident". Of course, we all know it was an "incident". Three years after the event the Captain Sues. Whaaaat ? What happened during the last three years? Why has she waited three years ? What personal injury ? What Loss of Licence ? Why depart after a serious incident with an aircraft not, technically cleared to operate ? (We think). STW, stoic defence but having asked around & got answers, care to tell us ? This was all an almighty mess & stinks of a cover up. But, that is far from unusual in aviation eh ? Been around long enough.When it becomes a "commercial" event, the cover ups stink to high heaven & everyone runs for cover leaving the most obvious target, the Captain, sticking up like a sore thumb. Guess that is why we get the really big bucks eh ? Yeah, right.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Admittedly I don’t know all the facts and I wish Her all the best with her legal claim .
I have refused to accept an aircraft or 3 separate occasions due to technical issues which were rectified prior to a delayed departure,
on one occasion I was uncertain about the DDO until the engineer muttered under his breath “ I wouldn’t fly in this thing “
that was enough for me . Sometimes you have just have to stand your ground despite the pressure .
Personally I would never have operated the aircraft onward from Shemya following a smoke incident . You never know how much each individual has been affected by smoke inhalation and I’m even more surprised that the CAD signed off on that flight . Having said that I wasn’t there and this is only my opinion nevertheless I wish her every success with her law suit
I have refused to accept an aircraft or 3 separate occasions due to technical issues which were rectified prior to a delayed departure,
on one occasion I was uncertain about the DDO until the engineer muttered under his breath “ I wouldn’t fly in this thing “
that was enough for me . Sometimes you have just have to stand your ground despite the pressure .
Personally I would never have operated the aircraft onward from Shemya following a smoke incident . You never know how much each individual has been affected by smoke inhalation and I’m even more surprised that the CAD signed off on that flight . Having said that I wasn’t there and this is only my opinion nevertheless I wish her every success with her law suit