Transat settles Atlantic Glider lawsuit for $7.65 million
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Transat settles Atlantic Glider lawsuit for $7.65 million
GLOBEANDMAIL.COM
Air Transat agrees to settle lawsuit
By PAUL KORING
Wednesday, March 2, 2005
Updated at 7:28 AM EST
Air Transat has agreed to a settlement of $7.65-million to passengers aboard its Flight 236, which made an emergency landing in the Azores on Aug 24, 2001. The pilots had mistakenly pumped tonnes of fuel overboard and both engines quit, lawyers for passengers said yesterday.
The offer, subject to court approval, settles a class-action lawsuit against the Montreal-based charter airline by about 175 of the 291 passengers on board the flight from Toronto to Lisbon, an official said.
Air Transat agrees to settle lawsuit
By PAUL KORING
Wednesday, March 2, 2005
Updated at 7:28 AM EST
Air Transat has agreed to a settlement of $7.65-million to passengers aboard its Flight 236, which made an emergency landing in the Azores on Aug 24, 2001. The pilots had mistakenly pumped tonnes of fuel overboard and both engines quit, lawyers for passengers said yesterday.
The offer, subject to court approval, settles a class-action lawsuit against the Montreal-based charter airline by about 175 of the 291 passengers on board the flight from Toronto to Lisbon, an official said.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That AT screwed up is not in dispute but why pay out? A massive fine should have been the consequence but the pax should not get any more compo than pax inconvenienced by an IFSD.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Essex, SE England!
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed Mark.
Why should the passengers be compensated for this event. Ok its not your normal IFSD but even so the aircraft landed and the passengers disembarked safely.
Whats the problem??
Regards.
Matt.
Why should the passengers be compensated for this event. Ok its not your normal IFSD but even so the aircraft landed and the passengers disembarked safely.
Whats the problem??
Regards.
Matt.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: canada
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not true that all passengers disembarked safely....some had broken bones and other medical issues.
Air Transat was clearly in the wrong (maintenance procedures, etc...) and are getting off easy with the meager payout.
Air Transat was clearly in the wrong (maintenance procedures, etc...) and are getting off easy with the meager payout.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
c150driver
the pax with injuries should get compo proportional to the injury suffered. Minor injury, minor money. Serious injury, lots of money. Walked off under own steam, same compo as an IFSD.
the pax with injuries should get compo proportional to the injury suffered. Minor injury, minor money. Serious injury, lots of money. Walked off under own steam, same compo as an IFSD.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rananim
Failure of maintenance should be a Transport Canada matter and a huge fine levied. Don't get me wrong, AT should be hammered. But the pax should only be compensated to the level of their actual inconvenience or suffering.
Failure of maintenance should be a Transport Canada matter and a huge fine levied. Don't get me wrong, AT should be hammered. But the pax should only be compensated to the level of their actual inconvenience or suffering.
ex-Tanker
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too right - those guys weren't passengers - they were victims!
Now that`s where you should have been Flying Lawyer - a nice class action suit and off to retirement...
Now that`s where you should have been Flying Lawyer - a nice class action suit and off to retirement...
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right on both counts, Innuendo. Personally, I don't think they're getting off light at all. That accident has cost AT plenty in other ways, due in no small part to the stringent demands that TC placed on them. From what I've seen and heard, they are a much safer organization today. They've turned a negative into a positive in many ways. The systems they've put in place have afforded them an opportunity to control costs in some pretty innovative ways, while improving safety at the same time.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: London
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The average pax is not as tough as you MarkD.
The engines stopped, lights went out, and 20 minutes of glide followed, all pax knew the engines were out, and the cabin was filled with people screaming and praying. I have seen several accounts of pax describing not so much mental anguish as sheer terror. All they could see below was sea until they were right over the field. Then came huge banks to lose height and a very rough landing.
Either way, some $40k plus per pax seems like a real let-off from Transat's point of view. And they did have to pay a fine to Transport Canada. Some CAN$ 250,000, if i recall right.
The engines stopped, lights went out, and 20 minutes of glide followed, all pax knew the engines were out, and the cabin was filled with people screaming and praying. I have seen several accounts of pax describing not so much mental anguish as sheer terror. All they could see below was sea until they were right over the field. Then came huge banks to lose height and a very rough landing.
Either way, some $40k plus per pax seems like a real let-off from Transat's point of view. And they did have to pay a fine to Transport Canada. Some CAN$ 250,000, if i recall right.
Too mean to buy a long personal title
Rananim: Not a simple IFSD by any stretch of the imagination.Which planet do you come from?They're lucky to get away with only 8 million bucks.The maintenance error was criminal.
Compensation should be just that, proportional to the injury suffered. Pure "mental anguish" and fear are not injuries and don't attract compensation. Criminal behaviour should be punished via the criminal law, not via the payment of compensation.
Certain countries have got their compensation laws all out of kilter for failing to follow these principles.
"Even if it was criminal, that doesn't mean they must therefore pay out big bucks in compensation."
Another point of view might be that if you know that taking a shortcut on SOPs or maintainance procedures could, or will, cost you "Big Bucks" in compensation, then perhaps you might be inclined to consider doing the job properly in the first place.
While I am not a fan of frivoulous lawsuits, if the threat of being sued out of your socks keeps you on the straight and narrow then perhaps some liability for compensation has some merit.
Another point of view might be that if you know that taking a shortcut on SOPs or maintainance procedures could, or will, cost you "Big Bucks" in compensation, then perhaps you might be inclined to consider doing the job properly in the first place.
While I am not a fan of frivoulous lawsuits, if the threat of being sued out of your socks keeps you on the straight and narrow then perhaps some liability for compensation has some merit.
Too mean to buy a long personal title
innuendo: Another point of view might be that if you know that taking a shortcut on SOPs or maintainance procedures could, or will, cost you "Big Bucks" in compensation, then perhaps you might be inclined to consider doing the job properly in the first place.
While I am not a fan of frivoulous lawsuits, if the threat of being sued out of your socks keeps you on the straight and narrow then perhaps some liability for compensation has some merit.
While I am not a fan of frivoulous lawsuits, if the threat of being sued out of your socks keeps you on the straight and narrow then perhaps some liability for compensation has some merit.
If you make sure that compensation is only compensation, and that punishment for cutting corners or not doing the job you ought to be doing is exacted by other means, then you will have a chance of reducing that effect while still preserving the deterrent effect.
I think that much of the view of the USA being a hotbed of frivoulous lawsuits is, to an extent, based on the more lurid and outrageous suits that make the front pages of the sensationalist press. Certainly there seems to no shortage of amazing awards although just how many of those survive appeal would be interesting.
For a long time I regarded the propensity to sue as just opportunistic attempts at cash grabs more than than anything else and I am sure a lot still are, just as there are opportunistic lawyers looking for 15 minutes of fame and a chance at cash.
However in this day and age where so many deals are only honoured when you know you can't weasel out of it if you don't like it, or when people will shortcut SOP's or regulations to save a penny, the threat of being successfully sued if you don't behave by the rules can go a long way towards making you think twice. Sort of like another form of policeman looking over your shoulder.
For a long time I regarded the propensity to sue as just opportunistic attempts at cash grabs more than than anything else and I am sure a lot still are, just as there are opportunistic lawyers looking for 15 minutes of fame and a chance at cash.
However in this day and age where so many deals are only honoured when you know you can't weasel out of it if you don't like it, or when people will shortcut SOP's or regulations to save a penny, the threat of being successfully sued if you don't behave by the rules can go a long way towards making you think twice. Sort of like another form of policeman looking over your shoulder.
Last edited by innuendo; 5th Mar 2005 at 05:40.
Too mean to buy a long personal title
innuendo: Sort of like another form of policeman looking over your shoulder.
"Policemen" (ie, in this context, regulators) have proper policy, fairness and consistency constraints on what they do. In contrast, private citizens bringing private legal proceedings have no constraints on the capriciousness or arbitrariness of their decisions. The proceedings which they bring are totally unsuitable for any regulatory effect. That's why compensation recoverable in private legal proceedings should only be compensation and no more.
"I understand the point you're making about regulation, but it is simply wrong in principle that private legal proceedings should have the same effect as a policeman looking over the company's shoulder."
Well I suppose we will have to disagree on on what we see as Principle. A private individual taking action against another, be it citizen, corporation or government, still has to have grounds, and a case that will stand up in court before they can succeed. If your suit is truly frivoulous it will go nowhere and will cost you a lot of money.
As I said above, capricious or arbitrary, the law of the land, through a court, still has to be convinced of its merit.
"The proceedings which they bring are totally unsuitable for any regulatory effect."
I'm not so sure that the intent is to regulate, but if the individual feels that harm has been caused by negligence or failure to observe regulations, then I see nothing wrong with their being able to sue.
If the possibility of a successful lawsuit can convince the otherwise unscrupulous, to stick to the straight and narrow I feel it is not all bad.
Well I suppose we will have to disagree on on what we see as Principle. A private individual taking action against another, be it citizen, corporation or government, still has to have grounds, and a case that will stand up in court before they can succeed. If your suit is truly frivoulous it will go nowhere and will cost you a lot of money.
In contrast, private citizens bringing private legal proceedings have no constraints on the capriciousness or arbitrariness of their decisions.
"The proceedings which they bring are totally unsuitable for any regulatory effect."
I'm not so sure that the intent is to regulate, but if the individual feels that harm has been caused by negligence or failure to observe regulations, then I see nothing wrong with their being able to sue.
If the possibility of a successful lawsuit can convince the otherwise unscrupulous, to stick to the straight and narrow I feel it is not all bad.
Too mean to buy a long personal title
innuendo: A private individual taking action against another, be it citizen, corporation or government, still has to have grounds, and a case that will stand up in court before they can succeed. If your suit is truly frivoulous it will go nowhere and will cost you a lot of money. ... As I said above, capricious or arbitrary, the law of the land, through a court, still has to be convinced of its merit.
Suppose that Airline A in fact has two safety problems.
One is that it isn't maintaining its overhead bin latches properly, so that too many of them are failing and dumping baggage onto passengers, causing them injuries - but (as we know is usually the case) only minor injuries. The press get wind of this and start a story running about "lethal flying baggage" and the airline's wanton neglect of bin latch maintenance. Injured passengers sue and (because of the legal system in which they sue) get paid damages well over and above what is necessary to compensate them for their injuries because (on your theory) making the airline pay "big bucks" might motivate it to do the job properly to start off with. On your view, this is the "policeman over your shoulder" effect of allowing punitive damages which have no bearing on the level of damages needed for compensation.
The airline's second problem is that its tyre maintenance system has fallen apart, and it's lost track of which tyres were last retreaded, and when. The consequence is that there might be tyres being used on aircraft which are beyond their last legal retreads and might get sent for further retreads beyond their certificated lives. As we know, the margin of safety built into certificated lives and airframe design means that there is very little risk of anything actually going wrong as a result of this. But there is a tiny chance that there might be a tyre burst at a critical phase of flight that starts a chain of consequences that leads to a serious accident with fatalities.
Like all airlines, this airline may have to make a decision about prioritisation of these two problems. (All companies and organisations have to make decisions about the allocation of resources, so there are prioritisation decisions being made all the time by all airlines.) What effect do our two competing models have on the airline's decision making?
In the model that emphasises the regulatory effect of private lawsuits through the payment of damages over and beyond compensatory levels, the airline will tend to concentrate on fixing the problem that's visible, high-profile and the cause of the payment of the "big bucks" that you advocate. In itself, fixing that problem is no bad thing, but it may lead to this squeaky wheel being given the grease in priority to the other problem. The priority that's given to this problem in this model would be driven by a capricious, arbitrary and non-expert focus led by the press and taken forward by the injured passengers through the courts - regulation by private decision-making.
On the other hand, a proper regulatory approach which derives its input from general expert policy considerations, including a consistency of approach to all safety matters generally, is more likely to require the airline to prioritise and fix the maintenance issue that may have a catastrophic effect on safety of flight, even though the press and public will be blissfully unaware of the fact that there's even an issue, let alone have any grounds for taking any legal proceedings.
Just this one imperfect example dreamt up on a Sunday morning will, I hope, demonstrate why resorting to the regulatory effect of punitive damages awarded in private legal proceedings is most definitely a bad thing. Let damages do what they're supposed to do - compensate for actual injury and no more - and let the regulators do the policing. Don't mix them up, or you may get unintended effects.