[SimonS1]

pdtraveller – doesn’t someone have to die for it to be ‘corporate manslaughter’?

[pdtraveller]

Point I was trying to make that was that a class action for negligence would be preferable to criminal case for corporate manslaughter. What happened could have easily led to fatalities and BA if found wanting would be facing a very much harder day in court.

My guess is they will settle…the publicity needs to b avoided.

[TominScotland]

pdtraveller – why would BA settle? The BBC report states that

“The legal action is against Airbus, which made the aircraft, and International Aero Engines, which made and sold the engines.

It is not, however, against British Airways, despite the fact that it was their plane”.

[canucklad]

I find it strange that the class action isn’t against BA……

The report states 30 other incidents involving the engines and the cowlings !

As a passenger, my minimum expectation of “duty of care” is incredibly simple…once a potential problem is identified, the manufacturers update their operating instructions to the operators including BA……If they did …then Corporate and personal negligence should be prosecuted as a criminal act.

If that memo had not been issued then BA is legally off the hook, if Airbus & International Aero Engines did not update operating procedures then criminal prosecution should be pursued.

In both circumstances, fines are not enough…a custodial sentence should be the outcome!

DO WE NEED TO WAIT UNTIL BLOOD IS SPILLED BEFORE CHANGE OCCURS….?

I will add that the airline community is quite close knit, so I would be surprised that BA was not aware of incidents involving the cowlings, memo or not !

[TominScotland]

canucklad, be careful about leaps in the dark!!

Yes, there is reference to 30 incidents in the BBC report but NOWHERE does it say that any of the other 29 involved BA…… We just do not know and, while it may suit some to make assumptions here that BA have been serially at fault, we just do not know this for fact.

[StandingThemUp]

I am confused by the subject of the litigation.

Given that fastening engine cowls is an important pre-flight action by the aircraft operator, I do not understand why the class action is not against the airline, for negligence.

I’m probably missing something.

[canucklad]

Hi Tom..

Apologies for my confusing start to my post….I realise that the incidents didn’t involve BA,

My comment about the airline industry being a close knit community was reference to the fact that at the very least, when incidents occur, either through official channels or “Word of Mouth” …. Companies become aware of the potential risks to their own business.

You can’t pursue legal action against “WOM” unless it can be proved to be an established and normalised form of a businesses communication process…….Very difficult to positively gain a conviction!

If there is a paper trail on the other hand…!!

I ‘will point out that I’m no legal guru, so it would be good to get points of view from fellow BTer’s who are better read in the subject.

Anyway, my point being, would it not be better for these “ambulance chasers” to wait for a possible criminal action before pursuing a civil action for compensation?

[craigwatson]

There won’t be any criminal action taken, there never is in an aircraft incident.

This has been a known issue for years, and the American FAA has even recommended design changes, but as yet the manufacturer has not done one, and the FAA hasn’t mandated it yet.

Due to the design and location it is VERY hard to confirm if they are not latched correctly, they can be closed yet not latched and they look completely normal.

Cowls have come open in dozens, if not hundreds of flights worldwide, yet this is the first time it has had such a catastrophic effect. I don’t think anyone thought it was such a serious problem.

[canucklad]

Hi Craig….just a quickie, are they gravity designed or hydraulically designed, sort of like fire exit doors?

[AnthonyDunn]

And can anyone explain why the litigation has been launched in the US when the flight was taking place within Europe, with a European airline flying a European manufactured aircraft. IAE is now majority US-owned following Rolls’ decision to sell their share – if my memory serves me.

[BigDog.]

Unfortunately EU law prevents litigation against carriers for scaring the beejeebers out of their passengers – even when it is down to the carriers own negligence.

Those impacted by BA762 therefore could only claim for delay/inconvenience compensation costs – yet BA tried to even wheedle out of that obligation! Shameful BA leadership again demonstrates a total lack of moral compass – no wonder their staff distrust the leadership and morale is so low.

Kicking and screaming BA have been forced to pay compensation of €250 to €600 per person – nearly a year after the event.

The gall of the company whose engineers had not latched and pilots who had neglected to check the latch on the cowls on both engines causing them to blow-off mid-flight subsequently caused serious disruption to LHR though fortunately avoided fatalities from falling debris or landing.

BA initially denied passengers affected were due compensation, claiming the incident was due to exceptional circumstances beyond its control and therefore European regulation EC261 exempted it from compensating passengers – utterly outrageous, though predictable, position and behaviour.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=21231

Time for Walsh to man up, show at least one Iota of understanding leadership and do the decent thing by apologising for all the distress this has caused.

[LuganoPirate]

What about passengers flying on other airlines who were delayed thanks to this. Can they claim from BA or do they have to claim from their own carrier who would presumably claim this was outside of their control?

[JohnHarper]

I really don’t see how BA could admit anything other than gross negligence in this case. Had the plane crashed demolishing houses in the process and killing people in west London would that not have been their fault either?

[IanFromHKG]

LP – As mentioned before, the class action is against Airbus and IAE, not BA, so is unlikely to help pax on other airlines who want to claim against BA. I think those other airlines could validly claim exceptional circumstances to avoid EU261 compensation. To claim against BA, Airbus, IAE or anyone else, at least under English law, they would (among other things) have to prove that the defendant owed them a duty of care, failed in that duty, resulting in a loss that was directly caused by that failure (whether or not it was the only factor) and was reasonably foreseeable at the time the failure (not the incident) occurred. That sounds like a tough call. Which is presumably why the class action is being launched in the US, where the punishing costs of litigation, the absence of the “loser-pays-the-winner’s-costs” principle (which, sadly, is being diluted under English law), and the relatively easy availability of lawyers operating on contingency fees (often 30% of damages) means that defendants are all too often incentivized to settle unmeritorious claims

I have to say that – as a lawyer and (I hope) a reasonable and rational human being – I find it terribly depressing

[canucklad]

Evening Ian,
As always you’ve posted an interesting comment. I needed to re-read my own comments @ 12/07/2013 08:25 GMT & 09:55 GMT before I contributed this morning..
In your opinion as a lawyer, on what grounds do the litigators have to file against the manufacturer and engine maker, instead of BA? I’m presuming it has to do with faulty design or not notifying all airlines of a design flaw and thus allowing them to take appropriate action to counter the flaw?
In any case I do also find it sad that this is still making the news, should have been quietly resolved with a decent amount of compensation, and I agree, this smells like a group of greedy people sniffing out their equivalent of a very expensive payoff truffle !

[Author]

Posts