Alaska Airlines explosive decompression 1/5/23

[Hengelo]

Why is it when Boeing deflects blame, spins off subsidiaries, lowers quality and plays the “it’s not our fault” games to make more money people say “that’s business” but when a pilot uses the same legal system to make money he’s a whiner?

Asking for a friend.

 

[idahoflier]

Why is it when Boeing deflects blame, spins off subsidiaries, lowers quality and plays the “it’s not our fault” games to make more money people say “that’s business” but when a pilot uses the same legal system to make money he’s a whiner?

Asking for a friend.

IDK? I haven't seen anyone excuse Boeing by saying "that’s business". At least in the 402 posts on this thread. I wouldn't characterize the plaintiff as a whiner, but he appears to be an opportunist to me...

 

[Half Fast]

Why is it when Boeing deflects blame, spins off subsidiaries, lowers quality and plays the “it’s not our fault” games to make more money people say “that’s business” but when a pilot uses the same legal system to make money he’s a whiner?

Asking for a friend.

I would never say, “That’s business.”

But I would certainly say, “That’s Boeing.”

 

[schmookeeg]

Why is it when Boeing deflects blame, spins off subsidiaries, lowers quality and plays the “it’s not our fault” games to make more money people say “that’s business” but when a pilot uses the same legal system to make money he’s a whiner?

Asking for a friend.

I count three whiners in this quote

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Why is it when Boeing deflects blame, spins off subsidiaries, lowers quality and plays the “it’s not our fault” games to make more money people say “that’s business” but when a pilot uses the same legal system to make money he’s a whiner?

Asking for a friend.

Edit:

@Racerx said it better

 

[Racerx]

Why is it when Boeing deflects blame, spins off subsidiaries, lowers quality and plays the “it’s not our fault” games to make more money people say “that’s business” but when a pilot uses the same legal system to make money he’s a whiner?

Asking for a friend.

Because Boeing wasn't blaming the captain. So the pilot claiming slander is farfetched at best.

Boeing's lame ass excuse has absolutely nothing to do with the captain. That's what makes him a whiner. He's not claiming emotional distress.

 

[Zeldman]

I am suffering from emotional distress by reading this thread.

But I am not greedy, I'll settle for 9MM...million...

 

[Bob Noel]

I am suffering from emotional distress by reading this thread.

But I am not greedy, I'll settle for 9MM...

You might want to clarify that you don’t want a 9mm

 

[whitepines]

Unless there’s more to the story, Captain Fisher appears to be quite sensitive.

If a Captain is this sensitive and emotionally distressed after successfully executing a published non-normal procedure, and after subsequently landing safely on a runway with all passengers very much alive, is he still qualified to hold a medical and be PIC of an aircraft?

 

[Randomskylane]

Fisher's suit said that, while defending a class-action lawsuit related to the incident, Boeing denied liability, saying its products were "improperly maintained or misused by persons and/or entities other than Boeing."

"It was clear Boeing's words were directed at Captain Fisher in attempt to paint him as the scapegoat for Boeing's numerous failures," it said.

I have no idea how a non lawyer makes the conclusion the lawsuit alleges.

What person, other than the pilots, could misuse Boeing’s plane?

 

[TCABM]

What person, other than the pilots, could misuse Boeing’s plane?

Boeing’s statement says improperly maintained or used by people. It does not say flow by, operated by, or crewed by people.

Pax and maintainers misuse aircraft all the time. Just look at pax deployments of the slide, vaping in the lav, and mile high activities as a starter.

 

[midwestpa24]

What person, other than the pilots, could misuse Boeing’s plane?

At the time I think there were trying to point the finger at the airline maintenance having something to do with the door, before it came out it was Boeing's own techs that last installed that door.

 

[Zeldman]

You might want to clarify that you don’t want a 9mm

Corrected

 

[wanttaja]

You might want to clarify that you don’t want a 9mm

Colt .45: It's like a Glock, but for men.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[flyingron]

Avbrief put up the filing: https://avbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/door-plug-lawsuit.pdf

The TL;DR was that when the passengers sued Boeing, Boeing said it was due to improper maintenance and operation. Fisher asserts that this was directed at him. He also asserts that since Boeing and Spirit made a broken plane, he was subject to lawsuits and other injuries for having flown it.

This suit is really thin in my opinion. There's nothing but the vaguest statement that Boeing made that seems to blame Fisher for any part of the incident. It's also vaguely references the federal lawsuit without actually citing it (It's Berry v. The Boeing Company 2:24-cv-00134). Fisher isn't a specific plaintiff. Alaska Airlines, Spirit Aviation, and Boeing are. I went to wade through that case but for some reason the open archive (Courtlistener's RECAP) I can't reach, and the 235+ pages in the complaint is a bit more than I want to pay for with my Pacer account.

 

[flyingron]

I did finally read through the Berry v. Boeing complaint and frankly, it's a nothing burger as far as Fisher is concerned. It doesn't even imply that there was any problem with the piloting of the flight (in fact, it quite the opposite portrays the pilots as injured, yet followed proper procedure to get the plane down without further damage). It faults Alaska's maintenance not following up on things and failure as a common carrier to keep an eye on Boeing.

 

[Albany Tom]

Maybe he's just betting, or really his attorney's are betting, that even though this has been drug through the mud for months, that there's enough additional damning info about Boeing that even if the suit doesn't have much merit, it's financially better to settle and reduce the additional bad press. And I can't fault the guy for that, he was flying the airplane that had parts fly off because Boeing didn't put them on right...I'd be annoyed, too. Boeing doesn't have any more moral high ground than those Florida mountains folks have been talking about.

 

[Racerx]

Maybe he's just betting, or really his attorney's are betting, that even though this has been drug through the mud for months, that there's enough additional damning info about Boeing that even if the suit doesn't have much merit, it's financially better to settle and reduce the additional bad press. And I can't fault the guy for that, he was flying the airplane that had parts fly off because Boeing didn't put them on right...I'd be annoyed, too. Boeing doesn't have any more moral high ground than those Florida mountains folks have been talking about.

So you sue for mental anguish. Claim you're traumatized and afraid to fly again for fear of another defective plane. Not for defamation that didnt actually happen.

 

[Albany Tom]

So you sue for mental anguish. Claim your traumatized and afraid to fly again for fear of another defective plane. Not for defamation that didnt actually happen.

But to do that the pilot would have to put their career in harm's way.

 

[ateamer]

So you sue for mental anguish. Claim your traumatized and afraid to fly again for fear of another defective plane. Not for defamation that didnt actually happen.

He’d have to have the medical reports showing the psychological effects of the incident - basically a PTSD diagnosis. Take that step, and he better get enough of a settlement (or trial award) to be set for life, ‘cause he’ll be done flying in FAA airspace.

 

[Racerx]

For the record I'm against suing in this instance for any reason. Boeing didn't do what's alleged (to the pilot) and the crew made it home safe. But if you're dead set at least make it a believable reason.

 

[kayoh190]

He’d have to have the medical reports showing the psychological effects of the incident - basically a PTSD diagnosis. Take that step, and he better get enough of a settlement (or trial award) to be set for life, ‘cause he’ll be done flying in FAA airspace.

I'm guessing Alaska has the standard airline LTD plan, so he'd get 50% of his earnings until he retires (plus whatever he gets from the union), and then the settlement on top. I personally wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror after pulling that lever, but I bet there are a number of guys that'd happily play that game to stay home until 65.

 

[geezer]

Is his FO a co complainant? After all, he also flew the plane, and shared the implications.

If not, that FO would seem to be Boeing's best witness in defense.

 

[flyingron]

Is his FO a co complainant? After all, he also flew the plane, and shared the implications.

If not, that FO would seem to be Boeing's best witness in defense.

She's not on the suits we're talking about. I haven't seen her mentioned otherwise.

 

[Racerx]

I personally wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror after pulling that lever, but I bet there are a number of guys that'd happily play that game to stay home until 65.

If I were in this gentleman's shoes I already wouldn't be able to look in the mirror after this suit. I don't think that's an issue here.