Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by PaulS, Jan 14, 2020.
Here's the inevitable lawsuit
Surprised it took so long. Everyone looking for a quick buck. Those rashes must have been really traumatizing...
Whether their injuries were severe enough to meet your threshold or not, don't you think Delta should take responsibility for dumping fuel on them?
Absolutely, and they have/will. I just don't agree with our sue happy society. Think of how much money we spend because of the fear/threat of lawsuits. People will sue over the anything because they know most companies will settle out of court because it's just cheaper. The people will get a little bit, the lawyers will get a lot... Never pass up a cheap buck, it's the American way!
Again, I think Delta should and will take ownership of this incident, but I think we can all agree that a few drops of Jet-A isn't going to have any lasting long term effects. If so, I'm screwed, I've taken more than one JP-8 bath...
Delta owes them money for new outfits, shoes, some soap, and maybe a bit of compensation for everyone's time getting everything cleaned up. Also an apology. They don't owe anyone thousands of dollars which we all know is where this is headed.
Maybe so, when I get back to the line next spring I'll be either SLC or SEA based (moving to Boise after I retire). Enjoy DAL!
And Delta could have announced the day after the incident that it would have paid for all of that and thrown in another couple grand. It didn't. Delta's known since the minute this happened that it would have to pay. This is how the system works.
Here is a text book emergency handling with fuel dumping over SFO 7 days prior to this Delta incident.
Except that every attorney in world would tell Delta not to do that since it would effectively be an admission of wrongdoing and make it impossible to defend against all subsequent lawsuits.
It's how the game is played.
Their insurance company might take a dim view of it for the same reason.
In most jurisdictions, offers of settlement and evidence of subsequent repair are inadmissible in claims for damages, in order to encourage pre-trial settlements and making things safer after an accident.
There's the rub. The cooperation clause of most insurance policies gives the insurance company the right to run the defense.
Here’s my thoughts: Could they have done something different? Yes. If this happened tomorrow, would they do something different? Yes.
Incident is on liveatc archive. 777 (i think) compressor stall after TO from LAX, and return (emergency). ATC asks the guy if he needs to dump fuel early in the incident, he says "no".
Apparently, perhaps later after having time to run calcs and run checklists, decided to dump after all...?
(He may or may not have called it in... LiveATC feed had multiple freq's so such call may have been covered by other scanner channel).