Pilot Awarded $1.9 Million.

[MooneyDriver78]

Now….is he able to collect?

As soon as they get done with the appeals…figuring another 2 years, that 1.9 will be worth more like 1.7 by the time he sees it.

 

[N1120A]

Even without regs backing it up, if it’s a perceived safety issue, you’ve got grounds for a lawsuit.

Not to mention regulations that give primacy to PIC on any safety related decision.

Now….is he able to collect?

Sounds like the company has money. There may also be insurance.

As soon as they get done with the appeals…figuring another 2 years, that 1.9 will be worth more like 1.7 by the time he sees it.

I looked up Kentucky's legal interest statute. 6% simple interest, compounded annually, on judgments. That's better than any bank has given in a very long time.

 

[OneCharlieTango]

Not to mention regulations that give primacy to PIC on any safety related decision.



Sounds like the company has money. There may also be insurance.



I looked up Kentucky's legal interest statute. 6% simple interest, compounded annually, on judgments. That's better than any bank has given in a very long time.

But less than the current rate of inflation.

 

[SkyDog58]

This is a hard one to judge without all of the info on the flight and aircraft. My initial gut reaction was that if the weather was within the capabilities of the plane (structural and equipment) and the pilot had demonstrated the requisite skills to fly the plane by obtaining the company paid for type rating, that he possibly did not have a legitimate reason to refuse the flight.

Of course, just by reading the posted article I do not know what the weather actually was nor the status of all the equipment on the plane. Also, was it a single pilot plane or did it require two pilots? Was the other pilot willing and able to go? So much info is missing to be certain if he was justified or not in refusing the flight.

Doing quick sleuthing online shows he is an ATP with multiple type ratings including 727, 757, and 767 as well as some corporate jets. So he is an experienced pilot who hopefully has good ADM skills so one has to give some credence to his refusal.

He also appears to be 74 years old. So he was likely an airline pilot and likely retired at 65, possibly with a pension but maybe not. The 121 world is brutal at times. But at that age, he realistically does not have enough years left of productive commercial flying to have lost out on 1.9 million in income, in the case where he had trouble finding suitable employment as a result of the employer’s actions. However as it appears that he is currently employed as a senior pilot at Phillips Edison, he had little trouble landing another job.

Just a bit to ponder.

So while I am uncertain whether he was justified in his refusal or whether the company was justified in firing him, the award in my opinion was far too high. I do not believe the damages he suffered bear it out.

 

[DFH65]

They should have offered him a million to make the flight would have been cheaper.

 

[OneCharlieTango]

I wonder if a large part of the award is punitive, influenced by the fact that the employer sued first. Suing to recoup training costs is dirty, IMHO.

 

[X3 Skier]

If the Judge thought the award was out of line, would he have the authority to reduce it?

Cheers

 

[Ryan F.]

If you can make $200K a year flying part 91 corporate, sign me up.

We eclipsed that by a long shot, long ago, for large cabin business aviation.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

We eclipsed that by a long shot, long ago, for large cabin business aviation.

Good to see pilots rising to the level in pay as crack dealers.

 

[N1120A]

But less than the current rate of inflation.

I see that the understanding of inflation in this thread is running close to the understanding of law.

This is a hard one to judge without all of the info on the flight and aircraft. My initial gut reaction was that if the weather was within the capabilities of the plane (structural and equipment) and the pilot had demonstrated the requisite skills to fly the plane by obtaining the company paid for type rating, that he possibly did not have a legitimate reason to refuse the flight.

Of course, just by reading the posted article I do not know what the weather actually was nor the status of all the equipment on the plane. Also, was it a single pilot plane or did it require two pilots? Was the other pilot willing and able to go? So much info is missing to be certain if he was justified or not in refusing the flight.

Doing quick sleuthing online shows he is an ATP with multiple type ratings including 727, 757, and 767 as well as some corporate jets. So he is an experienced pilot who hopefully has good ADM skills so one has to give some credence to his refusal.

He also appears to be 74 years old. So he was likely an airline pilot and likely retired at 65, possibly with a pension but maybe not. The 121 world is brutal at times. But at that age, he realistically does not have enough years left of productive commercial flying to have lost out on 1.9 million in income, in the case where he had trouble finding suitable employment as a result of the employer’s actions. However as it appears that he is currently employed as a senior pilot at Phillips Edison, he had little trouble landing another job.

Just a bit to ponder.

So while I am uncertain whether he was justified in his refusal or whether the company was justified in firing him, the award in my opinion was far too high. I do not believe the damages he suffered bear it out.

PIC is ALWAYS the final arbiter of safety, particularly outside Part 121 where flight planning decisions are made by the crew alone.

Also, for the third or fourth time, lost wages is not the only component to damages.

If the Judge thought the award was out of line, would he have the authority to reduce it?

Yes. He or she has the authority to reduce awards, subject to review under various standards by the Court of Appeal.