Posted on 04/20/2018 8:30:59 PM PDT by wastedyears
Now dont go being reasonable here
So you've seen one of the checks in question? Could you post the release language that you've seen?
Delta had two fatalities in 1996 from a blade failure on a plane from the DC-9/MD80 family. The plane was on the ground when it happened, so the survivors missed the air pressure issues. https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR9801.pdf
Oh! No peanuts!!!
There MAY be someone with a peanut allergy around! ...somewhere...
Thank you for that, at least the jerks had the good sense not to argue with what you said.
Put a few more zeros in there and I might think about it, SWA is negligent by its admitting not inspecting by the FAA deadline.
One fatality since 1971...one. Think about the number of passengers and flights since then.
The most dangerous part of your journey flying is the drive to the airport.
I fly whenever I can. Usually cheaper than renting a car and paying for gas and food along the way.
What are you talking about? Show us that SWA failed to meet a FAA or CFM directive. We’ll be waiting.
Click here to view: Highlights in the History of Aviation and Aerospace - The Past, The Present, and The Future:
Please ping me to aviation and aerospace articles. Thank you.
If you want added to or removed from this ping list, please contact EveningStar or Paleo Conservative.
Did whoever make that comment explain how it could be possible?
The way I see it, Southwest will probably now be the safest airline to fly.
Perhaps something to do with providing positive pressure, until PPRV valve opened?
I have no idea.
Do you have a different take?
Thanks.
Agree. At least one of, if not the safest.
Had I been writing the letter accompanying the check, I would have considered opening the letter with a discussion of airline safety in general - and then contrast that statistical safety and convenience with the specific hazard and distress encountered on that particular flight.I would have described in general terms what was known beforehand about the possible failure of a turbine blade, and what was done in an effort to avoid that occurrence prior to that particular flight. And say that those procedures were under review with a view to improving them.
Then I would congratulate the pilot and aircrew for getting the passengers of that flight to a safe landing, and express regret over the loss of the passenger who died. I would have mentioned what the airline has done for the family of that passenger, and then I would discuss the $5000 check enclosed - and mention a way in which any desired portion of it could be donated to the family of the dead passenger.
I think that the voucher for future travel is the most delicate issue to handle. It assumes further air travel by the passenger, which might be something the passenger had decided to pass on in the future. As such I think that idea bordered on tackiness. The only thing that occurs as a way of discussing it would be in the context that, statistically, $1000 worth of future air travel would be safer than the same distance of surface transportation. Because if all the travelers since the last previous fatality had traveled the same distance on the surface, a great many more casualties would statistically be expected. So in that sense the voucher could be positioned as consideration for the future traveling safety of the passenger.
Its a good PR move but it weakens your legal standing in court if you go ahead with a large $$ personal injury lawsuit. A good lawyer might be able to press ahead but it is now much more difficult.
Similar to to an insurance company for another driver who hits you and is at fault. They will rush to settle the damage claim for the car if you state you sustained some bodily injury but had not been seen by a DR. yet. Once you take the funds your ability to go ahead with a bodily injury suit is inhibited.
I’m sure the fact that the Aircraft experienced explosive decompression, one person was killed and several were injured drove the decision to Compensate the Passengers.
Now we will be seeing Stress Related Lawsuits from the incident. If SW doesn’t have its Ducks in a row regarding Maintenance, they will be paying big bucks.
If they did everything they had to do, the Engine Manufacturer is next on the Lawyer’s hit list, no doubt.
On NBC last night.
WELL SAID! Much better than the irate post I was about to make. I expect these types of greedy, "I've just hit the Tort Jackpot!" comments from DU or the MSM crowd, but it is disheartening to read them on FR!
Put a few more zeros in there and I might think about it, SWA is negligent by its admitting not inspecting by the FAA deadline
-DownInFlames
You’re not getting off the hook that easily. Saw it on NBC news last night doesn’t cut it. You just accused a major airline of being negligent by admitting not inspecting by FAA deadline. Post a link to prove your accusation or RETRACT! If you want to maintain any bit of credibility, either POST A LINK or retract! Posts like that are pure GARBAGE and you attacked a company and everyone who works for it without a or evidence. PUT UP OR SHUT-UP!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.