Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Whats wrong with people (SWA related)

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

waterski

E90 335i
Joined
Dec 2, 2001
Posts
273
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/business&id=6082980

MONTGOMERY, AL -- Four passengers have filed a lawsuit against Southwest Airlines, saying the company broke its contract with travelers by carrying them on planes that missed safety inspections over a period of about six years.

The lawsuit, filed Friday in federal court in Birmingham, seeks class-action status on claims that include breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and negligent and reckless operation of an aircraft.
Lew Garrison, a Birmingham lawyer who represents the passengers, said Tuesday the class could include hundreds
 
Who knows...but there is a post on the Low Cost Carrier forum about SWA about strobes being left on at the gate...maybe someone will sue them for trying to blind the passengers next...jeeze! You know what they say...all you need is a crayon and paper to file a lawsuit.

Same kind of BS just like the McDonalds coffee being too hot many moons ago...
 
Except the McD's suit was a result of a woman being injured. None of the SWA complainents were injured.
 
I hate frivolous lawsuits as much as the next guy, but maybe if more people filed these types of lawsuits, the company might get the message and start doing what they're supposed to be doing. One sure way to get a beancounters attention is to mess with their pocketbook!!
 
Anyone who knows ALL the details of the Mcds coffee lawsuit and read the court transcripts would not think that it was a frivolous lawsuit.
 
Look for a similar lawsuit for the USAirways FFDO's negligent discharge of his weapon in flight. Someone is bound to sue claiming they were endangered by his actions - regardless of whether anyone was injured.
 
This would set a terrible precedent for every airline. If the FAA ever finds anything against an airline, or God forbid you self report, you get hauled to court.
 
I'm not denying that the person was burned, but what other details could there possibly be? In my opinion, the only way the McDonalds lawsuit would ever be legitimate would be if the server intentionally tossed the cup of coffee onto the customers skin, and that would be something along the lines of assault.
Coffee is very hot & you take a risk of being burned if you choose to drink it. If someone is unaware of how hot it is, and accidentally burns themselves, well they probably shouldn't be drinking coffee in the first place.
People like that are the reason we have to listen to flight attendants describe in detail how to simply buckle and unbuckle a seatbelt. My 3 year old child very quickly figured out how to fasten themself into the carseat, which is much more complicated than the seatbelt in an airliner.
 
It's the Lawyer Lottery-they can't win if they don't play.
 
There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle. Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research
showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were
unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and
that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of
the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee
sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

No one will ever know the final ending to this case.

The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never
been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public
case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting.
Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.
 
Put quite simply, SWA got caught cheating. The people on those jets are entitled to damages for (while I admit no pain) suffering. I'm sure their faith in the system is permantley shaken.
 
...but there is a post on the Low Cost Carrier forum about SWA about strobes being left on at the gate...

It is easier to preflight them when they are on, not that I agree we should have to check them twice a day.
 
your a complete idiot how did you get this far in your military career? I have a feeling that picture is really you.
 
I'm sure if this goes on to trial there will be a proliferation of airline lawsuits. Starting w/ delays, and my time is worth money, to a lawsuit against AMR for flying improperly inspected MD80's.
By the way, the 737 inspection was for a section on the fuselage that was less than 1 inch in length. Thisi is out of hand. This backlash from the FAA is out of hand and is very political. CNN is short on news stories this year.
 
I am not a LUV cheerleader and I think that they need to get spanked. Everyone close to LUV has seen that they play the game well with both the ATC and the MX/OPS feds. This needs to stop.

That said, the lawsuit is B.S.

I hope LUV bans all the plaintiffs and their lawyers. They can take the bus the next time they need to go somewhere.
 
Put quite simply, SWA got caught cheating. The people on those jets are entitled to damages for (while I admit no pain) suffering. I'm sure their faith in the system is permantley shaken.


Oh Brother! I do like your user id though. Finally, some truth in advertising!
 
Food For Thought...

A little devil's advocate here...

When you go to an amusement park with your family and watch your precious children's faces light up with joy (as I did recently)... don't you have an EXPECTATION that the proper people have inspected the various rides/rollercoasters and deemed them safe to ride?

How would you feel if the amusement park "played the odds" and ignored mandatory safety inspections hoping nothing bad would result from their inaction?

I'm sincerely glad no accident resulted from these intentionally disregarded inspections but am troubled at the same time to contemplate that a trusted name like SWA put safety behind profit.

BBB
 
your a complete idiot how did you get this far in your military career? I have a feeling that picture is really you.

To be honest, like any government job, you can't really get fired from it. So, that's how I made it this far.

I have some family flying SWA soon. I hope that jet got inspected.
 
Put quite simply, SWA got caught cheating. The people on those jets are entitled to damages for (while I admit no pain) suffering. I'm sure their faith in the system is permantley shaken.


Really? What "suffering" are you referring to?

Are we entitled to damages for all the suffering from reading your posts?
 
on a related note the lawyers can and will get your ASAP reports as they are now doing with Comair.
I would tread very lightly.




adlog.php




Court ruling threat to safety, says RAA

By Gregory Polek
April 1, 2008
Safety, Air Transport and Cargo

http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/A U.S. District Court’s ruling requiring Comair to release confidential employee filings into evidence in the dozens of civil lawsuits stemming from the Aug. 27, 2006 crash of a Bombardier CRJ in Lexington, Ky., threatens the integrity of one of the FAA’s most important safety mandates, according to the Regional Airline Association. Comair last month handed over the reports, filed under the FAA’s Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP), after lawyers for the plaintiffs filed a motion to force the airline to admit that lax safety practices contributed to the crash.

The RAA filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. District Court for eastern Kentucky in support of Comair’s previous motion to overturn the ruling. “The central objective of ASAP is to ‘encourage air carrier employees to voluntarily report safety information that may be critical to identifying potential precursors to accidents,’” the RAA wrote in its brief. “It is this reliance on the voluntary nature of ASAP submissions that is critical to the program’s success.”

Nevertheless, the District Court judge who ruled on the case, Karl Forester, upheld a magistrate judge’s ruling in January that ordered Comair to hand over the documents. Forester said that although Congress exempts the reports from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, it does not protect them from court-ordered discovery. He also noted that a court order would ensure that they didn’t enter the public domain through the press or other means.

The plaintiffs asked that the sanction against Comair include an acknowledgement that a failure by the airline to address “serious safety problems” and that its lack of action constituted “a gross and wanton disregard for safety” and a “substantial factor” in the crash of Flight 5191. The accident killed 49 people.

Scheduled to go to trial on August 4, the lawsuit seeks punitive damages based on claims of Comair’s prior knowledge of runway incursions and other operational problems at Lexington Blue Grass Airport and elsewhere. As of March 3 the plaintiffs’ steering committee had taken nine depositions without the benefit of the requested ASAP reports, including from Comair’s director of safety, its flight safety specialist and its chief pilot. At the time the court had scheduled seven more depositions for last month.

“It is obviously Comair’s intention to stifle production of these undisputedly relevant documents until after the trial, or until such time as they cannot be effectively used against Comair,” lawyers for the plaintiffs charged in a brief before the airline released the reports.

Of course, the industry at large argues a far broader point: that airlines and pilots would no longer volunteer potentially damaging information if they feared the prospect of litigation. Following the lead of the RAA, the Air Line Pilots Association, the Air Transport Association and Southwest Airlines each filed friend-of-the-court briefs supporting Comair’s position.

“The public’s interest in achieving the highest degree of aviation safety and reflected in statutes and FAA policies supporting ASAP confidentiality far outweighs the limited value of producing ASAP information in civil litigation,” said the RAA. “There is a genuine risk of a meaningful and irreparable chill from the compelled disclosure of ASAP materials in connection with the pending litigation
 
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/business&id=6082980

MONTGOMERY, AL -- Four passengers have filed a lawsuit against Southwest Airlines, saying the company broke its contract with travelers by carrying them on planes that missed safety inspections over a period of about six years.

The lawsuit, filed Friday in federal court in Birmingham, seeks class-action status on claims that include breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and negligent and reckless operation of an aircraft.
Lew Garrison, a Birmingham lawyer who represents the passengers, said Tuesday the class could include hundreds

How ironic would it be if these four passengers were flown on -700's every flight in question.
 
I intend to sue SWA becuase they didn't call me for an interview even though I didn't have a 737 type. Since I have hearing loss from my Navy days, that is a clear violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

I'll probably win some flight vouchers while my lawyer gets millions.
 
Really? What "suffering" are you referring to?

Are we entitled to damages for all the suffering from reading your posts?


How about unknowingly flying around in a potentially unsafe aircraft. Would you let your kid go to someone's home where there's a loaded gun and no parental supervision? I liken it to that. If they had known the jets were potentially deadly, then they could have booked elsewhere. Now they'll always have doubts that they are on a safe jet.
 
This is a perfect example

of how our court/legal system has become an accepted form of extortion. There are no real damages here - some lawyers smell an opportunity to squeeze some money out of SWA.
The only way this kinda crap will stop is if Judges get some common sense and start throwing cases like this out while fining the lawyers heavily for their BS attempt to extort money from an American company.
People wonder why jobs and companies are leaving the country - part of it is our stupid lawyers are chasing them out. They can't afford the cost of continuing to face the extortion brought upon them through our legal system. The mafia wishes they had such a lucrative means to get money outta companies...
 
Put quite simply, SWA got caught cheating. The people on those jets are entitled to damages for (while I admit no pain) suffering. I'm sure their faith in the system is permantley shaken.


I noticed you failed to include Alaska, American, Delta, and United, which also allegedly flew passengers on aircraft with overdue or missing inspections or maintenance. Those folks have a case too?
 
I noticed you failed to include Alaska, American, Delta, and United, which also allegedly flew passengers on aircraft with overdue or missing inspections or maintenance. Those folks have a case too?


Exactly. If SWA is getting fined and sued, what about the other guys. Atleast SWA fessed up and admitted their mistake.
 
Put quite simply, SWA got caught cheating. The people on those jets are entitled to damages for (while I admit no pain) suffering. I'm sure their faith in the system is permantley shaken.


Tanker, its obvious you were turned down by SWA and now have a chip on your shoulder. I havn't seen you mention anything about the other airlines getting caught too. I openly discuss this issue with any passenger who brings it up. All of the passengers I have talked to are aware this was going on industry wide and a few have complimented SWA for being the only one to admit to it. Sorry you were turned down by SWA but it is pretty clear as to why. Our HR folks do a really good job.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom