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

SWA sells junk B737 overseas and kills

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
SWA owned the airplane since new and flew it for 20 years. SWA was culpable whether or not SWA was legally involved.

Did they teach you that in law school? The aircraft crashed because the crew was unable to properly execute a non-precision approach in bad weather. The probable cause had nothing to do with the airplane and even if it had, WN no longer owned it or was responsible.

Let me take a guess. you're some guy with 10,000 hours of Microsoft FS time, a student pilot certificate and a bunch of free time on your hands.

Your amazing powers of deductive reasoning have seized upon some unrelated Southwest story involving negligence involving inspections and have somehow connected that to a completely different accident, simply because Southwest once owned the airplane?

Pretty clever, dude. You should start your own think tank.:rolleyes:
 
Pretty clever, dude. You should start your own think tank.:rolleyes:

That pretty much sums it up. It's pretty hard to find the connection between SW and a dip$hit crew flying for a second-rate third world airline without mental capacities far beyond those possessed by the vast majority of us.
 
That pretty much sums it up. It's pretty hard to find the connection between SW and a dip$hit crew flying for a second-rate third world airline without mental capacities far beyond those possessed by the vast majority of us.
I wonder, did the roof come off, turn into a convertible? Bottom line is no one knows, the remains are buried in concrete. Fault unknown. Maybe you can join the "think tank" too!
PBR
 
I wonder, did the roof come off, turn into a convertible? Bottom line is no one knows, the remains are buried in concrete. Fault unknown. Maybe you can join the "think tank" too!
PBR

I'm pretty sure that the roof came off when the crew flew it into the side of a mountain a thousand feet below where they should have been on the approach. The airline was described by the plaintiff's attorneys as an "under-funded and unsafe start-up airline." Maybe you'd care to enlighten me as to where SW's responsibility for the accident lies.
 
Last edited:
AP
Insurers Settle Air Crash Suits
Monday March 17, 4:26 pm ET
By David Koenig, AP Business Writer
Insurers Settle Lawsuits Over Philippines Crash for $165 Million


Insurance companies have agreed to pay $165 million to settle lawsuits brought by relatives of those killed in a 2000 plane crash in the Philippines, lawyers for the families said.The families of about 100 of the 131 people killed in the crash sued the American companies that owned the plane and leased it to Air Philippines, accusing them of providing a worn-out plane in need of constant maintenance that the airline was incapable or unwilling to do.

The case, filed in state court in Chicago, was scheduled for trial in September but was settled in late February by Air Philippines' insurers, who negotiated on behalf of the plane's suppliers. Neither the American companies, Air Philippines nor the insurers admitted responsibility.
Donald J. Nolan, whose Chicago law firm took the lead in the case, said the amount of the settlement will improve safety in developing countries, where carriers often buy aging aircraft no longer wanted by U.S. airlines.
Nolan said after legal fees of about one-third the award, families will get on average more than $1 million each. The judge must still approve disbursements from a trust fund to individual families, which will receive varying awards.
The lawyer said Air Philippines offered families about $20,000 each.
The Air Philippines Boeing 737 that crashed was made in 1978 and operated for 20 years by Southwest Airlines Co., which faces a $10.2 million fine by U.S. regulators for flying 737s without making required inspections for cracks in the fuselages.
Lawyers said the plane had cracks and a faulty altimeter when it was delivered to Air Philippines, but they did not sue Southwest because it had no role in selling the jet to the foreign carrier.
The plane was purchased in 1998 by AAR Corp., an Illinois-based company that sells aircraft parts and leases planes to some of the world's largest carriers. AAR leased the plane to Air Philippines and then sold the plane and the lease to Fleet Business Credit Corp., which is now a subsidiary of Bank of America Corp.
AAR "did some cosmetic work, didn't do a (heavy-maintenance) 'D' check ... and shipped it out to the Philippines," said Gerald C. Sterns, an aviation lawyer in Oakland, Calif., who also represented some of the families. "They are in the business of providing cheap aircraft to lease."
In 1999, AAR obtained an airworthiness certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration judging the planes sound enough to export to that country.
While on a commuter flight from Manila to Davao in the Philippines in April 2000, the plane crashed into the side of a hill as the pilot made a second attempt to land on the runway. All 124 passengers and seven crew members were killed.
A commission appointed by the president of the Philippines blamed the crash on pilot error and found no evidence of mechanical failure. But lawyers for the families said no one will ever know what caused the crash because parts of the mangled plane were dumped in a pit and buried in concrete before they could be examined by independent experts.
David P. Storch, the chairman and chief executive of AAR, said the burial of the plane probably played a role in the insurance companies' decision to settle. "I believe they felt they had a problem with what the Philippines authorities had done with the aircraft," he said.
But Storch defended his company's overhaul of the plane and the lease to Air Philippines.
"We delivered a very good aircraft in good working condition to a very good airline," he said. "Unfortunately, this aircraft had an accident because the pilot got in some clouds and got disoriented."
Gary W. Westerberg, a lawyer for the London insurers, said his clients settled because of court rulings that AAR and Fleet controlled documents, witnesses and disposal of the wreckage. The companies also also failed in an effort to try the lawsuits in the Philippines.
Nolan and Sterns said companies such as AAR that buy planes and lease them to foreign airlines will face higher insurance premiums as a result of the settlement.
But Storch, the AAR chief executive, said the settlement won't have any financial impact on his company, which he said was indemnified for its costs by Air Philippines' insurers. He also said the case won't deter AAR from leasing planes to customers that include British Airways, UAL Corp.'s United Airlines and Continental Airlines Inc.
"We have an impeccable safety record," Storch said.


you just took over the "lamest post of the year".

well done.

so, if someone sells a 25 yr old King Air, Lear, Dc-9 or 747 overseas & they crash it into a mountain, is it the still the fault of the previous operator?

How about if Boeing sells a brand new 73 & said overseas operator flies that into the ground? not so much, eh?
 
Last edited:
The O.P. just proved that common sense isn't so common anymore.

Yer damn right you're lucky to have a job!

Let me guess.... you think babies come from storks too?
 
hey lucky, if you feel this way about SWA selling junk, please place a full page ad in the USA Today, Wall St. Journal, and such expressing your feelings. At the bottom, sign your real name and location so SWA can send their lawyers to sue you for slander. Dumba$$.

Please deal in facts.

The Associated Press already did it for me.

Why hasn't your SWA lawyers sued the AP? Because it is based in TRUTHFUL FACT! See how far SWA can kill the AP's 1st amendment rights.

Better luck next time. And if this was the lames post ever why has it been viewed over 1000 times in the last six hours. Keep clicking away.
 
AP
Insurers Settle Air Crash Suits
Monday March 17, 4:26 pm ET
By David Koenig, AP Business Writer
Insurers Settle Lawsuits Over Philippines Crash for $165 Million


Lawyers said the plane had cracks and a faulty altimeter when it was delivered to Air Philippines, but they did not sue Southwest because it had no role in selling the jet to the foreign carrier.
.

And yet you title your thread SWA sells junk B737.

Dolt.
 
And if this was the lames post ever why has it been viewed over 1000 times in the last six hours. Keep clicking away.

Because of it's inflammatory title. Kind of like the National Enquirer, once you read the contents you see it's pure bull :angryfire

You are a frickin TOOL!!!!
 
The Associated Press already did it for me.

Why hasn't your SWA lawyers sued the AP? Because it is based in TRUTHFUL FACT! See how far SWA can kill the AP's 1st amendment rights.

Better luck next time. And if this was the lames post ever why has it been viewed over 1000 times in the last six hours. Keep clicking away.

Because it's all about money. That's why the claim was settled. Money. Plain and simple. The Lawyers took a third of the settlement, it's cheaper and quicker to settle than to litigate a case like this. I flew DC-8's far older than this, and I routinely jumpseat on DC-3's. To suggest WN is culpable in this matter in any way is comical.
 
Say that to the families of the victims.

The only thing chickensh!t is SWA selling its worn out, poorly maintained junk to unsuspecting innocences who fall victim to America's most predatory airline.

If the airplane is worn out and useless SCRAPE it, don't paint it up pretty and sell it. That type of behavior is just as unethical as selling a junk car to a dumb teenager who will kill himself while you know the brakes are bad.

What are you talking about? SWA 'scrapes' airplanes on a regular basis.

They don't scrap them though.
 
Thanks, I am flattered to be on your list. Sorry, I could careless about you though.

"but they did not sue Southwest because it had no role in selling the jet to the foreign carrier."--

SWA owned the airplane since new and flew it for 20 years. SWA was culpable whether or not SWA was legally involved.

I do not know how long you have been around aviation, but it cannot be long if you draw these conclusions from these stories.

This airplane crashed in mountainous terrain while making its second attempt to land at an airport with no ILS (at the time) in poor visibility. The airplane struck the ground intact, from all accounts.

AAR is a good company. I have test flown aircraft after the winglet mods. If there is any problem, I write it up and they fix it. It is their job.

Try some real research next time.
 
Still on leave at Alaska Lucky? *cough cough*

Well, atleast we sold our junk. Alaska kept flying theirs and we all saw what happened. Great track record.
 
The Associated Press already did it for me.

Why hasn't your SWA lawyers sued the AP? Because it is based in TRUTHFUL FACT! See how far SWA can kill the AP's 1st amendment rights.

Better luck next time. And if this was the lames post ever why has it been viewed over 1000 times in the last six hours. Keep clicking away.


still one of the "lames" posts.......more so for how you titled it.

nice flame.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom