This was an interesting article about the compensation offered to the passengers of the Alaska Airlines flight where the door came off mid-flight. Is a refund and $1,500 enough to pay for what those passengers went through? According to the article, no one knows whether the offer included a waiver of future claims.
https://wapo.st/41Q2YMb (gifted article)
I suppose the $1,500 “to assist with any inconveniences” could be used for therapy/medical treatment for those who need it. It won't go far though.
Anyone who was already dealing with a fear of flying may find it hard to get back on a plane. How do you calculate and compensate for not travelling again?
And would an event like this create a phobia/anxiety about flying where there wasn't one before? Likely.
I'm someone who's a bit odd - even though I have anxiety in other parts of life, I've never had a fear of flying and even when being knocked about in the lavatory due to turbulence I don't get nervous. Not sure why. But you don't know how you'll be after an event like this. $1,500 against not travelling again is obviously paltry.
I'd be thankful I was alive and leave it at that.
Mary, I'm the same way. I'm not afraid of flying but not sure how that would affect me. But for someone like my sister, who needs alcohol and Xanax just to get on a plane, she would probably be extremely traumatized, and possibly never fly again.
Something like that also brings in the "eggshell" rule, which means you take your victims as you find them. You cannot theorize about what might have happened if the victim did not have a condition that predisposed them to an injury.
Mardee, I can never travel with your sister-she and I would probably stress out all the folks around us with our white knuckles. You could view this incident as a traumatic event, which it certainly was, but in order for me to ever get on a plane again, I will try to think of it as a blessing as the issue is identified, no one died and hopefully it will never happen again.
I do get your point, Laurie Beth (and you, also, Wray), and I do think that's probably how I would feel...grateful to be alive. But you never know, and sometimes subconscious trauma comes back to haunt your dreams.
The 10 year old who lost his shirt is probably going to be very affected, maybe for the rest of his life. He is probably going to need some therapy.
I expect that lawsuits are coming asking for millions of dollars, perhaps even a class action lawsuit. Like many lawsuits, probably some psychological and physical problems will be exaggerated to increase the chances of cutting a deal.
But in saying that, I do not believe that $1,500 was a sufficient offer for all the trauma.
Like many others, I would be grateful to be alive and not injured but still I would feel that I was owed more than a refund and $1,500 for the psychological trauma.
No one on this site has yet said that it was a miracle that no one was sitting next to the plug that blew out. What are the chances first of all for something like this to happen but that no one was sitting in the very affected seats? I call it a miracle while some others might call it a coincidence.
I wasn't even on that plane and don't have a fear of flying, but I'm impacted by this. Quality control was lacking and that brings a great deal of sadness and anger.
You can also look at it a little differently. Even though there was damage to the fuselage of the plane, the pilots were able to bring it down safely without major injury or death.
It wasn't as bad as the Aloha Airlines flight where, sadly, one crew member lost her life.
It's also a reminder why it's a good idea to keep your seatbelt fastened while seated.
I have no problems flying IF there is not turbulence. As long as the plane flight is smooth I actually enjoy it (as much as one can). But add a shaky, buffeted ride and my anxiety/discomfort/stress increases substantially. Of course this does not compare to having a hole in the side of the plane, which is a whole other level of catastrophe. Not a good idea for me to watch Society of the Snow.
You can classify me as someone exactly like Mardee's sister. I do need that Xanax and glass of wine to get on a plane. Plus my rosary, which gets a lot of use on every take off and landing. But $1500 will buy me a lot of Xanax. And I would likely just not fly on Alaska, nor on that model aircraft again. But for those who want to sue, I'm sure there will be no shortage of lawyers willing to take their case. My health care plan already covers mental health care, so I would have no need to fatten my wallet using that excuse.
The article says that Alaska are providing complimentary counselling.
Personally, judging by the way Alaska have handled the situation, it would encourage me to fly on them.
I know of someone flying Alaska to Hawaii today. Neither she nor I have any qualms about that.
Doubtless on a different plane type to that planned.
EDIT- She's maybe not as calm as I thought as I'm getting live updates from on board, which is unheard of. Took off 90 minutes late from SEA with an extra fuel stop in SFO.
Judging by Boeing's explanation that substandard build quality is being blamed on an inexperienced workforce I'll be aiming to fly on Airbus as much as I can!
Lots of articles about the loss of federal regulation on aircraft (in the US), and businesses indirectly controlling oversight of safety for their industries through political maneuvering. Seems to be fallout from "The Government is the Problem" mentality building over the last several decades.
We are flying on Alaska again in two weeks and I admit, the first thing I did after hearing of this incident was to check what aircraft we are booked on.
I am the opposite of a lawsuit happy person, but I do think that $1500 compensation is a bit of an insult. Part of my reasoning is that a couple years ago our kids were in a bad car accident which was not their fault. Our son only had bruises, and the other lady's insurance company gave him $1700 and yes he had to sign something. I don't think a car accident is anywhere near the level of this incident, so that is why I think the $1500 is low.
The poor boy on the plane though. I just cannot imagine.
As this plays out, perhaps there will be compensation from Boeing to these individuals. Alaska didn't build the plane or operate this aircraft inappropriately.
As this plays out, perhaps there will be compensation from Boeing to these individuals. Alaska didn't build the plane or operate this aircraft inappropriately.
Gail, there is some dispute about that. The article noted that Alaska Airlines "...failed to ground the plane despite warning lights from a cabin-pressurization system that appeared on three earlier flights." But I'm sure if this does go to court (and I'm fairly certain it will), both Boeing and Spirit AeroSystems, which supplied the hardware, will be named as well.
If someone wanted to throw $1500 my way I'd take it provided I didn't have to sign a waiver. I have no fear of flying and am not a lawsuit person so I likely wouldn't pursue it. Having said that I'd probably welcome a lawsuit if the goal is enforcing and improving accountability. I'm just not sure if that would be the goal of "victims" and lawyers.
I believe at least one lawsuit has already been filed. For those who are planning upcoming trips the Washington Post has an article on how to filter aircraft. It's gifted. https://wapo.st/3SdESrh
I received $1500 to give up my seat for a St. Louis to Newark flight, overnight at a very nice Marriott and vouchers for meals. Let's see: $1500 to give up my seat; $1500 for flying in a plane that had a gaping hole in it. . .
Where did you see that a lawsuit has already been filed?
I am asking because there has been at least one lawsuit filed recently against Alaska for the November incident involving an off-duty pilot who tried to shut down the plane’s engines. so maybe that is what you saw. As far as I can see, no action has been filed against the airline for this issue—-yet. It takes a bit of time to get the facts together properly before the complaint can be filed. And I am sure there are lots of lawyers and paralegals hard at work on that right now.
As Lola said, I would very much doubt any lawsuit has been filed. It's way too soon for that, and no attorney worth their salt would rush the process.
For those who are planning upcoming trips the Washington Post has an article on how to filter aircraft.
Kind of pointless as the affected suspect aircraft are parked and won't be flying until all are inspected and any needed corrective action is taken.
I don’t want to minimize the stress that those passengers went through. However, if I am one of them, I am happy to be safe. The idea that suits should be filed, etc, is an example of the current money, money, sue, sue culture we live in.
I don’t want to minimize the stress that those passengers went through. However, if I am one of them, I am happy to be safe. The idea that suits should be filed, etc, is an example of the current money, money, sue, sue culture we live in.
I would normally agree, but I think in this case, culture/business practices need to change. And I sadly don't believe they will if there is not a financial penalty to encourage that change. Perhaps not lawsuits, but fines against the responsible parties?
Lola and Mardee, you are probably correct and I just breezed through whatever article I saw without paying attention to dates. I think (and maybe you should take my thinking with a grain of salt), the lawyer who filed the November suit was quoted and talked (drumming up business?) about potential causes of action.
Re whether it's pointless to see how to filter out the Max 9 from travel research. It's for those who are planning a trip but who don't want to fly the Max 9 even after it is recertified.
but I think in this case, culture/business practices need to change.
As do I, but read Tom_MN's point about the FAA having ceded large amounts of oversight to Boeing. Lots of ink was spilled on this very topic after the 2 Max 8's crashed. Doesn't seem like much has changed these past few years, and the FAA also needs to look in the mirror and step up. Without outside oversight, the corporate pressures for short-term profit can go unchallenged. It's been this way for a looong time. Anyone remember the Triangle Fire?
Six passengers aboard Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 have sued Boeing after a panel blew off the aircraft Friday over Portland, Ore.
On Thursday, six passengers on Flight 1282 and a family member of one of those passengers filed a proposed class-action lawsuit in King County Superior Court in Seattle against Boeing, claiming they are owed compensation for injuries sustained during the incident
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/alaska-airlines-flight-1282-passengers-sue-boeing-after-737-max-9-blowout/
To absolutely no one's surprise
.
Those lawsuits have nothing to do with financial penalty.... it's simply profiteering.
How much morr oversight do you want? How many flights each year? How many were injured or dead? Compare that to the risk of walking to work.
If the standard is G-d Like Perfection or you get sued to he'll and back, followed by criticism when the rates go up to pay for the profiteering, then every business should close.
Do you think they are worried about short-term profit? Airlines are one of the lowest profit highest risk businesses there is. Everything is about long term sustainability.
People should start suing Boeing as every airline that has used the 737 has found issues. The fault is with Boeing and as long as they are not fined or sued they will keep making these products.
That said, how is this any different that the severe turbulence on flights that have been caught on videos where people hit the ceiling. Not saying Alaska is in the clear but the female pilot and crew were all amazingly professional and kept people calm. And yes they will get more in a lawsuit.
Don’t confuse the infamous 737 MAX with the Boeing next-generation 737 models. The 737-700/-800/-900 models are very reliable. These models have a 0.06 fatal crash rate per million flights. This is one of the lowest rates for commercial aircraft. As a comparison, the 737 MAX has a 3.08 crash rate through March 2019 according to AirSafe.
The next-gen 737 is a primary asset for many airlines including the American, Delta, United and Alaska Airlines. As a result, the multiple series have more commercial flights than most models. There are over 100 million recorded commercial flights. Only the Airbus 320 family has more logged flights at 119 million and counting.
From FORBES
What Mr E said—-no need to fear all 737s. The regular 737 is one of the most reliable planes around, a real workhorse in the industry. The problems arose with the MAX version, which was “stretched” to carry more passengers, and uses larger engines for a longer flight range. I won’t go into more detail as it gets technical. You can watch the documentary Flight / Risk, about the 2 Max8 crashes, if you are interested in more.
