acws777 From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 70 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5238 times:
A Toronto law firm has filed a $20-million class action lawsuit against Air Canada on behalf of the 95 passengers who suffered injuries after the plane they were on took a sudden plunge.
Air Canada originally told passengers that the plunge, on Flight AC878 between Toronto and Zurich in January 2011, was caused by unexpected turbulence.
But the Transportation Safety Board of Canada issued a report in April saying the terrifying episode happened when a co-pilot woke up and was confused enough to think the plane was about to collide with a U.S. military aircraft.
SOBHI51 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jun 2003, 3009 posts, RR: 17 Reply 1, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5045 times:
Air Canada have a problem on there hands when they tried to mislead the passengers by telling them a lie.
But after all this is Canada, not sure it will go really far and maybe AC will try to settle it out of court.
Kaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2579 posts, RR: 24 Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 5016 times:
I hate to insert facts into a "terrifying episode", but a short look at the TSB report http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapport...viation/2011/a11f0012/a11f0012.asp says:
1. The seat-belt light was on and an announcement had been made to remain seated with seat-belt fastened.
2. The only pax injured were those not wearing seat-belts. Not a single pax wearing a belt was injured, even slightly.
3. The so-called "plunge" was an altitude deviation of 400'.
Quoting SOBHI51 (Reply 1): But after all this is Canada, not sure it will go really far
aircanada014 From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 1492 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4839 times:
I just hope passengers don't win the lawsuit. They have been told every flight whenever they encounter turbulence an announcement always made to tell passengers to buckle their seats. I think AC should sue passengers for not following safety rules. As for pilots remark that is uncalled for.
"Several deviations from Air Canada controlled rest SOP occurred. They included:
- not advising the cabin crew of the intention to rest;
- not agreeing in advance on an end time of 40 minutes;
- not stopping the rest at 40 minutes; and
- not providing recovery time after the rest.
Each of these actions was consistent with common misunderstandings among Air Canada pilots."
ElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 618 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4654 times:
While I agree that pax should have been wearing their seatbelts - especially given that the seatbelt light was on - I don't think it changes the fact that AC lied/deliberately mislead passengers.
I think most, if not all, passengers would have accepted an explanation indicating that it was a safety maneuver to avoid potential danger. Why mislead pax?
To be fair to pax, if this is a case of a mistake by AC, then the seatbelt light is sort of irrelevant. If i am not mistaken, the seatbelt warning states that pax should wear seatbelts in case of unexpected turbulence. I don't recall there being any suggestion that pax should wear it in the event of a mistaken maneuver by a sleep deprived pilot (does it qualify as unexpected turbulence? - I think this may be the crux of the case).
I d say AC deserves a slap on the wrist for lying, but $20 m is waaaaay too much.
spqr From Canada, joined Jun 2011, 45 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4495 times:
The lead claimant had her seatbelt on. If the only people injured were unbuckled as the report says, and this suit is in regards to injury, how can she be a claimant? Unless it is for psychological trauma ( which isn't mentioned anywhere that I saw in the article) I'm not sure why she is suing for injury.
WestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1258 posts, RR: 7 Reply 7, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4453 times:
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 2): I hate to insert facts into a "terrifying episode", but a short look at the TSB report http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapport...viation/2011/a11f0012/a11f0012.asp says:
1. The seat-belt light was on and an announcement had been made to remain seated with seat-belt fastened.
2. The only pax injured were those not wearing seat-belts. Not a single pax wearing a belt was injured, even slightly.
3. The so-called "plunge" was an altitude deviation of 400'.
One additional point: The attitude of the aircraft dropped from 2 degrees nose-up to 6 degrees nose-down. I don't think an 8 degree deviation constitutes a "plunge" by any stretch.
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 5): I think most, if not all, passengers would have accepted an explanation indicating that it was a safety maneuver to avoid potential danger. Why mislead pax?
After any incident, answers are demanded immediately. It's very possible that the AC communications team went into crisis mode and made statements before gathering all the facts.
Whether they intentionally lied remains to be seen. But whether they lied or just gave incorrect information because they were misinformed, they still should have handled it better.
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 5): If i am not mistaken, the seatbelt warning states that pax should wear seatbelts in case of unexpected turbulence. I don't recall there being any suggestion that pax should wear it in the event of a mistaken maneuver by a sleep deprived pilot (does it qualify as unexpected turbulence? - I think this may be the crux of the case).
You should wear your seatbelt in the event of unexpected aircraft movements. From the passenger's persepective I don't it matters whether it's turbulence or not. The aircraft jerking around is going to cause injuries regardless of what is making the aircraft act that way, so belt up.
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 5): I d say AC deserves a slap on the wrist for lying, but $20 m is waaaaay too much.
For a class-action lawsuit I don't think $20m is unheard of. If the complainants are successful I don't see them being awarded the full amount though (just my opinion from the facts presented to me).
golfradio From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 556 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4298 times:
I hope this case gets kicked out to the curb. We don't want to turn into a country of frivolous torts. The fact of the matter is that injuries were caused by not observing flight safety rules.
The issue that AC mislead the passengers has no bearing on the fact that injuries were caused by the claimants own negligence.
Putting on my devil's advocate hat, I feel compelled to point out that this was not simply a case of passengers not observing flight safety rules.
It is also a case of the flight crew not observing safety rules (disoriented pilots and all).
While I understand - and even agree - with the gist of your argument, I suspect the case rests to a great degree on the fact that there was a safety rule breach by AC and that AC, perhaps mistakenly, explained away the incident in an incorrect manner.
I would note that in the event of real turbulence, this case has no merit. However, it is not a case of turbulence but rather a case of an entirely avoidable breach of safety rules by the flight crew. The injuries were, after all, avoidable, but so was the initial mistake. One could argue that pax were penalized (by way of injury). AC will likely argue that it has been penalized for its mistake by way of the compensation it has paid. This lawsuit will likely claim that AC was not penalized enough (I wholeheartedly disagree).
I also note debate about the degree of the plunge. I suspect the actual G forces at play would be more relevant than the scale of the deviation?
acws777 From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 70 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4222 times:
It should be thrown out for sure, it will be one of those prolonged lawsuits. Air Canada have a lot more important things on their plate right now and all this bad publicity doesn't help.
Kaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2579 posts, RR: 24 Reply 11, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4169 times:
From the CBC report:
"A Toronto law firm has filed a $20-million class action lawsuit against Air Canada on behalf of the 95 passengers who suffered injuries ...".
I guess the reporter didn't look at the TSB report either:
"Fourteen passengers and 2 flight attendants were injured. ... The flight continued to destination whereupon 7 passengers were sent to hospital and were later released".
brilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3168 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4122 times:
Quoting SOBHI5eply=1: But after all this is Canada, not sure it will go really far and maybe AC will try to settle it out of court.
What is that suppose to mean? Yes, this is Canada. In Canada you have to get the courts to allow the for a Class Action suite and if there is merit for the suite than it will go ahead. This story is just trumped up to get money from a corporation. Reading the TSB report, the seatbelt was on and the only people that were injured were the people without seatbelts on. Where the screwball in the article said her seatbelt was on and was injured, something not right. It is the CBC, and I feel that they are as accurate and reliable as they always are. They are the same corporation that employs a certain loud-mouthed dimwit to give his misinformed opinion.
WestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1258 posts, RR: 7 Reply 14, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3960 times:
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 9): AC will likely argue that it has been penalized for its mistake by way of the compensation it has paid.
What compensation did they pay? Refunds?
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 9): I also note debate about the degree of the plunge. I suspect the actual G forces at play would be more relevant than the scale of the deviation?
The scale of deviation is irrefutable. But the G-forces are just guesses based on some calculations, are they not? I assume the recorded data would trump any calculation.
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 11): From the CBC report:
"A Toronto law firm has filed a $20-million class action lawsuit against Air Canada on behalf of the 95 passengers who suffered injuries ...".
I guess the reporter didn't look at the TSB report either:
"Fourteen passengers and 2 flight attendants were injured. ... The flight continued to destination whereupon 7 passengers were sent to hospital and were later released".
It doesn't take much to claim "mental trauma", which is the "injury" I'm guessing the other 81 pax are suing for. In the Qantas lawsuit there were pax claiming they could never fly again because of the fear they developed from their fall (which was more severe than the case at hand). I don't know how easy it will be for the AC lawyers to disprove someone's newly developed phobia...
Er? Is there a problem of transparency with public companies, government regulators or press here that I'm not aware of?
Quoting SOBHI51 (Reply 1): they tried to mislead the passengers by telling them a lie
This was indeed a mistake but in my mind nothing to do with injuries suffered. Airlines lie to pax every day. Regulators police the airlines, not ambulance chaser lawyers.
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 4): "Several deviations from Air Canada controlled rest SOP occurred. They included:
- not advising the cabin crew of the intention to rest;
- not agreeing in advance on an end time of 40 minutes;
- not stopping the rest at 40 minutes; and
- not providing recovery time after the rest.
Each of these actions was consistent with common misunderstandings among Air Canada pilots."
There is a clear issue here but in my mind this is something AC should be disciplined for by government bodies, no?
Quoting golfradio (Reply 8): The issue that AC mislead the passengers has no bearing on the fact that injuries were caused by the claimants own negligence.
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 11):
From the CBC report:
"A Toronto law firm has filed a $20-million class action lawsuit against Air Canada on behalf of the 95 passengers who suffered injuries ...".
I guess the reporter didn't look at the TSB report either:
"Fourteen passengers and 2 flight attendants were injured. ... The flight continued to destination whereupon 7 passengers were sent to hospital and were later released".
That alone should indicate that this suit has no legs.
YYZYYT From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 852 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3182 times:
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 7): After any incident, answers are demanded immediately. It's very possible that the AC communications team went into crisis mode and made statements before gathering all the facts.
Whether they intentionally lied remains to be seen. But whether they lied or just gave incorrect information because they were misinformed, they still should have handled it better.
The media reports showed pasengers who were writing to AC many months later, who were told that it was only turbulence. Along with even though we're not liable here's a small cheque, please sign this Release". Sounds pretty damning to me, but then that is only one side of the story.
Not sure this is a good class action... to few class members, and some clear individual issues. possible grounds to fight certification? Just musing, I don't know the answer.
Also, what compensatoin? injured passengers are a minority, and there is a large issue re their not wearing seatbelts... for an uninjured passenger, damages would be minor.
In the end though this will lead to a pay out shared by a number of insurance companies...
777ord From United States of America, joined May 2010, 349 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2724 times:
Wow... I'm kinda stunned frivolous law suits are occurring outside the US!!!
I guess the next time I'm in a plane and I'm ignoring the seat belt sign and I get hurt, I'll sue too. It makes perfect sense. I ignore the PIC's instructions for wearing the seat belt. BUT, it's your fault.
I hope AC wins this. They should atleast appologize for the situation. maybe refund those pax's money. $20m? Please.
ElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 618 posts, RR: 2 Reply 21, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2706 times:
Quoting 777ord (Reply 19): I guess the next time I'm in a plane and I'm ignoring the seat belt sign and I get hurt, I'll sue too. It makes perfect sense. I ignore the PIC's instructions for wearing the seat belt. BUT, it's your fault.
The flight crew would also have to make a mistake that causes the injury for your hypothetical scenario to be valid. This isn't an open and shut case of turbulence (which is why, I imagine, it is being pursued)
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 70 posts, 
From Saudi Arabia, joined Jun 2003, 3009 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 904 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
