Boeing sued over Asiana 777 crash


More than 80 passengers on the Asiana Airlines Boeing 777 (BA) jet that crashed at San Francisco International Airport in July have sued the planemaker in Chicago for unspecified damages, saying it is liable for their injuries because of a poor airspeed-warning system and inadequate pilot training.

The suit adds to one filed by two passengers against Asiana and Boeing in San Francisco in July.

From other sites
Comments (17)
  • samuel_liu
    , contributor
    Comments (2753) | Send Message
     
    And people wonder why airplane tickets are so expensive?
    19 Jan 2014, 07:20 AM Reply Like
  • wizjinx
    , contributor
    Comments (488) | Send Message
     
    What a joke. BA isn't responsible for pilot training, and the problem was that the pilot was a trainee and was very nervous about performing a visual landing for the first time with such a huge plane. Sue Asiana for letting this guy behind the wheel. Geez.
    19 Jan 2014, 07:45 AM Reply Like
  • samuel_liu
    , contributor
    Comments (2753) | Send Message
     
    BOEING isn't responsible for plane maintenance, though it paid out $200 million (b/f law suits) when the JAL crashed in the 80s.
    19 Jan 2014, 08:09 AM Reply Like
  • Rich in NJ
    , contributor
    Comments (87) | Send Message
     
    The suit probably won't withstand a motion by BA for summary judgment.
    19 Jan 2014, 10:51 AM Reply Like
  • 33cartoon33
    , contributor
    Comments (14) | Send Message
     
    Very sorry people lost their lives and were injured because of an idiot pilot that never should have gotten as far in his career that he did. How is this Boeing's fault?????????????????...
    19 Jan 2014, 09:37 AM Reply Like
  • earl ledden
    , contributor
    Comments (29) | Send Message
     
    Lawyers will be lawyers.
    19 Jan 2014, 10:32 AM Reply Like
  • RODEBACK
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    Hip, hip, hurrah, we had an accident. Now let's see who we can sue.
    19 Jan 2014, 10:33 AM Reply Like
  • jasonhad
    , contributor
    Comments (104) | Send Message
     
    Another reason to reform the tort laws of the USA, and to rein in jury awards that make no economic sense, merely expressing the frustrations of individuals with a system in which they feel they are insignificant.

     

    Boeing is no more liable for damages than the makers of a car used by a suicide bomber to carry explosives to kill innocents. The pilots TURNED OFF the proximity warning !!!

     

    The plaintiffs should be forced to pay court costs and Boeing's costs and legal bills for defending themselves against this spurious action, and the lawyer disbarred for 5 years for filing it in full knowledge that it was groundless - merely an attempt to generate legal fees and a jackpot award if by some fluke a court actually found Boeing culpable.
    19 Jan 2014, 01:23 PM Reply Like
  • SoldHigh
    , contributor
    Comments (991) | Send Message
     
    Absurd to sue BA over this. There may be an argument for going after Asiana.

     

    Greedy, unscrupulous law firms that filed this frivolous lawsuit against Boeing are another reason why people loathe lawyers.
    19 Jan 2014, 02:50 PM Reply Like
  • bws1934
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Why not sue the airport too? Makes as much sense as suing Boeing. And while this foolish attorney is at it maybe sue the fire engine for running over one of the passengers.
    Litigious becomes a 4 letter word.
    19 Jan 2014, 06:10 PM Reply Like
  • petten
    , contributor
    Comments (121) | Send Message
     
    These people should be grateful to Boeing that they are still alive.

     

    The overwhelming responsibility rests with the pilots and the airline that hired and trained them.
    19 Jan 2014, 07:44 PM Reply Like
  • YONSU
    , contributor
    Comments (296) | Send Message
     
    All I heard was the plane design save everyone that lived, it could have been a total loss of life except the plane withstood the poor pilot's errors.
    19 Jan 2014, 10:31 PM Reply Like
  • cjespo
    , contributor
    Comments (12) | Send Message
     
    Stupid lawsuit. Airlines did improper training.
    20 Jan 2014, 03:00 PM Reply Like
  • thomas85225
    , contributor
    Comments (552) | Send Message
     
    For photo of the crash see http://dailym.ai/1bercy3

     

    http://dailym.ai/1bercy6

     

    The two 16-year-old Chinese schoolgirls, Ye Mengyuan and Wang Linjia, died in the crash but officials said one was possibly hit by a fire truck or an ambulance.
    Read more: http://dailym.ai/1bere9g

     

    Starting with the 777-200 all aircraft must meet 16G crash requirements for the cabin, seats, galleries floor beam (redesign floor beams date back to Turkish Airlines Flight 981 ) ect alone with FAA flammability requirement alone with ever thing in the Cabin

     

    The 777 has gone from composite floor beams to Titanium floor beams
    These improvement where base on Swissair Flight 111, United Airlines Flight 232 UPS 747-400F Flight 6 and Saudia Flight 163
    The photos show the cabin floor did not meet is 16G crash requirement alone with the FAA flammability requirement

     

    In 1995 and 1996 Business Week magazine did several stories on the 777-200
    http://buswk.co/1berepy

     

    Boeing has been sue over repair of the pressure bulkhead repaired of 747 Japan Airlines Flight 123 and China Airlines Flight 611,, 747 cargo door that open in flight, engines mounting pin on 747 and 737 rubber repair, to name a few
    http://bit.ly/1berepA

     

    Boeing Short-Circuiting 787 Shows Skills Gap, Norwegian Air Says
    http://buswk.co/1bercyd
    20 Jan 2014, 05:01 PM Reply Like
  • GarryGR
    , contributor
    Comments (350) | Send Message
     
    A lot is known as to why the crash occurred but the NTSB will evaluate all the evidence, including the human factors, relating to the pilots. We do know, for example, that the pilots thought they had set the auto throttle on but had only turned on one of the two switches and that there were red warning lights on, warning about the low speed and that the pilots were preoccupied with "stabilizing" the plane. It's also known that no problems were found with the plane itself.

     

    Re the suit against Boeing: suing Boeing for this crash is about like suing the Asiana because they stopped short of the gates, inconveniencing the disembarking passengers! We seriously need to make the now common practice of filing frivolous lawsuits very expensive for those law firms. Anyone who needs a court date to resolve a legal issue, has a long wait ahead of them. In the meanwhile, we have these frivolous lawsuits, which take up a huge chunks of court time, clogging up the judicial system.
    20 Jan 2014, 08:09 PM Reply Like
  • thomas85225
    , contributor
    Comments (552) | Send Message
     
    There three part of the crash, Pilots error, Design error of the 777 aircraft and the SF fire department.

     

    The flight recorder will tell NTSB most of facts about the crash.

     

    The FAA required passenger cabin to withstand 16 G and meet Flammability requirement

     

    See FAA fine against Boeing -Findings of FAA's special audit of Boeing factories see ...
    community.seattletimes...

     

    For other crash at San Francisco see Pan Am B747 Accident 1971 at

     

    http://bit.ly/1aHneRQ

     

    http://bit.ly/12Tlxwd

     

    http://bit.ly/14BgiTK

     

    The laymen need to return to comments section at the Seattle times where BS is accept as fact !
    21 Jan 2014, 03:48 PM Reply Like
  • Nostradumbass
    , contributor
    Comments (123) | Send Message
     
    The 777 crashed due to an incredibly stupid and dangerous approach procedure using the FLCH (flight change) mode on the aircraft's Mode Control Panel (the MCP, known in ordinary language as the autopilot). Anybody who sits in the left (or right) seat of a 777 on approach who cannot land the plane because the ILS (Instrument Landing System) is out of service at an airport large enough to accommodate this massive aircraft is unfit and unqualified to be called a licensed commercial pilot. Conditions for landing by visual methods on the day of the crash were perfect. This accident was most likely caused by inadequate training and oversight of the training pilot and the captain flying the ship by the airline itself. The 777 is one of the very best of the best airliners ever designed and has a remarkable history of safe flight since its introduction 18 years ago. It is a highly automated, sophisticated aircraft with a very elegant operational interface, and carries enormous reserves of power with it. In no way can Boeing be held responsible for this horrible accident that was completely avoidable and the result of pure human error.
    7 Mar 2014, 10:09 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs