[Jeroen]

As far as I can understand it, it is meant to support the families.

Boeing said that the $100 million investment would be made over multiple years and that its employees would be able to contribute funds as well, which the company would match through this year.

The money will be used to “support education, hardship and living expenses for impacted families, community programs, and economic development in impacted communities,” the company said. Boeing said it would work with local governments and nonprofit organizations to distribute the funds

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/03/b...pensation.html

So I think it has nothing to do as such with any form of legal compensation. That is likely to take many years to sort out.

I am no lawyer, but I would think these claims need to made to the respective carriers first. In that respect the “blame” factor does become relevant. To what extend have the action, or lack thereof, contributed to the accident? We already know that in the case of Lionair, issues around maintenance procedures have been identified. Whether the pilots of both fatal flights will be completely absolved from any error remains to be seen.

I assume the compensation paid by the carriers is ruled by of compensation are governed of this Montreal Convention? Not sure if it pertains to the aircraft manufacturer (unlikely I would think?).

Irrespective, lawyers will likely see Boeing as negligent and then all bets are off, they certainly would not be restricted by such conventions I would think. With What we know today and what Boeing has admitted already it is unlikely Boeing could successfully argue they were not negligent. (The negative PR alone, would be huge)

Compensation for these sort of fatalities would always have some sort of local adjustment. It also depends heavily under which jurisdiction you fight your legal battle of course.

As an example. In the Netherlands one car, two occupants, gets hit by another car which is at fault. Both occupants loose one of their hands. One is a well established professional piano player, the other a receptionist. The piano player will receive a considerable higher compensation than the receptionist as he/she will never be able to work and also had higher income to start with. If they both had died, the compensations would be different as well.

In several legal systems compensation looks at two main components.
Firstly real cost and financial hardship; that would be everything from medical bills, revalidation and actual loss of income and likely loss of income towards the future.

The second components is more around mental anguish if you like. How big an impact, emotionally and otherwise did the event have on your life. Of course, there is a certain overlap on these components.

Obviously, there is a huge “local" factor involved when it comes to put a final number on it. Of course, you could argue how much that would be, but typically compensation is seen/assessed against the victim “home/local” situation.

The compensation under the Montreal Convention are fixed amounts (in case of fatalities). Not quite sure but I thought only 150-200KUSD or thereabouts?

Personally, I have never understood on what basis these ridiculous amounts of compensation in the US are based. The McDonald’s example is a good one. There is also this famous case of somebody sticking a cat into a microwave to dry it after a bath. Claiming millions of compensation because the label/manual never mentioned explicitly you should not do it.

The problem in the USA is that you can actually sue somebody for being thick and stupid and get compensation. Of course, not the case here. Just a bit of me ranting on one of the aspects of US society I detest.

Jeroen

[libranof1987]

How has the 737 Max crisis not affected Boeing's leadership yet?

Drawing a slight parallel: when the VW Emissions scandal came out, the VW leadership was asked to resign, convicted and put behind bars. There were severe lawsuits not just in the EU but also the USA.

What Boeing has done with the 737 Max is nothing short of negligence and possibly, homicide and yet, it seems business as usual for the Boeing management. Sure, there are stock and other financial pressures but nothing more. VW played with the environment, Boeing with lives.

Is it because it is an American company and there is Mr. Trump as President? How differently would the US react had Americans been killed, or this was done by a non-American manufacturer.

[HappyWheels]

Originally Posted by libranof1987

...Is it because it is an American company and there is Mr. Trump as President? How differently would the US react had Americans been killed, or this was done by a non-American manufacturer.

There would have been billion dollars worth payout settlements, fine by the US government and multiple of other penalties against the organization - which will all benefit the US.

And that would have happened with the very first incident itself.

[Jeroen]

As was to be expected, European aviation regulator will not accept FAA re certification of the 737 Max as sufficient to clear it for operation in Europe.

They have made their own demands on Boeing.

Europe will not accept US verdict on 737 Max safety https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49591363


Jeroen

[V.Narayan]

^^^^^^^^
Right stand by EASA. Several national regulators, with lesser resources, have informally indicated they will wait to hear what EASA says before taking their call. Also EASA is better funded and resourced than the FAA. I believe they will do a more thorough job and send their list of further modifications and safety features.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

^^^^^^^^
Right stand by EASA. Several national regulators, with lesser resources, have informally indicated they will wait to hear what EASA says before taking their call. Also EASA is better funded and resourced than the FAA. I believe they will do a more thorough job and send their list of further modifications and safety features.

In addition to all of the regulatory battles, the airlines are preparing their customers for the return of the 737 Max, by allowing them not to fly the 737 and transfer to different flight, not conducted with a Max, free of charge.

https://www.wltz.com/2019/09/05/unit...7-max-flights/

Its probably a good preemptive type of marketing strike. It will be interesting to see how many passengers would actually take them up on the offer. If the public at large simply does not want to travel on a 737Max, Boeing (and the airlines) have a much bigger problem on their hands.

We will see, public at large has short memories. Historicaly, I do not think we have seen passengers actively avoiding a particular type of plane. Even after a string of deadly accidents. (E.g. Comet, DC10, Concorde). But then again we live in very different times, with so much more (Media) exposure.

Wonder if/when we will see #donotfly737Max hit social media.

Jeroen

[ads11]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Europe will not accept US verdict on 737 Max safety https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49591363

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

^^^^^^^^
Right stand by EASA. Several national regulators, with lesser resources, have informally indicated they will wait to hear what EASA says before taking their call. Also EASA is better funded and resourced than the FAA. I believe they will do a more thorough job and send their list of further modifications and safety features.

Have to thoroughly agree here. In civil aviation this must be a tectonic shift, and for the FAA I imagine this must be rather dire. I'm happy for the Europeans to take the lead here, in fact I'm hoping in another sphere they can set the stage for a new age of anti trust to break up large corporations but I digress.. I can't imagine Trump would be best pleased to see American leadership be ceded here, especially to a pan European organisation, but the FAA only has itself to blame. Unlike industry though, surely it's good for the world as a whole to have a single regulator they can trust, because I wonder if you'll start to see fragmentation. I can't imagine this being any good for any of the stake holders, be in on the OEM side or the airline side.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

https://www.wltz.com/2019/09/05/unit...7-max-flights/

Its probably a good preemptive type of marketing strike. It will be interesting to see how many passengers would actually take them up on the offer. If the public at large simply does not want to travel on a 737Max, Boeing (and the airlines) have a much bigger problem on their hands.

We will see, public at large has short memories..

You're correct. I'd be interested to see the stats on how many customers take up the offer to swap from a Max 8. I imagine Boeing above all will be watching those results with bated breath because I'd say it'll be a real world barometer of how far up the creek they are without a paddle, if you get my drift. If the numbers are low enough, I think Boeing can get away with assuaging the immediate and glaring concerns without having to bet the farm on a replacement to their cash cow. BUT, if the numbers show enough consumer wariness so many months on, I think Boeing executives will be staring down the barrel.

The airline comes across as rather clever here. They look accommodating and they collect data that they can use to inform any decisions they make here on in, including for the rest of the industry.

[Sutripta]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

As was to be expected, European aviation regulator will not accept FAA re certification of the 737 Max as sufficient to clear it for operation in Europe.

This was expected. Means that FAA would not accept completely suggestions put forward by the EASA.
I think both tried to prevent the fracturing of the regulatory world, but could not come to an understanding. Which in my eye makes FAA certification suspect!

In not really related news EASA has accepted DGCA certification for the HAL built Dornier.

Can anyone throw light on why Russia was excluded from the international panel called to critique FAA's certification process.

Regards
Sutripta

[Sutripta]

Thought someone would have posted this by now -
https://www.livemint.com/companies/n...382339960.html

Regards
Sutripta

[Jeroen]

Well, only expected that other aviation regulator are following the same approach as EASA.

It does beg the question whether these regulators do have sufficient qualified staff to do a proper job? They have been relaying on others for donkeys years!

It's all very well being indignant, cautious, whatever. But the only thing that matters is whether you have the skills, the knowledge and the relevant experience to perform this re certification. Of course, the very same is true for the FAA themselves.

How many agencies outside the USA have deep insights, knowledge and experience with Boeing aircraft?

Who certifies the certifier?

Jeroen

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Well, only expected that other aviation regulator are following the same approach as EASA.

It does beg the question whether these regulators do have sufficient qualified staff to do a proper job? They have been relaying on others for donkeys years!

It's all very well being indignant, cautious, whatever. But the only thing that matters is whether you have the skills, the knowledge and the relevant experience to perform this re certification. Of course, the very same is true for the FAA themselves.

How many agencies outside the USA have deep insights, knowledge and experience with Boeing aircraft?

Who certifies the certifier?

Jeroen

Other than EASA only the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the Japanese authority have the skills. Period. Our DGCA do not have the skills or the knowledge to do a thorough job. Regardless of the chest thumping which I guess is needed for positioning purposes DGCA basically rely on EASA or FAA to first certify. The DGCA is headed by an IAS officer - that breed who believe they can handle everything from power grids to animal husbandry. They rotate out every 18 months on an average . That alone should tell you of the state of the DGCA.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Other than EASA only the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the Japanese authority have the skills. Period. Our DGCA do not have the skills or the knowledge to do a thorough job. Regardless of the chest thumping which I guess is needed for positioning purposes DGCA basically rely on EASA or FAA to first certify. The DGCA is headed by an IAS officer - that breed who believe they can handle everything from power grids to animal husbandry. They rotate out every 18 months on an average . That alone should tell you of the state of the DGCA.

On a slight tangent, one of my favourite things to come across is the wonderful invective you seem to reserve for the IAS officers, most of it understandably borne out of decades of well founded frustration.

I don't think the DGCA was in the picture for becoming a preeminent regulator globally. I'd imagine it would likely remain with EASA but Wendover Productions raises an interesting point here about the Chinese regulator (the rest of the video is well worth watching). I didn't realise they were the first to issue a grounding order but given that they hold the economic power market wise, I can see them definitely moving to take a more prominent role. Personally though I'd rather the Europeans win that bout.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjbYloKJX7c

[Sutripta]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Other than EASA only the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the Japanese authority have the skills. Period.

OK. So that accounts for Australia's presence in the international panel set up to critique the certification process. The others except UAE and Singapore manufacture commercial jets. (The others are affected countries). Which I suppose are certified by the local authority.

Still wondering why Russia was left out. It also manufactures commercial jets. So should have some competence, even if the West laughs at it.

Regards
Sutripta

[V.Narayan]

This is now by a very long margin the longest and most prolific grounding of a commercial airliner ever since the Wright Brothers. The last time anything even remotely approaching this magnitude was when, in 1979, the FAA grounded all DC-10s in USA for 5 weeks following the dramatic crash of American Airlines Flight 191. Most of the rest of the world, in that case, did not ground its DC-10 fleets. And even earlier than that the FAA had placed speed restrictions, in 1960-61, on the Lockheed L-188 turboprop airliner for a few months following two dramatic mid-air break-ups. And of course we had the de Havilland Comet in 1954. In size, reach and duration the 737MAX now beats all of them combined.

[Jeroen]

Some updates from Boeing, their board no less:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/15/b...y-737-max.html

Jeroen