Court orders Cathay Pacific Airways to pay millions to wrongfully dismissed pilots

by B. N. Sullivan

A Hong Kong High Court judge has ruled that Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. unfairly fired and defamed 18 pilots in 2001, and has ordered the carrier to pay the pilots HK$58.7 million -- an amount equivalent to nearly US$8 million. The pilots were among 49 who were fired by Cathay during a labor dispute. The fired pilots became known as the 49ers.

According to an article about the court ruling on BBC News, the pilots were fired when they started a work-to-rule campaign. The pilots told the court they were often made to fly longer than agreed hours, with not enough breaks between flights.

Although the airline claimed that the pilots were dismissed due to frequent sick days and a negative attitude toward management, the judge ruled that "the predominant reason for the plaintiffs' termination by Cathay was their perceived participation in union activities."

Hong Kong news Web site The Standard reported that Court of First Instance Judge Anselmo Reyes said:

"What I derive is that the 49ers were principally dismissed because management was unable to make headway in last-minute negotiations with the union.

"Cathay's intention was to show union members that management was prepared to take tough action against pilots who participated in MSS [Maximum Safety Strategy, a form of limited industrial action].

"The 49ers were singled out by the review panel as persons who by reason of their sickness records and ostensibly argumentative character were probably the most active supporters of the union cause.

"By dismissing them, Cathay hoped to send a strong signal to other union members to comply with management's line or else face a similar fate as the 49ers."

Bloomberg.com reports that, of the 18 plaintiff pilots, 16 were awarded HK$3.3 million in damages for defamation and HK$150,000 for wrongful dismissal each. One pilot didn’t get awarded damages for defamation and one didn’t get damages for wrongful dismissal. The pilots also were awarded their legal costs.

One of the 18 plaintiff pilots died in 2002. The Standard says that the deceased pilot's family "will not be compensated for defamation, but like the others will receive HK$150,000 for wrongful dismissal in addition to a month's pay."

The other 31 pilots who were fired at the same time also sued, but according to BBC News, they settled with the carrier at an earlier date.

Perp walk: Pace Airlines CEO arrested for not paying employees' health insurance

by B. N. Sullivan

William C. Rodgers, the CEO of charter carrier Pace Airlines, was arrested today at Piedmont Triad International Airport, Greensboro, NC. He has been charged with one count of willful failure to pay group health insurance premiums. According to North Carolina news station Fox 8, Rodgers "knowingly canceled his employee group health insurance without providing the required 45-day notice to his 337 employees." The Fox 8 video, below, shows Rodgers being led into the Forsyth County Magistrate's office.

If the video does not play or display properly above, click here to view it on Fox 8.

Today's arrest of Rodgers, while dramatic, is only the latest event marking the downward spiral of Pace Airlines. On August 21, 2009, the North Carolina Department of Labor began investigating claims that employees of the carrier were not being paid. Nonpayment of wages for a month or more put those employees in a a cruel limbo: they were not getting their paychecks, yet if they simply quit, they would not be eligible tot file for unemployment benefits.

In early September, some unpaid employees spoke about their plight with reporters outside Pace headquarters in Winston-Salem, NC. The Winston-Salem Journal quoted an unpaid employee from Pace's parts department:

"Most of us live paycheck to paycheck, so when the paychecks stopped coming, we've had to drain whatever savings we had," he said. "I feel like I can't walk (from Pace) because I'm afraid I won't get paid what I'm owed and they'll fight me getting unemployment."

Employees showed journalists a July 1 memo from Rodgers that said one reason for Pace's financial struggles was that Continental owed Pace $1 million for work it had already completed. A spokeswoman for Continental said that "Continental was current on its payments to Pace." Continental ultimately canceled its contract with Pace.

On September 8, 2009, Fox 8 reported that "roughly 200 employees were told they were being 'furloughed without attachment,' a technical way of saying the company has no plans of hiring them back."

Fox 8 quoted a Pace employee who said, "The letter says furlough, but we asked about callbacks and they said there will be no callbacks. We will have to reapply if the company decides to hire again."

"At least we will have some type of guaranteed pay, but now everybody's question is, 'What about the four, five weeks they owe us?'" he said, referring to unpaid back wages.

A few days later, the Winston-Salem Journal announced that the U.S. Department of Labor had become involved as well. In an article dated September 11, Journal reporter Richard Carver wrote:

The company learned today that it is the subject of an investigation by the U.S. Labor Department's Wage and Hours Division, which is investigating issues of nonpayment of hourly and overtime wages as related to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

That same day, another 75 to 100 Pace employees were shown the door. By that time, according to the Journal, employees were owed three two-week paychecks.

Meanwhile, employees discovered that in addition to not receiving paychecks, their health insurance was no being funded either. This allegation prompted an investigation by North Carolina's Department of Insurance, which ultimately led to today's arrest of Rodgers.

Last week Pace Airlines advised the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that it had "temporarily ceased operations" for a period of up to 90 days. On September 17, Fox 8 quoted a spokeswoman for the FAA who said that the agency had "increased its surveillance of Pace." (Ya think??)

UPDATE Sep. 28, 2009: Fox 8 is reporting today that the Forsyth County Airport Commission has asked Pace Airlines to vacate its space at Smith Reynolds Airport by Sep. 30, 2009. According to Fox 8, the Commission "cites unpaid September rent and and other overdue rent payments as the reason for the request," and notes that Pace Airlines is the airport's largest tenant.

Judge: American Airlines pilots' union cannot advise members to avoid overtime

by B. N. Sullivan

Earlier today, the Allied Pilots Association (APA), which represents the pilots at American Airlines, announced a ruling by federal appeals court Judge Alexander Williams, Jr. that the union would be violating the Railway Labor Act if it encouraged its members not to volunteer for overtime flying. The APA had requested a ruling on the issue in August of 2008, after American Airlines warned the union it might furlough up to 200 pilots.

In his ruling, the judge expressed uncertainty about the impact that such an action by the union would have on the carrier's operations. An APA message to the union membership explained:

At the core of the court's decision: to rule for APA, the court would have essentially had to speculate about the impact of such actions by our pilots. In reaching its decision, the court acknowledged being influenced by the Eleventh Circuit's 2001 decision against the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) in the Delta Air Lines case and the Seventh Circuit's recent decision against ALPA in the United Airlines case, both of which enjoined open-time campaigns at those airlines.

In addition, the court referenced the Railway Labor Act's charter "to prevent, if possible, wasteful strikes and interruptions of interstate commerce" in determining that a ruling for APA would be inconsistent with that charter.

Conversely, the judge also declined to rule -- as management had sought -- that APA had an improper purpose for initiating an open-time campaign. Management contended that APA was seeking to influence collective bargaining, rather than mitigate furloughs.

At the same time, the judge indicated that there was no prohibition against individual pilots refusing on their own to volunteer for open time, stating, "There is a difference between an individual exercising his or her right under a contract and a union collectively encouraging its members to exercise those individual rights."

Federal jury rules in US Airways pilots' dispute over seniority issues

A federal court jury in Phoenix ruled yesterday in favor of six America West pilots who brought suit against the US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA), the union that represents the pilots of US Airways. The jury was tasked with deciding whether USAPA has been fairly representing all of the more than 5,000 pilots of the merged US Airways, i.e., those who worked for America West prior to the 2005 merger, as well as those who worked for the 'old' US Airways.

The underlying issue is a dispute over seniority arising from the merger of America West and US Airways in 2005. US Airways pilots have favored merging the seniority lists based on date of hire. Former America West pilots rejected this method: since the 'old' US Airways had been in business much longer than America West, a seniority list based on date of hire would necessarily favor US Airways pilots.

The seniority dispute eventually went to arbitration about two years ago. The arbitrator devised a blended seniority list that put several hundred senior US Airways pilots at the top of the list, and then ranked the rest according to a ratio based on their status at the time of the merger. Furloughed US Airways pilots were put at the bottom of the list.

Then last year, the pilots voted out the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) as their collective bargaining unit, and formed a new independent union, USAPA, to represent them. ALPA had represented the pilots during the arbitration. Not surprisingly, the vote to certify USAPA was close. Of the 5,238 pilots eligible to vote, 2,723 voted for USAPA and 2,254 voted for ALPA.

Once certified, USAPA proceeded to press for seniority integration based primarily on date of hire. Most former America West pilots wanted the arbitrated method for seniority integration to be used.

Six former America West pilots ultimately filed the civil suit against USAPA, claiming the union was not fairly representing their interests. Yesterday the jury agreed with them by finding USAPA liable in the Duty of Fair Representation lawsuit.

USAPA plans to appeal the decision. In a press release issued yesterday after the jury's decision was announced, Mike Cleary, president of USAPA, said that the union "intends to appeal the case to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and, if necessary, the United States Supreme Court."

“While USAPA would have, of course, preferred to prevail in the current setting, thereby allowing the pilot group to come together and work towards an improved contract, we fully expected and planned for this contingency,” said Cleary. “Again, given the facts of law, we are very confident of our ability to prevail eventually, in proving the absolute right of a union to bargain over the complete terms of its members’ working agreement. Having so planned, our legal team is already working on an expedited appeal and stay of any proposed injunctive relief.”

Pilots at the merged carrier have continued to work under separate contracts since the 2005 merger. A major stumbling block to negotiating a unified contract has been the contentious dispute over seniority integration.

Garuda pilot convicted and sentenced for 2007 Yogyakarta crash

An Indonesian court has found Marwoto Komar guilty of negligence in the 2007 crash of a Garuda Indonesia Boeing 737-400 passenger aircraft at Yogyakarta, Indonesia.  He has been  sentenced to two years in jail.

Mr. Komar was the pilot in command of the accident aircraft.  On March 7, 2007, the plane was arriving at Yogyakarta after a scheduled flight from Jakarta  when it overran the runway upon landing, broke through a fence, crossed a road, and came to rest in a rice paddy where it burned. Among the seven crew members and 133 passengers who were on board, one flight attendant and 20 passengers died, and dozens were injured.

In October of 2007, Indonesia's National Transportation Safety Committee (NTSC) released a report on its investigation of the Yogyakarta accident. The NTSC's main finding was that "...the flight crew’s compliance with procedures was not at a level to ensure the safe operation of the aircraft." The report said that "the aircraft was flown at an excessive airspeed and steep flight path angle during the approach and landing, resulting in an unstabilized approach."

The NTSC report also said that Komar "did not follow company procedures that required him to fly a stabilized approach, and he did not abort the landing and go around when the approach was not stabilized," and that he disregarded Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS) alerts, and calls from the first officer to go around.

Despite protests by the Federation of Indonesian Pilots (FPI), the International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations (IFALPA) and others in the international aviation community, criminal charges were brought against Komar. His trial got underway in July of 2008, making Komar the first pilot to face criminal charges arising from an aircraft accident in Indonesia. He was charged with three counts of negligence and one count of deliberately destroying or damaging an aircraft, and causing death.

An article about the verdict in the Canberra Times reports:

In a majority verdict, the Sleman District Court found Komar could have taken steps to avert the disaster.

"In the landing stages the defendant was not careful, and should have coordinated better with his co-pilot," one of the five judges said.

Komar, wearing his pilot's uniform despite being stripped of his licence, immediately declared he could not accept the verdict and intended to launch an appeal.

The court did not order Komar into immediate detention, meaning he will not go to jail until a higher court orders it.

Aircrew Buzz has been following the developments surrounding this accident and the ensuing prosecution of Marwoto Komar since the outset. Here is a review of articles describing the progression of events:

• Garuda Indonesia B737 accident in Yogyakarta - Mar. 6, 2007
• Update on Garuda Indonesia accident - Mar. 7, 2007
• FDR and CVR from Garuda Indonesia crash sent to Australia - Mar. 8, 2007
• Accident investigation report: Garuda B737 crash at Yogyakarta - Oct. 22, 2007
• Garuda captain arrested, charged with manslaughter - Feb. 8, 2008
• Garuda pilot goes on trial for 2007 crash at Yogyakarta - July 24, 2008

...or click here to view all posts about Garuda Flt 200 on Aircrew Buzz.

Air Pacific eliminates compulsory retirement age for cabin crew

Cabin crew at Fiji-based Air Pacific will no longer be forced to retire at age 45. The airline management and the Transport Workers Union "have settled the matter and the compulsory retirement age for staff at all levels will be removed from the collective agreements," according to an article on FijiVillage.com. Compulsory retirement age had been an issue of contention in a legal case the Transport Workers Union filed against Air Pacific.

Although the compulsory retirement age complaint has been settled, the Transport Workers Union still wants the Fiji Court of Appeal to address other matters of disagreement between the union and the airline, including issues such as working hours and crew complement. Finally, the union has asked the Appeals Court to rule as well on Air Pacific's practice of suspending cabin crew who are overweight or have blemishes. The Union contends that these practices are "unconstitutional" under the collective bargaining agreement.

NMB dismisses claims that Delta Air Lines interfered with union certification election

The flight attendant profession suffered an insulting blow this week when the U.S. National Mediation Board (NMB) dismissed charges by the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) that Delta Air Lines management illegally interfered with a union certification election earlier this year. The NMB, which is the federal agency charged with protecting the rights of workers in the U.S. transportation industry, apparently has decided to turn a blind eye to alleged union busting activities instead of properly investigating the charges. In a 2-1 vote, the three-member Board "determined that the AFA failed to state a prima facie case of interference."

When the intended merger between Delta Air Lines and Northwest Airlines was announced nearly six months ago, the collective bargaining rights of the "new" airline's flight attendants immediately became an issue of serious concern. Northwest Airlines flight attendants are represented by the AFA, while Delta's flight attendants have never been unionized. Once the merger is complete, Northwest's flight attendants risk losing their currently held right to participate, through collective bargaining, in decisions about issues and policies that affect them directly.

Delta's management team has been, and continues to be, openly opposed to unionization, instead pursuing a paternalistic policy of telling workers what is best for them. This stance was demonstrated during the recent election to certify the AFA as the collective bargaining unit for Delta's flight attendants. For example, during the voting period, signs were posted in flight attendants' crew lounges urging them to tear up their ballots and voting information before even bothering to read about their rights. It was tactics such as this that prompted the AFA to file election interference charges with the NMB. Now it appears that, instead of protecting workers' rights, the NMB has chosen to be complicit in suppressing them.

In a statement to the press regarding the NMB's refusal to investigate the charges presented to the Board by the AFA, the union's International President, Pat Friend, said, "In yet another failure of a government regulatory agency to hold a corporation accountable, the NMB refused to investigate any of the numerous allegations of misconduct by Delta management.

"Despite very specific and an overwhelming number of instances of management intimidation and interference with the right of employees to join a union, the majority of the NMB decided to accept Delta management’s denial of having done any of the things their flight attendants witnessed," Friend continued.

"This NMB has forgotten its stated mission: to promote and protect effective collective bargaining and representation; and has once again sided with corporate America to deny workers the right to a voice in their workplace. It is long past time to hold this agency accountable for their support of the corporate agenda," said Friend.

For the record, it should be noted that the dissenting member of the three-member NMB, Harry Hoglander stated that he "believes[s] [AFA] has established a prima facie case of election interference and that the [NMB] should conduct an investigation." Additionally Mr. Hoglander finds that "the dismissal by the Majority of the Board of the Association of Flight Attendants’ allegations of well over four score incidents of interference without an investigation sets the wrong precedent. The premise being that if these allegations were true they might reasonably have tainted the laboratory conditions necessary for an election."

Thank you Mr. Hoglander.

Pilots' union files suit against Spirit Airlines

Yesterday, Spirit Airlines was sued by its pilots' union. The pilots, represented by the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, claiming multiple violations of the Railway Labor Act, the law that governs labor relations in the airline industry.

According to an ALPA news release about the suit against Spirit Airlines, the legal filing alleges that the company has engaged in a pattern of unlawful behavior by:

• negotiating in bad faith with ALPA
• unilaterally imposing a series of changes in rates of pay, rules, and working conditions through bad-faith application of the contract
• attempting to coerce and intimidate pilots by undermining their union
• and seeking to circumvent the collective bargaining process as a whole

ALPA, which represents more than 500 Spirit pilots, says:

In May, Spirit Airlines announced furloughs of 30 percent of the active pilots; 45 on August 1 and 70 on September 1. Despite this reduction in staff, the company made no attempt to make a commensurate reduction in flights. Instead, the company has repeatedly violated the contract in an effort to compensate for its poor decision making and self-inflicted pilot shortage. By unilaterally changing and ignoring clear contractual rules and long-standing work practices, as well as commitments made in bargaining, the company has tried to run roughshod over the pilots, their contract, and the collective bargaining process.

"Enough is enough," said Capt. John Prater, president of ALPA. "Over the last few months, Spirit pilots have withstood every contract violation and every form of harassment that this management could throw at them. Since the company refuses to honor the contract, we are asking a court to force them to, and treat these pilots and our union with the respect we deserve."

Spirit Airlines management says that the recent changes to work rules other 'initiatives' were developed in response to unprecedented economic and airline industry conditions. In a statement to the press, Spirit Airlines President and CEO Ben Baldanza said:

"Each of the changes is permitted under the existing collective bargaining agreement. We understand that some of our pilots are unhappy about the changes but, in our view, the work rule adjustments are critically necessary in these challenging times for the well being of the company and our employees. Each issue is being negotiated in already scheduled arbitrations or in our ongoing collective bargaining under supervision of a Federal mediator.

"As everyone knows, the economics of our industry have changed dramatically, as the result of a doubling in fuel prices over the past year and the recession in the United States," added Baldanza. "Our decision to discontinue certain less efficient practices within the bounds of our existing agreement is just one part of a company-wide range of initiatives aimed at improving revenues and reducing costs. These changes help to ensure the company's continued ability to compete, grow, and protect our employees' jobs."

Spirit Airlines pilots disagree with Baldanza's view. They have been claiming for more than a year that the carrier has been violating the terms of their contract. More recently, Spirit Airlines management tried to blame its pilots for flight cancellations, while the pilots contend that the heart of the airline's problems are the service, planning, and staffing failures for which management alone is responsible.

"Spirit pilots are working harder than ever to meet the demands of this airline," said Capt. Sean Creed, chair of the Spirit unit of ALPA. "It’s unfortunate that the actions of a misguided management team have forced us to take this step to protect our profession, our contract, and our airline."

Air Transport Association sues FAA over airport slot lease auction

The Air Transport Association (ATA), the trade group for airlines in the U.S., has filed suit against the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), challenging the legality of the FAA's planned auction of takeoff and landing slots at airports in the New York City area. In the suit, the ATA alleges that the FAA does not have authority to conduct such auctions. The suit, called a Petition for Review, was filed earlier today (Aug. 11, 2008) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) announced FAA plans to auction slots at Newark Liberty Airport. (The FAA is an agency of the DOT.) The auction is planned for September 3, 2008. The DOT said that the funds generated from the auction "will be used to reduce delays and enhance capacity at New York-area airports."

“This auction will allow us to implement market mechanisms on a small scale, gauge interest and determine a slot’s market value,” DOT Secretary Mary Peters said. “However, the real winners in this auction will be consumers, who stand to benefit from more reliable air service that costs less in terms of both time and money.”

The ATA contends that FAA does not have authority to conduct auctions, and also notes that carriers have given up slots to help reduce congestion, while auctioning these slots would only add to congestion.

From an ATA news release about the suit against the FAA:

“FAA’s claim that it can use its property management authority to auction slots is intellectually dishonest and a disturbing end run around Congress,” said ATA President and CEO James C. May. “Every transportation administration except this one has acknowledged that it does not have the authority to implement auctions and other so-called market mechanisms. Yet this administration believes it can ignore the statutory limits of its authority to remake the industry as it sees fit.

“We said that we would challenge the FAA decision in a court of law and we are doing just that. Today we have started the process to protect our members’ rights,” said May.

ATA’s lawsuit, a petition for review filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, states that the FAA slot auction is, in effect, a final rule that “should be held unlawful and set aside because these actions are in excess of the FAA’s statutory authority; constitute unauthorized regulatory action disguised as property management; are contrary to express statutory limitations imposed by Congress in the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act; are without observance of procedure required by law; and are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law.”

“FAA’s plan is not only unlawful, it is both surprising and perplexing. It is surprising because the end result will be more flights during the busiest times of the day at Newark, even as we suffer through yet another delay-plagued summer, and it is perplexing because the announced slot auction precedes formal rules to auction slots at Newark and other airports,” said May. “Sadly, FAA believes that it has the right to make up the rules as it goes along. FAA should focus its efforts on fulfilling its responsibility to provide the infrastructure and air traffic resources necessary to meet the public’s demand for safe air transportation services, instead of finding new ways to inhibit economic growth and further tax an already overtaxed traveling public.”

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which manages the airports, also opposes the auction. The Port Authority issued a statement on August 5, 2008, which said, "As we've made clear numerous times, the solution to combating flight delays is increasing capacity, improving customer service and replacing a decades-old air traffic control system -- not auctions that will raise ticket prices for the exact same delays. We will continue to block any effort by the DOT and FAA to implement this auction system at our airports."

For more information:

• Questions and Answers on ATA Slot Auction Lawsuit Against FAA
• ATA Petition on Slot Auctions
• ATA Slot Lease Auction and Congestion Management Comments

United Airlines' shocking lawsuit against its own pilots

by B. N. Sullivan

Yesterday United Airlines made a shocking announcement: they have filed a lawsuit in federal court against their own pilots. The suit alleges that the pilots' union, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), and certain individual pilots, deliberately organized "unlawful job actions that resulted in hundreds of flights being canceled and impacted thousands of customers and employees."

From the United Airlines press release about the suit:

The lawsuit seeks a preliminary injunction against ALPA and four named pilots for organized sick leave abuse in opposition to the company’s plan to reduce its fleet size and furlough pilots and to pressure United into renegotiating terms of a collective bargaining agreement that remains in effect through 2009. The lawsuit also seeks an end to a public campaign of intimidation that discourages pilots from picking up additional flying, effectively engaging in a slowdown.

This lawsuit is beyond belief, and the press release announcing it is disgraceful.

Let's get this straight. There is a labor contract in force between United Airlines and its pilots, but the airline is bringing suit, complaining not that the pilots are in violation of their contract, but because they are working according to the rules of the contract. A refusal by some pilots to pick up additional flying -- that is, working on what had been scheduled as their contractually legal days off -- is construed as a slowdown? Nope, I don't buy it. It sounds to me like the problem is poor manpower planning.

Aside from what is apparent on the surface -- that the pilots are not obligated to pick up extra trips -- there are other factors at work here as well. In short, United Airlines has done little in recent years to inspire the confidence of its employees, or to motivate them to work above the requirements of their contracts out of the goodness of their hearts.

Here we have an airline which, during its bankruptcy, begged its pilots and other line employees to agree to huge concessions in pay and benefits. They agreed to the concessions in order to save the airline and their jobs. In addition to having their salaries greatly reduced, their company-funded retirement plans were sacrificed and replaced with paltry pensions administered by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). Then, after emerging from bankruptcy, top company executives were (and continue to be) awarded huge bonuses, while line employees' pay concessions have not been restored.

It is well known that the airline is flying crews at, or close to, the maximum number of hours allowed by FAA rules, with allotted rest time -- particularly on multi-day trip layovers -- at or close to the legal minimum. Yet United Airlines is formally complaining that some pilots are refusing to pick up extra trips, i.e., flying on what should be their days off.

In fact, pilots and flight attendants alike say that they are tired all the time, and feel pressed to show up for work even when they don't feel well. To quote a buzz phrase I hear all the time, "Crews are sick and tired of being sick and tired."

Now United Airlines is preparing to furlough close to a thousand pilots in conjunction with retiring 100 aircraft as a capacity reduction move. ALPA has been negotiating with United Airlines since before the furlough announcements to try to lessen the impact of the capacity reduction on pilot livelihoods, but the talks yielded "meager progress," according to union officials.

To my knowledge, there is no provision for trading contractually accrued sick leave time for monetary compensation upon furlough. So who would be surprised if some pilots -- knowing that they are about to be furloughed -- are taking off some time that is due them by the terms of their contract? (Who knows: they may even be using some of their accrued sick days to search for a new job!)

United Airlines has launched an unfair publicity campaign against its pilots by publicizing the lawsuit it has filed, knowing full well that the pilots would not be able to publicly present an immediate rejoinder. It is apparent that most news media reports about the suit are relying solely on publicity supplied by the airline. Since the pilots' union is named as a party to the lawsuit, ALPA officials have had to refrain from commenting on the details of the suit pending a review of the legal case by the union's attorneys.

United's flight attendants, who are not a party to the suit, are not subject to these constraints. They have issued a public response, condemning the airline's lawsuit against its pilots. In a statement to the press, the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA), the union representing United Airlines flight attendants, accused airline management of "a very serious attack on employees by issuing an inaccurate and misleading media statement concerning the pilots at United Airlines."

Greg Davidowitch, President of AFA's United Airlines chapter said:

"This latest union-busting tactic is condemned for what it is: a corrupt attempt to distract workers and travelers of United Airlines from the failures of current executives. Their actions add nothing to the debate over the future of our airline, but instead serve to further inflame an already poisonous labor relations atmosphere.

"The notion that any frontline employee of United Airlines is responsible for the failures of United executives is laughable. Not content to destroy labor relations, and to destroy the passenger experience, the geniuses that run this airline have also destroyed shareholder value in the past year. With all the major metrics of corporate performance at an all-time low, current management has lost its reason to continue in charge of the airline."

Mr. Davidowitch called the United Airlines lawsuit against its pilots a "new low in labor relations." I certainly agree.

Garuda pilot goes on trial for 2007 crash at Yogyakarta

The trial of Marwoto Komar began today in Indonesia. The former Garuda Indonesia captain is being tried as a criminal for allegedly causing a plane crash in which 21 people died. He could be sentenced to life in prison if he is convicted. The trial is expected to run for several months.

Marwoto Komar is believed to be first pilot to face criminal charges arising from an aircraft accident in Indonesia. He is charged with three counts of negligence and one count of deliberately destroying or damaging an aircraft, and causing death.

The Reuters news agency reported that in the course of the first day of the trial's proceedings in Sleman, on the island of Java, Prosecutor Mudim Aristo told a five-judge panel, "The defendant deliberately and against the law caused an accident, destroyed and damaged a plane which led to deaths."

Marwoto Komar has reportedly refused to accept the charges. His defense attorney, Muhammad Assegaf, maintains that Komar should not be tried under the Indonesian Criminal Code. Instead he should be subject to discipline under aviation laws. Many in the worldwide aviation community support this view, and are in fact appalled that criminal proceedings are being pursued in this case.

Background

Marwoto Komar was the pilot in command of Garuda Indonesia Flight GA200, a Boeing 737-400 that overran a runway at Yogyakarta, Indonesia in 2007, and burst into flames, killing 21 of the people on board. An investigation of the accident by Indonesia's National Transportation Safety Committee (NTSC) concluded, in essence, that the crash occurred due to pilot error. (See the NTSC's English Language Media Release about the GA 200 accident investigation for descriptive details.)

In February of this year, Marwoto Komar was arrested and charged with manslaughter. At that time, the Federation of Indonesian Pilots (FPI) immediately protested the arrest, and the International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations (IFALPA), an advocacy group representing more than 100,000 pilots in more than 95 countries worldwide, issued a statement in which they expressed concern about the criminalization of individuals involved in aviation accidents and incidents. Both the FPI and IFALPA contend that the criminal prosecution of Marwoto Komar and other pilots in such circumstances does little to promote air safety, and instead "may well foreclose further investigation for safety purposes."

Citing Attachment E of ICAO Annex 13, IFALPA "strongly insisted" that the principles "which hold that there should be no criminal liability without intent to do harm, be the standard to which the crew is held." This point of view is widely shared within the aviation community.

Criminalization of Accidents

The criminal proceedings against Marwoto Komar set a dangerous precedent. Clearly, if pilots believe they will face criminal prosecution over an accident, why would they ever cooperate with an investigation of the accident? The purpose of such trials as the present one seems to be to assign blame and exact punishment, a strategy which, at the end of the day, is seen as counterproductive to aviation safety.

Earlier this year, the Flight Safety Foundation (FSF) sponsored a panel discussion about criminal prosecutions in the wake of aircraft accidents at the European Aviation Safety Seminar in Bucharest, Romania. A press release announcing the event included the following statement:

"We are very concerned about recent attempts by prosecutors to turn accidents into crime scenes and to prosecute aviation professionals based on tragic mistakes, often using information and data that are provided voluntarily to improve aviation safety," said FSF President and CEO William R. Voss. "The safety of the traveling public depends on encouraging a climate of openness and cooperation following accidents. Overzealous prosecutions threaten to dry up vital sources of information and jeopardize safety."

Aircrew Buzz will continue to report new developments in this case as they occur.

RELATED: Click here to view all posts about Garuda Flt 200 on Aircrew Buzz.

[Photo Source]

Court orders Philippine Airlines to reinstate 1,400 cabin crew jobs, with back wages

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court (SC) of the Philippines ordered national flag carrier Philippine Airlines (PAL) to reinstate about 1,400 cabin crew who were illegally laid off by the carrier in 1998. The cabin crew jobs were eliminated during the Asian financial crisis, a period when Philippine Airlines was undergoing financial difficulties and labor disputes that led the carrier to temporarily shut down operations. The court decision is seen as a clear victory for the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (Fasap), which had filed suit against the carrier on behalf of the dismissed cabin crew.

According to an article about the court decision in the Manila Sun-Star, the Supreme Court "granted the petition filed by the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (Fasap) seeking a reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA) decision upholding PAL's retrenchment program."

The SC sustained the findings of the labor arbiter that found PAL guilty of illegal dismissal and ordered the reinstatement of the dismissed employees, saying the airline failed to comply with certain standards established under the law.

The high court said PAL failed to justify that the retrenchment is necessary and likely to prevent business losses; that the dismissal was done in good faith; and that it used reasonable criteria in ascertaining who would be dismissed and who would be retained among the employees, such as status, efficiency, seniority, physical fitness, age, and financial hardship for certain workers.

According to the SC, PAL initially decided to cut its fleet size to only 14 or "Plan 14," based on which plan, it retrenched more than 1,400 of its cabin crew personnel. However, PAL changed its mind and decided to retain 22 units of aircraft or "Plan 22" but has already retrenched more than what was necessary.

Such move, the court said, is "capricious and arbitrary" and in bad faith considering that more than 1,000 employees who had been working long with PAL lost their jobs, only to be recalled but assigned to lower positions.

The court ruled that PAL acted illegally "because it failed to take into account each cabin attendant's respective service record, thereby disregarding seniority and loyalty in the evaluation of overall employee performance."

The Sun-Star reported that, under the terms of the court decision, PAL is "directed to pay the dismissed employees their full back wages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits computed from the time of their separation up to the time of the actual reinstatement. When reinstatement is no longer feasible, the court ordered PAL to pay the back wages, in lieu of the reinstatement, and separation pay equal to one month's pay for every year of service."

NetJets flight attendant sues Jennifer Lopez over dog bite, injuries

A former NetJets flight attendant filed suit in New York late last week against Jennifer Lopez and her company, Nuyorican Productions, Inc., alleging that a dog belonging to the actress attacked her during a flight between Farmingdale, NY and Burbank, CA on July, 3, 2006. The flight attendant says that the dog, a German shepherd named Floyd, lunged at her as she passed by in the passenger cabin of the Gulfstream IV, and bit her pant leg. When the flight attendant twisted to get away from the dog, she fell, injuring her back.

According to documents filed in court, the flight attendant began treatment for back pain within days of the incident, but was unable to achieve relief from her pain. As a result of the injuries, the flight attendant had to have major surgery on her back in April of 2007, and she continues to undergo treatment.

The lawsuit alleges that the flight attendant's injuries are permanent and will require additional treatment. She has been unable to return to work. She is seeking $5 million in compensation. The flight attendant's attorney was quoted in a number of news reports such as this one in the New York Daily News, saying she is not out to capitalize on J. Lo's celebrity, and had made attempts to settle the case that were ignored. NetJets is not named in the suit.

Predictably, this story quickly went viral, spreading like wildfire around the Internet, especially on celebrity gossip websites. Once that happens, stories begin to mutate and become sensationalized, like an earlier story about Jennifer Lopez and a flight attendant that I wrote about  nearly two years ago.

If you are interested in the details of this incident, I suggest that you read the actual court documents (8-page 'pdf' file), posted to the Internet by TMZ.com, and that you take many of the accounts in the entertainment media with a grain of salt.

My sympathies are with the injured flight attendant.

Air Jamaica flight attendants awarded retroactive pay for their work on the ground

Flight attendants who worked for Air Jamaica between 2003 and 2005 are going to be paid retroactively for duties they carried out on the ground before and after flights, according to a recent news item on Radio Jamaica. The payments were awarded by an Industrial Disputes Tribunal (IDT) ruling handed down in February this year, following a five-year dispute between the airline and its cabin crew.

The article quoted President-General of the Bustamante Industrial Trade Union (BITU) Kavon Gayle, who said, "[Payments will be made] beginning this month, May and June...this payment will also be made to flight attendants who have left the company and those whose positions were made redundant in 2005 bearing in mind that the payments are retroactive from 2003 to 2005."

More than 500 flight attendants will receive retroactive special duty allowances that Air Jamaica failed to pay them for duties carried out before and after flights.

The premise of this case is similar to another I wrote about last month. In that case a flight attendant sued Israeli carrier Arkia Airlines for pay she says is owed her for work she did while on the ground. Two cases don't exactly make a trend, but these disputes do call attention to the widespread practice of not compensating flight attendants for work they do on the ground before and after flights, much of which is directly related to flight safety. Kudos to the Industrial Disputes Tribunal for their decision in the Air Jamaica case.

[Photo Source]

Aloha Airlines cargo operations to liquidate

Today, April 28, 2008, Aloha Airlines notified the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of its intention to convert its Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing to a Chapter 7 filing for liquidation. The move came after both bidders for the cargo operation withdrew their offers. Subsequently, Aloha's lender, GMAC Commercial Finance, said it would no longer provide cash to the carrier to continue operations. Aloha had shut down its passenger operations at the end of March, but its cargo service had continued to operate.

An article about the shutdown of Aloha's cargo operations in the Honolulu Advertiser quoted an Aloha attorney, who said simply, "We don't have any money." With that, Aloha's dedicated inter-island cargo service, which had been operating since 1985, came to a final halt. The Advertiser article said:

The move will put 300 of Aloha's cargo employees out of work. It also could jeopardize the sale of its contract services to Los Angeles-based Pacific Air Cargo. Pacific Air last week agreed to buy the 1,100-employee aviation services unit, which handles baggage duties, ramp duties and other ground services for carriers that serve Hawai'i.

Early last week, the Aloha Airlines pilots' union, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), asked the U.S. Bankruptcy court for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction that would make the sale of Aloha's cargo operations contingent on retaining the contract between the airline and the pilots. Later in the week, the pilots' union also voted to authorize a strike if their contract terms were not met, but they also announced that they would not strike before they learned the outcome of this week's Bankruptcy Court proceedings. With the company in liquidation, all of that is now moot.

In a report to the members of the Aloha unit of ALPA, the leadership of the Master Executive Council (MEC) explained:

...We arrived at Bankruptcy Court for the conclusion of the TRO hearings at 2:00 PM Monday. As soon as the Judge took the bench, attorneys for Aloha Airlines asked for a one-hour delay in order to conduct an emergency conference call with the Aloha Board of Directors, the attorneys for GMAC (which has continued to provide financing during the bankruptcy), and the creditors committee.

The court proceeding resumed about 3:30 PM. At that time, the attorney for Aloha Airlines stunned the courtroom by announcing that GMAC was refusing to continue financing, and that Aloha Airlines was seeking immediate approval from the court to convert the proceeding from a Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 liquidation. According to the company’s attorney, one of the two bidders had withdrawn from the cargo auction process Monday morning…and the remaining bidder had withdrawn from the process approximately one hour prior to the hearing. It appears that, at the end, GMAC raised the minimum price that it would accept to release collateral and also asked for the prospective purchaser to be responsible for air cargo operating expenses during the transition period while the approved purchaser awaited any necessary regulatory approvals. GMAC was adamant that they would NOT continue providing financing.

The Creditors Committee attorneys requested that the Judge refuse the company’s request, arguing that the air cargo operation was profitable and should be funded while the auction proceeded. However, GMAC was adamant that they would not provide any additional financing. The Judge attempted to prod GMAC, but acknowledged that he was unable to force GMAC to provide additional operating financing during the transition to a new owner.

In the end, Judge King reluctantly granted the motion of Aloha Airlines to convert the proceeding to liquidation. An Interim Trustee from the Office of the US Bankruptcy Trustee was appointed to oversee the liquidation of the company. Aloha Airlines operations were immediately ceased. Afternoon cargo operations were cancelled.

The message from ALPA's Aloha MEC expressed concerns about issues ranging from retirement, to insurance, to the processing of pilots' training records; more immediately, union officials expressed uncertainty about whether the pilots will receive a final paycheck tomorrow.

Plans are to keep the ALPA office open during normal business hours. Aloha pilots are asked to remain in touch with the MEC.

[Photo Source]

UPDATE May 1, 2008: According to an article in today's Honolulu Advertiser, "Saltchuk Resources Inc. said it reached an agreement with Aloha and its chief lender GMAC Commercial Finance LLC to purchase the shuttered air freight operations... Saltchuk said it plans to hire existing Aloha employees but did not say if it would retain all 300 of the company's air cargo employees."

Aloha Airlines pilots ask U.S. Bankruptcy Court to enforce their contract terms

The Aloha Airlines pilots have asked a U.S. Bankruptcy Court for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that would make the sale of Aloha's cargo operations contingent on abiding by the contract between Aloha Airlines and its pilots' union. Aloha Airlines ceased passenger operations on March 31, 2008. The sale of the airline's cargo operation is scheduled to take place later this week.

Aloha Airlines pilots, represented by the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), are asking the court to enforce contract provisions covering successorship and sales of Aloha's assets and operations, according to a news release issued by ALPA. The union asserts that Aloha management has repudiated the pilots' collective bargaining agreement during the past few weeks and has triggered a “major dispute” under the Railway Labor Act, which governs airline contract negotiations. ALPA alleges that the company "continues to ignore the pilots’ collective bargaining agreement by terminating pilots out of seniority order, recalling pilots out of seniority order, failing to respect job security provisions that require a prospective purchaser to employ the current pilots in seniority order, terminating the pilots’ health plan, and failing to provide furlough pay and benefits, among other actions."

“Our contract specifically outlines the steps that must be taken to protect pilot jobs,” said Capt. John Prater, ALPA President. “Aloha management signed this agreement with the pilots and ALPA is prepared to do whatever is necessary to ensure that Aloha management adheres to the contract and that our pilots’ jobs are preserved.”

ALPA claims that the Aloha management rebuffed the union's efforts to negotiate a smooth transition before, during, and after the sale of the cargo operations.

“Aloha’s flagrant disregard of our contract is outrageous,” said Capt. David Bird, chairman of the Aloha arm of ALPA. “Aloha’s actions not only affect our pilots’ job security, but jeopardizes the future of Hawaii’s cargo flying. We just want Aloha to abide by the contract it signed.”

The Aloha pilots are scheduled to meet today, April 23, 2008, "to discuss and conduct a strike authorization vote, the first step in calling a strike." ALPA warns that a strike may occur at any time following an affirmative strike vote.

ALPA has requested a hearing in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, April 24 to address the temporary restraining order.

UPDATE April 24, 2008: In their meeting last evening, the Aloha Airlines pilots "voted overwhelmingly" to authorize a strike of the carrier's cargo operations, according to the Honolulu Advertiser. The news article also mentioned that "about 150 or half of Aloha's pilots participated in the three-hour meeting and that "some of the membership have been forced to leave the state for employment while others could not get to Honolulu for the meeting."

Pilot wins contract lawsuit vs Bombardier Flexjet

The Dallas Morning News reported that a pilot has won a lawsuit against Bombardier Flexjet. The suit involved a contract dispute between the pilot and the fractional jet operator. The court ruled last week that the pilot's contract was "unenforceable," and that Flexjet "used deceptive practices in promising pilots promotions and training."

According to the news article, Flexjet first sued the pilot back in 2005 for failing to repay a portion of his training costs when he left the company. The pilot's contract stipulated that he must repay training costs unless he remained with the company for at least 24 months. He left after 17 months.

The pilot filed a counter-suit, "arguing that Flexjet had falsely promised rapid promotions for new pilots and training that would help them get their official rating quickly on various types of corporate jets."

"These promises turned out to be lies," he said, especially the part about becoming a captain and earning more than $50,000 a year, well above the initial pay of $32,000 a year. "We were cheap labor to them."

In an interview, [the pilot] said he thought it was particularly deceptive that the company emphasized to its customers that for safety reasons both captain and co-pilot would be fully rated on the planes flown. "I flew their planes for 17 months without my type rating," he said.

The pilot was awarded no damages in his counter-suit against Flexjet, and probably will have to bear his own legal costs. According to the Dallas Morning News article, the pilot has since gone to work for NetJets.

Garuda captain arrested, charged with manslaughter

Captain Marwoto Komar, the pilot in command (PIC) of a Garuda Indonesia Boeing 737-400 that crashed at Yogyakarta in March of 2007 has been arrested and charged with manslaughter. The accident occurred as Garuda Flight GA 200, with seven crew members and 133 passengers on board, arrived at Yogyakarta on a scheduled flight from Jakarta. Twenty-one people lost their lives after the aircraft overran the runway at Yogyakarta, broke through a fence, crossed a road, and came to rest in a rice paddy where it caught fire.

In October of 2007, Indonesia's National Transportation Safety Committee (NTSC) issued a report on the accident, as well as an English-language media release about their findings. The media release stated that the NTSC's main finding was that "...the flight crew’s compliance with procedures was not at a level to ensure the safe operation of the aircraft."

More specifically, the NTSC media release said this of Capt. Marwoto Komar:

The aircraft was flown at an excessive airspeed and steep flight path angle during the approach and landing, resulting in an unstabilized approach. The PIC did not follow company procedures that required him to fly a stabilized approach, and he did not abort the landing and go around when the approach was not stabilized. His attention was fixated or channelized on landing the aircraft on the runway and he either did not hear, or disregarded the [Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS)] alerts and warnings and calls from the copilot to go around.

Many in the international aviation community have expressed concern that the NTSC investigation fell short by not investigating more fully the reasons behind the actions of the captain, as well as his co-pilot, Gagam Jahman Rochman. The latter was accused of not following company procedures to "take control of the aircraft from the PIC when he saw that the pilot in command repeatedly ignored the GPWS alerts and warnings."

Upon hearing of Marwoto Komar's arrest, the Federation of Indonesian Pilots (FPI) staged a protest rally at the House of Representatives in Jakarta. The pilots, led by FPI president Manotar Napitupulu, told members of the House Commission in charge of transportation that this "criminalization of a pilot" could eventually affect flight safety. Their view is shared by many others.

The International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations (IFALPA), an advocacy group representing more than 100,000 pilots in more than 95 countries worldwide, issued a statement expressing concern over the arrest of Marwoto Komar, citing concerns that echo those of the FPI. Here is an excerpt from the IFALPA statement:

IFALPA believes that the circumstances of the accident as set forth in the final report of the Indonesian investigation authority leaves many serious questions concerning the crew actions prior to the accident. Central to these concerns are the underlying reasons for the reported behavior of Captain Marwoto Komar. Experienced pilots have considerable difficulty in attempting to explain what is reported in the context of normal airline operations.

The Federation believes that the explanations proffered by the report do not square with the collective experience of our members. The Federation has continually maintained that the report, while final, is in fact incomplete and that additional investigation into the underlying pathology of the crew actions is required to make certain that the factors contributing to the observed actions are fully identified. Unless this is done, there is little possibility that aviation safety in the area of
crew performance can be improved by the lessons of this accident. Clearly, a criminal prosecution at this time may well foreclose further investigation for safety purposes.

IFALPA is firmly of the belief that the criminalisation of individuals involved in accidents and incidents does little to improve air safety. Furthermore, IFALPA strongly insists that the principles recommended in Attachment E of ICAO Annex 13, which hold that there should be no criminal liability without intent to do harm, be the standard to which the crew is held. The Federation demands that any Indonesian criminal proceeding respect both these principles and the concept of due process.

The Federation expects that Captain Marwoto Komar will be released without the need to post a monetary bond as he has agreed to fully cooperate with the police investigation and clearly poses no danger to society. He remains a professional
who was involved in an unfortunate tragedy.

IFALPA will continue to closely monitor the criminal proceedings with the aim of ensuring that the judicial process in Indonesia is fundamentally fair and impartial for all crewmembers.

An article on the Australian news website News.co.au reports that Marwoto Komar's attorneys had requested that he be released from detention on bail, but that the request had been denied. The article quoted the Yogyakarta Police Chief, who said, "The letter from the suspect's lawyers has been accepted, but bail is not granted yet because we still need him for the investigation."

Aircrew Buzz will continue to follow this story, and details of new developments will be posted here as they become available.

Related: Click here to view all posts on Aircrew Buzz about Garuda Flt 200.

Jury convicts man who threatened Southwest flight attendant

Another day, another court ruling in the case of an unruly passenger. And another day of news media making light of the situation...

Carl William Persing, 41, was convicted by a jury of interfering with flight attendants and crew members. The felony conviction came after a three-day trial in U.S. District Court in Wilmington, NC.

Persing's trouble began on a Southwest Airlines flight this past September. According to a criminal complaint signed by an FBI agent, Persing and his girlfriend were "embracing, kissing and acting in a manner that made other passengers uncomfortable." A flight attendant asked them to stop. In response to that request, Persing threatened the flight attendant.

The flight attendant reported the threats made against him to the captain, and the couple were arrested when the aircraft landed at its destination, Raleigh-Durham. The judge later dismissed the charge against Persing's girlfriend.

WWAY TV3 reported that Persing was offered a plea deal before the trial started. He could have plead to a misdemeanor simple assault, but turned it down. A trial ensued and the jury found him guilty.

Persing will be sentenced on August 6. Assistant US Attorney John Bowler said that Persing will likely serve jail time for the federal felony conviction. After the verdict was handed down, the judge told Persing that he could fly on commercial and private aircraft only if traveling to and from court appearances.

That's the gist of the story. The man had his day in court, and after hearing the facts of the case the jury saw fit to convict him. What bothers me is that some of the news media are reporting on this case in a way that trivializes this kind of offense.

Many reports -- and especially the headlines -- focused on the couple's inappropriate behavior that prompted the flight attendant to intervene in the first place, not on the subsequent threats to the flight attendant. Moreover, this was done in a snickering 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink' kind of way.

Here are just a few examples of what I'm referring to:

Headline, from WECT in Wilmington: Mid-Air Make Out Lands Couple in Court

Headline from the Wilmington Star: Man in airline love case guilty of interfering with flight crew

Headline from the News & Observer: Frisky flier is guilty of bullying -- And the story begins with the sentence, "A California man is now a convicted felon for threatening a flight attendant who asked him and his girlfriend to stop their lusty cuddling on a Raleigh-bound flight."

The headline of an Associated Press story published on MSNBC: Man convicted for mile-high makeout - and the sub-heading reads, "Jury punishes affectionate passenger for interfering with flight"

There are more, but you get the idea. Headlines like these make it sound as though this guy was raked over the coals for being 'frisky' and 'amorous.' Persing was not tried and convicted for making out with his girlfriend on that flight. He was convicted -- by a jury -- of intimidating a flight attendant, making it difficult for him to do his job. Persing also threatened to 'have it out on the ground' with the flight attendant.  That's not cute or funny, as Persing now knows.

Okay, rant mode off. For now.

2006 Citation crash at Carlsbad spawns lawsuits

Early on the morning of January 24, 2006 a Cessna Citation 560, operated by JaxAir LLC, crashed on landing at McClellan-Palomar Airport in Carlsbad, CA. The aircraft's two pilots and two passengers were killed in the accident. The aircraft was destroyed.

Five lawsuits related to the accident now have been filed, according to an article in the North County Times. The article says that the lawsuits include allegations that San Diego County allowed a structure near the end of the runway that violated federal regulations and created a dangerous condition that caused the crash. Two of the lawsuits, filed on behalf of the deceased passengers, allege that the accident was caused by "negligence in the way the airplane was operated."

Bruce Lampert, the attorney representing the family of the co-pilot who died in the crash, said the plane was engaging in a common practice known as a "go around," in which a pilot has the discretion for any reason during a landing to "power up," or take off again and go around before trying to land again.

Federal regulations specify what the clearance should be around the runway, Lampert said.

"We believe there was an obstruction on the airport runway, in the environment of the airport runway, that was improper," Lampert said.

The two pilots killed in the accident were John C. Francis of Boise, Idaho, and James A. "Andy" Garratt of Hailey, Idaho. The two passengers who perished were Janet Shafran of Ketchum, Idaho, and Frank H. Jellinek Jr., of Rye, N.H.

Lawsuits filed on behalf of Shafran's and Jellinek's families allege that the two passengers did not die instantly. Those lawsuits and the cases filed on behalf of Francis's and Garratt's families allege that each of the four people killed in the crash suffered injuries that included burns and smoke inhalation.

In separate lawsuits, Shafran's family and Jellinek's family are suing San Diego County, the estates of the pilot and co-pilot, the company that owned the plane, Goship Air LLC, and the company that operated the plane, Jaxair LLC.

Those two companies, Garratt's family and Francis' family are suing only the county. The lawsuit that Goship and Jaxair filed together March 5 against the county alleges that the plane was "fully capable of continued safe flight" during the attempted go-around procedure, but that the antenna and ladder structure "intruded upwards into the airspace at the departure end of the runway," causing the crash.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has yet to issue a final report, but the preliminary report on this accident posted on the NTSB website indicates that the crew were executing a visual approach in visual meteorological conditions at the time of the accident on Runway 24 at McClellan-Palomar Airport. The aircraft impacted the localizer antenna platform during an apparent aborted landing.

According to numerous witnesses, the aircraft came across the runway threshold at a speed significantly higher than they had observed with other aircraft of the same or similar model.

It reportedly touched down more than 1,500 feet down the runway, whereupon the thrust reverses were deployed and then ultimately stowed. The aircraft then lifted off the surface near the departure end of the runway, but its landing gear impacted the localizer platform structure, and its left wing tip collided with a platform access ladder attached to the far left side of the platform.

The aircraft then traveled approximately 400 feet passed [sic] that point, whereupon it settled to the terrain, and then impacted much of the external surface of a 150 foot long commercial self-storage building.

Just after coming to rest at the west end of the storage building, the aircraft burst into flames, and except for the empennage and engines, was almost totally consumed by the ensuing fire. [NTSB Report SEA06MA047]

The attorney for the Shafran family commented that there did not appear to have been any problem with the airplane and that Francis was a well-qualified and highly recommended pilot.

[Photo Source]