Passenger sues airline for turbulence?

mulletman · 10-13-2011, 09:15 AM

Wait, really?

Colleen O'Neal, Continental Passenger, Sues Airline Over Turbulence

Chinchilla of Doom · 10-13-2011, 09:21 AM

Wow. People are money hungry.

She is claiming it stopped her from getting a better job.

**Role Modlin** · 10-13-2011, 09:47 AM

No judge in his right mind would even consider awarding this woman anything.

Chinchilla of Doom · 10-13-2011, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Role Modlin

No judge in his right mind would even consider awarding this woman anything.

Well the problem is that judges must not be in their right minds, because stupid lawsuits like this are won all the time.

**Role Modlin** · 10-13-2011, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clazzic

Well the problem is that judges must not be in their right minds, because stupid lawsuits like this are won all the time.

You are right about that.

**thesteve** · 10-13-2011, 10:03 AM

Meh...if the facts are correct, I think she at least makes a good point. When a 450 mile flight takes two hours, there must be some glitch in the system. In the MSN article that the Huffington Post references, she claims that when the plane landed the pilots, crew and passengers all took a big group photo to celebrate not crashing.

mulletman · 10-13-2011, 10:03 AM

Agreed on both counts.

I'm hoping United fights this tooth and nail, simply because it would set an insane precedent for future insanity.

**Role Modlin** · 10-13-2011, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thesteve

Meh...if the facts are correct, I think she at least makes a good point. When a 450 mile flight takes two hours, there must be some glitch in the system. In the MSN article that the Huffington Post references, she claims that when the plane landed the pilots, crew and passengers all took a big group photo to celebrate not crashing.

Then she should be celebrating with them that her greedy butt is still alive.

bobthecockroach · 10-13-2011, 10:10 AM

Let's try an analogy.

You are having surgery. After the operation, while you're recovering, a nurse comes and whispers in your ear that the doctor dropped the scalpel on the floor during the operation, then picked it up and continued anyway. You spend the whole day worrying about what new disease you might have before finding out you're OK.

You, personally, might not sue for malpractice, but it doesn't seem unreasonable.

If the airline knowingly set aside passenger safety for the sake of the saving money or making their jobs easier, then I think she has a case.

There isn't enough information at this point to say whether the airline did such a thing or not. If we knew that they had not, then the lawsuit would be frivolous. If we knew that they had, then the lawsuit would be expected. Since we don't know either way, the lawsuit just seems normal to me. That's why we have a court system in the first place. To resolve ambiguities of guilt.

**Role Modlin** · 10-13-2011, 10:15 AM

Had there been physical injuries...I would be more sympathetic.

mulletman · 10-13-2011, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thesteve

Meh...if the facts are correct, I think she at least makes a good point. When a 450 mile flight takes two hours, there must be some glitch in the system. In the MSN article that the Huffington Post references, she claims that when the plane landed the pilots, crew and passengers all took a big group photo to celebrate not crashing.

There's no way a flight crew would do that. If in fact they had made an errant decision somewhere along the line, they'd be busy with the NASA paperwork before they left the flight deck. There's literally a 0% chance that happened, until pictures are shown.

Yeah, the 2 hour duration does seem a bit off, but is really not that excessive if you consider the fact that they may have diverted to the alternate airport, and then may have gotten stacked up in a hold along with everyone else who was flying in or out of those airports at the time. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the diversion cost them 15-20 minutes or so, and then they spend 45 minutes or more in a hold... which is generally what happens when the weather turns to crap.

The point is this. The dispatchers who work for the airline thought it was safe. They have operational control over a flight, and can cancel it at any time. The pilots thought it was safe, they also have operational control. And apparently, no one else at the airline who has operational control thought the conditions warranted a cancellation either. This would include the Director of Operations, the Director of Maintenance, likely the Chief Pilot....

Lastly, the conditions were legal, as there has been no certificate action taken by the FAA against either the crew or the company.

So... everyone at the company who has the ability to cancel a flight made the decision that it was safe. The FAA agrees that the airplane was operated in accordance with regulations, and the company operating specifications. The outcome of the flight was successful. Other than a delay and some unpleasant weather conditions, I see nothing even out of the ordinary here.

This is a textbook case of a person thinking that they know anything about what's going on, or what should be going on concerning a commercial flight. And based on their incorrect perception of wrongdoing, due to their ignorance of the situation, they have become irate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

Let's try an analogy.

You are having surgery. After the operation, while you're recovering, a nurse comes and whispers in your ear that the doctor dropped the scalpel on the floor during the operation, then picked it up and continued anyway. You spend the whole day worrying about what new disease you might have before finding out you're OK.

You, personally, might not sue for malpractice, but it doesn't seem unreasonable.

If the airline knowingly set aside passenger safety for the sake of the saving money or making their jobs easier, then I think she has a case.

There isn't enough information at this point to say whether the airline did such a thing or not. If we knew that they had not, then the lawsuit would be frivolous. If we knew that they had, then the lawsuit would be expected. Since we don't know either way, the lawsuit just seems normal to me. That's why we have a court system in the first place. To resolve ambiguities of guilt.

That's a poor analogy, as in your situation you have the outside input of the nurse, who would apparently have first hand knowledge.

Here's a more reasonable analogy. You are having surgery. After the operation, while you're recovering, you feel a bit of pain. You conclude, by yourself and without any discussion with the doctor, that the doctor dropped the scalpel on the floor during the operation, then picked it up and continued anyway. You spend the whole day worrying about what new disease you might have before finding out you're OK.

Travis · 10-19-2011, 05:33 PM

Well we're all ignoring the big question.

This was a Lubbock woman on a flight from Collie Station to somewhere. So is she a Red Raider or an aggy? Or just some stupid chick? Should we take bets?

I have $20 that says she's an aggy.

Bryan · 10-20-2011, 07:53 AM

watch it now! Aggies don't lie cheat or steal, and she's doing all three. So she must be a Red Raider.