Timeline for What Happens when Passenger Refuses to Fly Boeing 737 Max?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 14, 2019 at 14:43 | comment | added | David Richerby | @smci I don't see how any of this is on-topic. The question is whether a passenger has any recourse if they believe that the plane is unsafe but the airline, regulators, etc., believe it is safe. Obviously, Boeing's behaviour is relevant to a discussion of this topic, but we are not a discussion forum and comments are not for discussion. If you want to have a discussion, please take it to chat. | |
| Mar 14, 2019 at 13:49 | comment | added | smci | ...so the US FAA reportedly had more information in 2018 than other world air-safety bodies, plus closer access to Boeing, yet they pushed a lower safety standard than the rest of the world. Exactly who knew what when in the chain of the command at the FAA yet 'deemed' it safe, and the unhealthy relationship between Boeing lobbyists, the US govt and FAA, and how much arm-twisting was done over at the FAA, are likely to be the subject of multiple investigations, some criminal. | |
| Mar 14, 2019 at 13:39 | comment | added | smci | No, Boeing (+ airlines?) grossly misled both the FAA and the public; like the Takata airbag scandal. To what extent individual airlines knew about the true risk is TBD. Your 'deemed safe' is evidence that Boeing misled people. It clearly was serious enough to stop using the planes, and 346 dead people + underreported near-accidents prove that point. Worse still, this week even after Chinese + EU air-safety bodies had suspended the 737MAX, Boeing was still reportedly lobbying the US not to suspend it. By the way, both US FAA and airlines had 2018 reports from US pilots of near-accidents. | |
| Mar 14, 2019 at 13:28 | comment | added | David Richerby | @smci There was a known safety issue which was not deemed serious enough to stop using the planes. That is the period the question was asked in and, at that point, there was no recourse for customers who refused to fly on them, because the planes were deemed safe enough. Now, there are no flights using these planes, so there are no customers refusing to fly and the question of recourse is moot. If an airline is unable to fly a passenger because the plane bas been grounded, the passenger has the usual recourse for that, but I didn't think you were talking about that case. | |
| Mar 14, 2019 at 12:50 | comment | added | smci | But since at least 3Q/2018, many airlines have been knowingly selling tickets on a known-dangerous plane that has had two fatal accidents plus more near-accidents (in the US). (I personally avoided flying LionAir last Christmas for exactly this reason). You're suggesting passengers had no legal right to demand a change or cancellation on those grounds. I repeat that this answer is nonsense (as per my earlier comment that somehow got deleted). | |
| Mar 14, 2019 at 12:43 | comment | added | smci | @DavidRicherby: why are you totally ignoring what I said? There has been a known safety issue since at least 2018 with the 737MAX MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) that killed 157 people on LionAir + 189 people on the Ethiopian Airlines crash, also US pilots had been complaining about it in 2018, and now Boeing officially acknowledged it. It's not a question of passengers not "wanting" to fly on a particular plane model; as of 3/13, airlines are not legally able to fly the 737. Hence unable to fulfil their end of the contract | |
| Mar 14, 2019 at 10:25 | comment | added | David Richerby | @smci The airline is under no obligation to refund or rebook just because the passenger doesn't want to fly on a particular plane, so there is no recourse there. A credit card chargeback would be a breach of your contract with the airline and leave you liable to being sued. | |
| Mar 14, 2019 at 5:20 | comment | added | smci | In this particular case there was a legitimate safety issue, which the manufacturer documentedly knew about for at least 5 months (quite possibly longer), and neither adequately fixed nor revised their pilot training simulators. "No recourse" is a meaningless generality. There is obviously passenger recourse through refund and rebooking requests, cancellations, credit-card refunds/chargebacks, also Boeing would be feeling major heat from their airline clients for this. | |
| Mar 13, 2019 at 15:30 | comment | added | TRiG | I disagree, @dan-klasson. The answer is there: No recourse. That's an answer. The rest is commentary, but it doesn't detract from the answer: in fact, it adds to it | |
| Mar 11, 2019 at 14:33 | history | undeleted | pearlvfr | ||
| Mar 11, 2019 at 14:22 | history | deleted | pearlvfr | via Vote | |
| Mar 11, 2019 at 14:20 | review | First posts | |||
| Mar 11, 2019 at 14:23 | |||||
| Mar 11, 2019 at 14:18 | history | answered | pearlvfr | CC BY-SA 4.0 |