Airline Corporate Negligence

Attorneys Pursuing Accountability for Airline Corporate Negligence

A common factor contributing to plane crashes is airline corporate negligence. Many crashes can be attributed to decisions that were made in the boardroom, which have bearing on the actions in the cockpit. The airline is responsible for the proper training of its flight crew, maintenance of the plane and overall operation during flight. When the airline fails to meet its duties in any of these areas, disaster can strike.

With decades of experience handling plane crashes and helicopter accidents, we have seen an unfortunate trend in charter company and airline corporate negligence, tracing back to what could have been preventable deaths or injuries. This negligence often stems from a corporate culture that has consistently placed profits over safety. Charter plane companies and large airlines pressure their own employees in a number of ways in an attempt to increase their profit margins. Just as planes are adding more and more seats and offering fewer and fewer amenities in order to make more money on each flight, similar cuts are being made in common sense safety considerations in order to boost profits.

Wisner Baum is recognized as a leader in aviation accident law. Our firm has handled over 70 commercial airline crashes and incidents across the nation and internationally, including crashes involving airline corporate negligence.

Common Flight Safety Issues Created by Airline Corporate Negligence

• Flight Turnaround: Employees are pushed to be on time to the gate so that planes can be turned around faster-resulting in more profits for the airline. This means that pilots can be rushed during pre-flight safety checks if they are delayed in taking off. Any maintenance work or mechanical issues may also be hurried to meet the flight deadlines. When a flight is delayed it results in more paperwork, ticket cancellations or rescheduling for passengers and a host of other extra work that the company must do to make up for the late plane. This adds up to lost profits and everyone from pilots to mechanics can be pressured to get planes in the air on time, even if that means neglecting crucial safety steps.
• Aborted Landings: It is not uncommon for weather conditions or imperfect positioning to lead a pilot to feel that they should perform a “go-around,” which is the colloquial term for bypassing the airstrip and performing a second landing attempt. Because of airline corporate pressure placing an emphasis on timing, some pilots are hesitant to abort a landing even if they believe it to be unsafe. An aborted landing and re-attempt takes more time, consumes more fuel, and requires additional paperwork-which also takes more time and slows turnaround. Many pilots are caused to feel under pressure to avoid “go-arounds” because of fear it will look bad on their record, and will require uncomfortable demands for explanation by their superiors. A perfect example of this is the 1999 crash in Little Rock, Arkansas, American Airlines Flight 1420. The flight crew decided to land during a severe thunderstorm despite warnings by air traffic control. Eleven people were killed in the crash-the captain and ten passengers.
• Insufficient Training: Airlines are responsible for the proper training and supervision of flight crew. However, we have found that many pilots are not properly trained in all aspects of their plane. For example, airlines install automatic braking systems on planes, but often fail to provide sufficient training on the devices. Excuses are made that the avoidance of the system is intended to keep pilots in control by not allowing them to rely on automatic systems. The truth is that regular utilization of the auto brake system requires more brake maintenance and thus cuts into profits. The 2013 crash of Asiana Airlines Flight OZ214 was due, in part, to inadequate training of its pilots concerning the auto-throttle system. The pilots were confused by the system. They expected the auto-throttle to keep the plane at a safe speed. However, they did not know that it could not do so while at the setting they selected for it. Because they relied entirely on the automation, they did not look outside their windshield, and so failed to realize that they were too slow and too low during the landing approach. The plane’s landing gear and the tail struck the seawall that rises from the San Francisco Bay just before the runway threshold, resulting in the Boeing 777 crashing and breaking apart along the runway at SFO. Many passengers and crew were badly injured and three passengers were killed.