FWAAA

Agreed. If the Alaska 737 was pushed back into the UA 757, then AS is liable for the collision due to its negligence. AS should hire and properly supervise an adequate number of wing-walkers. Someone (a negligent AS wing-walker) failed to advise the AS pushback tractor driver that there was a UA 757 blocking the alley. The cost of this damage could easily pay the annual compensation of several wing-walkers. They're effective insurance when they do their jobs.

NewportGuy

So we must assume the walker was absent from his assigned location? Otherwise how does he not see the planes are that close and about to hit?

DENviaLAX

Exactly. And from what I hear, the guy pushing the Alaska plane missed the center line anyway. If not for that, there would have been enough room. Regardless, the wing walker is still at fault here. Their sole purpose is to prevent situations like this. How you don't see the wing getting that close to another plane, when you're supposed to be watching exactly that, is incomprehensible to me.

I could understand if the tail of their plane hit the UA plane because it was sticking too far out, because that would be harder to judge from the vantage point of the wing walker. But the wingtip? Come on man.

tom911

Does Alaska outsource ground handling at LAX? Hard to believe it's been 10 years now since they replaced over 500 ground workers at SEA.

SPLITTERZ

Either way, pushback shouldn't have been initiated if clearance even appeared tight. Safety First.

fly18725

Yes, to their subsidiary Horizon Air.

flyerCO

The problem is everything appears tight at LAX. Also while AS will surely be on the hook for their plane, they can claim that proportional responsibility puts some of the blame on UAL for inappropriately parking their aircraft. It shouldn't have pulled in without ground crew if the auto system was broken. AS will surely pay, but how much is the question.

WhIteSidE

Yeah, I'm really surprised a wing walker didn't notice this. On the other hand, I've noticed several instances lately on various airlines where wing walkers lagged well behind the wing they were supposed to be guarding. I'm sure AS will have retraining on that.

On the topic of liability, does anyone know if LAX requires ATC clearance prior to push back into the alley? One LAWA document I found via a quick google search suggests it does, but I'm not sure. In any case, if clearance was required, there will probably be some liability on either ATC (if they gave clearance to push back before confirming that UA was clear), or on UA (if they announced clear of the alley without being clear).

Thankfully this incident was minor, but consider how bad it could have been had an aircraft exiting the runway declared clear, but not actually cleared the hold line.

uclacolumbiaunc

not a surprise.

The terminals at LAX are way too close to each other. The lack of space between terminals creates traffic congestion not only at airside taxiway, but also on the horseshoe roadways landside between terminals. Only one aircraft can push back at a time, so sometimes one aircraft has to wait until the other one from the terminal next to it leaves before pushing back.

No matter how much phony renovation they will have in each terminals, they won't be able to fix the traffic congestion, airside or landside.

Hipplewm

No matter how you slice it, if one aircraft is parked, for WHATEVER reason and another one runs into it, it would be monumentally difficult to blame the stopped aircraft.

physioprof

That's what I was thinking. Doesn't a moving vehicle always owe a duty of care to avoid a stopped vehicle?

rovinmoses

We were on the Alaska flight being pushed back when we came to a shuddering halt. Sitting in 17 a&b had a great view (wish I knew how to post my pic) of the situation and thought we were in for a long, long night. However, once the aircraft were separated and we returned to the gate, Alaska directed us to another gate & aircraft with the same crew; arrived at PDX only two hours late!! And we're greeted with the good news that Alaska was giving each passenger $400 in flight credit for the delay!! Wonder if United did the same.

flyerCO

Rules of the road, don't apply to airlines. Also even if the rules of the road applied, that is not always the case. AS can argue that UA was negligent in parking their aircraft in a position that made it appear clear of the alleyway. If they had been parked properly then it would be 100% AS fault. I'm sure they were trying to ensure other aircraft could move, but that's why they're not supposed to pull in at all if the auto system is non-functioning.

stevneil

Wonder if AS will give each United passenger a $400 flight credit?

warehouse341

Your funny. Being on the United flight they did not care. Once we pulled away from your plane and got to the gate it was like a normal arriving flight. I would have been shocked if they offered anything. The sad thing about it is I thought this was going to be the first flight since I can remember that would arrive on time or early. Nope...mechanical issue turns into a accident.

One other thing I found interesting and maybe someone with more knowledge can comment on but here is more information from what the pilot told us. This is a summary

The pilot informed us that we had to stop short of the gate due to a mechanical issue with the automatic parking system and that we could not pull forward because they turned off the engines and had to wait for a tow in.

Why could the plane not pull in all the way manually if the proper ground crew was available? If the ground crew was not available for manually pull in why did they not wait to turn off engines? Assuming gas consumption may be a reason? The whole accident seems like so many things went wrong on so many levels.