Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > United Airlines | MileagePlus
Reload this Page >

United claims Goose strike, Passenger sues because 'they're lying.'

United claims Goose strike, Passenger sues because 'they're lying.'

Old Jan 24, 19, 9:11 am
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Kitchener, ON, Canada
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 1,234
United claims Goose strike, Passenger sues because 'they're lying.'

Just saw this... News Link.

Apparently, passengers enroute from ORD to LHR were diverted to (ironically) Goose Bay, Newfoundland after a bird strike broke a windshield.

Theodore Liaw, a United Million Miler, is suing because a pilot told him there was no bird strike at all. According to Liaw, what really happened is maintenance techs over-torqued the bolts holding the windshield. According to the lawsuit, the results would have been catastrophic, which is why United lied.
-------

I have no dog in this fight. Just passing along the information. I will say I was prepared to write him off as a crazy, until I saw he's flown over 1M miles with United, so ostensibly, the guy may actually know what he's talking about.
Boogie711 is offline  
Old Jan 24, 19, 9:37 am
  #2  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bellingham/Gainesville
Programs: UA-G MM, Priority Club Platinum, Avis First, Hertz 5*, Red Lion
Posts: 1,849
Discovery could be intersting as one of the items being litigated is the following:
Adding insult to injury, during that same call, United’s customer service representative told Plaintiff that the reason the passengers of Flight 931 were kept on board the aircraft for 8 hours in Goose Bay was because “the Canadian customs didn’t allow us to enter.” That explanation also seemed incredibly improbable. Goose Bay Airport is an international airport, and thus is perfectly equipped to process any non-Canadian travelers.In fact, Delta Airlines Flight 70 (Atlanta to Amsterdam) had made an emergency landing at Goose Bay on October 27, 2017, and all the passengers on that flight were able to de-plane without incident.
prestonh is offline  
Old Jan 24, 19, 9:39 am
  #3  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: KEWR
Programs: Marriott Platinum
Posts: 571
Originally Posted by Boogie711 View Post
Just saw this... News Link.

Apparently, passengers enroute from ORD to LHR were diverted to (ironically) Goose Bay, Newfoundland after a bird strike broke a windshield.

Theodore Liaw, a United Million Miler, is suing because a pilot told him there was no bird strike at all. According to Liaw, what really happened is maintenance techs over-torqued the bolts holding the windshield. According to the lawsuit, the results would have been catastrophic, which is why United lied.
-------

I have no dog in this fight. Just passing along the information. I will say I was prepared to write him off as a crazy, until I saw he's flown over 1M miles with United, so ostensibly, the guy may actually know what he's talking about.
So hes flown 1M miles without a single second at the controls of an airplane, hardly knows what hes talking about.

Those with any semblance of flying experience can see right through the inconsistencies of this story.
JVPhoto, ajGoes and nancypants like this.
clubord is offline  
Old Jan 24, 19, 9:43 am
  #4  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: SFO
Posts: 3,297
Originally Posted by clubord View Post


So hes flown 1M miles without a single second at the controls of an airplane, hardly knows what hes talking about.

Those with any semblance of flying experience can see right through the inconsistencies of this story.
Such as ???
malgudi is offline  
Old Jan 24, 19, 9:44 am
  #5  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bellingham/Gainesville
Programs: UA-G MM, Priority Club Platinum, Avis First, Hertz 5*, Red Lion
Posts: 1,849
Originally Posted by clubord View Post


So hes flown 1M miles without a single second at the controls of an airplane, hardly knows what hes talking about.

Those with any semblance of flying experience can see right through the inconsistencies of this story.
so the pilot statements are inaccurate?
nexusCFX likes this.
prestonh is offline  
Old Jan 24, 19, 10:09 am
  #6  
TA
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: if it's Thursday, this must be Belgium
Programs: UA 1K MM
Posts: 6,180
So what? The guy could ask a hundred different people what happened to the flight and receive a hundred different answers, but what does it matter?

UA, at its sole discretion (with some possibility of review by the DOT/BTS/etc I believe), determines and publishes the reason for its delays or cancellations. Just because a guy heard from someone random (even "a pilot" or a gate agent) that the reason was X doesn't make that the final reason that the airline has to compensate or be legally responsible for. Those people, even if credible, are probably not even aware of the comprehensive true causes of the incident.

Not saying I'm completely on UA's side but this is a waste of a court's resources. If it's critical that an airline be absolutely exhaustive about the dozen potential "whys" of every flight cancellation or delay, then that should be written into the legislation / policy. I'd love to see the airlines have to interview 10 different people to write an essay on the cause of every single delay, and then be 2nd guessed by passengers who know better.
ajGoes likes this.

Last edited by TA; Jan 24, 19 at 10:25 am
TA is offline  
Old Jan 24, 19, 10:31 am
  #7  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bellingham/Gainesville
Programs: UA-G MM, Priority Club Platinum, Avis First, Hertz 5*, Red Lion
Posts: 1,849
Originally Posted by TA View Post
So what? The guy could ask a hundred different people what happened to the flight and receive a hundred different answers, but what does it matter?

UA, at its sole discretion (with some possibility of review by the DOT/BTS/etc I believe), determines and publishes the reason for its delays or cancellations. Just because a guy heard from someone random (even "a pilot" or a gate agent) that the reason was X doesn't make that the final reason that the airline has to compensate or be legally responsible for. Those people, even if credible, are probably not even aware of the comprehensive true causes of the incident.

Not saying I'm on UA's side but this is a waste of a court's resources. If it's critical that an airline be absolutely exhaustive about the dozen potential "whys" of every flight cancellation or delay, then that should be written into the legislation / policy. I'd love to see the airlines have to interview 10 different people to write an essay on the cause of every single delay.
On the face, there are two answers to the cause of the windshield failure, not 'hundred'. That is what the lawsuit is about and will be a key part of the discovery process should the suit move forward. Once it is in the court's hands it is not 'solely' in UA's discretion and the court spends little time on these things until they go to trial anyways, usually 5-10 min pre-trial hearings and they will probably automatically assign it to mediation or magistrate to begin with. I expect UA won't want this to go into the public system anyways and will settle because they want none of their inner workings on decision making publicly discovered so they will settle with a water-tight NDA unless dismissed. I haven't seen the evidence or depositions so not sure on the merits.
prestonh is offline  
Old Jan 24, 19, 10:32 am
  #8  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Kitchener, ON, Canada
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 1,234
Originally Posted by TA View Post
UA, at its sole discretion (with some possibility of review by the DOT/BTS/etc I believe), determines and publishes the reason for its delays or cancellations.
...
If it's critical that an airline be absolutely exhaustive about the dozen potential "whys" of every flight cancellation or delay, then that should be written into the legislation / policy. I'd love to see the airlines have to interview 10 different people to write an essay on the cause of every single delay, and then be 2nd guessed by passengers who know better.
I think even you would agree there is a WORLD of difference between "the flight was diverted because of a mechanical failure" and "We're going to claim it was a bird strike publicly, just so we don't admit we almost killed everyone on board due to negligence."
Boogie711 is offline  
Old Jan 24, 19, 10:33 am
  #9  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: MBS/FNT/LAN
Programs: UA 1K, HH Gold, Mariott Gold
Posts: 9,072
Originally Posted by prestonh View Post
so the pilot statements are inaccurate?
No, but fast and loose with the facts on occasion.

https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unit...ket-agent.html
jhayes_1780 is offline  
Old Jan 24, 19, 10:40 am
  #10  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Indianapolis
Programs: Hilton-Diamond Lifetime Platinum AA UA, WN-CP, SPG Gold.
Posts: 5,988
Glass does crack, just like it did in the China Glass Bridge.

Glad the plane landed, and the pilot did a great job.

i have over a million miles...

I did land in a cornfield once, had engine problems,,

we we put a temporary fence around the plane so the cows would not eat the wings..

the.bird strike could have happened during the climb up to 40, viberstion did the rest..

satman40 is offline  
Old Jan 24, 19, 10:42 am
  #11  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bellingham/Gainesville
Programs: UA-G MM, Priority Club Platinum, Avis First, Hertz 5*, Red Lion
Posts: 1,849
Originally Posted by jhayes_1780 View Post
No, but fast and loose with the facts on occasion.

https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unit...ket-agent.html
I'll let you dispute this one, I for one would appreciate getting on the ground alive. YMMV :
Flight 931s copilot quickly pushed his weight against what was left of the third and last layer of the cockpit window, which may have prevented the entire window from breaking during the descent to Goose Bay.
downinit likes this.
prestonh is offline  
Old Jan 24, 19, 10:48 am
  #12  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,654
This kind of thing seems like a precursor to make United rethink its recent move to “more accurate” and honest descriptions of flight delays we now see on flight status updates. I predict a return to generic labels in the future if there is any risk of liability from what may be reported.
RoyalFlush likes this.
HeadInTheClouds is offline  
Old Jan 24, 19, 10:48 am
  #13  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
Programs: CO Silver, HHonors Gold, Marriott Silver
Posts: 982
Originally Posted by TA View Post
So what? The guy could ask a hundred different people what happened to the flight and receive a hundred different answers, but what does it matter?

UA, at its sole discretion (with some possibility of review by the DOT/BTS/etc I believe), determines and publishes the reason for its delays or cancellations. Just because a guy heard from someone random (even "a pilot" or a gate agent) that the reason was X doesn't make that the final reason that the airline has to compensate or be legally responsible for. Those people, even if credible, are probably not even aware of the comprehensive true causes of the incident.

Not saying I'm completely on UA's side but this is a waste of a court's resources. If it's critical that an airline be absolutely exhaustive about the dozen potential "whys" of every flight cancellation or delay, then that should be written into the legislation / policy. I'd love to see the airlines have to interview 10 different people to write an essay on the cause of every single delay, and then be 2nd guessed by passengers who know better.
It's about presenting enough of a case to warrant discovery to determine if this was an "act of god" or something for which United is liable. For better or worse, the US relies heavily on liability as the basis for holding people and corporations accountable, instead of a stronger civil regulatory framework.

The area I was struggling with was more related to what the damages were rather than the question of liability. Even if United is liable, that doesn't mean there is sufficient harm to warrant any award. I think the damages piece is the more challenging question given nobody did in fact suffer serious long term physical harm.
AceReport likes this.
cmdinnyc is offline  
Old Jan 24, 19, 10:56 am
  #14  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bellingham/Gainesville
Programs: UA-G MM, Priority Club Platinum, Avis First, Hertz 5*, Red Lion
Posts: 1,849
Originally Posted by cmdinnyc View Post
It's about presenting enough of a case to warrant discovery to determine if this was an "act of god" or something for which United is liable. For better or worse, the US relies heavily on liability as the basis for holding people and corporations accountable, instead of a stronger civil regulatory framework.

The area I was struggling with was more related to what the damages were rather than the question of liability. Even if United is liable, that doesn't mean there is sufficient harm to warrant any award. I think the damages piece is the more challenging question given nobody did in fact suffer serious long term physical harm.
the precedent is that in the US you can't hold pax on the plane more than 3 hours without giving them the option of letting them off, in this case it was 8 hours (allegation 21) so regardless of whether you believe there was harm, by legal definition and precedent I believe there could be liability. Whether it is UA's or not, that may be up to the court but I find it very interesting that it is always happening in Goose Bay with UA and not Delta.
prestonh is offline  
Old Jan 24, 19, 11:08 am
  #15  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: IAH
Programs: DL Plat
Posts: 123
When did this supposed bird strike occur? A bird strike at cruise does seem highly unlikely... if it occurred earlier in the flight during climb out, why did they get all the way to Goose Bay? Something doesnt add up...
Continited is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: