News Forum - Eight-figure payouts loom for Singapore Airlines injured passengers

[Thaiger]

Passengers with severe injuries from the terrifying Singapore Airlines flight turbulence could be in line for eight-figure compensation, says top lawyer. Following the extreme turbulence encountered by Singapore Airlines Flight SQ321 this week, passengers with spinal and brain injuries might seek massive payouts, with one legal expert suggesting claims could reach easily into seven and … …

The story Eight-figure payouts loom for Singapore Airlines injured passengers as seen on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

[Pinetree]

Not so fast.  Its not that easy for passengers to prove negligence in a case like this.  Under the Montreal Convention, previously the Warsaw Convention, the way that cases are considered and damages are arrived at is far from straightforward.  SA may well freely offer a compensation package to the passengers, but it will be nowhere close to 7 figures. Otherwise a legal case against SA will take years, maybe even  decades to be resolved. 

 https://plaintiffmagazine.com/recent-issues/item/injuries-on-international-flights

[Grumpish]

1 hour ago, Pinetree said:

Not so fast.  Its not that easy for passengers to prove negligence in a case like this.  Under the Montreal Convention, previously the Warsaw Convention, the way that cases are considered and damages are arrived at is far from straightforward.  SA may well freely offer a compensation package to the passengers, but it will be nowhere close to 7 figures. Otherwise a legal case against SA will take years, maybe even  decades to be resolved. 

 https://plaintiffmagazine.com/recent-issues/item/injuries-on-international-flights

And was it negligence? If it was clear air turbulence -  and it is is not clear at the moment if it was - then as you have already pointed out, it is not something that is predictable or detectable.  

[Pinetree]

36 minutes ago, Grumpish said:

And was it negligence? If it was clear air turbulence -  and it is is not clear at the moment if it was - then as you have already pointed out, it is not something that is predictable or detectable.  

It was, in my view, an unavoidable and unpredictable incident. We've all been there.  After an over night flight, we get woken up, we all troop off to the toilet to freshen up and the cabin crew get ready for the breakfast service.  Meanwhile the flight crew maneuver around isolated  thunderstorms 'as best they can and judge the chance of bad turbulence to be at a minimum. Then bang, CAT, unpredicted and  undetectable. Just pure bad luck. Those not strapped in should have been and those mobile got caught out. 

[Vigo]

The airline will have no say in settlements offered, unless the airline is paying the compensation, and that is unlikely. Allianz Lloyds Syndicate is the lead underwriter on the line slip and as per general consensus it will appoint the adjuster who will appoint the legal counsel, which is usually the same entity used by other underwriting syndicates. Unless injured, no one is getting a big payout. There is a meat chart payout table that will be used depending on the type of injury. It has been previously tested in the courts. Broken bones and critical injuries receive the higher settlements. Bruises don't get much. Injuries must be substantiated and documented. Most passengers will settle for lower amounts and will sign releases when presented with an immediate payout or the option of  legal recourse that will take time and incur legal fees. If the seatbelt warning was on and pax told to buckle up, the airline has an easier time, with settling compensation for injuries not related to galley carts or debris related injuries. Turbulence is a part of flying. $170,000 is a pittance when there is a catastrophic injury, but most injuries sustained are due to pax not buckling up and refusing to store carryons properly. Some of the pax will win the aero lottery.

Surprised to see that SQ didn't have a policy to suspend hot beverage service when seatbelt sign was illuminated. Standard practice on USA and Canada airlines.

[ChrisS]

As usual with Thaiger the headline indicates the injured WILL get 7 figure payouts whereas the story states 

15 hours ago, Thaiger said:

"passengers with spinal and brain injuries might seek massive payouts", not the same at all!

 

[Pinetree]

8 hours ago, Vigo said:

Surprised to see that SQ didn't have a policy to suspend hot beverage service when seatbelt sign was illuminated. Standard practice on USA and Canada airlines.

A normal practice  on many airlines and on all Asian airlines that I know of.  Its aways a judgment call between Captain and Cabin Manager.

I would never quote North American Airlines as the font of all that is right and proper in civilian aviation.   

[Grumpish]

6 hours ago, Pinetree said:

A normal practice  on many airlines and on all Asian airlines that I know of.  Its aways a judgment call between Captain and Cabin Manager.

I would never quote North American Airlines as the font of all that is right and proper in civilian aviation.   

I have always had a sneaking suspicion that the pilots go looking for some turbulence for towards the end of the hot beverage service, though. Judging from the number of times I have ended up wearing my coffee,  

[Pinetree]

5 minutes ago, Grumpish said:

I have always had a sneaking suspicion that the pilots go looking for some turbulence for towards the end of the hot beverage service, though. Judging from the number of times I have ended up wearing my coffee,  

There is a grain of truth in that sentence.  If a jet stream happens to be going your way, you will try to get into it and save time and fuel.  Yep, crews do not always avoid them.  Its why UK to US aircraft follow a northern path out from UK and a southern path back, its to catch the jet streams, The problems arise, not so much in the stream itself, but when steams cross, causing eddies and strong up and down drafts. Remember this record BA flight? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2C_Tj3db5w

 

[Grumpish]

4 hours ago, Pinetree said:

There is a grain of truth in that sentence.  If a jet stream happens to be going your way, you will try to get into it and save time and fuel.  Yep, crews do not always avoid them.  Its why UK to US aircraft follow a northern path out from UK and a southern path back, its to catch the jet streams, The problems arise, not so much in the stream itself, but when steams cross, causing eddies and strong up and down drafts. Remember this record BA flight? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2C_Tj3db5w

I hadn't seen that, no. The all-time record holder for a commercial aircraft was Concorde  - I lived next door to Heathrow and worked there up until 1999 (literally, the southern perimeter was just 10 minutes walk away from home) and never grew tired of the sight and sound of that aircraft.

[Pinetree]

1 hour ago, Grumpish said:

I hadn't seen that, no. The all-time record holder for a commercial aircraft was Concorde  - I lived next door to Heathrow and worked there up until 1999 (literally, the southern perimeter was just 10 minutes walk away from home) and never grew tired of the sight and sound of that aircraft.

A beautiful aircraft,  way ahead of its time. 

[rattlesnake]

16 minutes ago, Pinetree said:

A beautiful aircraft,  way ahead of its time. 

I recall reading that the Concorde pilot training was very tough.

[Pinetree]

9 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I recall reading that the Concorde pilot training was very tough.

It was certainly different in terms of the rating requirements. 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KboYeReK-HM

 

[rattlesnake]

15 hours ago, Pinetree said:

It was certainly different in terms of the rating requirements. 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KboYeReK-HM

Interesting interview.

[Pinetree]

https://news.sky.com/story/turbulence-hit-singapore-airlines-flight-experienced-rapid-change-in-gravitational-force-13144819

Preliminary investigation update.  Nothing surprising