Investigators spread blame in Lion Air crash, but mostly fault Boeing and FAA

By Oren Liebermann

The improper design and certification of the Boeing 737 Max 8 aircraft, coupled with an overwhelmed flight crew battling a malfunctioning system they could not properly identify, led to the crash of Lion Air Flight 610 in October, according to a report by Indonesian authorities.

The report documents the investigation by Indonesia’s National Transport Safety Committee (NTSC) into the Lion Air crash that killed the 189 people on board on October 29, 2018. The Lion Air crash and the subsequent crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 in March led to the worldwide grounding of the 737 Max fleet.

The crashes triggered a redesign of Boeing’s Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) software, including updates to operation manuals and crew training.

The system, designed to automatically lower the plane’s nose if it neared a stall, is suspected of forcing both Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 into the ground.

In a statement released after the report’s publication, Boeing promised its changes would prevent the conditions that led to the Lion Air crash “from ever happening again.”

The system’s redesign will correct the MCAS’s reliance on only one source of information about the plane’s angle-of-attack (AOA) sensors in flight, Boeing said, making it possible for pilots to manually override the MCAS.

“Going forward, MCAS will compare information from both AOA sensors before activating, adding a new layer of protection,” the company said. “In addition, MCAS will now only turn on if both AOA sensors agree, will only activate once in response to erroneous AOA, and will always be subject to a maximum limit that can be overridden with the control column.”

On Lion Air Flight 610, the MCAS system kept reactivating as it relied on incorrect data from a single AOA sensor, eventually overpowering the flight crew and forcing the aircraft into the water, according to the NTSC’s report.

A preliminary report by Ethiopian government officials also found that the two AOA sensors had different readings and the plane’s computer system pushed the nose down four times into a steep 40-degree dive as pilots struggled in vain to regain control.

Pilots struggled to coordinate actions

During the 11-minute flight on the Boeing 737 Max 8 from Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang, the captain and first officer struggled to coordinate with each other as the emergency grew more severe, investigators found. As the MCAS system forced the nose down more than 20 times during the flight, the first officer failed to remember checklists he should have had memorized, the report stated, then struggled to locate emergency checklists in the flight manual.

In conversations captured on the cockpit voice recorder before the flight took off, the captain told the first officer he was suffering from the flu. The first officer said he had been awakened at 4 a.m. for the flight, which wasn’t his routine schedule.

An Indonesian National Transportation Safety Commission official examines a turbine engine from the Lion Air flight 610 in Jakarta, Indonesia, on November 4, 2018.

The problems on board Lion Air Flight 610 began even before the aircraft left the runway, as the captain’s stick shaker — an emergency system designed to warn the pilot of an imminent stall — suddenly activated. It remained active for most of the flight. Within 15 seconds, warnings appeared on the pilots’ displays, alerting them that there were disagreements between key instrument readings.

Two minutes into the flight, the MCAS system adjusted the aircraft’s trim to push the nose down. It would keep doing this until the airliner eventually crashed.

“The multiple alerts, repetitive MCAS activations, and distractions related to numerous ATC communications contributed to the flight crew difficulties to control the aircraft,” investigators concluded as part of the contributing factors to the crash.

NTSC investigators spread the blame across several different organizations and factors, including Boeing, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the pilots, and the maintenance crews.

Blame centers on Boeing and FAA

But most of the blame was centered on Boeing and the FAA, pinpointing the design and certification of the 737 Max 8 as the primary root of the problems.

“During the design and certification of the Boeing 737 8 (MAX), assumptions were made about flight crew response to malfunctions which, even though consistent with current industry guidelines, turned out to be incorrect,” investigators wrote as the first of nine contributing factors to the crash.

Investigators listed the design of the MCAS system itself as a contributing factor, because it relied on information from a single external sensor, “making it vulnerable to erroneous input from that sensor.”

Investigators found that Boeing was able to design and test its own system without proper oversight or a thorough safety assessment from the FAA. Boeing engineers never expected the MCAS system to fail continuously and repeatedly, the report stated, and failed to seriously consider that possibility.

Boeing’s “discussions did not consider the failure scenario seen on the accident flight,” the report said.

In designing the system, Boeing concluded that a repeated failure of the MCAS system was no more problematic than a one-time failure, investigators found, because Boeing assumed that the pilots would simply apply the opposite trim input to counteract the MCAS.

A member of Indonesian Search and Rescue Agency inspects debris believed to be from Lion Air passenger jet that crashed off Java Island at Tanjung Priok Port in Jakarta, Indonesia Monday, Oct. 29, 2018.

But in engineering tests after the Lion Air crash, investigators found that after only two full activations of the MCAS system, the control column force was “too heavy” if the pilot didn’t quickly counteract the MCAS with trim.

Boeing assumed pilots would immediately recognize the problem and override the system with manual flight controls, and that doing so would “not require exceptional piloting skill or strength,” the report stated. Near the end of the Lion Air flight, the first officer pulled back on the control column with 103 pounds of force, but he was unable to keep the plane from diving into the ground.

Boeing had also made the MCAS system itself significantly more powerful, allowing it to push the nose down faster and further.

“Flight crew reactions were different from and did not match the guidance for the assumptions of flight crew behavior,” the report stated. Flight crews lacked key information about the MCAS system, since none was included in training of the aircraft flight manual.

“Boeing is updating crew manuals and pilot training, designed to ensure every pilot has all of the information they need to fly the 737 MAX safely,” the company said in a statement Friday morning.

Additional contributing factors focus on the development of the aircraft and its flight manuals and pilot training.

The Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashes were only five months apart. The 737 Max series aircraft were grounded soon after the Ethiopian crash, as Boeing scrambled to get one of their newest airliners cleared to fly. Even now, seven months after aviation regulators around the world grounded the aircraft, Boeing has struggled to get the airliner back into service.

Indonesian investigators issued a series of safety recommendations in the wake of the crash, including six to Boeing and three to the FAA. Investigators were critical of the cozy relationship between the administration and Boeing, urging the FAA to “review their processes for determining their level of involvement… and how changes in the design [of the aircraft] are communicated to the FAA.”

“We welcome the recommendations from this report and will carefully consider these and all other recommendations as we continue our review of the proposed changes to the Boeing 737 MAX,” the FAA said in a statement following the release of the final report.

“The FAA is committed to ensuring that the lessons learned from the losses of Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 will result in an even greater level of safety globally. The FAA continues to review Boeing’s proposed changes to the 737 MAX. As we have previously promised, the aircraft will return to service only after the FAA determines it is safe.”

Lion Air failed to report prior issue with aircraft

One day before the Lion Air crash, flight crews on the same aircraft experienced the same system malfunction on a flight from Denpasar to Jakarta. With the help of a third Lion Air pilot coincidentally in the cockpit, the crew deactivated the MCAS system and flew the plane manually to its destination. But no entry was made in the maintenance log to warn later flights of the issue. The pilots on board Lion Air Flight 610 didn’t know there were any major problems on board the previous flight with the MCAS system.

“That information was not available to the maintenance crew in Jakarta nor was it available to the accident crew, making it more difficult for each to take the appropriate actions,” investigators wrote.

Following FAA guidelines, Boeing assumed the flight crew would respond immediately to deal with the MCAS problem, but investigators found that it took the crew of the previous flight on board the Lion Air 737 Max 3 minutes and 40 seconds to find a solution to the malfunctioning MCAS system, while the crew of the accident flight never found one.

“The accident was an unthinkable tragedy and one that the relatives and friends of those who were lost continue to mourn. Everyone at Lion Air sends their deepest sympathies to those who lost loved ones in the accident,” Lion Air said in a statement after the release of the final report. “It is essential to determine the root cause and contributing factors to the accident and take immediate corrective actions to ensure that an accident like this one never happens again.”

Australian aviation safety expert Geoffrey Dell, in an interview with CNN, leveled harsh criticism at both the pilots of the previous flight and the airline for this failure to record the issue.

“If a significant occurrence like that was not entered into the maintenance log, it not only says volumes about the reporting behavior of the pilots, but also brings into question the maintenance reporting culture of the airline,” Dell told CNN. “Failing to report is sometimes indicative of poor safety culture in organizations usually driven by a lack of emphasis on proper response by management at best and outright negative pressure on reporting and ‘shoot the messenger’ supervisory responses in the worst cases.”

Though the captain of the doomed flight had 6,028 flight hours and had passed all his checks, investigators found the first officer had a poor track record in training and simulations, often losing situational awareness and even struggling to control the aircraft during normal flight. The first officer’s inability to control the airplane proved critical in the closing moments of the flight.

Before the 737 Max 8 crashed, the captain kept counteracting the repeated activations of the MCAS system by trimming the nose of the plane up. In a one-minute span in the middle of the flight, the captain trimmed the nose up five separate times.

At 6:30 a.m. local time, the captain handed control of the 737 Max 8 over to the first officer for reasons that are unclear. Instead of using the electric trim buttons to counteract the MCAS system, the first officer tried to fight the system manually, pulling back on the control column with all his might.

At 6:31:46, the first officer told the captain the plane was flying down, according to the voice recorder. The pilot responded, “It’s OK.”

Lion Air Flight 610 crashed 19 seconds later.

Lion Air crash investigation faults Boeing 737 Max design and oversight

By Sherisse Pham

The families of victims in last year’s Lion Air crash have been told by Indonesian investigators that poor regulatory oversight and the design of Boeing’s 737 Max contributed to the fatal disaster.

Investigators on Wednesday provided victims’ relatives with a summary of their final report on the crash, which killed 189 people. Details from the briefing for family members were shared with CNN by Anton Sahadi, a spokesperson for the relatives.

The report summary said that faulty “assumptions” were made during the design and certification of the 737 Max about how pilots would respond to malfunctions by the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), according to the presentation seen by CNN.

MCAS lowers the nose of the plane when it receives information that the aircraft is flying too slowly or steeply, and at risk of stalling. The system was vulnerable because it relied on a single angle of attack (AOA) sensor, investigators said.

The AOA sensor on the doomed Lion Air plane had been mis-calibrated during a repair, according to investigators. But the airline’s maintenance crews and pilots couldn’t identify the problem because one of the aircraft’s safety features — the AOA Disagree alert — was not “correctly enabled during Boeing 737-8 (Max) development,” they said.

Dian Andriani lost her 24-year-old son Muhammad Ravi Andrian in the crash. She told CNN that she’s unhappy with the explanation given by investigators and that there wasn’t much information she could clearly understand.

So far, Andriani said, what she does understand is that the plane wasn’t safe to fly.

The popular 737 Max has been grounded since March as aviation regulators investigate the Lion Air disaster and a similar crash of a 737 Max operated by Ethiopian Airlines. The two crashes killed 346 people.

Boeing declined to comment on the Indonesian report.

“As the report hasn’t been officially released by the investigative authorities, it is premature for us to comment on its contents,” a company spokesperson said.

The twin disasters have thrown Boeing into crisis and forced it to take a $5 billion charge related to compensation for airlines. Kevin McAllister, CEO of the Boeing unit that builds passenger jets, left the company on Tuesday.

Last week, the company came under fire for failing to disclose that some employees had expressed concerns about MCAS during the plane’s certification process.

Boeing has continued to build the 737 Max in order to try to meet a backlog of more than 4,000 orders for the plane that it has on the books. But it won’t get most of the revenue from sales of the plane until delivery.

It’s not clear when the plane will return to the skies: The US Federal Aviation Administration said last week that it’s following a “thorough process, not a prescribed timeline, for returning the Boeing 737 Max to passenger service.”

A spokesman for Indonesia’s National Transportation Safety Commission said Wednesday that its final report will publish on Friday.

It has been sent to the US National Transportation Safety Board and other relevant parties, and those parties have replied with comments, the spokesman said.

Russian company first Boeing customer to sue over 737 Max planes

Avia agreed years ago to buy 35

By:

Rob McLean, CNN Business

Posted: Aug 27, 2019 12:42 PM CDT

Updated: Aug 27, 2019 12:42 PM CDT

Stephen Brashear/Getty Images

A Boeing 737 MAX airplane is pictured on he tarmac with its signature winglet and fuel efficient engines outside the company’s factory on March 11, 2019 in Renton, Washington.

(CNN) – A Russian company that leases aircraft is suing Boeing over the plane maker’s grounded 737 Max 8 jets. It is the first Boeing customer to sue over the grounding.

Avia, which agreed several years ago to buy 35 of the planes, claims Boeing breached the contract by misrepresenting how safe the plane was to fly, and alleges it put profits ahead of safety, as it competed with rival Airbus for market share.

Boeing “represented that the 737 Max 8 was an airworthy and safe aircraft, and that it had been designed in compliance with aviation regulations,” Avia said in its lawsuit, which was filed Monday in an Illinois court. Boeing is headquartered in the state. “Despite its representations and due to its negligent conduct, Boeing manufactured and designed an aircraft that was not safe for flight.”

The suit was first reported by the Financial Times. Boeing declined to comment Monday night to CNN Business about the lawsuit.

The delivery of 33 of the planes that Avia ordered was rescheduled last year, although the lawsuit does not make clear why. They are scheduled for delivery some time between 2022 and 2024, instead of between 2019 and 2022 as originally planned, according to court documents.

Avia now wants to cancel its order. The company asking for more than $115 million to account for losses and damages it says were caused by what it called Boeing’s “wrongful acts and omissions.” Avia is also seeking punitive damages.

The company’s 737 Max 8s were grounded in mid-March in the wake of the fatal crashes in Ethiopia and Indonesia. Boeing announced in May that it had finished the development of a software fix to the aircraft and had already flight tested it. The software, known as MCAS, will have to be reviewed by the FAA and air regulators worldwide who want to review it.

It’s still not clear when the plane will be allowed to return to service, but its CEO told CNBC in June that he believes the plane will be back in the air before the end of 2019.

“We’re committed to providing the FAA and global regulators all the information they need, and to getting it right. We’re making clear and steady progress and are confident that the 737 Max with updated MCAS software will be one of the safest airplanes ever to fly,” Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg said in a statement earlier this year.

Nearly 400 planes already in airline fleets have been grounded and Boeing has halted deliveries of the 737 Max, although it continues to build them.

Boeing says the aircraft is the fastest-selling airplane in its history. It has received about 5,000 orders from more than 100 customers around the world.

Boeing executives and executives at several major airlines have said they plan to reach an agreement on compensation for the groundings and for the delays in deliveries. Details of that compensation are not yet known, although Boeing has taken a $4.9 billion after-tax charge related to potential concessions and other considerations to its customers.

In its lawsuit, Avia claimed that Boeing made “false representations” to the US Federal Aviation Administration during the Max’s certification process. Avia also alleges that Boeing “downplayed and misrepresented” problems after a Max flown by the Indonesian carrier Lion Air crashed last year. Another Max flown by Ethiopian Airlines crashed several months later.

“As a result, and in reliance on Boeing’s misrepresentations regarding the airworthiness of the subject aircraft, Avia continued to abide by the terms” of its purchase agreement, according to court documents. Avia said it was “unable to make an informed decision” with regard to the way it did business with Boeing.

“We are committed to seeing this through, if necessary, to trial, to pursue not only our compensatory damages but also punitive damages given Boeing’s outrageous conduct,” said Steven Marks, an attorney representing Avia. Marks also represents more than 30 families of those who died in the two crashes. Boeing executives and executives at several major airlines have said they plan to reach an agreement on compensation for the groundings and for the delays in deliveries. Families of the 346 people killed in the two crashes have filed numerous lawsuits. Some pilots have sued too for lost pay because of the grounding. Boeing has announced a $100 million compensation fund for families of those killed in the crashes.

Last week, CNN reported that an international panel created after the two crashes was expected to recommend the FAA change the way it certifies planes, as well as address safety concerns that aircraft technology is becoming far more sophisticated than the regulations that govern it.

— CNN’s Chris Isidore, Rene Marsh and Gregory Wallace contributed to this report.

Russian Company Files Lawsuit Against Boeing to Break Contract on 737 Max Jets – Reports

04:27 27.08.2019(updated 06:55 27.08.2019)

MOSCOW (Sputnik) – Russian leasing company Avia Capital Services filed a lawsuit against the Boeing aircraft manufacturer to break the contract on the delivery of 35 Boeing 737 Max jets, after the aircraft were grounded worldwide over flight stability concerns.

The Russian firm, a subsidiary of Russia’s Rostec state corporation, said that the two deadly plane crashes involving Boeing 737 Max jets happened because of “negligent actions and decisions of Boeing” both in designing the aircraft and “withholding critical information” from US aviation safety authorities, the Financial Times newspaper reported.

The lawsuit was reportedly filed at the Cook County circuit court in Chicago. The Russian company accuses Boeing of intentionally hiding sensitive safety information about the aircraft.

Avia Capital Services says it had given Boeing a cash deposit of $35 million as part of the order and asks that the money be returned, with interest, along with $75 million in lost profits. The total sum demanded by the company under the lawsuit amounts to $115 million.

Steven Marks, the lawyer of Avia Capital Services, told Financial Times that Boeing had offered compensation to the firm but it turned out to be inadequate.

“I think you will see a number of other operators filing suit in coming months. This will be the first of many to come,” Marks said.

Two Boeing 737 MAX planes crashed in less than a year: one in Indonesia in October 2018 and another in Ethiopia in March. In the wake of the latest crash, aviation authorities and carriers around the world either grounded the 737 MAX series aircraft or closed their airspace to them.

Investigations into the horrific tragedies are underway, but experts have identified an automated stall-prevention system, called MCAS, to be behind the crashes. MCAS commands automatically push down the jet’s nose in case of a critical angle of attack.

When the information coming from sensors is wrong, however, the actions pose a danger to the plane, as MCAS commands can overpower a pilot’s attempt to pull up the nose of the jet.

According to investigators, pilots of the crashed Ethiopian Airlines jet spent over four minutes before realizing that incorrect data from sensors was urging MACS to incorrectly push the nose down.

Podhurst Orseck’s Marks, Other Lawyers to Lead Ethiopian Airlines Crash Cases Against Boeing

Steven Marks will help lead the plaintiffs executive committee handling nearly 100 cases filed over the Ethiopian Airlines crash that led Boeing to ground its 737 Max 8 jet.

By Amanda Bronstad | September 17, 2019

Steven Marks, Podhurst Orseck. Photo: J. Albert Diaz

Podhurst Orseck’s Steven Marks and two other attorneys with extensive experience in airline crash lawsuits will lead nearly 100 cases filed over the Ethiopian Airlines crash that led The Boeing Co. to ground its 737 Max 8 aircraft.

At a hearing Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Jorge Alonso of the Northern District of Illinois said he would grant the plaintiffs’ motion to appoint Bob Clifford of Chicago’s Clifford Law Offices as lead counsel, according to Clifford. The judge also approved Marks of Miami and Justin Green of Kreindler & Kreindler in New York to lead the plaintiffs executive committee.

Clifford, whose previous cases include negotiating a $1.2 billion settlement for those with property damages from the 9/11 terrorist attacks, said the leadership team is considering adding more law firms in the coming days to the executive committee as well as a planned steering committee.

“That is under discussion as we speak,” Clifford said. “Anyone who steps up and is worthy and willing to serve and has something to add to the effort and discussion would likely be put on the steering committee.”

The leadership appointments set the stage for discovery to go forward even as Boeing has agreed to mediate lawsuits brought over last year’s crash of Lion Air, which killed 189 people on another 737 Max 8 aircraft over Indonesia.

Boeing has projected the Max 8 could be flying again in the fourth quarter, but regulators across the globe have given no timetable. Over the summer, Boeing announced it would pay $100 million to community groups and nonprofits to assist families of the victims of both Max 8 crashes.

The March 10 crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 killed 157 people, but the discovery focuses on what Boeing knew following the Lion Air crash, Clifford said. He said the lawyers are working with Boeing on a protective order to be followed by executive depositions.

Marks, who will be in charge of legal issues, handled lawsuits over the Malaysia Airlines flight that disappeared over the Indian Ocean in 2014, the 2015 crash of a Germanwings aircraft over France, the ValuJet crash in the Everglades in 1996 and others dating back to 1985.

Marks did not respond to a request for comment. He brought a motion Friday to appoint the leadership team plus 10 other attorneys from the three firms to serve on the executive committee. One of them, Clifford associate Tracy Brammeier, would serve as liaison counsel.

Green will be in charge of discovery. His previous cases include representing victims of the Asiana Airlines crash in 2013 at San Francisco International Airport and the Malaysia Airlines jet disappearance.

“The first order of business is to examine the many thousands of pages of documents Boeing will produce during the coming weeks,” Green wrote in an email. “These will be internal Boeing documents, including safety analyses and communications.”

Alonso set the next hearing for Nov. 21.

Longtime Plane Crash Atty Takes Lead In Ethiopian Air Suit

By Lauraann Wood

Law360 (September 17, 2019, 10:16 PM EDT) — An Illinois attorney who has represented victims of most major commercial airline crashes in the last 40 years was appointed Tuesday to lead a consolidated lawsuit seeking to hold the Boeing Co. liable for the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crash.

Attorney Robert A. Clifford of Clifford Law Offices will take charge in the consolidated litigation, which includes 97 individual complaints filed since March over the disaster that killed 157 people, according to an announcement from Clifford’s representative. Clifford represents 47 of those plaintiffs.

Serving on an executive committee in the litigation will be co-chairs Steven C. Marks of Podhurst Orseck PA and Justin T. Green of Kreindler & Kreindler LLP. Clifford Law’s Tracy A. Brammeier will be liaison counsel.

The case now turns to discovery. The plaintiffs plan to focus, in particular, on discovering what Boeing knew following the Oct. 29 Lion Air crash that involved one of the company’s 737 Max 8 planes and killed 189 people less than five months earlier than the March 10 Ethiopian Air crash, Clifford told Law360 Tuesday. The Ethiopian Air disaster also involved a Max 8 plane.

“Certainly, once the Lion Air crash occurred, you know doggone well that there was talk going on between Boeing and the [Federal Aviation Administration] in Washington, D.C., about grounding of the plane … or trying to explain what occurred,” he said. “That’s a matter of prime importance to all of the plaintiffs because we think it’s a major distinction between Lion Air and Ethiopian Air in terms of [proving] … the ET 302 crash was entirely preventable.”

Discovery will be consolidated among all of the plaintiffs, while damages will be individualized for each of those who lost their lives in the Ethiopian Air crash.

Clifford told Law360 he doesn’t expect the case to end in a settlement but in a courtroom showdown.

Boeing agreed Tuesday to go through voluntary mediation for families interested in talking settlement, but “there are families who feel very strongly about pursuing this case to the end against Boeing,” he said.

Clifford’s work in aviation litigation began in 1979, when he represented victims of an American Airlines plane crash caused by an engine that fell off the aircraft’s left wing shortly after takeoff. He told Law360 he also served as liaison counsel in litigation surrounding the Sept. 11, 2001, plane attacks, and he was involved in litigating the cases that resulted from the 2009 Turkish Airline crash that killed nine passengers and crewmembers while landing in Amsterdam.

Clifford’s request to take charge in the case was unopposed.

Global aviation regulators grounded the Max 8 after the Ethiopian Air crash, but the FAA was the last to issue a grounding order.

The family of Rwandan citizen Jackson Musoni was the first to sue Boeing over the Ethiopian Air crash. Dozens of plaintiffs claim the Max 8 contained a defective flight stabilization system that Boeing knew about but hid from regulators and pilots in a rush to market the plane.

Boeing has answered the suits’ claims, saying in July that it is not responsible for the crash because it was caused by the actions of third parties over which the company had no control.

The suits also claim that technical experts with the FAA were pressed by higher-ups during the aircraft’s certification process to delegate more authority to Boeing, which was under pressure to bring the jet to the market as it competed with European rival Airbus.

The FAA has also come under intense scrutiny relating to its aircraft certification process since the Ethiopian Air and Lion Air crashes. FAA officials defended that process during a congressional hearing in July, saying it did not compromise safety when it handed some oversight to Boeing.

Boeing and the Ethiopian Air victims’ families are due back in court for a status hearing in November.

Representatives for Boeing did not immediately respond Tuesday to a request for comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by Robert Clifford of Clifford Law Offices.

Boeing is represented by Bruce Duplan Campbell, Christopher Martin Ledford, Daniel Thomas Burley, Jonathan R. Buck, Mack Harrison Shultz Jr. and Michael E. Scoville of Perkins Coie LLP.

The case is In re: Ethiopian Airlines Flight ET 302 Crash, case number 1:19-cv-02170, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

–Additional reporting by Dean Seal and Linda Chiem. Editing by Janice Carter Brown.

Leasing Co.’s $115M Suit Aims To Ax Boeing 737 Max Order

By Linda Chiem

Law360 (August 27, 2019, 4:37 PM EDT) — Boeing has been hit with a $115 million lawsuit alleging it misrepresented the safety of its 737 Max jets to aircraft leasing companies that were duped into inking multimillion-dollar contracts with the American aerospace giant, according to an Illinois state court lawsuit filed Monday.

Avia Capital Services LLC, a Russian aircraft leasing company, sued Boeing to cancel the rest of its contract for 35 of the now-grounded 737 Max 8 jets, which were to be delivered to Avia from March 2022 through December 2024.

According to the complaint, Boeing induced Avia to sign a purchase agreement for a sizable order of 737 Max jets by misrepresenting the new planes as safe, airworthy and designed in compliance with aviation regulations, when they, in fact, were not.

“Due to Boeing’s own actions and negligence, the 737 Max 8 is defective in design and is unreasonably dangerous,” Avia says in the suit, adding that because of Boeing’s repeated misrepresentations, it “was unable to make an informed decision regarding its business dealings and transactions with Boeing.”

The 737 Max jets have been grounded since mid-March following two fatal crashes that have sparked scrutiny of Boeing’s design and engineering, and the Federal Aviation Administration’s aircraft certification process.

A Lion Air 737 Max 8 jet crashed in the Java Sea in October, killing 189 people, and an Ethiopian Airlines 737 Max 8 jet crashed on March 10, killing 157. Global aviation regulators grounded the 737 Max after the second crash, but the FAA was the last to issue a grounding order.

Boeing has already been hit with scores of lawsuits from victims’ families and consumers. Avia’s suit echoes claims in those suits that Boeing redesigned its 737 jets with larger heavier fuel-efficient jets that were set differently on the aircraft wings — more forward — affecting the balance and weight of the plane. The engine placement on the 737 Max jets created a nose-heavy problem that Boeing corrected by adding a special automated flight-control feature known as the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System for better handling and to prevent stalling.

The problem was that failure-prone sensors in the 737 Max could inadvertently trigger MCAS, which pushes the aircraft’s nose down if the jet’s angle-of-attack sensors indicate it has drifted too high. MCAS has been widely cited as a possible cause of both the Lion Air and Ethiopian Air crashes in preliminary findings from accident investigators. Boeing has said it’s working on finalizing a software fix for the MCAS problems, which likely won’t come until 2020. The FAA has maintained that the jets will only be cleared to fly again when they’re deemed safe.

Avia’s suit asserts claims for fraudulent inducement, breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and lists at least $115 million in losses and damages.

Avia’s lawyer Steven C. Marks of Podhurst Orseck PA told Law360 on Tuesday that they’re seeking compensatory damages greater than $120 million, plus much more in punitive damages.

Marks told Law360 that Avia had signed a contract for 85 Boeing jets, some of which Avia then leases to airlines including Aeroflot. Fifty of those jets were for other Boeing aircraft models that have already been delivered, but the remaining 35 jets were to be 737 Max jets, according to Marks.

“It’s now become clear from the outset that Boeing misrepresented and fraudulently induced Avia into entering into contract by falsely stating that this aircraft would be properly certificated and airworthy,” Marks said.

Instead of seeking a new type certificate for the 737 Max like it should have, Boeing “tried to short circuit” the FAA aircraft certification process, leading to two fatal crashes that have destroyed public confidence in the planes’ safety, Marks said.

“Had they known the truth about what Boeing did to circumvent proper regulatory procedures, they would never have entered into this contract,” Marks said.

A representative for Boeing declined to comment on the suit Tuesday.

Avia Capital Services is represented by Steve C. Marks and Kristina M. Infante of Podhurst Orseck PA and Brian Kent of Laffey Bucci & Kent LLP.

Counsel information for Boeing was not immediately available.

The case is Avia Capital Services LLC v. The Boeing Co., case number 2019-L-009427, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Law Division.

–Editing by Peter Rozovsky.

Boeing Facing First MAX-Related Customer Lawsuit

A subsidiary of Russian state conglomerate Rostec files a U.S. lawsuit to cancel its order for 35 Boeing 737 MAX airplanes, another sign that Boeing’s customers are losing patience with ongoing delays in remedying the troubled jet.

Corey Goldman

Updated Aug 27, 2019 9:48 AM EDT

A subsidiary of Russian state conglomerate Rostec has filed a U.S. lawsuit to cancel its order for 35 Boeing 737 MAX airplanes, another sign that Boeing’s customers are losing patience with ongoing delays in remedying the troubled jet.

According to the Financial Times, Avia Capital Services, a subsidiary of Rostec, gave Boeing a cash deposit of $35 million to secure the order of 35 737 MAX jets.

The complaint, which was filed in Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago on Monday, claims that Boeing “intentionally” failed to disclose information about the airworthiness of the MAX to its customers, including Avia, in order to induce them to buy the aircraft, the Financial Times said.

However, an Avia spokesperson told Reuters on Tuesday that it is ready for an out-of-court settlement.

Boeing faces first lawsuit from 737 Max customer
Russian aircraft leasing group Avia sues to cancel order for 35 of the grounded planes
ft.com

Steven Marks of Miami aviation-focused law firm Podhurst Orseck is representing Avia. He also is representing 30 families of victims of both the Lion Air crash in October 2018 and the Ethiopian Airlines tragedy this past March which together killed 346 people.

Avia is claiming that two deadly crashes were due to the “negligent actions and decisions of Boeing” not just in designing a plane that was “defective” but also in “withholding critical information” from the U.S. aviation safety regulator during certification, according to the suit.

Meantime, the grounded MAX could be certified and back in service as early as October, according to recent reports.

Shares of Boeing were down just over 1% at $355.71 in early trading on Tuesday.

Boeing faces its first lawsuit from a 737 Max customer

Boeing 737 Max airplanes parked at a Boeing facility in Seattle.
(David Ryder / Getty Images)

By SYLVIA PFEIFER AND PATTI WALDMEIRFINANCIAL TIMES

AUG. 27, 2019

11:33 AM

A Russian aircraft leasing company is suing Boeing Co., claiming breach of contract in connection with its grounded 737 Max in the first lawsuit brought against the manufacturer by a customer over the safety crisis.

Avia Capital Services, a subsidiary of Russian state conglomerate Rostec, says that two deadly crashes that preceded the grounding of the 737 Max were due to the “negligent actions and decisions of Boeing.” Avia claims Boeing not only designed a plane that was “defective” but also withheld “critical information” from the U.S. aviation safety regulator during certification.

The complaint, which was filed in Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago on Monday, claims that Boeing “intentionally” failed to disclose information about the airworthiness of the Max to its customers, including Avia, in order to induce them to buy the aircraft.

Avia ordered 35 Max 8 jets from Boeing before they were grounded worldwide in March, and now it wants the order canceled. The company says it gave Boeing a cash deposit of $35 million to secure the order, and is asking for that amount to be returned with interest, along with lost earnings, for a total of $115 million in compensatory damages, plus “several times the amount” in punitive damages.

Avia’s lawyer, Steven Marks of the Miami aviation law firm Podhurst Orseck, told the Financial Times in an interview that Boeing had offered compensation but it was inadequate. He said other Boeing customers had been in touch with him about bringing similar lawsuits. The Chicago-based aircraft manufacturer has been negotiating compensation deals with customers and it took a $4.9-billion charge in the second quarter for that purpose.

“I think you will see a number of other operators filing suit in coming months. This will be the first of many to come,” Marks said.

The lawyer is also representing 30 families of victims of both the Lion Air crash in October last year and the Ethiopian Airlines tragedy in March, which together killed 346 people. The fallout from those two crashes has damaged Boeing’s reputation and finances; the company posted its biggest quarterly loss in July.

Boeing declined to comment.

Even before the crashes, Avia and Boeing had agreed to delay delivery of 33 of the Max aircraft to the Russian company. Originally scheduled for delivery between October 2019 and February 2022, the orders were pushed back to between March 2022 and December 2024. The reason for the delay was not clear.

Although official investigations into the accidents are ongoing, an anti-stall system unique to the Max has been implicated. The system is designed to pitch the plane’s nose automatically down when it senses a stall is imminent, which it was found to have done repeatedly in both accidents. Boeing has been working on a software fix to ensure the system activates only once. It will also no longer be triggered by only one sensor.

Dennis Muilenburg, Boeing’s chief executive, said in April that the company had “followed exactly the steps in our design and certification processes that consistently produce safe airplanes.” The company has said it expects the Max to start returning to service “early in the fourth quarter.”

Podhurst Orseck’s Marks, Other Lawyers to Lead Ethiopian Airlines Crash Cases Against Boeing

Steven Marks will help lead the plaintiffs executive committee handling nearly 100 cases filed over the Ethiopian Airlines crash that led Boeing to ground its 737 Max 8 jet.

By Amanda Bronstad | September 17, 2019

Steven Marks, Podhurst Orseck. Photo: J. Albert Diaz

Alonso set the next hearing for Nov. 21.

Peter Prieto Inducted into the International Academy of Trial Lawyers

MIAMI – September 17, 2019 – Miami-based litigation boutique Podhurst Orseck is pleased to announce that partner Peter Prieto has been inducted into the International Academy of Trial Lawyers (IATL). Mr. Prieto leads the commercial litigation and class action practice at Podhurst Orseck, which has served as lead counsel in several of the nation’s most significant class action and multidistrict litigation or MDL matters. The induction took place at the organization’s Mid-Year Meeting in Whitefish, Montana.

The International Academy of Trial Lawyers limits membership to a select group of 500 Fellows from the United States and nearly 40 countries around the world. The Academy honors those who have achieved a career of excellence through demonstrated skill and ability in jury trials, trials before the court and appellate practice. Only lawyers who have attained the highest level of advocacy and take part in a comprehensive screening process are invited to join.

“Peter’s recognition as a Fellow of the International Academy of Trial Lawyers is a tribute to his achievements in the courtroom, his high ethical standards, and his tireless pursuit of excellence on behalf of clients,” said Podhurst Orseck partner Bob Josefsberg.

Bob Josefsberg and Founding Partner Aaron Podhurst have both served as past presidents of the International Academy of Trial Lawyers. Mr. Prieto becomes only the third lawyer at the 52-year-old Podhurst Orseck firm to become a Fellow of both the Academy, as well as the American College of Trial Lawyers, another invitation-only trial lawyers organization.

For more than 25 years, Peter has focused his practice on complex commercial litigation, including class actions and white-collar criminal defense. Peter currently serves as Plaintiffs’ Chair Lead Counsel overseeing both class actions and personal injury actions in the Takata Airbags Product Liability Litigation, which is considered the largest automotive defect case in United States history. Peter also serves as the only Florida Lawyer on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee for the General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation. He also serves on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in the Checking Account Overdraft Litigation and is Chair of the Experts Committee in the Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust MDL.

In addition to being inducted into the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, Peter recently served as the Eleventh Circuit’s representative on the America Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. Peter is also a Fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers and has been recognized by publications including Florida Trend Magazine, Chambers USA and Best Lawyers in America.

Peter received a bachelor’s degree, summa cum laude, from St. Thomas University where he also is a current member of the Board of Trustees. He received his juris doctorate, cum laude, from the University of Miami School of Law and serves on the Alumni Advisory Board of the University of Miami Law Review.

# # #

About Podhurst Orseck
Miami-based Podhurst Orseck, P.A., established over half a century ago, is a top-flight boutique trial and appellate firm focusing its practice on tort litigation matters including aviation, products liability, serious personal injury, and wrongful death claims, as well as complex commercial litigation and white-collar defense. Additionally, the firm has a strong appellate practice, handling appeals for its own attorneys and attorneys throughout the nation, in various state and federal appellate courts, including the United States Supreme Court. The firm has consistently received an AV-Rating from Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory, the highest possible rating, based on legal ability and general ethical standards. For more information, please visit www.podhurst.com

Podhurst Orseck: Litigation Boutique With Focus on Class Actions, MDLs, Aviation

The Miami law firm is a small, tight-knit group of attorneys accustomed to playing on the national and international stage.

By Catherine Wilson | September 10, 2019 at 09:36 AM

Steve Marks and Peter Prieto, Podhurst Orseck

Podhurst Orseck was founded in Miami more than half a century ago by two friends, Aaron Podhurst and Bobby Orseck. Podhurst was the trial lawyer, and Orseck handled the appellate work. Orseck tragically drowned in Israel in 1978. Podhurst, to this day, practices law full time.

From its founding in 1967, Podhurst Orseck has remained a firm of no more than 15 or so lawyers. We are exclusively a trial and appellate litigation boutique. Over the years, Podhurst Orseck has attained a global reputation for representing the families of victims of aircraft accidents and a national reputation for doing high-stakes litigation in class action and mass tort, including multidistrict litigation.

Podhurst Orseck, on a day-to-day basis, is managed by Steve Marks and Peter Prieto with advice and counsel from Podhurst. But virtually every significant business decision is made with input from all of the partners and associates. For example, every lawyer has a say in the firm’s hiring decisions.

Though we are Miami-based, we have built a global practice that consistently competes with large firms around the world. Our attorneys routinely are involved in challenging and complex commercial litigation, aviation, class action, white collar defense, appellate and personal injury cases. For example:

We serve as lead counsel in the Takata air bag MDL, which has recovered $1.5 billion as part of the largest automotive recall in U.S. history,
We served on plaintiffs committees guiding the NFL concussion MDL, where a groundbreaking, uncapped settlement exceeding $1 billion was reached,
We served as class counsel in the nationwide force-placed insurance class action litigation, where settlements totaling in the hundreds of millions of dollars were reached with financial institutions accused of placing high-priced homeowner insurance policies on mortgages in exchange for kickbacks from insurers,
We serve as lead counsel in the bank overdraft MDL, where the country’s largest banks paid in excess of $1 billion to settle claims of overcharging customers,
Our firm’s expertise in aviation litigation can be traced back to a single event — the 1972 crash of Eastern Airlines Flight 401 in the Florida Everglades, which killed 101 people and injured dozens. We served as lead class counsel for the victims. Since then, Podhurst Orseck has represented victims in more than 150 crashes and air disasters, and have handled more plaintiffs aviation cases than any other law firm in the Southeast.
The firm represents dozens of families in the Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Flight 302 airline crashes involving the Boeing 737 Max.
We serve on the plaintiff’s leadership committee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield MDL alleging the health insurer conspired to fix prices and allocate territories.

Firm: Podhurst Orseck

Firm leaders: Aaron S. Podhurst, founding partner; Steve C. Marks, managing partner; Peter Prieto, head of commercial litigation and class action practice

Head count: 16 attorneys, not including temporary or contract attorneys

Location: Miami

Practice areas: Trial and appellate litigation including aviation, personal injury, products liability, class actions and complex commercial litigation

Do you offer alternative fee arrangements?

Yes. While alternative fee arrangements are a novel concept for most firms, they are fairly routine at Podhurst Orseck because more than half of our cases — both personal injury and commercial litigation — are contingency-fee based. Because of our familiarity with alternative fee arrangements, we are able to develop creative arrangements that align our firm’s interests with those of our clients. As a result, when our clients succeed, we succeed. Clients are attracted to this because while some firms pay lip service to alternative fee arrangements, we deal with them on a daily basis.

What do you view as the two biggest opportunities for your firm, and what are the two biggest threats?

One of the opportunities we have seen is the ability to partner with other law firms who may need either our expertise or resources to bring and prosecute a significant case. Our relationship with these firms is very important to us.

As a firm, we’ve also been open to taking calculated risks where we see opportunity for growth. One was handling overseas airline crash cases even as U.S. courts expressed a growing reluctance to hear them. Most aviation law firms were unwilling to represent victims of foreign crashes in U.S. or foreign courts. We decided it would be a challenge and perhaps a little risky, but worth it.

The decision helped position Podhurst Orseck as a go-to firm in the event of a crash anywhere in the world. We have the legal expertise, we have the experts, and we have the knowledge of the products. Now, people from all over the world call us when there’s an international accident, asking, “Would you be willing to get involved.” We’ve built a global network of partner law firms as a result.

One of our biggest threats concerns access to the courts. The broad application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens, for example, continues to deny access to U.S. courts to personal injury victims, including U.S. citizens. Similarly, the requirement in federal court that a complaint state a plausible claim has been interpreted by some courts so restrictively that sometimes a plaintiff is essentially required to prove — as opposed to simply allege — his case at the pleading stage without the benefit of any discovery.

Another significant threat is the constant narrowing by certain courts of the claims that our clients are able to bring to recover for their injuries. The class action device — though still found in the rule books in both federal and state law — continues to be whittled down and eliminated through arbitration clauses that are buried and no one ever reads.

The legal market is so competitive now — what trends do you see, and has anything, including alternative service providers, altered your approach? Is your chief competition other mid-market firms, or is your firm competing against big firms for the same work?

The biggest trend we see is the importance of technology to deal with the large amount of e-discovery that is part of any sizable litigation. Artificial intelligence and technology assisted review, or TAR, is changing the way law firms deliver services in more efficient and effective ways. We have adapted to that trend by using TAR for key cases and by the strategic and temporary hiring of contract attorneys when a particular case requires it. That permits us to raise our overhead temporarily but only when necessary.

While the majority of our firm’s practice is focused on representing plaintiffs, particularly personal injury victims and consumers, a significant portion of it involves the representation of several key, corporate defendants, including local businesses, law firms and accounting firms. As a result, we compete not only with other litigation boutiques but in some cases with larger firms.

There is much debate around how law firms can foster the next generation of legal talent. What advantages and disadvantages do midsize firms have in attracting and retaining young lawyers, particularly millennials?

Over the years, we have had at least two significant advantages in attracting young talent.

First, is the reputation of Podhurst Orseck — built over half a century — for doing sophisticated and impactful legal work. In the unfortunate case that an aviation accident occurs anywhere in the world, Podhurst Orseck is very likely to receive a call by one or more of the victims’ family. This is not meant as a boast, but as fact.

Second is our emphasis that all of our lawyers get involved with their communities or their profession. We encourage this and have led by example, starting with Aaron Podhurst and Bob Josefsberg, both of whom are recognized for their community and nonprofit work as much as they are for their work in the courtroom. And that‘s why our lawyers, no matter their level, are involved in the arts, bar organizations, and educational and civic institutions. As a result, Podhurst Orseck as a brand resonates with younger attorneys as both an exceptional law firm to practice law and build a legal career at as well as a cause-related company engaged in community and issue advocacy.

The only difference that we may have from some larger firms is the lack of a formalized training program. We are simply not big enough and frankly don’t have the time for a so-called formal program. Instead, our more senior lawyers mentor and supervise our junior lawyers who learn — and learn fast — by handling hearings, taking depositions and participating in trials early on in their careers. Our junior lawyers receive as much responsibility as they can handle. We sometimes tend to describe it as “swim or swim” because sinking is not an option. But we believe that’s how young lawyers learn and, more importantly, grow as lawyers.

Does your firm employ any nonlawyer professionals in high-level positions (e.g. COO, business development officer, chief strategy officer, etc.)? If so, why is it advantageous to have a nonlawyer in that role? If not, have you considered hiring any?

We have one nonlawyer professional, our office administrator, Carole Curran, who has been with our firm for decades. Curran handles virtually all of the firm’s administrative responsibilities and, as they say, “makes the trains run on time.” She is assisted and supported by Victor Mas, who has been with our firm for years, and a team of support staff.

What would you say is the most innovative thing your firm has done recently, whether it be technology advancements, internal operations, how you work with clients, etc.?

After spending years in our office on Flagler Street in downtown Miami, we relocated to the nearby SunTrust building in 2017. The layout and design of our new space fosters openness and communication among the lawyers and staff, and is helping us achieve our goal of becoming a paperless office. The latter has been more difficult to accomplish than the former. Because our casework is global, we have also been making significant investments in litigation technology that allows our attorneys to work in a seamless and efficient manner, regardless of where they are traveling in service to clients.

Does your firm have a succession plan in place? If so, what challenges do you face in trying to execute that plan?

Podhurst Orseck has a succession plan dictated by our lawyers, all of whom come from different generations. It starts with our founder, Podhurst, who along with Josefsberg and Joel Eaton, are senior partners who still enjoy and remain quite active in the practice of law. It is followed by Marks who was mentored by Podhurst and heads our personal injury and aviation practice, and Prieto, a former law school classmate of Marks, who joined the firm a decade ago and heads our firm’s class action and commercial litigation practice.

In addition to Marks and Prieto, we have a group of very talented partners, all of whom handle personal injury, commercial litigation and appeals. These include Ricardo Martinez-Cid, a former president of the Cuban American Bar Association, and Stephen Rosenthal, a former law clerk to Circuit Judge Rosemary Barkett, as well as John Gravante and Ramon Rasco. Each of these attorneys has gained valuable mentorship from our senior partners during their time with the firm, and they continually transfer their expertise to their younger peers.

Our rising stars include partners Lea Bucciero and Matthew Weinshall, associates Alissa Del Riego and Kristina Infante as well as several staff attorneys, virtually all of whom came to our firm after completing federal clerkships at the district or appellate court level. We feel that with this blend of experience and younger talent, our future is very bright.

We’ve been the same size for the past 40 years. The reason is that if you get too big, you lose control, and there is a drop off in quality. You also don’t know who your partners are, and you don’t even know their wives and husbands and kids. We are a family at our firm in large part because of our family-like structure — that comes from our small size and culture.

Catherine Wilson

Catherine Wilson Catherine Wilson is managing editor of the Daily Business Review. Contact her at cwilson@alm.com. On Twitter at @cmwalm

Florida Trend 500 – Aaron Podhurst

Podhurst Orseck is a specialty trial and appellate litigation firm. It serves as general litigation counsel to several major corporations. Click here to read more Florida Trend 500 – Aaron Podhurst

The 737 Max has ‘no value’ after 2 deadly crashes as passengers no longer trust the plane, the lawyer for an aviation firm suing Boeing says

Sinead Baker Aug 31, 2019 5:07 AM

Undelivered Boeing 737 Max planes are parked idly in a Boeing property in Seattle, Washington, on August 13, 2019. David Ryder/Getty Images

⦁ A lawyer representing an aircraft leasing company suing Boeing says the 737 Max no longer has any “no value” after two deadly crashes undermined customer confidence in the plane.
⦁ Avia Capital Services, an aircraft leasing company, is suing Boeing, claiming that it intentionally misled customers and regulators about the safety of the plane, and wants a refund for the 35 Max planes it ordered.
⦁ Steven Marks, one of company’s lawyers told Business Insider: “The public doesn’t have any trust in it, the client can’t use it.”
⦁ The planes are yet to be delivered to Avia, but their arrival after the 737 Max is un-grounded would be “unwanted at this point,” Marks said.
⦁ Polls have demonstrated public mistrust in the plane, even as Boeing is working on updates that global regulators will examine before the plane returns.
An aircraft leasing company suing Boeing thinks the 737 Max planes now have “no value” because of their safety record and fears among passengers fears, a lawyer representing the company told Business Insider.
Steven Marks, a lawyer representing Avia Capital Services, told Business Insider that the company no longer wants to take delivery of its order of 737 Max jets, thanks to flaws uncovered in Boeing and the US Federal Aviation Authority’s’ testing of the plane, and passenger mistrust of the jet.
“The public doesn’t have any trust in it, the client can’t use it. It has no value to them,” he said.
The company is now suing Boeing for hundreds of millions in damages, and wants to cancel its order for 35 Max planes, with a refund. The exact amount Avia is suing for has not been disclosed publicly.
Marks said that Avia is dealing with the same delays in Max plane deliveries that are facing the entire industry, and that the company would no longer welcome the arrival of the planes they ordered.

Investigators look at the debris from the crashed Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 Max plane in March 2019. Jemal Countess/Getty Images

“Deliveries have been postponed and may never occur. I mean, if they were to occur, it would be unwanted at this point.”
Avia, a Russian company that buys and leases planes to airlines like Aeroflot, is now suing Boeing, claiming the company intentionally misled customers and regulators about the airworthiness of the plane.
The lawsuit, seen by Business Insider, claims that “the death of 346 individuals combined with the continued grounding of the 737 Max with no foreseeable future has completely deteriorated public trust in the 737 Max 8 and has rendered it useless.”
At the time of publication, Boeing had not responded to a request for comment from Business Insider on the lawsuit.
The planes have been grounded around the world since March, when a second deadly crash by one of the planes killed 157 people on an Ethiopian Airlines flight. The first crash, a Lion Air flight in Indonesia in October 2018, killed 189 people.
A June poll found that 41% of Americans would not want to fly on the plane until it was safely back in service for at least six months.
Some airlines have said they will allow customers who do not wish to fly on a Max plane to switch flights free of charge when the plane returns.

Undelivered Boeing 737 Max planes sit idle at a Boeing property in Seattle, Washington, in August 2019. David Ryder/Getty Images

The lawsuit states that “flyers have a good reason to lack confidence” in the plane, saying: “Boeing continues to be unable to fix the extensive defects in the 737 Max aircraft.”
Boeing is currently working on updates to the plane, which will allow it to return to service when approved by regulators. Boeing has repeatedly said that it will be the safest plane ever to fly when it returns.
The company has completed the update meant to address the software issue that arose in both crashes, but new issues discovered with the plane have delayed its return to service.
The lawsuit, filed in Chicago on Monday, is claiming fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing against Boeing.
It claims that Boeing “manufactured and designed an aircraft that was not safe for flight.”

Shoes of passengers of Lion Air flight JT610 were laid out at Tanjung Priok port in Jakarta. REUTERS/Beawiharta

Avia’s lawsuit alleges that Boeing misrepresented the plane to the FAA when it was being tested for certification, and that “due to Boeing’s own actions and negligence the 737 Max 8 is defective in design and is unreasonably dangerous” to fly.
Avia is asking for $115 million in damages — made up of $75 million in lost profits and $40 million in expenses from advance payments to Boeing — as well as “several times” that amount in punitive damages. The total amount it is asking for is not publicly known.

Most airlines are sticking with Boeing and the Max, but they want compensation as they suffer its fallout

Large numbers of major airlines have continued to express public confidence in Boeing and the Max planes, but many are seeking compensation from the company as they have been forced to cancel flights, face delays to plane orders, and had to pay to maintain and store the planes during the ground.

Grounded Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 MAX aircraft are parked on the tarmac after being grounded, at the Southern California Logistics Airport in Victorville, California, as the airline waits for the plane to return to service. MARK RALSTON/AFP/Getty Images

Airlines have cancelled hundreds of flight, some have cut routes, and others are cutting staff members over the grounding of the Max, which has stretched on longer than the industry expected. The grounding could now extend into 2020.
Boeing has received no new orders for the Max since the second crash, underscoring worries about its airworthiness.
A lack of interest threatens Boeing’s standing as the top aircraft manufacturer. The result is that it gradually being overtaken in deliveries by Airbus, its European rival, and could lose its title as the world’s largest planemaker as a result.
Saudi Arabian airline Flyadeal canceled an order of up to $6 billion for 50 Max planes in July, while Indonesian airline Garuda said in March that it wanted to cancel its order as customers had “lost confidence to fly” in the plane.

Get the latest Boeing stock price here.

Avia Files 737 Max Breach of Contract Lawsuit Against Boeing

by Charles Alcock

– August 27, 2019, 11:44 AM

Aviation International News

A Boeing 737 Max operated by Indonesia’s Lion Air crashed in October 2018, killing all passengers and crew.

Russian aircraft leasing company Avia Capital Services has begun a breach of contract lawsuit against Boeing over its order for thirty-five 737 Max airliners. In a case filed on August 26 with the Cook County district court near Boeing’s Chicago headquarters, Avia is demanding the return of the $35 million deposit it paid (with interest). It is also seeking $75 million in compensation for profits that it says will be lost as a consequence of severe disruption in deliveries in the wake of two fatal accidents involving the 737 Max, plus significant punitive damages.

Miami-based aviation law firm Podhurst Orseck, which is representing Avia, is arguing that Boeing knowingly misrepresented the steps necessary to safely bring the new 737 Max into commercial service. In view of the significant changes in aerodynamics, weight, and systems compared to earlier versions of the 737, it claims that the U.S. manufacturer should have taken the Max through a completely new type certification process that would have resulted in the need for type-specific training for pilots.

“We’re seeking damages for fraud and misrepresentation because Boeing intentionally misrepresented that it was going to provide a properly certified and airworthy aircraft,”

Podhurst Orseck partner Steven Marks told AIN. “Boeing knew what the situation was at the time it signed the contract [with Avia] and it knowingly misrepresented the facts.”

In the wake of two fatal accidents involving 737 Max aircraft operated by Indonesia’s Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines, the value of the aircraft and public trust in Boeing have significantly declined, he said. This in turn has left customers like Avia facing significant losses and diminished commercial opportunity. Boeing has refused to return deposits placed by Avia and other airlines and lessors.

Marks indicated that he expects more 737 Max customers to file similar lawsuits in the coming weeks. Podhurst Orseck, which is also representing some families who lost relatives in the accidents, is in discussions with several companies that have aircraft on order.

Over and above legal action by customers, Boeing is now facing multiple lawsuits from shareholders and the families of passengers killed in the accidents. “Boeing is trying to get its hands around how to move forward,” said Marks. “Will they do the right thing and pursue full type certification, with new training and manuals for pilots, or will they keep pushing the FAA for all sorts of freedom from proper oversight? There is a lot of international pressure for them to do the right thing, but in the U.S. we have a [federal] administration that doesn’t believe in the regulatory functions of government and this is critically needed.”

Podhurst Orseck is hopeful that the discovery phase of the trial will proceed quite quickly and that the Cook County court may start hearing the case within eight to 12 months.

Avia had been due to start taking delivery of its 737 Max aircraft in October 2019, but, before the two accidents, this had already been pushed back to March 2022. The leasing company, which is part of the Russian government-backed Rostec group, had already taken delivery of another 50 Boeing aircraft.

Russia’s Rostec unit ready for out-of-court deal with Boeing on 737 MAX order

BUSINESS NEWS

AUGUST 27, 2019 / 2:08 AM

Gleb Stolyarov, Tom Balmforth

2 MIN READ

MOSCOW (Reuters) – A unit of Russian conglomerate Rostec said on Tuesday it was ready for an out-of-court settlement with Boeing (BA.N) over its order for 35 Boeing (BA.N) 737 MAX jets, a spokesman for Rostec’s subsidiary Avia Capital Service told Reuters.

Boeing MAX 737 jets have been grounded worldwide and airlines are cancelling multimillion contracts following crashes in October and March that killed 346 people.

Earlier on Tuesday, Rostec said its unit had filed a lawsuit in the United States to cancel its order for the 35 MAX jets. The Financial Times, which first reported the move, said Avia Capital Service gave Boeing a cash deposit of $35 million (£29 million).

A spokesman for Avia Capital Service told Reuters that delivery of the jets was first scheduled for October 2019 but was moved to March 2022. The Rostec unit had paid Boeing a deposit and was suffering losses from non-delivery, he said.

“If Boeing executives show a good will, we are ready to hold talks and find a mutually-beneficial out-of-court settlement for compensation of the losses we have suffered,” he said.

He added that the jets were ordered for a number of Russian air companies, including domestic low-cost firm Pobeda, a unit of the state carrier Aeroflot (AFLT.MM).

Russia is mainly using Boeing and Airbus (AIR.PA) jets for passenger flights, with a number of domestic airlines also adding Russian-made regional Sukhoi Superjet aircraft to their fleets.

The Rostec subsidiary now wants the deposit to be returned by Boeing with interest, along with $75 million in “lost profit” and about $115 million in compensatory damages, plus “several times the amount” in punitive damages, the FT said.

Rostec declined to provide further details about the lawsuit.

Reporting by Gleb Stolyarov; writing by Anton Kolodyazhnyy and Tom Balmforth; Editing by Sherry Jacob-Phillips/Katya Golubkova and Emelia Sithole-Matarise

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Boeing customer files lawsuit to cancel Max jet order

By Ken Martin Published August 27, 2019 StocksFOXBusiness

A Russian aircraft leasing group is reportedly suing to cancel its order of Boeing Max jets.

Avia wants to cancel its order for 35 of the grounded Boeing jets, according to the Financial Times.

The aircraft leasing company is suing for breach of contract and is filing the first lawsuit against Boeing by a customer over safety issues.

Avia Capital Services, claims two deadly crashes were due to the “negligent actions and decisions of Boeing” and not just in designing a plane that was “defective.” The suit also says Boeing withheld critical information from the US aviation safety regulator during certification, according to the report in the FT.

Avia had placed an order for 35 Max 8 jets from before the planes were grounded worldwide in March.

Boeing has been negotiating compensation deals with customers and forcing the company to take a $4.9 billion charge in the second quarter.

Russian firm sues Boeing over Max jet, open to settlement

Associated Press•August 27, 2019

MOSCOW (AP) — A Russian aircraft leasing company says it has filed a lawsuit against Boeing over an order of 35 Boeing 737 Max jets, but that it’s open to a settlement.

Avia Capital Services told the state-owned Tass news agency Tuesday that it has brought the lawsuit against Boeing in the United States, accusing it of failing to disclose the information about the jets’ “defects.”

Nearly 400 Max jets that were being flown by airlines around the world have been grounded since March, shortly after the second of two crashes that together killed 346 people.

Avia told Tass that Boeing had pushed back the delivery date from October to March next year. It said it is willing to sit down for talks with Boeing and settle out of court.

A Russian company is the first customer to sue Boeing over its 737 Max planes

By Rob McLean, CNN Business

Updated 10:00 AM ET, Tue August 27, 2019

New York (CNN Business)A Russian company that leases aircraft is suing Boeing over the plane maker’s grounded 737 Max 8 jets. It is the first Boeing customer to sue over the grounding.

Avia, which agreed several years ago to buy 35 of the planes, claims Boeing (BA) breached the contract by misrepresenting how safe the plane was to fly, and alleges it put profits ahead of safety, as it competed with rival Airbus for market share.

The suit was first reported by the Financial Times. Boeing declined to comment Monday night to CNN Business about the lawsuit.

The 737 Max crisis could destroy Boeing’s plans for the 797

It’s still not clear when the plane will be allowed to return to service, but its CEO told CNBC in June that he believes the plane will be back in the air before the end of 2019.

Nearly 400 planes already in airline fleets have been grounded and Boeing has halted deliveries of the 737 Max, although it continues to build them.

Boeing says the aircraft is the fastest-selling airplane in its history. It has received about 5,000 orders from more than 100 customers around the world.

Boeing executives and executives at several major airlines have said they plan to reach an agreement on compensation for the groundings and for the delays in deliveries. Details of that compensation are not yet known, although Boeing has taken a $4.9 billion after-tax chargerelated to potential concessions and other considerations to its customers.

— CNN’s Chris Isidore, Rene Marsh and Gregory Wallace contributed to this report.

Yes, There’s An Attorney Behind Actor Morgan Freeman’s Ads for Air Bag Recall

The Podhurst Orseck litigator has served as lead counsel in the multidistrict litigation over the defective vehicle safety parts. He and settlement administrator Patrick Juneau remain concerned that many drivers are still operating vehicles with Takata air bags.

By Zach Schlein | August 20, 2019 Peter Prieto, with Podhurst Orseck. Photo: J. Albert Diaz/ALM.

Peter Prieto, the Podhurst Orseck partner who helped litigate the largest automotive recall in U.S. history, has a connection to a new advertising featuring Academy Award-winner Morgan Freeman.

His work and others helped lead to a new consumer awareness campaign that launched in August, featuring Freeman.

The spots, which have been airing on radio, television and digital platforms, see the “Seven” actor ask viewers to check if their automobiles have been recalled for dangerous air bags. They point to a website, SafeAirbags.com, which provides a list of vehicle manufacturers, makes and models that carry Takata air bags impacted by the recall.

The ads are the result of settlements with automakers in multidistrict litigation over air bags manufactured by Takata Corp., whose faulty equipment left car accident victims with additional injuries they otherwise would not have suffered.

Prieto was lead counsel in the multidistrict litigation.

“What was unique was a significant portion of the settlement funds were to be used for outreach,” he said, because millions of recalled air bags remain on the road.

According to the Associated Press, at least 24 deaths and 200 injuries have been tied to Takata’s defective air bags. A December 2018 report by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said as of October 2018, nearly 17 million Takata air bag inflators subject to the recall had not been repaired, and 10 million more models were expected to be added to the recall list.

The legal action, which was brought against nearly all automakers and represented more than 40 million plaintiffs, sought financial compensation for those who suffered monetary losses or incurred expenses because of the recall.

Over the last three years, Prieto and his co-counsel have secured $1.5 billion in settlement awards from car manufacturers who used Takata’s vehicle safety equipment in their products. This includes Honda, Nissan, Toyota, Subaru, Mazda and BMW.

The attorney said the scope of the recall required the parties to utilize “nontraditional, creative ways” to reach drivers who might be unaware they’re driving with Takata air bags.

“In the past … automakers just sent out emails, or even letters,” Prieto said. “What would happen is people would simply look at letters and toss them out.”

Prieto credited the litigation’s settlement administrator, Patrick Juneau of Juneau David, with formulating a means of meaningfully alerting consumers to the dangers their car may pose. Juneau, who’s based out of Lafayette, Louisiana, and was appointed by U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno to the case, said he’s aware customers often ignore warnings posed by public awareness campaigns.

“We are trying to cut through that noise and capture the attention of those affected in creative ways, and there is no voice more iconic or authoritative or trustworthy than Mr. Freeman’s,” Juneau said in a statement. He said Freeman “immediately saw the importance of the campaign” and was partly motivated by the millions of people it stood to affect.

“His captivating voice and demeanor and delivery immediately captures the attention of a wide range of consumers across the country, and therefore is more [to] likely raise greater awareness and understanding across a broader grouping of people regarding this urgent safety recall,” Juneau added.

Prieto said the settlement and ensuing campaign has resulted in a unique degree of collaboration between the plaintiffs, the settlement administrators and the defendants. However, he asserted long-term work still remains in not only ensuring customer’s safety, but in the courtroom as well.

“We are still litigating, and that litigation is pending against General Motors, Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz and Fiat Chrysler,” Prieto said. “We’re going to continue to litigate with them until there is either a trial or resolution. We’re simply going to press forward and make sure we obtain relief for our class members as we got with the previous class members. And if it’s by trial or settlement, so be it.”

Podhurst Orseck Joins Stalking Suit Against Actor Danny Masterson, Scientology Church

Miami attorneys Ricardo Martinez-Cid and Lea Bucciero are collaborating with Philadelphia lawyer Brian Kent of Laffey, Bucci, & Kent and others in pursuing claims against the Hollywood actor and church.

By Zach Schlein | August 16, 2019 Ricardo M. Martinez-Cid, Podhurst Orseck, P.A. Photo: J. Albert Diaz

Two Miami lawyers are providing counsel in an invasion-of-privacy and stalking complaint against the Church of Scientology and “That ’70s Show” actor Danny Masterson.

Podhurst Orseck litigators Ricardo Martinez-Cid and Lea Bucciero are part of the multifirm team representing plaintiffs who purport to have endured physical and emotional distress at the hands of Masterson and the organization. A lawsuit filed Wednesday in Los Angeles County alleges Masterson sexually assaulted plaintiff Chrissie Carnell Bixler and two women whose names are withheld.

The complaint also contends the Church of Scientology has organized long-term harassment campaigns against the women in order to silence, intimidate and stop them from speaking out about their alleged interactions with Masterson. The suit characterized the actor as having been “born into Scientology.”

Martinez-Cid said he anticipates additional lawsuits against the Church of Scientology in Florida, New York, California and around the country. He said he and Bucciero were brought onto the case by Philadelphia-based attorney and Laffey, Bucci & Kent partner Brian Kent.

The Podhurst Orseck partner described Kent as a close friend, who has worked on behalf of sexual abuse victims as both a prosecutor and a private attorney.

“When [Kent] called Lea and me to ask whether we would join in the fight to hold to The Church of Scientology accountable for the abuses that have occurred, we were eager,” said Martinez-Cid, who added that his team has interviewed dozens allegedly victimized by Scientology. “We are proud to represent these individuals brave enough to come forward.”

Kent returned the compliment. In an emailed statement, he described the Podhurst Orseck attorneys’ contribution to the case as “essential.”

“Podhurst Orseck has established itself as one of the top law firms in the country, dedicated to fighting for the rights of those who have been victimized by corporations and institutions,” Kent said. “Having personally known Ricardo Martinez-Cid and Lea Bucciero for years, both professionally and as close, personal friends, I have seen their talents shine through in their work as well as their commitment and dedication to exposing abuses within organizations like Scientology.”

The Church of Scientology is being represented by Scheper Kim & Harris attorney William Forman. The Los Angeles-based lawyer said the lawsuit is “ludicrous and a sham.”

“This baseless lawsuit will go nowhere,” Forman said in an emailed statement. The attorney contended the plaintiffs are pawns in a moneymaking scam by actress Leah Remini, a former Scientologist and outspoken critic of the organization.

Masterson’s lawyer, Lavely & Singer attorney Andrew Brettler, provided the Daily Business Review with a statement from his client calling the suit “beyond ridiculous.”

“I’m not going to fight my ex-girlfriend in the media like she’s been baiting me to do for more than two years,” Masterson said. “Once her lawsuit is thrown out, I intend to sue her and the others who jumped on the bandwagon for the damage they caused me and my family.”

Seven Podhurst Orseck Attorneys Named 2020 Best Lawyers

Podhurst Orseck is pleased to announce that seven of its attorneys have been recognized in the 2020 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America by U.S. News & World Report. Our firm’s highly experienced attorneys focus their practice on litigation matters including aviation, products liability, serious personal injury, wrongful death claims, as well as complex commercial litigation, white collar defense, and more. Additionally, the firm has a strong appellate practice, handling appeals for its own attorneys and attorneys throughout the nation, in various state and federal appellate courts, including the United States Supreme Court.The following Podhurst Orseck attorneys were recognized by Best Lawyers:

Aaron S. Podhurst – Bet-the-Company Litigation, Commercial Litigation & Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs
Robert C. Josefsberg – Bet-the-Company Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Criminal Defense: General Practice & Criminal Defense: White Collar
Joel D. Eaton – Appellate Practice, Bet-the-Company Litigation, Commercial Litigation & Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs
Steven C. Marks – Criminal Defense: White-Collar & Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs
Peter Prieto – Commercial Litigation, Corporate Compliance Law, Criminal Defense: General Practice & Criminal Defense: White Collar
Stephen F. Rosenthal – Appellate Practice & Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs
Ricardo M. Martinez-Cid – Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs

Best Lawyers is one of the oldest and most respected peer-review publications in the legal profession. Recognition in Best Lawyers is widely regarded by both clients and legal professionals as a significant honor, conferred on a lawyer by his or her peers. Its list of outstanding lawyers is compiled by conducting exhaustive peer-review surveys in which tens of thousands of leading lawyers confidentially evaluate their professional peers, and if votes for a lawyer are positive enough for recognition, that lawyer then must maintain those votes in subsequent polls to remain in each edition.

Best Lawyers in America 2020

Miami – 2020:

Aaron S. Podhurst (1983) (30)
Bet-the-Company Litigation
Commercial Litigation
Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs

Robert C. Josefsberg (1983) (30)
Bet-the-Company Litigation
Commercial Litigation
Criminal Defense: Non-White-Collar
Criminal Defense: White-Collar

Joel D. Eaton (1989) (25)
Appellate Practice
Bet-the-Company Litigation
Commercial Litigation
Personal Injury Litigation –
Plaintiffs

Steven C. Marks (2007) (10)
Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs

Peter Prieto (2005) (10)
Commercial Litigation
Corporate Compliance Law
Criminal Defense: Non-White-Collar
Criminal Defense: White-Collar

Stephen Rosenthal (2010) (5)
Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs
Appellate Practice

Ricardo M. Martinez-Cid (2013) (5)
Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs

(Year) First year the lawyer was listed. (*) Lawyers who are listed for the first time in Best Lawyers.

Families of 737 Max crash victims say Boeing has not contacted them, offered support, or apologized since the disasters

Several families of the victims of the two Boeing 737 Max crashes say Boeing has not contacted them to offer support, condolences, or an apology.
Boeing has apologized publicly, but the father of a woman killed in one of the crashes says “a true apology is when you sit across the table together and exchange sentiment — at the very least.”
One aviation lawyer said that while it’s not unusual for a plane manufacturer not to apologize after a crash, he did not think an apology would hurt Boeing’s legal standing.
Boeing told Business Insider it “extends our heartfelt condolences and sympathies to the families and loved ones” on the planes. It did not respond to a question about why it had not spoken with families directly.

Families of those killed in two fatal crashes involving Boeing 737 Max planes say they have not received any contact from Boeing since the disasters, with no apology or offer of support from the manufacturer.

The parents of a woman killed on one of the flights told Business Insider they had received “no condolences” and “no direct communication” from Boeing despite numerous public apologies by the plane maker and said Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg “talks to other people but not us, the victims’ families.”

Nadia Milleron and Michael Stumo lost their 24-year-old daughter, Samya Stumo, when the Boeing 737 Max 8 jet operated by Ethiopian Airlines crashed in March, killing all 157 people on board.

It was the second crash of a 737 Max plane in five months after a Max 8 operated by the Indonesian carrier Lion Air crashed in the Java Sea in October, killing all 189 people on board.

Investigations into both crashes have centered on a software issue that Boeing has since been working to fix, with all its Max aircraft grounded around the world in the meantime.

Other attorneys representing more than 50 families of those killed in the crashes told Business Insider their clients’ experience was the same.

The Chicago-based aviation attorney Joe Power, the Los-Angeles based attorney Brian Kabateck, and the Miami-based attorney Steve Marks said Boeing had not reached out to their clients.

Marks said that this response was not “unusual” from manufacturers after a crash, but he described Boeing’s reaction as “worse” than a typical response.

He said Boeing “came out really quickly after the second tragedy, and said: ‘We own it, it’s our problem.'”

But then, he said, the company “has since backed those comments off, in many different ways, which I think has only inflamed the situation, as far as the families are concerned.”

Mike Danko, an aviation attorney who is not representing any families in the 737 Max crashes, told Business Insider that Boeing’s action in this case were “not unusual” and that manufacturers typically did not apologize or offer support after fatal plane crashes, but he noted its public apologies.

In a statement to Business Insider, Boeing said it “extends our heartfelt condolences and sympathies to the families and loved ones of those onboard Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 and Lion Air Flight 610.”

It said it was “cooperating fully with the investigating authorities.”

Boeing did not address Business Insider’s question about why it had not spoken with families directly.

Boeing has repeatedly publicly apologized for the crashes. Its CEO, Dennis Muilenburg, first apologized in a Boeing video in April, three weeks after the second crash. In the video, he said that the company was “sorry for the lives lost” and that the “tragedies continue to weigh heavily on our hearts and mind.”

During that statement Muilenburg also said Boeing was working to update the plane to ensure that no similar crashes ever occurred again.

Muilenburg apologized publicly to the victims in May, saying Boeing was “sorry for the loss of lives in both accidents” and “sorry for the impact to the families and loves ones that are behind.”

He also said the company did not implement software to the plane “correctly.”

And at the Paris Air Show in June, Muilenburg said Boeing “made a mistake” in handling the system and said Boeing’s communication was “not acceptable.”

Milleron and Stumo told Business Insider that Muilenburg “never apologized for killing our daughter.”

Stumo said Boeing “put a camera in Muilenburg’s face,” referring to his video apology in April.

“A true apology is when you sit across the table together and exchange sentiment — at the very least.”

Milleron said the apology needed to say: “I did this wrong thing to you and I am sorry. I regret this specific wrong that I did to you.”

“That’s an actual apology,” she said. “If they just say they are sorry to a camera, not to the actual persons that they’ve harmed, that is not an apology at all.

“I don’t understand how he could possibly think so, and I don’t think the American people see that as an actual apology.”

More families did come forward to sue Boeing after the company’s first apology in April, but Danko said apologizing or offering support to the families was unlikely to harm the company’s legal position.

“If anything, an apology can lead lower settlements, especially in cases involving death,” he said.

Boeing did not respond to Business Insider’s question about whether it thought apologizing to families directly would harm its legal strategy, and it said it would not comment on the lawsuits directly.

Danko said Boeing could offer condolences and support to families without offering a full apology by saying something like: “We’re so sorry for what happened and for the unspeakable loss you’ve experienced. We haven’t yet gotten to the bottom of what happened but are committed to doing so. We want to make sure that no one else has to go through what you’re going through now. We will not rest and our plane will not fly again until we’re 100% convinced of that.”

Boeing has been working with regulators as the US Federal Aviation Administration prepares to examine its updated software for the plane. The software needs to be approved before the plane can fly again.

Boeing has also been in contact with airlines since the crashes as they await the plane’s return and as some ask for compensation.

Muilenburg said in June that Boeing was “going to be working with all of our customers around the world to make things right” and that the company was working with them “individually customer by customer.”

Boeing Pledges $100 Million to Families, Communities Hurt by 737 MAX Crashes

By Andrew Tangel

Boeing Co. BA 0.08% pledged $100 million in financial support to families and communities affected by two fatal crashes of its 737 MAX plane, as the company works to restore a reputation shaken by the tragedies.

The Chicago-based plane maker said the funds would cover costs including living expenses for families, community development and education efforts.

The move comes while Boeing is in talks to settle legal claims with the families of dozens of victims of the Lion Air crash in waters near Jakarta last October and another fatal MAX accident in Ethiopia in March. The two crashes claimed the lives of all 346 people on the two flights, and led to the global grounding of 737 MAX planes.

“The families and loved ones of those on board have our deepest sympathies, and we hope this initial outreach can help bring them comfort,” Boeing Chief Executive Dennis Muilenburg said Wednesday.

Another Boeing official said the $100 million pledge was “absolutely independent of the lawsuits” and wouldn’t have any bearing on litigation or mediation.

It wasn’t immediately clear how relatives of the MAX crash victims could apply for financial assistance. The Boeing official said the company would work with local governments and nonprofit groups to distribute the funds.

Some lawyers representing victims’ families in civil litigation against the company said the money is a step in the right direction, while others decried it as a publicity stunt and questioned how the $100 million would be spent.

“It doesn’t do anything meaningful for the families and it doesn’t give them the answers they’re looking for,” said Steven Marks, a lawyer at Podhurst Orseck PA in Miami, who is representing families of victims of the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashes.

Boeing didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Lawyers said the funds won’t stop them from pushing the company for answers through the lawsuits. A judge overseeing lawsuits related to the crash in Ethiopia said last week Boeing must begin turning over documents to plaintiffs in the coming months.

“I don’t believe any of our clients would resolve their cases before more information about the causes of the two tragedies is known and that they know that something of the same nature won’t occur again,” said Justin Green, an attorney in New York with several cases related to the Ethiopia crash.

Boeing had come under fire in the aftermath of the two crashes for appearing to deflect blame and withholding information from airlines and pilots. Executives have stepped up efforts to express sorrow. Last month, Mr. Muilenburg said the company had made mistakes in how it communicated during the crisis.

Boeing faces potential legal costs from the MAX crashes far in excess of Wednesday’s financial commitment. Some analysts estimate settlements with plaintiffs could top $3 billion.

That money would come on top of other costs from the MAX’s global grounding, including potentially several billion dollars in compensation to airlines. Boeing in April said it would take a $1 billion charge against earnings to cover higher plane-production expenses spread over the life of the jetliner program. The figure didn’t include unspecified costs to fix the MAX.

Boeing, a big beneficiary of recent U.S. tax cuts, in 2017 said it planned to use $300 million of the savings for charitable donations and workforce education.

Boeing Agrees to Talk Settlement Over 737 Max 8 Crash Lawsuits

Boeing and lawyers suing on behalf of victims of last year’s Lion Air crash have agreed to a mediation in July in an attempt to settle the cases.

By Amanda Bronstad | May 29, 2019 at 07:35 PM

Debris recovered from the crash site sits on the dockside at Tanjung Priok Port in Jakarta, Indonesia, on Oct. 29, 2018. Photo: Rony Zakaria/Bloomberg

The Boeing Co. has agreed to mediate dozens of lawsuits brought over last year’s Lion Air crash, one of two disasters tied to its grounded 737 Max 8 aircraft.
Lawyers for Boeing and family members suing on behalf of victims of the Oct. 29 crash of Lion Air Flight 610 in Indonesia, which killed 189 people, told a federal judge in Chicago about the mediation plan in a joint case management report filed in court this month. Boeing had agreed to bring in mediator Donald O’Connell, a retired judge of the Cook County Circuit Court in Illinois, to “negotiate now in good faith to settle these cases,” the report said.
The move appears to be a turnaround in legal strategy from last month, when Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg attempted to assure shareholders about the safety of its aircraft while skirting calls for his resignation. Discussion about mediation talks come after Boeing and a “group of counsel designated to represent the interests of various plaintiffs” had a telephone conference May 10, according to the case management report.
“During the call, Boeing made clear its willingness to negotiate now in good faith to settle these cases for full compensatory damages under the applicable law as assessed based on the facts and circumstances of each case,” lawyers wrote in the report. “To that end, Boeing proposed that the parties now engage in damages discovery followed by settlement discussions and mediation.”
On May 20, U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin of the Northern District of Illinois ordered that mediation talks, anticipated to last several days, begin July 17.
“Boeing and the claimants in the Lion Air Flight 610 cases have agreed to work together to explore early settlement of these claims, so that those affected can receive compensation without the need for prolonged litigation,” said Paul Bergman, a spokesman for Boeing, which is represented by Mack Shultz, of Perkins Coie in Seattle.
Brian Kabateck, who has filed three lawsuits against Boeing on behalf of Lion Air victims, said the discussions “came about quickly.”
“It’s really a big question right now of whether or not there’s real efforts to mediate or not,” said Kabateck, of Kabateck LLP in Los Angeles. “We’re keeping an open mind and we’re hoping that Boeing is keeping an open mind as well.”
Another lead plaintiffs attorney with several Lion Air cases, Steven Marks of Podhurst Orseck in Miami, said plaintiffs’ attorneys had pushed for an expedited schedule on the mediation. He said there is a “reasonable likelihood” that settlement talks would be successful.
The mediation talks do not involve lawsuits brought over the Ethiopian Airlines 302 crash March 10 that killed 157 people. That crash, coupled with the Lion Air disaster, prompted Boeing to ground its 737 Max 8 aircraft.
But Marks said he wouldn’t be surprised if Boeing reached out to lawyers in those cases, as well.
“It’s fairly obvious that the liability in this case is aggravated and gross, and they’re getting hurt publicity wise, and the fleet is still grounded, and I think any reasonable fact finder is going to hold Boeing accountable,” he said. “As a corporation that wants to put something behind them, it’s the logical thing to do.”
This week, the International Air Transport Association, an airline industry group, said Boeing’s 737 Max 8 would remain grounded for several more months. Earlier this month, Boeing named a new general counsel.
The mediation talks halt Boeing’s plan to file a motion to dismiss the Lion Air lawsuits next month. Boeing had indicated it would assert dismissal based on forum non conveniens. If the lawyers “reach an impasse” during mediation, according to the joint case management report, Boeing would have 10 days to file its motion to dismiss.
Marks said doubted Boeing’s dismissal arguments would fly.
“For a lot of reasons, these cases will not be dismissed on forum non conveniens,” he said. “There are a number of shareholder suits pending, a criminal investigation pending, and all the issues related to liability are in the United States. The FAA is not subject to forum non conveniens dismissal, and they’re going to be joined in the case, and the same facts are intermixed and duplicative to the claims against Boeing.”
Durkin scheduled a June 30 deadline for plaintiffs attorneys to produce damages discovery.
“It’s anyone’s bet what could happen.” Kabateck said. “We could be at law and motion practice by the end of summer. We could be in settlement discussions at the end of the summer. This is a story that is unlike anything I’ve ever been involved in my legal career.”7

Lion Air Crash Suits Against Boeing Consolidated In Ill.

By Linda Chiem

Law360 (April 16, 2019, 5:07 PM EDT) — Twenty-five lawsuits against Boeing filed by the families of victims of October’s Lion Air crash in Indonesia were consolidated in Illinois federal court Tuesday as the U.S. plane maker faces growing litigation over alleged defects in its 737 MAX jets.

U.S. District Judge Thomas M. Durkin issued an order saying he’ll oversee an additional 25 lawsuits from certain families of the victims of Lion Air Flight 610, which crashed into the Java Sea minutes after taking off from Jakarta en route to Pangkal Pinang in Indonesia. The Oct. 29 crash killed 189 people.

The 25 suits join six other suits that Judge Durkin already consolidated last month, with the lead case now known as In re: Lion Air Flight JT 610 Crash. The victims’ families allege in the suits that the Boeing Co. negligently designed and manufactured “defective” and “unreasonably dangerous” 737 MAX 8 jets, its newest and most popular line of jets.

Boeing’s 737 MAX 8 aircraft was involved in both the Lion Air crash and the recent March 10 crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 that killed 157 people. The planes have been grounded globally since last month and Boeing is facing numerous lawsuits from the families of victims from both crashes.

Courts routinely consolidate victims’ lawsuits stemming from major aviation and other transportation accidents. Boeing is based in Chicago, which is why the suits are playing out in Illinois federal court.

Steven C. Marks of Podhurst Orseck PA, who is representing families in five suits that were part of Tuesday’s consolidation order, said that such cases are customarily consolidated for liability purposes and common discovery.

“The judge is simply following the most efficient and prudent methods that are appropriate for this kind of matter,” Marks said. “The damages, of course, are unique and different and so at the appropriate time, the court will address the procedures dealing with those issues. … We agree that this is the best method and the most efficient way to effectively handle these cases.”

Floyd Wisner of Wisner Law Firm PC, whose firm was among the first to sue Boeing over the Lion Air crash in Illinois federal court in November, also said Tuesday that the order is “procedural, but it has to be done.”

Many of the lawsuits fault Boeing for installing angle of attack sensors on the plane that reported inaccurate data to the flight control system, which then activated the 737 MAX 8’s new anti-stall system and forced the plane into a nosedive.

Preliminary findings from aviation authorities and accident investigators in Indonesia and Ethiopia have implicated the anti-stall system — known as the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System — as a likely contributor to both crashes.

Boeing earlier this month acknowledged the apparent role of the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System in both crashes, saying it will slow down production of the planes while it continues to work on a software update to correct the errors related to the anti-stall system.

“We now know that the recent Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 accidents were caused by a chain of events, with a common chain link being erroneous activation of the aircraft’s MCAS function,” Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg said in a statement April 5. “We have the responsibility to eliminate this risk, and we know how to do it.”

Meanwhile, congressional leaders, a government watchdog and federal prosecutors are investigating whether there were any oversight lapses in the Federal Aviation Administration’s aircraft certification process, in addition to whistleblower claims that FAA safety inspectors weren’t sufficiently trained to evaluate and approve the 737 MAX 8.

Boeing declined to comment on the litigation on Tuesday.

“Boeing extends our heartfelt condolences and sympathies to the families and loved ones of those onboard Lion Air Flight 610,” the company said in a statement. “As the investigation continues, Boeing is cooperating fully with the investigating authorities.”

The Lion Air victims’ families are represented by Wisner Law Firm PC, Corboy & Demetrio PC, Nolan Law Group, Hays Firm LLC, Podhurst Orseck PA, BartlettChen LLC, Ribbeck Law Chartered, Gardiner Koch Weisberg & Wrona, Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge, Kabateck LLP and Sanjiv N. Singh APLC.

Boeing is represented by Bates McIntyre Larson, Daniel T. Burley, Mack H. Shultz Jr. and Gretchen M. Paine of Perkins Coie LLP

The lead case is In re: Lion Air Flight JT 610 Crash, case number 1:18-cv-07686, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

–Editing by Abbie Sarfo.

Boeing acknowledges flight control system’s role in crashes, promises ‘disciplined approach’ to fix

By David Shortell, CNN
Updated 7:00 PM ET, Thu April 4, 2019

(CNN)Boeing said for the first time Thursday that an anti-stall system on its 737 Max model had played a role in two recent plane crashes, an acknowledgment that will heighten the scrutiny the company is facing as it works to return its signature aircraft — currently grounded by aviation regulators around the globe — to the skies.

Dennis Muilenburg, the company’s CEO, made the acknowledgment in a statement following the release of a preliminary report by Ethiopian investigators that found that a malfunctioning sensor on an Ethiopian Airlines flight last month was sending incorrect data to the plane’s flight control system.

According to the report, the pilots battled the system as it pushed the nose of the aircraft down, responding to faulty data from the angle of attack sensor that appeared to show the plane directed too far up and at risk of stalling.

The problems on board the Ethiopian Airlines jet mirror those encountered on the Lion Air flight that crashed in October. Between the two crashes, 346 people were killed.

Boeing announced last week that it had developed a fix to the anti-stall system, known as the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, that it was ready to submit for final regulatory approval, though on Monday it delayed that submission, later citing the discovery of an additional “relatively minor” issue.

“It’s apparent that in both flights the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, known as MCAS, activated in response to erroneous angle of attack information,” Muilenburg said Thursday, calling the system one link in a “chain of events” that caused the crash.

“It’s our responsibility to eliminate this risk. We own it and we know how to do it,” Muilenburg said.

The Federal Aviation Administration certification process for the MCAS software update has taken place in a separate procedure than the initial review of the Boeing 737 Max, which has been criticized for its reliance on designated Boeing employees for certain sign-offs.

While Boeing and the FAA have been working in lockstep since the company began its redesign of the software after the Lion Air crash last year, final certification for the update will fall to FAA officials, not Boeing designees, a person familiar with the process said.

That is standard procedure for a specific update or fix to an individual part, versus the years-long certification of a new airplane model, which allows for the approval of certain elements of design and airworthiness by specifically designated Boeing employees, in accordance with a long-standing agreement between the manufacturer and the FAA.

Boeing first submitted a proposed certification plan to the FAA in January for the update, and the FAA has since participated in simulator tests to the new software. On March 12, the FAA went up on a Boeing certification flight to test the new software, a Boeing official said.

US Air Force again halts delivery of Boeing refueling plane over debris found onboard

The updated software will include data from a second angle of attack sensor and will no longer be able to produce an angle that cannot be counteracted manually by a pilot.

“This update, along with the associated training and additional educational materials that pilots want in the wake of these accidents, will eliminate the possibility of unintended MCAS activation and prevent an MCAS-related accident from ever happening again,” Muilenburg said in the statement Thursday.

The update design had appeared to be going smoothly and approaching conclusion last week. A Boeing official had said then that the company was planning to send the update to the FAA for final certification by last Friday, and that Wednesday, Boeing unveiled the new software to a gathering of aviation officials at its Renton, Washington, facility.

Later in the week, however, Boeing employees going through a final check, called the non-advocate review process, identified integration issues with the new software, a Boeing official said. That review process, a regular layer of oversight at the company, involves inspection of a program by Boeing employees that did not work on its development.

A Boeing spokesman later said the problem in the updated software that was discovered in the non-advocate review process was unrelated to MCAS and “relatively minor.”

On Monday, Boeing notified airlines that flew the Max and aviation regulators that there would be a delay in submitting the final certification for the update, two people familiar with the timeline said.

Boeing has said the completed update will be sent to the FAA for final review in “the coming weeks.”

“We’re taking a comprehensive, disciplined approach, and taking the time, to get the software update right,” Muilenburg said Thursday, adding an apology for the deaths due to the crashes and a recognition that “all of us feel the immense gravity of these events across our company.”

Lawmakers have slammed Boeing and the FAA for the regulatory agreement that takes workload off of government inspectors and puts it on the manufacturer.

“The fact is that the FAA decided to do safety on the cheap, which is neither safe or cheap, and put the fox in charge of the henhouse,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, said at a hearing last week.

Michael Goldfarb, a former FAA chief of staff, said the fixes to the 737 Max will likely take months, not weeks, because Boeing does not want to “create a bigger problem than was fixed.”

“This will be treated differently from the way business is done,” Goldfarb told CNN of the FAA review of the update. “This will be micromanaged from Secretary Chao down.”

Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao told a Senate panel last week that she was “concerned” about the allegations of coziness between FAA and Boeing but she defended the practice of company employees handling certification responsibilities.

“I am of course concerned about any allegations of coziness with any company, manufacturer,” Chao said. “These questions, when they arise, if they arise, are troubling because we should have absolute confidence in the regulators that they are certifying properly.”

Muilenburg was aboard a test flight of the 737 Max in Seattle on Wednesday for a demonstration of the updated MCAS software, according to Boeing spokesman Gordon Johndroe.

The software worked as designed and the plane landed safely, Johndroe said.

CNN’s Gregory Wallace contributed to this report.

Dutch surviving relative sues Boeing for crash in Ethiopia

TUESDAY, 4:02 PM

Huguette Debets, from Rwandan origin, is suing Boeing. She thinks the aircraft manufacturer is responsible for the aircraft crash with the Boeing 737 MAX from Ethiopian Airlines last month. All 157 passengers were killed, including the ex-husband of Debets, the Rwandan Jackson Musoni. Together they have two children aged 4 and 5 years.

Debets’ ex-husband worked for the United Nations. He was with two colleagues on the way to a conference in the Kenyan capital Nairobi.

Debets wants answers that give her and the other relatives the chance to let go, she says in this video:

“It is 346 lives that children, parents, brothers, sisters and friends leave behind”

The crash happened six months after an accident with the same aircraft from Boeing, in Indonesia. All 189 passengers were killed. Both accidents happened immediately after taking off and also showed a number of similarities.

When asked what motivates her to sue Boeing, Debets (35) answers with a sum. “189 plus 157, that is 346 lives that children leave behind, parents, siblings, friends, colleagues. People who had a good life and who had potential, but even though they did nothing at all in life, they are lives. All lives matter. ”

Don’t get away with it

Aircraft manufacturer Boeing is not allowed to get away with this, says Debets. Not like the previous disaster, with a device from the Indonesian company Lion Air, more than half a year ago. Even then, questions were asked by relatives’ lawyers, but that did not lead anywhere.

The invisibility of Boeing after the second disaster last month in Ethiopia has deeply touched Debets. “Is it so easy to get away with it? It could have been resolved with the 189 (the number of victims in the Lion Air disaster, ed.), Perhaps even before that.”

Shortly after the disaster with the aircraft of Ethiopian Airlines, all 737 MAX 8 and 9 aircraft were chained. It is no longer allowed to fly with it until it is clear what went wrong. Boeing has announced a software update and apologizes. “Far too late,” says Debets.

True answers

“I can’t just say: the father of my children died on a plane because that happens, no.” She wants real answers to the important question: why is this not prevented?

Debets is so far the only one that has filed a lawsuit. She hopes people will join her, but she doesn’t count on anything. “I have already adjusted myself to the worst-case scenario: I am alone.”

She is combative and has a long breath. “For my part it can take twenty years, I have the time. I will continue until the end.”

Etiopía presentará el primer informe oficial sobre la tragedia del Boeing 737 MAX y apunta al sistema MCAS

El sistema de estabilización automática MCAS, implicado en el accidente en octubre de un 737 MAX 8 en Indonesia, se activó también en el avión de Ethiopian Airlines poco antes de estrellarse el 10 de marzo, dijo el viernes a la agencia AFP una fuente cercana al caso, mientras se espera que el ministerio de Transporte etíope presente este lunes el primer informe oficial sobre el incidente.

El hallazgo sobre el MCAS sería precisamente parte de las conclusiones preliminares del análisis de las cajas negras del vuelo 302 de Ethiopian Airlines siniestrado en el que murieron 157 personas al este de Adís Abeba, dijo la fuente en condición de anonimato.

Agregó que la información se presentó el jueves a las autoridades estadounidenses, entre ellas a la Agencia Federal de Aviación (FAA), que analizan la información transmitida por Etiopía.

Esto no excluye que los reguladores estadounidenses puedan revisar sus hallazgos,advirtió la fuente, confirmando información publicada por el Wall Street Journal.

Las autoridades etíopes ya había adelantado que existen “claras similitudes” entre los accidentes del vuelo 302 de Ethiopian Airlines y el vuelo 610 de Lion Air del 29 de octubre, que dejó 189 muertos.

En los dos casos, los reguladores y los expertos aeronaúticos estimaron que el sistema estabilizador MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) tuvo un papel importante. Este sistema fue instalado en los 737 MAX para compensar los problemas aerodinámicos causados por el cambio de ubicación y el peso de los dos motores de la aeronave.

Boeing defiende el MCAS, pero anuncia modificaciones

La familia de Jackson Musoni, un ruandés de 31 años que viajaba a bordo del vuelo 302 de Ethiopian, acusa a Boeing de diseñar un sistema estabilizador MCAS defectuoso.

“Hubo una reconfiguración de la aeronave, lo que significa que los motores estaban adelantados (…), cambiando, sin duda, la forma del fuselaje y en definitiva alterando la aerodinámica”, dijo a la AFP por teléfono Steven Marks, abogado de la familia de Musoni.

“No podemos comentar sobre la demanda. Ofrecemos nuestras condolencias a las familias y el entorno de los pasajeros de Ethiopian Airlines. Boeing continúa participando en la investigación y está trabajando con las autoridades para evaluar la nueva información a medida que está disponible”, declaró por su parte un portavoz de la empresa estadounidense en un correo electrónico.

La flota de 737 MAX se encuentra inmovilizada en tierra desde mediados de marzo después del accidente de Ethiopian Airlines, el segundo siniestro que involucra a este avión en menos de cinco meses. En consecuencia, Boeing ha entrado en una crisis sin precedentes y hay incertidumbre por sus pedidos restantes de 737 MAx, valuados en 500.000 millones de dólares.

Los primeros elementos de la investigación del Lion Air 737 MAX indican que uno de los sensores que registra el ángulo de ataque de la aeronave, es decir la posición de la nariz, falló, pero siguió transmitiendo esta información errónea al sistema, incluido el MCAS,que continuó tratando de hacer que el avión fuera en picada, cuando no era necesario, para recuperar velocidad a pesar de los intentos de los pilotos por enderezarlo. En el incidente murieron 189 personas.

Probablemente tomará largos meses conocer las causas de ambos accidentes.

El Departamento de Justicia de Estados Unidos ha iniciado una investigación criminal sobre el desarrollo del 737 MAX, mientras se está realizando una auditoría de la certificación del MCAS.

Boeing presentó el miércoles los cambios al MCAS para hacerlo “más sólido” con el fin de recuperar la confianza del público y convencer a las autoridades para que levanten la prohibición de vuelo de los 737 MAX.

Probablemente tomará largos meses conocer las causas de ambos accidentes.

El Departamento de Justicia de Estados Unidos ha iniciado una investigación criminal sobre el desarrollo del 737 MAX, mientras se está realizando una auditoría de la certificación del MCAS.

Ethiopian Airlines accident: Victim’s family sues Boeing

The family of a Rwandan citizen who died in the Boeing 737 MAX 8 accident at Ethiopian Airlines, which killed 157 people on March 10, filed a lawsuit in Chicago against aeronautical manufacturer Boeing, Rwandan media reported on Saturday.

The family of Jackson Musoni, who was among the UN employees who were aboard the Boeing that crashed south-east of Addis Ababa just minutes after takeoff, accuses the American manufacturer of having designed a MCAS anti-stall system defective.

“There was a reconfiguration of the aircraft, which means that the engines were advanced (…), undoubtedly changing the shape of the fuselage and ultimately altering aerodynamics,” Steven Marks told the press, Jackson Musoni’s family advisor, quoted by the media.

The complaint was filed in a Chicago court by Podhurst Orsek on behalf of Jackson Musoni’s family.

The fleet of 737 MAX, 8 and 9, has been grounded since mid-March after the crash of Ethiopian Airlines, the second drama involving this aircraft in less than five months.

Last October, a 737 MAX 8 from Lion Air crashed in Indonesia, killing 189 people.

Boeing anti-stall system was activated in Ethiopia crash

Boeing’s controversial anti-stall system, which was implicated in the crash of a 737 MAX 8 airliner in Indonesia in October last year, was also activated shortly before an accident this month in Ethiopia, a source with knowledge of the investigation said on Friday.

The information is among the preliminary findings from the analysis of the “black boxes” retrieved from Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, which crashed southeast of Addis Ababa on March 10, killing 157 people, the source told reporters on condition of anonymity.

The information retrieved from the plane’s voice and data recorders was on Thursday presented to US authorities, including the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the source said.

However, the investigation is still under way and the findings are not yet definitive, they added.

The information was first reported by the Wall Street Journal.

Boeing and the FAA declined to comment.

‘CLEAR SIMILARITIES’

Ethiopian authorities have promised to submit the preliminary report on Flight 302 by the middle of next month, but have already said that there are “clear similarities” between the two MAX 8 crashes.

It was yet another blow to aviation giant Boeing, which just this week unveiled a fix to the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) that it designed to prevent stalls in its new plane.

The planemaker has tried to restore its battered reputation, even while continuing to insist that the MAX is safe.

The family of 31-year-old Jackson Musoni, a Rwandan who died in the Ethiopian Airlines accident, on Thursday filed a lawsuit against Boeing in a court in Chicago, where the company has its corporate headquarters.

The suit accuses the company of designing a defective system.

The MCAS, which lowers the aircraft’s nose if it detects a stall or loss of airspeed, was developed specifically for the 737 MAX, which has heavier engines than its predecessor, creating aerodynamic issues.

The initial investigation into the Lion Air crash in Indonesia, which killed all 189 people on board, found that an “angle of attack” (AOA) sensor failed, but continued to transmit erroneous information to the MCAS.

The pilot tried repeatedly to regain control and pull the nose up, but the plane crashed into the ocean.

The flight track of the doomed Ethiopian Airlines flight, which also crashed minutes after takeoff, “was very similar to Lion Air [indicating] there was very possibly a link between the two flights,” FAA acting chief Daniel Elwell told the US Congress this week.

The FAA grounded the MAX fleet worldwide, but not until two days after most countries had done so.

That delay, along with an FAA policy allowing Boeing to certify some of its own safety features, has raised questions about whether US regulators are too close to the industry.

Elwell denied that the agency was lax in its oversight, saying: “The certification process was detailed and thorough.”

He also seemed to cast doubt on the MCAS as the clear culprit, saying that data collected from 57,000 flights in the US since the MAX was introduced in 2017 revealed not a single reported MCAS malfunction.

‘SAME CAUSE’

However, Steven Marks, the lawyer for Jackson Musoni’s family, said information from the recent tragedies, as well as pilot reports, “made it crystal clear that the cause of these two crashes are the same.”

Ethiopia crash victim’s family sues Boeing

A NATION IN MOURNING: United Nations workers mourn their colleagues during a commemoration ceremony for the victims at the scene of the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crash near Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, March 15. Tiksa Neger I/Reuters

Boeing was sued Thursday in what may be the first U.S. claim tied to the crash of one of its 737 Max 8 jets in Ethiopia this month.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Chicago, where Boeing is headquartered, on behalf of Huguette Debets. Debets is a representative of the family of Jackson Musoni, a United Nations employee who was among the 157 people killed when Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 plummeted into a farm field shortly after taking off from Addis Ababa on March 10.

The lawsuit alleges the crash was caused by a new flight-control system incorporated in the Boeing 737 Max 8.

The 737 Max 8, Boeing’s newest plane, was involved in two crashes in less than five months before aviation safety authorities worldwide, including in the United States, grounded the aircraft. On Oct. 29, 2018, 189 people were killed when a 737 Max 8, flying under the banner of Lion Air, crashed into the Java Sea in Indonesia.

Several lawsuits also have been filed against Boeing related to the Lion Air crash.

“Boeing, having knowledge of all the reports of dangerous conditions and the previous accident that killed over 150 people, should have taken steps to protect the flying public,” said Steve Marks, an attorney with the Miami-based firm Podhurst Orseck, who is representing Musoni’s relatives. “This accident happened when it should have never happened.”

The lawsuit was filed a day after Boeing, grappling with the fallout of the two deadly crashes, sought to reassure the public of the safety of its product, and outlined upgrades to the aircraft’s software and increased training for pilots who fly the 737 Max.

The Justice Department’s criminal division is looking into the 737 Max, and the Transportation Department’s inspector general is investigating the way the certification was handled, as is Congress and a special committee set up by Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao.

Congress on Wednesday held the first of what are likely to be several hearings on the Federal Aviation Administration’s oversight and approval process of the aircraft.

The lawsuit filed Thursday alleges that the Ethiopian Airlines plane crashed because, “among other things, Boeing defectively designed a new flight control system for the Boeing 737 Max 8 that automatically and erroneously pushes the aircraft’s nose down, and because Boeing failed to warn of the defect.”

The aircraft was “defective in design, had inadequate warnings, and was unreasonably dangerous,” the lawsuit said, adding that “Boeing negligently failed to warn the public, the airlines, the pilots, the users, and the intended third-party beneficiaries of the 7387 Max 8’s unreasonably dangerous and defective design, including that the aircraft automatically and uncontrollably dived partly because of erroneous sensors.”

It also claims that the FAA delegated authority to Boeing to approve portions of the aircraft certification process and assisted Boeing in rushing the delivery of the Max 8, resulting in “several crucial flaws” in the safety analysis report Boeing ultimately delivered to the FAA.

Boeing did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit. The acting FAA administrator defended the government’s oversight approach at the Wednesday hearing.

Debets is a representative of Musoni’s family, including three young children. Musoni, 31, a citizen of Rwanda, was a field coordinator with the United Nations Refugee Agency based in Sudan’s East Darfur, according to the agency. He had been working with the United Nations since 2014. He was one of 19 U.N. aid workers and staffers who were on board Flight 302, many of whom were traveling to Nairobi for the U.N. Environment Assembly.

Complaints have been piling up against Boeing since the Lion Air crash in October.

More than 30 relatives of those who died in the Lion Air crash have sued the company. In lawsuits filed last week, the families of two Lion Air passengers alleged that Boeing failed to warn pilots and airlines about a flight-control problem on the Max aircraft, and also pointed to flaws in the certification process of the jetliner, handled by the FAA. Marks, who also represents the families of 20 Lion Air victims, said his clients are also planning to sue the federal government.

More relatives of the victims in both crashes are expected to file lawsuits against the company in coming weeks. Charles Herrmann, a Seattle-based aviation attorney, said relatives of the Ethiopian crash victims have been contacting American attorneys for representation. Herrmann is representing families of 17 Lion Air crash victims.

Preliminary investigations have noted similarities between the two crashes.

Satellite data showed the Ethiopian Airlines jet had ascended and descended multiple times after takeoff, mirroring the behavior of the Lion Air flight.

In that crash, an “angle of attack” sensor, which measures where the nose is pointing, was showing erroneous readings throughout the short time the plane was airborne. With the sensor insisting the nose was too high, the automated system called Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, or MCAS, kicked in, sending the plane down as the cockpit crew unsuccessfully fought to regain control, according to a preliminary investigative report from November.

The possibility that the same scenario occurred in the Ethiopia crash prompted aviation authorities across the world to ground the aircraft.

Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg earlier this week expressed condolences for the victims in both crashes, saying the company is “humbled and learning from this experience.”

“Since the moment we learned of the recent 737 Max accidents, we’ve thought about the lives lost and the impact it has on people around the globe and throughout the aerospace community. All those involved have had to deal with unimaginable pain. We’re humbled by their resilience and inspired by their courage,” Muilenburg said.

Terlalu Tinggi, Anti Stall Otomatis Ethiopian Airlines Aktif, Pesawat Pun Menukik ke Tanah

RAKYATKU.COM, ETHIOPIA – Penyelidikan terhadap kecelakaan pesawat yang fatal di Ethiopia, telah memusatkan perhatian pada kecurigaan bahwa sensor yang salah memicu sistem anti stall otomatis, mengirim pesawat untuk menyelam.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), menerima data penerbangan kotak hitam dari Ethiopian Airlines Penerbangan 302 pada hari Kamis, menunjukkan bahwa sistem anti-stall MCAS diaktifkan sesaat sebelum kecelakaan.

Sistem yang sama diduga jadi penyebab jatuhnya Boeing 737 Max pada bulan Oktober di Indonesia, Lion Air Penerbangan JT 610.

MCAS dirancang untuk mendorong hidung pesawat ke bawah, ketika sensor menunjukkan bahwa ‘angle of attack’ terlalu curam, dan pesawat berada dalam bahaya terhenti – tetapi para penyelidik kini menyelidiki, apakah sensor yang salah mengaktifkan sistem selama kondisi menanjak normal. Ujar sebuah sumber.

“Data yang diambil dari perekam penerbangan Ethiopian Airlines menunjukkan, sistem MCAS, telah diaktifkan sebelum jet itu menabrak ladang di luar Addis Ababa pada 10 Maret, menewaskan semua 157 penumpang,” kata seseorang yang diberi pengarahan tentang masalah tersebut.

Namun, sumber itu mengatakan, penyelidikan masih berlangsung dan temuannya belum pasti.

Boeing dan FAA menolak mengomentari temuan tersebut, yang pertama kali dilaporkan oleh Wall Street Journal.

Pihak berwenang Ethiopia, telah berjanji untuk menyerahkan laporan pendahuluan tentang Penerbangan 302 pada pertengahan April, tetapi telah mengatakan bahwa ada ‘kesamaan yang jelas’ antara kecelakaan dua Max 737.

Itu adalah pukulan lain bagi raksasa penerbangan Boeing, yang baru minggu ini meluncurkan perbaikan pada Sistem Augmentasi Karakteristik Manuver (MCAS) yang dirancang Boeing, untuk mencegah kios di pesawat barunya.

Perusahaan penerbangan telah mencoba untuk mengembalikan reputasinya yang hancur, bahkan sambil terus bersikeras bahwa Max aman.

MCAS, yang merendahkan hidung pesawat jika mendeteksi kemacetan atau kehilangan kecepatan udara, dikembangkan secara khusus untuk 737 Max, yang memiliki mesin lebih berat dari pendahulunya, menciptakan masalah aerodinamis.

Penyelidikan awal pada kecelakaan Lion Air Oktober di Indonesia, yang menewaskan 189 orang di dalamnya, menemukan, bahwa sensor ‘angle of attack’ (AOA) gagal tetapi terus mengirimkan informasi yang salah ke MCAS.

Pilot mencoba berulang kali untuk mendapatkan kembali kendali dan menarik hidung ke atas, tetapi pesawat menabrak laut.

Jalur penerbangan dari penerbangan Ethiopia Airlines yang hancur, yang juga jatuh beberapa menit setelah lepas landas, “sangat mirip dengan Lion Air (menunjukkan) ada sangat mungkin hubungan antara dua penerbangan,” kata Ketua FAA Daniel Elwell kepada Kongres pekan ini.

FAA memarkir armada Max di seluruh dunia, tidak sampai dua hari setelah sebagian besar negara melakukannya.

Penundaan itu, bersama dengan kebijakan FAA yang memungkinkan Boeing untuk mengesahkan beberapa fitur keselamatannya sendiri, telah menimbulkan pertanyaan tentang apakah regulator terlalu dekat dengan industri.

Elwell membantah bahwa agen itu lemah dalam pengawasannya, dengan mengatakan, “Proses sertifikasi terperinci dan menyeluruh.”

Dia juga tampaknya meragukan MCAS sebagai pelakunya, dengan mengatakan bahwa data yang dikumpulkan dari 57.000 penerbangan di AS sejak MAX diperkenalkan pada 2017, mengungkapkan tidak ada satu pun kerusakan MCAS yang dilaporkan.

Keluarga Jackson Musoni yang berusia 31 tahun, seorang warga Rwanda yang meninggal dalam kecelakaan Ethiopian Airlines, mengajukan gugatan terhadap Boeing pada hari Kamis, di sebuah pengadilan di Chicago, di mana perusahaan memiliki kantor pusat. Gugatan itu menuduh produsen pesawat merancang sistem yang rusak.

Steven Marks, pengacara untuk keluarga Musoni, mengatakan, informasi dari tragedi baru-baru ini, serta laporan pilot, ‘memperjelas bahwa penyebab dua kecelakaan ini adalah sama.’

“Tidak ada pertanyaan bahwa MCAS adalah masalahnya, dan bahwa pilot tidak mengetahui sistem tersebut,” katanya kepada AFP.

Pilot AS mengeluh setelah kecelakaan Lion Air, bahwa mereka belum diberi pengarahan lengkap tentang sistem tersebut.

Musoni termasuk di antara sedikitnya 22 karyawan PBB yang tewas dalam kecelakaan Ethiopia.

Boeing juga menolak untuk mengomentari gugatan itu, tetapi minggu ini meluncurkan perubahan pada sistem MCAS yang akan dipasang di seluruh dunia, setelah disetujui FAA.

Di antara perubahan, lama dalam pengerjaan, MCAS tidak akan lagi berulang kali melakukan koreksi, ketika pilot mencoba untuk mendapatkan kembali kendali, dan perusahaan akan memasang fitur peringatan – tanpa biaya – untuk mengingatkan pilot ketika sensor AOA kiri dan kanan keluar sinkronisasi.

Perusahaan juga merevisi pelatihan pilot, termasuk yang sudah disertifikasi pada 737, untuk memberikan ‘peningkatan pemahaman tentang sistem penerbangan 737 Max’ dan prosedur kru.

Pada hari Jumat, Southwest Airlines menarik 737 Max-nya dari jadwal penerbangan hingga Mei, memperpanjang jadwal sebelumnya dari 20 April, menurut sebuah memorandum perusahaan.

“Ini akan berdampak pada garis Mei, tetapi, sekarang setelah keputusan telah dibuat, kita dapat membangun jadwal kita tanpa penerbangan itu jauh di muka dengan harapan untuk meminimalkan gangguan sehari-hari,” Asosiasi Pilot Maskapai Southwest Airlines dan perusahaan mengatakan dalam nota bersama.

Sistema del Boeing 737 se activó antes del accidente

El sistema de estabilización automática MCAS, implicado en el accidente en octubre de un 737 MAX 8 en Indonesia, se activó en el avión de Ethiopian Airlines poco antes de estrellarse el 10 de marzo, dijo el viernes a AFP una fuente cercana al caso.

El hallazgo es parte de las conclusiones preliminares del análisis de las cajas negras del vuelo 302 de Ethiopian Airlines siniestrado en el que murieron 157 personas al este de Adís Abeba, dijo la fuente en condición de anonimato.

Agregó que la información se presentó el jueves a las autoridades estadounidenses, entre ellas a la Agencia Federal de Aviación (FAA), que analizan la información transmitida por Etiopía.

Esto no excluye que los reguladores estadounidenses puedan revisar sus hallazgos, advirtió sin embargo la fuente, confirmando la información del Wall Street Journal.

La FAA rehusó hacer comentarios.

Las autoridades etíopes prometieron, de su lado, presentar el reporte preliminar sobre el accidente a mediados de abril pero han señalado que existen “claras similitudes” entre los accidentes del vuelo 302 de Ethiopian Airlines y el vuelo 610 de Lion Air del 29 de octubre, que dejó 189 muertos.

En los dos casos, los reguladores y los expertos aeronaúticos estimaron que el sistema estabilizador MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) tuvo un papel importante. Este sistema fue instalado en los 737 MAX para compensar los problemas aerodinámicos causados por el cambio de ubicación y el peso de los dos motores de la aeronave.

Defensa del MCAS

La familia de Jackson Musoni, un ruandés de 31 años que viajaba a bordo del vuelo 302 de Ethiopian, acusa a Boeing de diseñar un sistema estabilizador MCAS defectuoso.

“Hubo una reconfiguración de la aeronave, lo que significa que los motores estaban adelantados (…), cambiando, sin duda, la forma del fuselaje y en definitiva alterando la aerodinámica”, dijo a la AFP por teléfono Steven Marks, abogado de la familia de Musoni.

La flota de 737 MAX -los modelos 8 y los 9- se encuentra inmovilizada en tierra desde mediados de marzo después del accidente de Ethiopian Airlines, el segundo siniestro que involucra a este avión en menos de cinco meses.

Los primeros elementos de la investigación del Lion Air 737 MAX indican que uno de los sensores de impacto de la aeronave falló, pero siguió transmitiendo información a los calculadores del sistema, incluido el MCAS, que continuó tratando de hacer que el avión fuera en picada para recuperar velocidad a pesar de los intentos de los pilotos por enderezarlo.

Probablemente tomará largos meses conocer las causas de ambos accidentes.

El Departamento de Justicia de EEUU ha iniciado una investigación criminal sobre el desarrollo del 737 MAX, mientras se está realizando una auditoría de la certificación del MCAS.

El fabricante de la aeronave rechazó la idea de que estos cambios sugirieran que el diseño original era inadecuado.

“El procedimiento que observamos con los reguladores en el diseño de las aeronaves siempre ha llevado a que los aparatos sean más seguros”, dijo un ejecutivo de Boeing, quien agregó que “el rigor y la profundidad del diseño que rodea al MAX y las pruebas que realizamos nos permiten decir que las modificaciones que estamos haciendo” habrían permitido evitar ambos accidentes.

La intervención del MCAS será más transparente para la tripulación, y los pilotos podrán eludirla de forma más fácil en caso de problemas, alegó el fabricante de la aeronave.

El objetivo es evitar que este sistema se active debido a informaciones erróneas, dijo Boeing, que también planeó capacitar mejor a los pilotos en las sutilezas del uso del MCAS y del 737 MAX.

Crash d’Ethiopian Airlines: la famille d’un Rwandais poursuit Boeing devant un tribunal américain

Kigali, 30 mars (TAP) – La famille d’un citoyen rwandais décédé dans l’accident du Boeing 737 MAX 8 d’Ethiopian Airlines, qui a fait 157 morts le 10 mars, a déposé plainte à Chicago contre le constructeur aéronautique Boeing, rapportent samedi des médias rwandais.

La famille de Jackson Musoni, qui faisait partie des employés de l’ONU qui étaient à bord du Boeing qui s’est écrasé au sud-est d’Addis-Abeba quelques minutes après son décollage, accuse le constructeur américain d’avoir conçu un système anti-décrochage MCAS défectueux.

“Il y a eu une reconfiguration de l’avion, ce qui signifie que les moteurs ont été avancés (…), changeant sans aucun doute la forme du fuselage et au final altérant l’aérodynamisme”, a indiqué par à la presse Steven Marks, le conseiller de la famille de M. Musoni, cité par des médias.

La plainte a été déposée devant un tribunal de Chicago par le cabinet Podhurst Orsek pour le compte de la famille de Jackson Musoni.

La flotte des 737 MAX, 8 et 9, est immobilisée au sol depuis mi-mars après l’accident d’Ethiopian Airlines, le deuxième drame impliquant cet avion en moins de cinq mois.

En octobre dernier, un 737 MAX 8 de la compagnie Lion Air s’est abîmé en Indonésie, faisant 189 morts.

Ethiopian Airlines: le système de Boeing mis en cause était activé

Le système anti-décrochage MCAS, mis en cause dans l’écrasement du 737 MAX 8 de Lion Air, était également activé dans l’appareil d’Ethiopian Airlines peu avant que celui-ci ne pique du nez et s’écrase le 10 mars, a indiqué vendredi à l’AFP une source proche du dossier.

Cette information fait partie des conclusions préliminaires tirées de l’analyse des boîtes noires du vol 302 d’Ethiopian Airlines, a poursuivi la source sous couvert d’anonymat.

Elle a ajouté que l’information avait été présentée jeudi aux autorités américaines, dont l’agence fédérale de l’aviation (FAA), qui analysent les données transmises par l’Éthiopie.

Il n’est pas exclu que les régulateurs américains revoient leurs conclusions, a toutefois averti la source, confirmant des informations du Wall Street Journal.

La FAA s’est refusée à tout commentaire.

Boeing, qui n’a pas souhaité commenter cette information, fait face à une première plainte déposée par la famille d’un citoyen rwandais, Jackson Musoni, une des 157 personnes mortes dans l’ accident survenu au sud-est d’Addis Abeba quelques minutes seulement après le décollage.

La famille de M. Musoni, via son avocat, accuse Boeing d’avoir développé un système anti-décrochage défectueux.

Les autorités éthiopiennes ont promis de leur côté de présenter le rapport préliminaire sur l’accident d’ici la mi-avril mais elles ont déjà dit qu’il y avait des «similarités claires» entre l’écrasement du vol 302 d’Ethiopian Airlines et celui du vol 610 de Lion Air le 29 octobre (189 morts).

Dans les deux cas, les régulateurs et les experts aéronautiques estiment que le logiciel anti-décrochage MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) a joué un rôle.

Il a été installé sur les 737 MAX pour compenser les problèmes aérodynamiques posés par le changement d’emplacement et le poids des deux moteurs de l’appareil.

«Il y a eu une reconfiguration de l’avion, ce qui signifie que les moteurs ont été avancés (…), changeant sans aucun doute la forme du fuselage et au final altérant l’aérodynamisme», a indiqué par téléphone à l’AFP Steven Marks, le conseil de la famille de Jackson Musoni.

«Nous ne pouvons pas faire de commentaire sur la plainte. Nous présentons nos condoléances aux familles et aux proches des passagers d’Ethiopian Airlines. Boeing continue de prendre part à l’enquête et travaille avec les autorités pour évaluer les nouvelles informations au fur et à mesure qu’elles sont disponibles», a déclaré un porte-parole par courriel.

La flotte des 737 MAX, 8 et 9, est immobilisée au sol depuis mi-mars après l’accident d’Ethiopian Airlines.

Les premiers éléments de l’enquête sur le 737 MAX de Lion Air indiquent qu’une des sondes d’incidence de l’appareil était tombée en panne, mais elle avait continué à transmettre des informations aux calculateurs, notamment au MCAS, qui continuait de tenter de faire piquer l’avion pour reprendre de la vitesse malgré les tentatives des pilotes de redresser l’avion.

Boeing a présenté mercredi des modifications du MCAS pour le rendre «plus solide» afin de regagner la confiance du grand public et de convaincre les autorités de lever l’interdiction de vol frappant les 737 MAX.

L’avionneur a rejeté au passage l’idée que ces changements suggéraient que la conception de départ était inadaptée.

«La procédure que nous observons avec les régulateurs sur la conception des avions a toujours conduit à des appareils plus sûrs», a déclaré un dirigeant de Boeing, ajoutant que «la rigueur et la profondeur de la conception entourant le MAX et les tests effectués nous permettent de dire que les modifications que nous faisons» auraient permis d’éviter les deux accidents.

L’intervention du MCAS sera désormais plus transparente pour l’équipage, et les pilotes pourront plus facilement le contourner en cas de problème, a plaidé l’avionneur.

Le but est d’empêcher ce système de s’activer à cause de fausses données, a précisé Boeing, qui a aussi prévu de mieux former les pilotes aux subtilités du MCAS et du 737 MAX.

Il faudra sans doute attendre de longs mois pour connaître les causes des deux accidents.

Le ministère de la Justice américain a ouvert une enquête criminelle sur le développement du 737 MAX, tandis qu’un audit sur la certification du MCAS est en cours.

Boeing : poursuite d’une famille de victime, condamnation de l’OMC

Publié le 29 mars 2019 à 09h00 par François Duclos
dans Actualité, Technologie – 25 commentaires

La famille d’une victime du crash d’Ethiopian Airlines poursuit Boeing devant la justice à Chicago, l’accusant d’avoir mis sur le marché un 737 MAX au système de contrôle défectueux. L’Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC) a de son côté jugé en faveur de l’Union européenne dans le dossier des subventions, une « victoire majeure » pour Airbus.

La famille de l’employé des Nations Unies rwandais Jackson Musoni, tué dans le crash du vol ET302 d’Ethiopian Airlines (qui a entrainé la mort des 157 personnes à bord il y a presque trois semaines), a déposé plainte le 28 mars 2019 devant le tribunal fédéral de Chicago – où sont déjà examinés une trentaine de dossiers de victimes du crash de Lion Air en Indonésie en octobre dernier. Sans surprise, les plaignants mettent en cause le Boeing 737 MAX impliqué dans les deux accidents : la plainte déclare que l’accident du 10 mars produite a été cause « entre autres choses parce que Boeing a conçu de manière défectueuse un nouveau système de contrôle de vol pour le Boeing 737 Max 8, qui pousse automatiquement et à tort le nez de l’aéronef ». Selon leur avocat Steve Marks, le constructeur « connaissant tous les rapportsfaisant état de conditions dangereuses et de l’accident précédent ayant tué plus de 150 personnes, aurait dû prendre des mesures pour protéger le public voyageur ». Cet accident « est arrivé alors qu’il n’aurait jamais dû arriver », a-t-il ajouté. Cette plainte serait la première déposée aux Etats-Unis après le crash d’Ethiopian Airlines selon la presse américaine ; Boeing n’a pas commenté.

La poursuite a été intentée au lendemain de la présentation par le constructeur américain de la mise à jour du système MCAS qui va être proposée à la FAA, afin de mettre fin à l’immobilisation des 371 MAX 8 et MAX 9 déjà mis en service dans le monde – et de reprendre les livraisons. La formation des pilotes va également être modifiée, même si elle ne demandera toujours pas de passage par le simulateur de vol – un argument économique de poids en faveur du 737 MAX pour les compagnies aériennes souhaitant remplacer leurs 737 NG, et qui pourraient être tentées par la famille Airbus A320neo.

Boeing a subi un autre revers jeudi, venu cette fois de l’Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC) : l’Organe d’appel de l’OMC a confirmé que les États-Unis « n’ont pas retiré les subventions accordées à Boeing par les autorités fédérales, des États et les autorités locales des États-Unis et n’ont pas remédié au préjudice que ces subventions ont causé à Airbus ». L’Organe d’appel a rejeté chacun des arguments avancés par les États-Unis et il a pris en compte tous les points juridiques de l’Union européenne, selon le communiqué de cette dernière et d’Airbus. En outre, la plus haute juridiction de l’OMC a également qualifié un certain nombre d’autres programmes fédéraux et des États américains « de subventions illégales, et même de subventions prohibées, comme dans le cas du régime FSC (Foreign Sales Corporation) », ce qui représente « une victoire majeure pour l’UE ». Ce rapport demande aux États-Unis et à Boeing de « prendre d’autres mesures » en vue de la mise en conformité ; en l’absence de toute réaction de leur part, l’Union européenne aura la possibilité de demander l’adoption de contre-mesures à l’encontre des importations de produits américains.

« Pour l’UE et Airbus, il s’agit là d’une nette victoire qui confirme notre position selon laquelle Boeing, tout en pointant du doigt Airbus, n’a pris aucune mesure pour se conformer à ses obligations envers l’OMC, contrairement à Airbus et à l’UE. Au vu de ce rapport préjudiciable, Boeing ne peut plus continuer à nier qu’il perçoit des subventions illégales massives de la part du gouvernement des États-Unis. Autrement dit, en l’absence de règlement, les États-Unis seront tenus de payer – à perpétuité – plusieurs milliards du fait de l’application de sanctions annuelles pour chaque programme Boeing en exploitation, alors que l’UE ne serait confrontée, dans le pire des cas, qu’à des problèmes mineurs », affirme John Harrison, General Counsel d’Airbus. « Nous espérons que ces conclusions inciteront les États-Unis et Boeing à progresser de manière constructive pour régler ce différend de longue date et à se joindre à nous pour œuvrer à instaurer un environnement commercial équitable. En l’absence d’une approche constructive, l’UE disposera désormais d’arguments juridiques très solides pour passer aux contre-mesures », a-t-il ajouté.

Boeing a de son côté déclaré que l’OMC avait rejeté « toute allégation de subventions illégales à Boeing à la seule exception d’une mesure – la taxe de commerce et d’occupation de l’État de Washington ». Vu de l’autre côté de l’Atlantique, la décision est limitée : à l’exception du programme fiscal relativement limité de cet Etat (une centaine de millions de dollars), la décision de l’OMC ne permettrait pas à l’UE de réclamer des dommages et intérêts à un arbitre. Le niveau de rétorsion que l’Europe serait en mesure d’imposer aux biens et services américains repose sur le préjudice causé à Airbus plutôt que sur le montant de l’aide accordée à son rival américain ; les deux parties vont donc continuer à se battre sur les montants concernés.

Pour résumer ce conflit interminable qui semble ne servir que les politiciens et les avocats des deux côtés de l’Atlantique : depuis 2004, l’OMC a évalué à 26 milliards de dollars le montant des aides illégales perçues par Boeing, et à 22 milliards de dollars celle reçues par Airbus. Aucun n’a remboursé quoique ce soit – et aucun n’est prêt à lancer une guerre commerciale, vu les intérêts croisés sur le plan industriel de l’aéronautique américaine et européenne…

US lawsuit filed against Boeing over Ethiopian Airlines crash that killed 157 people

Boeing Sued Over Ethiopia Crash as Plane Orders in Asia Waver

(Bloomberg) — Boeing Co. was sued on behalf of a passenger killed in this month’s 737 Max plane crash in Ethiopia and orders for the troubled aircraft wavered in Asia, deepening the planemaker’s legal and financial woes.

Chicago-based Boeing is under intense scrutiny after two crashes since October killed 346 people. As the company finalizes a software upgrade for the grounded 737 Max, it’s fighting to hang onto some customers whose confidence in the best-selling jet has been shaken. Boeing is also facing a criminal probe into how the plane was originally approved to fly.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the estate of Ethiopian Airlines passenger Jackson Musoni of Rwanda, claims the 737 Max 8 isn’t safely designed. The complaint follows earlier suits against the company over an October crash in Indonesia involving the same model. A Boeing spokeswoman declined to comment on Thursday’s complaint in a federal court in Chicago.

“The subject accident occurred because, among other things, Boeing defectively designed a new flight control system for the Boeing 737 Max 8 that automatically and erroneously pushes the aircraft’s nose down, and because Boeing failed to warn of the defect,” according to the complaint.

Late on Thursday, flag-carrier airline Garuda Indonesia said it’s going ahead with plans to cancel a $4.8 billion order for 49 Max 8s. Still, Garuda is sticking with Boeing and has asked the manufacturer for different aircraft. In Vietnam, Bamboo Airways agreed to buy as many as 26 narrow-body jets from Airbus SE, just a month after saying it was co