InsideFlyer.com [English] United States InsideFlyer.uk [English] United Kingdom InsideFlyer.de [German] Germany InsideFlyer.no [Norwegian] Norway InsideFlyer.se [Swedish] Sweden InsideFlyer.dk [Danish] Denmark InsideFlyer.nl [Dutch] Benelux
Discussion in 'General Discussion | Travel' started by WilCo, Mar 29, 2013.
Look what I found catching a few zzzz's. just sitting around collecting dust (umm, snow).
Interesting catch, I hope they will fly again very soon.
Was supposed to be flying it on Monday (in J). Can't believe they've been grounded this long.
There are so many 787s sitting on Boeing Field right now. I'm likely to cause an accident as I crane my neck to look at them all when I drive by.
i wonder if LOT gets a bit of a discount for the extra miles Boeing put on the plane during the recent test flight
LOT bet it's survivability on the 787. Boeing will pay some of it's losses.
One hint for those non-lawyer posters: Boeing DID NOT tell any airlines to stop flying the 787. FAA and Japan Ministry did. When it comes to paying out damages the FAA and Japan Ministry will be threatened with lawsuits to pay a portion of the airline and Boeing losses.
This baby will end up in mediation or in the courts!
Are you a lawyer?
I am not not a lawyer, but I think it's quite unlikely that the likes of UA and LOT are going to sue the FAA for the grounding of the dreamliners.
No, I think you misunderstood the contractual trial of liability.
Goes like this.
1. Boeing and Airline have a contract for in-service problems. Boeing could have repaired teh battery issues and made upgrades with FAA approval without any grounding of the airplanes.
2. FAA and Japan Ministry have authority to ground planes if unsafe but the contractual language will be tested in a court of law.
Thus many airlines are losing revenue from grounded planes thus will want compensation from Boeing. Boeing in turn will fight the monetary penaltues by threatening to sue the FAA for grounding under a condition that might not have required 90 days of no service.
I doubt Boeing just pays the full bill without requesting government mediation on all damages due to the grounding.
I was only talking about extra miles on the odometer of the test plane! And I was joking.
Under what section of the US Code would Boeing seek indemnification from the FAA? The FAA does, afterall, have sovereign immunity and is therefore only subject to lawsuits from private parties like Boeing if specifically authorized by statute, or in the rare and difficult case of regulatory takings which are prohibited by the US Constitution--the document (see Amendment #5), not the ship.
I really don't know Boeing or any client airline could support a claim based on a regulatory taking, given the structure of the FAA and its approval process. That is to say that the statutes establishing the FAA and providing the FAA with authority over who and what can fly are structured such that the FAA must affirmatively approve someone and some aircraft, not the other way around. As such, Boeing's ability to provide the 787 to clients has always been subject to the FAA's permitting process and could not, therefore, constitute a "taking" for the purposes of the 5th Amendment. Put another way Boeing and the airlines never "owned" the ability to fly the 787 in the first place, and that ability could not, therefore, be taken away within the meaning of the takings clause. If you would like to provide some caselaw that says I'm wrong, I'd genuinely love to read it, as the takings clause is not an area of expertise, just one of some knowledge.
So... is there a specific statutory authority under which you would anticipate Boeing cross-suing the FAA for indemnification?