mgh,You are so out of touch with reality it's really not even funny. But according to your logic, Airlines must now also be able to manipulate the weather -- they have to be able to divert snow storms high winds, etc. etc.. Your arrogance is unbelievable -- oh wait actually it is believable. And no, airlines have to do nothing more than what you the passenger agree to when you purchase the ticket - read the fine print. You don't like, find another airline and/or another mode of transport, perhaps by Camel.So how many other worlds revolve around you? Is it just the earth, or do you have other planets you control?Rob

You are so out of touch with reality it's really not even funny. But according to your logic, Airlines must now also be able to manipulate the weather -- they have to be able to divert snow storms high winds, etc. etc.. Your arrogance is unbelievable -- oh wait actually it is believable.

It's you who are out of touch with reality and the facts. First, it's not my logic - it's the logic of the court. Second, the court ruled that problems which come to light during maintenance of aircraft are not extraordinary and so the airline must pay compensation. As my original post made clear the court also ruled that extraordinary only applies if the problem stemmed from events which, by their nature or origin, were not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and were beyond its actual control. Extraordinary clearly covers weather, which is beyond the airline's actual control, as well as defects identified by the manufacturer or safety authorities, and sabotage or terrorism. Your claim that airlines must be able to manipulate the weather is as foolish as your previous claim that every airline will need to have a "backup plane" ready to roll on every flight at every airport.

And no, airlines have to do nothing more than what you the passenger agree to when you purchase the ticket - read the fine print.

again you show it's you who is out of touch with reality. Airlines do have to do more than the passenger agrees to in the fine print. In the EU (and possibly elsewhere) companies can no longer unilaterally impose unfair conditions on consumers. Clauses in the fine print found to be unfair are not binding. The EU Regulation extends this to airlines so that, regardless of what the fine print in the airline's conditions of carriage may say, the law[/i] requires compensation to be paid to passengers in respect of denied boarding, cancellation, or long delay. The failure of the airlines to do this voluntarily was one of the reasons the EU Regulation was felt to be necessary. To a large extent the airlines brought this on themselves.

You don't like, find another airline and/or another mode of transport, perhaps by Camel.

That's another example of the d*** the passengers attitude.

So how many other worlds revolve around you? Is it just the earth, or do you have other planets you control?

None. I merely report the situation as it is rather than making wild and foolish statements based on a lack of understanding.

Boy you are really naive.The corporations will minimize their costs as much as possible. The losers in this are going to be your flight crews. They will be the ones facing the pressure of having to work under this regulation. They are the ones who will be fired by management if management feels that somebody is being "too safe." They will be the ones who will cut the corners to avoid jeopardizing their livelihoods. Pilots will "backpocket" aircraft problems to avoid delays. In the end, a planeload of unsuspecting passengers may end up being ultimate losers because of those corners cut.The only point at which I think about getting anywhere on time, is when I set my alarm clock the night before. After that, my primary concern is getting myself and my passengers from here to there in a thin aluminum tube at 30000' in one piece. Fortunately, I work for an airline that allows me that luxury. There are many that do not, even without that same law here in the US.We know very well that people take it for granted that they can arrive somewhere safely after getting in an airplane. Fortunately for you, most of the pilots that fly those people, do not.

That is an interesting perspective. However IATA did not raise this point in its seminar in October 2004http://www.iata.org/NR/ContentConnector/CS...inar_Report.pdfIATA and the European Low Fares Airlines association (ELFAA) challenged the Regulation in the Eurpean Court but did not raise the safety issue. The challenge was, in any case, dismissed.http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KQBGqoB...esult#PPA183,M1The UK Department for Transport undertook a consultation exercise on the Regulation. The industry did not raise the safety question.http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archiv...pensationre1295A Standing Committee of the UK House of Commons debated this regulation. Again the question of safety was not raised.http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c...18/21218s01.htmI still suggest the the safety question is special pleading on behalf of flight crews.

That is an interesting perspective. However IATA did not raise this point in its seminar in October 2004http://www.iata.org/NR/ContentConnector/CS...inar_Report.pdfIATA and the European Low Fares Airlines association (ELFAA) challenged the Regulation in the Eurpean Court but did not raise the safety issue. The challenge was, in any case, dismissed.http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KQBGqoB...esult#PPA183,M1The UK Department for Transport undertook a consultation exercise on the Regulation. The industry did not raise the safety question.http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archiv...pensationre1295A Standing Committee of the UK House of Commons debated this regulation. Again the question of safety was not raised.http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c...18/21218s01.htmI still suggest the the safety question is special pleading on behalf of flight crews.

Of course nobody in management will raise this issue. Which part of management in this industry will raise their hand and say this is a bad law because it may make us force our pilots to take unsafe actions? How many members debating this in the UK House of Commons fly jet aircraft and understand the factors of aeronautical decision making?You do realize the safety hazards that can result from these kinds of laws has already been brought glaringly into public light, don't you? You do remember when British Airways was roundly accused by the media of trying to usurp this law by talking the pilots into continuing to fly a 747 across the Atlantic after an engine failed on takeoff, don't you?http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UB...19/ai_n11844072Special pleading? On behalf of flight crews? This law doesn't take money out of my pocket as an airline captain unless I get put on the "list" of people they want to fire because I'm just "too safe" and costing the airline more than my weight. So what do I have to plead for? For you to let me get you there safely? You know, if I crash, you in the back will die just as dead as me in the cockpit. With a law like this in effect, it will make that minute percentage chance that your plane will crash go up a bit more. It will be another link in an accident chain. Your pilot will have one more factor that may lean him towards making a bad decision. If that is ok with you, then so be it, a victory for passengers. And if people end up dying as a result, it is nothing more than collateral damage for this victory. But you better give those belts an extra tug and grip those armrests just a bit tighter, mgh, because those guys driving that plane may be pushing it just a bit more now to get you there on time.

Of course nobody in management will raise this issue. Which part of management in this industry will raise their hand and say this is a bad law because it may make us force our pilots to take unsafe actions? How many members debating this in the UK House of Commons fly jet aircraft and understand the factors of aeronautical decision making?

The following trades unions were formally consulted by the Department for Transport:AmicusAssociation of Flight AttendantsBALPABASSACabin Crew 89Guild of Air Pilots and Air NavigatorsInternational Transport Workers FederationTransport and General Workers UnionTrades Union CongressSo more than management were consulted.

You do realize the safety hazards that can result from these kinds of laws has already been brought glaringly into public light, don't you? You do remember when British Airways was roundly accused by the media of trying to usurp this law by talking the pilots into continuing to fly a 747 across the Atlantic after an engine failed on takeoff, don't you?http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UB...19/ai_n11844072

That flight did indeed take place on 20 February 2005 after the Regulation came into force on 18 February 2008. But the article also say that "It had been done by another BA crew out of LAX last November in similar circumstances" Ie November 2004 which was before the Regulation came into place. How could that flight have have been influenced by the Regulation? There's no evidence that the decisions relating to either flight were affected by the Regulation - it was simply was simply media speculation. If you believe all you read in the media you'll end up believing a lot of nonsense.

Special pleading? On behalf of flight crews? This law doesn't take money out of my pocket as an airline captain unless I get put on the "list" of people they want to fire because I'm just "too safe" and costing the airline more than my weight. So what do I have to plead for? For you to let me get you there safely? You know, if I crash, you in the back will die just as dead as me in the cockpit. With a law like this in effect, it will make that minute percentage chance that your plane will crash go up a bit more. It will be another link in an accident chain. Your pilot will have one more factor that may lean him towards making a bad decision. If that is ok with you, then so be it, a victory for passengers. And if people end up dying as a result, it is nothing more than collateral damage for this victory. But you better give those belts an extra tug and grip those armrests just a bit tighter, mgh, because those guys driving that plane may be pushing it just a bit more now to get you there on time.

You seem to have a low opinion everyone else's attitude to safety. - management and flight crew.

The following trades unions were formally consulted by the Department for Transport:AmicusAssociation of Flight AttendantsBALPABASSACabin Crew 89Guild of Air Pilots and Air NavigatorsInternational Transport Workers FederationTransport and General Workers UnionTrades Union CongressSo more than management were consulted.That flight did indeed take place on 20 February 2005 after the Regulation came into force on 18 February 2008. But the article also say that "It had been done by another BA crew out of LAX last November in similar circumstances" Ie November 2004 which was before the Regulation came into place. How could that flight have have been influenced by the Regulation? There's no evidence that the decisions relating to either flight were affected by the Regulation - it was simply was simply media speculation. If you believe all you read in the media you'll end up believing a lot of nonsense.You seem to have a low opinion everyone else's attitude to safety. - management and flight crew.

Consulted...and duly disregarded.That's right, these guys faced pressure even before this law went into effect. Surely this new law will make management think twice about pressuring their crews to continue flying with flamed out engines...You seem to have a low opinion of everyone on Earth.What I have pointed out has nothing to do with any kind of opinion of anybody. Each group has their own different type of goals and priorities. Management has the one priority of making profits. Us flight crews have our priorities of safety, schedule, comfort and efficiency. The priorities of these groups are naturally in opposition to each other. Management wants profits, while crews are costs that often cause delays that cost money when they declare things broken or unsafe. If you are a pilot, mgh, you should already be aware of the process of aeronautical decision making and concepts such as "get-there-itis" and "peer pressure." Aren't you? Factors such as this new law, that can cause management to pressure their crews to refrain from delaying flights, can add to a pilot's susceptibility to make imprudent decisions influenced by their desire to get somewhere on schedule and avoid an unpleasant conversation with supervisors. It is human nature. Pilots are human. No, there will be no way anybody can ever point to this law or any and say aha, it caused that crash. Every crash is a chain of events. Pilots make their decisions by weighing all the pros, cons and probabilities of success or failure of everything that needs to be decided. Every little decision accumulates into a final outcome of success or failure. Your little victory law will be something that a pilot can potentially weigh towards ignoring a defect or continuing after a problem, and thereby increasing the probability of further failure. If you can read the mind of the guy sitting in the cockpit as you board a flight and see that he is thinking "Hmmm, that left main's pretty bald, but if I write it up here, we'll be stuck for who knows how long. I'll just make sure I brake easy, so screw it, we'll just go, I don't want to deal with that spanish inquisition again like last time." I hope you can still feel that your victory was worth it and can sit easy in 15A.

Consulted...and duly disregarded.

What were their views that were disregarded? Thier views I mean: not yours.

That's right, these guys faced pressure even before this law went into effect. Surely this new law will make management think twice about pressuring their crews to continue flying with flamed out engines...

Again, there is still no evidence to support your claim. Even the article you quoted doesn't support it when read properly.

What I have pointed out has nothing to do with any kind of opinion of anybody. Each group has their own different type of goals and priorities. Management has the one priority of making profits. Us flight crews have our priorities of safety, schedule, comfort and efficiency. The priorities of these groups are naturally in opposition to each other. Management wants profits, while crews are costs that often cause delays that cost money when they declare things broken or unsafe. If you are a pilot, mgh, you should already be aware of the process of aeronautical decision making and concepts such as "get-there-itis" and "peer pressure." Aren't you? Factors such as this new law, that can cause management to pressure their crews to refrain from delaying flights, can add to a pilot's susceptibility to make imprudent decisions influenced by their desire to get somewhere on schedule and avoid an unpleasant conversation with supervisors. It is human nature. Pilots are human. No, there will be no way anybody can ever point to this law or any and say aha, it caused that crash. Every crash is a chain of events. Pilots make their decisions by weighing all the pros, cons and probabilities of success or failure of everything that needs to be decided. Every little decision accumulates into a final outcome of success or failure. Your little victory law will be something that a pilot can potentially weigh towards ignoring a defect or continuing after a problem, and thereby increasing the probability of further failure. If you can read the mind of the guy sitting in the cockpit as you board a flight and see that he is thinking "Hmmm, that left main's pretty bald, but if I write it up here, we'll be stuck for who knows how long. I'll just make sure I brake easy, so screw it, we'll just go, I don't want to deal with that spanish inquisition again like last time." I hope you can still feel that your victory was worth it and can sit easy in 15A.

Safety, like all things is a compromise. As long as aircraft fly there will be accidents. The only way to achieve absolute safety would be to ban flying. The views of one group or another have to be balanced against all the other factors. In risk analysis there is a accepted term ALARP, meaning As Low as Reasonably Practicable - note the word reasonable. I note your opinion of pilots but their views and opinions are the last word. It's very easy to say this could happen..that could happen...the other could happen.. It's far more difficult to apply a likelihood of them happening to get a realistic assessment of the risk.

What were their views that were disregarded? Thier views I mean: not yours.Again, there is still no evidence to support your claim. Even the article you quoted doesn't support it when read properly.Safety, like all things is a compromise. As long as aircraft fly there will be accidents. The only way to achieve absolute safety would be to ban flying. The views of one group or another have to be balanced against all the other factors. In risk analysis there is a accepted term ALARP, meaning As Low as Reasonably Practicable - note the word reasonable. I note your opinion of pilots but their views and opinions are the last word. It's very easy to say this could happen..that could happen...the other could happen.. It's far more difficult to apply a likelihood of them happening to get a realistic assessment of the risk.

You're the master of Google searching here mgh, with no first hand experiences, that is all you seem to know about anything, you tell me what they said. Post some links on what those groups said. I'm sure most likely, they made some bland comments on cost, and nothing that could have caused any trouble. The article pointed out quite plainly and obviously that this law was hanging in the air above them. No one is saying this law is the one and alone thing. No one will ever know what percentage factor that this law had on that decision. And even if it was a factor, no one will dare say that on tape because if they did, some widow could end up owning the airline. The article was not about the law. The article was about the decisions made that day and points out that accidents are a chain. Which is what I am trying to explain to you. Accidents are chains of events, small, by themselves seemingly insignificant decsions that build into an accident. As they chose to continue with failed systems, it allowed a further, unforseen failure to more seriously threaten the flight. Only when an emergency landing was made was the chain to the crash broken.You're right, safety is a compromise. There is no such thing as absolute safety. But over the history of flight, the slider has been moved steadily towards making flight safer and safer. With things like GPWS, TCAS, radar, FOQA, ASAP, CRM, Part 121, CMOs, etc. the slider moves little by little towards "safer." Your law will not be added to that list. In CRM class, your law will be placed under the column labeled "Threats" on the whiteboard during the discussion. And we will spend time talking about how to keep this law from causing us to make a bad choice out on the line. Your law moves the slider of safety just a bit in the wrong direction. It expands what is considered a reasonable and acceptable threat to flight safety instead of reducing that set, as what we have tried to do over the last hundred years.

I really think the title should be changed to Lawyers 2 Airlines 0 Passengers -1. These costs ALWAYS get passed on to the consumer PERIOD.Willy

I really think the title should be changed to Lawyers 2 Airlines 0 Passengers -1. These costs ALWAYS get passed on to the consumer PERIOD.Willy

Of course they do. There's no such thing as a free lunch. The costs of safety measuresalso get get passed onto the consumer - but that's no reason for not having them

You're the master of Google searching here mgh, with no first hand experiences, that is all you seem to know about anything, you tell me what they said. Post some links on what those groups said. I'm sure most likely, they made some bland comments on cost, and nothing that could have caused any trouble.

You originally raised the question of safety. It's up to you to make your case with more than just your opinion.

You originally raised the question of safety. It's up to you to make your case with more than just your opinion.

I've made my case. You haven't been able to refute a single point I've brought up. From your link to the Department of Transport paper, it sounds like all anybody offered were little bits of drivel on cost and fairness. No trade group is going to say anything meaningful that could potentially scare away customers or expose themselves to liability. There's two whole other paragraphs in my last post which you haven't addressed. The safety aspect of this is something none of these industry politicos are going to touch with a ten foot pole. It's too dangerous for them. It is, however the most obvious unintended consequence of such a law. And immediately obvious to anybody that actually works hands on in this field. It's an issue raised about the BA 747 incident right at the beginning. And even in this thread, it was raised in the very first reply to your opening post. Any thinking person with half a wit of logic could see this aspect. Why can't you?

I've made my case. You haven't been able to refute a single point I've brought up. From your link to the Department of Transport paper, it sounds like all anybody offered were little bits of drivel on cost and fairness. No trade group is going to say anything meaningful that could potentially scare away customers or expose themselves to liability. There's two whole other paragraphs in my last post which you haven't addressed. The safety aspect of this is something none of these industry politicos are going to touch with a ten foot pole. It's too dangerous for them. It is, however the most obvious unintended consequence of such a law. And immediately obvious to anybody that actually works hands on in this field. It's an issue raised about the BA 747 incident right at the beginning. And even in this thread, it was raised in the very first reply to your opening post. Any thinking person with half a wit of logic could see this aspect. Why can't you?

You gave your opinion with no evidence to support it. There were two BA incidents, one before and one after the its introduction. Logic says that the first cannot have been infuenced by it. The Regulation was introduced because the wider opinion was that it would have no significant effect on safety, even though in your view everyone else in the industry is wrong, except you.

You gave your opinion with no evidence to support it. There were two BA incidents, one before and one after the its introduction. Logic says that the first cannot have been infuenced by it. The Regulation was introduced because the wider opinion was that it would have no significant effect on safety, even though in your view everyone else in the industry is wrong, except you.

That's right mgh, thank you, yes I am actually capable of coming up with my own forward looking opinion of what might happen in the future and provide some logical support for it. Mgh, all you know about this is what you manage to Google. Come up with an original idea for once, mgh. I know it might be difficult since you have not spent a day of your life in this industry. You do not know anything about the training. You do not know anything about what pilots do. You do not know anything about what management does. I've expressed a likely unintended outcome of this law and the reasons why. You have provided no reasons as to why it is not so except for "they didn't say anything about it in Parliament." You cannot produce any reason as to how this law would not affect safety. Even without such a law, there are airlines that already put pressure on their crews to overlook safety, with such a law in place, airlines will be even more apt to pressure. Explain why such a law cannot ever become a link in an accident chain. Explain to me how a pilot won't have to face added pressure to "get there" with this law in effect. Unless you start coming up with reasons why safety will not be affected, mgh, there is no point in going any further with you.