Servering av alkohol en fare for flysikkerheten - Curt Lewis

Should Airlines Consider Banning Alcohol On Aircraft?


A traveler relaxes in her airplane seat and enjoys a drink on the flight. GETTY

Should airlines ban drinking on some flights? Could never happen, you say? April Fool!

Not exactly. Drunk and out-of-control passengers are becoming a real problem, groping and assaulting flight attendants, fighting other passengers and air marshals, attempting to open the aircraft door mid-flight and attempting to get into the cockpit, among other issues.

To paraphrase the late Rick James, like cocaine, alcohol "is a hell of a drug."

In 2017, a BBC investigation found that drunk air passenger arrests at UK airports rose 50% over the previous year. In an video posted by the BBC, 14-year Virgin Atlantic flight attendant Ally Murphy said one reason she quit flying were drunk, abusive passengers who groped and swore at her. Once, a "drunk passenger tried to open the plane door."

Serious alcohol-based incidents continue to occur on board. Just last month, an Australian model was convicted for assaulting a flight attendant on a United flight from Melbourne to Los Angeles in January. According to a press release from the US Department of Justice, the woman, Adau Akui Atem Mornyang, 24, of Victoria, Australia, was convicted of offenses relating to a January 21 incident "in which she appeared to be intoxicated and was verbally and physically abusive to personnel and other passengers during the flight."

According to the evidence presented at trial, several hours into the flight, passengers approached a flight attendant "to complain about Mornyang's disruptive behavior, which included flailing her arms and yelling obscenities and racial slurs." When a flight attendant tried to speak to her, she began shouting at him, then slapped him in the face. The flight attendant attempted to restrain Mornyang until federal air marshals on board could restrain her in the rear galley of the plane for the rest of the flight.

A jury found Mornyang guilty of a felony charge of interference with a flight crew and misdemeanor assault. She faces a maximum sentence of 21 years in federal prison when sentenced this June.

In 2018, a Southwest Airlines flight from Chicago to New Orleans was disrupted by a man who threatened to put a flight attendant into "a body bag" for refusing to serve him a fourth drink on the two-hour flight. The man, Joel Michael Bane of New Jersey, then refused to take his seat for landin. When the pilot did manage to successfully land, Bain assaulted a pair of police officers who had to use stun guns to get him off the plane. Amazingly, Bane, who pleaded guilty to one count of interference with flight crew, was sentenced only to two years of probation and a $3,000 fine.

Also in 2018, a Delta Airlines overnight flight from Salt Lake City to Orlando with 193 people on board had to land in Oklahoma City to meet with police officers, after a passenger headbutted a flight attendant when he too was cut off from booze.

And in 2018, a pilot traveling as a passenger on an Emirates flight asked to smoke on the flight, then slapped the chest of a Romanian flight attendant, threw his shoe at her, cursed at other passengers, then grabbed two beers and more booze from the galley. When finally restrained by crew and other passengers in handcuffs, he threatened the flight and slammed his head so hard against the seatback that the video screen broke.

So would airlines ever consider making alcohol-free flights an option? Unlikely; on-board alcohol is not only a precious perk of flying First or Business Class, but a profit source from economy passengers. That $7 on-board beer probably cost the airline less than a dollar, certainly a financially compelling proposition.

While flyers like myself find drinking a good way to deal with today's flying conditions, in-flight incidents do not seem to be going away. Instead, they seem to be getting more frequent, disturbing and violent.

According to the British Civil Aviation Authority, there were 417 reports of serious disruption on flights in 2017, up from 195 in 2015. A survey by Britain's Which? Travel found that one in ten passengers had experienced a flight "blighted by shouting, drunkenness, verbal abuse or other obnoxious behavior". Irish-based low-cost airline Ryanair was apparently the incident leader, with 17% of Ryanair passengers saying they had experienced disruptive behavior in the past year.

Recent Ryanair incidents include a flight featuring a fight between two drunks over a woman's not wearing shoes to the lavatory, another from Glasgow to Malaga with a drunk man bothering an on-board "hen party" resulting in a chaotic fist fight and two unruly men dressed as Tinkerbelle and Bob the Builder being thrown off a flight from London Stansted to Krakow, Poland. But even this had its element of menace, as Tinkerbelle "threatened to cut everyone up" before he was removed.

"Nobody wants to be on a flight with a couple of drunks on board creating trouble," said Michael O'Leary, RyanAir CEO. But he blamed the problem on the airportss, with "stag and hen parties" (who Americans might call "bachelor" and "bachelorette" groups) drinking heavily before a flight and posing a "threat to safety."

O'Leary told the Independent, "Drinking on planes is controlled. On our flights, averaging one hour 15 minutes, the most you'll be served is one or two drinks. And if a passenger is being disruptive, he or she won't be served with alcohol at all." But "Our challenge is: we have passengers, particularly during flight delays, stuck in airport bars drinking six, eight, 10 pints."

Ryanair asked that British airport bars should stop serving alcohol before 10am, and limit passengers to two drinks. As of last November, the British government was considering a similar proposal.

But what about the planes? Could a booze ban be imposed on certain flights, or could "alcohol-free" flights become a thing?

Don't laugh; it happened to smoking, now little missed by most travelers. And that's no April Fool.

Asiatiske flyselskaper mangler myndighetstilsyn- og driftsbestemmelser - Curt lewis

Asia's Airlines Are on Course for More Disasters

• Cheap flights are pushing the limits of regulation .

A man carries a piece of the Lion Air flight JT 610 wreckage which is being moved to another location for further investigation at the Tanjung Priok port on November 2, 2018 in Jakarta, Indonesia.. (Photo by Ed Wray/Getty Images)

On May 6, 1935, 11 passengers and two crew were on a Douglas DC-2 on Transcontinental & Western Air (TWA) Flight 6 on a flight leg from Albuquerque, New Mexico to Kansas City, Missouri. The brand-new plane never made it to the stopover; instead it flew into the ground on a foggy Missouri night. Five people were killed, including U.S. Sen. Bronson Cutting.

It was one of the most shocking accidents in the short history of American flight. The subsequent investigations found a tale of a mushrooming industry pushing the envelope of regulation and putting profit before safety -and created the basis of modern air safety. Today, the same pattern of risk and capital is playing out in Asia-but proper regulation may be a long way off.

After the 1935 crash, investigators from the Bureau of Air Commerce, the government agency then supervising air travel, found that the crew, the dispatchers, and TWA's procedures were all at fault. The plane had been cleared for night flight despite lacking a functional radio to communicate with ground crew. In fog so dense that the plane shouldn't have even been flying, the pilots failed to find the runway at Kansas City. As they flew low over fields, the plane clipped the ground and spun out of control.

The report was shocking-but blaming the airline wasn't enough for senators, who were spurred by their colleague's death to launch their own investigation into nationwide air safety and the bureau's operations. The Senate's Copeland Committee issued a report in 1936 which found, after looking at TWA Flight 6 and multiple other incidents over the preceding years, that safety procedures and regulation had failed to keep pace with huge increases in passenger, freight, and airmail carried.

Cozy relationships between industry and regulator, along with the desire to put increased services and lower fares ahead of safety, led to multiple preventable deaths. Congress moved air regulation away from the Department of Commerce and created a new, dedicated agency, the Civil Aeronautics Authority, with a mandate to put safety first. Although the regulatory regime continued to change over the following 20 years, the principle established was the basis for the founding of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in 1958, which remains the U.S. aviation regulator today.

83 years later, on the other side of the world, 181 passengers and eight crew joined Lion Air Flight 610 in Jakarta, Indonesia, on October 29, 2018, for a short hop to Pangkalpinang on the island of Bangka.

The brand-new Boeing 737 Max 8, its pilots, and the company's procedures should have benefited from the intervening decades of aviation safety findings, making another avoidable crash unthinkable. And yet, just 12 minutes after take-off, the crew lost control. The plane crashed into the Java Sea, killing everyone on board.

The Indonesian National Transportation Safety Committee's preliminary report, released a month after the crash, gives us a good idea of the events from a technical perspective. A malfunctioning sensor led the plane's autopilot to push the plane's nose down, and the pilots' lack of awareness of what was happening meant that-rather than disengaging the automated system, as on a similar flight operated by the same aircraft with a different crew the previous day-they couldn't gain control of the plane before it hit the sea.

Global attention has fixed on Boeing as the culprit-and the U.S. giant bears a great deal of the blame. But the story of air expansion in Asia in recent years, typified by Lion Air, also worryingly mirrors the dangerous, unregulated growth of the past.But the story of air expansion in Asia in recent years, typified by Lion Air, also worryingly mirrors the dangerous, unregulated growth of the past.
The aviation-system safety principles that stem from the Copeland Committee are based on learning from previous incidents. Aircraft must have multiple redundant safety systems, airlines must ensure safety systems are available and that their operating procedures are fail-safe, and pilots are trained in procedures that allow safe fallbacks from other system failures. And yet in Lion Air Flight 610, the aircraft design failed to provide redundancy, the airline failed to maintain critical systems, and the crew failed to follow recovery procedures.

The similar crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302-another 737 Max 8-on March 10 further increased suspicions about the aircraft type (the preliminary report had not been published at press time, so details are unclear). All 737 Maxes worldwide were grounded as of mid-March.

Boeing undoubtedly bears significant responsibility for the Lion Air crash. The automatic nose-down response was connected to a single sensor instead of multiple redundant sensors. Pilots were inadequately briefed by Boeing on how automated systems had changed on the 737 Max. The revelation that additional sensors which would have prevented the crash were sold as optional extras is even worse news for Boeing.

But in Lion Air Flight 610, the plane wasn't the only thing at fault. The decision to operate the flight with a known sensor fault, the failure of the airline to pass on information from the previous day's crew, the panicked crew response on October 29, and the cost cutting which led them to opt out of the optional warning systems, are all grounded in the airline's history.

Aviation in Southeast Asian countries traditionally followed the expensive, inflexible national flag carrier model, but airlines like Lion Air and AirAsia in neighboring Malaysia have taken the market by storm over the past two decades. They have followed the model established by Southwest in the United States and Ryanair in Europe, running new fleets, minimal seniority, maximum flexibility, often (although not always) with a skeptical attitude to unions, and very low fares to meet and stimulate the need for travel among the region's rapidly emerging middle class.

At the same time, as with low-cost carriers in the United States and Europe, they have attracted criticism from flight crew unions and independent safety groups over long hours and the willingness to sacrifice safety for cash savings-which is particularly concerning for many in a region where even flag carriers have had questionable safety records.

"There are so many bad stories about Lion, it's hard to know where to start," former Indonesian National Transportation Safety Committee investigator Ruth Simatupang told the New York Times in November.

Lion Air Flight 583 crashed in November 2004 by failing to stop at the end of the runway at Surakarta airport on landing in bad weather, killing 25 people including the captain. The investigation found that the braking system and the aircraft's thrust reversers were both dangerously maintained.

The crash of Lion Air Flight 904 off the coast of Bali in April 2013 didn't kill anyone, more by luck than good judgment. The plane-a brand-new Boeing 737-800, with no mechanical problems-landed in the sea, 1,000 feet short of the runway, as the crew failed to perform a go-around after losing sight of the runway in bad weather. Against all odds, the shallow, still waters allowed a relatively soft landing.

Overexpansion, cost cutting and underregulation underlie these incidents. Lion Air struggles to attract and retain enough qualified pilots and skilled ground crew, its staff work very long hours, and training times are significantly shorter than many other airlines. At the same time, Lion Air chairman Rusdi Kirana is politically connected. Despite being a non-Muslim of Chinese heritage-a tricky sell in Indonesian politics-he is deputy chairman of and a major donor to the Islamist-populist National Awakening Party (PKB).

The airline has used its connections to make cheap aviation available to Indonesia's new middle class, whilst working at the absolute limits of aviation regulation compliance-and, many insiders say, using its influence against stricter regulation. The company has not made any on-the-record comments over these initiatives, but Kirana was an economic advisor to Indonesian President Joko Widodo and currently serves as Indonesian ambassador to Malaysia, so his substantial influence over government is clear. It's all too reminiscent of the United States before Copeland.

"Buying all the latest-generation, state-of-the-art engineering will be in vain if you don't have systems in place that prioritize safety," former Lion Air safety manager Frank Caron told the New York Times in November, before the full extent of Boeing's problems with the 737 Max became clear.

Lion Air starkly illustrates the benefits and costs associated with the expansion of budget aviation in emerging economies. Other carriers in the enormous Asian discount-aviation market are not immune from cost pressures, even where regulators are tougher and safety cultures are greater. The shortage of qualified flight deck and engineering crew puts pressure on the whole industry, even on budget operators with cash to spare such as Australia's Jetstar.

Could there be a regulatory revolution for the region's airlines, as the United States managed in the 1930s? It's harder to pass regulation on a multinational scale, especially in a region where many neighbors remain in political conflict. The 737 Max scandal has made the traditional solution-the United States leading and driving global standards via the FAA -look much less credible than it did a year ago.

China has stepped in, perhaps opportunistically: It was the first country to ground the troubled Boeing model, and is keen to pursue a wider regional role. But other nations in the region will struggle to accept China's leadership. Without a high-profile political casualty like Cutting's death, the impulse to act may remain secondary to the drive for profit.

Motorproblemer - Trent 1000 på B787-10 - Curt Lewis

Singapore Airlines grounds two 787-10s citing Rolls-Royce engine problem

Singapore Airlines' first Boeing 787-10 Dreamliner prepares to land at Singapore's Changi Airport March 28, 2018.

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Singapore Airlines Ltd said on Tuesday it had grounded two Boeing Co 787-10 jets fitted with Rolls-Royce Holdings PLC Trent 1000 TEN engines after checks of its fleet found premature blade deterioration.

The jets have been removed from service pending engine replacement, the airline said in a statement.

The Trent 1000 TEN is the latest version of an engine that has had a problematic entry into service. As of late February, Rolls-Royce said 35 787s were grounded globally due to engine blades corroding or cracking prematurely. The manufacturer said it was aiming to reduce the number to 10 by the end of the year.

In February, the company raised a Trent 1000 accounting charge to 790 million pounds ($1.03 billion) from 554 million pounds at the half year, contributing to a full-year operating loss of 1.16 billion pounds. It also allocated another 100 million pounds in cash to the problem.

Rolls-Royce said on Tuesday that since the entry into service of the Trent 1000 TEN, it had communicated to operators that the high-pressure turbine blades in the engine would have a limited life.

"Working with operators, we have been sampling a small population of the Trent 1000 TEN fleet that has flown in more arduous conditions," the manufacturer said in a statement. "This work has shown that a small number of these engines need to have their blades replaced earlier than scheduled."

Rolls-Royce said its engineers were already developing and testing an enhanced version of the turbine blade.

"We will now work closely with any impacted customers to deliver an accelerated program to implement the enhanced blade and to ensure that we can deliver on our Trent 1000 TEN future commitments," the company said. "We regret any disruption this causes to airline operations."

Bird strikes - Curt Lewis video

Incident: Atlantic Airways A319 at Vagar on Mar 30th 2019, bird strike An Atlantic Airways Airbus A319-100, registration OY-RCG performing flight RC-450 from Vagar (Faroe Islands) to Copenhagen (Denmark) with 122 people on board, departed Vagar's runway 30 when an engine (CFM56) ingested a bird prompting the crew to stop the climb at 4000 feet and return to Vagar for a safe landing on runway 30 about 21 minutes after departure. The occurrence aircraft is still on the ground in Vagar about 62 hours after landing back, the engine is being replaced. Incident: Spring Airlines A320 at Shanghai on Mar 31st 2019, rejected takeoff due to bird strike A Spring Airlines Airbus A320-200, registration B-8590 performing flight 9C-8949 from Shanghai Hongqiao to Shenzhen (China), was accelerating for takeoff from Hongqiao's runway 36L when the crew rejected takeoff at high speed. The aircraft came to a stop on the runway about 1500 meters/4900 feet down the runway. Emergency services responded and checked aircraft and runway. The aircraft subsequently taxied to the apron after about 45 minutes on the runway. A replacement A320-200 registration B-1892 reached Shenzhen with a delay of 3 hours. The occurrence aircraft remained on the ground for about 16 hours before returning to service. The airline reported the crew rejected takeoff due to a bird strike.

Incident: Azul A20N at Belem on Mar 30th 2019, rejected takeoff due to bird strike An Azul Linhas Aereas Airbus A320-200 Neo, registration PR-YRX performing flight AD-4186 from Belem,PA to Macapa,AP (Brazil), was accelerating for takeoff from runway 02 when the crew rejected takeoff at high speed after an engine (LEAP) ingested a bird. The aircraft slowed safely and came to a stop on the runway about 1000 meters/3300 feet down the runway. The flight was cancelled. The aircraft is still on the ground about 55 hours after the rejected takeoff. Ground observer video: A320neo Da Azul Sofre 'Bird Strike' No Aeroporto De Belém-PA

Boeing 737 Max oppdatering - Curt Lewis

FAA expects Boeing update for troubled jet 'in coming weeks' U.S. aviation regulators say Boeing needs more time to finish changes in a flight-control system suspected of playing a role in two deadly crashes. The Federal Aviation Administration said Monday it anticipates Boeing's final software improvements for 737 Max airliners "in the coming weeks." Boeing was expected to complete the work last week, but FAA spokesman Greg Martin said the company needs more time to make sure it has identified and addressed all issues. Chicago-based Boeing did not immediately comment. Once completed, Boeing's plan will need approval from the FAA and other regulators including those in Europe and China, who have indicated they will conduct their own reviews. The planes have been grounded around the world since mid-March. The news from the FAA suggests that airlines could be forced to park their Max jets longer than they expected. Airlines that own Max jets are scrambling other planes to fill some Max flights while canceling others. "We are aware that the resumption of service for our 737 Max aircraft may be further delayed, and our team will work with all customers impacted by any flight cancellations," said American Airlines spokesman Ross Feinstein. American Airlines had been pointing toward a late-April return of its 24 Max 8s. Over the weekend, Southwest Airlines announced that its 34 Max 8s will be removed from the schedule through May instead of mid-April. United Airlines has idled its 14 Max 9s through June 5. Separately, U.S. regulators and Boeing are awaiting a preliminary report from Ethiopian investigators into the March 10 crash of an Ethiopian Airlines Max 8 jet shortly after takeoff from Addis Ababa. The report will be scrutinized for information from the plane's data recorders that might suggest similarities between the doomed flight and the Oct. 29 crash of a Lion Air Max 8 in Indonesia. The two crashes killed 346 people. Data from the Indonesian plane indicates that pilots unsuccessfully fought the automated anti-stall system for control of the plane, which plunged into the sea shortly after takeoff. According to published reports, the same system activated on the Ethiopian Airlines flight. Boeing is making changes in an automated system that is designed to prevent the plane's nose from rising, which can lead to a dangerous aerodynamic stall. The changes include relying on readings from more than one sensor before the anti-stall system activates and pushes the nose down, and making the system's actions less severe and easier for pilots to handle. Boeing has said it will pay to train pilots on the technology. Two American Airlines pilots who attended a session with Boeing experts last week expressed satisfaction with the manufacturer's changes. American's chief 737 pilot, Roddy Guthrie, said Boeing added "some checks and balances in the system that will make the system much better." http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/apr/01/faa-expects-boeing-update-for-troubled-jet-in-comi/ Back to Top

The battle over the future of Boeing's 737 Max is heading to US courts As the world awaits the preliminary report into the crash of Ethiopian Airlines jet last month, lawyers across the world say they are firming up their cases against both the carrier and the aircraft manufacturer Boeing. The ET 302 flight crashed on Mar. 10 outside Addis Ababa, killing 157 people from over 30 nations just months after a similar aircraft model crashed off the coast of Indonesia, killing all 189 people on board. Since then, questions have swirled around the 737 Max 8's automated anti-stall system, whether Boeing prioritized commercial deadlines over safety issues, and if the state airline trained and alerted its crew more explicitly to the possible risks of the 737 Max series. The cases could present an obstacle for Ethiopian, a fast-growing airline that hauls almost 11 million passengers annually. But the lawsuits seem a bigger risk for Boeing, especially if investigations conclude defective technology or maintenance processes were in any way to blame for the crashes. Following the grounding of the 737 Max 8 globally, the US government is conducting a criminal investigation while the US department of transportation is probing the regulator Federal Aviation Administration with respect to the certification of the 737 Max. A number of airlines globally like Indonesia's flag-carrier Garuda have also canceled their orders, while Vietnam's Bamboo Airways announced plans to purchase Airbus planes reversing an earlier decision to buy 100 737 Max aircraft. And as Boeing finalizes a software patch and new training module for the series, more families from the October Lion Air crash in Jakarta continue to file cases against it in the United States. "This is clearly a Boeing safety issue and all the relevant information concerning that safety issue is in the US," says Daniel Rose, a partner at Kreindler & Kreindler firm in New York who specializes in litigating airline crash cases. Rose's firm has so far been contacted by families of Ethiopian crash in Kenya, Ethiopia, Italy, Israel, and the United States. With two crashes involving new jets of the same models, Rose says "the intervening five months is the critical time period when safety decisions were made and that is what makes ET 302 a stronger claim, especially for non-US families." Searching through the debris of ET 302. However, suing Boeing in the US might prove challenging given the trend in courts have favored the manufacturer in the past. To minimize eventual costs and reputational loss, the company previously used the doctrine of "inconvenient forum" to request US courts dismiss or send cases filed in US courts to countries which they argue are better connected to a particular air accident or those the accident affected, says Joseph Wheeler, the founder and legal practice director of the Brisbane firm International Aerospace Law & Policy Group (IALPG). For instance, a US judge last year ruled that a case seeking compensation against Boeing and its insurer for the loss of the flight MH370 belonged in Malaysia and not in the United States. Yet that could change this time around, Wheeler argues, given that the suit might focus "on a number of design elements where evidence about the safety or efficacy of those designs would solely be found in the US, including relevant witnesses." The US would also have a strong interest in resolving these safety issues, he stated, given that lawsuits could examine the interrelation between Boeing, the FAA, and other regulators. The case is also compounded by the fact that eight American nationals died on ET 302-even though US courts, Wheeler said, have dismissed cases where US citizens were involved in a crash outside US territory. Suing Ethiopian Airlines While most of the cases are piling against Boeing-including one from Rwanda-lawyers say they aren't ruling out making claims against Ethiopian Airlines. Wheeler says they will do all that's necessary "to extract the maximum lawful entitlements" including potentially liable entities like "product component manufacturers, training organizations, or regulatory bodies." IALPG was involved in resolving the cases for the families of 38 of the 55 passengers killed onboard Flydubai 981 that crashed in Russia in 2016. Both Wheeler and Rose, however, admitted it would be hard to pursue a case against the FAA since they enjoy unique legal protections and defenses not to mention the complex legal obstacles to suing a government agency. Lawyers say under the Montreal Convention for victim compensation, Ethiopian could be liable to pay the deceased's family up to $157,000 without any proof of fault on its part. But for any higher amounts claimed, Wheeler said carriers usually defend themselves through litigation or negotiation especially if they can prove the damage was not due to their own negligence. In the case of the Ethiopian crash, Rose says that families might not sue the airline, especially outside the US, given the risk that could pose to the much more significant compensation of a successful US claim against Boeing. Besides, since "there will almost certainly be an agreement between the insurers for Boeing and Ethiopian Airlines," that "means that a resolution of claims against Boeing will also resolve claims against Ethiopian Airlines." The black boxes of the crashed Ethiopian Airlines. And while compensation will depend on individual circumstances, Rose says rewards in the lower end in this scenario could be between $1 million to $3 million and could go as high as $5 million to $10 million if the deceased was a significant earner and supporting a family. At least 19 United Nations staff, as well as academics and business executives, were killed on the Ethiopian crash. Recovering costs In the case that Ethiopian pays up, legal experts say the airline will seek to recoup those losses from Boeing. Rose says this is why families shouldn't start legal proceedings against Ethiopian abroad since Boeing might ask the court to send the litigation overseas and even "accept fault if the case is transferred to a foreign country. This could significantly reduce the value of the families' claims against Boeing." Asked if they might sue Boeing, Ethiopian chief executive Tewolde GebreMariam told Quartz Africa in Kigali, Rwanda last week that, "All these things are at a very early stage. And we are long-time partners with Boeing so we will discuss on a lot of issues." Grounded 737 Max 8. As the probe over the Ethiopian crash concludes, the families of the crash victims are asking governments and lawyers for assistance. Don Worley, of the McDonald Worley firm in Texas, says several people have reached out to him with regards to assessing individual cases. Wheeler also said he's due to visit Kenya soon to reach out to families. The cases are drawing global attention as liability claims related to the crash in addition to the grounding of the 737 Max are expected to be the largest non-war aviation reinsurance claim on record, according to insurance firm Willis Re. "Yes, there will probably be claims against Boeing's insurers for the loss of the plane," Rose noted, "but there will also likely by claims by all the airlines who were grounded against Boeing for lost revenue."

Ryanair - Selskapet fra helvete - ABC Nyheter

Advokater mener Ryanairs nye erstatningsregler er ulovlige

Blir flyet ditt forsinket eller kansellert, får du ikke lenger lov av Ryanair til å bruke selskaper som hjelper deg med å få utbetalt erstatning.

·        Camilla Tryggestad Visjø

(E24) Publisert: 18:00 - 19.11.2016

EU-forordningen som gir rett til økonomisk kompensasjon ved forsinkede fly har gitt opphav til et nytt marked. Flere selskaper tilbyr i dag tjenester, mot betaling, for å hjelpe passasjerer med å få erstatning fra flyselskapene.

Det liker ikke Ryanair, som nå har endret sine passasjerbetingelser.

For å ha rett på erstatning i henhold til EU-forordningen, må den reisende, ifølge Ryanairs avtale, henvende seg direkte til flyselskapet og deretter vente i opp til 28 dager på svar.

Først deretter kan en tredjepart drive inn forsinkelseserstatningene.

– Forhindrer kompensasjon

Ett av selskapene som hjelper flypassasjerer med å kreve inn erstatning for forsinkelser er Flyforsinkelse.com. Selskapets direktør, Johan Fugman mener Ryanair gjør noe de ikke har lov til.

– Ryanairs tilføyelser i vilkår og betingelser bidrar til å forhindre passasjerer i å motta kompensasjon, som er i strid med forordningene som er på området, sier Fugman til E24.

Han mener norske forbrukere må være klar over at de ikke alltid kan stole på betingelsene de skriver under på hos flyselskapene.

– Derfor er det viktig å ha fokus på at et flyselskap som Ryanair bevisst prøver å forringe passasjerers rett til kompensasjon, sier Fugman.

Ber passasjerer ignorere

Hans Christian Steensrup er Flyforsinkelse.coms norske advokat. Han er ikke i tvil om at Ryanair handler ulovlig.

– Sett i forhold til en vanlig norsk rettsoppfatning, og formodentlig tilsvarende i de fleste andre europeiske land, er det for meg uforståelig at Ryanair inntar en så lite passasjervennlig holdning ved indirekte å forsøke å innskrenke rekkevidden av EU-forordningen. Det er en selvfølge at passasjerene kan søke bistand hos hvem de vil, uten at dette skal ha betydning for deres lovmessige rett til å kreve erstatning, sier Steensrup til E24.

Han får støtte av selskapets svenske advokat, klar Henrik Östberg.

– Dette er bindende lovgivning. Den kan ikke bare fraskrives, da ville den jo være helt tannløs, sier Östberg til Dagens Industri.

Fordi flyselskapet ikke har retten på sin side, kan passasjerene like så godt ignorere de nye reglene, ifølge advokaten.

Ryanairs betingelser er ifølge advokatene direkte motstridende med EU-forordningen 261/2004 artikkel 15, som sier at flyselskaper ikke kan begrense eller forhindre flypassasjerer i å få kompensasjon i henhold til deres rettigheter.

Ryanair: – Beskytter reisende

Også EUclaim, et annet selskap som hjelper passasjerer med å kreve inn erstatning, lar seg frustrere over Ryanair's endringer.

– Det går ikke an å gjemme seg fra det faktum at de nye betingelsene er ulovlige. Ryanair prøver å begrense passasjerers rettigheter til å søke rettslig hjelp ved forsinkelser og kanselleringer som de er ansvarlige for, sier EUclaim's England-sjef Adeline Noorderhaven til Daily Mail.

Cargo galore - Aviationist

Amazing Shot by Photographer Liyu Wu Shows Unbelievable Pass (And Telephoto Compression).

Ace aviation photographer Mr. Liyu Wu shot this remarkable photo of no less than three Airbus Defense A400M Atlas aircraft and three (or is it four?) Pilatus PC-7s of the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) in the same camera frame at the same time during an amazing formation break maneuver. The aircraft seem to be heading in about four different directions. The optic compression of Mr. Wu’s telephoto lens and his perfect timing make the aircraft appear much closer together than they are in horizontal space, but even with this visual effect, the photo and the flying are spectacular.

Mr. Wu gave TheAviationist.com permission to share his photo here.

The incredible shot by Mr. Liyu Wu. (Photo: Mr. Liyu Wu)