Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Asiana Airlines Reverses Decision to Sue TV Station Over Fake Pilot Names Broadcast

Asiana Airlines Reverses Decision to Sue TV Station Over Fake Pilot Names Broadcast

It looks like Asiana Airlines finally came to its senses over its prior decision to sue KTVU over the TV station’s broadcast that erroneously aired the fake names of pilots falsely purported to be with the airline’s flight 214.

From Yonhap News:

Asiana Airlines Inc. said Wednesday it has withdrawn its plan to file a defamation suit against a U.S. television station for damaging the carrier’s reputation over the deadly crash of its plane in San Francisco.

“We decided not to proceed with the suit to concentrate all our efforts on dealing with the aftermath of the accident,” the South Korea’s second-largest flag carrier said in a statement.

I’d say “Streisand Effect averted,” but I think it’s probably more minimized than averted at this point.

Meanwhile, Asiana is still expected to face legal action itself.

From The Atlantic:

Yesterday, lawyers representing 83 passengers on the crashed flight filed the initial documents for a lawsuit against Boeing, the company that manufactured the jet that crashed. Ribbeck Law Chartered, a Chicago-based law firm, filed a petition for discovery in Cook County Circuit Court in Illinois that demands the defendants turn over all possible relevant information for the type of aircraft that crashed—a Boeing 777. Asiana wasn’t included in the initial court filing, but the airline’s name will be added at some point over the next few days. Another lawsuit filed in California by a woman and her son who were passengers on the flight is seeking at least $5 million in damages for injuries suffered in the crash. We have a feeling the litigious backlash is just starting.

Seems to me that the airline’s decision not to proceed with a suit against KTVU and to instead focus its efforts on dealing with the accident’s aftermath is probably a good one.  Especially since there was never a viable legal theory in the first place for Asiana to bring a lawsuit against KTVU, a move that some legal experts considered spectacularly inadvisable.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

No Phuc Ng Wei!

Carol Herman | July 17, 2013 at 3:05 pm

The real reason the plane crashed on landing, is that an inexperienced pilot came in too low. And, the plane’s tail caught on the sea wall. Boeing is not responsible.

Asiana’s attempt to sue a station that did not purposefully air the pilot’s name is not a cause for a lawsuit. But the only SANE reaction would have been to fire the CEO.

inquisitivemind | July 17, 2013 at 3:08 pm

If anyone had any doubt to the fact that the folks on TV that we consider “journalists” are nothing more than pretty faces reading from teleprompters – this hilarious story should resolve all doubt.

I admit to tearing up with laughter when a coworker showed it to me – I don’t believe Hollywood writers have anywhere near the humor to have come up with that for Ron Burgundy

Chairman Mi Soo Yu finally caved to the advise of his legal council, No Phuc Ng Wei.

Why sue Boeing? This borders on a frivolous lawsuit. If I take my perfectly running car and steer/crash it into a wall, do I sue Nissan?

What does Chicago have to do with anything? Is that were the law firm owns a judge?

    Spiny Norman in reply to Old0311. | July 17, 2013 at 4:34 pm

    That’s where Boeing is headquartered now. They moved their offices from Seattle a few years ago.

Boeing: can you say “deep pockets”? I knew ya could!

“KTVU fact-checkers had also failed to get the title of the National Transportation Safety Board staffer who confirmed the names — and who turned out to be a well-intentioned but ill-advised summer intern.”

I don’t buy that. Even a “well-intentioned” intern wouldn’t have confirmed names which did not match those of the crew. If they didn’t have the names of the crew to compare with they would simply have said that they could not confirm them, or else passed the question on to someone else who did. To positively confirm them indicates to me that they understood the joke and intentionally added their assistance to airing the prank names.

Yu No Tsu.

Yu Go Nao!

William, this lawsuit is going to be interesting for a very simple reason, the lawyer is going to have a very hard time proving Boeing responsible for the crash.

My husband is an aeronautical engineer, and that means that air crashes are something where he pays attention. We have had several conversations regarding how this crash happened.

At first when I heard about the crash, I thought maybe there was maintenance error because the tailplane had come off and I did not know the facts of the crash. However, it soon became evident that the crash was caused by pilot error.

The lawyer included the fact that the liferafts inflated inside the aircraft, and again, there is some doubt that Boeing is to blame for that as well.

He will have a better chance suing Asiana than he will by suing Boeing for something that was not related to the aircraft.

For all you aeronautical engineers, lawyers, pilots this makes no difference. There is racial insensitivity involved here and that means looking at things rationally and logically by people who are experts is out of the question.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Anchovy. | July 17, 2013 at 5:23 pm

    ^^^this^^^

    You let sane knowledgeable people in on this and there’s no controlling where it goes.

not_surprised | July 17, 2013 at 6:28 pm

Finger should have thrown a pack of skittles at carney, after all prosecutors in Florida agree you are innocent if you are armed with them.

one report I saw said the basis was the autothrottle did not hold speed.
yet in vfr and not on autopilot (landing cfg) they would not be using it.
seems someone thinks autothrottle not working and forgetting autothrottle isn’t on are the same thing.

It’s a Nguyen Nguyen situation.

Carol Herman | July 17, 2013 at 10:43 pm

Think about that question a minute! jay Carney BLEW IT! That question was the best opportunity to have answered:

We’re keeping that under wraps, but he is being protected. And, so is his family.”

WHY WAS JAY CARNEY ALLOWED TO BE SUCH AN IDIOT? Isn’t he being paid to make the president look good?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend