Southwest Airlines Pilots Sue Boeing For $100 Million

Southwest Airlines Pilots Association (SWAPA), which represents nearly 10,000 Southwest Airlines pilots, has just filed a lawsuit against Boeing for $100 million. The lawsuit has been filed in the District Court of Dallas County, and involves pilots feeling that Boeing has deliberately misled pilots about the 737 MAX.

Why Southwest Pilots Are Suing Boeing Over The 737 MAX

The 737 MAX has been grounded globally since March, and Southwest Airlines was the largest operator of the plane type. The lawsuit says that Southwest Airlines pilots agreed to fly the plane based on Boeing representing to them that it was airworthy and was essentially the same as the previous 737 model.

They say that these false representations have cost 346 lives, have damaged the bond between pilots and passengers, and have reduced opportunities for air travel across the US and around the world (that last part seems to me like a bit of a stretch).

The monetary aspect of this lawsuit comes down to the 737 MAX grounding causing the elimination of more than 30,000 scheduled Southwest Airlines flights. This is causing a reduction of about 8% in passenger service by the end of 2019.

Since pilots are paid by the flight hour, pilots are arguing that they’re losing more than $100 million in pay as a result of these groundings.

As Captain Jonathan Weaks, President of SWAPA explains:

“As pilots, there is nothing more important to us than the safety of our passengers. We have to be able to trust Boeing to truthfully disclose the information we need to safely operate our aircraft. In the case of the 737 MAX, that absolutely did not happen.

It is critical that Boeing takes whatever time is necessary to safely return the MAX to service. Our pilots should not be expected to take a significant and ever-expanding financial loss as a result of Boeing’s negligence. We look forward to a solution that helps Boeing restore the confidence of both the flying public and the pilots who operate its aircraft.”

SWAPA has been negotiating with Boeing for compensation since early September, but that has gone nowhere, which is why they’ve decided to file this lawsuit.

Boeing has responded to this lawsuit by saying that they believe the lawsuit is meritless, and that they will vigorously defend against it.

What About A Settlement For The Airline?

What makes this lawsuit a bit confusing is that it’s expected that airlines operating the 737 MAX will have some sort of a business settlement with Boeing as a result of the losses incurred from the grounding of the 737 MAX.

It’s anyone’s guess what kind of an agreement will be reached. Southwest Airlines has said that the grounding of the 737 MAX is expected to cost them about $225 million in revenue for 2019. They’ve also said that they’re considering sharing some of the compensation with employees.

Now, presumably pilots wouldn’t be getting $100 million of any settlement as part of that, but I would assume they’d be getting something.

So I’m not fully sure how the lawsuit filed by the union would impact the general compensation to Southwest.

Bottom Line

I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not sure how much of a legal basis the pilots have with their claim.

Coming at this from a logical perspective (rather than a legal perspective — often not the same thing), if we agree that Boeing was being negligent, and if we agree that pilots lost out on significant pay as a result of the grounding of the plane, then pilots requesting compensation for this doesn’t seem unreasonable.

That being said, do they have grounds for directly suing Boeing? After all, it’s the company that has a direct relationship with Boeing, and not the pilots.

I do expect Boeing will do everything they can to defend themselves here, though, or else they would likely be sued by the employees of virtually every airline operating the 737 MAX.

Any lawyers want to chime in with their take on this situation?

Conversations (13)
The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.
Comment as a member

Membership is free and takes no more information than commenting as a guest. Earn status points for good contributions, and see fewer ads as your status grows.

Type your response here.

If you'd like to participate in the discussion, please adhere to our commenting guidelines. Anyone can comment, and your email address will not be published. Register to save your unique username and earn special OMAAT reputation perks!

  1. Loading comments…
Recent Comments
The latest from the OMAAT community.

The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.

HG Guest

The pilots don't have a contract with Boeing, implied or otherwise. They are not a injured party. e.i. They gave no standing. There is no court precedent for their position. If there were ANYBODY that lost money indirectly anytime for any reason could collect. A drunk driver knocks over a power pole, therefore my place of business looses power. I cant work. I sue the power company. This is ambulance chasing at best. First judge should it throw it out for being frivolous with an admonishment for possible fines. There is a whole lot going on here than Boeing designing a back up system for a back up system that relied on one sensor. Most people have no idea, due to media hype, just how many levels down this MCAS system is. BTW Airbus uses the same sensor. Which has nearly resulted in several near crashes. You just reported yesterday on Ethiopia Airlines. What you didn't report is in Ethiopia a 14 year old aircraft apprentice can sign off a RTF (return to flight). The FAA has no jurisdiction there. Read the actual (not media reported) NTSB time line of both crashes. IT WAS PILOT ERROR about 10 different ways. If they had better training both crashes were recoverable. In fact on the previous flight on that same Lion aircraft had an instructor pilot sitting jump seat. He reached over and shut off the the stab motors per the emergency check list and told dumb asses to fly the airplane.... manually. The ground crew didn't understand the reported problem and returned the aircraft to flight ( penciled whipped it). That aircraft then crashed because the next crew did not know how to fly it.... manually. This issue of "pilots". inability to the fly the airplane, not punch buttons on the flight management computer, is a ongoing issue. Did you know there is no requirement for commercial pilots to learn aerobatics? So when there is an aircraft upset (the plane un-expectently rolled upside down) the pilots don't know how to recover! One thing that nobody else is talking about: all the countries that initially grounded the MAX are vendors for Airbus. They are also the ones holding up returning the MAX to flight. The Max was taking back market share from Airbus. You do the math. It is not rocket science. BTW. I have no skin in this game. I do have 45 years working in aircraft overhaul. I don't have any preference as to aircraft manufactures. I can guarantee you they ALL have safety of flight issues. Yet I have no fear of flying.

0
‼ 0
YULtide Platinum

$100 million. Ho hum. Cost of doing business. Add a zero. Or two.

0
‼ 0
Eskimo Guest

@CraigTPA some people could be underpaid while others who had little or no out-of-pocket cost could get a windfall. Also, the sheer expense of pursuing such a case would result in a huge chunk of any award going to legal costs rather than passengers Sounds just like Equifax. So this should be possible right? A big payday for Munoz, Parker, Dewey, Cheatem & Howe LLP Law Firm. How to quantify, simple. Since airlines are asking Boeing for compensation then whatever lost revenue payout x airline profit margin x (maybe load factor) = opportunity cost to flyers. Am I missing something? I hope you practice law. This is interesting.

0
‼ 0
David-in-Florida Guest

Sue the two negligent airlines with poorly maintained aircraft (dodgy parts, record falsification, and test flights with passengers), bad management, and poorly trained inexperienced pilots and first officers.

0
‼ 0
Chris Guest

They should sue WN itself too. WN has a lot of sway on Boeing's decisions, and its not a stretch to say Boeing took WN's attitude of "no new training" very seriously when they made the lousy decisions.

0
‼ 0

Save posts to read later

Saving posts is a member feature. Become an OMAAT member to build a reading list you can come back to from any device.

Become a member
Meet Ben Schlappig, OMAAT Founder
5,883,136 Miles Traveled

43,914,800 Words Written

47,187 Posts Published