The suit was originally filed on July 14, 2017 by named plaintiff, Jayson Huntsman in California federal court. In the complaint, Huntsman alleged that Southwest failed to provide accrued sick leave to pilots who took short-term military leave, but did provide sick leave to pilots who took comparable forms of leave for bereavement, union duty or jury duty. The plaintiff argued that since Southwest provides sick leave for the above reasons it must, under the USERRA, also provide paid sick leave for pilots out on STML. USERRA provides that employees who take military leave are entitled to the same rights and benefits an employer provides to employees who are on furlough or leave of absence. Huntsman also alleges that Southwest similarly denied pilots who took STML employer contributions to their 401(k) retirement plans.

According to the complaint and subsequent settlement filing, until December 31, 2016, Southwest made contributions to pilots’ 401(k) retirement accounts with a maximum matching rate of 9.3% of pilot contributions. However, plaintiff argues that Southwest had a pattern or practice of refusing to tell its pilots their deemed earnings for periods of STML, therefore making it difficult for pilots whose earnings vary depending on their weekly flight schedules, to obtain the information needed to calculate the correct percent of missed contributions. To bolster his argument, Huntsman pointed out that the USERRA states that employees who return from military leave must be allowed to make and have matched 401(k) contributions based on compensation they would have earned during military leave.

If approved by the court the $18.8 million settlement will be broken down into around $6 million in retirement payments and almost $13 million in sick leave repayment. 

Credits: Southwest

The post Southwest Faces $18.8 Million Payout in Military Leave Lawsuit Settlement first appeared on AircrewNews.com.

New York — The families of four passengers killed in the June 12 crash of an Air India Boeing 787 said in a lawsuit that the accident resulted from allegedly faulty fuel switches, which the US Federal Aviation Administration has said do not appear to have caused the accident that killed 260 people.

The lawsuit filed on Tuesday in Delaware Superior Court blames Boeing and Honeywell, which made the switches, for the crash seconds after Flight 171 took off for London from the Indian city of Ahmedabad.

The plaintiffs point to a 2018 FAA advisory that recommended, but did not mandate, operators of several Boeing models, including the 787, inspect the fuel cut-off switches’ locking mechanism to ensure it could not be accidentally moved.

India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau’s (AAIB) preliminary investigation report into the crash stated that Air India had not conducted the suggested inspections, and that maintenance records showed that the throttle control module, which includes the fuel switches, was replaced in 2019 and 2023 on the plane involved in the crash.

The report noted “all applicable airworthiness directives and alert service bulletins were complied with on the aircraft as well as engines.”

Boeing declined to comment and Honeywell did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A cockpit recording of dialogue between the jet’s two pilots suggests that the captain cut the flow of fuel to the plane’s engines, as Reuters previously reported.

The lawsuit maintains that the switches are in a place in the cockpit where they were more likely to be inadvertently pushed, which “effectively guaranteed that normal cockpit activity could result in inadvertent fuel cut-off.”

However, aviation safety experts told Reuters they could not be accidentally flipped based on their location and design.

The lawsuit appears to be the first in the US over the crash.

It seeks unspecified damages for the deaths of Kantaben Dhirubhai Paghadal, Naavya Chirag Paghadal, Kuberbhai Patel and Babiben Patel, who were among the 229 passengers who died.

Twelve crew members and 19 people on the ground were also killed. One passenger survived. The plaintiffs are citizens of and live in either India or Britain.

Indian investigators’ preliminary report appeared to exonerate Boeing and engine maker GE Aerospace, but some family groups have criticized investigators and the press as too focused on the pilots’ actions.

Though most accidents are caused by a combination of factors, legal experts say lawyers representing victims’ families tend to target manufacturers because they do not face the same limits on liability enjoyed by airlines.

Such strategies can also increase the prospect of using US courts, which are widely seen as more generous to plaintiffs than many foreign courts.

The case is Paghadal et al v Boeing Co et al, Delaware Superior Court, No N25C-09-145.

Credits: Air India

The post Boeing and Honeywell face lawsuit from Air India first appeared on AircrewNews.com.