NEWSROOM |
|
|
|||||
JALways Terror In The Sky |
|||||
January 6, 2009 - What would you do if you were a pilot who discovered that another pilot was so sick that he posed a serious threat to the safety of a flight? Let’s say you reported the sick pilot to the company management, but they did not respond to you. Would you persist in pursuing your cause at the risk of losing your job? If that scenario seems overly dramatic consider the fact that it happened and resulted in the death of an American pilot. In June 2001, an extremely sick pilot was instructed to operate passenger flights despite his illness. |
|||||
Japan Airlines (JAL), its subsidiary JALways, and Hawaii Aviation Contract Services, Inc. (HACS),
the pilot contract leasing company, were named in a wrongful termination
lawsuit by crewmembers.
Ventress warned Hanami of Bicknell’s illness prior to flight, and noted
that during a flight from
Doctors in |
In 1992, Crawford and Ventress began flying for JALways; but, after the
Bicknell incidents, JALways began harassing Crawford by administering
unnecessary and excessive flight evaluations subjecting Ventress to
unprecedented psychiatric evaluations, drug screenings and flight
physicals. Ventress cleared eight medical evaluations in 12-months that
were administered on the mainland
However, when JAL’s Dr. Jack Scaff examined Ventress in
Crawford, who was also fired without just cause, and Ventress, filed a
wrongful termination lawsuit. To determine who was to blame for actually
firing them, JALways pointed to the contract that HACS was the employer;
thus the liable party. HACS did not actually fire Crawford or Ventress;
but rather, JALways fired them. In the JALways and HACS contract,
JALways agrees to pay HACS to accept liability for its legal disputes;
both parties point the finger at each other as to blame. The scam
shields JAL and JALways from all
The District Court in Hawaii dismissed the case on the grounds that a
1953 (FCN) Friendship, Commerce and Navigation Treaty, allows Japanese
companies to have an absolute right to employ employees covered by the
FCN Treaty without regard to U.S. employment laws; and the treaty right
includes their terminating Crawford and Ventress and insulates that
action from liability under that state law. (
Crawford and Ventress appealed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,
and that court determined: We hold that the district court [
JAL then sought protection under U.S. Federal Laws to argue for another
dismissal under the Federal Airline Deregulation Act, because Ventress
behavior had the potential to disrupt JAL’s services, because he
challenged JALways Captain Hanami regarding Bicknell’s deteriorating
health. The District Court of Hawaii again agreed with JAL and dismissed
the case. Ventress has since filed another appeal in the Ninth Circuit
Court, which is currently pending.
JAL’s attempts to have the case dismissed before any overwhelming
evidence can be introduced to the court have continued to burden the
courts for more than seven years, which serves only to benefit the
financial interests of the attorneys. JAL’s actions sidestep the
unresolved issue that Bicknell was pushed to the brink of exhaustion,
became incapacitated and collapsed during several flights that left him
with brain cancer and in a vegetative state by the end of June 2001.
Bicknell died of brain cancer at 38-years old. He left a wife and son,
and many wondering why JAL allowed a pilot to continue flying while
extremely ill. Only JAL Captain Hanami, who finds refuge in Feedback: MichaelsReport@gmail.com <Melissa Michaels> |
©AvStop Online Magazine Contact Us Return To News |
|