Now, THIS developing story should be interesting to watch. . .

(Snip)

U.S. warns airlines insurance must cover 2000 bug

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Department of Transportation (DOT) Monday warned U.S. and foreign airlines that they risked operating illegal flights if their liability insurance did not cover the Year 2000 computer problem.

In a notice to airlines, DOT warned companies that some aviation insurers wished to write into insurance policies a clause that would exclude liability for all damages related to Y2K problems, and that some carriers already may have had similar exclusions written into their policies.

(End snip)

Got stranded travellers?

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), April 19, 1999

Answers

Yikes!! Mail?? Air Frieght? Got preparations?

-- Leslie (***@***.net), April 19, 1999.

Got URL?

-- David Binder (dbinder@sympatico.ca), April 19, 1999.

I've been expecting something like this - now what about malpractice insurance?

-- Johnny (jljtm@bellsouth.com), April 19, 1999.

So this would mean - does this mean if you (an airline) operated a flight (foreign only, domestic only, both? - How far does their "control" extend?) in/out/across the US without Y2K-compliant insurance, you are in violation, or does this mean an insurance company cannot specfically be required to cover a flight if they (the insurance company) excludes (or includes ?) y2K protection. Or does it mean you must have Y2K insurance to fly, and every insurance company must provide that insurance?

The wording - unless I suddenly came down with a

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), April 19, 1999.

Unfortunately, I can't post the URL for this, as it came from America Online's news section. I'll try a search for Reuters. If it works, I'll be back with the URL. :)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), April 19, 1999.

Got it! It's not from Reuters, it's right from the DOT. 'Haven't had a chance to read it through, but here's the URL:

http://www.dot.gov/affairs/dot5899.htm

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), April 19, 1999.

Thanks FM,

Hotlink ...

http://www.dot.gov/ affairs/dot5899.htm

[snip]

... "Addressing the Y2K problem is a top priority for DOT, and at the same time, carriers must make sure that their liability insurance policies cover all required claims, including Y2K," U.S. Deputy Transportation Secretary Mortimer L. Downey said. ...

[snip]

... All direct air carriers and foreign air carriers, including U.S. commuter airlines and air taxis, are required to carry minimum aircraft accident liability insurance coverage for bodily injury to or death of aircraft passengers, as well as for other persons and property damage. Each carrier must file a certificate of insurance with the department, signed by an authorized representative of the insurer or insurance broker, stating that the carrier has coverage meeting DOT requirements. Minimum coverage amounts depend on the class of carrier and aircraft size.

The government has permitted exclusions in only a very limited number of circumstances. These exclusions generally were granted only for circumstances not within the carriers control or that did not affect the traveling public, such as war risk or damage to the carriers own property.

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 19, 1999.

url for the reuters story:

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/tc/story.html?s=v/nm/19990419/tc/ yk_faa_8.html

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), April 19, 1999.

I wonder who will blink first, DOT or the insurance companies? The way things look now, I expect DOT will ground all planes for the first weekend in 2000 or until the airlines can prove to insurance companies their planes will fly.

I'm not afraid "planes will fall out of the sky" but it appears the insurance industry is. Hmmm.

-- Margaret (janssm@aol.com), April 19, 1999.

There won't be planes in the sky, except the one with Garvey & Koskinen & some others, and that one will crash with the only other one in the sky, loaded with the Chinese airline officials ;-)
No falling, no planes, because no insurance, no one willing to lose $$$$$$$$$. Have been saying that for months. We'll see if they can twist out of this or circumvent somehow.

xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), April 20, 1999.

It appears that planes won't fall from the sky because they will not be taking off. BTW, where are they going to put all of those grounded planes? My bet is at desert auxiliary airfields. It will cost the airlines a pretty penny to take them out of service and disperse them for a week or two.

Can anyone say bankruptcy?

-- Incredulous (ytt000@aol.com), April 20, 1999.

Damn, which troll did I have that bet with?..... <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 20, 1999.

Diane you must be the Queen of the Search Engine. I'm in awe.

PJ in TX

-- PJ Gaenir (fire@firedocs.com), April 20, 1999.

Leska,

for some reason your post reminded me of the bit that the first two automobiles in the city of Detroit actually ran into each other...

:-)

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), April 20, 1999.

I agree with PJ. Diane, you amaze me!

What does Greenspun need with a search engine? And Diane is y2k compliant!

[on bended knee, awe in my eyes!]

Now, be careful going thru doors......-)

-- J (jart5@bellsouth.net), April 20, 1999.

Back to topic...

I guess the 'previous exclusions' would allow for the FAA not being compliant?

-- J (jart5@bellsouth.net), April 20, 1999.

hey guys.. wasn't it Senator Bennet that said he would be on a plane on Dec.31,1999? He didn't say if the plane was going to be in the air did he???

-- weasel word hound (reading@between the lines. com), April 20, 1999.

Just a tip,

Whenever you see a newsarticle mentioning a source, or several, try to locate the source documents and you'll see what the media "didn't report." (Like the GAO report or the actual Congressional Testimony, and even a corporate press release -- better is usually an employee newsletter). Just follow the clues.

Always enlightening.

Then, if you really want perspective, you check out sources for those impacted by decisions and those doing the impacting ... i.e. Air Traffic Controllers and other affected labor groups, versus the Airlines and then the Insurance Carriers.

At least, that's what a good investigative reporter would do! (If they had the time and editor's support).

*Sigh*

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 20, 1999.

I suppose this thread got started before it was reported that Boeing has flown many aircraft with all settable clocks rolled over to 2000 with no bad effects. In fact, they set one up to a hour or so before midnight 12/31/99 and the CEO flew around in it until the rollover had passed. Nothing bad occurred. The plane landed normally and he got out and had a press conference.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), April 20, 1999.

Paul Davis is a Pollyanna troll. Please ignore him.

-- No One (noone@nowhere.com), April 20, 1999.

Yeah right. When you have the facts, all you lurking twits can do is yell 'pollyanna'. I guess it really feels great, knowing that you are hiding behind fake ID's to call someone names. And come 1/1/2000 you will all be crying the opposite tune and using other names to get off while you roast the honest doomers who will at least have a conversation.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), April 21, 1999.

You're right, this thread began before that came out - the Boeing story is another example of "good start" - now tell me when ALL of the Boeing aircraft are compliant - the test of ONE doesn't mean the fleet is okay, it shows that ONE is okay.

Now, this calls to mind: what about Airbus, DC's, and everybody else? I was under the impression as of about mid-December 1998 - an impression carefully maintained by the industry - that Boeing had already tested everything, and had NO problems at all.

Good to hear they finally got around to flight testing what they "advertised" as being complete a long time ago.

Better news would be: Boeing announced all their aircraft are compliant and NEEDED NO CHANGES. But they didn't say that, they said what they tested was okay. One test on each version of their fleet does not assure compliance. It DOES show that they can GET TO compliance, but we have never proposed that the problem can't be fixed. We (collectively) have always questioned whether it would be fixed in time.

Like the FAA "test" - which had been dry-ran five times before being done publically, this indicates only that the FAA MUST now install locally test, then run integrated test on all installations cross-country, BEFORE declaring compliancy.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), April 21, 1999.