UKC

It is 30 years since the Manchester air disaster

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-33880674

Could someone tell me why companies can't say sorry? Surely liabilities have been settled now so it is a simple of simple common courtesy, respect and compassion.

In reply to ByEek:

You could equally well ask why people feel the need to demand apologies decades after the fact from people who had no involvement in the event.

In reply to ByEek:


I am not a lawyer, but are they ever fully settled? Possibly any admission might re-open a legal door?

Also companies are just legal entities, so isn't an apology from an inanimate organisation meaningless? It's the human beings who made the mistakes who need to apologise, but even that might be unfair on individuals where the mistakes are a result of a chain of wrong decisions made by numerous people often without their fully realising the implications at the time they made them and without the benefit of hindsight?

It's a terribly difficult area, and whilst outwardly the company may appear to be lacking decency and compassion, the individuals responsible could go through a life time of self reproach and mental agony because of their (human) failings.

In reply to ByEek:
Why do you want the "company" to say sorry, it was a person making decisions and making errors, not "the company" you may as well ask the plane or the petrol to apologise. It is people who should apologise.

In reply to Que Sera Sera:

But a company is only a group of individuals. Issuing an apology is a way for that group of individuals to collectively recognise that an injustice was done.

In reply to ByEek:


I doubt that any of the current management had any connection with the airport 30 years ago. Whilst I'm sure that any of the directors would be happy to say that they regret what happened (who doesn't?) I can't see that any of them have any personal responsibility, which is the only thing for which anyone can really apologise.

And, as other have said, I'd be surprised if they weren't under pretty strict legal advice to be guarded about any public statement that could be interpreted as admitting liability.

In reply to ByEek:

No a company is not a group of individuals, a partnership is or a club is (I think) but a Company is an entity in its own right.

In reply to Que Sera Sera:


Indeed. And that entity contains lots of people who make decisions about how the entity acts. And when the entity screws up, it is not unreasonable to expect the people running the entity to issue an apology, as actors of the entity on behalf of the entity.

A country is an entity. And thankfully apologies on behalf of a country have been issued in recognition of the way in which representatives of that country acted in the past.

Why are we talking about entities when the world is about people? An entity is just legal bullshit to hide behind and absolve responsibility.

In reply to ByEek:

But my opinion is an entity cannot screw up, it is the people who screw up, and then hide behind a company or the civil service or the police force or whatever, and to me this is wrong. Obviously mistakes are made in life, thats the way life is, but an apology or sympathy from a company or Police Force or whatever always sounds trite and PR to me, whilst the person who made the error carries on regardless, because really they have got away with it.

In reply to Que Sera Sera:

Perhaps. But then it isn't us who suffered huge personal loss, but continue to see the companies involved going about their business as if nothing happened.

In reply to ByEek:

I like the way he complains about so many passengers being on the plane. How on earth do people think airlines get their fares so low? There is a very simple reason why flights on private jets cost so much more than no-frills cattle trucks.

In reply to davidbeynon:


One woman in the article, who lost relatives in the disaster, says she still feels angry. I'm not surprised. I wonder if she and others need something the media call "closure", I'm not really sure? - but I wouldn't be surprised if that's what's happening here. As to wanting an apology from "people who had no involvement in the event", that doesn't surprise me either - they blame the airline/ airport for what happened, and both are still around.

In reply to ByEek:


Nobody is pretending nothing happened. Operating procedures and safety measures were changed radically after the accident weren't they? What do you want, the airport to be shut down?

It's true that companies have no conscience, like sharks they just evolve to be as efficient as possible, but many of the people running them do care as individuals. I'm just not clear who you think should be apologising, what for exactly, and what would be achieved by it.

It's a bit similar to the collective guilt still expected of current Japanese, almost all of whom had nothing whatever to do with WW2. Interestingly, this time the Japanese Prime Minister, while (once again) expressing remorse on VJ Day for what happened in WW2, also made the point that he didn't see that future generations should be predestined to apologise indefinitely - quite right too. As time goes by this becomes increasingly meaningless and, in any case, is never enough for some people.

In reply to ByEek:

'continue to see the companies involved going about their business as if nothing happened.'

That's no true on at least 3 counts. There have been significant changes to the designs of aircraft generally, including removal of seats by the emergency exits and reduction in smoke generating materials. Operational procedures have changed as well, e.g. no doubt the pilot thought he was doing the right thing getting the plane off the runway as fast as he could, mindful of the Tenerife disaster a few years earlier; now there are different protocols. And British Airtours doesn't even exist any more.

I appreciate it must be hard for the relatives, but demanding 'an apology' for what was, after all, an accident, is plain wrong. Nobody did anything they weren't supposed to, nobody caused the accident on purpose, it was a series of events with unanticipated consequences and things were changed as a result.

In reply to abseil:
And this is why many philosphies and religions espouse forgiveness. Im not saying it is easy but until you forgive you cannot move on, you just make yourself another victim.

In reply to Que Sera Sera:


I agree with you - good and sensible words. (What I wrote above was just trying to see events from the survivors' / related families' viewpoint).

In reply to ByEek:

I'm still waiting for a proper apology from the Mayor of Rome for their invasion 2,000 years ago. And those damned froggies are no better. The Harrying of the North by William the Conqueror was nothing short of a war crime but try telling that to Mr Bloody Hollande....

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


Right. And what did the Romans ever do for us?

In reply to Que Sera Sera:


and the alternative is some poor admin guy having to stand up on camera to apologise for a mistake he made when rounding up some figures because he was knackered and a bit stressed. He then gets death threats from the hot headed public.

not to mention that pointing a finger at one person is pretty difficult when he could say he wasn't trained right or was given too much workload so it's his team leader...that persons manager...that persons section manager....the CEO...oh yeah we're now looking at the company rather than one person.

There's a reason a company apologises for the mistakes of individuals.

In reply to ByEek:

For the same reasons that I don't expect my German g/f to apologise for the atrocities committed in her home town 20 years before she was born?

JW

In reply to Scarab9:

I could so so easily fall into the Godwin trap on this one.

In reply to Que Sera Sera:


I am not arguing the toss about what a company is legally. I am looking for a bit of humanity and compasion. The companies in question are still trading and have people working for them. Surely those people can issue apologies? After all, they are benefiting from a companies that continue to be successful despite the carnage it created.

In reply to ByEek:


But it is the people who were working there at the time and made the mistakes, who owe the apology, and can make a meaningful one as they made the errors, no matter how accidentally, however if its just an apology you want, I`m sorry for all the ills in the world, is that better.

In reply to ByEek:

I've sometimes pondered about companies being involved in producing gasses which went into the gas chambers being avoided by some Jewish people still, I can't begin to imagine what it must be like to have lost most of one's ancestors and to have knowledge of the things which happened to them, but I find myself thinking that the people involved will no longer work for the companies, which could technically mean it's not the same company.

It's not something I've come up with an answer for, not being in a company like that or from a Jewish family which lost relatives...I don't really know what I think.

In reply to Que Sera Sera:

But then you could say the same about countries that apologise for something that happened years ago. Sure, the leaders who issue the apologies had nothing to do with the atrocities, but issuing an apology is about recognising the pain and suffering of those who experienced the full impact of decisions made on behalf of the organisation they now run.

It is a way of acknowledging that the current organisation is no longer the same organisation that caused such horrendous loss to life. It allows closure to those who suffered such a huge loss. Surely that in itself is reason to issue an apology. To the company it is such a small gesture as you keep arguing, but to those seeking closure, it is everything.

In reply to ByEek:

It's nonsense when countries do it too for historic events.

In reply to ByEek:


No. Saying "we are no longer the same organisation" does what you say. Offering an apology for something that is the result of a past version of the company would suggest that it *is* the same organisation.

If there is a fault with the institutional procedures then there should be individuals with whom legal responsibility lies, the protection of the company is limited and does not apply to criminal negligence etc. It is those individuals who should apologise, if they are still alive.


Does it? I would provocatively suggest that closure comes from within, not from hollow apologies issued by people with absolutely nothing to do with the events what so ever, and from achieving change to prevent repeat circumstances. This kind of demand for apologies teeters us towards the victim mentality and quest for vengeance that underpins a lot of what one hears from across the pond. Ugly.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Next time you're on a plane look down and you'll see lighting strips along the floor and look up to see fire exit signs. Both brought in after this disaster. These changes have saved many lives in the time since the disaster. Every air disaster raises questions which when answered make flying safer. So we have immensely safe planes now as a result of accidents like this.

In reply to ByEek:

Are you asking why companies do not apologise, which was your question, and you have been answered, or trying to argue that they should?

In reply to radddogg:


Yes, and the practice fuselage hulk that the fire crews use for training is clearly visible as you land at Manchester. Almost too clearly!

In reply to MG:

I'm not sure if it is, if it helps to improve relations between different countries or different parts of the world?

In reply to Timmd:

It's still nonsense, but I take the point that there may be some sort of diplomatic placebo effect. Better I think for countries (and companies) to be judged by their current and recent behaviour.

In reply to MG:

You'd hope so, but people are rubbish for bearing collective grudges against one another which can go back centuries. that kind of thing surfaced in the Balkans during the 90's, it happens all the time unfortunately.

I do agree, but it seems to go beyond diplomacy sometimes, if that just means the people in suits and smart clothing, and can matter to the general populations too. There it is, I guess, it's something we're saddled with.

In reply to ByEek:

I see this evening's news reports the Catholic Church in Scotland apologising for past sexual abuses.

The reaction: 'an empty apology' (or words to that effect).

So that apology did the trick, eh? Everything's forgiven and forgotten...

In reply to ByEek:

Apology issued?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-34019185

In reply to captain paranoia:

Good spot. And this simply sums it up

"Those words, although really small, mean an awful lot to us."