UPS put profits over safety before plane crash that killed 14, lawyer alleges

The deadly UPS cargo plane crash in Kentucky last month was the result of corporate decisions that prioritized profits over safety, according to lawsuits filed Wednesday on behalf of two victims killed on the ground.

Attorney Robert Clifford filed wrongful death lawsuits alleging that UPS continued flying aging aircraft without increasing maintenance beyond regular schedules, despite potential safety concerns. The suits also name General Electric, which manufactured the plane’s engine, along with Boeing and VT San Antonio Aerospace.

The November 4 crash claimed the lives of three pilots and 11 people on the ground when the MD-11 jet, loaded with fuel for a flight to Hawaii, crashed into businesses just outside Louisville International Airport, home to UPS’s largest package delivery hub.

Federal investigators revealed that the crash occurred after the plane’s left engine detached during takeoff. Subsequent inspections discovered cracks where the engine connected to the wing. This finding prompted the Federal Aviation Administration to ground all MD-11 aircraft, which had been exclusively used for cargo operations for more than a decade.

“UPS was saving money and aircraft downtime by keeping old, tired planes in the air while not increasing the number of inspections,” Clifford said at a news conference. His colleague, attorney Bradley Cosgrove, added, “This plane should have never been in the air,” suggesting that proper inspections should have identified the structural issues before the fatal crash.

The lawsuits were filed on behalf of the families of 45-year-old Angela Anderson, who was shopping at a business near the airport, and 37-year-old Trinadette “Trina” Chavez, who was working at Grade A Auto Parts when the crash occurred.

“We intend to stand up for ‘Nena’ and fight for her, no matter how long it takes, just like Nena always did for us,” said Gabriela Hermosillo-Nunez, referring to her sister Chavez by a family nickname used by her eight younger siblings.

Court documents reveal that the aircraft had completed over six weeks of extensive maintenance just weeks before the crash, with work finishing on October 18. During this maintenance period, VT San Antonio Aerospace crews reportedly repaired significant structural issues, including a crack in the center wing fuel tank, addressed corrosion on structural components, and lubricated parts involved in attaching the engine to the wing.

However, according to the lawsuits, the engine mount had not undergone a detailed inspection since 2021 and wasn’t scheduled for another thorough examination until after an additional 7,000 takeoffs and landings.

Both UPS and GE declined to comment specifically on the pending litigation but stated that safety remains their top priority as they continue to assist with the federal investigation. Boeing and VT San Antonio Aerospace did not respond to requests for comment.

The FAA’s grounding affects all 109 remaining MD-11 aircraft currently operated by UPS, FedEx, and Western Global. These planes constitute approximately 9% of UPS’s fleet and 4% of FedEx’s fleet. Aviation experts suggest that if extensive repairs or overhauls are mandated, the cargo carriers might find replacement to be more economically viable than rehabilitation of the aging aircraft, which average more than 30 years in service.

UPS announced last week that it does not expect its MD-11 fleet to return to service until after the holiday season at the earliest, creating potential challenges during one of the busiest shipping periods of the year.

The legal repercussions from the crash continue to mount. Prior to these latest filings, UPS was named as a defendant in a federal lawsuit last month that accused the company of negligence and wanton conduct. That suit claimed the crash “acted like a bomb” and left plaintiffs with their lives and businesses “turned upside down.”

As federal investigators continue their work to determine the precise cause of the crash, the incident has raised significant questions about the maintenance protocols for aging cargo aircraft and the potential need for more stringent inspection requirements across the air freight industry.