Finance
Air France, Airbus dispute pilot roles in Rio-Paris crash
Published by Global Banking & Finance Review®
Posted on November 27, 2025
4 min readLast updated: January 20, 2026
Global Banking & Finance Review®
Company
Published by Global Banking & Finance Review®
Posted on November 27, 2025
4 min readLast updated: January 20, 2026
Air France and Airbus dispute pilot roles in the AF447 crash, facing corporate manslaughter charges. The trial highlights negligence claims and potential fines.
By Tim Hepher
PARIS (Reuters) -Air France and Airbus clashed over the role of pilots in a mid-Atlantic crash that killed 228 passengers and crew more than 16 years ago as the two companies fought corporate manslaughter charges at the climax of an eight-week appeal trial on Thursday.
The rift emerged in closing arguments after prosecutors reiterated demands for the maximum fine of 225,000 euros ($260,842) for each company for alleged negligence over the loss of flight AF447, a token penalty welcomed by relatives as recognition of their plight.
The hearing is the latest step in a marathon legal battle over the crash of an Airbus A330 passenger jet, which vanished from radars in 2009 during an equatorial storm en route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris.
On Wednesday, prosecutors urged the Paris Appeals Court to reverse the decision of a lower tribunal that had cleared both firms over the crash, and on Thursday it was the turn of both companies to outline their defence, crowning a 60-day trial.
French safety investigators found after recovering black boxes two years later that pilots had responded clumsily to a sensor icing problem that left the plane temporarily unable to calculate its airspeed, before lurching into a stall. But the trial focused on earlier problems with the same type of sensor as well as alleged shortcomings in data-sharing and training that prosecutors say indirectly caused the crash. In closing arguments, Air France paid tribute to bereaved families and denied claims the crew was poorly trained in dealing with stalls or emergencies at high altitude. Both the airline and prosecutors said the pilots were not to blame.
Airbus, however, echoed the findings of French civil accident investigators who had previously questioned the crew's response to the loss of data and a failure to follow procedures.
Judges are now expected to take months to reach a verdict. Whatever the outcome, experts say there are likely to be further appeals, potentially dragging the process out for years.
PROSECUTORS CALL FOR MAXIMUM FINE Hearings took place in a high-windowed courtroom where some of France's most dramatic chapters have been written including the trials of Nazi puppet Philippe Petain and the authors of a failed 1961 military coup known as the Algiers putsch. Now, it is the country's aviation establishment that has been placed under scrutiny as two of France's most emblematic state-backed companies fight for their reputations. In closing remarks on Wednesday, prosecutor Rodolphe Juy-Birmann accused both companies of acts of negligence that led to the crash and directed particularly harsh criticism at Airbus, which he accused of drip-feeding information to the court. Airbus said it had done its utmost to help the court understand the crash. Both companies have repeatedly denied the charges. Relatives hugged each other after the five-hour prosecution closing, which some described as cathartic in contrast with angry scenes during the earlier trial. "In 16 years this is the first time we have been treated with respect and humanity," said victims' association president Daniele Lamy, who lost her son on AF447.
Air France lawyer Francois Saint-Pierre rejected claims by relatives' lawyers that the airline and Airbus had forged a "non-aggression pact" and said the precise cause of one of the industry's most debated accidents remained a mystery.
In 2012, France's accident agency said startled Air France crew had mishandled their response to a temporary loss of speed data from iced-up sensors, then failed to recognise the plunging jet had stalled, or lost lift, despite repeated alarms. The agency also pinpointed gaps in training and unclear displays.
To prove manslaughter, prosecutors must not only establish negligence but demonstrate how it triggered the disaster. The lower court ruled in 2023 that both companies had been negligent but that no causal link had been established. ($1 = 0.8633 euros)
(Reporting by Tim Hepher. Editing by Mark Potter)
Corporate manslaughter is a legal offense where a company can be held liable for causing a person's death due to gross negligence or failure to ensure the safety of employees or the public.
A black box is a flight recorder used in aircraft to store data about the flight's parameters and cockpit audio, crucial for investigating accidents.
Pilot training refers to the process of educating and training individuals to operate aircraft, including simulations and practical flying experience to ensure safety and competency.
A verdict is a formal decision made by a jury or judge in a court case, determining the outcome of the legal proceedings.
Explore more articles in the Finance category
