[Arkie2]

Please explain how anyone was negligent at United or American re: 9/11? You're digging pretty deep to make a nonexistent point.

[Alberta's Child]

I'm not sure of any specific case that can be made for "airline negligence" related to 9/11, but all the signs are there. Anyone who accepted the Federal government's offer of compensation for victims' families was first required to sign a waiver in which they agreed to release the airlines of all liability. If there was no liability to begin with, then there would have been no need for this waiver.

Also, it's worth noting that the creation of the Federal airport security agency had absolutely nothing to do with improving the security at the airports. It was done simply to remove the whole security aspect of airline travel from the responsibility of the airline, and place it under the authority of a Federal agency that cannot be sued in the event a catastrophe similar to 9/11 occurs in the future.

[Beck_isright]

"Please explain how anyone was negligent at United or American re: 9/11? You're digging pretty deep to make a nonexistent point."

The CEO and COO are ultimately responsible. The corporations which run the airlines in question, AMR and UAL refused to listen to the security advisories and reccomendations of the FAA. It was an ongonig feud from 1998 since the (God this makes me ill to type this) Gore Commission advised what needed to be done to upgrade airport security. Security up to 9-11 was the responsibility of the airlines, period. They blew it, they should be liable. They deserve to be sued out of existence or worse. Now enough of this subject, it's mindless and moot since UAL will probably cease to exist and that's a good thing since other carriers will pick up the slack.