Posted on 12/20/2001 9:02:10 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Edited on 04/13/2004 3:29:07 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The widow of a New Hampshire man who was a passenger on the United Air Lines flight that slammed into the World Trade Center filed on Thursday what is believed to be the first suit against an airline stemming from the Sept. 11 attacks.
(Excerpt) Read more at bayarea.com ...
I wouldn't be interested in insurance payoff. I'd be interested in actual security measures, not bully-tactic lip service. Lack of coverage by insurance doesn't remove the responsibilty of providing safe passage to airline customers. That is still the responsibility of the airline company.
I was employed in that industry for about twelve years. I've watched 'airport security' in action from clear vantage points. Airline companies are not at the mercy of the airport. Ever watch El-Al flight preparations? That is a private company from a foreign country that secures its own aircraft within US airports. They are serious about security. Airline companies can indeed pressure airports to do most anything, or they can perform post-security measures at thier own gates. They do it all the time. The airlines chose to be statisfied with the half-assed measures provided by airport authorities.
You aught to reflect on who is the stupid one if you think there are serious efforts to provide adaquate security measures even now, after the attacks. I do know security. I was trained by the US Army. Trust me. You can secure beyond that provided by brain-dead hamberger flippers with criminal records.
It is easily possible to provide true airport security without the Draconian and ineffective measures now in evidence. It is indeed possible to provide effective aircraft security. It is also possible to be negligent. Negligence is much less expensive, even if the airline companies loose a lawsuit or two along the way. The issue is, and always will be, money, not security.
If you don't own stock in the airline companies, what is your beef with an attempt to hold the airline company responsible for crappy security? The FAA has 'strict' mechanical codes for aircraft maintenence, but it seems a tail fell off nevertheless. Just why do you think the government should be the final word concerning your safety? There are mountains of evidence to prove government negligence and coverup in a variety of issues.
For example, Delta airlines maitains thier aircraft well above government standards. (Or at least they used to do so.) Should we admonish then for 'going above and beyond'?
Yes, it's why auto makers don't make their bodies out of titanium.
And airline security begins when you are under their care. I do not see how any airline can be sued for a hijacker enteringtheir airline. El Al? Private or State run? Who does the security? The airlines are not responsible at ALL for what happened on Sept 11th
Why? Those companies take money from passengers in good faith. These are the same companies who charge premium rates for short notice when this doesn't add additional cost to providing the service. These are the same companies that charge $65 to change flights when there was reason to do so ... except they found a way to get more money. These are the same companies that charge $1500 to fly to Chicago and $600 to fly to Shanghai.
In short, the airline companies do not provide a secure environment because they don't have to do that. The airport authorities don't provide security because they don't have to, either. These folks just get together and calculate the odds and the payout sums, then let the passengers assume the risk of loss of life. This is a risk/payout tradeoff. At no point have actual security concerns or 'life values' been considered.
I fail to understand why no party takes the responsibility for the lives of fellow Americans. They are choosing to place an 'estimated damages value' on life, not a premium on 'life'.
Flight 587. Minimum mechanical rules are made by the same folks that make the minimum security rules. Seems the rules don't work; and, they stem from the same organization you wish to tag for the 'security' responsibility. The airline companies are responsible for following the minimum requirements, but probably don't. That is why the airline companies really must assume those responsibilies in the long run. They also should rise above 'minimum standards' of PAC-influenced government agencies and treat thier customers as precious human life, not cargo for which insurance payouts can compensate.
That isn't true at all.
Your evidence to the contray?
Follow the $$$ posted 9/24/01 by JohnHuang2
Was it you who called yourself a pro bono expert and then congratulated yourself on winning all "your" cases? Let's hear about your qualifications.
Don't say that too loud or the liberals will go into a tizzy trying to figure out how to enact Lawyer-control laws with stipulations such as a seven-day waiting period for legal counsel.
Naaahhh...what would the libs do without trial lawyers?
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,46740,00.html
I posted another reading link to myself that was intended for you. At any rate, check out:
http://www.fly-free.com/AirlineSecurity.html
There you will see a glimpse into how an airline company can indeed take responsibility for the lives of its passengers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.