[VOA]

I'm not a lawyer and a family member did not die on 911, but I don't see the merit in this lawsuit.

Airlines had the discretion to arm their crews with real guns; a right that I think expired
sometime in mid-November.

They also didn't secure their pilot cabins, didn't keep even reasonable security checks
on people with access to the planes (take note of the many folks rounded up at Salt Lake
City airport just recently).

You'd think after what happened to Pan Am (killed off not only by de-regulation,
but also fallout from the Lockerbie situation), airlines would have told their executives
they'd have to settle for $5 million in incentives and salary...because
the airline needed $5 million of their $10 compensation in order to make their airliners
more secure.
I don't fully blame the airlines...people wanted cheap tickets and didn't fully think
through the reality that "cheap security" went with the deal.

[VOA]

$10 compensation

of course I meant: "$10 million compensation".

[Oldeconomybuyer]

I guess United hired Argenbright Security to conduct screenings so that may be the basis, but the FAA regulates both cockpit security issues and the screening process. In this case, boxcuters were legal to carry onboard and I doubt United violated any cockpit security issues.