UAL sued over 911
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we all had two responses to 911;firstly,overwhelming grief and then ANGER.How was it possible?Now that a suitable time period has elapsed,it is perhaps time to see some heads roll.
I have every sympathy for this poor woman but her anger is misdirected;the real culprit here is the FAA and by association,the Dept of Transport,and ultimately the US government itself.
I know hindsight is 20/20 but there were some rather conspicuous pointers that something like this was being planned;the foiled attempt to simultaneously hijack several 747's a while back,the Seattle millenium celebration attempt.Not to mention the WTC bombing,USS Cole and the embassy bombings.If we add the Lockerbie disaster (of which there was credible intelligence prior to the incident)to this long list,it would be fair to say that people should have been more careful.
All this post 911 legislation(re-empowering the CIA/baggage checks on domestic flights etc) is fine but the horse has already bolted.
The FAA have been applying tombstone technology in the field of aviation safety for too long and it finally caught up with them big time.
Does this poor woman have a case?Absolutely.But not against UAL who have suffered so much already.
[ 23 December 2001: Message edited by: caulfield ]</p>
I have every sympathy for this poor woman but her anger is misdirected;the real culprit here is the FAA and by association,the Dept of Transport,and ultimately the US government itself.
I know hindsight is 20/20 but there were some rather conspicuous pointers that something like this was being planned;the foiled attempt to simultaneously hijack several 747's a while back,the Seattle millenium celebration attempt.Not to mention the WTC bombing,USS Cole and the embassy bombings.If we add the Lockerbie disaster (of which there was credible intelligence prior to the incident)to this long list,it would be fair to say that people should have been more careful.
All this post 911 legislation(re-empowering the CIA/baggage checks on domestic flights etc) is fine but the horse has already bolted.
The FAA have been applying tombstone technology in the field of aviation safety for too long and it finally caught up with them big time.
Does this poor woman have a case?Absolutely.But not against UAL who have suffered so much already.
[ 23 December 2001: Message edited by: caulfield ]</p>
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Denver, Co. usa
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At this time I'm not going to take a position one way or another on this lawauit against UAL. Why? Because originally when I heard about the McDonalds Hot coffee lawsuit I was totally against the lady . However that was before I read an article in that capitalistic newpaper The Wall Street Journal. There had been over 30 similar incidents of super hot coffee burning customers to the point of them needing surgury. Mac was able to get more cups of coffee from a pound of coffee than any other fast food company in America. Why? Just a wild guess, but I think that super hot water gets more cups of coffee that has some dark color than cold water. ( American beer is near water and so is Mac coffee.) The jury that awarded the large settlement to her was trying to send a message to a large corporation. It has to be a large award to get their attention. Dont believe it? Just look at the Justice Department fineing Microsoft $1,000,000 per day recently until they stopped a Monopolistic business practise. Did they stop? NO! Because they were making more money by ignoring the Justice Dept. and paying the fine.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Denver, Co. usa
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I hear of greed on the part of the people sueing I wonder if everyone understands that in the USA the airlines pay for the security people at the airport. Is it possible that because of THEIR greed that security went to the lowest bidder and they were not very concerned because they had insurance if anything happened. I'm not anti-company or anti - capitalistic but the idea that a company would not cut training or maintinance or security because of the bottom line simply has not been around very long . [quote] <hr></blockquote> I AM NOW Y2 COMPLIANT !!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Luxembourg
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it true that the airlines pay for security services at the airports? Surely there are several if not many airlines that use each airport and I think it may be possible that the airlines are only acting as collectors of the security costs as part of their ticketing and then pass the money on to the security companies.
There are many questions that need answers in relation to this subject :
1. Is there a government or FAA regulation requiring secuity checks at airports (or was there before Sept. 11?
2. If there is such a regulation who is responsible for inspecting and regulating the work of the security staff?
3.What is the responsibility of the airport authorities?
4.Since the attacks on Sept. 11 have been declared "an act of war", by the President, does this mean that the Government assumes responsibility for reparations and compensation to those affected?
5. Did the claimant in this case initiate the legal action by contacting the law firm or did they contact her with an eye to lucrative fees by suggesting she took action.
Whoever initiated the case, if they did not already have the answers to my first four questions, should, in my opinion, be held liable for all the defendents costs if they lose the case.
I do not know the answers to the above questions but believe they are vital in any attempt to lay blame or justify legal action. While the families of the victims have my deepest and genuine simpathy, no legal action will bring back their loved ones or remove the hurt they feel. I am sure that security messures in the states have been and will continue to be strengthened as a result of the lessons learned. Its time that these get rich quick lawyers were put in their place, and that those who failed in their duty to provide security and/or the government are given the opportunity to provide proper compensation to all those who lost lives or limbs. Starting what, if successful, would be the first of many many destructive compensation awards is not only counter productive it is downright stupid. Where I live, those who start vexatious or agravated claims through the courts can find themselves on the wrong side of a heafty penalty to cover the costs and workloads of the defendents. It seems from earlier posts that this is not the case in the USA. What a pity
There are many questions that need answers in relation to this subject :
1. Is there a government or FAA regulation requiring secuity checks at airports (or was there before Sept. 11?
2. If there is such a regulation who is responsible for inspecting and regulating the work of the security staff?
3.What is the responsibility of the airport authorities?
4.Since the attacks on Sept. 11 have been declared "an act of war", by the President, does this mean that the Government assumes responsibility for reparations and compensation to those affected?
5. Did the claimant in this case initiate the legal action by contacting the law firm or did they contact her with an eye to lucrative fees by suggesting she took action.
Whoever initiated the case, if they did not already have the answers to my first four questions, should, in my opinion, be held liable for all the defendents costs if they lose the case.
I do not know the answers to the above questions but believe they are vital in any attempt to lay blame or justify legal action. While the families of the victims have my deepest and genuine simpathy, no legal action will bring back their loved ones or remove the hurt they feel. I am sure that security messures in the states have been and will continue to be strengthened as a result of the lessons learned. Its time that these get rich quick lawyers were put in their place, and that those who failed in their duty to provide security and/or the government are given the opportunity to provide proper compensation to all those who lost lives or limbs. Starting what, if successful, would be the first of many many destructive compensation awards is not only counter productive it is downright stupid. Where I live, those who start vexatious or agravated claims through the courts can find themselves on the wrong side of a heafty penalty to cover the costs and workloads of the defendents. It seems from earlier posts that this is not the case in the USA. What a pity
