9/11 widow to sue AA
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ft, Lauderdale,FL
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This lawsuit is baseless. As I recall, part of the bailout package for U.S. airlines had a piece attached that would limit liability at United and AA. Without it, both airlines would fail under the weight of billions of dollars in lawsuits.
The funny thing is though, in a very roundabout way it is the airlines fault. The Clinton administration was very concerned about airport security and formed a task force to address the problem. The ATA lobbied against the proposal vigorously because they felt that they would inconvenience thier costumers to much by making them subject to harsher security.
This same group staged the most successful lobbying campaign in history when they after Sept. 11 begged congress for billions of dollars in taxpayer funds to bail them out of a situation that theoretically could have been avoided by beefing up security a few years ago.
Strange world.
The funny thing is though, in a very roundabout way it is the airlines fault. The Clinton administration was very concerned about airport security and formed a task force to address the problem. The ATA lobbied against the proposal vigorously because they felt that they would inconvenience thier costumers to much by making them subject to harsher security.
This same group staged the most successful lobbying campaign in history when they after Sept. 11 begged congress for billions of dollars in taxpayer funds to bail them out of a situation that theoretically could have been avoided by beefing up security a few years ago.
Strange world.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Hounslow, Middlesex, UK
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it aircraft operators are automatically liable for all damage they might cause on the ground, which, in this case would include the people killed/injured etc, the WTC, business interruption, and on and on. Some estimates put the total insurance liability at US$70billion - I don't know if this includes estimates for compensation for those killed/injured.
However, I also believe that the US government limited the airlines liability to the extent that they had insurance to cover it, which is probably in the region of US$3 billion for the two.
However, I also believe that the US government limited the airlines liability to the extent that they had insurance to cover it, which is probably in the region of US$3 billion for the two.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The person charged with producing the report into Airline/Airport safety was called Al Gore, anyone remember him?
Had his recommendations been implemented it is quite possible 9/11 would have been prevented.
As mentioned earlier, money talked and the airlines prevailed.
I have a feeling AA and UA are guilty as charged!
Had his recommendations been implemented it is quite possible 9/11 would have been prevented.
As mentioned earlier, money talked and the airlines prevailed.
I have a feeling AA and UA are guilty as charged!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Gore Report recommended positive bag matching, xray for checked bags, better training and pay for screeners and instruction on how to 'identify passengers who are a security risk' (profiling). The ACLU objected strenuously to the last one of course. The Gore Report did not recommend banning of <4 inch knives or any other sharp objects, nor did it say anything about hijack-proofing of flight decks.
I'm unclear whether the terrorists were or were not identified by CAPPS, but none of the other suggestions would have made the slightest difference on September 11.
I'm unclear whether the terrorists were or were not identified by CAPPS, but none of the other suggestions would have made the slightest difference on September 11.
