Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Bodhi on September 10, 2003, 06:36:11 AM
-
Was watching the news this morning about the federal judge allowing the 4 individuals to sue United, American, and the Port Authority of NY and NJ. Frankly, I am quite disgusted by it. It is sad that their loved ones died, but this is more lunacy. They (the suers) were on TV this morning demanding that (insert everyone and anything) be held accountable for the deaths of their loved one. Why don't they sue Saudi Arabia for raising terrorists, or even Canada for allowing some of them to use them as a port of entry. WHile they are at it, sue the military for not shooting the aircraft down fast enough, then sue the security company (prolly Argenbrite) for not picking up on them, then sue the FAA for not catching on and toughening security, then sue the "where's the beef Lady" just because she annoys you.
Ahhh, this is such a bunch of bull*****, I hope they (the plantiffs)have pianos fall on their heads.
:rolleyes:
-
Voting tort reform here in TX on Saturday.
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/election/2003/state/0904lawyers.html
-
Lawyers.
-
Originally posted by Fatty
Voting tort reform here in TX on Saturday.
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/election/2003/state/0904lawyers.html
Vote AGAINST Prop.12!
-
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=95879
its an action of greed which will hurt the entire nation if the airlines have to take a second financial hit from the 9/11 terrorists actions...
-
Not likely rpm. Most of us are tired of paying for what should have been criminal prosecution in the first place.
No amount of slick ads is going to change that.
Speaking of, the latest round, the "leave the power in the courts" is not a very good campaign. Heck the proponents should use that phrase. We're supposed to be swayed by the horror of allowing laws to be made by the legislative branch?
-
Is that why almost EVERY major paper in the state has come out AGAINST Prop. 12? The tearjerker commercials of all the doctors leaving Texas if it does not pass just don't fly. They said the same thing the last time they tried to pass this. The problem MOST Texas doctors face is getting paid FROM the Health Insurance companies, not paying their malpractice premiums.
-
Most papers in this state, on a good day, rival a middle school journalism project.
This isn't just doctors vs lawyers, it's stemming litigation run amok.
-
Originally posted by Fatty
Not likely rpm. Most of us are tired of paying for what should have been criminal prosecution in the first place.
I have to agree with you on this Fatty. I am still of two minds on Prop 12 and what it really means. One thing I am sure of though is that the premise that if its passed malpractice insurance rates will hold much less go down is BS.
-
It's sad that their loved ones died..but they should have a piano dropped on their heads?
I don't disagree that this is litigation run amok..but if my family was killed I'd be looking to lash out at anyone and everyone potentially responsible.
Don't blame the plaintiffs in this particular case...blame the millions and millions before them who created the litigious atmosphere in the US.
-
Prop 12 is communist! Putting a revenue cap on plaintiff income?! Pshaw!
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Vote AGAINST Prop.12!
Why?
-
How long has the threat of hijacking been around...
Im late twenties and as long as i can remember its been there...
your telling me thats not at a minimum negligence...
Tarmac security , and especially a reinforced pilots door would have prevented Sept 11th.. 500 people(crashed/exploded) vs 3000(airplane missle/tower collapse) very easy math to me...
IMO airlines are at fault.. their corporate greed instead of protecting their assets and more importantly their customers from attack..
If this was some new form of aggression i could cut them some slack but some 30 years of ignoring threat is asinine.
Now I dont agree with the suit against the Port authority becuase you cannot protect against a airplane missle. Thats just greedy lawyers trying to make some loot...
But the case against the airlines is extremely valid... My opinion is that they will lose too..
Any trial lawyer if going to establish the pattern of hijacking over the past 30 years and then he/she will ask what has been done about it... Airlines will have really zero rebuttal on that... They can say it cost too much, but with all the suits against the auto industry that wont fly... Exp: Auto industy has problem they fix it or get sued... Hence vehicle recalls etc...
This case is cut and dry... Only thru congress or BushCo manipulation will the airlines have any success against this claim...
My 2 cents
DoctorYo
-
IMO airlines are at fault.. their corporate greed instead of protecting there assets and more importanly their customers from attack..
Ah, the old corporate greed mantra.
Airlines have nothing to do with keeping terrorists out of the country, and they have very little to do with airport security. Those are government functions. But you can sue airlines and not the government, so the lawyers (the biggest contributers to the Democrats, btw) go after the airlines.
ra
-
Freedom isn't free.
-
DoctorYo, could you tell us the ratio of flights that weren't hijacked to flights that were hijacked since the first hijacking occured?
SOB
-
"If this was some new form of aggression"
You mean like an entirely new MO?
-
has nothing to do with country; has to do with keeping them out of the cockpit...
who owns the plane.... airlines...
who can put a door in, at a cost of course and remove the threat of airplane missle tactics.
Airlines...
Airlines are the catalyst of Sept 11th..
How many hijackings happen to Isreal in last 5-10 years...
I rest my case...
This is like telling a small child hey dont play with ants... hey dont play with ants... then the child gets stun and whines why didn't you tell me... wtf
make your own deductions ...
Physical security of nation is a huge task but not securing the cockpit door (with some 30+ years of threat) is nothing but greed...
They took over the aircraft with box cutters... that doesn't grab you as pathetic...
If they had explosives, mp5's and chemicals Die hard style then nothing could be done.. but no they went low tech with razor blades and box cutters
razor blade vs steel / kevlar reinforced door is like attacking a tire with a plastic spoon...
nuff said...
Its a shame you just dont see it..
catalyst thought works people, not needle in a haystack..
DoctorYO
-
Originally posted by DoctorYO
They took over the aircraft with box cutters... that doesn't grab you as pathetic...
You know, you make a good point. They only had box cutters AND they were outnumbered. I think the other victims' families should be suing the families of the victims who were aboard the planes. Surely they could have overtaken the hijackers without much harm to themselves.
Also, who made those box cutters. I think Stanley should be ponying up some cash. After all, box cutters cut, and could obviously be used to harm people and even take over airliners. We've all seen the pilots come out of the cockpit to take a leak, and I'm sure the big wigs at Stanley have seen this a time or two as well. Surely they could have made the connection and at least slapped a warning on the box the box cutter came in "Not for use by terrorists to hijack airplanes".
Hmmm, who else can we sue. Maybe if we think hard enough we can get in on this too. I didn't personally know anyone who died in the towers or at the Pentagon, or even on the four aircraft, but I felt sick every time I saw or thought about what happened. Maybe I could sue NBC for airing footage of the terrorist attack!
SOB
-
"who can put a door in, at a cost of course and remove the threat of airplane missle tactics."
Of course, YOU saw this coming.
-
Not necessary a WTC attack. but the threat of some crazed person getting control of a aircraft and crashing it into something yes...
Hell stupid Con Air even had a movie about it....
Cheesy but really the same thing... you get the cockpit you got root access skuzzy.... you going to give me or any other ya hoo root access for any reason on your network...
I think not ....
you protect your network , routers thru updates, patches monitoring systems to prevent that becuase if you do nothing you will be compromised..
why do the airlines allow it then.. they did nothing and were compromised.. no you tell me thats goverments fault (some fault lies with them but not the majority)
your telling me no one in the airline industry ever contemplated about this. Or they just enron shredded all studies about this topic to avoid liability... Fat Chance..
I bet there insurance carriers knew it was a possibility. Lockerbie, etc...
Use that thing between your ears that you call a brain and wake up... ?
this isn't rocket science I could do some research and spoon feed it to fellas if you like...
I know its unpopular but sometimes the truth hurts most..
DoctorYo
-
Now, I know Skuzzy works a lot, but I doubt he is there monitoring his network 24/7. On the other hand, for an airliner to be in operation, it is staffed, and it has passengers. Also, the passengers are screened by security to help reduce the threat of a hijacking by trying to eliminate weapons. Who in their right mind would have thought guys armed with box cutters would take over their aircraft and then crash them into buildings?
I'm sorry that I'm not prone to conspiracy theories or that the big bully airlines knew a bunch of Arab ********s were gonna make their aircraft into flying missiles that day. I instead choose to use that thing between my ears for rational thought. Crazy, I know.
SOB
-
greed and selfishness
they can't care what this will do to the industry, who else will lose their job due to more cutbacks in the airlines, the affect it has on the countrys economy thus the stock market thus ppl's 401k & investments and the circle continues...
nope - all about them and da $$$
-
So let me get this straight you think that me pointing out the neglect of security on the cockpits of airlines over the last 30 years is conspiracy.. I really wish it was conspiracy I might accept that... but pure greed from doing the right thing, and protecting your customers from threat is nothing but a crock on their part... they have done nothing and as a result 3000 of my fellow americans get shredded. And Eagler wants me to subsidize such an industry and claim everything is jolly.
Eagler you speak your mind and that’s good, really no bs... but on this matter I cant put a price on my fellow americans heads, your talking 401ks, and economy; I dont want to "what if" you to death, but if the doors were there would be no September 11th as we know it...
Doors what maybe 100 million....
Cost to United States after September 11th were talking trillions when it’s over...
Our economy went to crap after Sept 11 because of investor confidence.. We had Enron... We had WorldCom.. We had California energy crisis, (which wasn't a crisis as more than a gouging/price fixing) then we had warfare brought to the home front... That combination caused the decline not the attack by itself.. Oh yeah we also had a whole industry belly also.. .DOT BOMB... a year earlier.. where’s the subsidies there... there wasn't any.. Why should some sorry airlines be any different...
Stop thinking with emotion and look at the facts...
I don’t want anyone to lose their job but at the same token I don’t want some inept industry making extreme profits late 1990's (tech boom travel/booming economy) and not reinvest some of that cash into coffers for times like these... and then cry foul when they have squandered their resources and now want a bailout.. Southwest airlines , Jet blue etc.. They are surviving in this economy what United, and American should be any different.
So your economy claim is while appreciated very moot...
I’m not trying to flame no one to death but that’s how I see it. People calling me susceptible to conspiracy is feeble attack, this isn't conspiracy this is negligence....
DoctorYo
-
it opens the door to sue anyone for anything .. oh wait that door is already open
it allows the lawyers to sue for the next terrorist attack - regardless the delivery method
take anthrax - should someone be able to sue the post office over that one?
unforeseen, first time, probably never repeated events should not make the greedy lawyers fatter
-
I dont think the Post Office is responsible for biological attack. A door and military grade anthrax technologies are apples and oranges... one could be easily prevented the other cannot..
thats the negligence issue, could you do anything to prevent this? .... in the case of the hijacking yes... in the case of weapon grade anthrax unlikely...
Thats the issue, the threat of highjacking has been around for 30+ years the threat of anthrax use for terrorism purposes let alone military grade bioweapons out in the public has been around less than 2 years..
Big difference there..
More on topic with the original thread writer im against capping... reasons are simple Microsuft is a good example of this.. They play harball with their competitors, with the goverment, with the consumers..
a 50 million dollar fine to them is like you giving 1 cent out of your pocket.. how much deterent is that... how bout none.. to limit a judge to make his decision based on capping will hurt the consumer in the long run...
Look how MS is setttling all its cases right at the moment 5 mill here 20 mill there... antitrust here... etc...
there are other companies out there with similiar situtations near unlimited pockets and a pack of pitbulls (lawyers to drag out cases and the costs to pursue them....)
Do i agree with lawyers getting fat off others backs, not really but whats a better system, no deterent.. I dont concur...
Dont limit the judge.. let him and a jury decide.. not some static cap...
DoctorYO
-
One thing the tort reform weenies never tell you is that litigation doesn't increase your premiums. That is based on the overall financial condition of the company which is dependent on the economy. Several studies have been done to show this to be true.
Secondly, Almost all of these cases involve jury trials. That means the people making the awards are everyday citizens, not people with legal careers or people in the legal system. The jury made the crazy award in the famous McDonald's hot coffee case and a JUDGE reduced it.
-
yo
sure the post office is responsible for what they deliver to your door ..
they should have had equipment to detect the anthrax - just because it never happened before is not a reason not to be prepared - is it?
again i say it is nothing more than a quick buck - i don't think anyone involved cares if they "fix" the airlines from terrorists or not
hehe - if we fixed it Israeli style checkins - the same lawyers would be in court with some suit against the airline for discrimination or some other ridiculous claim ...
-
This BS gets to go to court AND I STILL CAN'T SUE MCDONALDS FOR MAKING ME FAT! This is wrong, just horribly wrong.
-
So Najdorf, you're saying an insurance company that provides coverage against lawsuits does not look at the potential costs resulting from lawsuits?
They must have been expensive studies indeed.
-
DoctorYo,
Your example of flowing stupidity is the reason litigation is run amok in this country. Hell, I suppose ArgenBrite should be sued as well.... why not the pilots families of those aircraft as well, because in the end, the pilot's opened the doors to the flight deck. (Albeit on atleast one aircraft it was after the hijackers GUTTED to people outside the door to get them to do it.) I bet the same thing would have happened had they had reinforced doors, especially since no one knew that the hijackers would crash into some buildings, because it was a first.
Your assertion that the airlines "knew this was going to happen" is completely absurd, not too mention assinine. Ohh, and I suppose you believe that the FBI and CIA did too but decided to do nothing in hopes to pass legislation to restrict our civil liberties.
Tell ya what, I think we should sue you for burning our eyes with your stupidity.
:rolleyes:
-
Bodhi the flowing stupidity i suggest keeps companies in check... By keeping companies in check; pure unbriddled injustice is deterred...
The alternative is violence. You people get hufffy puffy over lawsuits, think about what happens when you screw people over and over and over and what retribution they can cook up in lew of justice...
If someone causes you grief, you have no recourse is what your suggesting. I would rather have some form of legal recourse.. People are only going eat so much crap.. By offering a semi fair system to voice there claims is better than nothing..(not perfect though)
Again the alternative is violence.. really do your history.. especially fuedal society and history that comes with it and youll get the point... (thats giving you a lot a credit)
Or continue to use simian thought process by suggesting the FBI didn't know something was up with cropdusters, aircraft, and aircraft training... Ill include the links for the monkey impaired...
http://www.newsminute.com/fbiwhistleblower.htm
(oh wait that may be biased, how bout another)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,723422,00.html
(oh thats guardian uk theyre communist liberals how bout another)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-worldtrade-investigation.story
(more credible, but still dumbocrats)
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,249997,00.html
(have the letter from the horses mouth)
Anymore more insolence from you and well have you tarred and feathered...
Now back on topic
The Mc fatty issue was tossed by the judge... see now the people that brought the frivilous suit now get to pay court costs most likely the defendants attorney fees etc... good for them have another big mac on me... serves them right..
See thats the Judge factor most judges are intelligent and see gold diggers when they present themselves in court.
That concept of justice and compensation may be too much for your feeble brain Bodhi, but then again you dont believe in free speech either...
what have you done for your country?
Ive spent years of my life overseas in active service, you?
At a minimum for my service im entitled free speech.. you may not think so, I suggest you move to North Korea.. Dear Leader may need your services... Their laws are more your alley... and btw the irony of the space monkey picture is a little scary.... borderline twilight zone....
enjoy...
DoctorYo
"Again its not conspriacy in my eyes, people are human even the fbi, but the airlines have no defense for 30+ years of negligence..."
-
Curval: ..but if my family was killed I'd be looking to lash out at anyone and everyone potentially responsible.
What's "potential" about this? If I run an explosives business and leave a truckload of dynamite unguarded or not guarded properly so a criminal can easily steal it and murder thousands of people, wouldn't you hold me responcible?
It's not like "if he did not have a gun, he would use a knife" argument. After all, there are not that many things that you can fly into buildings besides the jumbo aeroplanes that weight a lot and contain scores tonns of fuel.
Bodhi: ...especially since no one knew that the hijackers would crash into some buildings, because it was a first...
It is excusable for you to believe that - you are just ignorant about the facts not related to your areas of expertise. But the people in charge of the airline security should have known (and did know) better - about all the attempts and plans to use airliners as missiles. As well as about abundance of zealots willing and commonly commiting suicidal attacks.
miko
-
Did Ryder get sued for the Oklahoma City bombing?
-
Up till 9/11, no one has used and airliner as a weapon. Usely the highjackers just make a demand and see what happens. No one knew this was going to happen. We do now. But it had never happen before. The rules were changed by the terriorist. The airlines didn't.
-
If I run an explosives business and leave a truckload of dynamite unguarded or not guarded properly ...
Which airliners where left unguarded? They were boarded at airports guarded by the Federal government. The terrorists are waging a largely economic war against us, and these greedy lawyers are helping them.
ra
-
if they poison the water - who can we sue?
if they poison the air - who can we sue?
if they shoot up the mall - who can we sue? Sears? JC Penny?
if they set off a dirty bomb at McDill who can I sue?
please tell me so I can be first in line for my check ....
it goes from greed to borderline morbid/sick
-
firbal: Up till 9/11, no one has used and airliner as a weapon.
Never successfully used airliner as a weapon. Experts knew about several such attempts in recent history.
Also smaller planes where successfully used as a weapon thousands of times. And airliners were hijacked many times. And many of the people in the groups responcible for hijacking the airliners participated in suicidal terror acts/attacks. Even if one did not know about the failed attempts, adding the three together: plaines as weapons + airliners hijacked + suicidal terrorists = ???
No one knew this was going to happen.
You mean you did not know. That just shows the extent of your ignorance. Which is excusable, unless you work in the airline security business or a government security agency.
The rest of us (granted, it would be a small group of people capable of thinking, if not for the recently popular movies like "Executive Decision" and few other movies, TV-shows and books with suicidal terrorists crashing hijacked airliners into valuable targets) just did not know when this was going to happen.
miko
-
It is excusable for you to believe that - you are just ignorant about the facts not related to your areas of expertise. But the people in charge of the airline security should have known (and did know) better - about all the attempts and plans to use airliners as missiles. As well as about abundance of zealots willing and commonly commiting suicidal attacks.
This is not true.
The airlines knew of hijackings, but their training to handle such an event was for pilots to keep them calm and to fly where they wanted to fly....the hijackers knew this, as they told the pilots that no one would get hurt...just fly the plane.
Toad?
-
Rude: This is not true.
The airlines knew of hijackings, but their training to handle such an event was for pilots to keep them calm and to fly where they wanted to fly....
What is not true? You seem to agree with everything I said word for word.
The airlines knew about hijackings where terrorists intended to use the planes as missiles.
Despite that knowlege, they went along with disarming the pilots and trained the crews to cooperate with the hijackers.
That is why they are being sued. For culpable negligence.
miko
-
Despite that knowlege, they went along with disarming the pilots and trained the crews to cooperate with the hijackers.
If they knew the planes might be used as missiles, why would they train their pilots to go along with the ride? Even without these insane lawsuits, the loss of an airliner full of passengers is crippling. It would have been in their own best interests to augment the security provided at the airports if they thought this would happen.
And they could not legally arm their pilots without federal approval, which was hard to obtain even after 9/11.
Everyone's an expert on airline security after 9/11. Especially the lawyers.
ra
-
ra: If they knew the planes might be used as missiles, why would they train their pilots to go along with the ride?
They thought "What's the chance it will happen on my watch? It's too much hassle to do anything about it!"
Don't you follow the problems (sabotage) they experience trying to re-arm the pilots? And that's after 9/11 wich could have been prevented by armed pilots! Till 1970s pilots were obligated to carry firearms!
And they could not legally arm their pilots without federal approval, which was hard to obtain even after 9/11.
Exactly. Too much bother. Little perceived risk of it happening to the executive in question.
How about the reinforced doors and security procedures? Like possibly cooperating with the hijackers and flying where they want - but from behind a closed door? Did that require federal approval as well?
Everyone's an expert on airline security after 9/11. Especially the lawyers.
Quite a few experts - including those linked with Israeli security which did disrupt just such attempts - now claim that they warned US government and airlines many times.
miko