Summer
[This message has been edited by Summerlyn (edited 12-20-2001).] reg
Where is all that "grieving victim families" fund money going to that they need more? Wasn't she given any? Didn't he have any insurance? I only see it as wanting to take advantage of a suffering company to make money. Pretty sad. reg
Does she really need the money? I've heard that families from the victims of the tragedy are due 25 million a peice from charity fundraising alone.
If its all about the principle, I'd sue for action instead of money. And I'd sue the airline security, and not the airlines themselves.
reg
Sonic reg
quote:
Originally posted by CrystalTears:
Where is all that "grieving victim families" fund money going to that they need more? Wasn't she given any? Didn't he have any insurance?
I don't know the particulars but not too long ago there was a report on CNN I believe about how the victim's families were not receiving the money raised by the charities and such. Also, about the insurance--I heard Cantor (one of the companies located on the floors where one of the planes hit) two weeks after the attacks immediately removed the names of the people who died from their payroll which became a major issue as it tied up the insurance money their employee's families were to receive.
The only people I know of who had no problems getting the relief money were the city workers (firefighters, police officers and PA Officers) Also (I don't know about nation wide, but in NYC it was the case) most of the talk for charity/relief was set up for the Firefighters and Police Officers. Some, but no where near as much,
were for the other victims. Considering there were way more "civilian" casualties than "uniformed" ones, that smaller amount has to be split more ways, and after all other fees and the rest of the process, who knows just how much they are going to get?
I'm not saying I agree with the lawsuit, because I don't--however I do understand and sympathize with the lady suing. If she's one of those people who was promised money but "waiting on the paperwork", she could be waiting a long time. Not to mention if she has children, a mortgage, bills, etc etc. Plus there is the emotional suffering. Accidents happen, but this was no accident. It IS the airline's responsibility to provide a safe flying environment for it's customers. I think everyone realizes that, that's why the moment this happened the FAA immediately was under fire.
[This message has been edited by Weedmage Princess (edited 12-21-2001).] reg
I agree that the airlines need to do all that they can to make air travel safe, but there's just so much they can do. If the terrorists were armed with handguns, or something, then I could understand placing some of the blame on the airlines. But, the only thing I've heard the terrorists had were small ceramic knives and box cutters. I think the reason more people didn't try to take back control of the planes was because of the terrorists' threat of a bomb on board. Plus, people aboard the first two planes probably didn't have a clue of the hijackers intent.
Unfortunately, there is just so much a company can do to protect their customers and property. I heard someone say that we can take all the precautionary measures possible, but if some whacko is willing to sacrifice their life in a terrorist act, it's almost impossible to deter.
Summer
[This message has been edited by Summerlyn (edited 12-21-2001).] reg
quote:
Originally posted by Summerlyn:
I agree that the airlines need to do all that they can to make air travel safe, but there's just so much they can do. If the terrorists were armed with handguns, or something, then I could understand placing some of the blame on the airlines. But, the only thing I've heard the terrorists had were small ceramic knives and box cutters. I think the reason more people didn't try to take back control of the planes was because of the terrorists' threat of a bomb on board. Plus, people aboard the first two planes probably didn't have a clue of the hijackers intent.
That's true, which is one of the reasons why I don't agree with the suit, but from the standpoint of this lady suing, you can see why she would. Like I said, it is understandable.
I also heard that they were considering having the pilots (and maybe other crew members?) be licensed to carry pistols, so that they could defend themselves against these kinds of actions. I support this 100% and feel it is something they should have implemented back in the 80's when there were more [heard of] airline hijackings.
[This message has been edited by Weedmage Princess (edited 12-21-2001).] reg
quote:Unfortunately, there is just so much a company can do to protect their customers and property. I heard someone say that we can take all the precautionary measures possible, but if some whacko is willing to sacrifice their life in a terrorist act, it's almost impossible to deter.
exactly! That's why we all need to rise up and fight back and beat the living <bleep> out of anyone who even THINKS about trying this again, and it's why the next attacks won't be by air...
Things that came out Sept 11 (George Stephanopoulis has a BIG mouth...)
1) the Egypt Air flight that was ruled an accident was taken over by a suicidal crewmember (WE all knew this, but the official ruling was 'accident' at the insistence of the Egyptian gubmint)
2) Flight 800 was shot down by a missile (George actually said this ON AIR ON ABC in a slip of the tongue)
reg
I don't care how well you plan something Mr. Murphy, of Murphy's Law fame, can and will find his way into your endeavor.
Live with it. Why doesn't this lady sue the company that made the box cutters and knives used to take over the plane, I mean without those the plane would not have been hijacked. I don't think you should be allowed to sue someone( or company in this sense) over something that they have no control over. This was not a mechanical error, or piloting error. You are not going to like this next comment but please bear with me and understand that I am merely making a point. You want to blame someone for allowing this to happen, blame the general populous. We, as Americans, pride in our freedom so much that we do become lax in our security measures. It takes something like this in order to "Wake us up" only to late do we realize. We are the ones that used to start throwing a fit if heaven forbid we should have to stand in line to get our luggage searched. But the second something like this rolls around we are the same ones that demand tighter security. I am not saying take the blame off of the individuals responsible. But to sue a company that is just as much a victim as you, no that is plain out greed. Focus your anger elsewhere.
This is probably the same lady that gets outraged when she waits in line to buy a ticket and thinks the three questions about your packing and handling of luggage are stupid. Time to take a step back and assess the entire situation.
Wow, long winded rant, sorry.
Anticor Rifling, Giantman Wizard reg
Enjoy!
Let's see if I understand how the world works lately..
.
If a man cuts his finger off while slicing salami at work,
he blames the restaurant.
If you smoke three packs a day for 40 years and die of
lung cancer, your family blames the tobacco company.
If your neighbor crashes into a tree while driving home
drunk, he blames the bartender.
If your grandchildren are brats without manners, you
blame television.
If your friend is shot by a deranged madman, you blame
the gun manufacturer.
And if a crazed person breaks into the cockpit and tries
to kill the pilot at 35,000 feet, and the passengers
kill him instead, the mother of the deceased blames the airline.
I must have lived too long to understand the world as it
is anymore. So, if I die while my old, wrinkled butt is
parked in front of this computer, I want you to blame
Bill Gates...okay?
reg