Subject:
|
Re: The *militia* saved flight 93 from a worse fate...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Sep 2001 20:09:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
297 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> I'm not entirely opposed to sky marshals, but I'd rather the airlines supply
> the guards. That way each consumer could choose to pay or not pay for the
> added security.
Speaking of which, I'm not too keen on what I seem to be hearing about the
airline bailout bill.
Some background... The exact story of why it is that the airlines are in
charge of gate security and sort of *not* in charge as well is very tangled.
I certainly don't understand it. But one could argue that if one is in
*charge* of gate security (and ramp security, and screening passengers for
identity, etc.), one has some culpability if it fails.
In other words, lawsuits that name the airlines as partly culpable for what
happened seem reasonable to me, anyway. (even better if they could also name
the government security agencies that seem to have dropped the ball... but
we no longer allow government people to be held responsible for things in
lawsuits... but I digress).
Part of the bailout package appears to be (from what I last heard, it's
changing fast) that the airlines are off the hook on that, more or less. The
terms of the package seem to include a clause that the airlines are culpable
only to the extent they are insured for and not one penny more.
It gets worse, though. The scheme I heard goes like this. All victims,
direct or indirect, have to decide if they are "in" or "out". If they are
"out" they get to draw from some (apparently limitless?) pool of funds put
up by the feds and doled out by a Special Master, but can't sue. If they are
"in", they can sue but get nothing from the pool. And all the suits together
(not sure how one would work this) divide up the insurance coverage, that's it.
This effectively lets the airlines off the hook. Stockholders and management
are insulated from lawsuits. That stinks, if it turns out to be true.
Stockholders should take it in the shorts. Management should too. Worse, it
rewards the airlines that skimped on insurance before the tragedy. That
REALLY stinks, if it turns out to be true.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
26 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
