Subject:
|
Re: The *militia* saved flight 93 from a worse fate...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Sep 2001 21:34:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
343 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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.
I'm not very happy with what I've heard of this bail-out. I think that the
airlines deserve reasonable compensation from the government for losses as a
result of the forced grounding, and, while I recognize that the airlines to some
degree operate to the profit and welfare of the public (by virtues of the
economic and social benefits provided to society by a corporation willing to
undertake the costs [as well as the benefits] of an air-industry network), I
nevertheless hold said industries overwhelmingly culpable and responsible for
their own well-being. They are publicly-traded corporations that exist for, by
and large, the profits and welfare of their stockholders. We do not need the
airlines on the public dole any more than we need sports owners. It seems to me
that the profit margin - the bottom line assumptions - that the airlines operate
under are dangerously thin. Public anxiety toward their commodity is a
liability of the market which the airlines must assume as a business risk. That
people are afraid to fly does not therefore mean that the airlines *deserve* a
bail-out. If they don't like the heat, they should get out of the kitchen, so to
speak.
james
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
