Subject:
|
Re: The *militia* saved flight 93 from a worse fate...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Sep 2001 23:41:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
344 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
> 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
I heard this great idea on the radio today. It apparently came from The
heritage Foundation. Instead of just handing $15 billion to the airlines,
make an advance purchase of about $16 billion worth of vouchers for airline
tickets for government employees. Now I don’t know how much the federal
government spends every year on airline tickets. It might take 15 years to
use up all the vouchers. But that would be $15 billion the airlines would
have right now and $15 billion the taxpayers wouldn’t have to spend late –
plus, you get a $1 billion savings thrown in?
Why can’t ideas like this get consideration in congress? I guess its
because they make just too much sense.
jt
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
26 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
