Greed on display (plane crash related)

[Don't fight the hypothetical]

Story here. (http://current.com/items/89758946/hudson_river_plane_crash_passengers_want_more_money.htm)

"Hudson river plane crash passengers want more money:
Many US Airways (LCC) passengers who endured a crash landing in the Hudson River 12 days ago say they appreciate the $5,000 that the airline has offered — but some say it's not enough."

Shit happens, a bird hit the plane. You want more money? I wish I could afford to fly. If your car hits a deer are you going to sue Ford? Why not take some of that $5000 and help others less fortunate . Show a little grace and gratitude. "I got a bloody nose... and bruises". Boo-fucking-hoo you greedy, entitled fuck.

[Beadalin]

Out of any 150 people, there's bound to be at least one total dipshit. And it's the dipshits of the world that consistently make the news, so there you go.

[An Arky]

Yeah, the guy who was quoted as saying "I want to be made whole again" sounds like a d-bag, but I can see how it easily could be that some passengers lost more than $5000 worth of stuff. A laptop, a couple of suits, some jewelry, etc, can add up fast.

Of couse the article is too brief to explain what is meant by "$5000 for immediate needs"; if more is forthcoming pending further info or what.

[Hampshire]

I saw this and thought; doesn't someone have to be negligent in some way for you to blame and sue them?
In what way do they think the airline was negligent? They already determined the engines blew out because of an "act from god" (geese).
Are they thinking the airlines should have done something more to avoid hitting geese?

If you're in a store when an earthquake hits, the store collapses, but the owner gets you out with a few scratches are you going to sue the store?

[Harmonious Discord]

I saw this and thought; doesn't someone have to be negligent in some way for you to blame and sue them?

No, just to win.

[Ethilrist]

I saw this and thought; doesn't someone have to be negligent in some way for you to blame and sue them?

No, but in theory, they have to be negligent for you to win. And, in the meantime, you get your name in the papers.

People have sued because they saw accidents happen, let alone for being stuck in them.

It is also not outside the bounds of reason that people are finding out their insurance companies are not covering the replacement costs of their stuff because the airline has it and won't give it back, so they have a choice between suing their insurance company and suing the airline, and the airline lawsuit is going to get more press, which is always a good thing. :dubious:

[mhendo]

Yeah, the guy who was quoted as saying "I want to be made whole again" sounds like a d-bag, but I can see how it easily could be that some passengers lost more than $5000 worth of stuff. A laptop, a couple of suits, some jewelry, etc, can add up fast.

Of couse the article is too brief to explain what is meant by "$5000 for immediate needs"; if more is forthcoming pending further info or what.We had a thread recently on the $5000 payment.

Basically, it seems to be a good-faith effort to ensure that the passengers get immediate financial compensation for their luggage. The airline specifically stated that the offer did not preclude people from making further claims for luggage worth more than $5000, or from suing the airline for other things.

The fact is that, for most people, 5 grand probably covers, or comes very close to covering, the possessions they had with them on the plane. Much as i hate just about every large American airline, i think US Airways' actions so far have been pretty good.

[ivylass]

I think Sully needs to have a wee chat with him.

Let's see if this ass still has the balls to look that pilot in the eye and whine that his life and $5000 isn't enough.

[Telemark]

Let's see if this ass still has the balls to look that pilot in the eye and whine that his life and $5000 isn't enough.
This has nothing to do with their lives. This is about their luggage.

[An Arky]

We had a thread recently on the $5000 payment.

Basically, it seems to be a good-faith effort to ensure that the passengers get immediate financial compensation for their luggage. The airline specifically stated that the offer did not preclude people from making further claims for luggage worth more than $5000, or from suing the airline for other things.

The fact is that, for most people, 5 grand probably covers, or comes very close to covering, the possessions they had with them on the plane. Much as i hate just about every large American airline, i think US Airways' actions so far have been pretty good.

Right. If USAir had just thrown 5K at them and dusted their hands, that would be one thing, but I don't get the impression that's the case, so I don't see the beef.

[flyboy]

The guy pisses me off, but what pisses me off even more is that there is no system in place to prevent this.

[XJETGIRLX]

I don't think it's necessarily greedy.

$5,000 really is not that much money when you consider replacement cost of personal items lost in the crash, and the opportunity cost of missing whatever they were traveling for.

I know for sure that my laptop with all of my work on it, including proposals and documents for clients is worth a hell of a lot more than $5k. What if I had lost several weeks or months worth of work? What about the loss of items that are sentimental in value or irreplaceable?

I think offering money up front for immediate needs was a great gesture of goodwill, but I don't think anyone is being greedy by stating that $5k is not enough to cover those needs.

[HookerChemical]

I saw this and thought; doesn't someone have to be negligent in some way for you to blame and sue them?
In what way do they think the airline was negligent? They already determined the engines blew out because of an "act from god" (geese).
Are they thinking the airlines should have done something more to avoid hitting geese?

If you're in a store when an earthquake hits, the store collapses, but the owner gets you out with a few scratches are you going to sue the store?

Yes, there should be negligence to win a suit, but there may be a case to be made. If there have been a large number of bird strikes and near misses using the route the jet was on, something should have been done to prevent a potentially dangerous situation. That could mean rerouting the path the jet takes, preventing birds from using the area, or other measures.
Putting the flight path of the jet in the flight path of the geese is like holding a metal pole in a field during a lightning storm. Bird strike and lightning strike are both "act of God," but clearly preventable in the scenario I've outlined.
Using your store analogy, I might sue if the store if they disregarded building codes.

Of course, this is purely hypothetical. I don't know if there is a history of birds on the path. It could have been a fluke bird strike, or it could have been an accident waiting to happen.

On preview: The $5000 check from US Air is only to take care of immediate needs. They've assigned an adjuster to determine where more compensation is necessary. IMO, US Air has been handling this well.

[Don't fight the hypothetical]

I don't think it's necessarily greedy.

$5,000 really is not that much money when you consider replacement cost of personal items lost in the crash, and the opportunity cost of missing whatever they were traveling for.

I know for sure that my laptop with all of my work on it, including proposals and documents for clients is worth a hell of a lot more than $5k. What if I had lost several weeks or months worth of work? What about the loss of items that are sentimental in value or irreplaceable?

I think offering money up front for immediate needs was a great gesture of goodwill, but I don't think anyone is being greedy by stating that $5k is not enough to cover those needs.
Regardless of the property costs the point is the airline is not at fault. If airline negligence would have been the cause I could see it. In this instance they should be grateful the airline had such a competent pilot on board. IMO.

[Musicat]

I know for sure that my laptop with all of my work on it, including proposals and documents for clients is worth a hell of a lot more than $5k. What if I had lost several weeks or months worth of work? What about the loss of items that are sentimental in value or irreplaceable? If you store all of your critical data in only one place, on your laptop, and you never take the time to back it up, is that the airline's fault?

Maybe this incident will be a wakeup call for you?

[mhendo]

I don't think it's necessarily greedy.

$5,000 really is not that much money when you consider replacement cost of personal items lost in the crash, and the opportunity cost of missing whatever they were traveling for. Well, to be quite honest, if someone was indeed travelling with more than $5000 worth of stuff, then i think the airline should compensate them fully. Even if the crash wasn't the airline's fault, the fact is that the airline's customers lost their luggage while being carried on the airline, so i think that ultimately the airline should replace the stuff.

I can also easily envision a case where a person's luggage is worth more than $5000. Hell, one high-end laptop can account for $3000 by itself, and then if you're carrying a smartphone, an iPod, and a few nice suits, i can easily see it getting over $5000. A friend of mine is a photographer, and he frequently flies to weddings with 10 grand worth of camera gear in his luggage (although i believe he also has insurance for it).

But...I know for sure that my laptop with all of my work on it, including proposals and documents for clients is worth a hell of a lot more than $5k. What if I had lost several weeks or months worth of work? What about the loss of items that are sentimental in value or irreplaceable? Well, if that's your work laptop, and it has weeks' or months' worth of work on it, and you haven't backed that work up somewhere else, then it's tough titties i'm afraid. The airline shouldn't be responsible for your poor data-management practices.

As for unreplaceable items of sentimental value, if they really can't be replaced, and the value was sentimental, i don't see how asking the airline for more money is going to fix things. Especially since it was your choice to carry them and the crash was not the airline's fault.I think offering money up front for immediate needs was a great gesture of goodwill, but I don't think anyone is being greedy by stating that $5k is not enough to cover those needs.Sure, IF they can make a reasonable case that their lost possessions were worth more than $5000.

But the guy in the OP's linked story isn't even saying that, as far as i can tell. He seems just to be making some general whining noises about being "made whole."

[mlees]

But the guy in the OP's linked story isn't even saying that, as far as i can tell. He seems just to be making some general whining noises about being "made whole."

Many US Airways (LCC) passengers who endured a crash landing in the Hudson River 12 days ago say they appreciate the $5,000 that the airline has offered — but some say it's not enough.
Joe Hart, a salesman from Charlotte who suffered a bloody nose and bruises, says he "would like to be made whole for the incident."

It's too soon after the accident to determine what emotional distress he has suffered, he says.

(bolding mine)

Yeah. It doesn't sound like he's talking about personal electronics or Grandma's "Heart of the Sea" brooch, here...

[mhendo]

(bolding mine)

Yeah. It doesn't sound like he's talking about personal electronics or Grandma's "Heart of the Sea" brooch, here...FWIW, i think it is entirely possible—hell, it's almost a certainty—that some passengers will suffer some emotional trauma from the incident, and that some of them might require medication and/or therapy to get through it. I'm not sure, though, what level of responsibility the airline bears for this.

I think, if the airline wants to be nice, they go offer to make up the out-of-pocket expenses for such people, giving them the difference between the cost of their treatment and the amount covered by their health insurance.

[ivylass]

This has nothing to do with their lives. This is about their luggage.

And isn't he glad he's alive after a plane crash to whine about his luggage? Which isn't what he's doing...he's complaining about PTSD and such.

As for me, I'd just be happy I walked away from a plane crash. Luggage is replaceable. Yes, it might be inconvenient, but in the grand scheme of things...they survived a plane crash (or a forced water landing, however you want to call it.)

[Telemark]

And isn't he glad he's alive after a plane crash to whine about his luggage? Which isn't what he's doing...he's complaining about PTSD and such.

Yes, but the 5K offer was for luggage. I can and will be against folks trying to make money off of this accident, and this guy might be one of them, but if he's talking about compensation for lost luggage then he has a case. I don't think it's a particularly strong case in some respects (the airline can't be responsible if you decide to carry the Mona Lisa onboard) but he can try to make his case.

[Bootis]

If there is any connection at all to the prior incident with the engine of that plane- And I know some people here have blindly stated that there is none, it is a coincidence (which is a weird stance to take before any investigation- there could easily be a connection, it could be the case that engine would have been able to handle the bird if it hadn't been perviously slightly damaged.) But, if there is a possibility of a connection between the incidents, the airline should certainly be liable for further damages, if they were at all negligent in improperly testing the engine after the stall less than a week before. (And if it is just a coincidence, it seems to be a highly unlikely one- Neither me or anyone I've asked has ever experienced anything like the earlier engine stall described) For 2 such rare events to happen to the same plane, within a week, it seems that a more rational stance to take would be to assume one had a hand in the other, until it can be proven that it didn't.

[Tuckerfan]

If there is any connection at all to the prior incident with the engine of that plane- And I know some people here have blindly stated that there is none, it is a coincidence (which is a weird stance to take before any investigation- there could easily be a connection, it could be the case that engine would have been able to handle the bird if it hadn't been perviously slightly damaged.) But, if there is a possibility of a connection between the incidents, the airline should certainly be liable for further damages, if they were at all negligent in improperly testing the engine after the stall less than a week before. (And if it is just a coincidence, it seems to be a highly unlikely one- Neither me or anyone I've asked has ever experienced anything like the earlier engine stall described) For 2 such rare events to happen to the same plane, within a week, it seems that a more rational stance to take would be to assume one had a hand in the other, until it can be proven that it didn't.

According to the aviation experts I've heard interviewed on the subject (including one who worked with Sully and has similar credentials) no jet engine currently made can handle having a goose fed through it. None. If a goose went through each engine (as seems likely), there was fuck all that could have been done to keep those engines running, even if they were fresh out of the box.

My understanding about the luggage is that once the crash investigation's over, folks can get their luggage back, so they might not be out all that much, save some inconvience. Personally, I've never flown with $5K worth of stuff, and I don't even really have $5K worth of stuff that I could take on a plane.

[Hippy Hollow]

This is fucking ridiculous. Where is it written that people need to be compensated for every loss? Specifically, when that loss is the result of an unavoidable accident?

It doesn't sound as if the pilot did anything incorrectly. Geese fly where planes fly. Occasionally they strike an engine and all hell breaks loose. If you're lucky, the pilot has the skill to safely land and you get to live. At that point, material possessions seem a little unimportant.

Getting in a car is a risk. Crossing the street is a risk. Flying in a plane is a risk. There's no guarantee that you're going to be able to do these things successfully without harm. And while most of the time it's possible to find someone negligent or responsible, sometimes it's not.

I typically travel with clothes and my laptop, iPod, phone, that kind of stuff. My uni backs up my computer so I would not lose a lot there, but it would probably be close to $5K. (I'm assuming if you had carry on bags they're mostly intact and can be returned after the investigation.) I think $5K is a generous, no-questions-asked compensation. (I'm assuming you can just ask for it and US Airways gives it to you.) It would be nice for them to help out in other ways, but in taking a potentially fatal accident and managing to successfully land the plane with no lives lost, I think they (through the pilot and crew) have done their job and then some. I imagine if you have PTSD your own insurance should help with treatment.

[ivylass]

Would homeowner's insurance cover any of the losses?

[clairobscur]

I know for sure that my laptop with all of my work on it, including proposals and documents for clients is worth a hell of a lot more than $5k. What if I had lost several weeks or months worth of work?

If the data in your laptop is worth more than $ 5,000, you sure should have a copy of its content handy.

Let alone if it contains several weeks or months worth of work.

[even sven]

Since when do we expect a payout for every single bad thing that happens to us? Shit happens. God doesn't hand out out reimbursement checks for every bad day. Why do we expect US Air to? It's nice of them to have given anything.

Makes you wonder. There are people out there right now watching their kids die from a lack of a five dollar malaria drug. People who have truly, deeply been shafted by life. But we bandy about words like "justice" when someone's suit gets ruined.

[Don't fight the hypothetical]

Would homeowner's insurance cover any of the losses?
Excellent point. Isn't insuring your stuff your responsibility and not the airlines?

[aruvqan]

And isn't he glad he's alive after a plane crash to whine about his luggage? Which isn't what he's doing...he's complaining about PTSD and such.

As for me, I'd just be happy I walked away from a plane crash. Luggage is replaceable. Yes, it might be inconvenient, but in the grand scheme of things...they survived a plane crash (or a forced water landing, however you want to call it.)

I agree, Id be fucking thrilled to be alive. I dont travel with anything irreplaceable, my laptop is expensive, but it can be replaced, as can my phone, ipod, clothing, glucometer and meds. I might go for therapy vis-a-vis any trauma from going crunchsploosh, but I cant see them being responsible for goose attack. Id be happy with getting my stuff replaced, and my medical bills dealt with, and maybe a replacement set of tickets and perhaps in case i was headed on a vacation already paid for like a cruise, that replaced.

Id have to work a nonpaid amount of time for that replacement cruise, but that is my issue, and nobody elses. Id have been a bit upset if it caused me to miss my parent/sibling/progeny's deathbed scene, but that is about the only thing that would really upset me.

[leander]

Not to hijack, but this is pretty unbelievable:

Aussie crash survivor's writes tribute to hero US Airways pilot (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24970466-5012974,00.html)

AUSSIE singer Emma Cowan went to New York for creative inspiration and found it in the form of a plane wreck in the icy Hudson River.

Plane ditch survivor Ms Cowan has composed a song for the hero pilot behind the miraculous water landing that saved her life - and 154 others.

Called Send Another Prayer, the tune is the Perth performer's own heartfelt expression of gratitude to veteran airman Chesley B Sullenberger, who safely downed the massive Airbus in the water after a flock of geese struck its engines 12 days ago.

"It's a thank you to the pilot and a thank you to God for my life," Ms Cowan told the Herald Sun.

"It's such a amazing thing they've done."

Ms Cowan, who performs under the surname Sophina, is in New York recording with Grammy-winning producers Marc Swersky and Tony Black at their New Jersey studio.

She acknowledged that Mr Sullenberger not only saved her life, but worked miracles for her profile as a musician.

"It's expanded my career which is realy cool," she said.

(bolding mine)

And...

Mr Swersky was among the first to speak with her after the plane went down and he has spent the past week working on the track with her.

"We've spent the last five days in the studio with her and she never ceases to amaze us," Mr Swersky said.

"She's an unbelievable singer."

Mr Swersky devised some original lyrics and the melody, both of which Ms Cowan revised and changed to better convey her terrifying ordeal in the cabin of US Airways flight 1549.

[BrotherCadfael]

Does the City of New York own and operate the airport? If so, perhaps the passenger should sue the city for not getting rid of the geese.

Actually, I have heard (from extremely unreliable sources) that the city has made efforts to reduce the geese population, and were hampered in their efforts by animal-rights groups. Perhaps he should sue PETA?

I'm not really serious in either of the above paragraphs (although I suppose that anything detrimental to PETA must be considered a Good Thing). :D

[Princhester]

Yes, but the 5K offer was for luggage. I can and will be against folks trying to make money off of this accident, and this guy might be one of them, but if he's talking about compensation for lost luggage then he has a case.

Why? Do you believe an airline becomes an insurer of baggage while it is in their possession no matter what causes its loss? Have you read the contract?

[Muffin]

if he's talking about compensation for lost luggage then he has a case. Samsonite?

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

I know for sure that my laptop with all of my work on it, including proposals and documents for clients is worth a hell of a lot more than $5k. What if I had lost several weeks or months worth of work? What about the loss of items that are sentimental in value or irreplaceable? What about them? They are gone. See, there was an accident. The airline is not responsible for that because it was accidental. If you don't have backup copies of any important files that were on a lost laptop then that's YOUR stupidity--not US Airways. See-- they didn't fuck-up--YOU did (in this hypothetical). All THEY did was save your life (oh... and give you $5000 for immediate replacement needs with the possibility of more $$ where and if appropriate).

I think I need a piping hot cup of coffee from a McDonald's drive-thru. I want to play LegalLotto too!!! Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Excellent point. Isn't insuring your stuff your responsibility and not the airlines?i believe that by the rules established at the Warsaw Convention airlines are only responsible for up to $500 for lost/damaged baggage on domestic U.S. flights.

NOTICE OF BAGGAGE LIABILITY LIMITATIONS

Liability for loss, delay, or damage to baggage is limited as follows unless a higher value is declared in advance and additional charges are paid: (1) for most international travel (including domestic portions of international journeys) to approximately US $9.07 per pound (US $20.00 per kilo) for checked baggage and US $400 per passenger for unchecked baggage; (2) for travel wholly between US points, to US $500 per passenger on most carriers (a few have lower limits). Excess valuation may not be declared on certain types of valuable articles. Carriers assume no liability for fragile or perishable articles. Further information may be obtained from the carrier.

(from here (http://www.aviation.go.th/airtrans/airlaw/LiabilityLimitation.html) at the bottom of the page).

It's printed on every ticket you buy (or comes up on your computer screen), and you agree to that arrangement by purchasing the ticket. $5000 is WAY beyond the pale!

Anytime you choose to get on a plane with let's say $20,000 or so worth of American Privileged-People Toyz you need to know that you will only get $500 compensation if it is lost. It's on you, bub. My suggestion? Don't take that much valuable stuff on a plane trip unless you have extra insurance.

Quit whining! This is just the kind of greedy, "me-first!" shit that Obama keeps trying to tell us needs to stop if we're to have any hope for our country.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Yes, but the 5K offer was for luggage. I can and will be against folks trying to make money off of this accident, and this guy might be one of them, but if he's talking about compensation for lost luggage then he has a case.No he doesn't. See above.

[atomicbadgerrace]

Why? Do you believe an airline becomes an insurer of baggage while it is in their possession no matter what causes its loss? Have you read the contract?

Thank you! I don't understand all the "well, if they were carrying more than $5000 worth of stuff, US Airways should pay out." Um, no. The Contract of Carriage is pretty clear about baggage liability, even when the airline is negligent. I haven't read US Airways' specifically, but I'd put money on it being less than $5000. You want more? Buy luggage insurance. It's available.

US Airways has more than provided for these people. Yeah, it sucks. I get it. But you know what? It sucks for US Airways, too. Given that it wasn't their fault, I'd be happy to walk away with my life, a refund or alternate transportation to my destination, and whatever the Contract of Carriage provided for lost/damaged/destroyed luggage.

[friedo]

Does the City of New York own and operate the airport? If so, perhaps the passenger should sue the city for not getting rid of the geese.


No, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey does. There was actually an article in one of the Idiot Rags this morning1 blaming the PAPD for not enforcing "no feeding the birds" rules against cabbies who park in special lots at LGA.

1. I just glance at the headlines, I swear.

[Richard Pearse]

Yes, there should be negligence to win a suit, but there may be a case to be made. If there have been a large number of bird strikes and near misses using the route the jet was on, something should have been done to prevent a potentially dangerous situation. That could mean rerouting the path the jet takes, preventing birds from using the area, or other measures.
Even if that was the case, the airline is not responsible for the departure routing of the aircraft. The initial departure route is given by ATC. The pilots can refuse a clearance but only if they have a good reason to do so, and they wouldn't be privy to statistics on bird strikes in the area.

[Musicat]

Even if that was the case, the airline is not responsible for the departure routing of the aircraft. The initial departure route is given by ATC. The pilots can refuse a clearance but only if they have a good reason to do so, and they wouldn't be privy to statistics on bird strikes in the area.I think we should license all birds and allow them to fly only when given permission by ATC. This willy-nilly flying on a whim without filing a flight plan is unsafe for man or bird. And furthermore...

[Swallowed My Cellphone]

If you store all of your critical data in only one place, on your laptop, and you never take the time to back it up, is that the airline's fault?

Maybe this incident will be a wakeup call for you?That's what I was thinking. Sounds like someone's workplace needs to review their business continuity plan if more than $5,000 in files would be lost if one single computer went tits up.

[mhendo]

i believe that by the rules established at the Warsaw Convention airlines are only responsible for up to $500 for lost/damaged baggage on domestic U.S. flights.

(from here (http://www.aviation.go.th/airtrans/airlaw/LiabilityLimitation.html) at the bottom of the page).Legally, you're right.

But, for me at least, the arguments in this thread have been based on what i consider morally right, not necessarily just what the law requires. The Warsaw Convention is hopelessly out of date, and as such is a massive boon to the airlines, who are still limited in liability to financial restitution amounts drawn up in the 1970s. How much do you think $500 in 1975 money is worth now?

And it's not just the dollar amount; it's also the amount of times people fly, the number of flights, and the value of the goods they can reasonably be expected to have with them. How many people in 1975 were required to fly dozens of times a month for business, and to carry a $3000 laptop computer and a $500 smart phone with them on every trip?

Even the updated 1999 Montreal Convention, which has been ratified by the United States but is not yet in full effect, only increases the maximum luggage payout to 1000 SDR (or about $US1,400), which i still think is too low, especially considering this limit applies even when the airline is at fault.

I agree there should be limits to airline liability for luggage, but i think those limits should bear some relation to the reality of what people can reasonably expect to carry with them when they fly. A laptop is not a special or unusual item to take on a plane trip, and neither is a digital camera. And nowdays $1000 worth of clothing can easily fit into an overnight bag, to say nothing of a suitcase designed for a two-week vacation.

While your reference to "$20,000 or so worth of American Privileged-People Toyz" is cute and all, there is a massive excluded middle in your argument, consisting of almost every airline passenger, where $20,000 is way to much, but $500 is way too little. It's all about getting it just right, Goldilocks.

[mhendo]

How much do you think $500 in 1975 money is worth now?By the way, in case anyone's wondering about the answer to this question, one set of answers, according to the calculator here (http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/), is:In 2007, $500.00 from 1975 is worth:

$1,925.54 using the Consumer Price Index
$1,576.26 using the GDP deflator
$2,255.04 using the value of consumer bundle
$1,877.77 using the unskilled wage
$3,012.59 using the nominal GDP per capita
$4,213.97 using the relative share of GDP Note that their figures only go to 2007, so are not completely up to date.

[spifflog]

While your reference to "$20,000 or so worth of American Privileged-People Toyz" is cute and all, there is a massive excluded middle in your argument, consisting of almost every airline passenger, where $20,000 is way to much, but $500 is way too little. It's all about getting it just right, Goldilocks.


No, it's about living in the read world.

Shit happens. The airlines are giving them ten times the amont required. This after not one person died.

The pussification of American continues.

[mhendo]

No, it's about living in the read world.

Shit happens. The airlines are giving them ten times the amont required. This after not one person died.I wasn't talking about this particular incident, genius. I made clear, earlier in the thread, that i thought US Airways were being helpful and quite generous in this situation. My more recent post was specifically about the limits determined by the Warsaw Convention, and how out of date they are.The pussification of American continues.Here's a tissue. Wipe up that drool, will ya.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

While your reference to "$20,000 or so worth of American Privileged-People Toyz" is cute and all, there is a massive excluded middle in your argument, consisting of almost every airline passenger, where $20,000 is way to much, but $500 is way too little. It's all about getting it just right, Goldilocks.I used $20,000 as an exaggeration to make a point. Indeed, it is too much to compensate a passenger that much for lost luggage. The point was that it is important for passengers to know that whether they take $300, $5000, $20,000 or $100,000 worth of luggage with them the airlines are only required to compensate them for up to $500 if the luggage is lost or damaged. So don't anyone scream that THEY'VE GOT RIGHTS, DAMMIT!!! and sue for $20,000 for lost luggage when they should realize the airlines are only liable for $500 (or less).

I agree that $500 is too small an amount and it should probably be raised, but $500 it is. If you are routinely traveling with baggage worth a lot more than that you best look into some baggage/travel insurance.

And after all--surely you don't want more regulations on those poor airlines, do you? You don't want more "frivolous" lawsuits do you? Let the All-Knowing Invisible Hand figure it out, right? Pull yourself up by your bootstraps and all that.

[Princhester]

But, for me at least, the arguments in this thread have been based on what i consider morally right, not necessarily just what the law requires.

While we are on the subject of morally right, if limits are high and my pals and I regularly carry very valuable luggage, but you fly all the time carrying a toothbrush and a pocket comb, and because of me and my pals the airlines have to carry a greater amount of insurance and so they put up fares to cover, is that morally fair for you?

The logic of carriage limitation is that there is a risk cost in carrying expensive stuff. Either the airline:

1/ carries enough insurance to cover everyone, but has to assume they may pay out $50,000 on the guy carrying jewelery and insures according putting up prices for everyone, or

2/ asks you what the value of your luggage is and charges you accordingly which is an administrative nightmare, or

3/ has an obligation to pay out only a low standard amount and if you are carrying more, suggests you buy your own insurance.

[atomicbadgerrace]

My more recent post was specifically about the limits determined by the Warsaw Convention, and how out of date they are.

US Airways seems to agree (http://usairways.com/awa/content/traveltools/baggage/baggagepolicies.aspx), as their Contract of Carriage points out that their own company policy is

US Airways' liability for loss, delay or damage to checked baggage is limited to $3,300 per ticketed passenger for travel entirely within the U.S.

So these folks got $1,700 more than their own policy dictates, even though they quite explicitly don't cover things like books/manuscripts/publications, business samples/equipment/documents & irreplaceable items, computer hardware/software & related items, electronic components, equipment & related items, negotiable papers/securities/documents, among other things.

Given that everyone who books a ticket through US Airways is advised of these liability limits, and often you have to prove your actual loss to get close to $3,300, I'd say their decision was pretty sound on both financial and moral grounds.

[mhendo]

And after all--surely you don't want more regulations on those poor airlines, do you? You don't want more "frivolous" lawsuits do you? Let the All-Knowing Invisible Hand figure it out, right? Pull yourself up by your bootstraps and all that.While i know this paragraph was tongue-in-cheek, it seems to me that the invisible hand might actually produce better outcomes here.

Right now, airlines are protected against the consequences of their own incompetence by laws that place very low limits on their liability, even in cases where they are demonstrably at fault. If there were no laws limiting their liability in this way, people with lost or damaged/destroyed luggage might be able to get full value for their goods, and the airlines might actually use their baggage-handling records and refund policies to compete against one another. As it is, they're all in the same boat, they all know that their liability is far below the value of most people's luggage, and they're very happy about it.

Of course, then there's the issue of contract. Even in the absence of the Warsaw Convention, airlines would be able to include limits on their liability in the contract of carriage. They could then argue, "Hey, the ticket we issued you is a contract limiting our liability to $500, and by accepting the ticket you agreed to the contract."

I'm of mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, contracts are good thing, allowing two parties to come together in mutual understanding, and mutual acceptance of the terms laid out in the contract. On the other, it seems to me that, in the case of the airlines, the bargaining power in making the contract places all the power in the airlines' hands. This is particularly the case if you're flying to or from an airport only served by one or two carriers, but even where there are more carriers, it's very easy for airlines to "coincidentally" all adopt the same (or very similar) luggage policies. It's not like you can choose a reasonable alternative to flying if you're going from, say, New York to San Francisco.

In the end, i guess, i'd be happy enough with a system that gives the airlines some protection from ridiculously high claims, while also making them provide adequate restitution when they lose or damage a passenger's luggage.While we are on the subject of morally right, if limits are high and my pals and I regularly carry very valuable luggage, but you fly all the time carrying a toothbrush and a pocket comb, and because of me and my pals the airlines have to carry a greater amount of insurance and so they put up fares to cover, is that morally fair for you?

The logic of carriage limitation is that there is a risk cost in carrying expensive stuff. Either the airline:

1/ carries enough insurance to cover everyone, but has to assume they may pay out $50,000 on the guy carrying jewelery and insures according putting up prices for everyone, or

2/ asks you what the value of your luggage is and charges you accordingly which is an administrative nightmare, or

3/ has an obligation to pay out only a low standard amount and if you are carrying more, suggests you buy your own insurance.I'm not sure why you seem to think that my position involves making the airline pay out for any amount of luggage that someone could possibly be carrying. And i don't know why you would ask whether i think it's reasonable for the airline to cover a $50,000 loss when i've already said, quite clearly, that "$20,000 is way too much."

I thought i made it pretty clear in my earlier post that i simply would like airlines to be responsible for an amount that bears some resemblance to what typical passengers might be expected to carry on a plane nowdays. When i last flew, a couple of months ago, across the United States, it seemed that every second passenger had a laptop computer. The last leg of my journey was after dark, and the plane's lights were out, and when i returned from the bathroom the whole plane cabin was lit with the lurid glow of computer screens.

Also, as i suggested earlier, if you're traveling on business for a week, or on holidays for a couple of weeks, it's not that hard to fit at least $1000 worth of clothing into your checked luggage. And you don't have to be rich to do this. I'm not wealthy by any means, but if i pack a couple of decent pairs of shoes, a couple of pairs of pants, and a few decent shirts, i'm already over $1000 in replacement value. Given such circumstances, and the fact that the Warsaw Convention limits were set in the 1970s, in think a revision is overdue.

Finally, it's worth remembering that the vast majority of lost or damaged luggage is not the result of an unavoidable goose-strike and subsequent landing in the Hudson River. Most lost or damaged luggage is the direct result of the airlines' luggage sorting and transportation systems, and a law that severely restricts their liability in such cases gives them very little incentive to improve the system.

[BobLibDem]

Just curious, were there any pets in the baggage compartment that drowned in the accident? Would they get reimbursed for said drowned pets?

[Really Not All That Bright]

[Shit happens, a bird hit the plane. You want more money? I wish I could afford to fly. If your car hits a deer are you going to sue Ford?
That's a poor analogy, since US Airways doesn't make the plane and Ford doesn't provide your driver. However, I totally agree with your main point.
i believe that by the rules established at the Warsaw Convention airlines are only responsible for up to $500 for lost/damaged baggage on domestic U.S. flights.
The Warsaw Convention only applies to international flights, AFAIK. The $500 limit on liability for loss of luggage on US domestic flights comes from Federal statute.

[Shirley Ujest]

Just curious, were there any pets in the baggage compartment that drowned in the accident? Would they get reimbursed for said drowned pets?

Oh, you had to go there, didn't you.

Gah, the images won't leave my head.

[ElvisL1ves]

No, there weren't. (http://www.examiner.com/x-1514-DC-Dogs-Examiner~y2009m1d24-Were-there-pets-on-board-flight-1549--Spokesman-answers-question)

[Jodi]

Just curious, were there any pets in the baggage compartment that drowned in the accident? Would they get reimbursed for said drowned pets?

Yes, they would, but as chattel property, i.e. baggage. So Mr. Snuffles would be valued at fair market value or replacement value for a cat of his breed, not at his emotional value to you. Whatever his worth, his loss falls within the 5000 clams they're already paying.

[mhendo]

The New york Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/01302009/news/regionalnews/survivors_gilt_152720.htm) (i know, i know) is reporting that the passengers have also now been given Chairman's Preferred frequent flyer status (US Airways' top FF level) until March, 2010. This is another gesture the airline probably didn't have to make, although i have to wonder how many of those 150 people are very keen to set foot on a plane again in the next 14 months.

For those that are willing to fly again in that time period, Chairman's Preferred status apparently gives:each passenger and a companion first-class domestic travel when seats are available, one upgrade to Europe or Hawaii, choice seats and priority check-in.Of course, the obligatory vox populi interviews managed to find some random doofuses to complain about how awful the airline is acting: At La Guardia yesterday, other US Airways travelers were shocked by the airline's lowballing.

"You're going to crash me into the water, and you're going to tell me all I get is an upgrade?" asked Antonio Sales, 20, who was traveling with the University of South Carolina's track team. "That's more of an 'OK, you're not dead, I'll give you something to hold on to.' It's not enough at all."

Teammate Gabrielle Glenn, 20, was more blunt: "That's it. They should sue." The use of the term "lowballing" by the journalist places him among the doofuses, IMO.

[atomicbadgerrace]

Just curious, were there any pets in the baggage compartment that drowned in the accident? Would they get reimbursed for said drowned pets?

US Airways doesn't carry pets as cargo. So, no.

I had to read that sentence 5 times for noun-verb agreement.

ETA: Wow. Any people I ever run into named Antonio Sales or Gabrielle Glenn get an automatic "fuck you" from me.

[BobLibDem]

US Airways doesn't carry pets as cargo. So, no.




Yippee! Thanks for that answer.

[Jodi]

It's just a nice example of the effect of proliferating litigation on American society. Everyone knows how the legal system works (or thinks they do); everyone watches Law and Order. People do not believe in a true accident anymore, a freak occurence, an event that is nobody's fault. They think any time you sustain damage, someone should have to pay you for it. Someone must be to blame.

In fact, in this case, it appears very likely, though not certain, that no one is to blame. I suggest they sue the all-powerful Goose Lobby. If they can find them.

[samclem]

Also, as i suggested earlier, if you're traveling on business for a week, or on holidays for a couple of weeks, it's not that hard to fit at least $1000 worth of clothing into your checked luggage. And you don't have to be rich to do this. I'm not wealthy by any means, but if i pack a couple of decent pairs of shoes, a couple of pairs of pants, and a few decent shirts, i'm already over $1000 in replacement value.
I'm just curious how much your two pairs of shoes cost, your two pair of pants and say, perhaps 4 shirts. While I understand you can spend $1000 on these, most people don't. Do you wear $200/ea. pair shoes, $200/ea. pants, and $150/ea shirts?

[Really Not All That Bright]

In fact, in this case, it appears very likely, though not certain, that no one is to blame. I suggest they sue the all-powerful Goose Lobby. If they can find them.
They may have flown south for the winter.
I'm just curious how much your two pairs of shoes cost, your two pair of pants and say, perhaps 4 shirts. While I understand you can spend $1000 on these, most people don't. Do you wear $200/ea. pair shoes, $200/ea. pants, and $150/ea shirts?
As soon as the dry cleaner/hotel/airline loses them I sure do.

[mhendo]

I'm just curious how much your two pairs of shoes cost, your two pair of pants and say, perhaps 4 shirts. While I understand you can spend $1000 on these, most people don't. Do you wear $200/ea. pair shoes, $200/ea. pants, and $150/ea shirts?Despite not having a whole lot of money, i do have a couple of $200 pairs of footwear, and each is now over 5 years old. For me at least, spending a bit more on quality footwear is worth the money.

I also have some $100 pants and shirts. It would probably actually take more than a few shirts to get me to $1000—maybe 6 or 8—but if i (someone without too much money) can do it, i'll bet there are plenty of other people, especially business travelers, who can do it easily.

[atomicbadgerrace]

I also have some $100 pants and shirts. It would probably actually take more than a few shirts to get me to $1000—maybe 6 or 8—but if i (someone without too much money) can do it, i'll bet there are plenty of other people, especially business travelers, who can do it easily.

And that's all good and well, but again, completely irrelevant. Every passenger is provided a copy of the airline's baggage liability when booking. Take more at your own risk, or purchase travel insurance.

[mhendo]

And that's all good and well, but again, completely irrelevant. Every passenger is provided a copy of the airline's baggage liability when booking. Take more at your own risk, or purchase travel insurance.Look, moron, i'm not arguing about what the rules are; i'm arguing about what i believe they should be.

You're welcome to disagree, but my point was not irrelevant, precisely because it was made in support of the particular argument i was making.

[atomicbadgerrace]

Look, moron

...blah blah blah...

While they aren't legally obligated to provide more than a couple hundred bucks, your $1,000 suit is covered under US Airways' own policy, provided you can substantiate your claim, of course. I think most major carriers limit their own liability to the same neighborhood. $3,300 seems more than enough for the vast majority of people flying, and if US Airways is doing fine self-policing, then I see no need to increase legal requirements right now.

I don't know where the sudden bit of hostility and defensiveness came from, but fuck you too, cunt.

[Little Plastic Ninja]

Since I've ever only made a non-automotive insurance claim once and it was pretty cut and dried, I'm curious: wouldn't the loss of particularly expensive items be covered by insurance? Assuming they were insured, of course.

By this I mean personal insurance. When my TV blew up due to lightning, say. Is my stuff only insured while it is in my home or car?

[mhendo]

...blah blah blah...

While they aren't legally obligated to provide more than a couple hundred bucks, your $1,000 suit is covered under US Airways' own policy, provided you can substantiate your claim, of course. I think most major carriers limit their own liability to the same neighborhood. $3,300 seems more than enough for the vast majority of people flying, and if US Airways is doing fine self-policing, then I see no need to increase legal requirements right now.

I don't know where the sudden bit of hostility and defensiveness came from, but fuck you too, cunt.It came because you called irrelevant something that was, in fact, directly relevant to the argument i was making. If you need me to explain the difference between the concept "how things are" and the concept "how i believe they should be," you're probably not smart enough to be here.

As for the $3,300 limit, i never said it was unreasonable; in fact, i've said on numerous occasions that i believe US Airways is doing a good job on this incident. People in this thread, however, argued that the legal requirement is $500, and my argument was centered precisely on that issue. Again, the fact that this was apparently lost on you, despite my multiple posts addressing the issue, says little for your perspicacity.

[tumbleddown]

And isn't he glad he's alive after a plane crash to whine about his luggage? Which isn't what he's doing...he's complaining about PTSD and such.
Please tell me that you're not suggesting that PTSD isn't real or that people who experienced a plane crash cannot get it/should not get it because the joy of surviving should be enough to eliminate the trauma of the situation. Please say you're not saying that.:rolleyes:

[Richard Pearse]

Please tell me that you're not suggesting that PTSD isn't real or that people who experienced a plane crash cannot get it/should not get it because the joy of surviving should be enough to eliminate the trauma of the situation. Please say you're not saying that.:rolleyes:
It doesn't matter how real it is, it's not the airline's fault that he's suffering.

[tumbleddown]

It doesn't matter how real it is, it's not the airline's fault that he's suffering.
That, I believe, may end up being a finding of fact for a jury to determine. But just the same, it is absolutely belittling to the survivors of a trauma to suggest that they should be glad to just be alive and not complain about PTSD or whatever mental after effects they may be suffering after what they've gone through.

[Richard Pearse]

I will happily belittle a survivor of trauma if they use the trauma to get payment from a faultless party. The man SHOULD be glad he's alive. He SHOULD be happy that he is able to complain at all. He should then keep his complaints of trauma between him, his doctor, and his own insurance company.

[cedman]

I will happily belittle a survivor of trauma if they use the trauma to get payment from a faultless party. The man SHOULD be glad he's alive. He SHOULD be happy that he is able to complain at all. He should then keep his complaints of trauma between him, his doctor, and his own insurance company.

Maybe the airline should sue him back.

Ya know, if he hadn't bought a ticket, there wouldn't have been a flight to hit the geese and there wouldn't have even been a crash.

Bastard bought a ticket, THAT'S what put him in the water in the first place!




:D:D:D This post makes just as much sense as his whining. :D:D:D

[atomicbadgerrace]

People in this thread, however, argued that the legal requirement is $500, and my argument was centered precisely on that issue. Again, the fact that this was apparently lost on you, despite my multiple posts addressing the issue, says little for your perspicacity.

It wasn't lost on me. So what if the legal requirement is $500? The airlines are doing a fine job of self policing, and unless that changes, I don't know why anyone should rally to make them legally obligated to do something they already obligate themselves to do. There's no real difference in how things are vs. how you think they should be -- things are right now such that baggage liabilities are where you think they should be. The only difference is that you want some kind of law to force them to accept the terms of their own contract.

[Jodi]

That, I believe, may end up being a finding of fact for a jury to determine.

Unless there's more basis for liability than currently appears, none of the cases from this event, even if filed, should ever get to a jury: That's what summary judgment is for. And PSTD and like conditions engender more sympathy when complaints about them aren't tied so closely to payment for them.

[Larry Mudd]

Buddy should clearly sue the estate of the geese; this is where the blame lies.

[Princhester]

If the passengers win their case against the airline, the geese involved will have laid golden eggs.

[Tuckerfan]

Near the end of this Scientific American podcast (http://www.sciam.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=darwin-ghostbuster-muse-and-magistr-09-01-22), its stated that the survivors of the crash are at a very low risk for suffering PTSD from the accident.