“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.
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.
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.
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?
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:
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.
$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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.”
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.
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.)
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.