# Greed on display (plane crash related) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 28, 2009, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greed-on-display-plane-crash-related/483391 "2009-01-28T16:24:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greed-on-display-plane-crash-related/483391/41 "2009-01-29T21:08:57Z")
> [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](#): > > 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 The Warsaw Convention is hopelessly out of date, and as such is a _massive_ boon to the airlines, who are still limited in liability to financial restitution amounts drawn up in the 1970s.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. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greed-on-display-plane-crash-related/483391/42 "2009-01-29T21:22:35Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greed-on-display-plane-crash-related/483391/43 "2009-01-29T21:53:12Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greed-on-display-plane-crash-related/483391/44 "2009-01-29T21:56:27Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > 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. > [@spifflog](#): > > The pussification of American continues. Here’s a tissue. Wipe up that drool, will ya. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greed-on-display-plane-crash-related/483391/45 "2009-01-29T23:02:39Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greed-on-display-plane-crash-related/483391/46 "2009-01-29T23:26:48Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![atomicbadgerrace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e7dd6/32.png) [@atomicbadgerrace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/atomicbadgerrace)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greed-on-display-plane-crash-related/483391/47 "2009-01-30T00:15:21Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greed-on-display-plane-crash-related/483391/48 "2009-01-30T17:35:16Z")
> [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](#): > > 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. > [@Princhester](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greed-on-display-plane-crash-related/483391/49 "2009-01-30T17:46:22Z")
Just curious, were there any pets in the baggage compartment that drowned in the accident? Would they get reimbursed for said drowned pets? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greed-on-display-plane-crash-related/483391/50 "2009-01-30T17:58:04Z")
> [@Don\_t\_fight\_the\_hypothetical](#): > > [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\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Shirley\_Ujest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shirley\_Ujest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shirley_Ujest)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greed-on-display-plane-crash-related/483391/51 "2009-01-30T18:35:58Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greed-on-display-plane-crash-related/483391/52 "2009-01-30T20:46:02Z")
[No, there weren’t.](http://www.examiner.com/x-1514-DC-Dogs-Examiner~y2009m1d24-Were-there-pets-on-board-flight-1549--Spokesman-answers-question) ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greed-on-display-plane-crash-related/483391/53 "2009-01-30T21:25:55Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greed-on-display-plane-crash-related/483391/54 "2009-01-30T21:57:33Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![atomicbadgerrace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e7dd6/32.png) [@atomicbadgerrace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/atomicbadgerrace)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greed-on-display-plane-crash-related/483391/55 "2009-01-30T22:17:22Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greed-on-display-plane-crash-related/483391/56 "2009-01-30T22:23:36Z")
> [@atomicbadgerrace](#): > > US Airways doesn’t carry pets as cargo. So, no. Yippee! Thanks for that answer. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greed-on-display-plane-crash-related/483391/57 "2009-01-30T23:30:09Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2009, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greed-on-display-plane-crash-related/483391/58 "2009-01-31T01:26:34Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2009, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greed-on-display-plane-crash-related/483391/59 "2009-01-31T01:42:01Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > 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. > [@samclem](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2009, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greed-on-display-plane-crash-related/483391/60 "2009-01-31T01:46:15Z")
> [@samclem](#): > > 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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greed-on-display-plane-crash-related/483391.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greed-on-display-plane-crash-related/483391.md?page=4)