The plane that ditched in the Hudson - company is offering 5 grand to each passenger I’d assume that it would include promises to not sue for larger amount I admit that 5 grand is probably more than each passenger lost in terms of luggage (I doubt that many travel w/more than that). But one of the preliminary things indicate that the plane in question had engine problems 2 days earlier.
Would you accept the 5 grand?
No. Five grand is nothing, especially after taxes. That’s insultingly low. The emotional stress alone should be compensated more fully. Someone easily could have stroked out from the ordeal. Plus, if there really was some additional culpability involved, some form of neglect that surfaces during the investigation then they will be facing amounts exponentially higher. I’d counsel to be patient, see what comes of the investigation and then settle.
While I think this country is too litigation happy, those people went through an ordeal that should be compensated more fairly than $3300.
No, at least two more zeros.
IF they offered $5k after compensating for replacement value of lost/damaged luggage and possessions, and all medical bills, I’d say it was extremely fair.
A very unfortunate situation, but why the passengers should feel they deserve to hit the jackpot is beyond me - other than many people seem to feel that way.
Culpability for what? It was an act of god/nature/goose–if the unpreventable randomness of the universe causes you emotional stress, it isn’t the responsibility of the owners of your current vehicle you are occupying to assuage you with money.
However, from an actuarial point of view, it may make sense to provide a token settlement just to head off the potentially greater expenses if future individual suits are initiated.
Really? Half a million bucks for an accident that they survived thanks to the quality of the plane’s construction and the great skill of the US Airways pilot? And for an accident which, if most preliminary reports are correct (i.e., if it was actually a bird strike), was in no way the fault of US Airways?
I’m usually one of the first people around here to call for corporations to be brought to heel when they’ve done something wrong. I’m an opponent of the corporate-friendly versions of “tort reform” that would make it harder to hold companies responsible for their negligent acts. And there are few industries i dislike more, for a variety of reasons, than the American airline industry.
But, Jesus, these people survived this accident, and if the NTSB investigation finds that it was an unavoidable bird strike, then i don’t see how a total payout of $75 million (that’s half a mil for each passenger) is a reasonable penalty to impose on the airline.
Anyway, as to the OP, i’m not sure whether i’d accept or not. I’d be disinclined to consider the matter closed until the NTSB submits its final report.
ETA: Also, what Dinsdale said. This isn’t (or shouldn’t be) a lottery win, and if the airline is not found to be negligent, then compensation for out-of-pocket expenses (medical, luggage, etc.) and 5 grand on top seems eminently fair.
I have to admit, my first impulse is to say that I would not accept this settlement, hoping to be offered more. Er, not exactly hoping, but kinda expecting? I don’t want to sound like I’m suffering from delusions of entitlement, but if everyone else and their neighbor is grabbing a lawyer and demanding more money, I’d hate to be the sucker who got fobbed off with peanuts.
That said, given no loss of life and assuming no evidence of malice or negligence, and assuming my medical bills (if any) were paid, I’d probably accept a settlement in the neighborhood of 5-10K. I would certainly not be inclined to sue.
For what wring mentioned near paragraph end. A couple of days earlier the engine in the exact same plane made some booming noises that scared that group of passengers but good. They too thought they were going down and the pilot come on saying they were going to return to the airport.
I would think that during the course of this investigation they’ll look at whether engine strength was compromised to some degree. If so and they continued to fly when perhaps they shouldn’t have then yes, I’d have to say the passengers should be compensated for having their lives put at risk.
Again, I’d just hold off until the investigation is complete. Only then can an appropriate decision be made.
Yeah, I would take the 5 grand. I can’t imagine being so greedy that I needed to be paid off by the very people that saved my life with their skill and equipment. Personally I would have been happy just knowing that I got off the plane alive instead of ending my life in a firey crash o’ death. I’d take the money to compensate for the luggage and such, but other than that I wouldn’t need a thing.
I’m not a litigious guy, really. As long as the airline got me to where I was going in reasonably short order after the crash (somehow) and that all bills related to the crash are paid, I’d probably take it and run.
I don’t know that much about the incident - what damages did they suffer?
Regards,
Shodan
I think that, if there’s anything wrong with what the airline’s doing right now, it’s not the amount but the precipitousness of the offer.
If the 5 grand offer is unconditional, and if acceptance does not somehow reduce or negate one’s later ability to sue if the airline is found to be negligent, then i think the offer is generous, and a sign of good faith. But if the offer is merely some sort of pre-emptive strike, designed to compromise people’s later options, then it’s a cynical and underhanded tactic.
I’m not a lawyer, so i don’t know the extent to which accepting an offer like this might, or might not, reduce or restrict what recourse the passengers might have later on.
On preview: If the airline is genuine about the bit quoted by Ex_Chemist, then i think it’s a good offer, and i would accept it.
The $5,000 is not a settlement, it’s compensation for lost and/or soaked luggage, which they won’t even get back yet because the NTSB needs to keep it for a while.
Ah, offer clarified. Yep, I agree completely. That’s tenfold the value of any bag(s) of mine.
When you put a couple of fully grown Canadian Geese through an operating turbofan engine, “engine strength compromised to some degree” is not going to be a mitigating factor. That engine is going to be shredded even if it is brand new and fresh off the shelf.
These are two totally separate and unrelated events. The booming noises were probably a compressor stall. It happens, and the flight continued to its destination in that case.
Would you feel the same way if it turns out that before saving your life, the airline was the one that put you in danger?
Suppose the investigation reveals that yes, there was a problem in the engine two days before, which may have contributed to the engine failure that caused the crash, but that the airline didn’t take the plane out of service for a proper maintenance check.
In other words, that not only did these people save your life with their skill and equipment, but that their faulty equipment and lack of proper maintenance is what put your life in danger in the first place - would you feel that saving your life cancelled out putting it in jeopardy in the first place?
If you’re a passenger in my car and the wonky steering linkage I’ve been ignoring for months finally breaks and I barely manage to get the car safely to the side of the road, know what you can sue me for? Dooky. You’ve not suffered a loss in spite of my negligence having caused the situation. And “negligent infliction of emotional distress” doesn’t usually get you anything either unless you’ve actually been hurt.
If you’re a passenger in my car with wonky steering linkage, and I’m driving responsibly otherwise, and an elk leaps out in front of us causing serious injury to you or both of us, know what you can sue me for? Dooky.
You’ve not suffered a loss caused by my negligence.
So really, as long as 1) the engine was properly repaired and is not a factor in this crash and 2) the plane did not knowingly fly into the birds, they don’t even have to offer the passengers a peny, let alone $5,000 for the inconvenience of having their luggage submerged. I’d say the offer is generous and unnecessary.
Unless they were injured, all they deserve to be compensated for is lost luggage and a different flight out. Maybe not even the flight out.
That makes a difference to me.