AIG Steps on Crank....Hard.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Some years ago several people were prosecuted in DC for attempting to make claims against metro when, after observing a bus/car accident, they stormed the bus and claimed to have been passengers injured in the accident.


aboutv 15 years ago there was an accident involving a metro training bus at georgia and missouri.  just driver trainee and instructor on board .  the hospital was swamped by folks who claimed to be on bus.  zero prosecutions

[RevDisk]

But yeah, in this case, the folks who suffered any monetary loss or need for medical care should be compensated in full.  You pay for a flight ticket expecting...a flight.  Not to be heroically landed in a river, and then told to be grateful that you made it out of that flight alive.

If the airline was negligent, I'd agree with you.  In this case, it was not their fault and only through the airline's hiring of a skilled, well trained pilot did everyone manage to survive.

Covering the medical bills would probably be a good idea for the airline company.  But, where do you draw the line?  Should an airline pay for someone's psych treatment for life when the accident wasn't their fault?  They were generous enough to toss everyone a $5k check when they were not required to do so.

Weeding out phoney claims is not a special hardship.  I feel no special sympathy that AIG might have to do it just like the rest of us who drive or are responsible for premises.

From what I understand, AIG was contracted solely to provide liability insurance IF the airline was liable.  Acts of God were not part of the contract, if I read correctly.  Blame the airline for not having comprehensive coverage, not the insurance company for only covering what they were paid to cover.

Some of us are aware of what insurance is covered by airlines and what is not.  Every airline has terms and conditions that you agree to when you purchase your tickets.   Just because you didn't read it doesn't mean it isn't binding.  Some of us are responsible enough to read said binding terms and conditions, were uncomfy with the lack of certain provisions in said terms and conditions, and purchased Travel Insurance to cover those lack of certain terms and conditions.

My travel insurance covers my belongings against theft, loss, accident, act of god, terrorism, etc while I am travelling.  An extra provision covers international medical, med-evac to friendly soil, kidnapping protection, etc.  Hell, they even provide a number to call for "medical or security advice or assistance" if I'm feeling too lazy to bring up the State Dept's website.    It's not that expensive either.   

As someone else pointed out, life's tough, buy a helmet.  It's no one's fault but your own if you fail to do the necessary steps in procuring a helmet that adequately fits your needs. 

[AZRedhawk44]

What if this weren't birds?

What if a meteorite fell through the sky and tore a wing off the plane, but everyone still lived after a ditch landing?  I see no difference between birds and space debris.  It's uncontrollable, untrackable and unavoidable.

If that same meteorite fell from the sky and smashed your roof, you would not be covered unless you got "act of God" insurance for your homeowner's insurance policy.  Otherwise, it would be out of your pocket.  If the meteorite hit you and took your arm off (leaving you otherwise alive) while you were driving, your health insurance would cover the treatments... not your auto insurance.  Your auto insurance would cover the damage to your car. 

Extend that to an airline.  The meteorite hits you in your seat on the plane, takes your arm off.  How is that any liability of the airline?  It is an inherent risk of travel. 

Similar risks:
-Taking off from any runway in California where earthquakes are possible.
-Taking off eastbound from Sea-Tac in Washington and flying over Mt. Rainier (a dormant volcano).


How can an airline be found at fault for random, far-fetched yet possible occurrences?

[MillCreek]

^^^^^ Having flown out of SeaTac countless times, I note that all the aircraft seem to give Mt. Rainier and Mt. St. Helens a wide berth.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

free money!!   it draws the landsharks

[Fly320s]

^^^^^ Having flown out of SeaTac countless times, I note that all the aircraft seem to give Mt. Rainier and Mt. St. Helens a wide berth.

Because that is how ATC routes us. Personally, I'd like to fly lower and close the mountains for a better view.

Has "act of God" been defined by insurance companies or the courts?  Has it been tested in court by atheists?

[KD5NRH]

For the first couple of days after his flight ditched into the Hudson River, Paul Jorgenson was just glad to be alive. But then he started to need his laptop, his wallet, his car keys -- all the essentials he had stowed under his seat and left behind in the sinking plane.
--SNIP--
A spokesman for US Airways, Morgan Durrant, said the airline issued each passenger a check for $5,000 shortly after the accident to cover their immediate needs; it had no legal obligation to do so.

He can't get a laptop, keys and wallet for $5K?  I'm pretty sure I'd still have $3500 left over after a pretty serious upgrade of my laptop.

[Strings]

>Okay this isn't good.  I agree with SS for once.  Not good at all.<

Take a long shower. Use pumice. It helps...

>I see no difference between birds and space debris.<

Birds are, generally speaking, softer and covered in feathers. Space debris, isn't. Hope that helps...

[Jamisjockey]

How can an airline be found at fault for random, far-fetched yet possible occurrences?

Isn't it the same, however, when you are driving a car with liability insurance? 
I guess if there is no "act of god" clause, though, its between the passengers and the airline directly. 
If I were on a jury, though, I'd certainly not find anything above actual expenses. 

[De Selby]

RevDisk, negligence is not the only reason for imposing liability.  Liability to pay and fault are two different things.  Fault is one way of apportioning liability; it is not the only way.

The fact is, in these situations, someone has to pay.  Blaming the birds and saying no lawsuit should lay except against them is forcing the passengers to eat the losses.  In this case, that doesn't make economic sense because the financial incentive from the losses would hit the party that can't do anything about it; imposing the cost on the airline gives an added financial incentive for the airline to find ways to mitigate the damages, which is something it is much better positioned to do than the passengers. 

That's a means of turning a loss into a productive force: it drives (over time, obviously) new ways of avoiding damages.  Handing the loss off to the passengers does nothing, because they have no ability to mitigate/prevent these sorts of situations.  They aren't pilots, don't operate aircraft, and have no direct control over the machinery. 

Jamis's analogy is quite sound: it's the norm (and has been for a long time) that passengers in the care of an innkeeper or carrier have special protections against losses, because they have to hand over control of their property and lives for a period of time.

It's fair, in addition to being economically sound, to do this because it's the airline that profits from flying the airplane.  When you're operating machinery that sometimes results in damage to others that wouldn't otherwise occur, and those others have absolutely no ability to protect themselves, it's only reasonable to impose the cost of the damages on the party that profits directly from the machinery. 

[makattak]

SS,

How can you apply "least cost avoider" to this situation?

It was an "act of God". It's the same as if it were struck by a meteorite (as previously mentioned).

Are you suggesting the airplane company should put ANOTHER engine on their plane just in case they get a bird sucked into two at the same time in order to "avoid" this situation?

Oh, but then I guess they'd have to put in a fourth, just in case they get birds sucked into three at the same time...

And then a fifth just in case they get 4 birds sucked into all four engines at the same time...

And then....

[MicroBalrog]

Am I the only one who notices that very often, when SS argues with people on this board, he and his opponents start talking past each other very fast, and taking this for obstinacy?

[makattak]

Am I the only one who notices that very often, when SS argues with people on this board, he and his opponents start talking past each other very fast, and taking this for obstinacy?

My response was to:

In this case, that doesn't make economic sense because the financial incentive from the losses would hit the party that can't do anything about it; imposing the cost on the airline gives an added financial incentive for the airline to find ways to mitigate the damages, which is something it is much better positioned to do than the passengers. 

The airline has no means of mitigating damages from an act of God.

He was applying the "least cost avoider" reasoning to a situation which could not be avoided. He then suggested that we should harm the airlines because it would give them "added incentive to find ways to mitigate the damages."

He claims the passengers couldn't avoid the losses (unable to "do anything about it", which is untrue- they did not have to fly).

He then claims the airline could have. My question is how he can make this determination by any means other than "the airline has deep pockets, so let's stick it to them." (His reasoning that they "profit" from the airplane. Funny, I thought the passengers did too, otherwise, why are they flying?)

[Firethorn]

Y'know, as much as I am bothered by the lack of mental health care access in this country, and as seriously as I take PTSD, my sympathy is really with the airline.

I have to agree.  Odds are any problems her 4 year old is having is caused more by her mother's/family's reaction to the incident than the incident itself.  If Momma just rolled with the incident, her kid wouldn't pick up that the incident was as scary/dangerous as it was.  Is PTSD treatment standard after a car accident?  This was less traumatizing than many car accidents.  It was over fairly quickly, nobody got hurt, the kid didn't see any bodies/serious injuries, etc...  A bumpy landing, a bit of cold, a ride in the boat with all sorts of people asking if she's alright and giving her blankets and things.  In my experience young kids tend to bounce back really well, especially if the incident is brief.  Now if Momma continues to pull her hair out over it, then the kids can pick up on THAT and get problems that way.

At some point I'd start looking towards the individual's medical insurance, homeowner's policy in regards to claims due to injuries/loss of property due to animal action.

And yeah, seriously, even just the 5k the woman got for herself will cover about 75 visits with a social worker or counselor, and 28 or so with psychiatrist.  Psychologist is somewhere in the middle.  That is generally way more than enough to help someone get the tools needed to cope with the aftermath of one brief trauma like this.

I'll note that it's care to prevent PTSD, not to treat actual PTSD.  Is that even a recognized treatment?  I haven't heard of the military starting to do this, even though they examine people coming back pretty carefully to see if they ahve PTSD.

Personally, I think that $5k for a non-signficant injury crash landing with goods lost is perfectly fair, along with picking up the post-disaster checkup/blankets/O2/EMT services, which can be suprisingly expensive.

Has "act of God" been defined by insurance companies or the courts?  Has it been tested in court by atheists?

I'm pretty atheistic, and I generally just define AoG as 'unpredictable unforseen occurance'.  Deer jumping in front of your vehicle, meteor, lightning strike, etc...  Some of those you can partially compensate for, indeed airlines and airports do a lot to try to prevent bird strikes. 

He was applying the "least cost avoider" reasoning to a situation which could not be avoided. He then suggested that we should harm the airlines because it would give them "added incentive to find ways to mitigate the damages."

Look at it a different way.  Who's in the position to make sure a plane doesn't get hit by birds?  The passangers or the owner of the plane?  I'd tend to say the owner of the plane.

Sure, the risk can't be avoided 100%, but it can be mitigated.  Many airports have dedicated teams today, even conduct extensive landscaping operations to keep birds away from the runways, especially when planes are using it. 

He claims the passengers couldn't avoid the losses (unable to "do anything about it", which is untrue- they did not have to fly).

Still, I don't want even people who were on the flight to get the idea that they're now on the gravy train.  Insurance should make them whole, not be like winning the lottery.

Especially when the airline isn't really at fault this time.

[BReilley]

Emergency room bills for three people can easily exceed 15,000 for routine care and exams. 

But yeah, in this case, the folks who suffered any monetary loss or need for medical care should be compensated in full.  You pay for a flight ticket expecting...a flight.  Not to be heroically landed in a river, and then told to be grateful that you made it out of that flight alive.

Weeding out phoney claims is not a special hardship.  I feel no special sympathy that AIG might have to do it just like the rest of us who drive or are responsible for premises.

If the guy in the seat next to me listens to rap or farts, or I can't sleep well on the plane, what do I get?  It's not the airline's fault, but they could do more to prevent it... maybe I've got a flatulence phobia?  I MUST BE MADE WHOLE FOR THE FART.

Seriously though, nobody has mentioned: the airline LOST A PLANE.  That *very expensive* aircraft is not ever going to fly again.  Now, tell me again how they can just "suck it up" and let people use a situation(a situation which, due to the company having good employees and good communication, ended up quite well considering the other possible outcomes) to extort from them.

[De Selby]

Mak,

It is not the "least cost avoider", it is the "only person able to take measures to avoid the cost" in the context that you need to focus on.

Airlines purchase airplanes, operate them, and maintain them.  This puts them in a position to update the machinery constantly.  They will develop technology that improves the basic machine more efficiently in response to costs.  Hence, if you impose a cost relating to some aspect of the plane's operation (ie, the cost of bird strikes), you give the airline a financial incentive to keep pushing for planes that will better avoid or survive bird strikes. 

Calling it "act of god" misses the point.  You can develop countermeasures to acts of God. For example, in firearms we get better engineering and steel to minimize the damage from unforeseen overcharges in ammunition.  Lightning strikes are just as much "act of god" as bird strikes, but there is still technology (including for airplanes) to help mitigate the damage of a strike. 

It's the reacting and developing ways to mitigate or avoid that passengers can't do.  Imposing the cost of a bird strike on the passenger yields zero in the way of incentive, because the passenger will only rarely bear that cost, and because the passenger is not in a position to have any direct impact on the features of the airplane.  The airline will have to deal with many such incidents, and as a result will have a greater financial incentive to minimize the damage, and will also have a direct route for doing so, like adding something to the airplane.

The fairness aspect of this has nothing to do with "deep pockets."  Airplanes will, in a given number of flights, impose damage on third parties who had nothing to do with the operation of the plane.  That is a mathematical certainty.  So why is it that we have to let people profit from this activity without requiring them to pay the damages that everyone knows will happen as a result?  This is one of the longstanding civil law tort concepts that does not use fault to apportion damages. 

It's a very simple idea:  If you want to engage in some activity that you know will result in damages to others through no fault of their own, that's fine...but you pay for it when the damages occur, even if it wasn't your fault, because you're the one who collects the financial reward from that activity. To do otherwise is to knowingly force society to pay for things over which it has no control (other than to prohibit you from flying, or to refuse to fly, both of which are the equivalent of strong-arming the public into paying for the damages directly caused by flight, without giving a direct share in the profits.)

I don't see anyone on this thread, including me, saying people should be compensated for farts.  But it's silly to argue that the damages you'd suffer from a fart and from a plane crash are the same thing.  It's not a stretch to imagine mental injury that could require treatment in this case.  And the loss of significant personal effects, which people almost always carry while flying, is another obvious hard loss here.

This is the problem with the urban legends about the lady who was scared by ronald mcdonald and sued for a million: it leads people to conflate the issue of when and who should pay, with the issue of what kinds of damages ought to result in payment.  It's important to keep those two separate, as you might quickly find that the same people who claimed they were stopping lawsuits over spilled mcdonald's coffee effectively barred you from suing mcdonald's at all.

[Remington788]

indeed airlines and airports do a lot to try to prevent bird strikes.

Actually airlines do very little since it is the responsibility of the airport per FAA guidelines to provide wildlife hazard management and while some airports do a very good job, others do the bare minimum.  In this case it is irrelevant due to the birds being migratory and at an altitude where there is little option for harassment.

[AZRedhawk44]

SS:

Calling it "act of god" misses the point.  You can develop countermeasures to acts of God. For example, in firearms we get better engineering and steel to minimize the damage from unforeseen overcharges in ammunition.  Lightning strikes are just as much "act of god" as bird strikes, but there is still technology (including for airplanes) to help mitigate the damage of a strike.

Countermeasures to acts of God?     Do you enjoy tempting fate?

How on Earth does a plane manufacturer avert damage from bird strikes?  Or an airline operator avoid bird strikes?

The only way I see to accomplish that is to totally exterminate birds within 50 miles of an airport.  They already have hawkers and other anti bird measures increasing predation in the immediate vicinity of the airport.

You can't screen the engines... a 1/2 pound bird entering at 400mph will rip the screen off the intake and throw it into the engine along with the bird body.  You can't block the air intake.  Need air to generate thrust in a jet engine.

Should planes just shift to rocket based propulsion so as to not have an air intake?  Or go back to turboprops?  Increase the granularity of the onboard radar so it can detect individual birds?  How does the airline have liability for not having technology that hasn't been invented yet?

You're advocating California-style control over society.  Baseless mandates without the infrastructure in place to support them.  It's no different than the decree the CA government has made that 50% of the state's power has to come from solar in the next 10 years (or whatever the ridiculous numbers were... I forget.).

[S. Williamson]

You can't screen the engines... a 1/2 pound bird entering at 400mph will rip the screen off the intake and throw it into the engine along with the bird body.  You can't block the air intake.  Need air to generate thrust in a jet engine.

Should planes just shift to rocket based propulsion so as to not have an air intake?

Let's try something else entirely: Magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters.    Only downside is that... This sucker's electrical. You need a nuclear reaction to generate the 1.21 gigawatts of electricity needed.   

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Okay this isn't good.  I agree with SS for once.  Not good at all.
 
The passengers were under the care of the airline.  The airline or its insurance should pay for the medical treatment of the passengers.  Nothing more, nothing less.
If I hire a taxi, and he hits a deer by no fault of his own, and I'm injured, wouldn't the auto insurance cover my injuries?

But what did the airline do wrong?  Seems to me they did everything the right way, despite the heroically difficult circumstances.  It's a crazy bass ackwards world where doing it right makes you liable.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

How on Earth does a plane manufacturer avert damage from bird strikes?  Or an airline operator avoid bird strikes?

Obviously Sully just wasn't good enough as a pilot.  He should have been able to steer around the birds without hitting any of them.  He used to be a fighter pilot, right?  He shoulda been able to do it. 

Sue the pants off the whole lot of them.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The fact is, in these situations, someone has to pay. 

Why is that a fact?

[roo_ster]

But what did the airline do wrong?  Seems to me they did everything the right way, despite the heroically difficult circumstances.  It's a crazy bass ackwards world where doing it right makes you liable.

We are no longer a country with the rule of law, but ruled by lawyers.

Why is that a fact?

Its a fact lawyers will make money if we accept it as a fact.

[Boomhauer]

Calling it "act of god" misses the point.  You can develop countermeasures to acts of God. For example, in firearms we get better engineering and steel to minimize the damage from unforeseen overcharges in ammunition.  Lightning strikes are just as much "act of god" as bird strikes, but there is still technology (including for airplanes) to help mitigate the damage of a strike.

What are these solutions that you speak of? Because birdstrikes are extremely costly to the aviation industry. I'd sure like to know, because I've had quite a few near misses with the feathered rats and expect to hit one or more in the future (which I'd rather avoid due to the mess and damage).

Or go back to turboprops?

Oh, and turboprops are not immune to bird strikes. From wikipedia:

The greatest loss of life directly linked to a bird strike was on October 4, 1960, when Eastern Air Lines Flight 375, a Lockheed L-188 Electra flying from Boston, flew through a flock of common starlings during take off, damaging all four engines. The plane crashed shortly after take-off into Boston harbor, with 62 fatalities out of 72 passengers. Subsequently, minimum bird ingestion standards for jet engines were developed by the FAA.

The L-188 is a four engine turboprop aircraft.

I don't know if a P&W PT-6 would be affected, though, as they draw air from the rear of the engine, IIRC.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

Or go back to turboprops?

Go Zeppelin.