It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Billmeister
Source Article
Not exactly sure what to make of this.
On one hand, I find it somewhat despicable to sue the airline because its plane flew into the tower.
On the other hand, perhaps better screening could have avoided this accident.
How do you all see this?
the Billmeister
Originally posted by Anttyk47
Originally posted by Billmeister
Source Article
Not exactly sure what to make of this.
On one hand, I find it somewhat despicable to sue the airline because its plane flew into the tower.
On the other hand, perhaps better screening could have avoided this accident.
How do you all see this?
the Billmeister
You brought up better screening.
I want to just say this. Those that bring a swiss army knife on an airplane aren't all terrorists.
Why can't we just issue air marshals or flight attendants to have some sort of equipment like tazers?
i mean you cannot protect millions in equipment and 300+ lifes on an airplane, and you need to screen everyone that gets on.. Then i'd presume that you should screen everyone before they get on public busses. (I know of one that has 50 people at least on the daily)
Gonna read the article.
Originally posted by Billmeister
Source Article
Not exactly sure what to make of this.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by Billmeister
Source Article
Not exactly sure what to make of this.
No matter how you look at it, CF is just being pretty sleazy. Suing AA for the actions of the terrorists hijacking their planes is a kissing cousin to suing the gun manufacturers for criminals stealing and misusing their guns, which I oppose on intellectual, moral, legal, and every other ground you can think of.
Originally posted by stirling
well the company was all but destroyed by the airplane, thats a big for sure.
They could maybe sue other agencies for not doing their jobs too i take it?
Sue the air force for not adhering to well rehearsed protocols and sending jet fighters up earlier....Or sue the airtraffic controllers for not reporting the flights in a timely manner per SOP?
Sue the army for not listening to its own security and intelligence group Abel Danger....?
Sue the ISI for paying off Mohamed atta?(or that other moslem,whats his name...)
Sue the isreali phone service for not warning them too?
The firm must have collected some compensation for its losses already mustnt it?
does anybody have any idea how that worked for businesses etc?
Perhaps they could take a step lower and sue the victims families because the victims failed to try to stop the highjackers....
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by GoodOlDave
Up until 9/11 the FAA had regulations regarding what passengers were and were not allowed to take on airplanes. However, enforcement was handled on a private level.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by GoodOlDave
We are generally on the same page, however, I may have to differ on this one.
There are some factors here that have to be considered in the overall picture. AA, like Cantor Fitzgerald, are for-profit companies. AA, of course, cannot control the criminal acts of individuals that seek their services, however, we can't pretend that until 9/11 no one had ever hijacked a plane before. AA, like all other airlines, paid gate fees for the privilege of operating from certain airports. That made them culpable in the security presented there. Up until 9/11 the FAA had regulations regarding what passengers were and were not allowed to take on airplanes. However, enforcement was handled on a private level. Airlines and airports were free to impose more stringent restrictions if they so chose to. However, as we all know, airlines made money by moving passengers as quickly and as often as possible. Most airlines engage a level of security that was, at best, the minimal required by law. I think there may have been considerations from time to time to enhance security but the airlines, a for profit business, were hindered, of course, by the nature of competition. If a customer knows that it takes 15 minutes to get on a American plane and 1 hour to get on United, then United is going to lose.
Anyway, in the end, if CF can prove that economics was a factor in security then I think they have a case.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Billmeister
I am trying to avoid the concept of "prosecution" because that means they are criminally culpable and I do not believe that is the case. Howver, from a civil standpoint, I think they may have some exposure, but not much. As to CF's argument about unrealized profits, that argument does have plenty of precedent in law.
Lets, for a minute, forget about this as an act of terrorism. What if the plane had crashed for mechanical reasons but AA could show that they performed the minimum inspection and maintenance as required by law, does that let them completely off the hook from a civil standpoint? Is there a reasonable expectation that any given entitey, operating for a profit, would be first required to comply with law and regulation but also be expected to perform in manner that would minimize risk the general public whether that performance is required by law or not?
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I don't know, but I was told that Osama Bin Laden's assets were frozen by the gov't of Saudi Arabia. He inherited huge amounts of money from his construction magnate father so the money has to be sitting somewhere. One would think CF would sue the Saudi Gov't for access to those funds rather than AA.