Someone today mentioned to me that one of the primary reasons the word "war" is being used so frequently and freely even though Bush even said today that this isn't like war we're used to is because if the government declares what happened an act of war, airlines are not liable to claims made by victim's families. It apparently requires that type of language to indemnify them from claims. I'm not saying it is an inappropriate use of the word, but has anyone else heard this suggested?
Several insurance companies were claiming that the attack was an "act of war", so they were not going to pay claims. They have since reversed that decision, and now are paying up. I don't think the airlines have a chance in hell of getting away with not paying the victim's families some form of compensation. A jury could easily see that every airline knew of this possible threat and the airlines were partially responsible for gate security. I think some negligence will be easy to prove, but our government will probably end up paying the claims anyway in the form of a bailout.
I think what my friend meant was that victim's families could not pursue class action suits if it is "war." Of course they will be compensated but there is a difference between compensation and full on lawsuits.
they may not be liable because of the use of the word "war" but the airlines won't be around long enough to pay anyway cause they won't be able to survive as a business. look at all the layoffs and watch how many are going to fold... airline CEO's making millions in salary and they pay the people to protect us minimum wage... i think dubya was too quick to use that word... i also heard somewhere that airline lobbyists were immediately in contact with senators and represantives the minute it occurred to see how they were going to get out of being held liable... i'm ill.... rH
If you are talking about a class-action lawsuit against the airlines from all the victims of the New York bombing, I don't see that happening. Air travel is too important to our economy, and that kind of suit would bankrupt United and American Airlines. I don't see the "powers that be" letting that happen. btw, I do think that the airlines are negligent. Their level of security, considering all the well documented threats in this world, was a sad commentary on corporate responsibility to consumers.
The word "war" is used to describe a state of imminent siege by a foreign power (note: it does not have to be a foreign nation just a foreign power.) This allows for the executive to claim special temporary powers (read that as anonimity in action)including full control of the armed forces, treasury, intelligence agencies, etc ..... By using the word "war" it broadens the powers of the executive branch even more. This is not only constitutional in foundation but very necessary to curtail a required concensus-house approval for war measures ..... which is not only nearly impossible but very impractical under most circumstances. When given the first available opportunity, the Congress then sits(which it did) and affirms the executive branches actions(which it did). They then can vote to extend, modify or place a time limit on these measures, or make no recommendations(which it did). I am not a scolar of American History, but I seriously doubt the use of the word "war" was used to curtail any anticipated lawsuits against the airlines.
That may be true oeilpere, but since this is a different time and age, I think that the word "war" has a different meaning then it does now. With so many different countries, political views, technology, and financial stakes going to war isn't what it used to be 200 or 300 years ago. It isn't even what it used to be 30 or 40 years ago. Nowadays financial stakes, such as airlines, have as much to do with the government as anything.
When you say compensation to the victim's families, are you talking about the victims who were passengers in the planes, or victims in the WTC? No way, IMO, the airlines can escape liability from the former, especially since they owe it to their passengers to keep them reasonably safe, and there was a definite breach of security procedures by the airlines. Risk was forseeable even if the precise way the passengers died was not. If you are talking about the victims working in the WTC then the causation and forseeability issues become much more attenuated. With regards to the insurance companies though, I would be surprised if their standard boilerplate exclusions clauses don't include acts of terrorism as well as acts of war, acts of god, etc.
So how does any of this affect the government's plan to help the airlines? I understand that the airlines were negligent. I agree that they were. I'd also like to know how they could be expected to provide monetary compensation when so many are near bankruptcy. I assumed the government's plan had something to do with this. I read that American and/or United (I can't remember which; maybe both) were going to pay $25,000 per passenger to the respective families
Yes, security is lax and security breaches occur too easily, but as far as I know this is not the case in the above situation so I would NOT call the airlines involved negligent. As far as I have heard, the airlines did not breach federal law nor even their own security measures in place in the above instances. The WTCs were taken down with box cutters (could have been doing just as easily with non-metallic knives) and the Airlines crew responded exactly as instructed and trained. Before the premise was to work with hijackers to <i> save the passegers lives </i>, there was no reason to suspect this wasn't the right thing to do, this was the 1st time to my knowledge commercial jets themselves have been the weapons. That said, I am glad insurance companies are not trying to use that exclusion clause. Also, I think it is reasonable for UA and AA to pay reporations to the victims, but in the vein of Rockhead's comments recognize how much they pay very much depends on how much our government bails them out (out of our pocketbooks, sooner or later). I also agree with Pops, I think the war langauge has more to do with the executive branch wanting more wiggle room for clandistine operations than big business interests.
<B>No way, IMO, the airlines can escape liability from the former, especially since they owe it to their passengers to keep them reasonably safe, and there was a definite breach of security procedures by the airlines. Risk was forseeable even if the precise way the passengers died was not. </B> Was there a breach of security procedures though? I thought they determined that the types of knifes / box-cutters brought on board were legal met FAA guidelines for carry-on items. If we determine that the guidelines were negligent, it seems like the FAA would be more responsible for that than the airlines.
As far as a bail-out, I'm under the impression that the airline struggles are due to the fact that so many people have stopped buying tickets. The government should offer to buy the unsold tickets that would have been bought under "ordinary" circumstances. Combined with that, these airlines should be expected to fly all the routes they would have otherwise (they are getting the passenger revenue) and thus not layoff all these tens of thousands of people. It protects the airlines, guarantees they can't abuse the bailout, boosts the economy, and keeps the pressure on the airlines to make long-term improvements because it doesn't cut their expenses and such.
