"Del Rawlins" wrote in message
...
On 14 Aug 2004 07:22:48 -0700, (GaryP) wrote:
Did you ever consider the insurance the airport operator carries and the
restrictions their policy might have?
Good question, but a better one is who is the airport operator. If
they are a private company and have not accepted public money to
operate their airport, fine. They can exclude anybody they wish.
Otherwise, their insurance concerns are nobody's problem but their
own.
Uh, hello, AVL is a public FAA airport. It is Class C airspace. And
what might THIS from the minutes of AVL airport authority mean to you?---
Accepted AIP-25 FAA Grant in the amount of $5,881,370.00.
Heard the marketing and public relations report.
Heard the airport director's report who gave a briefing of the day by day
occurences (sic) at the airport since the terrorist attack of September 11,
2001.
Approved minutes of the August 20, 2001 monthly meeting and closed session.
If an incident occurs at that airport
or to a plane which departed from that airport you can bet, in todays
litigious society, that a suit will be filed naming the airport
operators.
So what? Anybody can be named in any lawsuit at any time for no
reason at all. The legal system is broken, and we all know that.
You might THINK you know that, but this monopoly issue should have been
litigated long ago, once and for all, while all you shills of corrupt big
business and toadies of the far right show your ignorance.
Why
anybody should be responsible to protect anybody but themselves from
that broken system is beyond me.
Here, ol' Dello seems to advocate the law of the jungle.
The flight school there, especially in this post 911 world, has an
enormous
premium to pay. As a free lance CFI what insurance coverage do you have
to protect the airport operator at AVL from the outcome of your teaching
actions? Most likely none! So you want to make money at the expense of
others and you call THEM unamerican?
Because, if it is a public airport then he is not making money at
anybody's expense but his own and the public entity that funds the
airport, no different from the established operator. The established
operator is not involved and the free lance CFI has no obligation to
them whatsoever.
The same goes for A&P's, maintenance shops and fuel concessions. The
law-suit
happy world we find ourselves in has made insurance damn near impossible
to
afford or even get.
Free lance A&Ps operating on an airport expose the airport operator to
litigation and don't contribute a penny to their insurance. When the
feces hits the fan the free-lancers run for the hills and the fixed
base businesses are stuck holding the bag.
Guess again, asshole. If an aircraft owner based on the local public
field chooses to hire me as an A&P to work on their airplane, and the
"established operators" start sniffing around and telling me to go
away, I can assure you that running for the hills is the last thing
which will occur. The situation would get very ugly, very quickly.
Go, big Dello. Tell 'em, big boy.
ALV's requirement that
a business maintain a reasonable presence on their grounds is not
uncommon nor is the incidence of free lancers who protest about it.
It is cronyism, plain and simple. It is nothing more than an
anti-competitive conspiracy by those who feel that the world owes them
a living by virtue of their having been there first.
There is no difference to this than an person driving an uninsured car,
getting involved in an accident and then expecting to simply walk away
from
their obligation or have the uninsured motorist fund cover their damages.
There is a huge difference. Under your rules, the driver would also
have to provide liability coverage to other, uninvolved motorists who
happened to be driving on the same road where the wreck occurred.
================================================== ==
Del Rawlins--
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply