The frustrating economics of aviation

in article , Dudley
Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 12:46 PM:


I hardly think that recognizing a problem exists without forcing the
general public into a scientifically provable analysis that they can't
hope to produce is being vague. I don't need the world to fall on me to
know that lawyers are a problem in the United States. I only need my two
eyes, two ears, and my natural intelligence as that applies to deductive
reasoning. :-)

That's all very well, Dudley, and like you, I am well aware that we live in
a highly litigious society where people are all too often rewarded for
spurious claims and lawsuits. Trust me, it drives me nuts. But this
realization brings us no closer to solving the problem.

It's a flawed premise I think to demand that a problem doesn't exist
just because individuals without access can't produce these "facts".

I have never stated that a problem doesn't exist.

It's also flawed to demand that people know how to fix the problem they
know exists.

I have made no such demand. I have simply asked for definitions of the
problem.

But recognizing that a problem exists is the first step in fixing it.

Correct. And the second step, as I've repeatedly stated, is to arrive at a
useful and working definition of that problem. Otherwise, how will anything
ever get done?

Okay, I'll get us started:

1. "Frivolous" shall be defined as any claim that causes a majority of those
hearing about it for the first time to slap the palms of their hands against
their foreheads and exclaim, "You've got to be kidding!".

in article , Rip at
wrote on 7/17/04 1:26 PM:

I believe that in Canada if you file suit and lose, you pay the costs. I
like it!

Unless it happened to be you, of course.

Hi Phil;

I'm not giving you a hard time on this Phil. I just sound that way
because I'm old and hate lawyers!! :-))

I understand what you're saying about solving the problem and indeed, it
does need addressing just as you say. I'm afraid I'm totally unqualified
to speak to that issue, and I seriously doubt if it will be addressed by
anyone in the government with the power to correct it since most of them
are part of the problem. The rest of the problem is the general, who
NEVER seem to be able to get organized enough to attack things like
this.
It all comes around in one big gigantic circle of corruption ? What's
indicative to me anyway is that the issue itself could become the fatal
flaw in a capitalistic system; the flaw that brings down the economy of
the country around our own ears.
So in the end I'm with you. I know what the problem is, and I have
absolutely no idea on how to fix it. Could be we're looking at the
ultimate doomsday machine for big business in the United States....the
American Trial Lawyer.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt


"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , Dudley
Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 12:46 PM:


I hardly think that recognizing a problem exists without forcing the
general public into a scientifically provable analysis that they
can't
hope to produce is being vague. I don't need the world to fall on me
to
know that lawyers are a problem in the United States. I only need my
two
eyes, two ears, and my natural intelligence as that applies to
deductive
reasoning. :-)

That's all very well, Dudley, and like you, I am well aware that we
live in
a highly litigious society where people are all too often rewarded for
spurious claims and lawsuits. Trust me, it drives me nuts. But this
realization brings us no closer to solving the problem.

It's a flawed premise I think to demand that a problem doesn't exist
just because individuals without access can't produce these "facts".

I have never stated that a problem doesn't exist.

It's also flawed to demand that people know how to fix the problem
they
know exists.

I have made no such demand. I have simply asked for definitions of the
problem.

But recognizing that a problem exists is the first step in fixing
it.

Correct. And the second step, as I've repeatedly stated, is to arrive
at a
useful and working definition of that problem. Otherwise, how will
anything
ever get done?

Okay, I'll get us started:

1. "Frivolous" shall be defined as any claim that causes a majority of
those
hearing about it for the first time to slap the palms of their hands
against
their foreheads and exclaim, "You've got to be kidding!".

I like that idea. How about that there be a "frivolity hearing" prior
to any suit being filed. The hearing board will consist of 12 respected
and responsible individuals (NOT POLITICIANS!) from the surrounding
area/community/jurisdiction. This board will chosen randomly from
people who actually have jobs or are retired (no one on welfare or who
is an attorney or works for an attorney is eligable).

Every licensed business (except attorneys) must nominate at least one
person to serve on this board per month. The resultant 12 will be chosen
from this pool randomly. The board will convene once every 90 days to
consider any pending lawsuits. Only those judged to be NON-frivolous
will be allowed to be filed with the court. Thos that are rejected as
frivolous may be filed if the conplaintant posts a bond of $5000 or
an amount equal to the estimated cost of the trial, whichever is greater.


Philip Sondericker wrote:

Okay, I'll get us started:

1. "Frivolous" shall be defined as any claim that causes a majority of those
hearing about it for the first time to slap the palms of their hands against
their foreheads and exclaim, "You've got to be kidding!".

in article , kontiki at
wrote on 7/17/04 2:19 PM:

I like that idea. How about that there be a "frivolity hearing" prior
to any suit being filed. The hearing board will consist of 12 respected
and responsible individuals (NOT POLITICIANS!) from the surrounding
area/community/jurisdiction. This board will chosen randomly from
people who actually have jobs or are retired (no one on welfare or who
is an attorney or works for an attorney is eligable).

Every licensed business (except attorneys) must nominate at least one
person to serve on this board per month. The resultant 12 will be chosen
from this pool randomly. The board will convene once every 90 days to
consider any pending lawsuits. Only those judged to be NON-frivolous
will be allowed to be filed with the court. Thos that are rejected as
frivolous may be filed if the conplaintant posts a bond of $5000 or
an amount equal to the estimated cost of the trial, whichever is greater.

I will give you credit for one thing--yours is the first really specific
solution that has been posted.

"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , kontiki at
wrote on 7/17/04 2:19 PM:

I like that idea. How about that there be a "frivolity hearing"
prior
to any suit being filed. The hearing board will consist of 12
respected
and responsible individuals (NOT POLITICIANS!) from the surrounding
area/community/jurisdiction. This board will chosen randomly from
people who actually have jobs or are retired (no one on welfare or
who
is an attorney or works for an attorney is eligable).

Every licensed business (except attorneys) must nominate at least
one
person to serve on this board per month. The resultant 12 will be
chosen
from this pool randomly. The board will convene once every 90 days
to
consider any pending lawsuits. Only those judged to be NON-frivolous
will be allowed to be filed with the court. Thos that are rejected
as
frivolous may be filed if the conplaintant posts a bond of $5000 or
an amount equal to the estimated cost of the trial, whichever is
greater.

I will give you credit for one thing--yours is the first really
specific
solution that has been posted.

But will it work?:-) By LITERAL definition, a specific solution for a
specific problem would appear to indicate that a solution to the problem
has been found.
Driving your car off a cliff is one way to stop it from rolling forward,
but is that the specific solution you REALLY want for this problem? :-)
I'd say his plan was more of a specific "suggestion" rather than a
"solution". :-))))

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt




DH

in article , Dudley
Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 2:56 PM:


"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , kontiki at
wrote on 7/17/04 2:19 PM:

I like that idea. How about that there be a "frivolity hearing"
prior
to any suit being filed. The hearing board will consist of 12
respected
and responsible individuals (NOT POLITICIANS!) from the surrounding
area/community/jurisdiction. This board will chosen randomly from
people who actually have jobs or are retired (no one on welfare or
who
is an attorney or works for an attorney is eligable).

Every licensed business (except attorneys) must nominate at least
one
person to serve on this board per month. The resultant 12 will be
chosen
from this pool randomly. The board will convene once every 90 days
to
consider any pending lawsuits. Only those judged to be NON-frivolous
will be allowed to be filed with the court. Thos that are rejected
as
frivolous may be filed if the conplaintant posts a bond of $5000 or
an amount equal to the estimated cost of the trial, whichever is
greater.

I will give you credit for one thing--yours is the first really
specific
solution that has been posted.

But will it work?:-) By LITERAL definition, a specific solution for a
specific problem would appear to indicate that a solution to the problem
has been found.
Driving your car off a cliff is one way to stop it from rolling forward,
but is that the specific solution you REALLY want for this problem? :-)
I'd say his plan was more of a specific "suggestion" rather than a
"solution". :-))))

I was going to substitute the word "proposal", but "suggestion" works just
as well.

"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , Dudley
Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 2:56 PM:


"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , kontiki at
wrote on 7/17/04 2:19 PM:

I like that idea. How about that there be a "frivolity hearing"
prior
to any suit being filed. The hearing board will consist of 12
respected
and responsible individuals (NOT POLITICIANS!) from the
surrounding
area/community/jurisdiction. This board will chosen randomly from
people who actually have jobs or are retired (no one on welfare or
who
is an attorney or works for an attorney is eligable).

Every licensed business (except attorneys) must nominate at least
one
person to serve on this board per month. The resultant 12 will be
chosen
from this pool randomly. The board will convene once every 90 days
to
consider any pending lawsuits. Only those judged to be
NON-frivolous
will be allowed to be filed with the court. Thos that are rejected
as
frivolous may be filed if the conplaintant posts a bond of $5000
or
an amount equal to the estimated cost of the trial, whichever is
greater.

I will give you credit for one thing--yours is the first really
specific
solution that has been posted.

But will it work?:-) By LITERAL definition, a specific solution for
a
specific problem would appear to indicate that a solution to the
problem
has been found.
Driving your car off a cliff is one way to stop it from rolling
forward,
but is that the specific solution you REALLY want for this problem?
:-)
I'd say his plan was more of a specific "suggestion" rather than a
"solution". :-))))

I was going to substitute the word "proposal", but "suggestion" works
just
as well.

Actually, I think Shakespeare came up with the first and best "specific
solution" in Henry VI part 2 :-))))

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

I agree, much of the civilized world uses a 'loser pays' system.

Certainly it isn't fair for a victorious plantif to have to pay 1/2 of
his compensation to a lawyer.

And certainly it isn't fair for a victorious defendant to still have
lost tens of thousands of dollars in lawyer's fees.

In our current system people sue every party they can think of that
might have money - and why not? They already are paying for the
lawyer, why not just add to the lawsuit the artifical horizon
manufacturer, and the vacuum pump maker, and pilot's estate, and the
FBO, and the aircraft manufacturer, etc? It doesn't cost them (much)
more, and maybe the other parties will settle just to not have to pay
those thousands of dollars in lawyer fees to defend themselves, even
if they are not even remotely connected to the problem.

As many have said the only winners with the current system are the
trial lawyers.

I've won a law suit or two - I bet you have too. Let's see, I won my
class action lawsuit against Ford Motor Company for having a Bronco II
that was "too unstable". I got... the oportunity to request a VHS
tape on how to drive a vehicle with a high CG. The lawyers got how
many millions?? I won my lawsuit against the RIAA for price fixing,
too... I got, oh, zero, lawyers got $$$$. I think I won a suit againt
Microsoft recently.. me, $0, lawyers, ...well you get it.

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned that the Democrat's VP
candidate is ... a trial lawyer. Or that historically the #1
contributer to the DNC is... the Trial Lawyers Association.

-Bruce

Rip wrote in message ...
I believe that in Canada if you file suit and lose, you pay the costs. I
like it!

Dudley Henriques wrote:
"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...

in article , Dudley
Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 11:35 AM:


"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
.. .

The problem with any discussion of tort reform or "frivolous"

lawsuits

is

that nobody is ever willing to get into specifics. No one's willing

to

define what "frivolous" actually means (aside, of course, from the

fact that

it's never THEIR lawsuit) , or what percentage of lawsuits they

consider to

be so.

Well, how about it? Anyone willing to submit some actual hard data?

Let's

get specific for once--what percentage of lawsuits are "frivolous"?

And what

are your precise criteria for determining their frivolity?

Remember,

no

anecdotes allowed--I don't wanna hear about the McDonald's coffee

lady.

Let's see some numbers.

Forcing people to produce specifics that they have no access to

isn't

the way to deal with this issue. The fact is that a definition of
"frivolous" can't actually be determined since it's subject to
individual interpretation. Who's to say what is frivolous and what's
not? That's the beauty of the lawyer's position; a position BTW that

you

have presented so deftly here I might add :-)

Thank you. So, how can we expect to ever enact any kind of meaningful

tort

reform if we can't even come up with a definition of what needs to be
reformed? And if forcing people to be more specific is not the answer,

then

what is? Being vague?


I hardly think that recognizing a problem exists without forcing the
general public into a scientifically provable analysis that they can't
hope to produce is being vague. I don't need the world to fall on me to
know that lawyers are a problem in the United States. I only need my two
eyes, two ears, and my natural intelligence as that applies to deductive
reasoning. :-)
It's a flawed premise I think to demand that a problem doesn't exist
just because individuals without access can't produce these "facts".
It's also flawed to demand that people know how to fix the problem they
know exists.
But recognizing that a problem exists is the first step in fixing it.
Hell, I have no idea how to determine the extent of frivolous lawsuits
and their damage to the country's business environment, but I know it
has, and does cause damage...tremendous damage. I only have to talk to
the many friends I have in business to determine this.
This isn't vague. It's rock solid evidence.
Example; we have a close friend, a neuro surgeon. He's actually leaving
our state and moving to another because he literally can't afford his
malpractice insurance. He's an excellent doctor. On the other hand, we
have in our state a malpractice attorney who owns not one, but multiple
airplanes, and employs an army of people simply to maintain them for his
flying "pleasure". He lives in one of the most expensive areas in our
state. He's worth millions...and he is just ONE lawyer engaged in
malpractice law. Now you tell me, do you REALLY think there's enough
legitimate malpractice in my area to support this lawyer's
lifestyle....and the bevy of other lawyers who are engaged in this
"practice"? I don't know about you, but I don't need a house to fall on
me to understand that medical malpractice lawsuits are a HUGE
contributor to my medical costs as passed on to me by my insurer, and I
don't believe for one instant that there is enough actual malpractice
going on to justify these lawyers getting so rich on it.
It all boils down to the basics as I see it. The smart lawyers create
the system so they can use the system to get rich. The system relies on
stupid people sharing in the lawyers greed. The lawyers then use the
stupid people to fill their pockets. The remaining demographic for the
people is then split up into sections; the people whom the lawyers have
used, and the people the lawyers haven't used. The problem is that the
people who have been used by the lawyers have gained to their added
wealth at the expense of the people who don't get used by the lawyers.
The lawyers could care less!!! There are always enough of the greedy
people to be used for the lawyers purposes.
It's a perfect system for the lawyers........until the day they bleed
the system dry.....just as they have bled it dry for our doctor friend
who is moving on.
I have no doubt that General Aviation will follow our doctor friend
someday, unless something is done to take the lawyers out of the GA cost
equation....and I'm not betting too highly on that one.......are YOU??
:-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

in article t, Dudley
Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 7:41 PM:


Actually, I think Shakespeare came up with the first and best "specific
solution" in Henry VI part 2 :-))))

You must have had some very bad experiences involving lawyers. I can respect
that. I myself have had very little experience of them either way, and none
of it particularly negative. I've also known one or two lawyers that I would
be quite reluctant to kill.