The frustrating economics of aviation

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?


It's not only a matter of frivolous, it's also a matter of a complete
lack of logic an common sense. Just look at the recent suit where the
vacuum pump manufacturer got burned at the stake even though the
vacuum pump performed as advertised. How that can happen is beyond
what my feeble mind can process.

Rich Russell

Andrew Gideon wrote:

Jack wrote:

C J Campbell wrote:

Part of the problem is there is no more "out in the country."

There's lots of it you may not be able to see from your condo.


Laugh Do you realize you've written this statement to a pilot? Or do you
expect he does his flying in a condo?

Do you imagine that a "pilot" could seriously claim that there is no
more "out in the country" (in the USA)? He may well do his flying in a
"condo" for all the sense his claim makes.

And how do you suppose I come by my views? Certainly not from sitting in
my living room for the past 4 decades.


Jack

Hi Dudley and SR,

It's a sad state of affairs really, and I have no idea what the
solution is or even if there ever will be a solution. The quest for
the fast buck is just too tempting for both the lawyers AND the
public. The two together are a formula for disaster.

The fact that people (the public AND the lawyers) will jump at any
money the think they might be able to grasp might be sad but it is a
fact of society. Few people turn their back at a gold nugget lying
before their feet.

The real problem is the legal system itself, which WILL on occasion
grant hundreds of thousands of Dollars to someone stupid enough to
place a cup of hot coffee between their legs. If cases like that were
regularly and relyably dismissed (and, yes, maybe a cost to be paid for
filing it), lawyers would stop filing them, or at least defendands
would not need to worry about them. Obviously a company, as was
recently cited, considers it a real possibility, that a jury might
judge it to pay a huge amount of money for building a vacuum pump that
did NOT fail, just because the plane carrying it crashed! So real a
possibility, that the company preferred to accept a settlement (and
leave aviation business alone in the future). How insane is that?

THAT needs to be changed. As SR pointed out, one trick to change that
would be to elimiate jurys and leave it to professionals. Jurys tend to
favor with the "little man" against the big, bad corporation, no matter
how ridiculous the claim.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove "entfernen" from my adress

One problem I have with "tort reform" is that if it's reformed to the extent
people seem to wish it, there would be even less defense against large
corporations cutting corners they oughtn't cut. Remebmer, it's in their best
interests to take risks with our lives to increase their cash flow.

As long as there is disparity of access (to law services), the large
corporations have the advantage. "Tort reform" will likely end up cementing
that advantage in place.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Jack wrote:

Bob Noel wrote:

"more appropriate use"? How revealing of your feeling.

Congratulations on your ability to extract meaning from a clear statement.

Which clearly suggested that an airport should be a less appropriate use than
something else. How many more strip malls, shopping centers, and landfills do
we need? Something like 50 airports disappear forever every year, is that
not enough? Tampa is about to lose a jewel of an airport this fall.


Abandoned airports like Pittsburgh Metro and Fall River (MA) became blight
after they closed, although at least Pittsburgh Metro was privately owned. I
still don't think the feds ever really made Fall River pay back their grant
money as the law required. And the promised casinos never came either, just a
few rusting structures were built on the property.

In article , Jack wrote:
Airports where NOT build out in the
country in years gone by.... The 'city' grew out to
meet them.

Oh, I see -- that's different then.

Actually it is. There's a difference between saying "We need to build
an airport lets do it away from the city." And "our town has been
expanding, in fact we've grown so large we're right to the each of the
river and the edge of the airport."
The end result might be the same, but the methodolgy is different.

Michael wrote:

James Robinson wrote
Not really. The aircraft manufacturers seem to get sued almost
automatically, no matter what the cause of the accident was

Not really. In fact, the lawsuits are not all that common.

They don't need to be that common when they are for millions and millions of
dollars. Who can forget the lawsuit that Piper lost because somebody took off
in their Cub with the seat removed on a runway with a truck intentionally it?
Piper was found at fault because the pilot couldn't see directly in front of
him before the tail wheel came up. (never mind that it was a tailwheel
airplane or that it had been certified by the govt that way or that the seat
had been removed.)
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...92/pc9212.html (Piper would later
lose the appeal too).


Or who can forget the poor fellow who flew his Cessna 182 VFR into a massive
thunderstorm in Virginia and was killed? Cessna was found responsible and had
to pay millions and millions because of a "defective tail design." Nevermind
that test pilots flew numerous 182s to Vne and couldn't find anything wrong
with the tail, that it had been certified by the feds, or that pilot had
illegally been scud running into IMC without an instrument rating.

The last
one I remember was the governor who crashed. When Kennedy crashed,
nobody sued.

The knives were sharpened amongst the individual parties but there was a big
settlement. Yes, I"m pretty amazed that Piper and every parts manufacturer
wasn't sued, but they probably figured they already have enough money and it
wasn't worth the time in court. Good for them.

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message nk.net...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
If one tries to establish a reason for the high cost of general aviation
in the United States, at any level you view, one has to factor in the
presence of the American trial lawyer into the cost equation.
Without lawyers influencing the cost factors, the price of the
airplanes, all peripherals, and even the cost of the training would be
much more reasonable... Blah, blah, blah.


As mr Sondrecker requested- let's have some facts. Opinionated
diatribe by Henrique and others without facts is prety much the order
of the day for them and their ilk. PLEASE-give me some specifics!!!
There aren't any. The American judicial system based upon the
centuries-old concept of a jury of one's peers is second to none.

FACT: The American Insurance Association published a report " Premium
Deceit: The Failure of 'Tort Reform' to Cut Insurance Prices"
(March,2002), which found, following a 14 year study, that there was
no relation between tort restrictions and insurance rates.
This study was consistent with the National Association of
Attorneys General:
"The facts do not bear out the allegations of an explosion in
litigation or in claim size, nor do they bear out the
allegations of a financial disaster suffered by property/casualty
insurers today. They finally do not support any correlation between
the current crisis in availability and affordability of insurance and
such litigation explosion. The available data indicate that the
causes of, and therefore solutions to, the current crisis lie with the
insurance industry itself."

Ernst & Young and the Risk and Insurance Management Society's report
of business liability costs recently found such costs to be miniscule
and the lowest in over a decade. The study found liability costs to
be in steep decline to only $4.83 for every $1000 in revenue in 2000.
2001 RIMS Benchmark Survey, (2002).

The United States is the most competitive nation in the world and
companies with high liability exposure are having great success
innovating and competing in world markets. Institute form Management
Delopment, 1998 Report. In a study of US manufacturing
competitiveness, teh Congressional Office of Technology Assessment
found that the greatest influences on US competitiveness were capital
costs, quality of human resources, technology transfer and technology
difficulties. Liability laws were not even mentioned as a factor.
The business-backed Conference Board stated affirmatively in its 1987
report that product liability laws do not have significant adverse
effects on competitiveness. In more than 2/3s of the surveyed
companies, liability costs were less than 1 per cent of total costs.

Most notably, the Board found "Where product liability has had a
notable impact--where it has most significantly affected management
decision making-- has been in the quality of the products themselves.
Managers say thet products have become safer, manufacturing procedures
have been improved, and labels and use instructions have become more
explicit." Weber, Nathan "Product Liability: The Corporate Response,
Research Report #893.

I could go on and on and on, with facts, not hysterical hyperbole and
repetition of tired, unsubstantiated propaganda by gullible sheep.
GET SOME FACTS AND THINK FOR YOURSELF, FOR A CHANGE!!!

Want to criticize John Edwards for being an "ambulance chaser,' taking
frivolous cases? Give me the name of the case and/or the facts of the
case, and let's see!

Frivolous lawsuits- there is a procedure to deal with them. See Rule
11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the stste rules patterned
after it in most states.

Loser pays?? Yes; I'll bet the coffee lady would have loved that
rule!

Oh, by the way...I'm a trial lawyer, and proud of it.

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message nk.net...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
If one tries to establish a reason for the high cost of general aviation
in the United States, at any level you view, one has to factor in the
presence of the American trial lawyer into the cost equation.
Without lawyers influencing the cost factors, the price of the
airplanes, all peripherals, and even the cost of the training would be
much more reasonable... Blah, blah, blah.


As mr Sondrecker requested- let's have some facts. Opinionated
diatribe by Henrique and others without facts is prety much the order
of the day for them and their ilk. PLEASE-give me some specifics!!!
There aren't any. The American judicial system based upon the
centuries-old concept of a jury of one's peers is second to none.

FACT: The American Insurance Association published a report " Premium
Deceit: The Failure of 'Tort Reform' to Cut Insurance Prices"
(March,2002), which found, following a 14 year study, that there was
no relation between tort restrictions and insurance rates.
This study was consistent with the National Association of
Attorneys General:
"The facts do not bear out the allegations of an explosion in
litigation or in claim size, nor do they bear out the
allegations of a financial disaster suffered by property/casualty
insurers today. They finally do not support any correlation between
the current crisis in availability and affordability of insurance and
such litigation explosion. The available data indicate that the
causes of, and therefore solutions to, the current crisis lie with the
insurance industry itself."

Ernst & Young and the Risk and Insurance Management Society's report
of business liability costs recently found such costs to be miniscule
and the lowest in over a decade. The study found liability costs to
be in steep decline to only $4.83 for every $1000 in revenue in 2000.
2001 RIMS Benchmark Survey, (2002).

The United States is the most competitive nation in the world and
companies with high liability exposure are having great success
innovating and competing in world markets. Institute form Management
Delopment, 1998 Report. In a study of US manufacturing
competitiveness, teh Congressional Office of Technology Assessment
found that the greatest influences on US competitiveness were capital
costs, quality of human resources, technology transfer and technology
difficulties. Liability laws were not even mentioned as a factor.
The business-backed Conference Board stated affirmatively in its 1987
report that product liability laws do not have significant adverse
effects on competitiveness. In more than 2/3s of the surveyed
companies, liability costs were less than 1 per cent of total costs.

Most notably, the Board found "Where product liability has had a
notable impact--where it has most significantly affected management
decision making-- has been in the quality of the products themselves.
Managers say thet products have become safer, manufacturing procedures
have been improved, and labels and use instructions have become more
explicit." Weber, Nathan "Product Liability: The Corporate Response,
Research Report #893.

I could go on and on and on, with facts, not hysterical hyperbole and
repetition of tired, unsubstantiated propaganda by gullible sheep.
GET SOME FACTS AND THINK FOR YOURSELF, FOR A CHANGE!!!

Want to criticize John Edwards for being an "ambulance chaser,' taking
frivolous cases? Give me the name of the case and/or the facts of the
case, and let's see!

Frivolous lawsuits- there is a procedure to deal with them. See Rule
11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the stste rules patterned
after it in most states.

Loser pays?? Yes; I'll bet the coffee lady would have loved that
rule!

Oh, by the way...I'm a trial lawyer, and proud of it.

In article , Greg wrote:


Michael wrote:

James Robinson wrote
Not really. The aircraft manufacturers seem to get sued almost
automatically, no matter what the cause of the accident was

Not really. In fact, the lawsuits are not all that common.

There's no database (that I know of) that lists such things, but it
seems based on my own personal non-random observation and misc internet
searchs that every time a Boeing plane goes down, they get sued (including
911). Your resuls might vary...