Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
And Here Comes The Northwest Lawsuit!  
User currently offlineUsnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4996 times:

After hearing about the airline's decision to reveal information about it's passengers following Sept. 11, I figured that someone, somewhere, would be upset. Sure enough, the lawsuit is underway...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/21/northwest.privacy.ap/index.html

If you had nothing to hide in the first place, then why get upset about the information being revealed? I understand about the rights of an individual in the U.S., which is what this country was founded upon, but times have changed. I don't think the founding fathers ever imagined an airplane, let alone three being used as offensive weapons.

But anyway, people just piss me off.

Cheers!

[Edited 2004-01-21 17:03:29]


Crye me a river
35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 1, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4918 times:

But anyway, people just piss me off.

I hear ya. I'm not all that social either. But that's neither here nor there.

That said, I think you missed the point of the suit. I don't think that the issue is of "whether or not you have anything to hide." I think that the suit is exactly what it says: a PRIVACY concern.

I think they are simply trying to put the kibash on this Pandoras Box before it goes any further.

Because where would you draw the line? I mean after all, if you don't have 'anything to hide', then surely you wouldn't mind having blood samples drawn. Or your medical records made public. Or cameras installed in your bedroom. Or a tracking device installed on your car that tells law enforcement and insurance where you drive, how fast you go, and how often you go there.

Think about it.



User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 2, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4875 times:

I think they are simply trying to put the kibash on this Pandoras Box before it goes any further.
***

Do you honestly think that this law firm gives a rats ass about this going further, all they care about is suing people. There are plenty of lawfirms that specialise in Class Action that litterally read the paper each day looking for a potential suit. It is a well documented fact that the so called claimants in these cases (the passengers, or so called victims) receive anywhere between .5% to 3% of the actual payout, and the class action lawyers get the rest.

These lawsuits are the only reason why every year your car insurance, your medical insurance and your house insurance goes through the roof.

pathetic...

J


User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 3, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4848 times:

Maybe the Law Firm doesn't care, but the people retaining the Firm sure do. That's what really counts. And if they are getting paid to act like they care, then they care.

User currently offlineUsnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4798 times:

See, that's the normal argument for a suit like this one...it will continue to more 'private' areas of life until somebody stops it. The truth is, this really has nothing to do with privacy issues, because the federal government has every right to know who is flying on whatever flights. We may be one of the only countries in the world that DOESN'T allow it to this point.

My point of the thread was, in the wake of the attacks that year, there wasn't much anyone could do with privacy because we were all opened up to scrutiny because of the events themselves. Its a lot easier to look back from our perspective now and say that it violated privacy, but at the time people were more than willing to accept a little 'spying.'

But, like I said, people just piss me off. If there is something out there that can be contested, bet your ass there will be a lawsuit to follow shortly.



Crye me a river
User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 5, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4768 times:

Maybe the Law Firm doesn't care, but the people retaining the Firm sure do
*****

Despite popular belief, these claims start at the lawfirm, and then find their victims as opposed to the victim finding the lawfirm

J


User currently offlineAirbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8577 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4707 times:

So why does the Federal government have a right to know who is flying on whatever airplane? The airline is a private company isn't it? It's up to the airline to make their rules and decide who to allow into their airplanes. Not the Federal government's job.

User currently offlineBruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5066 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4581 times:

Hey, I am all for it. the lawsuit that is. they violated THEIR OWN privacy policy. If they wanted to reveal info to the gov't then why not tell passengers or amend the privacy policy???????

The company has a privacy policy for a reason.

This lawsuit is justified.

bruce



Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
User currently offlineNwacrew From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 311 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4514 times:

One by one, very quietly, our constitutional rights as individuals and private citizens are being eroded in the name of omnipresent Homeland Security.

A flight attendant buddy of mine recently phoned the reservations department of Royal Caribbean Cruises and asked "too many" questions about the departure times and port calls of a ship he was interested in sailing aboard. Several nights later, two F.B.I. agents appeared at his front door to question his motives for inquiring about the vessel's sailing times.

If you're not concerned about what's happening to our rights, you're not paying attention...


User currently offlineMikey711MN From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1401 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4505 times:

...because the federal government has every right to know who is flying on whatever flights

Can't you then extrapolate that statement of opinion to any mode of transportation?!? In other words, would you be inclined to think that the government has every right to know who is, say, driving to work, taking a bus, walking their dog, etc.?

In my opinion, the government is on a need-to-know basis. If there is a watchlist that must be monitored, fine, but this can be done in two ways:

  • The airlines cross-reference the Homeland Security watchlist (or whatever) to their passenger lists, thereby allowing a filter to weed out potential problems, or
  • The government cross-references the airlines' passenger lists to their watchlist, thereby knowing everyone who ever boards a plane.

There is a difference in the amount of information the government knows while still allowing its citizens to maintain their privacy. I'm not sure how suing NW over its violation of its own privacy policy sets any precident for this, but they didn't need to be in this situation if the setup were different, i.e. no government-bound information required.

-Mike



I plan on living forever. So far, so good...
User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4467 times:

I am constantly amazed about how little many of you know about how a law firm works (or the law for that matter). I would say that car insurance goes up primarily because of careless drivers causing injury. Sounds like the root of the issue to me.

User currently offlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4521 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4427 times:

nwacrew and Matt D, I agree with you both.

It is getting ridiculous as evidenced in your friend being questioned about his inquiry into cruise departure times. I mean, if you're going to book a cruise you do need to know about the time schedule for that cruise.

If Royal Caribbean acts that way I will tke my business elsewhere in the future. I was condiering booking them on a trip this summer but I think I'll go with someone else. Because I DO ask questions.


User currently offlineWorldperks From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4373 times:

I take this all with a great deal of latitude.

I think what most of us minority-group flyers were expecting -- whether elite grade or not -- was that we'd probably all be strip-searched whenever we came close to an airport. That would be most embarrassing for me since I work for both county and state government.

Instead, the exact opposite has happened. That my background is so easy to investigate seems to be a plus rather than a minus (btw, to teach here you have to be fingerprinted). I breeze through security everywhere -- frequently while little old ladies are being strip-searched. As a matter of fact, last Saturday night when I misconnected at IAH, got sent to a hotel, and then got SSSS-ed the next morning, the nice TSA people in Houston did what they had to do by the book, looked at me like I was crazy, and then sent me on my way -- almost apologizing for stopping me.

Being a pragmatist, I'll go along with what NWA has done as long as it continues to work in my favor.



User currently offlineQqflyboy From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2296 posts, RR: 13
Reply 13, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4326 times:

Bruce and nwacrew, I agree completely with the two of you.

Whether the lawsuit is frivolous or not, the real issue is our privacy as American citizens. Every day the government is making a little progress into making George Orwell's predictions reality. We are allowing the government to slowly, and quietly, erode our freedoms guaranteed by the constitution.

What good will the passenger information be to the government after the fact? Knowing who was on the plane after the plane took off and landed doesn't help the government prevent another terrorist attack. All it allows is for the government to track our every move.

And the fact that a private company would offer to give up such information without permission from the consumer is a clear violation of privacy laws, and their own privacy policy. Hopefully, consumers will see that Northwest knows their disdain, too. Two good ways to do it... sue them and boycott them.



The views expressed are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect my employer’s views.
User currently offlineUsnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4264 times:

I think my point was taken the wrong way. I don't believe the government has a right to pry on just anyone they'd like to, but with air travel it is a little different than someone driving their car. Of course, justification can be brought to ANY situation you create, i.e. a car with a bomb, but when they are looking to catch the assholes who did this and are NOT trying to do this anymore, then given the circumstances around the incident, I think they were justified in releasing the information.

Now, my own personal beliefs on the matter are a different story...I believe privacy should be protected at nearly any cost. But, I have a feeling that any judge will throw this out based on the argument of the state and probably the proof of closed directives ordering NW to release the information.

I can already feel the opposition coming with this thread.  Big thumbs up



Crye me a river
User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 15, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4220 times:

I would say that car insurance goes up primarily because of careless drivers causing injury
******

Not at the rate that it does. When a guy crashes his car into someone else's car, and doesn't even create a dent in the bumper, yet manages to sue the other driver for $93.2 million dollars for... " emotional distress" and win, that is what creates the problem. If he claimed for actual damages then it would be a different story. If you look on tv, and on the billboards, it is full of ads that say:

"Are you an idiot, did you fall over your own feet today?, then do not fret, someone else must be to blame, and for 85% of your settlement, we'll help you find them"

or

"Did you spill your coffee on your lap today?, yet even though the whole world knows that coffee is hot, and that you have been drinking hot coffee every day for the last 20 years, today apparently you forgot, therefore we will sue McDonalds for 7 million dollars, because apparently, they forgot to tell you that the coffee was hot."

or my personal favourite...

"Did you break into someone elses house in the middle of the night, and in the course of carrying their tv down the stairs, you fell and the tv landed on top of you (bad tv !!). Not only are you able to sue the person who's house you broke into for not supplying you well enough lighted conditions to steal their tv, but you can also sue Panasonic for the fact that their tv was too heavy for you to steal"

To give you an idea how sad it is, when I completed my paramedic training in Canada, we were advised by legal counsel that when we are in the US, if we come across an accident, it is better that we keep on walking as you most likely be sued whether the outcome is positive or negative.

It is an international recognized joke about how bad the lawsuits in the US are. Go and google Stella Award, and have a read about some others

J

[Edited 2004-01-21 22:12:16]

User currently offlineJetBluefan1 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3012 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4163 times:

I don't get it.

Why isn't NWA being bashed as much JetBlue was being bashed? I flew JetBlue before Sept '02, but I don't care that they revealed my info. It's been burned and that's all there is to it. I don't agree with people suing airlines because of this -- in this time and age, certain companies and administrations have to have certain info to keep us safe.

Nobody will win their lawsuit against NWA or JetBlue, for that matter. This is because they have to prove that they suffered financially due to the realeasing of the information. However, I think everyone would be surprised to see that.

Just my thoughts.

JetBluefan1



Most people on a.net hate JetBlue. Get used to it.
User currently offlineUltrapig From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 590 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4098 times:

We as citizens have certain rights-as a lawyer the "nothing to hide" argument is very interesting to me. The same "keep the government outta my nose" arch conservatives are usually the first to want to give the government the power to look under every blanket and sheet-. Its no one's business where I am flying how much a paid for my ticket-If someone has probably cause to get a search warrant let them get one if not stay out of my way.

Its also interesting to me as a lawyer how the same schmuck who will complain about lawsuits and the system will come to me when he things he can get a buck because someone else is at fault


User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 18, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4082 times:

Ultrapig.....ULTRAPIG ?? What a great name....

LOL

Jeremy


User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5423 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4043 times:

Jeremy, bad choice in using the McDonald's case to compare this to. As I said in another thread, the McDonald's case was legit as it clearly demonstrated a unsafe product as well as willfull negligence.



http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm

http://wis-injury.com/injurymcdonaldscoffee.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No one is in favor of frivolous cases or outlandish results; however, it is important to understand some points that were not reported in most of the stories about the case. McDonalds' coffee was not only hot, it was scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle. Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third degree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 -- or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.


FWIW, I think this lawsuit is valid as well, unlike the WN "Eenie-Meanie-Miney-Moe" lawsuit, but in the current national security mood, the plaintiff's won't have a lot of luck.



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineUsnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3966 times:

Garnetpalmetto, I agree completely. Even if the case was to be considered as a true violation of privacy, the circumstances swarming around the time frame that is in question are obviously going to warrant this type of release. I think any trial judge will either throw this out or seek a speedy trial to get it over with.

Another problem I have is that if this DOES, for some reason, succeed, then every person in America who has felt as if their privacy has been invaded upon by the U.S. government will be calling law firms left and right. During that time of our history, anything went as far as finding the persons responsible. I imagine this will be the same scenario.



Crye me a river
User currently offlineAa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3350 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3928 times:

Was jetBlue ever sued? If so, what was the outcome of that lawsuit. I'm sure that it hasn't progressed very far, but does it seem like the Plaintiff or the Defendant will win?

Thanks,
AAndrew


User currently offlineTekelberry From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1459 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3908 times:

but times have changed

You must be a moron. That is no excuse for an airline to publically lie numerous times about sharing data.


User currently offline5T6 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 283 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3863 times:

Artsyman.....

I was going to post my thoughts on the whole matter, but you already said everything I was going to!!

Now if we could only get Judges that would just toss this sh!t OUT before it ever got in front of a jury, we as taxpayers would save a lot of money and these sleaze-bucket attorneys would quit filing these bullsh!t lawsuits and go get jobs at McDonalds.

Wasn't it Plato that said "Kill all the Lawyers"??? Amazing how insightful he was over 2,000 years ago. But the damn lawyers are still here.

I'm through venting.....

Mike




I see my Cats as Companions. My Cats see Me as Furniture!
User currently offlineUsnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3861 times:

Well, I'll take that comment. But in case you haven't seen the world lately, times HAVE changed. The privacy that the founding fathers were referring to was one that had very little opposition. Now, in the day of age where a person can climb on board an aircraft and do what they wish with it, privacy becomes a secondary issue.

There must be a consistent strength in the rights given to us by the U.S. Constitution, but there are some cases where those rights must be violated in order to protect more. Now, I never have condoned the fact that NW lied numerous times about the issue...this could be the basis for a lawsuit. But the fact that they turned over information for federal investigative reasons is not, and will more than likely NOT hold up in court.

Perhaps you should attend one of my lectures in political science. I teach them quite often, though I am always welcoming criticism.  Big thumbs up

Cheers!



Crye me a river
25 Artsyman : the McDonald's case was legit as it clearly demonstrated a unsafe product as well as willfull negligence. **** The point wasn't whether or not the cas
26 Greg : First, learn the purpose of awarding damages--both punitive and compensatory. It's painfully clear most of you don't have a clue what they are. Then,
27 Airways6max : I expect that the lawsuit will be dismissed, under pressure from Homeland Security and the TSA and that whoever filed the suit will be detained under
28 Garnetpalmetto : The point wasn't whether or not the case was legit, the point was that it was NOT worth the millions of dollars that were awarded in the case. Million
29 M404 : Since we seem to have several informed members who have a much better grasp of the courts/lawyers/laws than I, could someone explain just exactly, sp
30 Iflyatldl : JetBlue and NWA are unfortunately the first spokes on this new wheel(for lack of a better term) on this issue and even with the lawsuits approved or d
31 Usnseallt82 : Well, with the posting of NW's 4Q losses, I'm sure this lawsuit doesn't help the stock numbers these days, let alone the shareholders who are probably
32 L-188 : I am confused. Why is the Coffee case a privacy issue??? As for the lawsuit against NW, I say GO FOR IT!!!. Any company that cooperates with the feds
33 Syncmaster : I'm sorry people...but this is getting out of hand. If I wanted you, or the Government to know where I was and where I was going I would tell them, bu
34 Usnseallt82 : Like how? How exactly would we, as a nation, go about protecting ourselves in other ways? I'm fairly partial to the fact that I don't mind the governm
35 Qqflyboy : I am shocked that so many of you are willing to give up your basic rights so easily for supposed safety. We can't, and won't ever be completely safe.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Ready Or Not Here Comes The A380! posted Wed Mar 2 2005 20:54:24 by KhenleyDIA
Here Comes The Newest B747! posted Thu Nov 28 2002 23:19:54 by Smolt
Here Comes The 787.... posted Sun Jan 21 2001 04:41:30 by Surf
Qantas Avod Aircraft, Here Are The Regos And YVR.. posted Sat Jul 22 2006 03:43:53 by Airnewzealand
757:Thanks For The Memories And Here's The 1050th posted Sun May 1 2005 03:13:17 by 767-332ER
November 5th 2008 Here Is The News.--speculation posted Sun Nov 5 2006 11:47:45 by Philb
Feds Call NW And FA's To The Table posted Thu Sep 21 2006 15:42:58 by MSPGUY
Bae And Airbus: Untying The Knot Or Not? posted Wed Aug 30 2006 02:19:02 by Art
Etihad And Emirates To The US Of A posted Fri Aug 25 2006 21:10:35 by AirxLiban
Airblue And Shaheen To The UK? posted Thu Jul 20 2006 16:58:58 by Pe@rson