Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9321 posts, RR: 76 Posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1733 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Good!
AIRLINES including Ryanair are considering suing the Government for up to £300 million to recover the losses incurred since extra security measures were imposed last week.
They are hoping that the threat of legal action will force ministers to lift the restrictions on hand luggage, which have caused thousands of flight cancellations and delayed millions of passengers since an alleged terrorist plot was foiled.
YEGer From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 43 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1713 times:
This is a no-win situation for an airline. If the government imposes restrictions based on terror threats, airlines loose cash due to delays and cancellations. If the government relaxes restrictions and a terrorist succeeds, airlines loose even bigger due to, what I would think would be a 9/11 style decrease in airline passanger volume. If airlines sue, goverments are less likely to impose restrictions in the future--maybe, maybe not. If they don't sue and don't recover costs, they loose money--or more likely, raise ticket prices to compensate for the new cost of operation. Anyway you cut it, a mess to deal with, both for the airlines, government, and passangers.
Falstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 5176 posts, RR: 33 Reply 2, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1705 times:
Quoting YEGer (Reply 1): This is a no-win situation for an airline
Not only is it a no win situation, but the cost involved will surly be very high. So cost gets passed on to the tax payers and the traveling public. Lawsuits cost everyone!
Khobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 4 Reply 3, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1659 times:
No win situation? If the lawsuits make the government act less paranoid and more sensible next time then these cancellations and multi-million pound losses will not occur next time. That is a big benefit to the travelling public.
Lawsuits may cost money, but sometimes that's a good thing.
AIRLINES including Ryanair are considering suing the Government for up to £300 million to recover the losses incurred since extra security measures were imposed last week.
They are hoping that the threat of legal action will force ministers to lift the restrictions on hand luggage, which have caused thousands of flight cancellations and delayed millions of passengers since an alleged terrorist plot was foiled.
How about sueing the religious organization (or local church, mosque or whatever) from whence these latest individuals got their inspiration? That might help bring some accountability to religion?
Airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6159 posts, RR: 8 Reply 5, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1521 times:
Quoting Khobar (Reply 3): No win situation? If the lawsuits make the government act less paranoid and more sensible next time then these cancellations and multi-million pound losses will not occur next time. That is a big benefit to the travelling public.
I'm with you on this one, and on the side of the airlines as well. In this latest case, there was never even a threat. The security officials had all these guys so wrapped up there's not way they would even make it close an airport let alone carry out an attack. It's time to put an end to all the knee-jerking reactions, mostly for political gain. If a law suit is the only way to do that, then be it.
ThePRGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1517 times:
Quoting Iwok (Reply 4): How about sueing the religious organization (or local church, mosque or whatever) from whence these latest individuals got their inspiration? That might help bring some accountability to religion?
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 11685 posts, RR: 8 Reply 7, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1486 times:
Even in an American Federal court, the Government would be able to get the case dismissed on an immediate motion as national security was involved, they can order the airlines to do what they say without any recourse or reimbursement. I would assume the same would occur in the UK.
Their only recourse would be for the US Congress or the UK Parliament respectively to make offset payments and loans, much like the US Government did to USA airlines after the 9/11 attacks for the lost days of business due to the grounding of all commercial passenger service.
Khobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 4 Reply 8, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1436 times:
Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 7): Even in an American Federal court, the Government would be able to get the case dismissed on an immediate motion as national security was involved, they can order the airlines to do what they say without any recourse or reimbursement. I would assume the same would occur in the UK.
Not so fast. While on the one hand:
"The Justice Department has again asserted ”state secrets privilege” in seeking to dismiss a lawsuit by Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian citizen who was detained in the United States in 2002 and sent against his will to Syria, where he says he was tortured until his release a year later.
The privilege was invoked ”in order to protect the intelligence, foreign policy and national security interests of the United States,” wrote Acting Attorney-General James B. Comey in legal papers filed in the Eastern District of New York. "
"A federal judge refused to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the Bush administration's domestic spying program, rejecting government claims that allowing the case to go forward could expose state secrets and jeopardize the war on terror."
This was a quick search and I have not followed up on the current status, but it does seem that The Government invoking Secrets Privilege is not an automatic dismissal of the case.
B747-4U3 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 967 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1370 times:
Quoting Airbazar (Reply 5): I'm with you on this one, and on the side of the airlines as well. In this latest case, there was never even a threat. The security officials had all these guys so wrapped up there's not way they would even make it close an airport let alone carry out an attack. It's time to put an end to all the knee-jerking reactions, mostly for political gain. If a law suit is the only way to do that, then be it.
Exactly. All of the suspects could have been arrested with minimal disturbance, so that the general public and media would not even have known about it.
It was only because that twat, John Reid, decided to create a big hoo-haa over it that many travellers were inconvenienced. In one UK paper a few days ago there was an opinion article where the author was suggesting that the threat was massively overplayed - and I wouldn't at all be surprised if that were true.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined exactly 7 years ago today! , 20630 posts, RR: 62 Reply 10, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1353 times:
Quoting Khobar (Reply 3): Lawsuits may cost money, but sometimes that's a good thing.
Maybe the airlines will finally talk with dollars to make profiling the best business solution.
Right now, the system is like doing a police line-up for a confirmed one-armed rapist by rounding up an 80 year old blind woman, a 5 year old kid, a dog, a tree, and stephen hawking. And then taking away hawking's wheel chair. Pointless exercise this week. Absolutely pointless.
But right now, each government involved is more than happy to impose more restrictions if it means growing the government agency involved (more money in the coffers). If it costs them more than they get, they might change their tune...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
StarGoldLHR From Heard and McDonald Islands, joined Feb 2004, 1529 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1341 times:
Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 7): Even in an American Federal court, the Government would be able to get the case dismissed on an immediate motion as national security was involved, they can order the airlines to do what they say without any recourse or reimbursement. I would assume the same would occur in the UK.
Thats why we have the EU... if the UK government acts out of turn... take it to the EU.
Whats more worrying is that the government is trying to cover up it's show off stunt by encouraging the EU government to impose it across the EU...
In other words... everyone will dump flying via the UK because of the governments actions to carry on luggage.. so the government wants everyone in the EU to work by it's suggested rules and level the playing field again...
This time I do hope the French say non !
So far in 2008 45 flights and Gold already. JFK, IAD, LGA, SIN, HKG, NRT, AKL, PPT, LAX still to book ! Home Airport LCY
Robsawatsky From Canada, joined Dec 2003, 597 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1243 times:
Quoting Iwok (Reply 4): I know this might sound a little crazy.
How about sueing the religious organization (or local church, mosque or whatever) from whence these latest individuals got their inspiration? That might help bring some accountability to religion?
Actually it sounds a lot crazy. You seem to have an impression that most religions have a very structured corporate heirarchy where there is some legal entity to sue and that you'll find some official doctrine to base a case upon. Highly unlikely, particularly for Islam, which has multiple sects and no central leadership. You'd have to find evidence of actual conspiracy by a particular person for this to have any hope of success.
Iwok From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1102 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1151 times:
Quoting Robsawatsky (Reply 12): Highly unlikely, particularly for Islam, which has multiple sects and no central leadership.
Then how about sueing the specific Mosque from which these guys hail. If it were a Church I'd say the same thing.
So much terrorism these days is religious from Timothy McVeigh to these nut-job, not to mention what's going on in India etc etc. What I am saying is that the threat of a lawsuit might slow down loose-lipped religious wack-job leaders.
Jasond From Australia, joined Jul 2009, 23 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1139 times:
Quoting Robsawatsky (Reply 12): Actually it sounds a lot crazy. You seem to have an impression that most religions have a very structured corporate heirarchy where there is some legal entity to sue and that you'll find some official doctrine to base a case upon. Highly unlikely, particularly for Islam, which has multiple sects and no central leadership. You'd have to find evidence of actual conspiracy by a particular person for this to have any hope of success.
Well there are precedents. Sure I agree that you need some sustainable evidence and I also agree that it would be extremely difficult with some religious 'organisations' but that doesn't mean they can't be. In fact in the area of child sexual abuse by religious leaders many have been prosecuted and sued.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9321 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 43 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1102 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
, 20630 posts, 
From Heard and McDonald Islands, joined Feb 2004, 1529 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jul 2009, 23 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
