Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
posty

Some passengers in Hudson River landing say Airline's $5000 offer not enough...

Recommended Posts

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/200...ver-crash_N.htm

 

Many US Airways (LCC) passengers who endured a crash landing in the Hudson River 12 days ago say they appreciate the $5,000 that the airline has offered — but some say it's not enough.

 

Joe Hart, a salesman from Charlotte who suffered a bloody nose and bruises, says he "would like to be made whole for the incident."

 

It's too soon after the accident to determine what emotional distress he has suffered, he says.

 

He's one of 150 passengers who were dramatically rescued Jan. 15, when the Charlotte-bound Airbus A320 jet safely ditched into the frigid river off Midtown Manhattan. A pilot on the plane told air-traffic controllers that birds struck the plane before both engines failed after takeoff from New York's LaGuardia Airport.

 

After the crash, US Airways sent passengers a letter of apology, a $5,000 check to assist "with immediate needs" and reimbursement for the ticket.

 

Exactly how much compensation is appropriate is a question after crashes.

 

The National Air Disaster Alliance & Foundation, a safety advocacy group, says $5,000 is not enough.

 

"We're grateful everyone survived, and the captain on the plane was so marvelous," says Gail Dunham, the group's executive director. "But passengers lost luggage, briefcases, cellphones, BlackBerrys and business documents, and went through a terrific ordeal."

 

Like many, Hart says he left a lot of items behind and doesn't know which ones may be lost.

 

The National Transportation Safety Board, which investigates aviation accidents, wants to examine baggage and belongings, and determine how much they weighed on the plane, says spokesman Peter Knudson.

 

It could take "weeks or months" before they are returned to passengers, he says.

 

Hart and another passenger, Dave Sanderson, say they each left more than $5,000 worth of items on the plane.

 

Sanderson, a sales manager in Charlotte, says US Airways' letter and checks were "a nice gesture," and the airline's personnel "have treated me like gold since the incident."

 

US Airways Vice President Jim Olson says that an insurance claims specialist is contacting passengers and that they'll be reimbursed for expenses or losses above $5,000.

 

The airline wants to ensure no passenger is "losing money for the inconvenience or anything lost during the accident," he says.

 

Under Department of Transportation regulations, airlines are liable for up to $3,300 per passenger for checked bags that are lost or damaged on a domestic flight. Most airlines disclaim liability for carry-on bags unless a crewmember stowed the bag, says Bill Mosley, a department spokesman.

 

In addition to recovering losses, Hart says he's concerned about having trouble flying. He's flown on six planes since the accident, and each flight has gotten "progressively more difficult."

 

He says he was tense, sweated and "felt every bit of turbulence" on a Los Angeles-to-Philadelphia flight last week, though it wasn't that turbulent a flight.

 

Hart says he has talked to a lawyer in North Carolina but hasn't decided whether to take any legal action.

 

"I want to see how things play out with US Airways," he says. "I'm hopeful US Airways understands the significance of the incident."

 

Kreindler & Kreindler, a New York law firm that has represented plaintiffs in crashes, says it has been contacted by several passengers on the US Airways flight.

 

The firm's lawyers are determining what injuries and emotional distress passengers may have suffered, and what parties might be liable under New York state law, says Noah Kushlefsky, a partner in the firm.

 

In many aviation accidents, survivors have claimed post-traumatic stress disorder. To recover damages, plaintiffs have to prove that injury or distress was caused by negligence, or the jet or its engines not performing as they should, Kushlefsky says. New York law requires a lawsuit to be filed within three years of an incident, he says.

 

Sanderson, a father of four, says he's thankful he could celebrate his 48th birthday on Friday and has no reason to talk to an attorney.

 

"US Air has been doing the right thing," he says. "Everyone is acting in a responsible way."

 

Fred Berretta, who suffered a small cut on his head during the crash landing, says US Airways representatives have called frequently and treated him very well. He says that a few personal mementos from his father were left behind but that the money sent by US Airways covers the value of his belongings.

 

Berretta, who works for a financial services company, was flown home to Charlotte after the crash on his company's jet.

 

"I'm a private pilot, and I'm sure I'll be flying again," he says. "But it might be a little while before I fly for pleasure again."

 

Amber Wells of Charlotte says she's so thankful to have survived and to be with her 9-month-old daughter, Rayley, that she hasn't had time to think about her belongings.

 

She says she lost $2,000 of nursing equipment and a laptop computer, as well as a checked bag and a carry-on bag.

 

"Everything that's gone can be replaced," says Wells, 34, a senior manager for NASCAR. "My life cannot be replaced."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shocker. :dunno: :unsure: :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suddenly I lost all compassion...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy. they are waiting to see if the official investigation places any blame on the pilot. Such as how can a pilot run into a flock of birds the size of a 737, and say something like 'when I looked up I jumped'. Why was he not looking out the window in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Figures, already preparing lawsuits. :unsure:

 

At least some of the people are just happy to be alive, and aren't looking at this as a way to get a big paycheck. I don't see how it was the airlines fault. Seems to me that the birds are at fault. :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why was he not looking out the window in the first place?

 

Maybe he was mixing a drink. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems to me that the birds are at fault. :dunno:

Hopefully, getting sucked through a jet engine satisfies the survivors idea of a proper punishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those people don't know any better. They're just silly geese.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any compensation should be based on if the airline or airport was negligent. In this case it was birds that brought down the airplane. So was there a design flaw in the aircraft that the airline knew about (or should have known) which could have prevented the accident? Was the airport taking reasonable precautions to keep the birds away like most large airports do? I'm sure the lawyers will be investigating those issues.

 

But without negligence, why would the passengers deserve any compensation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But without negligence, why would the passengers deserve any compensation?

The point I still get stuck on is the fact that the pilot never turned the plane to avoid the birds (according to his words). It is like he was driving a car using only the GPS, and not looking out of the window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Easy. they are waiting to see if the official investigation places any blame on the pilot. Such as how can a pilot run into a flock of birds the size of a 737, and say something like 'when I looked up I jumped'. Why was he not looking out the window in the first place?

Because the copilot was handling the takeoff and he was watching the gauges, which tell the pilot a lot more about what his plane is doing than looking out the window?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point I still get stuck on is the fact that the pilot never turned the plane to avoid the birds (according to his words). It is like he was driving a car using only the GPS, and not looking out of the window.

Turned the plane to avoid the birds? It's a friggin Airbus, not an F16.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Turned the plane to avoid the birds? It's a friggin Airbus, not an F16.

He should have inverted the plane and gave the flock the "bird".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He should have inverted the plane and gave the flock the "bird".

"Talk to me Goose! Talk to me!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't think about the possibility of the pilot being able to avoid the birds in the first place. I guess that's a legit question. My uneducated guess is that it's probably not an easy task in that type of aircraft, but who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Turned the plane to avoid the birds? It's a friggin Airbus, not an F16.

But they're birds, not friggin heat seeking missiles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't think about the possibility of the pilot being able to avoid the birds in the first place. I guess that's a legit question. My uneducated guess is that it's probably not an easy task in that type of aircraft, but who knows.

 

Uneducated here too; but those engines are designed to take those birds to some extent, and I would guess SOP is to plow throught them rather than trying to take evasive maneuvers in a plane not designed for that kind of flying. Any attempt to miss those birds probably would have put the passengers in more danger, not less.

 

I would think one big question would be whether those birds showed on radar at all. Could be some fault in the tower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uneducated here too; but those engines are designed to take those birds to some extent, and I would guess SOP is to plow throught them rather than trying to take evasive maneuvers in a plane not designed for that kind of flying. Any attempt to miss those birds probably would have put the passengers in more danger, not less.

 

I would think one big question would be whether those birds showed on radar at all. Could be some fault in the tower.

More danger than landing in the Hudson? And we are not talking barrel rolls evasive maneuvers. Just see flock of bird in the distance, avoid birds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More danger than landing in the Hudson? And we are not talking barrel rolls evasive maneuvers. Just see flock of bird in the distance, avoid birds.

 

Right, assuming birds were even in view as they were climing into them and not quartering in, and in a climbing fully loaded passenger plane that hasn't reached cruising altitude yet. Easiest thing in the world I'm sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any compensation should be based on if the airline or airport was negligent. In this case it was birds that brought down the airplane. So was there a design flaw in the aircraft that the airline knew about (or should have known) which could have prevented the accident? Was the airport taking reasonable precautions to keep the birds away like most large airports do? I'm sure the lawyers will be investigating those issues.

 

But without negligence, why would the passengers deserve any compensation?

they do deserve compensation whether it be from the actual airline or some sort of airline safety regulation company. i had a situation where someone's hot water heater leaked through their floor and into my condominium and they were not home. so basically the home owner's association policy ended up paying out after much hemming and hawing. whether or not they decided to subrogate and push the issue with the indivual's own insurance co. i am not sure. however the point is that i suffered a loss and should have been reimbursed at least to my original state. now the only difference is that i did not have to go through a life threatening tragic experience which could merit more of a compensation. whether or not they deserve more than 5000 apiece i don't know, but i will say that they definitely deserve at least that much. the airline is ultimately responsible for delivering them and their belongings safely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the airline is ultimately responsible for delivering them and their belongings safely.

 

If they made every effort and took every precaution necessary, they are not negligent. If they saw the geese, and said, screw it, we're flying through them. They are up sh!t creek. Accidents happen sometimes on a whim, act of god, whatever... just show the negligence, and the compensation will flow. It looks like there isn't any, but very few know the whole story. I hate US Air too, my father is an attorney, but I really hate sue happy people looking for a hnadout.

 

:unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right, assuming birds were even in view as they were climing into them and not quartering in, and in a climbing fully loaded passenger plane that hasn't reached cruising altitude yet. Easiest thing in the world I'm sure.

Assuming that the birds are not flying faster than the plane, then they could not come from behind. That means they were probably on an intersecting course with the plane. The whole point I am struggling with is why the pilot/co-pilot did not see them. A flock of birds big enough to wipe out BOTH engines is about the size of a 737. IMO the only way you don't see them until they strike the plane is when BOTH pilots are flying without looking out the window. On a clear day, I think that fact will prove that the pilots/airline are responsible for a majority of the blame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for them.

 

I guarantee that the safety advisory board, the airport, and the city and probably the state are going to be named in any suit as well.

 

I cant see these claims being worth less than 200K each. God you just for some plaintiffs that are pregnant or have heart trouble or something, because then its worth more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't until I go to buy an airline ticket and an additional $8.00 "just in case we fly into a flock of birds" add-on fee is tagged on to the total price of my ticket just because these dumb asses are greedy focking Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it funny how people go from "Oh my God. I'm just happy I'm alive. The pilot is a genuine hero" to "Hmmmm. How can I make a buck off of this?".

 

I hope any passenger that sues the airline for what was essentially cold, wet feet, has a massive stroke the day after the case is settled and spends the rest of their life in a wheelchair with a runny eye, and has to be spoon fed and have their ass wiped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Assuming that the birds are not flying faster than the plane, then they could not come from behind. That means they were probably on an intersecting course with the plane. The whole point I am struggling with is why the pilot/co-pilot did not see them. A flock of birds big enough to wipe out BOTH engines is about the size of a 737. IMO the only way you don't see them until they strike the plane is when BOTH pilots are flying without looking out the window. On a clear day, I think that fact will prove that the pilots/airline are responsible for a majority of the blame.

 

I didn't suggest they had come from behind, but that they quartered in rather than coming straight on. Not sure how much peripheral vision a pilot has from the cockpit. Also consider that they are climing into the birds so could hardly be expected to see what's going on above them.

 

In everything I've read about the incident I've never seen it suggested that evasive maneuvers were even an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't until I go to buy an airline ticket and an additional $8.00 "just in case we fly into a flock of birds" add-on fee is tagged on to the total price of my ticket just because these dumb asses are greedy focking Americans.

 

American's are not greedy, they are due massive amounts of money for no reason what so ever, it is their right to compensation well beyond reason, how dare you suggest otherwise.

:thumbsdown:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If they made every effort and took every precaution necessary, they are not negligent. If they saw the geese, and said, screw it, we're flying through them. They are up sh!t creek. Accidents happen sometimes on a whim, act of god, whatever... just show the negligence, and the compensation will flow. It looks like there isn't any, but very few know the whole story. I hate US Air too, my father is an attorney, but I really hate sue happy people looking for a hnadout.

 

:thumbsdown:

alright let me explain this another way. if you are driving a car and u swerve to avoid a deer and u end up hitting another car, sign, side of a hill, river, etc. then u are responsible for the damages. a deer showing up is unfortunate just like flock of birds showing up. however NEITHER is an act of god. lightning would be considered an act of god. whether the plane swerved to avoid the birds and crashed or whether he plowed right through them and caused the plan to lose its engine someone is at fault. its either the airline, airline safety dept, or the manufacturers of the engine but ultimately this plane did not reach its destination safely and with all the passengers belongings. so they failed to do their job. now don't get me wrong the pilot is a hero and from what i saw made some amazing maneuvers to get the plane down safely. the airline ought to be happy that they aren't having to compensate families for the lives of loved ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alright let me explain this another way. if you are driving a car and u swerve to avoid a deer and u end up hitting another car, sign, side of a hill, river, etc. then u are responsible for the damages. a deer showing up is unfortunate just like flock of birds showing up. however NEITHER is an act of god. lightning would be considered an act of god. whether the plane swerved to avoid the birds and crashed or whether he plowed right through them and caused the plan to lose its engine someone is at fault. its either the airline, airline safety dept, or the manufacturers of the engine but ultimately this plane did not reach its destination safely and with all the passengers belongings. so they failed to do their job. now don't get me wrong the pilot is a hero and from what i saw made some amazing maneuvers to get the plane down safely. the airline ought to be happy that they aren't having to compensate families for the lives of loved ones.

Here's a wacky idea... maybe NOONE is at fault. Maybe everyone did their job with a reasonable level of competence and, life being life, sh!t still happened. I know, it's crazy to think we can't control every last variable in something as simple as air travel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's a wacky idea... maybe NOONE is at fault. Maybe everyone did their job with a reasonable level of competence and, life being life, sh!t still happened. I know it's crazy to think we can't control every last variable in something as simple as air travel.

I can't believe you even had to type that. :thumbsdown:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's a wacky idea... maybe NOONE is at fault. Maybe everyone did their job with a reasonable level of competence and, life being life, sh!t still happened. I know it's crazy to think we can't control every last variable in something as simple as air travel.

 

Blasphemy!!!

 

Someone must give me a million dollars every time something bad happens to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :thumbsdown:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's a wacky idea... maybe NOONE is at fault. Maybe everyone did their job with a reasonable level of competence and, life being life, sh!t still happened. I know it's crazy to think we can't control every last variable in something as simple as air travel.

let me ask u something parrot? did the airline do its job? was the destination of this plane supposed to be the hudson river? i doubt it. these people have to be indemnified for their losses. i know we see a lot of ridiculous lawsuits these days over things such as spilling coffee on yourself and not knowing it was hot or something like that. this was a flight that went down and miraculously did not flip, disintegrate or whatever once hitting the water. do u think these people might be a little traumatized from this situation? i don't think that these individuals should be receiving a million dollars apiece or anything ridiculous like that, but at least $5000 to compensate for belongings and injuries. i'm sure if you were on that plane and they offered u compensation u would turn it down because "nobody was at fault". RIGHT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I would take my favorite clothes in a suitcase, my briefcase, my cellphone, and $5000 and toss them in the Hudson just to have a kick-ass "I was in that plane that crashed in the Hudson..." story to tell for the rest of my life. :thumbsdown:

 

Or I guess I could just go all Giants Fan and make one up. :nono:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
was the destination of this plane supposed to be the hudson river?

 

Actually, the stewardess was very busy handing out pre flight bathing suits and extra socks for the passengers so their little tootsies wouldn't freeze after taking a refreshing dip in the murky Hudson. The passengers were awarded frequent floater miles too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
let me ask u something parrot? did the airline do its job? was the destination of this plane supposed to be the hudson river? i doubt it. these people have to be indemnified for their losses. i know we see a lot of ridiculous lawsuits these days over things such as spilling coffee on yourself and not knowing it was hot or something like that. this was a flight that went down and miraculously did not flip, disintegrate or whatever once hitting the water. do u think these people might be a little traumatized from this situation? i don't think that these individuals should be receiving a million dollars apiece or anything ridiculous like that, but at least $5000 to compensate for belongings and injuries. i'm sure if you were on that plane and they offered u compensation u would turn it down because "nobody was at fault". RIGHT?

I can't say what I would do in that situation, none of us can unless we've been there, but I'd like to think I wouldn't see it as a lottery ticket. And it seems like some of these people definitely see it that way. I have no problem with people being compensated for any physical damage or property loss, but anything beyond that is nothing but greed.

 

And it wasn't simply "miraculous" that things ended up as well as they did and a major catastrophe way averted, it was due largely to the incredibly timely and competent actions of the pilot, an employee of the airline. I'd like to think that I'd recognize that this guy is the reason I'm still alive to see my kids another day and give that the credit it deserves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was on the plane I'd probably look into suing them with a lawyer. I would not make any statements about it to the press though. I would let the lawyers handle it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×