TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Justified or just ungrateful?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Justified or just ungrateful? - Page 2

post #31 of 56
2/4/09 at 7:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by carolinalima View Post
Here is an analogy for you; since it was a nature accident: Say you are driving on the snow, and a deer crosses in front of you; you crash and get hurt - not your fault.... Your insurance will still pay for your medical bills - same thing.

Part of the airfare goes towards insurance, and it is only fair that it is used properly.
That depends on what kind of policy you have. We have full coverage (including medical) on one vehicle, and only liablily on another. Libility only covers the other person involved in the accident, not the driver or his car. No medical bills would be paid. So, if I hit a deer, got in an accident and got hurt, I definitely couldn't sue the deer and I would have to pay out of my own pocket or my insurance from work would cover it.

Not a good analogy IMO.
Reply
post #32 of 56
2/4/09 at 7:43am
If i came so close to death like those passengers did, the last thing i'd be thinking about is money, and i can't believe how quickly some of them did to be honest
Reply
post #33 of 56
2/4/09 at 7:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by calico2222 View Post
That depends on what kind of policy you have. We have full coverage (including medical) on one vehicle, and only liablily on another. Libility only covers the other person involved in the accident, not the driver or his car. No medical bills would be paid. So, if I hit a deer, got in an accident and got hurt, I definitely couldn't sue the deer and I would have to pay out of my own pocket or my insurance from work would cover it.

Not a good analogy IMO.
So if you were driving a car with 3 passengers, and an accident happened (not your fault - total accident) and they had serious injury - your liability would ABSOLUTELY cover their medical costs. And the airline absolutely should cover the medical costs incurred by their accident. As someone stated, that is why they have insurance, and that is a big part of the expense of flying. Are people here really saying thay the passengers should suck it up and deal with the financial responsibility of their medical bills due to an accident that *they* truly had nothing to do with (seriously accident or not, the passengers are certainly most innocent in this disaster)? If thats what is being said, imo that is inhumane. People shoudnt suffer in PTSD or go bankrupt because an airplane they were on crashed. No way should passengers shoulder this responsibility - especially when the airline can absolutely cover it with their insurance (ie - NOT coming out of their deep pockets)
Reply
post #34 of 56
2/4/09 at 7:58am
This is a post from one of the surviving passengers who is quoted in the story. From the sound of it, the reporter was trying to spin the piece to generate controversy and, of course, sell papers:

" I am Fred Berretta and I am disappointed in the angle this reporter took. She called me and asked how I was doing, how I felt US Airways was treating us, to which I replied fantastically. She asked what the right gesture should be and I said I really did not know, maybe a permament upgrade, which I said jokingly as I really don't care. I am grateful we all survived and I thank God for that every day. The pilot and crew are heroes, along with a lot of other people, including many of the passengers. I think most of the passengers feel the same way I do. Just wanted to pass this along."

ETA: The NY Post is KNOWN for sensationalist reporting, BTW.
Reply
post #35 of 56
2/4/09 at 8:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Februa View Post
So if you were driving a car with 3 passengers, and an accident happened (not your fault - total accident) and they had serious injury - your liability would ABSOLUTELY cover their medical costs. And the airline absolutely should cover the medical costs incurred by their accident. As someone stated, that is why they have insurance, and that is a big part of the expense of flying. Are people here really saying thay the passengers should suck it up and deal with the financial responsibility of their medical bills due to an accident that *they* truly had nothing to do with (seriously accident or not, the passengers are certainly most innocent in this disaster)? If thats what is being said, imo that is inhumane. People shoudnt suffer in PTSD or go bankrupt because an airplane they were on crashed. No way should passengers shoulder this responsibility - especially when the airline can absolutely cover it with their insurance (ie - NOT coming out of their deep pockets)
I seriously doubt many of those passengers have serious medical issues - I think they have greed issues. Suffer my foot! I'm betting that most of them are out celebrating their incredible increase in fortune at their local night spots.

It makes me sad to see that more Canadians are hitting the "let's sue" bandwagon. I had hoped we were above that but apparently we are not and it truly is telling a sorry picture of the population.
Reply
post #36 of 56
2/4/09 at 8:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AddieBee View Post
This is a post from one of the surviving passengers who is quoted in the story. From the sound of it, the reporter was trying to spin the piece to generate controversy and, of course, sell papers:
Nothing new there then. That's one of the reasons why i never by newspapers now
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
It makes me sad to see that more Canadians are hitting the "let's sue" bandwagon.
Linda, the UK has also jumped on the same bandwagon

One word....GREED!
Reply
post #37 of 56
2/4/09 at 8:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
I seriously doubt many of those passengers have serious medical issues - I think they have greed issues. Suffer my foot! I'm betting that most of them are out celebrating their incredible increase in fortune at their local night spots.

It makes me sad to see that more Canadians are hitting the "let's sue" bandwagon. I had hoped we were above that but apparently we are not and it truly is telling a sorry picture of the population.
I didnt jump on the "lets sue" bandwagon, I jumped on "the airline should take responsibility for passengers who have additional expenses" bandwagon. Sure, I agree, some people would sue out of greed, but I was merely stating it is possible and likely there are some passengers on that plane who need extra help and dont seem to be getting it. It makes me sad to see more Canadians accepting the idea that someone should be bankrupt if unable to pay for medical expenses. I have needed counselling after a traumatic experience before, and am greatly offended by the idea that such counselling is frivolous or 100% my own responsibility (despite my having no responsibility for the incident). Its not a matter of suing to get rich, I am truly speaking from experience of a legitimate medical need that should be met and financed, imo, not at the victims expense.
Reply
post #38 of 56
2/4/09 at 9:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Februa View Post
I didnt jump on the "lets sue" bandwagon, I jumped on "the airline should take responsibility for passengers who have additional expenses" bandwagon. Sure, I agree, some people would sue out of greed, but I was merely stating it is possible and likely there are some passengers on that plane who need extra help and dont seem to be getting it. It makes me sad to see more Canadians accepting the idea that someone should be bankrupt if unable to pay for medical expenses. I have needed counselling after a traumatic experience before, and am greatly offended by the idea that such counselling is frivolous or 100% my own responsibility (despite my having no responsibility for the incident). Its not a matter of suing to get rich, I am truly speaking from experience of a legitimate medical need that should be met and financed, imo, not at the victims expense.
OK, I have to admit you've lost me! The first post in this thread was a link to an article about compensation and the last paragraph was words to the effect they "should sue". That's where I got the let's sue bandwagon feeling. I would also venture that those passengers got a lot more than they lost and greed is playing more of a part than trauma in this particular case.

I don't think I ever said anywhere in any of my posts that people should go bankrupt if unable to pay medical expenses so I'm not sure where you got that from my post(s). Needing counselling after a traumatic incident is not frivolous IMO so again, I'm not sure where you got that either. I can only assume that was just your personal interpretation of my posts. I do, however, think that if you live in the US you may well go bankrupt just getting regular health care.

As for Canada, if someone has a legitimate need for counselling for trauma, I'm sure they would be covered under our health plan and would not need to go bankrupt. All they would need is for their family doctor to refer them to a therapist and in most cases employers have EAP's for just this sort of thing which is covered by the employer.
Reply
post #39 of 56
2/4/09 at 10:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by carolinalima View Post
Here is an analogy for you; since it was a nature accident: Say you are driving on the snow, and a deer crosses in front of you; you crash and get hurt - not your fault.... Your insurance will still pay for your medical bills - same thing.

Part of the airfare goes towards insurance, and it is only fair that it is used properly.
You said in an earlier post that the airline should give them a "lifetime of upgrades", and that it was the "right thing to do". What does that have to do with insurance payments? The airline's insurance company isn't going to reimburse the airline for that, and they do lose money giving those out. You said anything else you would consider a slap in the face. What if in your analogy, you had a passenger. That passenger was unhurt in the accident, but they told you that you had to drive them around for life because you "owed" them something for having been in the car during the accident? Your insurance company sure isn't going to reimburse you for your time or gasoline you expend carting this person around for the rest of their lives.

If there are legitimate medical bills to be paid, then that's another thing altogether. That's what insurance is for. But if we're talking about upgrades, and people suing because they think the airline "owes" them something, then I will never agree that it's right.
Reply
post #40 of 56
2/4/09 at 11:36am
I will have to fine the article that we got at work but part of the reason so many passengers were disgruntled was they had purchased the insurance for lost baggage and flight cancellation from the airline as recommended, but if they accepted the cheque which was part of the insurance they paid for, they lost all rights to further compensation. US Airways later said it was unfair and said people would not lose the right to further compensation so depending on when the article was written, I can see why some people would be upset.

Now to me that is totally different from the people who were given cheques without having insurance for lost baggage or trip cancellation where it was a 'gift' from the airline

And the upgrades are 'when available' which means that they may never get an upgrade so i
Reply
post #41 of 56
2/4/09 at 11:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Februa View Post
) People shoudnt suffer in PTSD or go bankrupt because an airplane they were on crashed. No way should passengers shoulder this responsibility - especially when the airline can absolutely cover it with their insurance (ie - NOT coming out of their deep pockets)
What defines PTSD? For some it could be a fender-bender. For others it could be a bomb explosion in Iraq. It depends on the person and what they can deal with.

Personally, I think I've dealt with PTSD when a tornado touched down 1/2 mile from my work and took out half of the mountain. I, and 3 coworkers were huddled down in the men's bathroom. Luckily we only lost our sign, a few shingles and a few trees. On the other side of the road, houses were completely destroyed, cars on top of cars and pink insulation everywhere.

It hit SO close to me that it makes me nervous when the weather gets that way. In fact, my friends got tired of hearing about it after a while. I've gotten over it. It was an act of nature. Should I have sued my employer if I needed counseling? It was my choice to work there, just as it was their choice to get on the plane.
Reply
post #42 of 56
2/4/09 at 11:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Februa View Post
What if counselling/medication to deal with the emotional trauma of a near death experience ends up costing $25,000 and a passenger doesnt have the golden US insurance some are lucky to have? That $5000 check will sure look like a slap in the face then. I would expect the airline to cover my costs associated with the accident above and beyond my belongings, which is why I think there are probably some passengers who may sue and have every right to (assuming the airline is refusing to pay for counselling costs or something as provided in my earlier example). Now, if theres no emotional trauma, no lost time etc., then I would agree those people are being greedy to ask for more, but in this situation, I would expect there to be exceptions.

Oh, good grief, that "emotional trauma" excuse is so over used and so darn phony. No one was hurt except one person that broke both their legs.

"Emotional trauma", they should be on Cloud Nine that they are still breathing.

I don't think the airline should have to pay one nickel for any counseling, there is nothing to be counseled for, the passengers lived a flipping miracle.

How about the passengers do the right thing and be grateful.
Reply
post #43 of 56
2/4/09 at 11:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
I don't see the correlation. I would think someone else would have to be driving the car - perhaps your neighbour and you are a passenger in his car. A deer runs out in front of him and he crashes and you get hurt. You sue him for monies and his insurance pays up. His insurance rates go up not your insurance so you are not out anything.

I agree with the ohers that say greed is ruining the country. Just because a company has insurance does not mean they are rich. Anyone remember all the ambulance chasing drivers after the Union Carbide Bophal disaster? Union Carbide was a huge worldwide company with many assets. Because of greed and lawyers there no longer is a Union Carbide. The disaster was discovered to have been a deliberate act on the part of a disgruntled employee but that won't bring a company back.

Too many people are looking for a quick way to get rich off somebody else and it makes me sick. It's too bad they can't be honest and earn what they get instead of thinking everyone owes them something.
I agree. It makes me sick too. The people that look for the easy pay day are not one bit different than all the greedy CEO's in this country, getting huge bonus' while their companies get bail outs. Same thing.
Reply
post #44 of 56
2/4/09 at 12:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Februa View Post
So if you were driving a car with 3 passengers, and an accident happened (not your fault - total accident) and they had serious injury - your liability would ABSOLUTELY cover their medical costs.
I wonder if psychological therapy would be covered if they were afraid to get in a car again.
Reply
post #45 of 56
2/4/09 at 12:38pm
Actually, after our rental car was hit by a speeding driver - they did ask if we needed any counselling or further medical claims before cutting the cheque so I would imagine it is, depending on the situation.

Recently we were hit by a deer which to me was more traumatic but they didn't offer any counselling for that and I can't drive up that road anymore when I drive past the spot where our rental was hit every day.

The deer was nature, the rental crash was a stupid teen speeding in the rain and taking a corner too wide yet the deer hitting the car traumatised me a lot more
Reply
post #46 of 56
2/4/09 at 3:32pm
I vivdly remember when I was driving a load of doors up to Toledo one night and a deer bounded all of the way across the southbound lanes and into the northbound lanes. I didn't see the poor thing until it hit the front left corner of the truck and slid underneath it. I stopped and didn't see the deer (it was very dark that night) and went on my way. I stopped at the weigh station a few miles ahead and talked to the officer on duty about it.

Another incident I remember I was above Dayton heading southbound with the truck. There was a family in a station wagon that had all of the windows down and a dog in the back seat. Nobody was paying attention to the dog. I saw it rear back and jump out the window (I was muttering under my breath not to jump). Needless to say, the poor thing ended up getting ran over by the rear tires of the cab. I stopped and waited a half hour to see if the people would stop or come back but they never did.

I'll never forget those two moments.
Reply
post #47 of 56
2/4/09 at 3:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
I seriously doubt many of those passengers have serious medical issues - I think they have greed issues. Suffer my foot! I'm betting that most of them are out celebrating their incredible increase in fortune at their local night spots.

It makes me sad to see that more Canadians are hitting the "let's sue" bandwagon. I had hoped we were above that but apparently we are not and it truly is telling a sorry picture of the population.
I disagree with that wholeheartedly. I can not even start imagining being inside of a falling plane! I travel a LOT for work, and it is part of my job - if I were inside of that plane, I am not sure I would be able to continue on the same career.

This is not them suing for nothing - the were inside of a plane that fell. On their fare, they paid insurance for this type of situation. I don't understand what is wrong in doing what they are entitled to.
Reply
post #48 of 56
2/4/09 at 4:51pm
Here in NZ if you are travelling domestically or internationally, insurance is optional - is it included in all air flight tickets in the states?
Reply
post #49 of 56
2/4/09 at 6:05pm
They are getting 5 grand and life time upgrades. No serious injuries, it is greed pure and simple.

It was a accident, a freak accident. So of course, let's bankrupt the airlines over it. People never cease to amaze me.

So what, they were inside a falling airplane and they lived to tell about it, by the grace of God, they all walked away with no serious injuries.

Whatever happened to being grateful, for thanking the Lord for saving your life. We are such a greedy nation with such a sense of entitlement, it is embarrassing.
Reply
post #50 of 56
2/4/09 at 6:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
They are getting 5 grand and life time upgrades. No serious injuries, it is greed pure and simple.

It was a accident, a freak accident. So of course, let's bankrupt the airlines over it. People never cease to amaze me.

So what, they were inside a falling airplane and they lived to tell about it, by the grace of God, they all walked away with no serious injuries.

Whatever happened to being grateful, for thanking the Lord for saving your life. We are such a greedy nation with such a sense of entitlement, it is embarrassing.
And then, of course, once the greedy beggars put that airline out of business and there are fewer left, those left will raise their fares to cover their backsides for just this sort of thing and everyone will have to pay more for airfare. But those folks won't mind because they can pay the extra out of their 5K and ugrades. It's the rest of the population that will pay for their greed.

It's like the people in grocery stores that decide at the cash register that they don't want that package of chicken and hide it under the counter in the carry baskets. I found one there last week and gave it to the checkout girl. They can't put the chicken back on the shelf because they have no idea how long it had been sitting out there so it has to be thrown out. Guess who ends up paying for it? You and me because the store has to raise their prices to cover these types of losses. These individuals could easily have just handed the chicken to the cashier and told her they've changed their mind and it could have been returned to the cooler and wouldn't have been wasted but they are gutless wonders who don't know how to do the right thing and end up costing us all more than we need to pay.
Reply
post #51 of 56
2/5/09 at 3:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post

It's like the people in grocery stores that decide at the cash register that they don't want that package of chicken and hide it under the counter in the carry baskets. I found one there last week and gave it to the checkout girl. They can't put the chicken back on the shelf because they have no idea how long it had been sitting out there so it has to be thrown out. Guess who ends up paying for it? You and me because the store has to raise their prices to cover these types of losses. These individuals could easily have just handed the chicken to the cashier and told her they've changed their mind and it could have been returned to the cooler and wouldn't have been wasted but they are gutless wonders who don't know how to do the right thing and end up costing us all more than we need to pay.
Don't get me started on this. I used to work in a supermarket and it never ceases to amaze me where people would stick meat. People would actually go out of their way to put unwanted trays of meat behind 30 bottles of shampoos rather then take it back to the meat section or give it to a staff member.
Reply
post #52 of 56
2/5/09 at 5:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by WellingtonCats View Post
Don't get me started on this. I used to work in a supermarket and it never ceases to amaze me where people would stick meat. People would actually go out of their way to put unwanted trays of meat behind 30 bottles of shampoos rather then take it back to the meat section or give it to a staff member.
And don't you just know who's going to be the first to complain about the high cost of groceries!
Reply
post #53 of 56
2/6/09 at 8:23pm
I sincerely hope that God reconsiders saving the greedy and ungrateful ones, and rectifies the situation quickly.
Reply
post #54 of 56
2/6/09 at 9:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pookie-poo View Post
I sincerely hope that God reconsiders saving the greedy and ungrateful ones, and rectifies the situation quickly.
wow - nobody would go to heaven! IMO Everybody is greedy at some level... Some more than others. It pretty much is part of human nature...
Reply
post #55 of 56
2/7/09 at 6:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by carolinalima View Post
wow - nobody would go to heaven! IMO Everybody is greedy at some level... Some more than others. It pretty much is part of human nature...
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. There are many, many, many folks out there that are not greedy and are grateful and happy to have what little some of them do have. Greed is not part of human nature IMO, it's learned behaviour - we aren't born with greed.
Reply
post #56 of 56
2/9/09 at 12:17pm

Passengers had the option of purchasing some sort of flight insurance, didn't they?
Only other thing the airline might do is help with any medical costs due to the accident - but, anyone that is just out for the $$, well - they're just like an ambulance chaser.

I'm not sure I could ever fly again once I was involved in a crash.

I heard a lot of people were praying - God answered - in abundance.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Justified or just ungrateful?