How about the consideration of Crash - Fire - Rescue equipment. LAX has far more equipment available than LGB. ETC.. Al ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alireza Alivandivafa" <DEmocrat2n@xxxxxxx> To: <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 1:40 PM Subject: Re: jet Blue incident > First, the pilots and jetBlue maintainance made the decision to land the > aircraft. Plain and simple. I really doubt they gave a damn about any > sort of > law suit. Second, the gear would not retract, that is how they noticed > the > problem in the first place, so flying to JFK would not only be unsafe, but > also > impossible at the rate of fuel burn expected, especially considering they > already have to weight restrict out of BUR. > > As far as aviation firms go, are they only sharks if they defend the > airlines > or just victims? What if maintainance negligence is found to be the > problem? > Safety is most definately part of the contract of carriage, so if people > are > put in danger, it is a breach of contract as well as a potential tort. > What > many people (notably you) don't understand is that in many cases, in order > to > preserve your rights, you have to file suit early to satisfy the > timeliness > requirements. That also extends to manufacturers, where they may need to > be > joined early in order to do discovery as to whether or not it was a defect > or it > was negligent maintainance. Non-lawyers don't understand how the law > works, > but far too often make assumptions based on propaganda they have rammed > down > their throats by insurance companies. Here is something you probably > don't > know. Malpractice suits actually drove premiums down and health care > quality up > for years simply because doctors took that much extra care in taking care > of > patients. When insurance companies decided to look for a way to justify > massive > premium hikes, they blamed law suits. Problem is, malpractice suits had > declined, along with the amount awarded, in that time. As far as 70% of > the cost > of a Cessna being related to the cost of litigation, perhaps that is > because > Cessna had to actually put some safety into the aircraft. I am sure that > of > the $300-$400 thousand dollars one pays for a Cirrus SR-22, lots of that > has to > do with the safety parachute and roll cage. So, lawyers are doing a bad > thing? > > The reason the aircraft went to LAX is multi-fold. First, if it went off > the > end of the runway, it would cause far less damage to any surrounding area > as > the end of 25L is a beach. Second, LAX would not have traffic severly > affected, because it still had 3 runways to work with while they had to > close 25L, > while LGB's only long runway would have been closed and flights, > especially > jetBlue's flights, would be severly effected by having only 6000 feet of > runway. > Beyond this, there is that much more emergency equipment at LAX than at > LGB > because it is one of the busiest airports in the world, as opposed to one > with > very limited service. Finally, LAX has a major A320 operator hubbed at > the > airport with big MX hangars on site. The aircraft can just be towed over > to > United and checked out there for damage and have parts replaced rather > quickly. > > Your attack on lawyers is completely uncalled for and an insult to the > thousands who work everyday to protect and preserve the rights you seem > not to care > about > > In a message dated 9/22/2005 3:39:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > damiross3@xxxxxxxxxxx writes: > Did you interview the pilots to determine that they didn't continue with > the > flight so they could "have a controlled situation in which to land..."? > > JFK is JetBlue's main base where they do maintenance. Unless the gear > would > not retract - which the news casts I've seen haven't mentioned - the > aircraft could have made it to JFK. > > What do you call a lawyer in a firm that specializes in aviation that sues > an airline before the facts of the incident/accident are in? What do you > call a lawyer in a firm that specializes in aviation that sues an aircraft > manufacturer because its plane was not maintained properly (in other > words, > there was no defect in the airplane cause by the manufacturer. > > Did you know that a large part of the cost of purchasing is due to > suit-happy lawyers? At one time, 70 (seventy!) percent of the cost of a > Cessna light aircraft was due to possible liability caused by lawyers. > > From my view here on my high horse, I still say one of the reasons that > the > aircraft went to LAX was due to lawyers. > > Alireza, based on your previous e-mails and this one I should have known > that you were pursuing a career in an industry that is rated very high on > the list of professions that most people hate.