The frustrating economics of aviation

I'm afraid you're wrong. The costs of obtaining a pilots license is due
to outrageous insurance requirements due to RIDICULOUS and incessant
endless litigation by ambulance chasers and greedy individuals. These
costs are passed along in the form of higher costs for everything
and of course, the little guy ends up paying it.

The actual requirements to obtain a pilots license are, in reality,
fairly minimal. Look how easy it is to get a drivers license and then
look at how many people are killed in automobiles every day. You
don't hear about it on the news because it Isn't news... dozens die
every day across the country in motor vehicles.

Flying is safer (per passenger mile) than traveling in cars, trains
and yes, even boats. The reason it has that record is in part because
the requirement are more stringent.

You need to focus your energy on tort reform... then you'll have more
money in your pocket so you could afford flying lessons. Litigation
causes us to pay higher prices for everything, not just aviation.

in article , kontiki at
wrote on 7/17/04 10:29 AM:


You need to focus your energy on tort reform... then you'll have more
money in your pocket so you could afford flying lessons. Litigation
causes us to pay higher prices for everything, not just aviation.

The problem with any discussion of tort reform or "frivolous" lawsuits is
that nobody is ever willing to get into specifics. No one's willing to
define what "frivolous" actually means (aside, of course, from the fact that
it's never THEIR lawsuit) , or what percentage of lawsuits they consider to
be so.

Well, how about it? Anyone willing to submit some actual hard data? Let's
get specific for once--what percentage of lawsuits are "frivolous"? And what
are your precise criteria for determining their frivolity? Remember, no
anecdotes allowed--I don't wanna hear about the McDonald's coffee lady.
Let's see some numbers.

"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , kontiki at
wrote on 7/17/04 10:29 AM:


You need to focus your energy on tort reform... then you'll have
more
money in your pocket so you could afford flying lessons. Litigation
causes us to pay higher prices for everything, not just aviation.

The problem with any discussion of tort reform or "frivolous" lawsuits
is
that nobody is ever willing to get into specifics. No one's willing to
define what "frivolous" actually means (aside, of course, from the
fact that
it's never THEIR lawsuit) , or what percentage of lawsuits they
consider to
be so.

Well, how about it? Anyone willing to submit some actual hard data?
Let's
get specific for once--what percentage of lawsuits are "frivolous"?
And what
are your precise criteria for determining their frivolity? Remember,
no
anecdotes allowed--I don't wanna hear about the McDonald's coffee
lady.
Let's see some numbers.

Forcing people to produce specifics that they have no access to isn't
the way to deal with this issue. The fact is that a definition of
"frivolous" can't actually be determined since it's subject to
individual interpretation. Who's to say what is frivolous and what's
not? That's the beauty of the lawyer's position; a position BTW that you
have presented so deftly here I might add :-)

Besides....I LOVE anecdotes.....and forget about the coffee lady. Hell,
that's only ONE example of the way the system works:-)

Rather than searching for a non existent legal definition for
"frivolous" as you are suggesting, let me put forth for you a slightly
different approach.

Ten people are lined up in front of a man with a machine gun. The man
starts at one end of the line, faces the first person and asks,
"Do you like bananas?"
"No", says number one.
The man with the gun promptly cuts the first guy in half in a rain of
bullets. His bloody body or what's left of it crumples to the ground in
a pool of blood and gore.
Now the man with the machine gun stands in front of number 2.
He asks, "How bout it....do YOU like bananas?
"No", says number two.
The man with the gun promptly cuts HIM in half in a rain of bullets. His
head separates from his body; the eyes are completely shot out; and the
upper cervical gleams snow white in the sun as what's left of number two
crumples to the ground stone cold dead.

You are number three and next in line. The man stands in front of YOU
and asks, "Tell me there number three, what do YOU think about bananas?"
Now tell me the God's honest truth here ole'buddy, just WHAT the living
hell are YOU going to tell this guy about bananas???? :-)))))

This scenario is more than sufficient for anyone with average
intelligence to understand all the "specifics about frivolous lawsuits"
they'll EVER need to understand in one life time!!! :-)))

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

in article , Dudley
Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 11:35 AM:


"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...

The problem with any discussion of tort reform or "frivolous" lawsuits
is
that nobody is ever willing to get into specifics. No one's willing to
define what "frivolous" actually means (aside, of course, from the
fact that
it's never THEIR lawsuit) , or what percentage of lawsuits they
consider to
be so.

Well, how about it? Anyone willing to submit some actual hard data?
Let's
get specific for once--what percentage of lawsuits are "frivolous"?
And what
are your precise criteria for determining their frivolity? Remember,
no
anecdotes allowed--I don't wanna hear about the McDonald's coffee
lady.
Let's see some numbers.

Forcing people to produce specifics that they have no access to isn't
the way to deal with this issue. The fact is that a definition of
"frivolous" can't actually be determined since it's subject to
individual interpretation. Who's to say what is frivolous and what's
not? That's the beauty of the lawyer's position; a position BTW that you
have presented so deftly here I might add :-)

Thank you. So, how can we expect to ever enact any kind of meaningful tort
reform if we can't even come up with a definition of what needs to be
reformed? And if forcing people to be more specific is not the answer, then
what is? Being vague?

"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , Dudley
Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 11:35 AM:


"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...

The problem with any discussion of tort reform or "frivolous"
lawsuits
is
that nobody is ever willing to get into specifics. No one's willing
to
define what "frivolous" actually means (aside, of course, from the
fact that
it's never THEIR lawsuit) , or what percentage of lawsuits they
consider to
be so.

Well, how about it? Anyone willing to submit some actual hard data?
Let's
get specific for once--what percentage of lawsuits are "frivolous"?
And what
are your precise criteria for determining their frivolity?
Remember,
no
anecdotes allowed--I don't wanna hear about the McDonald's coffee
lady.
Let's see some numbers.

Forcing people to produce specifics that they have no access to
isn't
the way to deal with this issue. The fact is that a definition of
"frivolous" can't actually be determined since it's subject to
individual interpretation. Who's to say what is frivolous and what's
not? That's the beauty of the lawyer's position; a position BTW that
you
have presented so deftly here I might add :-)

Thank you. So, how can we expect to ever enact any kind of meaningful
tort
reform if we can't even come up with a definition of what needs to be
reformed? And if forcing people to be more specific is not the answer,
then
what is? Being vague?

I hardly think that recognizing a problem exists without forcing the
general public into a scientifically provable analysis that they can't
hope to produce is being vague. I don't need the world to fall on me to
know that lawyers are a problem in the United States. I only need my two
eyes, two ears, and my natural intelligence as that applies to deductive
reasoning. :-)
It's a flawed premise I think to demand that a problem doesn't exist
just because individuals without access can't produce these "facts".
It's also flawed to demand that people know how to fix the problem they
know exists.
But recognizing that a problem exists is the first step in fixing it.
Hell, I have no idea how to determine the extent of frivolous lawsuits
and their damage to the country's business environment, but I know it
has, and does cause damage...tremendous damage. I only have to talk to
the many friends I have in business to determine this.
This isn't vague. It's rock solid evidence.
Example; we have a close friend, a neuro surgeon. He's actually leaving
our state and moving to another because he literally can't afford his
malpractice insurance. He's an excellent doctor. On the other hand, we
have in our state a malpractice attorney who owns not one, but multiple
airplanes, and employs an army of people simply to maintain them for his
flying "pleasure". He lives in one of the most expensive areas in our
state. He's worth millions...and he is just ONE lawyer engaged in
malpractice law. Now you tell me, do you REALLY think there's enough
legitimate malpractice in my area to support this lawyer's
lifestyle....and the bevy of other lawyers who are engaged in this
"practice"? I don't know about you, but I don't need a house to fall on
me to understand that medical malpractice lawsuits are a HUGE
contributor to my medical costs as passed on to me by my insurer, and I
don't believe for one instant that there is enough actual malpractice
going on to justify these lawyers getting so rich on it.
It all boils down to the basics as I see it. The smart lawyers create
the system so they can use the system to get rich. The system relies on
stupid people sharing in the lawyers greed. The lawyers then use the
stupid people to fill their pockets. The remaining demographic for the
people is then split up into sections; the people whom the lawyers have
used, and the people the lawyers haven't used. The problem is that the
people who have been used by the lawyers have gained to their added
wealth at the expense of the people who don't get used by the lawyers.
The lawyers could care less!!! There are always enough of the greedy
people to be used for the lawyers purposes.
It's a perfect system for the lawyers........until the day they bleed
the system dry.....just as they have bled it dry for our doctor friend
who is moving on.
I have no doubt that General Aviation will follow our doctor friend
someday, unless something is done to take the lawyers out of the GA cost
equation....and I'm not betting too highly on that one.......are YOU??
:-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

I believe that in Canada if you file suit and lose, you pay the costs. I
like it!

Dudley Henriques wrote:
"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...

in article , Dudley
Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 11:35 AM:


"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
.. .

The problem with any discussion of tort reform or "frivolous"

lawsuits

is

that nobody is ever willing to get into specifics. No one's willing

to

define what "frivolous" actually means (aside, of course, from the

fact that

it's never THEIR lawsuit) , or what percentage of lawsuits they

consider to

be so.

Well, how about it? Anyone willing to submit some actual hard data?

Let's

get specific for once--what percentage of lawsuits are "frivolous"?

And what

are your precise criteria for determining their frivolity?

Remember,

no

anecdotes allowed--I don't wanna hear about the McDonald's coffee

lady.

Let's see some numbers.

Forcing people to produce specifics that they have no access to

isn't

the way to deal with this issue. The fact is that a definition of
"frivolous" can't actually be determined since it's subject to
individual interpretation. Who's to say what is frivolous and what's
not? That's the beauty of the lawyer's position; a position BTW that

you

have presented so deftly here I might add :-)

Thank you. So, how can we expect to ever enact any kind of meaningful

tort

reform if we can't even come up with a definition of what needs to be
reformed? And if forcing people to be more specific is not the answer,

then

what is? Being vague?


I hardly think that recognizing a problem exists without forcing the
general public into a scientifically provable analysis that they can't
hope to produce is being vague. I don't need the world to fall on me to
know that lawyers are a problem in the United States. I only need my two
eyes, two ears, and my natural intelligence as that applies to deductive
reasoning. :-)
It's a flawed premise I think to demand that a problem doesn't exist
just because individuals without access can't produce these "facts".
It's also flawed to demand that people know how to fix the problem they
know exists.
But recognizing that a problem exists is the first step in fixing it.
Hell, I have no idea how to determine the extent of frivolous lawsuits
and their damage to the country's business environment, but I know it
has, and does cause damage...tremendous damage. I only have to talk to
the many friends I have in business to determine this.
This isn't vague. It's rock solid evidence.
Example; we have a close friend, a neuro surgeon. He's actually leaving
our state and moving to another because he literally can't afford his
malpractice insurance. He's an excellent doctor. On the other hand, we
have in our state a malpractice attorney who owns not one, but multiple
airplanes, and employs an army of people simply to maintain them for his
flying "pleasure". He lives in one of the most expensive areas in our
state. He's worth millions...and he is just ONE lawyer engaged in
malpractice law. Now you tell me, do you REALLY think there's enough
legitimate malpractice in my area to support this lawyer's
lifestyle....and the bevy of other lawyers who are engaged in this
"practice"? I don't know about you, but I don't need a house to fall on
me to understand that medical malpractice lawsuits are a HUGE
contributor to my medical costs as passed on to me by my insurer, and I
don't believe for one instant that there is enough actual malpractice
going on to justify these lawyers getting so rich on it.
It all boils down to the basics as I see it. The smart lawyers create
the system so they can use the system to get rich. The system relies on
stupid people sharing in the lawyers greed. The lawyers then use the
stupid people to fill their pockets. The remaining demographic for the
people is then split up into sections; the people whom the lawyers have
used, and the people the lawyers haven't used. The problem is that the
people who have been used by the lawyers have gained to their added
wealth at the expense of the people who don't get used by the lawyers.
The lawyers could care less!!! There are always enough of the greedy
people to be used for the lawyers purposes.
It's a perfect system for the lawyers........until the day they bleed
the system dry.....just as they have bled it dry for our doctor friend
who is moving on.
I have no doubt that General Aviation will follow our doctor friend
someday, unless something is done to take the lawyers out of the GA cost
equation....and I'm not betting too highly on that one.......are YOU??
:-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

in article , Rip at
wrote on 7/17/04 1:26 PM:

I believe that in Canada if you file suit and lose, you pay the costs. I
like it!

Unless it happened to be you, of course.

I agree, much of the civilized world uses a 'loser pays' system.

Certainly it isn't fair for a victorious plantif to have to pay 1/2 of
his compensation to a lawyer.

And certainly it isn't fair for a victorious defendant to still have
lost tens of thousands of dollars in lawyer's fees.

In our current system people sue every party they can think of that
might have money - and why not? They already are paying for the
lawyer, why not just add to the lawsuit the artifical horizon
manufacturer, and the vacuum pump maker, and pilot's estate, and the
FBO, and the aircraft manufacturer, etc? It doesn't cost them (much)
more, and maybe the other parties will settle just to not have to pay
those thousands of dollars in lawyer fees to defend themselves, even
if they are not even remotely connected to the problem.

As many have said the only winners with the current system are the
trial lawyers.

I've won a law suit or two - I bet you have too. Let's see, I won my
class action lawsuit against Ford Motor Company for having a Bronco II
that was "too unstable". I got... the oportunity to request a VHS
tape on how to drive a vehicle with a high CG. The lawyers got how
many millions?? I won my lawsuit against the RIAA for price fixing,
too... I got, oh, zero, lawyers got $$$$. I think I won a suit againt
Microsoft recently.. me, $0, lawyers, ...well you get it.

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned that the Democrat's VP
candidate is ... a trial lawyer. Or that historically the #1
contributer to the DNC is... the Trial Lawyers Association.

-Bruce

Rip wrote in message ...
I believe that in Canada if you file suit and lose, you pay the costs. I
like it!

Dudley Henriques wrote:
"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...

in article , Dudley
Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 11:35 AM:


"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
.. .

The problem with any discussion of tort reform or "frivolous"

lawsuits

is

that nobody is ever willing to get into specifics. No one's willing

to

define what "frivolous" actually means (aside, of course, from the

fact that

it's never THEIR lawsuit) , or what percentage of lawsuits they

consider to

be so.

Well, how about it? Anyone willing to submit some actual hard data?

Let's

get specific for once--what percentage of lawsuits are "frivolous"?

And what

are your precise criteria for determining their frivolity?

Remember,

no

anecdotes allowed--I don't wanna hear about the McDonald's coffee

lady.

Let's see some numbers.

Forcing people to produce specifics that they have no access to

isn't

the way to deal with this issue. The fact is that a definition of
"frivolous" can't actually be determined since it's subject to
individual interpretation. Who's to say what is frivolous and what's
not? That's the beauty of the lawyer's position; a position BTW that

you

have presented so deftly here I might add :-)

Thank you. So, how can we expect to ever enact any kind of meaningful

tort

reform if we can't even come up with a definition of what needs to be
reformed? And if forcing people to be more specific is not the answer,

then

what is? Being vague?


I hardly think that recognizing a problem exists without forcing the
general public into a scientifically provable analysis that they can't
hope to produce is being vague. I don't need the world to fall on me to
know that lawyers are a problem in the United States. I only need my two
eyes, two ears, and my natural intelligence as that applies to deductive
reasoning. :-)
It's a flawed premise I think to demand that a problem doesn't exist
just because individuals without access can't produce these "facts".
It's also flawed to demand that people know how to fix the problem they
know exists.
But recognizing that a problem exists is the first step in fixing it.
Hell, I have no idea how to determine the extent of frivolous lawsuits
and their damage to the country's business environment, but I know it
has, and does cause damage...tremendous damage. I only have to talk to
the many friends I have in business to determine this.
This isn't vague. It's rock solid evidence.
Example; we have a close friend, a neuro surgeon. He's actually leaving
our state and moving to another because he literally can't afford his
malpractice insurance. He's an excellent doctor. On the other hand, we
have in our state a malpractice attorney who owns not one, but multiple
airplanes, and employs an army of people simply to maintain them for his
flying "pleasure". He lives in one of the most expensive areas in our
state. He's worth millions...and he is just ONE lawyer engaged in
malpractice law. Now you tell me, do you REALLY think there's enough
legitimate malpractice in my area to support this lawyer's
lifestyle....and the bevy of other lawyers who are engaged in this
"practice"? I don't know about you, but I don't need a house to fall on
me to understand that medical malpractice lawsuits are a HUGE
contributor to my medical costs as passed on to me by my insurer, and I
don't believe for one instant that there is enough actual malpractice
going on to justify these lawyers getting so rich on it.
It all boils down to the basics as I see it. The smart lawyers create
the system so they can use the system to get rich. The system relies on
stupid people sharing in the lawyers greed. The lawyers then use the
stupid people to fill their pockets. The remaining demographic for the
people is then split up into sections; the people whom the lawyers have
used, and the people the lawyers haven't used. The problem is that the
people who have been used by the lawyers have gained to their added
wealth at the expense of the people who don't get used by the lawyers.
The lawyers could care less!!! There are always enough of the greedy
people to be used for the lawyers purposes.
It's a perfect system for the lawyers........until the day they bleed
the system dry.....just as they have bled it dry for our doctor friend
who is moving on.
I have no doubt that General Aviation will follow our doctor friend
someday, unless something is done to take the lawyers out of the GA cost
equation....and I'm not betting too highly on that one.......are YOU??
:-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

in article , Dudley
Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 12:46 PM:


I hardly think that recognizing a problem exists without forcing the
general public into a scientifically provable analysis that they can't
hope to produce is being vague. I don't need the world to fall on me to
know that lawyers are a problem in the United States. I only need my two
eyes, two ears, and my natural intelligence as that applies to deductive
reasoning. :-)

That's all very well, Dudley, and like you, I am well aware that we live in
a highly litigious society where people are all too often rewarded for
spurious claims and lawsuits. Trust me, it drives me nuts. But this
realization brings us no closer to solving the problem.

It's a flawed premise I think to demand that a problem doesn't exist
just because individuals without access can't produce these "facts".

I have never stated that a problem doesn't exist.

It's also flawed to demand that people know how to fix the problem they
know exists.

I have made no such demand. I have simply asked for definitions of the
problem.

But recognizing that a problem exists is the first step in fixing it.

Correct. And the second step, as I've repeatedly stated, is to arrive at a
useful and working definition of that problem. Otherwise, how will anything
ever get done?

Okay, I'll get us started:

1. "Frivolous" shall be defined as any claim that causes a majority of those
hearing about it for the first time to slap the palms of their hands against
their foreheads and exclaim, "You've got to be kidding!".

Hi Phil;

I'm not giving you a hard time on this Phil. I just sound that way
because I'm old and hate lawyers!! :-))

I understand what you're saying about solving the problem and indeed, it
does need addressing just as you say. I'm afraid I'm totally unqualified
to speak to that issue, and I seriously doubt if it will be addressed by
anyone in the government with the power to correct it since most of them
are part of the problem. The rest of the problem is the general, who
NEVER seem to be able to get organized enough to attack things like
this.
It all comes around in one big gigantic circle of corruption ? What's
indicative to me anyway is that the issue itself could become the fatal
flaw in a capitalistic system; the flaw that brings down the economy of
the country around our own ears.
So in the end I'm with you. I know what the problem is, and I have
absolutely no idea on how to fix it. Could be we're looking at the
ultimate doomsday machine for big business in the United States....the
American Trial Lawyer.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt


"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , Dudley
Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 12:46 PM:


I hardly think that recognizing a problem exists without forcing the
general public into a scientifically provable analysis that they
can't
hope to produce is being vague. I don't need the world to fall on me
to
know that lawyers are a problem in the United States. I only need my
two
eyes, two ears, and my natural intelligence as that applies to
deductive
reasoning. :-)

That's all very well, Dudley, and like you, I am well aware that we
live in
a highly litigious society where people are all too often rewarded for
spurious claims and lawsuits. Trust me, it drives me nuts. But this
realization brings us no closer to solving the problem.

It's a flawed premise I think to demand that a problem doesn't exist
just because individuals without access can't produce these "facts".

I have never stated that a problem doesn't exist.

It's also flawed to demand that people know how to fix the problem
they
know exists.

I have made no such demand. I have simply asked for definitions of the
problem.

But recognizing that a problem exists is the first step in fixing
it.

Correct. And the second step, as I've repeatedly stated, is to arrive
at a
useful and working definition of that problem. Otherwise, how will
anything
ever get done?

Okay, I'll get us started:

1. "Frivolous" shall be defined as any claim that causes a majority of
those
hearing about it for the first time to slap the palms of their hands
against
their foreheads and exclaim, "You've got to be kidding!".