dojN001883.xml

dojN001883.xml

born-digital

email

yes

no

2002-01-16

Wednesday, January 16, 2002 11:06 AM
Comments for Interim Final Rule

Dear Mr. Feinberg:
As the son of World Trade Center Victim , I would like to make
my objections to the program very clear. Because of the misrepresentations
and media spin, both the purpose of the fund and its potential payout has
been incorrectly stated in just about every source.

First, the Airline Bailout Bill was not passed by Congress to provide for
the families of the victims. It was created primarily to protect the
airlines from litigation. The provision of the bill that includes the fund
was included as an incentive for families to accept a settlement and not
sue the airlines. Any award that is given to a family is money that the
Airline would have had to pay. This is another gift to the Airlines.
Nobody would benefit from bankrupt airlines, but to give all this support
to the airlines at the expense of the victims' families would be
inappropriate and unjust. In short, this money is from the government on
behalf of the Airlines. Many have represented the fund as an act of
charity to the families. That is not the case. The program should provide
the incentive for which it was created. Congress had the right intention;
the current formula ignores this intention.

Further, these "awards" will not actually be the amount that is paid to the
families. If the deceased victim made any sort of plans for his or her
family, he will not receive much at all from this fund. If someone paid
life insurance premiums for his entire life, the family will be penalized
for his planning. If, instead, someone decided to invest this money rather
than buy life insurance, the investment will not be subtracted from any
settlement award. The fund discriminates on the basis of their investment
choices.

If life insurance and pension benefits were not counted against the
settlement, then the fund would actually provide an incentive to avoid the
courtroom. The rules should be changed and changed quickly. Right now,
those less fortunate may be forced into signing because of financial need.
Protecting the transportation system is necessary, but not at the expense
of the families of the victims. If this tragedy had involved three people
instead of 300, then each family would be looking at settlements from the
airlines' insurance companies. Just because this event was of such a large
scope, the loss of a loved one is not any easier.

If the rules are not changed, then many people will be encouraged to take
this matter to court. If we are trying to avoid lengthy court battles,
then make the settlement more equitable.

Sincerely,

Individual Comment
son of victim
Charlotte, North Carolina

2002-01-16