fbpx

Day: September 3, 2019

España tiene un sólo aeropuerto entre los más cómodos de Europa

El Consumer Choice Center -Centro de Elección del Consumidor-, ha analizado los principales aeropuertos europeos por volumen de pasajeros, para determinar cuáles de ellos alcanzan los más altos estándares de satisfacción para los viajeros, llegando a conclusiones interesantes para España y el continente.

Considerando parámetros como por ejemplo su ubicación respecto de las ciudades en las que se hallan, como la atención al público o las opciones de transporte allí disponibles, se ha clasificado entonces a estos centros aéreos, indicando que sólo un aeropuerto español está entre los mejores de Europa.

En su top 10 de infraestructuras más friendly o acogedoras para el pasajero, aparecen en los primeros lugares entonces los de Bruselas, Zúrich y Düsseldorf, mientras que tras ellos podemos ver al representante nacional, Madrid-Barajas, en una cuarta y meritoria ubicación. Tras la capital española nos encontramos luego con Copenhagen, Amsterdam-Schiphol, Estocolmo-Arlanda, Frankfurt y Munich.

Una de las primeras cuestiones que podemos tener en cuenta es que los tres aeropuertos mejor clasificados gestionan un número de pasajeros muy menor al de los aeropuertos más concurridos del continente, así que este factor podría jugarle en contra a otros como los de Londres-Heathrow y París-Charles De Gaulle.

Esta primera edición anual del Índice Europeo de Aeropuertos del Consumidor intentará, a partir de ahora, brindar datos interesantes para los pasajeros que cruzan Europa por el aire, con datos respecto de las mejores conexiones, comodidades, y muchos otros aspectos a considerar en estos casos.

Justamente a partir de este tipo de estudios es que Barajas trabaja en la ampliación de algunas de sus instalaciones, buscando la excelencia que le permita competir con algunos de los aeropuertos del norte del continente, que suelen ser los mejor vistos por los usuarios.

Originally published here

La classifica europea dei migliori aeroporti Italia grande assente

BruxellesZurigo e Düsseldorf. Questo il terzetto che conquista i vertici della prima edizione dell’European Consumer Airport Index, la classifica degli scali europei migliori per l’esperienza, le infrastrutture e i servizi che sanno offrire ai loro passeggeri.

Il ranking, elaborato da Consumer Choice Center, è stato stilato prendendo in esame i 30 aeroporti più grandi d’Europa in base al volume dei passeggeri ed è la sintesi di un mix di fattori che vanno dall’esperienza dei viaggiatori alle opzioni di trasporto.

Top ten senza Italia
Tre i dati che saltano subito agli occhi: il primo, impossibile da non notare, è la mancanza dell’Italia nella top ten, ma è evidente anche come il monopolio dei migliori servizi sia appannaggio degli scali del Nord Europa (solo uno del Sud del continente, quello di Madrid, è presente in classifica al quarto posto), mentre il terzo punto è l’assenza dei grandi aeroporti. I tre scali meglio posizionati hanno tutti, infatti, tra i 25 e i 32 milioni di passeggeri l’anno, un terzo delle dimensioni di realtà quali Londra Heathrow e Parigi Charles De Gaulle. Né l’uno, né l’altro, però, sono entrati nella top ten; tra i cinque maggiori scali europei, poi, solo Amsterdam e Francoforte figurano in classifica.

A Malpensa l’argento per lo shopping
Tornando alla classifica, dopo il quarto posto di Madrid il quinto è occupato dal Manchester Airport, cui seguono quelli di Copenaghen, Amsterdam, Stoccolma, Francoforte e Monaco di Baviera. Italia grande assente, dunque? Non proprio. Se andiamo a spulciare le classifiche parziali notiamo come, infatti, Milano Malpensa spunti in seconda posizione nel ranking degli scali in base ai ristoranti e alla shopping experience. Nella top five per questa categoria compaiono anche, in ordine di posizione, lo scalo di Monaco, quello di Parigi Orly e, tra i grandi, solo quello di Amsterdam Schiphol.

Originally published here

Copenhagen Airport ranked among best in the world

Nordic flight hub named fifth best based on eight airport-related parameters 

Executives at Copenhagen Airport are most likely popping some serious champagne corks these days thanks to the airport being on a serious roll over the last few days.

Late last month, the airport was ranked number six in Europe for passenger-friendliness by Consumer Choice Center, and today it has been ranked among the best airports in the world by luggage storage provider Stasher.

Originally published here

Opinion: Have we reached peak lawsuit?

Another day, another bogus lawsuit.

That seems to be the trend in today’s frantic fever to adjudicate every aspect of our lives. It’s gone much beyond the famous $3 million McDonald’s “hot coffee” lawsuit of the 1990s.

We see this with the landmark $572 million opioid lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson in Oklahoma, boiling down all the complexities of a multi-faceted crisis to the workings of one big bad company in a single court case.

This, even though the company’s pharmaceutical subsidiary only sold two opioid drugs for a period of a decade and it represented just 1 percent of the entire U.S. opioid market. The lawyers hired by the attorney general of Oklahoma will net a handsome $90 million as a result of this suit. The rest of the money will be allocated to the state of Oklahoma for education, addiction centers and the general budget, without much oversight. Something is rotten in the state of Oklahoma.

Though the Food & Drug Administration shares in the blame for the opioid crisis, owing to its 1995 endorsement of opioids for “chronic pain” when the science only supported short-term use, the issue is simply too complex to relegate to a single trial.

In California, a recent jury trial on glyphosate, the herbicide in Round-up, gives us a similar example.

Dozens of international environmental agencies, hundreds of studies and millions more farmers have attested that glyphosate is both safe and not carcinogenic, including our own Environmental Protection Agency.

But in July, the jury returned a verdict against Bayer subsidiary Monsanto, ordering the company to pay $86.7 million to a couple who claimed the herbicide contributed to their case of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. That’s drastically reduced from the $2 billion the trial attorneys sought, but will still net them a good payday and spawn hundreds of similar lawsuits.

Again, this is relegating science to the courts of justice. And consumers will be the ones to pay. No doubt, the power of the courts is a mighty one, and intended to provide justice to those who have been wronged.

But have we been led astray?

Known as tort law, this part of our legal system was originally designed to punish bad behavior and “civil wrongs.” Today, thousands of law firms exist solely to pursue large torts against corporations that would rather pay out moderate sums than face the burden of unpredictable trials. These costs end up raising the costs for both consumers and taxpayers, as more resources must be used in litigating the concerns and helping pay for the exorbitant levels of purported damage.

In the Chicago area, one group estimated that tort abuse brought by bogus lawsuits resulted in a cost of $3.8 billion to the city and county last year alone.

It’s no wonder tort lawyers are some of the biggest advertisers in the nation.

Across the United States, television commercials and highway billboards taken out by tort law firms implore consumers to “call now “ to “cash in” on the major settlement that is set to pay out huge winnings.

The conditions for joining the lawsuit are general if not spurious. Have you been in a bad car wreck involving a Toyota Camry? Did you use baby powder in the years between 1980 and 1995?

Many lawsuits arise because of “pricing discrepancies” (prices rounded to 99 cents rather than the dollar) as witnessed by the dozens of Amazon or Banana Republic settlements you may have seen in your inbox. These lawsuits are filed with the intention of getting big paydays for the attorneys who conjure them up, not civil justice.

It’s no wonder that firms, once they achieve a certain size, are forced to raise prices to push back against these many frivolous suits.

These lawsuits end up costing consumers dearly. And it shouldn’t be that way.

That’s why we need legal reform in our country. By capping the payments from these exorbitant lawsuits, actually defining who can be a defendant, and bringing legitimate science into the courtroom, this can be achieved.

Yes, bad actors must be punished. But we cannot continue to allow bogus lawsuits launched by dubious lawyers looking more for a payday than actual justice. We, as both consumers and citizens, deserve better.

Read more here

Opinion: Have we reached peak lawsuit?

Another day, another bogus lawsuit.

That seems to be the trend in today’s frantic fever to adjudicate every aspect of our lives. It’s gone much beyond the famous $3 million McDonald’s “hot coffee” lawsuit of the 1990s.

We see this with the landmark $572 million opioid lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson in Oklahoma, boiling down all the complexities of a multi-faceted crisis to the workings of one big bad company in a single court case.

This, even though the company’s pharmaceutical subsidiary only sold two opioid drugs for a period of a decade and it represented just 1 percent of the entire U.S. opioid market. The lawyers hired by the attorney general of Oklahoma will net a handsome $90 million as a result of this suit. The rest of the money will be allocated to the state of Oklahoma for education, addiction centers and the general budget, without much oversight. Something is rotten in the state of Oklahoma.

Though the Food & Drug Administration shares in the blame for the opioid crisis, owing to its 1995 endorsement of opioids for “chronic pain” when the science only supported short-term use, the issue is simply too complex to relegate to a single trial.

In California, a recent jury trial on glyphosate, the herbicide in Round-up, gives us a similar example.

Dozens of international environmental agencies, hundreds of studies and millions more farmers have attested that glyphosate is both safe and not carcinogenic, including our own Environmental Protection Agency.

But in July, the jury returned a verdict against Bayer subsidiary Monsanto, ordering the company to pay $86.7 million to a couple who claimed the herbicide contributed to their case of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. That’s drastically reduced from the $2 billion the trial attorneys sought, but will still net them a good payday and spawn hundreds of similar lawsuits.

Again, this is relegating science to the courts of justice. And consumers will be the ones to pay. No doubt, the power of the courts is a mighty one, and intended to provide justice to those who have been wronged.

But have we been led astray?

Known as tort law, this part of our legal system was originally designed to punish bad behavior and “civil wrongs.” Today, thousands of law firms exist solely to pursue large torts against corporations that would rather pay out moderate sums than face the burden of unpredictable trials. These costs end up raising the costs for both consumers and taxpayers, as more resources must be used in litigating the concerns and helping pay for the exorbitant levels of purported damage.

In the Chicago area, one group estimated that tort abuse brought by bogus lawsuits resulted in a cost of $3.8 billion to the city and county last year alone.

It’s no wonder tort lawyers are some of the biggest advertisers in the nation.

Across the United States, television commercials and highway billboards taken out by tort law firms implore consumers to “call now “ to “cash in” on the major settlement that is set to pay out huge winnings.

The conditions for joining the lawsuit are general if not spurious. Have you been in a bad car wreck involving a Toyota Camry? Did you use baby powder in the years between 1980 and 1995?

Many lawsuits arise because of “pricing discrepancies” (prices rounded to 99 cents rather than the dollar) as witnessed by the dozens of Amazon or Banana Republic settlements you may have seen in your inbox. These lawsuits are filed with the intention of getting big paydays for the attorneys who conjure them up, not civil justice.

It’s no wonder that firms, once they achieve a certain size, are forced to raise prices to push back against these many frivolous suits.

These lawsuits end up costing consumers dearly. And it shouldn’t be that way.

That’s why we need legal reform in our country. By capping the payments from these exorbitant lawsuits, actually defining who can be a defendant, and bringing legitimate science into the courtroom, this can be achieved.

Yes, bad actors must be punished. But we cannot continue to allow bogus lawsuits launched by dubious lawyers looking more for a payday than actual justice. We, as both consumers and citizens, deserve better.

Originally published here

Have We Reached Peak Lawsuit?

Another day, another bogus lawsuit.

That seems to be the trend in today’s frantic fever to adjudicate every aspect of our lives. It’s gone much beyond the famous $3 million McDonald’s “hot coffee” lawsuit of the 1990s.

We see this with the landmark $572 million opioid lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson in Oklahoma, boiling down all the complexities of a multi-faceted crisis to the workings of one big bad company in a single court case.

This, even though the company’s pharmaceutical subsidiary only sold two opioid drugs for a period of a decade and it represented just 1 percent of the entire U.S. opioid market. The lawyers hired by the attorney general of Oklahoma will net a handsome $90 million as a result of this suit. The rest of the money will be allocated to the state of Oklahoma for education, addiction centers and the general budget, without much oversight. Something is rotten in the state of Oklahoma.

Though the Food & Drug Administration shares in the blame for the opioid crisis, owing to its 1995 endorsement of opioids for “chronic pain” when the science only supported short-term use, the issue is simply too complex to relegate to a single trial.

In California, a recent jury trial on glyphosate, the herbicide in Round-up, gives us a similar example.

Dozens of international environmental agencies, hundreds of studies and millions more farmers have attested that glyphosate is both safe and not carcinogenic, including our own Environmental Protection Agency.

But in July, the jury returned a verdict against Bayer subsidiary Monsanto, ordering the company to pay $86.7 million to a couple who claimed the herbicide contributed to their case of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. That’s drastically reduced from the $2 billion the trial attorneys sought, but will still net them a good payday and spawn hundreds of similar lawsuits.

Again, this is relegating science to the courts of justice. And consumers will be the ones to pay. No doubt, the power of the courts is a mighty one, and intended to provide justice to those who have been wronged.

But have we been led astray?

Known as tort law, this part of our legal system was originally designed to punish bad behavior and “civil wrongs.” Today, thousands of law firms exist solely to pursue large torts against corporations that would rather pay out moderate sums than face the burden of unpredictable trials. These costs end up raising the costs for both consumers and taxpayers, as more resources must be used in litigating the concerns and helping pay for the exorbitant levels of purported damage.

In the Chicago area, one group estimated that tort abuse brought by bogus lawsuits resulted in a cost of $3.8 billion to the city and county last year alone.

It’s no wonder tort lawyers are some of the biggest advertisers in the nation.

Across the United States, television commercials and highway billboards taken out by tort law firms implore consumers to “call now “ to “cash in” on the major settlement that is set to pay out huge winnings.

The conditions for joining the lawsuit are general if not spurious. Have you been in a bad car wreck involving a Toyota Camry? Did you use baby powder in the years between 1980 and 1995?

Many lawsuits arise because of “pricing discrepancies” (prices rounded to 99 cents rather than the dollar) as witnessed by the dozens of Amazon or Banana Republic settlements you may have seen in your inbox. These lawsuits are filed with the intention of getting big paydays for the attorneys who conjure them up, not civil justice.

It’s no wonder that firms, once they achieve a certain size, are forced to raise prices to push back against these many frivolous suits.

These lawsuits end up costing consumers dearly. And it shouldn’t be that way.

That’s why we need legal reform in our country. By capping the payments from these exorbitant lawsuits, actually defining who can be a defendant, and bringing legitimate science into the courtroom, this can be achieved.

Yes, bad actors must be punished. But we cannot continue to allow bogus lawsuits launched by dubious lawyers looking more for a payday than actual justice. We, as both consumers and citizens, deserve better.

Originally published here

Scroll to top
en_USEN