Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is It Fair To Ban Virgin Nigeria From US?  
User currently offlineJoFMO From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 8630 times:

http://yahoo.reuters.com/financeQuoteCompanyNewsArticle.jhtml?duid=mtfh31451_2004-12-17_14-13-21_l17362248_newsml

What do you guys think about it?

I don't see any reason why a mojority nigerian owned airline should be banned from the USA. And I don't see what the anticompetitive Heathrow restrictions has to do with Nigeria.
To me it looks the other way around. The US wants to protect CO on its new route LOS.

66 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 1, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 8496 times:

The US might want to protect CO on it's route to LOS - but, after all, the UK is essentially trying to protect BA (and VS) by means of the Bermuda II treaty that bars most US carriers from entering LHR...

While I don't see the barring of VS Nigeria as the right method in trying to get the UK to agree to open up LHR - after all, even though they are 49% owned by Branson/Virgin, that still makes them 51%, or majority, owned by Nigerians - I do understand the US's frustration...

... but I doubt that this measure will improve anything.

Regards,
Frank



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineAerofan From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1517 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 8465 times:

Well, perhaps the Nigerian government could also ban CO from starting the route as well. I do not see why the US gov't should ban VS Nigeria either, but capitalism seems to only work when it is to someones benefit


User currently offlineJoFMO From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 8439 times:

I understand their frustration too, but it is unfair to let the Nigerians feel the pressure.

I really don't see that blocking Virgin Nigeria from the US should change Virgin Atlantics support to Bermuda II. Their benefits from limited competition in LHR are much bigger than what they loose from not being allowed between LOS-USA.
Why does the USA on the other hand allow Vigin to set up a low-cost carrier in the USA. That harms American companies much more than one or two daily flights between Africa and the US.

If the USA really want to lift Bermuda II, they should come to the table and negotiate a far reaching open sky agreement with the European Union. As long as they don't react more progressively in this way, I can't take their whining about Bermuda II seriously.


User currently offlinePlanemannyc From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1007 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 8422 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It seems a bit protectionist. The Bermuda II treaty was for direct flights between UK and the US. I don't see any British (or Nigerian) carrier trying to have flights between the UK and US with stops in Nigeria. If Nigeria allows 49% of its airlines to be owned by foreign investors, it's Nigeria's choice (of course, we all know that US does not allow this for its airlines). I guess all will fall back on the US-Nigeria treaty to see if their are clauses that states that airlines gaining access on the route must be 100% owned by Nigerian or US interests. From the outside, it looks like CO trying to gain a monopoly in a lucrative market by pressuring US diplomats. I for one always think that competition is good especially if the market is on a level playing field -- and in my opinion, 51% of Nigerian holdings means that V-Nigeria is a Nigerian company, and that it will cater to mostly Nigerians. So my gut reaction is that V-Nigeria should be allowed to fly between Lagos and the US. It will be best for consumers.

My $0.02

Best,

Wasim / Planemannyc


User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 5, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 8417 times:

Why does the USA on the other hand allow Vigin to set up a low-cost carrier in the USA. That harms American companies much more than one or two daily flights between Africa and the US.

Because, based on the laws and codes of the United States of America, the government has no basis on which they could prevent Virgin America from starting up: they've complied with all necessary regulations and rules, so the FAA, DOT, government or whoever must give the final OK simply has no choice but to say yes.



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineBobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6444 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 8394 times:

JoFMO,

I believe the US is ready to start an open sky agreement with the EU when the EU counties are ready to act as one in the United Nations etc. You can't just be a cohessive group when it suits your aims.


User currently offlinePadcrasher From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 8372 times:

Hey BA and Virgin don't want to share LHR fine. It's in their interest to do so. Don't expect any favors for a Virgin owned airline simply because the have some paperworked filled out in Nigeria that shows them to be a Nigerian company.

User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 8, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 8344 times:

Padcrasher, no-one's expecting favors, and VS didn't just simply "have some paperworked (sic) filled out in Nigeria that shows them to be a Nigerian company"...

Is it too much to ask that you stay with the facts when joining a discussion?



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlinePadcrasher From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 8296 times:

The article states VS Nigeria is 49% Virgin owned 51% Nigerian "Institution" owned. Which is code word for oil money. Which I'm sure the British own a good part of that. Making it essence a British airline. Hoping to get past US regulators wishing to open up LHR. Why is it OK for the UK to guard it's airlines's interests but not the US? If you're concerned about the Nigerian air consumer let's help the LHR customer. It's so simple.

User currently offlineAlitaliaMD11 From Spain, joined Dec 2003, 4068 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 8259 times:

Hey


I find it very unfare.

I remember that Nigerian Airways opperated to JFK, back when they where flying.

I find this especialy wierd since VS own half of the airline and that states has a good rep with VS.



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Yevgeny Pashnin


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Julian Whitelaw


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tom Turner


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bill Hough



The 747 used was TF-ABA for the JFK route was leased from Air Atlanta and now opperate for Travel City Direct.

Now when was the last flight for Nigeria Airways?

I hope VS Nigeria gets to fly to the US



No Vueling No Party
User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 11, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 8249 times:

Padcrasher, I suspect that UA and AA probably won't be too interested in opening up LHR either... but, to be precise, we both actually agree on the LHR issue.

Nonetheless, the airline is technically 51% Nigerian owned - and it's not interested in opening up services from LHR to the US anyhow, but from Nigeria to the US... so, for all intents and purposes, this is a majority-Nigerian-owned airline wanting to start services from Nigeria to the US, something the US wants to prevent using the minority-owner side of the business as arguement... and that's where I'd say that the US is walking down a, to say the least, problematic path.



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlinePadcrasher From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 8203 times:

Yes agree I'm for opens skies but Branson is no advocate of open markets. Why help him out?

Nice website you have. I lived in Mainz-Finthen and in Wiesbaden when I was in the military. Took some courses at the University of Frankfurt. Very fond of that area and the Germans. Lots of good memories.


User currently offlineFlyLondon From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 377 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8099 times:

LHR should be opened up to all US carriers as soon as the US Congress passes a law preventing any US airline from having more slots at any one US airport than BA would have at LHR.

Try telling CO, DL or AA that they can only have 35% of slots of two runways at EWR, ATL or DFW respectively.

The sad situation is that there is currently not enough runway capacity at Heathrow for everyone who wants it. Why should US carriers be given preference for this limited capacity at the detriment of UK carriers? As soon as a new runway is built I'd be happy to see everyone at LHR - it would only reinforce its position a world hub.


User currently offlineJetBlast From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 1231 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8087 times:

I don't think it would be right to ban Virgin Nigeria from the US because as far as I remember the US is on good terms with Nigeria! I would however think differently of an airline from an "enemy" country or a "dangerous" country such as North Korea (no offense).

Regards
JetBlast @ BWI  Smile/happy/getting dizzy



Speedbird Concorde One
User currently offlineBobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6444 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8089 times:

FlyLondon,

There is no slot control at EWR, DFW, or ATL for any carrier. Can't use them as an example. Same holds true for JFK, DTW, MSP, IAH, MIA etc.


User currently offlineAerofan From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1517 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8053 times:

Pad you lie when you state that SRb is not a fan of open skies. All of his mouthings show just the opposite.

And why is access to LHR always being trumpeted. As though it is some sort of panacea to what ails the US airlines. No amount of flying into LHR will help them.


User currently offlineElwood64151 From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2477 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8003 times:

And I don't see what the anticompetitive Heathrow restrictions has to do with Nigeria.

I think the article explained that: The UK-based Virgin Atlantic has been extremely vocal in keeping US airlines out of LHR, so this joint-venture is being blocked from having US landing rights.

I didn't say it was fair, right, or made sense. But it is an explanation.

Because, based on the laws and codes of the United States of America, the government has no basis on which they could prevent Virgin America from starting up: they've complied with all necessary regulations and rules, so the FAA, DOT, government or whoever must give the final OK simply has no choice but to say yes.

How little you understand our government system. The DOT can deny an operating certificate, even with our deregulation of the airlines. The reason Branson is being allowed to set-up Virgin America is that only 25% of the voting stock will be owned by him, according to US law. That means he'll own the majority of the company, but he won't have overwhelming control. Plus, it will provide jobs for American employees, so what does the DOT care?

The sad situation is that there is currently not enough runway capacity at Heathrow for everyone who wants it.

So what are Birmingham and Glasgow? Chopped liver?

There are 55 million people in the UK, and it's about the size of Illinois. There are multiple cities with over a million people and multiple airports serving those cities. Certainly they are not the most desirable points of entry/exit for every passenger, but neither are DFW, CLE, or PIT.

Like the US airlines, BA and VS may have to learn how to deal with multiple points of exit/entry to better suit their customer's needs.

Besides which, the UK could simply open up a certain limited number of slots for each airline, rather than having only two airlines operate routes.

As though it is some sort of panacea to what ails the US airlines. No amount of flying into LHR will help them.

I have to agree. Why aren't US airlines operating more extensively to Birmingham, Glasgow, etc?



Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 18, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7876 times:

Elwood64151, are you saying that the relevant authorities could simply deny an airline the required certificates because they simply don't want that airline to operate, even though it complies with all relevant laws and codes?

Because otherwise, saying that my comment proves that I don't understand the US's doesn't make sense...


So what are Birmingham and Glasgow? Chopped liver?

No, they're not... but if I recall correctly, they're not covered by Bermuda II, so US airlines wanting to fly there very well could: they just don't want to.

Why? I guess only the airlines know that - but I guess it has something to do with them not expecting enough demand from those cities.



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineEurostarVA From Bahrain, joined May 2002, 1296 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7830 times:

Guys, guys, guys!

We all agree that the Virgin Group cannot possibly benefit in the UK-USA market as a result of the formation of Virgin Nigeria. As most of you have pointed out, this new airline is to operate between Nigeria and the US, and not between the UK and the US. I'm quite certain the US government is using this as a BARGAINING CHIP in its own negotiations with the UK government, to the detriment of the ripped-off, over-charged Nigerian traveler who have had to endure long connections through Europe to travel between the US and Nigeria.

PS: Padcrasher: Please get your facts straight. I would doubt, judging from your post, that you can name the capital of Nigeria or if you are aware/up to date on Nigeria's facts. The British don't 'partly' own the 'oil' money youre refering to in the 51% stake reserved for Nigerian institutional investors. Furthermore, the 51% is earmarked for a an Initial Public Offering (IPO) shortly after the airline is airborne early next year.






If there is a will, there is a way
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7831 times:

Gregoire said the UK had repeatedly failed to open the London market to additional U.S. airlines, adding that Virgin Atlantic had been vocal in urging its home government to lock out American airlines.

When last I checked, the LON market was quite open to "additional US airlines", just not the LHR market. Big difference!



The sad situation is that there is currently not enough runway capacity at Heathrow for everyone who wants it. Why should US carriers be given preference for this limited capacity at the detriment of UK carriers?

...for the same reasons that the Air Kookamongas of the world always seem able to weasle out a few slots here and there at LHR-- while most USA carriers are barred from even attempting to do so.


User currently offlinePadcrasher From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 7736 times:

"The US Government objection to Virgin Atlantic, he explained, is hinged on the basis of information from representatives of Virgin Atlantic and representatives of the Nigerian Embassy in Washington who told the US Government in July that indeed Virgin Nigeria would be a company controlled by Virgin Atlantic."

Awe shucks, I thought is was little ol me who was the only one who knows whats going on...LOL. Yes some Americans know the UK is Nigeria's biggest trading partner and some know the banks, oil companies, and insurance companies have a large British interests. In the US when you have ownership restrictions you don't simply stop looking the first corporation at hand. You look into the ownership of the "institutional investors".







User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 20
Reply 22, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7635 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I have to agree. Why aren't US airlines operating more extensively to Birmingham, Glasgow, etc?

This is a simpe question and it has a simple answer, there isn't a market big enough outside London. If the national carrier, BA cannot find a market outside London, with a sole MAN-JFK flight, what chance have US carriers of expanding from MAN, GLA and BHX?



In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offlineOliver18 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 13 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7012 times:

I think the issue raised by the US diplomat has no basis? What does LHR have to do with Virgin Nigeria.

LHR is a very restrictive airport everybody knows that.
I think the British airlines face a lot more competition of the Lon-USA market:
take a look at the facts
BRITISH CARRIERS (LON-USA)
1. BA
2. VS

USA CARRIERS
1. AA
2. UA
3. DL
4. NW
5. US
6. CO

If LHR was to open up do you think the ratios of 6:2 would be fair.

ok ok including bmi 6:3.

The fact is there is a lot more American carriers than their are British which is obvious considering the size of the USA. However looking at the situation from the British perspective I can see why the British aren't opening lhr too soon. It just wouldn't be in the interests of their carriers. Unfair but its our airport and our airlines. Right now the situation is fair its 50/50. Two carriers from your side and two carriers from my side.

It would be great for lhr to get more runways. But with the city so close and the surrounding towns. it just not gonna happen too soon. if ever. (this has always been a British problem. its called lack of forward thinking. eg. more people travel by air, airlines need expansion to compete with others european airlines. DO NOTHING ABOUT IT. Population is growing in the city and city requires more homes. DO NOTHING ABOUT IT. More people are driving and using the roads, journey times are forever increasing for all. DO NOTHING ABOUT IT (or ken livingstone idea (london's mayor). fiddle with the traffic lights so they are GREEN for 5 seconds and RED for 60. Then make roads narrower, build more bus lanes, put more empty buses on the road, congestion charge to get the poor people off the road.

Sorry about that. back to the aviation discussion. I think with CO recent intentions for nyc-los market. they are simply using this as an excuse. I suggest SRB sell his stake to a friend of his. pick any rich nigerian, change the name to nigeria airlines. then buy the stake back after nigeria airlines commence their flights to the us, then SRB should buy back his stake and then change the name to Virgin Nigeria.




User currently offlineETStar From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 2103 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 6987 times:

I certainly hope CO will be banned from operating into LOS... the US has no right to meddle into other coutries' business. And it's not like VS is the one that is operating the LOS-US route: why are there no issues with the AF/KL groupe, or any other airline owned by some other airline for that matter? Is the US desperate enough on the LHR issue to take such step?

25 Notdownnlocked : Good for the US government to block this. As some have said LHR is a very restrictive airport everybody knows that. If it is so restricted then why do
26 ConcordeBoy : As for the airports that are slot constricted and regulated in the US and off limits to UK carriers please tell me which ones are these There really a
27 Atmx2000 : Can anyone tell me how many flights UA, AA, VS, and BA account for between LHR and the US? And how many other airlines stopover at LHR on their way to
28 Rtfm : Slots are restricted at LHR; that's an undeniable fact. And US airlines can get extra slots at LHR if they wanted them, however under Bermuda II the o
29 Post contains images Leskova : Notdownnlocked: As some have said LHR is a very restrictive airport everybody knows that. If it is so restricted then why does every Flybynight Expres
30 ACAfan : OK, so Virgin Nigeria can't fly to the United States. Big hairy deal. Who's gonna stop Virgin ATLANTIC from flying JFK-LOS?
31 Leskova : ACAfan, I'd say that even if, and that's a very, very big if, the Nigerian government were to allow Virgin Atlantic to fly JFK-LOS, the US government
32 Foxiboy : Lets see we have BA,VS,BD flying from the uk to the us and we have AA,CO,DL,NW,US, and UA so there are more us carriers flying to the UK From LHR to t
33 Atmx2000 : What does the number of US carriers have to do with anything? Most of them serve different markets. On the other hand there are almost five times more
34 GKirk : If the national carrier, BA cannot find a market outside London, with a sole MAN-JFK flight, what chance have US carriers of expanding from MAN, GLA a
35 Post contains images AirbusA346 : What does VS Nigeria's C/S look like, does any body know. airbusA346
36 Foxiboy : It has everything to do with it as the US airlines want more access to LHR, and also tend to cry foul along with VS if they dont get they want,so if o
37 Angelairways : Oh how I long for the day when those bloody politicians will scrap Bermuda II and give everyone open skies. The US decision is selfish, protectionist
38 Atmx2000 : That would be terribly anti-competitive, since that would mean a few airlines would dominate the UK-US market, not to mention the market for internati
39 Boo25 : Simple 6 US carriers versus 2 UK carriers doesn't equate. Of course the UK government has to protect the interests of UK airlines - in the same way th
40 Atmx2000 : How is it anti-competitive to prevent airlines or any other company from liquidating? It increases competition by leaving unhealthy airlines in the ma
41 JoFMO : I don't see what the number of carriers from UK vs. US has to do with this topic. There are also only two German carriers to the US, while 6 American.
42 Leskova : Boo25, so how does 3 or 4 cities in the UK (with a market reasonably big enough to support flights to the US) equate with 20 to 30 in the US?
43 JoFMO : It is alos worth noting, that with canceling Bermuda II not alo t would chance. The biggest profit would go to BMI. They are only one with already eno
44 EurostarVA : JoFMO, I fully agree with you and hope that this matter is resolved when Sir Richard Branson and Nigerian government officials arrive in the US for ta
45 Gigneil : This is ridiculous. CX is owned by a British conglomerate, yet CX can serve the US nonstop from HKG. You can't have it one way but not another. Our di
46 Atmx2000 : HKG was under British rule very recently, so it is not unexpected that ownership of the airline is British. If the original Nigerian airline were also
47 Gigneil : No, it doesn't, no. Nigeria is not England. This is a regulatory battle with the EU and England, not Nigeria. N
48 Leskova : Nigeria is not England. This is a regulatory battle with the EU and England, not Nigeria. ... and, added to that, Virgin Nigeria is majority owned by
49 Padcrasher : leskova, You are getting too caught up in this 51%/49% technicallity. Virgin Nigeria told US authorities they will be controlled by Virgin Atlantic. S
50 Post contains images EurostarVA : Padcrasher, Most Nigerians couldnt give a damn about the naming of the airline. As far as they know, the Virgin brand is sexy, famous and marketing-fr
51 Padcrasher : Yes it sound like a good deal Eurostar. I hope them all the best. In the mean time the US can pursue it's goal of opening up LHR and the UK can pursue
52 Padcrasher : And for all you wishing CO to be denied access to LOS. According to the annual survey by the Berlin-based organization Transparency International Nige
53 Leskova : Padcrasher, believe me - maybe it won't be tears, but it will be a big disappointment, because this route will most likely be quite a cash cow for CO,
54 Burnsie28 : What does it matter, Virgin Nigeria hasnt even tried to apply for US-Nigeria routes anyway.
55 Donder10 : According to the annual survey by the Berlin-based organization Transparency International Nigeria ranks as the third most corrupt country in the Worl
56 JoFMO : I would expect that every western country has to find "innovative" ways to deal with corrupt countries Nigeria. For example LH just announced three ne
57 Post contains images Mandala499 : JoFMO, Simple... Negotiate the "fee", then dish out the brown envelopes... Mandala499
58 BENNETT123 : In the days of the OLD Nigeria Airways, did they fly to the US.
59 Monkeyboi : The 'Bermuda II' 'two airline' policy was an agreement signed by BOTH the UK and US government, not some bully boy tactic imposed by the brits. Both t
60 MaverickM11 : My boss theorized that Branson wanted to use Virgin Nigeria as a backdoor way of getting more LHR-US slots by throughing flights from Nigeria, through
61 BrightCedars : 51% is all it takes for Virgin Nigeria to be Nigerian. The US don't have a say in this unless the concern would be safety reasons, which sure isn't th
62 Padcrasher : The other Nigerian "Institution" is Virgin Nigeria Cola which is 51% owned by another Nigerian "Institution", Virgin Nigeria Records, which of course
63 Luv2fly : Well IMHO I believe Sir Richard is getting some of the grief he caused BA and AA would they tried to link up and code share. Like Mom always said, "Wh
64 BENNETT123 : Did Nigeria Airways operate to the US before. If so, where there any problems. As for LHR to US via Lagos, somehow I think not.
65 EurostarVA : Nigeria Airways did operate to New York but their service prior to their liquidation was a codeshare Lagos-New York flight operated by South African A
66 BENNETT123 : So is the problem that Nigeria Airways was not competitive and that Virgin Nigeria might be.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Is It Safe To Book US Airways Tix? posted Wed Jul 14 2004 21:37:21 by ORBITJFK
Is It Safe To Book Travel On US Airways? posted Thu May 6 2004 07:14:47 by Aloha717200
Is It Possible To Start A New US Airline posted Thu May 3 2001 21:06:05 by Wolfpacker
Is It Possible To Know The Reg. Of A Future Flight posted Tue Nov 7 2006 22:01:13 by Tony Lu
Is It Tricky To Nonrev To CGK? posted Sat Sep 16 2006 03:37:53 by Malaysia
Is It Time To Get A Third Samsonite? posted Sun Aug 13 2006 08:36:59 by SmithAir747
Qantas & The B777...Is It Going To Happen! posted Wed Jun 21 2006 08:36:08 by EK413
Is It Safe To Book On Delta posted Sat May 27 2006 01:36:26 by LV
Is It Easy To Spot Federal Marshalls? posted Tue Apr 4 2006 09:13:40 by Superhub
Is It Safe To Fly A 737-200? posted Tue Mar 21 2006 22:35:38 by LY777