Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Air Fares In Europe To "Double" - Article  
User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4449 posts, RR: 7
Posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6001 times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2256590,00.html

AIR passengers will be charged up to £40 extra for a return ticket within Europe to pay for the environmental impact of their journeys, under plans approved by the European Parliament yesterday.

42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6799 posts, RR: 34
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5923 times:

There goes the LCC industry in Europe up in smoke....

Er, maybe not smoke, because smoke would mean pollution which is what this tax eliminates. Along with jobs, commerce, economy, etc.

More do-gooding crap.


User currently offlineB707Stu From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 918 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5909 times:

Interesting concept. I'd like to see the allocation of the dollars. If it's to reduce emissions and make Europe greener then it's a good thing. It's sad the US industries are holding so strongly to the past. I'm afraid it will leave the US behind. It would be interesting if the Europeans were funding advanced non-oil-based technologies for engines, now that would be worth all the money! European taxing on tickets have never kept pace with the American taxing of tickets, it's not a surprise.

User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5843 times:

It'll all go to line the pockets of politicians Stu. Not only is the entire "global warming" farce just that, a farce, but we're talking politics here.

The only thing this is about is getting more money out of people, with the side effect of making them stay where they're put.

It won't be the end of LCCs though, as their prices would go up by the same amount as all the others.
It WOULD however be the end of European airlines on routes to other continents as airlines from those continents wouldn't be subject to the tax.
They'd therefore loose almost all their competitive position (what's left of it) on say the US market.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlinePbottenb From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 431 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5756 times:

Im not that familiar with the EU political structure - Can the EU Parliment do this unilaterally, or will the individual parliments/govts need to agree. Id be surprised if a tax hike can go through in the UK without the UK parliment voting on it...am I wrong?

User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8223 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5734 times:

So where is the money going to go? Some of it can go to pay unemployment benefits for those in the airline industry that loose their jobs. Some can offset the tax loss from the airlines that go under. Most will probably go to pet projects the individual politicians want to fund - with little benefits going to those that pay this additional tax.

User currently offlineBBADXB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5720 times:

The classic EU rubbish... So much for mobility and all that nice talk in the air...

User currently offlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2178 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5677 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Then all you EU-members must demand that the Environment committee report to you every quarter about what they spend every Euro on, to "keep the bastards honest" and if there is anything that sounds suspicious then you can clamp down on it straight away.


Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offlineKatekebo From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 704 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5653 times:

IMHO this has two objectives:

1) Additional source of income for the government to close the growing gap in the budget. Instead of reducing wastefull spending, the government is trying to increase taxes.

2) Shift some of the public from air to rail travel. Most of European rail is government owned and heavily subsidized, so making more people travel by train will help to reduce the financial drain that the rail system represents on public finances.

It has nothing to do with protecting the environment. If EU was serious about protecting the environment, why don't they implement the same emission norms for their cars like US? Most people don't realize that the majority of European cars could not be sold in the US because they have too high emissions to meet EPA standards. Yes, European cars consume less fuel (because on average they are much smaller), yet they emit more CO, HC and NOx than cars sold in the USA. Same goes for air polution norms for the industry, which are much more lax in EU than USA.


User currently offlineAmberair732 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5557 times:

Quoting Pbottenb (Reply 4):
Im not that familiar with the EU political structure - Can the EU Parliment do this unilaterally, or will the individual parliments/govts need to agree. Id be surprised if a tax hike can go through in the UK without the UK parliment voting on it...am I wrong?

Good question Pbottenb. As mentioned in the article this motion has been agreed by the MEP's ( mostly retired/minor politicians ) but still has to be agreed by the european comission. I would not assume that these new taxes/charges will be adopted by the European comission, as protacted debate by the european commision will most definitely follow.
If there's any European legal experts out there, I have one question - What's to stop all large European carriers registering their fleet in a non EU country ( Switzerland ? ) and avoiding a large chunk of these charges ?


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6429 posts, RR: 54
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5557 times:

Funny thing is that this new tax proposal will in fact INCREASE emissions. The reason is that every other journey will begin with a trip to Switzerland - a non-EU member country right in the middle of the EU.

But it won't happen. When Airbus begins talk about laying off dozens of thousands of workers because they have orders for a thousand planes which they have accepted on condition of no such EU tax, then French and German politicians will get cold feet.

In northern and thinly populated regions of countries like Sweden and Finland the businesses and industries are totally dependent upon efficient and payable air transport. In case of such a new tax all activity will move to the more densely populated regions further south. Along with them moves the population to avoid taking part in a near 100% unemployment adventure. What will be left behind up north will be nursing homes for old people.

Spain and Greece are heavily dependent upon their tourist industry. Who the hell will spend three days in a bus going to Spain, and three days back again when they have a week off for a holiday?

So relax. It won't happen.

The so called European Parliament is not a real parliament. It is sort of advisory board for the EU Commission. Former Danish EU commissioner Mrs. Ritt Bjerregaard once called it a Micky Mouse Parliament for which she of course was flamed heavily by the parliament members. But she was right. There are no limits on what crazy ideas they have come up with during the last 30 - 40 years and it seems to never end.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6799 posts, RR: 34
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5529 times:

Quoting B707Stu (Reply 2):
European taxing on tickets have never kept pace with the American taxing of tickets, it's not a surprise.

So the theory of "misery loves company" should be applied?

In case you didn't notice, one of the key drivers for the financial misery for US carriers is that the NON-INCOME related taxes and Federal charges amount to 25% of an average fare. It's a higher tax rate than alcohol and tobacco.

I always cite this, but it's worth mentioning again...in 2005, CO lost $366MM net, but paid out $1,052,000,000 in NON income taxes....so you think it's fair to level the playing field with the European carriers?

I wouldn't wish that on anyone.


User currently offlineAmberair732 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5522 times:

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 10):
The so called European Parliament is not a real parliament. It is sort of advisory board for the EU Commission. Former Danish EU commissioner Mrs. Ritt Bjerregaard once called it a Micky Mouse Parliament for which she of course was flamed heavily by the parliament members. But she was right. There are no limits on what crazy ideas they have come up with during the last 30 - 40 years and it seems to never end.

 checkmark 

These guys actually pay Neil Kinnock a wage !


User currently offlineAlanUK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5473 times:

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 3):
It'll all go to line the pockets of politicians Stu. Not only is the entire "global warming" farce just that, a farce, but we're talking politics here.

A FARCE???!?!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4969772.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4888946.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5006970.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4771399.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/4755297.stm

Whether we choose to believe it or not, climate change and global warming is a reality...
 ashamed 

We simply cannot carry on living the way we all do on this planet right now. And that's not just for CO2 emissions, but our crazy consumer world, wasting world...

Aviation plays a part in all this, and to jet away for the week-end for £1 on Ryanair simply doesn't match the cost to the environment of this lifestyle extravagenza. I'm still hopeful that the commercial aviation will adapt in time, that is before we run out of oil or choke to death on our own little blue planet.


User currently offlineTango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3805 posts, RR: 29
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5466 times:

Quoting Slider (Reply 1):
There goes the LCC industry in Europe up in smoke....

How so? The European majors/legacies will be required to charge the same fee as the LCCs, meaning their total ticket prices will increase by a like amount unless they choose to absorb the fee, which they can ill-afford to do.


User currently offlineAmberair732 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5398 times:

Quoting AlanUK (Reply 13):
Whether we choose to believe it or not, climate change and global warming is a reality...

I totally agree with you that climate change is is a reality - although global warming - my house was hit by hailstones the size of golf balls today ! - I remain sceptical about.
Perhaps the EU subsidies which are used to fund wasteful farming/fishing etc. would be better utilised encouraging aircraft manufacturers/airlines to produce more fuel efficient aircraft. Taxes are not the answer sensible investment is.


User currently offlineAlanUK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5377 times:

Quoting Amberair732 (Reply 15):
my house was hit by hailstones the size of golf balls today ! - I remain sceptical about.

That's irrelevant! It's called GLOBAL warming for a reason, hailstones in Blackpool isn't a global event, is it?

Quoting Amberair732 (Reply 15):
Perhaps the EU subsidies which are used to fund wasteful farming/fishing etc. would be better utilised encouraging aircraft manufacturers/airlines to produce more fuel efficient aircraft. Taxes are not the answer sensible investment is.

Agreed fully.


User currently offlineWildcatYXU From Canada, joined May 2006, 2603 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5323 times:

Quoting Katekebo (Reply 8):
why don't they implement the same emission norms for their cars like US?

/flame mode on/
You meant California, didn't you? European standards for emissions are stricter than the ones in most US states and Canada. BTW, you could never sell the north American fuel in Europe because of its huge sulphur content (California is an exception again). Did you know, that if you ever fill a car manufactured for California with non-Californian fuel, your emission system warranty is gone?
BTW, as far as CO2 emissions are concerned, American cars are much worse that the European ones. And why we need bigger cars to haul our a$$es than Europeans?
/flame mode off/
I apologize, couldn't resist...Now my real opinion.

This "environmental" tax is only one of many taxes imposed by EU. EU should be called the "TAX UNION". In my origin, Slovakia, even taxes and duties are taxed...When will Europeans finally say to their governments "Enough of it, go to hell"?
However, Ontaxio, where I live now isn't much better...

As far as global warming goes, yes, it's a fact. But, where is the evidence, that CO2 from cars/airplanes is the reason for it? I mean real evidence, not some junk science reports. Large climate changes aren't rare in history, most of them happened long time before the automobile and airplane was invented.


User currently offlineOzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2718 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5311 times:

Quoting Katekebo (Reply 8):
If EU was serious about protecting the environment, why don't they implement the same emission norms for their cars like US? Most people don't realize that the majority of European cars could not be sold in the US because they have too high emissions to meet EPA standards. Yes, European cars consume less fuel (because on average they are much smaller), yet they emit more CO, HC and NOx than cars sold in the USA. Same goes for air polution norms for the industry, which are much more lax in EU than USA.

Where did this come from, Fox News? Check you facts on this because I think you're backing a losing horse here. US has 4% of worlds population and generates roughly 30% of green house and other polluting gases.



When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7470 posts, RR: 17
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5291 times:

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 3):
It WOULD however be the end of European airlines on routes to other continents as airlines from those continents wouldn't be subject to the tax.
They'd therefore loose almost all their competitive position (what's left of it) on say the US market.

The proposed tax is for £40 to be added to return intra European tickets. Soi it will not effect, for example, trans-Atlantic flights

Quoting Amberair732 (Reply 9):
If there's any European legal experts out there, I have one question - What's to stop all large European carriers registering their fleet in a non EU country ( Switzerland ? ) and avoiding a large chunk of these charges ?

I do not see how the tax could be imposed on tickets purchased in, for example, Switzerland. But I can see how it wouold be imposed on a ticket routed LHR-ZRH-ATH for example. But if you register your fleet in, say Switzerland and offer, for example. a CDG-ARN service I do not see how your passengers could avoid the tax.would save having to pay tax. The tax is on them and not you. However if UA renewed its fifth freedom flights in Europe I do not see how the tax could be applied to a ticket routed JFK-LHR-FRA but can see how it would be applied to a ticket on the second leg only, LHR-FRA.

So the outstanding question is is 'Europe' in fact the EU or is the tax proposed to cover the entire continent.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5259 times:

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 18):
Where did this come from, Fox News?

Nice snear/smear.  sarcastic 

Barely anyone in the US buys European cars for fuel economy. With few exceptions, they have poorer ratings than Japanese and US cars. US customers buy them for luxury and prestige.

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 18):

Where did this come from, Fox News? Check you facts on this because I think you're backing a losing horse here. US has 4% of worlds population and generates roughly 30% of green house and other polluting gases.

Where did this 30% figure come from? It's was always been quoted as 25% and that was before the recent large increases in Chinese and Indian fossil fuel consumption, so it is bound to be lower today. Incidentally, the US produces 29% of the world's GDP, and the US population is closer to 5% (and still growing).

[Edited 2006-07-06 02:46:40]


ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineHalibut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5234 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 20):
Where did this 30% figure come from? It's was always been quoted as 25% and that was before the recent large increases in Chinese and Indian fossil fuel consumption, so it is bound to be lower today. Incidentally, the US produces 29% of the world's GDP, and the US population is closer to 5% (and still growing).

I thought it was 25 % as well , not 30 % ! We also give more to the poor in third world countries & Africa !

Halibut


User currently offlineLonghaulheavy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 402 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5222 times:

Quoting AlanUK (Reply 16):
That's irrelevant! It's called GLOBAL warming for a reason, hailstones in Blackpool isn't a global event, is it?

Global warming is interesting only because people who are firmly behind the theory think that anything that ever happens is evidence of it. Hail in Blackpool? Global warming! More rain? Global warming! Droughts? Global warming! See, it doesn't matter, because it's global you see, and any weather anywhere is evidence of the theory. It's kind of entertaining.

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 18):
Where did this come from, Fox News? Check you facts on this because I think you're backing a losing horse here. US has 4% of worlds population and generates roughly 30% of green house and other polluting gases.

That statistic is completely unrelated to the discussion on automobile emissions. Speaking of which, Europe was far behind the US on requiring the use of catalytic converters. The Germans and Swiss actually enacted standards based on the US standards in the 1980s when it became apparent that acid rain was a serious problem.

The real kicker of this whole "less airline travel/less pollution" tax is that if there truly is severe global warming, there is evidence that airline travel actually helps counteract the problems. Daytime airline contrails contribute to a phenomena called global dimming, which tends to reduce the temperature of the earth. This effect was measured in the US after Sept. 11 when the skies were free of contrails, and scientists noticed slight increases in daytime temperatures. As most airline travel occurs during the day, the contrails have a net cooling effect on the surface of the earth.


User currently offlineKatekebo From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 704 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5201 times:

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 17):
You meant California, didn't you? European standards for emissions are stricter than the ones in most US states and Canada. BTW, you could never sell the north American fuel in Europe because of its huge sulphur content (California is an exception again). Did you know, that if you ever fill a car manufactured for California with non-Californian fuel, your emission system warranty is gone?
BTW, as far as CO2 emissions are concerned, American cars are much worse that the European ones. And why we need bigger cars to haul our a$$es than Europeans?

I'm sorry, but your completely wrong and your information is outdated. There is no longer distinction between California and non-California cars - this was eliminated long time ago. By the way your comment about voiding car warranty by feeling a California car with non-California fuel is absurd. California registered cars have been always travelling across the whole USA and the warranty of the emissions was never voided by doing so. The only differences now are in fuel specs (California diesel has less sulphur, gasoline is identical to the rest of the country) and California law requires extended emissions warranty from the car manufacturers. In most states, emission systems are warranted for 7 years component life, 3 years performance warranty. In California the performance warranty is extended, if I remember correctly, to 5 years, and component warranty is 8 years. The cars are identical, the only thing that changes is your consumer rights. No European cars are even close to offering this kind of warranty in Europe.

By the way, due to my profession, I have been involved in many environment-control projects for the company I work for, in projects in Europe, USA and Latin America, and have been exposed to different environmental regulations first-hand. Many of the "compromises" that can be negotiated with the authorities in Europe (like dilution of the emission streams to reduce concentration) would be deamed unacceptable in the USA. The general approach in EU is that you have to be good enough to meet the regulations, while in the US you have to proof that you are using best available control technology (BACT). A similar approach is followed by several other countries in locations that have particularly difficult conditions, for example Sao Paulo in Brazil and Mexico City, where the authorities and the company must jointly agree that the proposed solution is the BACT.

To be fair, USA has a big environmental problem - it is a very energy "hungry" country, and serious steps must be taken to increase energy efficiency. But in terms of polution laws, and their strict application it's years ahead of EU (with exception of some specific areas in Germany and Scandinavia).

So before making such statement, get you info straight.


User currently offlineBHMBAGLOCK From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2698 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 5177 times:

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 17):
You meant California, didn't you? European standards for emissions are stricter than the ones in most US states and Canada. BTW, you could never sell the north American fuel in Europe because of its huge sulphur content (California is an exception again). Did you know, that if you ever fill a car manufactured for California with non-Californian fuel, your emission system warranty is gone?

You need to work on your facts a bit. First, many models are produced with CA emissions only for the US market. The price differential is small enough that it does not make sense to produce two separate models and distribute them separately in many cases. Remember that a number of other states have adopted CA emissions as well.

Regarding sulfur content, we're in the middle of a very aggressive rollout of low sulphur diesel. By law, were at 80% ULSD at the moment with 100% required by the end of the decade. In reality we'll come very close much sooner. btw, ULSD is less than 15 ppm sulfur. So at this point we'll be at 15 vs 10 for Europe vs both at 350-500 just a few years ago. Note that Europe does have the advantage of low sulphur North Sea crude to help out a bit.

How about CO2 emissions regulations? How about aircraft and seagoing ship fuels? The US is the leader in these areas.

As for your asinine statement regarding non-CA fuel, HAHAHAHAHA! CA people have been known to drive their cars outside of the state. Perhaps you are thinking of leaded fuel that has not been available anywhere in the US for quite some time.

FYI, going back to 1998, every car I've bought (in AL) has had CA emissions despite the fact that it's not required by law. My sister moved to CA and once her car(also built with CA emission and purchased here) was tested, she was good to go.



Where are all of my respected members going?
25 Post contains links Katekebo : WildcatYXYU, For a quick glance, have a look at this document http://www.cemt.org/online/council/2000/CM0006Fe.pdf It is comparison between vehicle em
26 Kanebear : Another misconception is the European push towards Diesel and it's effects on global warming. While it does cut down on consumption, the increased par
27 Katekebo : Also, in support to Kanebear, diesels are 10 times more likely to cause lung cancer (as per the same report of Council of Ministers).
28 Post contains links Katekebo : Before making such groundless and speculative statements, check the data http://www.voka.be/files/bestanden/EU_study_competitiviteit1.pdf This is an
29 AlanUK : Well that's alright then, contribute 25% of the world pollutant, but you give to the poor in third world and Africa! Bless. All is forgiven I guess t
30 Post contains links OzGlobal : Yes, a common misconception in the US. Current OECD figure on both Government, private and combined aid to developing countries as a % of GDP (only c
31 WildcatYXU : I agree, it is absurd. I was in slight shock, when I saw it in my '02 Alero's user manual. And it wasn't the car warranty, but the emission system's
32 Katekebo : And what has Europe given to Africa and the Third World? 200 years of colonialism, ruthless discrimination and exploitation. European foreign aid is
33 Post contains links OzGlobal : " target=_blank>http://www.voka.be/files/bestanden/E...1.pdf Whilst your details on emission standards are technically correct, they do not factor in
34 Post contains links Halibut : Nice try OzGlobal, However, you are forgeting a few things ! In total the US gives far more than any other nation . And the US citizens do not need o
35 Post contains links Halibut : http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=730652005 US donations to Africa outstrip Europe by 15 to 1 Frasier Nelson PRIVATE American citizens don
36 AlanUK : What I think I don't understand here is... Why is it that some Americans believe that you can pollute all you like as long as you give money to help t
37 Post contains links BuyantUkhaa : Read again. It says "flights within the EU" and does not specify carrier. The EP an EC would never want to give non-EU carriers a disadvantage. That'
38 Katekebo : Fair use excerpt from Washington Post, June 25, 2005 article, titled "Greenhouse Hypocrisy": There is a fundamental difference in the approach how EU
39 Post contains links OzGlobal : Not at all. You must not have read the sources I supplied which treat this other argument of the US relying on private generosity. It is treated ,wit
40 BuyantUkhaa : Interesting figures, but I'd like to know the CO2 emission per capita. A 60% isn't much if you start at an extremely low level, for example. Then how
41 CX747 : Ahh, the lovely EU is at it again. Is there anything this brain child of stupidity can't come up with? How about a "wasting my time tax" that I can co
42 Katekebo : Dealing with the issue via taxes is going backwards. There are three avenues which are being used to deal with the problem: - Emissions are a "comodi
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...
Nok Air Brings New Meaning To "Check-In Girls" posted Fri Sep 15 2006 16:58:12 by Leelaw
Air Madrid In Talks To Start Flights To Nicaragua posted Sun Mar 19 2006 09:59:24 by LTU932
Air Fares In Independence Air Markets posted Sat Jan 21 2006 08:48:43 by N702ML
SAS Launches One-way Fares In Europe posted Thu Aug 18 2005 12:31:22 by Heisan67
Royal Air Maroc In Talks To Purchase 5 787s posted Mon Aug 8 2005 15:38:49 by Squirrel83
Average Air Fares In Middle East posted Tue Jul 26 2005 18:52:15 by MrComet
Great Loads In Europe To Mexico Flights posted Tue Jun 14 2005 20:09:48 by Pzurita1
PIA Gateways In Europe To US/Canada posted Sun Mar 6 2005 20:58:28 by Airevents
Air Shows In Europe - Which Are The Must-sees? posted Sat Apr 24 2004 00:41:23 by Pe@rson
Air Fares From Texas To New Zealand posted Wed Sep 25 2002 03:49:15 by Jhooper