Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM  
User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2760 posts, RR: 2
Posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 7707 times:

After an intoxicated passenger served on a US Airways flight killed a family in a drunk driving accident last November, US was banned from serving alcohol on flights in New Mexico when it was discovered they didn't have a liquor license for the state. They got a temporary license, but apparently that won't be renewed by the state due to another incident of an already intoxicated passenger being served alcohol.

http://kob.com/article/stories/S112728.shtml?cat=516

Does anyone know of any other states that have cracked down on airlines for not having liquor licenses, or for serving already intoxicated passengers?


It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
54 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineYOWza From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 4892 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 7663 times:

This seems pretty ridiculous to me, to ban an entire airline from serving booze because some people don't know when to quit. It's bizarre that NM requires airlines to have a valid license. Do all states do this? If so is this not a pain in the ass for foreign carriers? Think of LH for instance.

ATL, BOS, CLT, ORD,DFW, DEN, DTW, LAX, MIA, EWR, JFK, PHL, PDX, and IAD are all destination and each is in a different state!!

Is this common on a global scale? I'm not aware of any such laws at the provincial level here in Canada.

YOWza



12A whenever possible.
User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2760 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 7625 times:

Quoting YOWza (Reply 1):
This seems pretty ridiculous to me, to ban an entire airline from serving booze because some people don't know when to quit. It's bizarre that NM requires airlines to have a valid license. Do all states do this?

It was the law in New Mexico for a long time, it was just never enforced until the drunk driver killed five people last year. After that the state cracked down on it and I think 3 or 4 airlines had to stop serving alcohol on flights to ABQ because they didn't have a liquor license. Some did have a license. I'm guessing other states probably have laws which would require it but are not enforced since nobody thinks about aircraft when enforcing liquor laws. I don't know for sure, so I thought I'd ask.

edit for crap grammar

[Edited 2007-06-15 07:40:58]


It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25258 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 7593 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Last I heard, Frontier was disputing the need for a license. It is explained here:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/...es-liquor-license-new-mexico_x.htm

That was in January, so things may have changed. Otherwise, I guess pax on ABQ-PVR won't be getting any margaritas.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2760 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 7545 times:

Very interesting Mariner. I wonder why Frontier felt like fighting it since AA, CO, DL, UA, and WN had already determined the need for and taken the appropriate action to get a license. Seems like it would be easier to just go ahead and get the thing. Those PVR passengers might indeed be disappointed.


It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25258 posts, RR: 85
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 7510 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 4):
I wonder why Frontier felt like fighting it

I dunno, alias. Maybe they think it would open up a hornet's nest with the other states - they could all start demanding it?

Just guessing.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineGraphic From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 7491 times:

So if they're pulling US's liquor license, are they also pulling the license of that store in Bernalillo? Seems kinda hypocritical not to...

User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2760 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 7463 times:

Quoting Graphic (Reply 6):
So if they're pulling US's liquor license, are they also pulling the license of that store in Bernalillo? Seems kinda hypocritical not to...

Yes. The store lost it's license as well.



It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5647 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 7460 times:

I'm surprised no one else has fought the license yet.

Quote:
But Lopez said New Mexico law specifically requires airlines and railroads that serve alcohol in New Mexico to have state licenses.

Since US, F9, AA, and others do not (to my knowledge) conduct intra-state flights in New Mexico, the matter becomes a federal issue, as the flight crosses state lines and becomes an interstate transport issue. Not only that, but while in flight the airplane is under federal jurisdiction, and are not bound to any local-level commerce laws. States do not regulate airspace.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineDL Widget Head From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 2093 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 7424 times:

Quoting Mariner (Reply 5):
Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 4):
I wonder why Frontier felt like fighting it

I dunno, alias. Maybe they think it would open up a hornet's nest with the other states - they could all start demanding it?

Exactly...so then why would F9 fight it if it could open up a hornet's nest elsewhere? Seems a little silly to me.


User currently offlineJoelfreak From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 43 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 7306 times:

There is, as far as I know, no federal drinking age. I believe that since you are DEPOSITING the drunk people in an airport run by their state/city/etc, they can refuse to allow you landing rights, or just demand you don't serve on the flight. I would think this gets into states rights...if you NEED to serve to fly, don't fly to ABQ...seems pretty easy to me.

User currently offlineSirOmega From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 735 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 7287 times:

Doesnt NM have a big drunk driving problem anyways? I thought I remember some state official wanting interlocks installed in every car sold in the state or something like that.

User currently offlineTravatl From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2173 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 7284 times:

New Mexico is so screwed up - you'd think it was in the south. My sister was recently traveling in ABQ. She and a friend were out for dinner... they ordered a bottle of wine with dinner, but also wanted cocktails prior. The server informed them that they could only serve them two drinks each now. Apparently it's a policy that has been implemented at several establishments since this same accident (I guess ABQ is the first city in the world where a family has been killed due to a drunk driver).

User currently offlineDavescj From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 2307 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 7264 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 8):
States do not regulate airspace

I would tend to agree. I would think that only the FAA could create such regulations. However, the fact that Frontier and others are buying the NM license, it would seem that perhaps they can. I know that US was appealing the NM to the FAA, but never heard how the case was resolved. In any event, I can't see any airline paying for something they dont' need to pay for. As to serving intoxicated pax, this is already contrary to FAA regs.....further, if the airline thinks you've had too much, they won't let you onto the plane.



Can I have a mojito on this flight?
User currently offline767Lover From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 7252 times:

I don't understand how having a liquor license is going to prevent a passenger from drinking too much and driving drunk at their destination. I know the "official" reason is so that the servers (F/As) will have proper training, but I don't see how F/As can really tell that well if a pax is about to become out of control with the next drink.

User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25258 posts, RR: 85
Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 7200 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DL Widget Head (Reply 9):
.so then why would F9 fight it if it could open up a hornet's nest elsewhere?

I think you miss the point. If they get that license it sets a precedent and all the states could start demanding it.

That's the hornet's nest. So it raises, as others have noted, points of law - who has jurisdiction.

mariner

[Edited 2007-06-15 12:26:38]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlineLincoln From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 3887 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week ago) and read 7063 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 8):
Since US, F9, AA, and others do not (to my knowledge) conduct intra-state flights in New Mexico, the matter becomes a federal issue, as the flight crosses state lines and becomes an interstate transport issue. Not only that, but while in flight the airplane is under federal jurisdiction, and are not bound to any local-level commerce laws. States do not regulate airspace.

That was my point last time this issue came up... To save myself from a massive amount of retyping...http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/3229607/?searchid=3229607&s=lincoln#ID3229607

I'm not a lawyer, but I find this very hard to beleive would be enforceable:

From my original post:
49 USC § 40103(a)(1): The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.

Section 101(a) The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 prohibits any "State or political subdivision thereof" from "enact[ing] or enforce[ing] any law [...] relating to rates, routes, or services of any air carrier having authority under subchapter IV of this chapter to provide air transportation."

Courts have consistantly and broadly enforced the plain language of this section:

DAN MORALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, PETITIONER v. TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., et al. (1992) -- The Supreme Court held that state "disceptive advertising" laws were preempted as related to the rates, routes, or services of an airline.

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., PETITIONER v. MYRON WOLENS ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS (1995) -- Illinois consumer fraud statute inapplicable to changes American made to AAdvantage because it related to the "rates, routes, or services".

Also, a government agency is on record (44 Fed. Reg. 9948, 9949 (1979)) that "[The prohibition] extends to all of the economic factors that go into the provision of the quid pro quo for passenger's fare, including flight frequency and timing, liability limits, reservation and boarding practices, insurance, smoking rules, meal service, entertainment, bonding and corporate financing....”

Clearly, the service of alcohol in flight is related to the "...services..." of an airline -- if things as menial as meal service and boarding practices are specifically included, no regulation at the state level would stand up to court challenge -- and I don't think it would be long before it was challenged. (Service on the ground -- especially at the gate area could be a whole 'nother can of worms).


Then in response to the charge that Art 2 of the constitution enabled this legislation on the part of New Mexico, I responded

The case law [I could find] -- especially the Granholm case cited below -- says otherwise. The "elastic clause" (US Const. Art. I, Sec. VIII) "The Congress shall have power …To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper..." has been held to give the federal government sweeping authority.

Follow that up with the supremacy clause (US Const. Art. VI, Para. 2) "...the Laws of the United States which shall be made ... shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby any ... Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding"

The Airline Deregulation Act, as a law of the United States is the supreme law of the land and explicitly preempts state laws and prohibits states from enacting or enforcing any law (or anything having the force of law, e.g. administrative regulation) relating to an airline's rates routes or services. Therefore, any New Mexico law that would have the effect of resticting an alirline's service of alcohol (as a constituent part of the "service" of an airline) is invalid.

I refer, once again to American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, et al. (1995), holding that a state law can not be applied to an airline frequent filer program. From the Supreme Court opinion: "The full text of the ADA's preemption clause, and the congressional purpose to leave largely to the airlines themselves, and not at all to States, the selection and design of marketing mechanisms appropriate to the furnishing of air transportation services ..."


Lincoln

[Edited 2007-06-15 14:07:48]


CO Is My Airline of Choice || Baggage Claim is an airline's last chance to disappoint a customer || Next flts in profile
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9633 posts, RR: 68
Reply 17, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6964 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

F9 does not serve booze on flights to ABQ. At least they didn't 2 weeks ago.

User currently offlineCV580Freak From Bahrain, joined Jul 2005, 1033 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6950 times:

Quoting Travatl (Reply 12):
they ordered a bottle of wine with dinner, but also wanted cocktails prior. The server informed them that they could only serve them two drinks each now.

Blimey, they'll be getting steam trains and black and white TV soon too .........



One day you are the pigeon, the next the statue ...
User currently offlineExFATboy From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2974 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6854 times:

While generally speaking you'd think that airlines wouldn't be subject to state regulation on interstate flights, Section 2 of the 21st Amendment, which repealed Prohibition, gives the states the power to regulate (or outright ban) importation of alcohol from other states, overriding the Interstate Commerce Clause. Up until the recent court cases involving whether or not states could ban citizens from ordering wine from other states, tradition in the US has been to deny the Federal government any role in regulating the terms of sale of alcohol on non-Federal lands, to the point where when the Feds wanted to impose a uniform national drinking age of 21, they had to blackmail the states into doing it by threatening to withhold highway funds.

So while the Federal government has exclusive airspace soverignity, when a plane lands with alcohol aboard, the airline has "transported" alcohol into the state, and this - not the serving of alcohol while flying over the state - could be interpreted as giving the state the power to require an airline to have a state liquor license...they're bringing alcohol into the state and storing it on airline premises before sale to a final consumer, thus they do function much like a liquor store.


User currently offlinePoitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6807 times:

Quoting Mariner (Reply 3):
Last I heard, Frontier was disputing the need for a license. It is explained here:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/...es-liquor-license-new-mexico_x.htm

That was in January, so things may have changed. Otherwise, I guess pax on ABQ-PVR won't be getting any margaritas.



Quoting Lincoln (Reply 16):
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 8):
Since US, F9, AA, and others do not (to my knowledge) conduct intra-state flights in New Mexico, the matter becomes a federal issue, as the flight crosses state lines and becomes an interstate transport issue. Not only that, but while in flight the airplane is under federal jurisdiction, and are not bound to any local-level commerce laws. States do not regulate airspace.

The controlling constitutional law here is the 21nd amendment. Which states in part,

    1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

    2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.


Please note that all the laws noted by Lincoln have nothing to do with alcohol, and any that may be construed to do so such are superseded by the 21st amendment with that regard.

There is little question that if an airplane flies over a state, that the state has little control because there is transportation through the state without stopping.

Now what happens if the airplane lands and a passenger gets off? Obviously, the state see that as as "delivery or use". More than likely the supreme court will agree. There are very few cases that test the 21st amendment, the most recent I know is Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005), which was a 5 to 4 decision. Four of the justices held that the 21st amendment was new law and so was compelling, while 5 held that the 21st amendment was merely a repeal of the 19 amendment and so old precedents apply. Using that theory, they decided that states can NOT discriminate between in-state wineries and out-of-state wineries under the doctrine of the Dormant Commerce Clause (or "DCC") has been inferred from the Commerce Clause. The DCC is a doctrine, evolved over many decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, that the states do not have the power to enact anticompetitive laws that discriminate against sellers in other states.

That means that four of the justices believe that the 21st amendment gives the states absolute power to regulate alcohol sales and five believe that it is limited by DCC. However, there nothing in that case which limits the control of the state on the sale and distribution of alcohol, as long as it applies the same rules to everyone. If an airliner lands in a state that regulates alcohol consumption and the airline serves alcohol, particularly if they charge for that alcohol, then they are under the rules of that state, and if the state requires a liquor license, then the airline needs to obtain one, for if the state failed to enforce the law, they would be libel for suit by those bars and such who have obtained a license


User currently offlineLincoln From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 3887 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6781 times:

Quoting ExFATboy (Reply 19):
So while the Federal government has exclusive airspace soverignity, when a plane lands with alcohol aboard, the airline has "transported" alcohol into the state, and this - not the serving of alcohol while flying over the state - could be interpreted as giving the state the power to require an airline to have a state liquor license...they're bringing alcohol into the state and storing it on airline premises before sale to a final consumer, thus they do function much like a liquor store.

I understand your position and it makes sense to me, but Section 2 of the 21st ammendment states "Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use there in of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited."

I don't think that it can be argued that the airline is delivering* it as delivery implies a transfter of possession, and if the airline refuses to serve it on the ground I fail to see how a state can require a liquor permit for services in flight (again, I do beleive that a state would be within their rights to require a permit for service in clubs and possibly aboard aircraft that are on the ground)

Lincoln
*- Deliver: "relinquish possession or control over", "bring to a destination, make a delivery", "to surrender someone or something to another", Princeton University WordNet. (If anyone has the Black's definition, I would be most interested)



CO Is My Airline of Choice || Baggage Claim is an airline's last chance to disappoint a customer || Next flts in profile
User currently offlineShyFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6196 times:

Quoting SirOmega (Reply 11):
Doesnt NM have a big drunk driving problem anyways?

Yes. But calling it a problem isn't enough, it is in fact an epidemic.

Quoting SirOmega (Reply 11):
I thought I remember some state official wanting interlocks installed in every car sold in the state or something like that.

Representative W. Ken Martinez. The proposal didn't get very far, but it did get him some publicity.

--------------

It surprises me that only Frontier is fighting this.


User currently offlineAirEMS From United States of America, joined May 2004, 684 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6068 times:

Does the state of NM need money or something???


Here in Colorado I know that if a liquor store can be held if selling to a under age person and they kill someone in a accident but I don't think that we here in CO have anything as far as airlines go

-Carl



If Your Dying Were Flying
User currently offlineJetpixx From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 857 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5821 times:

If I were US, or AA, F9, WN, etc. I'd pull all of my flights from NM and see how they like that. I guarantee those backwards laws would change in a hurry. It sounds like some kind of liberal crap...what's next? A guy was skiing and he ran into a tree, so they pull the liquor license of the mountain, sue the tree and ban the ski company from selling skis in NM? It is such a backwards place...look at all the artists and flakes living up near Santa Fe and Taos. Any cities which have specific building codes that all structures must be in a adobe...what's that? Cuckoo cuckoo...

25 Travatl : Whoa, back off Santa Fe and Taos. Having grown up in the pit that is Farmington, NM, I can assure you those two cities/towns are a couple of the stat
26 RwSEA : Admittedly off topic here, but it's not usually liberals who try to ban things like alcohol, marijuana, etc. ... ... ...
27 Post contains images Corsair1107 : figures, I have a flight to PHX from DCA on Sunday and it'll be in New Mexico airspace for a time.
28 SLCUT2777 : Try going to Utah sometime. Utah has perhaps the strictest liquor and alcoholic beverage control laws outside of the Southeastern states. Very religi
29 Ghillier : I was told by an AA Flight Attendant when departing TUL last week that serving alcohol while parked at the Gate was illegal. I find this hard to belie
30 YULWinterSkies : Agreed. Having been to about 30 states in the US and also having been to Mexico, I can assure that Farmington rather looks like Mexico, I looked for
31 Davescj : The key word would seem to be "into" the state...not above. While not an attorney, I can't see NM being able to do anything about it the plane DOES N
32 Travatl : They can serve liquor on the flight (I work transcons all the time back and forth to the west coast, and have never heard of not serving it over NM).
33 Alias1024 : AA, UA, WN, CO, and DL were all in compliance and had the appropriate liquor license before this issue came up. Also, I don't see it as backwards whe
34 RIXrat : I distinctly remember that back in the 70s I was on a flight where the F/As had to lock the alcohol trolleys in the galley while overflying some parti
35 Travatl : I'm well aware of the Christmas '92 tragedy - I lived there at the time. In fact I was living in Farmington when the Today Show did the big report on
36 SANFan : Sorry if I missed it (I admit I didn't read all the most recent posts on this thread) but exactly what is supposedly banned here: serving booze on int
37 USAFHummer : In F9's Inflight Entertainment Guide which is provided in every seat pocket, on the portion concerning food/drink services, there is a little fine pr
38 Alias1024 : Travatl, I was simply trying to explain to everyone why this is such an emotional issue in New Mexico, giving context to the reaction by the state. On
39 Poitin : If the airplane lands and the drink gets off in the belly of the passenger, then it is "into". Clearly if the airplane flies over the state and does
40 Poitin : In a word, yes. The plane on the ground is subject to the state's liquor laws. Period. Now the question is what does "serve" mean. You are allowed to
41 SANFan : Thanks for the response Alias'. I'm kind of surprised that NM can (or would) express any say on serving booze on a flight that departed from their st
42 Detroitflyer : what is that supposed to mean/??? well heres another way of looking at it. The way i learned it was through incetives. The federal government also wi
43 Poitin : I tend to agree with you about departures, because once in the air, the airplane is out of their sovereignty and the booze is going to get off somewh
44 Travatl : Exactly what I said. It's as backward and screwed up as the southern states. Having spent 20 years in New Mexico, and 10 years in Georgia, I feel wel
45 Etops1 : you know what? take responsibilty for your own f'n actions. everyone wants to blame everyone else for their mistakes. if you can't hold your swerv tha
46 Post contains images SANFan : What an un-American attitude that is! Come on man, you want American people to be responsible and not find someone else -- anyone else -- to blame? b
47 Ikramerica : I've seen F/As sell 4 little bottles of vodka at once to passengers. I've also seen them serve 2 glasses of wine at a time, then serve the same custo
48 57AZ : Not at all. Every state that I know of has some regulation requiring corporations that wish to serve alcoholic or intoxicating beverages possess a va
49 Lincoln : If the ammendment was "The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States, in violation of the laws ther
50 Nrcnyc : Great. another example of the all knowing government stepping in to protect us all from each other. In the mean time, this will only make life worse f
51 NW1852 : If I was a taxpayer in NM I would be pissed that law makers were wasting my money to interpret/manipulate a law that decides if the people flying over
52 Post contains images Poitin : But on the other hand, you don't get watered booze at the bar either. I once ordered a double vodka tonic in SLC and had a hellva buzz. They gave me
53 Flyboyaz : It's rather ridiculous in my opinion. I know I had heard that the governor was running for president and he wanted to keep his people happy...and earn
54 57AZ : One might also add that that assumption presumes that the aircraft does not remain overnight but continues on to another destination or that the alco
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...
Air Canada May Be Banned From US Operations posted Thu Oct 21 2004 17:29:17 by B747-437B
Who Holds The Record For Longest-serving FA In US? posted Mon May 27 2002 11:20:21 by Bobcat
British Airways, In Trouble With The US Again! posted Wed Mar 1 2000 02:08:34 by DeltaAir
Why Do CO, NW, DL, US Not Fly To More Cities in France? posted Wed Jun 13 2007 19:50:54 by LH506
US Airways Expansion From The UK? posted Fri Jan 19 2007 13:18:22 by Gilesdavies
Big Ice Piece From Aircraft Falls In FAT! posted Thu Jan 18 2007 08:42:52 by QXatFAT
Air Madrid To Fly Again Up From 24 December // T/O posted Mon Dec 18 2006 15:58:31 by LHStarAlliance
AmericaWest/US Air Lost My Baggage Twice In 3 Days posted Tue Aug 22 2006 03:32:15 by OURBOEING
Tail Numbers For Two US Air Flights From 7/29 posted Sun Jul 30 2006 22:10:08 by Cadet57
Passengers Evacuated From AS Flight In SFO posted Tue May 16 2006 04:23:26 by Aeroflot777