Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AA Porn Surfing Results In Less Qantas Internet  
User currently offlineTriebwerk From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 126 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 12 months 1 day ago) and read 18072 times:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/travel/ne...link/2008/09/17/1221330897341.html

(Sorry if this has already been discussed. Shame that a few perverted passengers could sink an entire airline's plan for internet connectivity on their flagships-to-be.)

66 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineType-Rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 5033 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (5 years 12 months 23 hours ago) and read 18022 times:

I think that's sick that people surf porn on the internet while traveling as a passenger on a plane. How many people realize that this behavior is just another form of exhibitionism? It's "Hey look at me! I'm getting my rocks off!"

I know people can say if you don't like it, don't look. But in polite society there is a time and place for everything. And looking at porn where it may be seen by others isn't one of them.



Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
User currently offlineWunalaYann From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2839 posts, RR: 25
Reply 2, posted (5 years 12 months 23 hours ago) and read 17993 times:



Quoting Type-Rated (Reply 1):
And looking at porn where it may be seen by others isn't one of them.

Depends who "others" would be, I guess...  Wink

But more seriously, I agree with you.


User currently offlineTriebwerk From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 12 months 23 hours ago) and read 17945 times:

A little ironic that airlines go to so much trouble to create a "G-rated" experience for travelers--edited movies, wholesome magazines--only to have a few porn browsers ruin their reputation.

User currently offlineRemcor From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 12 months 23 hours ago) and read 17834 times:

Couldn't AA predict this? People sitting for hours in a seat with nothing to do but browse an internet connection? They never could conceive that that people would surf porn on the internet?

How could they even launch internet connectivity without considering what would happen when (I say WHEN, not IF) someone decides to start surfing porn.

[Edited 2008-09-21 22:06:56]

User currently offlineSL1200MK2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 32 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 12 months 22 hours ago) and read 17767 times:

I am sure they did consider this and maybe have a "wait and see' attitude. I would assume they could put up some sort of firewall like companies do at work though I am really not a techy and know nothing about doing this. I does seem funny doing this as the moment would be a bit ruined. The mile high club is a fun idea and all but really, there are few places less sexy and intimate than an airplane. Maybe a hospital or bus station is less but still, I couldn't see getting into it there.

User currently offlineRemcor From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 12 months 22 hours ago) and read 17707 times:

Well it could have been someone who had a seat or two empty next to him thinking that he'd be sly.

I'm generally against censorship, however it's a shame that taking a gamble that people wouldn't surf porn would end up risking the entire program.
Anyway, it seems like the prudent thing to do would have to been to put up a firewall or something. Let it run for a few weeks and look at the logs and see what websites people were trying to get access to. If few people were trying to look at porn then open it up.


User currently offlineM404 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2226 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (5 years 12 months 21 hours ago) and read 17556 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It's interesting that last week when a thread was started with the item about FA's objecting to being onboard censors. No-one seemed to get what they were saying. I completly agree with them on this one. It's not their job. I bet quite a few of the parents of teens or lower that would do this onboard would probably let them if it would shut them up but that certainly doesn't make it right.

As for it being a polite society. Sorry. The most discouraging thing about that is what happens to those that try and make it one.



Less sarcasm and more thought equal better understanding
User currently onlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13596 posts, RR: 61
Reply 8, posted (5 years 12 months 21 hours ago) and read 17484 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Here's the problems I have with filtering the internet content:

1. Customers are PAYING for it.

I don't disagree that AA - or any carrier for that matter - should be able to block content other customers might find offensive, however when a customer is paying for the service it's easier for some smart-ass to bring up a perceived First Amendment violation. If it were free, the airline could at least say, "Hey pal, it's free - so STFU."

2. It's no different from someone viewing other potentially-offensive content.

People occasionally whip out a copy of Playboy or Hustler on planes - or even pop an adult DVD into their laptops. Yet there's no grandiose outcry from flight attendants unions or customers about it, as it generally doesn't happen often. So how is this much different?


Personally I think the main source of all this hand-wringing is that frankly, flight attendants don't want to be put in the unenviable task of having to tell a customer other people are offended by their use of Milfhunter.com while in-flight. And their union probably figures asking for filters is the easiest way to keep this off their plate.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5814 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (5 years 12 months 21 hours ago) and read 17438 times:



Quoting M404 (Reply 7):
The most discouraging thing about that is what happens to those that try and make it one.

Agreed.
Just last week we were talking about how bad an idea this was for AA to not put up a content filter of ANY type whatsoever, and people shot us down for thinking so badly on society.
Now it's happened, and those of us who might object will probably be accused of censorship and such.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7703 posts, RR: 21
Reply 10, posted (5 years 12 months 18 hours ago) and read 17191 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It is a sad indictment on the state of things these days, but I have to say this comes as no great surprise. We all know that people behave badly on flights from time to time, whether it be through drink, violence or whatever. Unfortunately, access to the internet provides the unreasonable minority with far greater potential for mischief and causing offence to others. Filters are perfectly reasonable in these circumstances, particularly given the mixed demographic typically found on board commercial aircraft. If you object to paying for restricted internet access, there is a very simple answer - don't pay, and don't use it. If you don't like the product on offer, you don't have to buy it.


✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineEnviroTO From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 12 months 17 hours ago) and read 17020 times:

Any airline that would roll out Internet without either making it clear what is and is not accepted and how offenders would be dealt with, or without having a content filter installed hasn't thought things out enough. Every culture and person has different levels of tolerance for these things so passengers from 0 to 110 years old and from Hugh Hefner to religious fundamentalists can't be expected to all behave the same and get offended by the same things. I have ridden on trains in Japan and people don't seem to react at all to a business man flipping through a nude magazine. In England what is seems offensive to US broadcasters is found on page 2 or 3 of some newspapers. What is sacrilege to some is a day at the beach to others.

User currently offlineManchesterMAN From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 1227 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (5 years 12 months 17 hours ago) and read 16722 times:

I really can't believe people would surf porn websites whilst in public like this. There really is more on the web than porn, but I guess some people don't know that.

However I wonder if it really was porn or if it was "porn". What I mean is in the USA Janet Jackson's exposed breast was such a big deal and was blown up out of all proportion. I wouldn't consider a website showing lady humps as porn but maybe it was interpreted this way by a prudish FA, the same kind who might have considered JJ's breast as offensive.

These people should get on a flight in the UK where Britain's favourite daily newspaper has topless girls every day on page 3 which I often see open on flights.



Flown: A300,A319,A320,A321,A330,A340.A380,717,727,737,747,757,767,777,DC9,DC10,MD11,MD80,F100,F50,ERJ,E190,CRJ,BAe146,Da
User currently offlineLincoln From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 3887 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (5 years 12 months 16 hours ago) and read 16470 times:



Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 8):
a perceived First Amendment violation

I think you already realize this, but before that turns into a topic of debate -- the First Ammendment doesn't apply in this case; it only applies when th government attempts to regulate speech/expression.



CO Is My Airline of Choice || Baggage Claim is an airline's last chance to disappoint a customer || Next flts in profile
User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2086 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (5 years 12 months 16 hours ago) and read 16329 times:

Quoting EnviroTO (Reply 11):



Quoting ManchesterMAN (Reply 12):

I think you two are quite right about it. The amount of actual, hard-core porn viewed on aircraft is probably very small. That's indeed a no-no that hardly any passenger would ever do; it'd be embarassing and impolite. I think the issues were along borderlines; are exposed breasts considered acceptable or not, for example. Some people would definitely get offended by it. German media picture breasts all the time, it's not really considered a big deal here. So flicking through the news, I probably wouldn't have thought about it and could have easily caused one of those "porn incidents" myself.

edit: I remember how I left a copy of the newspaper DIE ZEIT once lying around in an American living room. This newspaper is generally considered one of the most serious and highest quality newspapers in Germany. That copy pictured a naked woman (probably in the science section or something). When I came back, a flock of children had already gathered around it and I was given a stern talk by the parents about this "indecent material".  

[Edited 2008-09-22 04:44:51]


Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlineBlueFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3996 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (5 years 12 months 16 hours ago) and read 16235 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The day AA bans online porn in-flight is the day I will demand that they ban crying babies, children kicking the back seat in front of them and people who forgot to take a bath this month.

No, I'm not a fan of porn web sites, but if "offended" people get to have their comfort zone in the name of decency or politeness, why shouldn't I have mine ? Now just imagine the extra work-load I handed off to AA F/As.



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlineEMA747 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 1171 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (5 years 12 months 16 hours ago) and read 16102 times:



Quoting BlueFlyer (Reply 15):
The day AA bans online porn in-flight is the day I will demand that they ban crying babies, children kicking the back seat in front of them and people who forgot to take a bath this month.

No, I'm not a fan of porn web sites, but if "offended" people get to have their comfort zone in the name of decency or politeness, why shouldn't I have mine ? Now just imagine the extra work-load I handed off to AA F/As.

I have to agree with this statement. I would add to the list people who kick up a fuss for no real reason too. I was sat near someone one who kept complaining to the FAs virtually the whole flight about really trivial things. Much more annoying that someone looking at porn.

In internet cafes and public librarys and such places they always put a note in the room and also on the login screen saying what and what is not acceptable to view. Why can't airlines do this. I wouldn't really view it as sencorship, just stating what is acceptable in public to those that just don't get it!



Failing doesn’t make you a failure. Giving up and refusing to try again does!
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7703 posts, RR: 21
Reply 17, posted (5 years 12 months 14 hours ago) and read 15257 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting BlueFlyer (Reply 15):
The day AA bans online porn in-flight is the day I will demand that they ban crying babies, children kicking the back seat in front of them and people who forgot to take a bath this month.

Seriously, how exactly are you comparing a crying or distressed child with a grown adult being stupid enough to openly view porn in front of a plane full of men women and children of various ages? That really is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. Grow up.

As far as passengers' personal hygiene goes, I'm sure that if you reported a problem to the crew if it was seriously causing offence, they would try and do something about it. Have you ever brought something like that to their attention?

Never mind that though. I would be mildly annoyed if you hadn't bothered to take a bath recently and you were smelly, sat near my kids and caused them a small amount of discomfort. If, however, you were viewing pornography knowing that there were kids around, and there was even a remote chance that my children could be exposed to it, I would probably want to beat your brains out for being such an inconsiderate pervert. I would suspect there are already numerous criminal offences in various countries covering this sort of behaviour anyway.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (5 years 12 months 14 hours ago) and read 15061 times:



Quoting BlueFlyer (Reply 15):
The day AA bans online porn in-flight is the day I will demand that they ban crying babies, children kicking the back seat in front of them and people who forgot to take a bath this month.

No, I'm not a fan of porn web sites, but if "offended" people get to have their comfort zone in the name of decency or politeness, why shouldn't I have mine ? Now just imagine the extra work-load I handed off to AA F/As.

Sorry, but you're talking about two different things ENTIRELY!!!!


User currently offlineType-Rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 5033 posts, RR: 19
Reply 19, posted (5 years 12 months 14 hours ago) and read 14751 times:

I think for the purpose of discussion we should define "porn".

Are these guys looking at scantilly clad babes in bikini's? Or are they looking at full blown intercourse or maybe even a live gang bang while in flight.

There is some pretty rough stuff available on the internet.



Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
User currently offlineJohnKrist From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1399 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (5 years 12 months 13 hours ago) and read 14529 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

Porn or no porn has been discussed here:

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...eneral_aviation/read.main/4140629/



5D Mark III, 7D, 17-40 F4 L, 70-200 F2.8 L IS, EF 1.4x II, EF 2x III, Metz 58-AF1
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7703 posts, RR: 21
Reply 21, posted (5 years 12 months 13 hours ago) and read 14498 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Porn or no porn has been discussed here:

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...eneral_aviation/read.main/4140629/

That's nice. However, this thread is called:
AA Porn Surfing Results In Less Qantas Internet



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineAFKL From Netherlands, joined Feb 2008, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (5 years 12 months 13 hours ago) and read 14498 times:



Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 8):
People occasionally whip out a copy of Playboy or Hustler on planes - or even pop an adult DVD into their laptops. Yet there's no grandiose outcry from flight attendants unions or customers about it, as it generally doesn't happen often. So how is this much different?

Well, first off, a Playboy or Hustler is very 'soft' in comparison to all of the other stuff that is available on the net. And if you want to pop a DVD into your laptop, well I suppose there is nothing from stopping you there (exept of course, the pure embarassment of doing so), however that would require you to actually have a porn DVD on you while you're travelling. I doubt a lot of people actually do.

The internet really opens it up for anyone to have access to it, where and whenever they want when onboard the aircraft.

You say no one will watch the hard-core stuff when onboard... I say you wait and see. And will we ever know? I doubt any articles will be specific on the exact content the person was watching! :O


I personally say, block these type of websites, simply for the 'protection' of all others onboard the aircraft. Whether people pay for the internet service or not... in the end, one could always lower the prices  Smile


ALLARD.



ALLARD. First flight: KLM DC-10, LLW - AMS.
User currently offlineOA260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 26977 posts, RR: 57
Reply 23, posted (5 years 12 months 13 hours ago) and read 14307 times:

I wonder with Anet be in the allowed list of sites?? Surely they could have restricted such sites whilst allowing non offensive sites.

User currently offlineFunkywabit From United States of America, joined May 2007, 38 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (5 years 12 months 12 hours ago) and read 13847 times:



Quoting OA260 (Reply 23):
I wonder with Anet be in the allowed list of sites?? Surely they could have restricted such sites whilst allowing non offensive sites.

WOW I just thought of something.... With internet on the planes I can sign into fly*r talk and hear realtime whining and complaining about not getting an upgrade or the who's who of the exit row. I can see it now.... " I'm in 14C and I saw the guy in 2B say hi to the FA. He must be a non-rev and the guy behind me got water before me, he must be a non-rev too" If we are adding to the list of sites to ban add that one but leave A.net  bigthumbsup 

I dont know how people look at porn in public I have a hard (no pun intented) enough time watching anything over PG13 without looking over my shoulder


25 Peh : I remember the days when a plane could be used to escape for a few hours. A long-haul flight could mean up to 14 hours without email or phone calls. Y
26 Csavel : Indeed, what if it is Maxim or FHM - or a racy but not porn book. There are some right-wing wingnuts in the US that would ban Cosmopolitan or Esquire
27 Ikramerica : And what if someone is just researching kiddie porn for a book? (common excuse). It's a sticky wicket, but there is no need for AA to allow unfettere
28 AFKL : The simple fact that its super annoying for the passengers having someone sitting next to them blaring on about some business deal, or how they love
29 IflyKPDX : I don't see what's wrong with having to accept a Terms of Use (created by the airline, afterall it's their service) enforced by a stiff fine ($100+) a
30 AFKL : I can see it now, next to the fasten seat belt signs and the no smoking (or in some cases no mobile phones) signs, NO PORNOGRAPHY. The new aviation m
31 Ikramerica : And no tampering with the porno detectors in the lavs, either.
32 Woody71 : I agree with this but also add any kind of punishment for non-compliance. I don't agree with censorship but why, oh why would you want to pull up por
33 DL767captain : Porn is a little different than a crying child. Looking at porn is gross in public, because the rest of us have to see it. A crying child is just ann
34 Sparkingwave : Instead of thinking of this as a controversy, we should rethink how the internet is used and change the way it's presented to the public inflight. Ins
35 Ikramerica : This would be horrible. It's a horrible solution. Did I mention horrible?
36 RussianJet : Too right. It's a silly plan that would be a rubbish experience all round.
37 EA CO AS : Yes, and that's why I said "perceived First Amendment violation", as I still believe some ill-informed moron would still scream about their rights be
38 Luv2cattlecall : Just out of curiosity...can you give me concrete proof of how porn has harmed a child? How is porn any "worse" than a mother breastfeeding a child ri
39 Brilondon : I am the lat guy who would want to restrict peoples freedoms, but with freedom comes responsibility. You are ultimately responsible for what you watc
40 RussianJet : Oh my God. Did you really just say that? Let's start with the fact that breastfeeding is NOT SEXUAL, shall we? Oh my God, did you really just ask tha
41 AFKL : Are you suggesting that nudity and porn are the same thing? I think not! ALLARD.
42 CrimsonNL : Forget about the whole porn topic, as soon as the media is jumping all over it, it will just encourage some pervert to go even further! Just ignore it
43 DL767captain : I never said that porn is harmful to a child (more harmful to the parents because they are the ones who have to answer all the kid's questions haha)
44 BlueFlyer : Unless you clearly define adult (in the US, Congress has tried, the Supreme Court has voided it, several times), you're leaving it up to the F/As to
45 RussianJet : Never mind my standards, I think most decent people would agree it would be inappropriate to view pornography in a public place where, amongst others
46 Scutfarcus : I find it hard to believe that this is so big of a problem that they're halting the entire roll out. "Cached internet content" sound's like a joke to
47 AFKL : Although I would completely agree with you... people do behave differently though when they board a plane, which appears to be less the case with tra
48 IndyWA : I find it offensive...it's Janet Jackson! At LEAST get Gisele or something! LOL She's not my type...now if it was Zac Efron exposing things, that's a
49 AirNZ : You have to be seriously, seriously joking with such an imbecilic and sick comment!!!!!!!!! It just so happens that a child crying is a normal facet
50 N62NA : As someone who recently got a chance to try out the new AA internet, I have to say it was a most welcome addition to the inflight entertainment choic
51 Mah584jr : This article is just another example of the minority screwing the masses. Most people who fly wouldn't even think of looking up pornography at that ti
52 AirNZ : Yes indeed, spot on and I would agree 100%. Of course, we'll also get some on here a.net who will then claim that things are 'hidden' in the fine pri
53 Ikramerica : Anyone agreeing to an internet service on a per use basis, like at a hotel, airport, cafe, etc. clicks on a terms of use "agree" button, and usually
54 Triebwerk : It's hard to equate crying babies to porn watchers, in my opinion. The differences go far beyond age difference.
55 Virgin747 : Its funny how all this talk is about conservative airlines.... Just reading this thread the thought of Virgin and Hooters air pops into the back of my
56 DL767captain : I just can't agree that looking at porn and a screaming child is the same type of "offensive". Porn is vulgar while crying is annoying. One is much e
57 EnviroTO : It is pointless to debate what is tolerable behavior and what is not because every person is different. It is up to the airline and government to set
58 Simairlinenet : Sorry everyone, but isn't this all a bit off topic from the original article and therefore overblown? The article text doesn't say anything about Amer
59 Woody71 : Is it the thought of someone looking at porn on a plane that is offensive or the fact that the material can be seen by children, offended people, etc.
60 Caribb : Maybe someone should just invent a sort of visor that goes around the screen to prevent other people from seeing what they are watching. That way ever
61 EA CO AS : Privacy screens already exist - they make the screen appear totally black unless you're sitting DIRECTLY in front of it; any offset angle (such as be
62 413X3 : Wow are people really addicted to porn they have to read playboy, or watch an adult movie, or surf the web for porn constantly? They should seek menta
63 EWRCabincrew : The definition of porn differs from one person to another, regardless of how it is defined in a dictionary or by the FCC (or any government body for t
64 XJETFlyer : So, are these people such perverts they can't wait to get home or to their hotel room? I really need and want internet access to keep in touch with my
65 Boeing747_600 : Its still old soda in a new bottle. The topic was pretty much beaten (if you'll pardon the unintended pun ) to death in the previous thread. I'm actu
66 Uzzzer : Bravo! And here you have the solution! Sounds like "1984". You don't want that. Trust me. I've been there. Just one question: why did Qantas become s
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...
AA To Retire A300s In '09 posted Wed Jul 16 2008 09:06:02 by UA76Heavy
US Starting China Flights In Less Than Year posted Thu Apr 17 2008 17:32:55 by USAirALB
AA Quietly Puts 2 763s In Storage posted Mon Apr 14 2008 11:58:48 by NYCAAer
TGZ/CUN-T3/MEX-T2/GDL-T2/PVR-TS/+ In Less Than 2yr posted Sat Mar 29 2008 03:14:59 by MayaviaERJ190
BA Muffin "theft" Results In Suspension posted Wed Dec 19 2007 09:53:57 by Eajpecrca
AA + Jet Airways - Something In The Works? posted Fri Nov 16 2007 08:33:03 by AABB777
Incentives Results In Congestion At FLL posted Tue Nov 13 2007 11:05:23 by USADreamliner
AA To Introduce Wifi In Flight? posted Thu Aug 16 2007 15:27:50 by Buck3y3nut
AF/KL Results In Brazil: December/06 posted Mon Jan 29 2007 16:36:53 by Hardiwv
AA Moves To Terminal 2 IN NRT posted Tue Jan 16 2007 21:12:10 by BALAX
US Starting China Flights In Less Than Year posted Thu Apr 17 2008 17:32:55 by USAirALB
AA Quietly Puts 2 763s In Storage posted Mon Apr 14 2008 11:58:48 by NYCAAer
TGZ/CUN-T3/MEX-T2/GDL-T2/PVR-TS/+ In Less Than 2yr posted Sat Mar 29 2008 03:14:59 by MayaviaERJ190
BA Muffin "theft" Results In Suspension posted Wed Dec 19 2007 09:53:57 by Eajpecrca
AA + Jet Airways - Something In The Works? posted Fri Nov 16 2007 08:33:03 by AABB777
Incentives Results In Congestion At FLL posted Tue Nov 13 2007 11:05:23 by USADreamliner
AA To Introduce Wifi In Flight? posted Thu Aug 16 2007 15:27:50 by Buck3y3nut
AF/KL Results In Brazil: December/06 posted Mon Jan 29 2007 16:36:53 by Hardiwv
AA Moves To Terminal 2 IN NRT posted Tue Jan 16 2007 21:12:10 by BALAX
BA Muffin "theft" Results In Suspension posted Wed Dec 19 2007 09:53:57 by Eajpecrca
AA + Jet Airways - Something In The Works? posted Fri Nov 16 2007 08:33:03 by AABB777
Incentives Results In Congestion At FLL posted Tue Nov 13 2007 11:05:23 by USADreamliner
AA To Introduce Wifi In Flight? posted Thu Aug 16 2007 15:27:50 by Buck3y3nut
AF/KL Results In Brazil: December/06 posted Mon Jan 29 2007 16:36:53 by Hardiwv
AA Moves To Terminal 2 IN NRT posted Tue Jan 16 2007 21:12:10 by BALAX