Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
VX Is Cleared (again) As US Citizen  
User currently offlineAviators99 From United States of America, joined May 2008, 455 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 9266 times:

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...09293.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines

'..."thorough review" determined that "[VX] remains a U.S. citizen and remains under the actual control of U.S. citizens."

68 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEnilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7180 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9207 times:

To Alaska Airlines : Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Keep costing taxpayers money there AS. Since AS is listed on the stock exchange and has no way of really controlling who holds their stock, VX should ask AS provide proof that no more than 20% (is that the limit?) of it is held by foreign institutions.

I wonder if it's really under 20% for many large companies.


User currently offlineAviators99 From United States of America, joined May 2008, 455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9198 times:

Another article:

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/a...ot-says-virgin-america-is-ame.html

(no subscription required)

Contains more info and statements. VX agreed to add another US citizen board member, and announced their new investors.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25358 posts, RR: 49
Reply 3, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9107 times:

 bigthumbsup 
Hopefully life can go on now.

I wonder if VX has any recourse to recover monies they spent repeatedly defending themselves over the same allegations.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineSpirtofalaska From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 192 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9010 times:



Quoting Enilria (Reply 1):

You know, it didn't cost the tax payers a damn thing, because the DOT didn't do a THING! its all political. I actually just had lunch with the CEO of alaska air group yesterday, and learned quiet a few things... mainly the DOT is like the rest of washington. Frauds... Im loosing faith in the US government. They obviously do not care about protecting US jobs.



you fo'Coffee?
User currently offlineKleiner From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 142 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9008 times:

So 5 of the 9 voting board members are Cush and his buddies, and two are the Virgin Group. More than half of the group is owned by Cypres, who only has 1 or 2 voting shares?

User currently offlineKiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8565 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 8962 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Spirtofalaska (Reply 4):
They obviously do not care about protecting US jobs.

So far as I am aware most of the jobs at VX are held by Americans , therefore they are 'US jobs" , but if you have evidence that most of the employees are not Americans please feel free to share it with us .



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineAnonms From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 620 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 8874 times:



Quoting Spirtofalaska (Reply 4):
They obviously do not care about protecting US jobs.

As far as I know, the VX provides jobs to people in... the United States of America.



This is my signature.
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3592 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 8823 times:



Quoting Enilria (Reply 1):
I wonder if it's really under 20% for many large companies.

The limitation is 25% and only applies to USA flagged airlines.


User currently offlineEvomutant From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 498 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 8782 times:



Quoting Spirtofalaska (Reply 4):
You know, it didn't cost the tax payers a damn thing, because the DOT didn't do a THING! its all political. I actually just had lunch with the CEO of alaska air group yesterday, and learned quiet a few things... mainly the DOT is like the rest of washington. Frauds... Im loosing faith in the US government. They obviously do not care about protecting US jobs.

And of course, he is completely impartial and without an axe to grind...


User currently offlineBigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2924 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 8635 times:

Maybe now they can start to market more closely with Virgin Atlantic and V Australia.

Quoting Spirtofalaska (Reply 4):
You know, it didn't cost the tax payers a damn thing, because the DOT didn't do a THING! its all political.

Yes it did. The DOT had to devote resources to it which costs money. And of course it's political - as was Alaska's petition. Alaska was trying to leverage politics to try and eliminate a competitor. They could care less about the law. They just wanted somebody out of business.

Quoting Spirtofalaska (Reply 4):
They obviously do not care about protecting US jobs.

All of Virgin America employees are based in the USA. Those are US jobs being protected. What is your point aside from being bitter that the DOT ruled in favor of VX?

[Edited 2010-01-08 11:50:45]

User currently offlineHatbutton From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1500 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 8627 times:

http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/bus...ters/Virgin%20America%20Letter.pdf

If you read this docket it doesn't seem like it was just a cut and dry conclusion. Sounds like there were a lot of loose ends that needed to be tied up and I'm glad VX is making it even more transparent. VX proposed many changes in the way their ownership structure is set up and promises to have them completed in 30 days.

Interestingly, a change was made that will not allow the "new" investors to have any put options like they did before.


User currently offlineMattRB From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1624 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 8613 times:

Headline should read 'Virgin America Agrees to Archaic Legislation that Hinders Investment in US Companies'.


Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible.
User currently offlineBeryllium From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 8565 times:



Quoting Spirtofalaska (Reply 4):
You know, it didn't cost the tax payers a damn thing, because the DOT didn't do a THING! its all political. I actually just had lunch with the CEO of alaska air group yesterday, and learned quiet a few things... mainly the DOT is like the rest of washington. Frauds... Im loosing faith in the US government. They obviously do not care about protecting US jobs.

VX is kicking AS's butt on SEA-SFO and SEA-LAX, and it is obvious that Bill Ayer wants VX out of business.
DOT did not rule in his favor, did not help him to get what he wants, and it is understandable that he is disappointed with that decision.
But to call DOT a bunch of frauds, who do not care about protecting US jobs?
Let's assume DOT gave him what he wanted, and declared VX illegitimate.
VX would be shut down, and its employees (and almost all of them are Americans with jobs located in the U.S.) would be sent to the streets, joining the army of unemployed.
That would be the "care about protecting U.S. jobs"?


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15740 posts, RR: 27
Reply 14, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 8566 times:



Quoting Spirtofalaska (Reply 4):
They obviously do not care about protecting US jobs.

When I flew on Virgin America I didn't hear any British accents.

Plus I'm sure that Alaska's only motivation for filing these complaints was protecting American jobs and had absolutely nothing to do with trying to get rid of a competitor.  Yeah sure

Quoting Spirtofalaska (Reply 4):
mainly the DOT is like the rest of washington. Frauds

Possibly, but I don't see how that makes VX less American.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineBayAreaBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 262 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 8368 times:



Quoting Beryllium (Reply 13):
VX is kicking AS's butt on SEA-SFO and SEA-LAX,

I am sorry to ask but, do you have the numbers to prove it? As far as I can see, VX had drastically reduced service between SEA-LAX/SFO. If I recall. they were down to 3 flights to SFO and 2 to LAX. If they were "kicking AS's butt", then why are they not expanding out of SEA?


User currently offlineBigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2924 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 8331 times:

Quoting BayAreaBlue (Reply 15):
Quoting Beryllium (Reply 13):
VX is kicking AS's butt on SEA-SFO and SEA-LAX,

I am sorry to ask but, do you have the numbers to prove it? As far as I can see, VX had drastically reduced service between SEA-LAX/SFO. If I recall. they were down to 3 flights to SFO and 2 to LAX. If they were "kicking AS's butt", then why are they not expanding out of SEA?

Agreed. I wouldn't say VX is kicking AS's butt - yet. AS isn't too terrified of VX today, but rather what they can become. Given more aircraft, more profitable quarters, then AS will have their hands full. Especially once Virgin starts Vancouver and Portland service, which is probably inevitable. Virgin currently can beat AS on price and service, but who they will become in a year or so is what they are more concerned with.

In my opinion, we'll probably also see VX take one some California-Mexico beaches in due time too.

[Edited 2010-01-08 13:13:19]

User currently offlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5434 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 8300 times:



Quoting Spirtofalaska (Reply 4):
... mainly the DOT is like the rest of washington. Frauds...

If Alaska feels it has a good case, it can, of course, appeal the DOT's decision to the courts.



I love long German words like 'Freundschaftsbezeigungen'.
User currently offlineAviators99 From United States of America, joined May 2008, 455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 8014 times:



Quoting Hatbutton (Reply 11):
If you read this docket it doesn't seem like it was just a cut and dry conclusion. Sounds like there were a lot of loose ends that needed to be tied up and I'm glad VX is making it even more transparent. VX proposed many changes in the way their ownership structure is set up and promises to have them completed in 30 days.

Interestingly, a change was made that will not allow the "new" investors to have any put options like they did before.

Also interesting, is that all of these required changes where to things that the DOT knew about and agreed to allow in 2007. Talk about politics...


User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25247 posts, RR: 85
Reply 19, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7906 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 20):
What VX has done is bring a fresh new product online, which I suppose rightfully should have its competitors a bit nervous.

But is that the point?

Even if Virgin America offered a mongrel dog of a product, the question is whether or not they are a legal US citizen.

The various investigations into this have concluded that they are. Now, like you, I think Alaska should either take it to court or get off the pot.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineBeryllium From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7896 times:



Quoting BayAreaBlue (Reply 15):
I am sorry to ask but, do you have the numbers to prove it? As far as I can see, VX had drastically reduced service between SEA-LAX/SFO. If I recall. they were down to 3 flights to SFO and 2 to LAX. If they were "kicking AS's butt", then why are they not expanding out of SEA?

There was a time when I worked for AS at their HQ (actually, it was exactly when VX started that SEA-SFO/LAX service). So, I know it for a fact, who kicks whose butt on those routes.
When VX started SEA-LAX, AS responded with gazillion daily SEA-LAX flights. All of a sudden, there was so much capacity on that route, that, oh yes, the yields over there became trashy in a blink of an eye. There was no way on earth to find passengers to fill all those seats at decent fare levels. The idea was to suck it up, to accept the inevitable huge drop in terms of yields on those routes, but to create as much discouragement for VX as possible, and to drive VX out of SEA, which is AS's main turf.
And of course, the sweetest dream for AS would be to drive VX not just out of SEA, but out of business completely. There is a reason why AS is more active than anybody else in filing those countless petitions to the DOT in regards to the legitimacy of VX.
The reason is obvious - VX is a constant pain in AS's ass.
VX does not allow AS to get what it wants on those lucrative SEA-SFO/LAX routes.
Also, you might remember, that prior to VX, SFO used to be a focus city for AS. This is not the case anymore.

And as for your question - "Why VX is not expanding out of SEA" - well, SEA is not their hub. SFO is. They picked what they wanted in SEA, and seem to be quite OK with that, even though they face fierce competition from AS.


User currently offlineHatbutton From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1500 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7827 times:



Quoting Aviators99 (Reply 18):
Also interesting, is that all of these required changes where to things that the DOT knew about and agreed to allow in 2007. Talk about politics...

Haha did not know that. Talk about politics is right.

Quoting Beryllium (Reply 20):
"Why VX is not expanding out of SEA" - well, SEA is not their hub. SFO is. They picked what they wanted in SEA, and seem to be quite OK with that, even though they face fierce competition from AS.

They don't have to have SEA as a hub to expand. The point of BayAreaBlue's post was that VX started with about 4 daily flights I believe between each SEA-SFO/LAX and have cut back a little. If it was such a success then why did they do that?

Quoting Beryllium (Reply 20):
When VX started SEA-LAX, AS responded with gazillion daily SEA-LAX flights.

If you worked at AS like you say then you would have known that the "West-Most" schedule wasn't just a SEA-LAX deal. It was promoting multiple frequency service to all points in central and southern California.

You'd also know that with the "West-Most" schedule...we only added 3 more SEA-LAX flights. We already had 12. Adding 3 more meant we could have an hourly flight schedule. To say we added a "gazillion" is a huge overstatement.

Quoting Beryllium (Reply 20):
There was a time when I worked for AS at their HQ (actually, it was exactly when VX started that SEA-SFO/LAX service). So, I know it for a fact, who kicks whose butt on those routes.

It would appear from numbers we look at that UA is the one who has lost because of VX's entrance. It has been mentioned on this board quite a few times how UA's SEA-SFO/LAX service has deteriorated.

Quoting Beryllium (Reply 20):
The reason is obvious - VX is a constant pain in AS's ass.

Any competition is a pain in anyone's butt. AS has done a decent job fending off WN so I don't think anyone here thinks we are just going to throw our hands up for VX. Competition is good and I hope VX's presence pushes AS harder to stay ahead of the curve.

Quoting Beryllium (Reply 20):
Also, you might remember, that prior to VX, SFO used to be a focus city for AS. This is not the case anymore.

This really has little to do with VX. It's not like AS used to serve SFO-JFK or anything like that. You could say that the focus has shifted to places like OAK/SJC/SMF with the introduction of flights to Hawaii and AUS.


User currently offlineBeryllium From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 7747 times:



Quoting Hatbutton (Reply 21):
They don't have to have SEA as a hub to expand. The point of BayAreaBlue's post was that VX started with about 4 daily flights I believe between each SEA-SFO/LAX and have cut back a little. If it was such a success then why did they do that?

I think, it would be natural to expect an airline to take advantage of the strengths of its hub first, and then to think about growing elsewhere. VX's hub is in SFO.
Thank you for clarifying the BayAreaBlue's point to me.
All I can say is that if it were not a success for VX they would withdraw, don't you think?
But they stick to it, in spite of the fact that AS responded with... what... 10-12 or something frequencies?
As for the cuts in frequencies, well, FYI - the economy went through the crisis, and still has not get out of there. The airlines have been cutting capacity quite significantly and it happened system-wide. When they cut capacity they eliminate routes, reduce frequencies, or go with smaller aircraft. That's what they usually do when times are tough. VX is no exception.

Quoting Hatbutton (Reply 21):
If you worked at AS like you say then you would have known that the "West-Most" schedule wasn't just a SEA-LAX deal. It was promoting multiple frequency service to all points in central and southern California.

You'd also know that with the "West-Most" schedule...we only added 3 more SEA-LAX flights. We already had 12. Adding 3 more meant we could have an hourly flight schedule. To say we added a "gazillion" is a huge overstatement.

Did I say that "West-Most" was just a SEA-LAX thing?
I think I did not.
As for the "gazillion"... well, 15 frequencies on SEA-LAX came, for the most part, out of a desire to drive VX out, not because economics of that route justufy that number. To me 15 flights would be a gazillion. No overstatement.

Quoting Hatbutton (Reply 21):
Any competition is a pain in anyone's butt. AS has done a decent job fending off WN so I don't think anyone here thinks we are just going to throw our hands up for VX. Competition is good and I hope VX's presence pushes AS harder to stay ahead of the curve.

AS has been doing a great job fighting the competition. I agree and I never said otherwise.
I said that VX is the pain in their butt. You seem to agree with that.


User currently offlineJBAirwaysFan From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1007 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 7719 times:

I wonder if VX will beef up LAX/SFO-SEA now that AS made it clear that they mean business? It sounds a bit immature and unprofessional, but hey, no one said competition was always clean.


In Loving Memory of Casey Edward Falconer; May 16, 1992-May 9, 2012
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25358 posts, RR: 49
Reply 24, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7685 times:



Quoting Mariner (Reply 19):
But is that the point?
Even if Virgin America offered a mongrel dog of a product, the question is whether or not they are a legal US citizen.

Certainly, however I think its pretty clear if VX was doing business off in some corner of Ohio or had that mongrel dog of a product, AS would not have paid a fraction of the attention they have to date.

Quoting JBAirwaysFan (Reply 23):
I wonder if VX will beef up LAX/SFO-SEA now that AS made it clear that they mean business?

I'm pretty sure that yes the West Coast schedule will be beefed as additional tails are delivered. VX had to trim some Western flying to add FLL and a couple more JFK frequencies.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
25 Live2fly83 : Im sure it would fit brand and possibly demand but are not those routes governed by treaty and slots- we have no open skies with Mexico and Im sure U
26 Enilria : First, it is a fraud that Alaska keeps attempting to use the federal government to save them from actually competing. How does it not cost money for
27 Post contains links LAXintl : Well technically it is being policed, just how well I dont know. But when you buy securities in the US, when you sign up with a broker or whatever me
28 Post contains links Mariner : I had to provide proof of US residency to the stockbrokers when I opened my account. But Duan Yongpin and Sam Liao were US citizens. I don't know if
29 DAL1044 : Considering the short time here since I've been born and raised in the US (47 years) I can simply state that the US Government lost my faith about 46
30 DLPMMM : In case you northern neighbors are interested, Canada has had a 25% limitation on foreign ownership of Canadian flagged carriers as late as February,
31 F9Animal : It is the time of season. Traffic for everyone drops in the fall and winter. Nothing new here. F9 reduces capacity to SEA from DEN during the slow mo
32 Csavel : I wanna see the birth certificate, the long form too. I know that VX is really a british national, born in kenya, blah, blah, blah. I can't believe i
33 AS739X : I can't speak for LAX that much, but it would seem AS is slowly downsizing SFO as a whole. It's unfortunate to see AS where it is now compared to '07
34 Wedgetail737 : I thought I had read in a thread in the past that SEA was VX's worst market in terms of making money. However, I think the reduction in VX flights to
35 Post contains links Rameshksm : Umm no. http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/target.asp
36 Atomsareenough : No, it's based in Minneapolis, MN. Very much American. It's a big box discount store, so people who pronounce it "Tar-jay", as it were some frou-frou
37 Kl911 : Exactly! It doesn't matter who owns a company, important is the amount of jobs it will create. Why is it not allowed to own a company in the US for a
38 Csavel : I thought it was actually French, but my point is, even if it was une compagnie de la plus belle France, who cares, the people @ their stores and pro
39 DLPMMM : It is allowed for anyone to own a company in the USA. There is a foreign ownership restriction for USA airlines, just as there is for most every coun
40 FutureFO : Ok then why is it that VX and Virgin Blue are doing a crew exchange programme for 1 year. Sending crews in a swap for each other.
41 WeAreUnited : Really? Wouldn't this require retraining for all crews as Virgin America uses Airbuses and Virgin Blue has 737's and Embraers? Why would either airli
42 FutureFO : They have posted openings for the swap in the last few weeks. So who knows. I know cabin crew are being swapped.
43 EA CO AS : Hogwash. Quite the opposite, actually. Apparently not. Their own stats show that SEA is VX's worst-performing market by far. Any market share gained
44 Post contains links MaverickM11 : It looks like the changes were quite involved: http://crankyflier.com/2010/01/10/do...-requires-significant-concessions/
45 MoltenRock : It's amusing to see the usual handful of VX bashers on this forum. It never fails. They've been wrong at every turn, every of their predictions of doo
46 EA CO AS : Not bashing, just pointing out that there were obviously some concerns by the DOT if they required changes from VX. Having said that, now that they'r
47 Panova98 : All of this gets a little confused, and the US is certainly not alone with its rules. When we can't quite justify these things, we tend to fall back o
48 MaverickM11 : And it only took them going back to their investors how many times versus, say, jetBlue ?
49 Beryllium : So, if it is "quite the opposite actually", and everything is rosy, then why bother with all these complaints in regards to VX citizenship? Nobody is
50 XT6Wagon : so the nearly $1 BILLION Virgin group has put into VX doesn't bother you? That they hold all the debt but supposedly little of the control? How naked
51 SASD209 : I'm sorry, I missed your factual source for this comment..
52 Beryllium : Me personally? Not at all. I actually don't even care who holds all the debt and how much of the control, as long as VX: (1) as an employer provides
53 Post contains links MoltenRock : On the changes VX agreed to DOT spokesman Bill Mosley said: "To say we have concerns isn't to say we don't think they're a citizen now," Mosley said.
54 MoltenRock : Agreed. Since I'm not owed a dime by VX I couldn't care less about which country their debt holders are from. I care that if they are US they pay the
55 Jpiddink : Add major reason no 3 (at least where the EU is concerned): 3. Reciprocity
56 GentFromAlaska : Really! I seem to recall AS thought quite fondly of the DOT Secretary Mineta and Senator Stevens when they were awarded the SEA-DCA capacity controll
57 MaverickM11 : Most of them have been doing quite a bit better than VX.
58 MoltenRock : Then you shouldn't worry about it, and neither should they. VX has found a niche in the travel market, and year in and year out VX has been winning c
59 Hatbutton : Who said AS hasn't been doing this in addition to raising concerns about VX? Don't know why everyone makes it sound like it's impossible to do the tw
60 MaverickM11 : VX has the nicest product in the industry. That's about it.
61 EA CO AS : Why bother? Well, let's see - how about because we have LAWS that need to be adhered to? Hmm? Or are you somehow okay with allowing one carrier to po
62 BayAreaBlue : Well said EA AS CO!!!!!
63 MoltenRock : The great news in all of this is VX now has an additional $63.4 million in cash, and can finalize delivery plans thru 2012 for an additional 30 new ai
64 Post contains links and images Beryllium : Yep. We do have laws. If I understand it correctly, DOT determined that VX "does not violate foreign-ownership rules and can continue to operate in t
65 Wedgetail737 : In the end, it's who prevails that matters. If VX gets some significant longevity far beyond their current existence...good for them! However, don't e
66 EA CO AS : Got plenty of happy ones, thanks - they're called STOCKHOLDERS.
67 Beryllium : Good for you
68 Aviators99 : Obviously, if VX was able to be foreign-controlled, AS (and others) would love to get some of that rich foreign money too. You're absolutely right, a
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...
How To Book US Domestic Flights As Non US Citizen? posted Wed May 5 2004 18:35:59 by MEA-707
What Is Preventing India As A Hub For Airlines? posted Thu Nov 12 2009 03:53:11 by Jayeshrulz
Emirates Is Hiring Again! posted Wed Sep 23 2009 11:48:20 by FilLPA
Is This Normal For A US Airline? posted Thu Jan 1 2009 17:43:32 by Qantas767
What Is Going On With US Airways Diverting To ABQ? posted Thu Dec 18 2008 15:45:40 by EwRkId
Airlines Such As US,CO Stocks Shooting Up! posted Wed Jul 23 2008 14:21:12 by MKE22
What Is The Mood Of US Airline Employees? posted Wed May 28 2008 08:22:20 by B777A340Fan
Northeast Is A Mess Again posted Fri Jun 29 2007 01:12:45 by B6ramprat
AQ Finally Dethrones HA As US' Ontime Leader posted Wed Jan 3 2007 21:53:32 by 777fan
Is ATA Viable As A Stand-Alone Carrier posted Sun Nov 12 2006 04:50:07 by 787KQ