Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings  
User currently offlinestlgph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9401 posts, RR: 26
Posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 20002 times:

"Sept. 4 (Bloomberg) -- AMR Corp.’s American Airlines and United Continental Holdings Inc. must face a federal trial over negligence claims tied to the hijackings of jetliners on Sept. 11, 2001, used in the terrorist attacks that killed about 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania."

http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloom...s-Must-Face-Trial-Over-3838760.php


********

Well, can't see this looking attractive to a potential AMR merger partner.


if assumptions could fly, airliners.net would be the world's busiest airport
77 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinestrfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 1294 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 19996 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

So WHO is Sueing Massport for the lousy security?? American and Unirted did what they were Legally required to do. I'd sure like to see that suit stick! That;s BS!!

User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5669 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 19971 times:

Quoting stlgph (Thread starter):

Well, can't see this looking attractive to a potential AMR merger partner.

Why? There's no chance in hell of the airlines being found liable for anything.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineVC10DC10 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 1036 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 19969 times:

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 1):
So WHO is Sueing Massport for the lousy security??

I'm wondering the same thing....


User currently offlinephxa340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 891 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 19931 times:

Quoting VC10DC10 (Reply 3):
I'm wondering the same thing....

The former owners of the WTC ... I think


User currently offlinekl911 From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2003, 5195 posts, RR: 15
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 19875 times:

Wow, it always seems to us in Europe that you can just sue anything and anyone in the US. Will it ever stop?
What arethey trying to accomplish? Money? I hate that system.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 19852 times:

Quoting stlgph (Thread starter):


UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings  

Wait, didn't the Statuate (sp?) of Limitations already run out? It's been 11 years now! I see this getting dismissed fairly quick, this really won't see the light of day in a court of law. This is getting ridiculous, time to move on, but never forget the victims!



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineazstar From United States of America, joined May 2005, 621 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 19774 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 6):
Wait, didn't the Statuate (sp?) of Limitations already run out? It's been 11 years now! I see this getting dismissed fairly quick, this really won't see the light of day in a court of law

It wasn't dismssed.

"District Judge Alvin Hellerstein in Manhattan said a trial is required" according to the article.

How about suing Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Algeria, the Palestinian Authority, Al Qaeda and all the organizations that
supported and financed these mass murderers?

[Edited 2012-09-04 13:11:19]

User currently offlineRwy04LGA From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 19749 times:

I agree it's a complete waste of the court's time, but it's the system we have. Only lawyers like the system, while you and I don't have to like it.


Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 19694 times:

Quoting azstar (Reply 7):
It wasn't dismssed.

I never said it was. But it SHOULD be dismissed.

Quoting azstar,reply=7District Judge Alvin Hellerstein in Manhattan said a trial is required:

Required?! Under what laws/regulations?

[Edited 2012-09-04 13:16:32]


A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 19607 times:

The a/c were hijacked with items that were allowed through security at that time. While some of the hijackers were flagged for additional screening, all that meant was their luggage was not put onboard until they were onboard the a/c (Interestingly enough, Mohammed Atta was one who was flagged for additional screening [at PWM] but his bags never made it onto AA11.). AA and UA followed all of the rules and policies that were expected of them at that time, and if you're going to sue them, then they need to include the security contractors at PWM, BOS and EWR as well since they are the ones that let the hijackers through security.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31096 posts, RR: 85
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 19586 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 1):
So WHO is Sueing Massport for the lousy security?

On September 11, 2011 it was legal per FAA regulation to take a box cutter aboard a commercial airliner in your hand luggage.



Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 6):
Wait, didn't the Statuate (sp?) of Limitations already run out?


Per the Judge's Wikipedia entry, in 2003 he agreed to hear a consolidated master case against three airlines, ICTS International NV and Pinkerton's airport security firms, the World Trade Center owners and the Boeing Company. I don't see any information on whether this case actually went to trial.

His entry states that a lawsuit was filed in September 2004 by the insurers of the WTC against UA and AA as the Statue of Limitations expired on 11 September 2004. However, the Air Transportation Act limits the liability of airlines, aircraft manufacturers, and airports to the amount of their insurance coverage.

[Edited 2012-09-04 13:24:34]

User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25719 posts, RR: 50
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 19450 times:

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 1):
So WHO is Sueing Massport for the lousy security??

Security back in the day belonged to airlines.

There was no TSA, and airlines contracted with various vendors to provide the screening, and were held responsible for their performance.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 19412 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Per the Judge's Wikipedia entry, in 2003 he agreed to hear a consolidated master case against three airlines, ICTS International NV and Pinkerton's airport security firms, the World Trade Center owners and the Boeing Company.

Ok, that makes sense.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
His entry states that a lawsuit was filed in September 2004 by the insurers of the WTC against UA and AA as the Statue of Limitations expired on 11 September 2004.

So, why are we hearing about it again now, in 2012, 8 years after the Limitations had ran out? Or am I missing the point here?

Quoting srbmod (Reply 10):
The a/c were hijacked with items that were allowed through security at that time

Yup!    Not saying you, SRBMod, but it's certainly amazing how some select few forget that one very important little fact. I'm glad you brought that up.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
the Air Transportation Act limits the liability of airlines, aircraft manufacturers, and airports to the amount of their insurance coverage.

I wonder if the judge knows and or knew this.....



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineaklrno From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 950 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 19305 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 13):
So, why are we hearing about it again now, in 2012, 8 years after the Limitations had ran out? Or am I missing the point here?

If the lawsuit was FILED before the time limit, then the limit has been met. It can (obviously) take years from the time the suit is filed to get to court, but this is longer than most, probably because it is very complicated.

If there are factual disputes (as opposed to just interpretations of the law) then a trial is required.


User currently offlineNWAROOSTER From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1105 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 19232 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Rwy04LGA (Reply 8):
I agree it's a complete waste of the court's time, but it's the system we have. Only lawyers like the system, while you and I don't have to like it.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Per the Judge's Wikipedia entry, in 2003 he agreed to hear a consolidated master case against three airlines, ICTS International NV and Pinkerton's airport security firms, the World Trade Center owners and the Boeing Company. I don't see any information on whether this case actually went to trial.

His entry states that a lawsuit was filed in September 2004 by the insurers of the WTC against UA and AA as the Statue of Limitations expired on 11 September 2004. However, the Air Transportation Act limits the liability of airlines, aircraft manufacturers, and airports to the amount of their insurance coverage.
Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 13):
Quoting srbmod (Reply 10):
The a/c were hijacked with items that were allowed through security at that time

Yup!    Not saying you, SRBMod, but it's certainly amazing how some select few forget that one very important little fact. I'm glad you brought that up.

Looks like the lawyers are going to get richer and tie up the court system for more years over their greediness to get richer.   


User currently offlineRwy04LGA From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 19178 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
against three airlines....the World Trade Center owners and the Boeing Company

What was the third airline? Sue all the victims but not the perps. Why not sue Todd Beamer as well?



Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8419 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 19022 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 2):
Why? There's no chance in hell of the airlines being found liable for anything.

Since both United and AMR have declared Bankruptcy since 2001 wouldn't that kill and liability they had ? Their insurance at the time may pay for a claim ?


User currently offlinefxra From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 707 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 18943 times:

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2 - William Shakespeare.

(Yes i know out of context but still seems fitting here)



Visualize Whirled Peas
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 18877 times:

I feel for the families of 9/11, but despite the grief they unfortunately endure... this is stupid.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 1):
the lousy security

How was it lousy security? What illegal items were allowed on the aircraft?



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineBlueDanube From United States of America, joined May 2012, 19 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 18714 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 17):

Since both United and AMR have declared Bankruptcy since 2001 wouldn't that kill and liability they had ? Their insurance at the time may pay for a claim ?

  

This was one of my first thoughts too.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 12):
There was no TSA, and airlines contracted with various vendors to provide the screening, and were held responsible for their performance.

Here's my question. How were the airlines or the aircraft manufacturer, or anyone else, negligent? What actions could the airlines have taken to prevent this? The terrorists literally killed the pilots and took command of the planes. Both UA and AA were following the law that day, acting in the good faith of transporting people from one place to another. The manufacturer's plane hit the buildings because terrorists flew it there, not through some sort of operational malfunction.

Want to blame someone? Blame the terrorists!!!!!

****okay, rant over***

The plaintiffs (World Trade Center LLC) are just grasping at straws for money because their insurance policy didn't pay out enough. It sucks for them but it happens. Our hearts break for what happened that day. But nothing good comes of this lawsuit. I hope UA, AA, and others fight it to the end. But this is why we need some sort of remedy for those who have frivilous lawsuits filed against them. If such a remedy was in place here, this lawsuit may not have ever been filed.

[Edited 2012-09-04 15:51:01]

[Edited 2012-09-04 15:51:50]

User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 18667 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 12):
airlines contracted with various vendors to provide the screening

I thought the airports contracted out the screening, but left the responsibility of the operation to the airlines, hence the dreaded two question routine at time of check-in that the airlines had to ask each and every pax.

Why was the two question routine dropped anyway??

Quoting BlueDanube (Reply 20):
The plaintiffs (World Trade Center LLC) just grasping at straws for money because their insurance policy didn't pay out enough. It sucks for them but it happens. Our hearts break for what happened that day. But nothing good comes of this lawsuit. I hope UA, AA, and others fight it to the end. But this is why we need some sort of remedy for those who have frivilous lawsuits filed against them.

   Agreed 100%



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineBraniff747SP From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 2997 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 18529 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Boeing Company

Suing the airlines is idiotic, but at least I see some connection... I don't see the connection to Boeing. How is it the manufacturer's fault if some nuts hijack a plane and crash it into a building?



The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31096 posts, RR: 85
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 18504 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 22):
How is it the manufacturer's fault if some nuts hijack a plane and crash it into a building?

I would hazard a guess that they would argue that due to the many historical instances of an airplane being hijacked, the OEMs (in this case, Boeing as the planes were 767-200ERs and 757-200s) should have designed features and systems into their planes to prevent hijackings or make them more difficult - features like the the reinforced cockpit doors mandated after the event.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 18450 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 23):
the OEMs (in this case, Boeing as the planes were 767-200ERs and 757-200s) should have designed features and systems into their planes to prevent hijackings or make them more difficult - features like the the reinforced cockpit doors mandated after the event.

(Not directed at you Stitch...) So, they are suing for something that was not required before, but was mandated after the fact? Unreal. The reinforced cockpit doors was not required before 9/11. The plaintiff's beef is with the F.A.A. on this one, IMO.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
25 Braniff747SP : Agreed. Idiotic. If that's their case against the manufacturer, then they should go after the FAA.
26 HAL : It wouldn't matter if the doors had been reinforced or not. At the time, the policy was to comply with any hijackers demands, because the thought was
27 ikramerica : Where's the trial re: the faulty design of the twin towers? If anyone is to blame for the magnitude of the tragedy, it's the designers of those towers
28 AirframeAS : Uhm, the building codes that NYC had back in the 60's-70's are probably more than likely not the same codes that we see today. Source?
29 DeltaMD90 : I don't know much about building codes but are all buildings supposed to be able to survive 757/767 impacts?
30 LAXintl : Argument is that the airlines had negligence and failed fulfill their duty to provide proper security. As the judge found, World Trade Center Propert
31 tharanga : and if they tried the exact same thing again today, it wouldn't work. not because of anything the security would do, but because the other passengers
32 gigneil : What? The design of the twin towers are what LIMITED the magnitude of the tragedy to what it was, to a large extent. Any other buildings and everyone
33 mpdpilot : You both have valid points. I know a few engineers that have basically said that the design shouldered the weight longer than most buildings would ha
34 dlphoenix : The plaintiff's beef is with whoever carries the biggest wallet.
35 OB1504 : This is true, but it doesn't mean that you'll win. A lot of frivolous lawsuits either get thrown out or defeated.
36 Post contains images PHX787 : Exactly. What could they do? Which is why the TSA and all of those banned items lists exits. Based on this, I see this case going nowhere. Again, wha
37 FI642 : Eactly- so why just limit the suit to AA and UA? Sue them all! This is absurd. The FAA allowed everything that was taken aboard on every flight every
38 lweber557 : This is just sick. The cases will likely never make it to court but the fact that lawyers will actually pursue something like this makes me ashamed to
39 AirframeAS : Agreed! The judge in this case should be disbarred, IMO, for allowing this to even proceed 11 years later. This should have been solved before the St
40 flymia : Only about 2% of cases in the United Sates actually go to trial. Of course you can sue anyone for anything. But if it's frivolous it will be thrown o
41 Deltal1011man : it doesn't matter. If it was the TSA, The airport, Delta, United, Some homeless guy down the street. These guys only took things they *could* have on
42 infiniti329 : This is bullcrap.. Im fuming that that someone is trying to get money out of this.... the major responsible parties have had bullets placed between th
43 AirframeAS : It still costs money even if it does not go to trial. You still have attorneys being paid by the hour.
44 KBUF : What a load of shit. AA and UA didn't do a single thing wrong, the whole thing was out of their control. My best guess would be Colgan, since that's w
45 Post contains images ghifty : and definitely not AA. When building codes are updated, buildings that were built before the revised codes were introduced still have to meet the new
46 hiflyer : Why isn't the FAA in this suit...it was their security procedures...continually tested and repeatedly validated by them that were enforced?
47 Fabo : Does not make much sense to me to make building codes retroactive, unless there is a very specific safety risk uncovered in meantime (say, for exampl
48 Post contains images soon7x7 : Since most of the "evil doers" originated from Saudi Arabia, why doesn't the US just sue them...kind of Oil for Blood...Utter nonsense!
49 jfk777 : There was a victims fund set up by the government administered by Mr. Feinberg who also administered the BP Fund in the Gulf of Mexico. People are no
50 T5towbar : What the lawyers will do to make a buck......... This suit makes no sense at all. Like the other posters said. The real crime in all of this is why is
51 United1 : Indeed...the good thing is at least financially this should not cost UA or AA much of anything...their insurance company on the other hand.
52 pliersinsight : Dear god, all you people do is bash lawyers all day! There are two things this site does excessively, actually three: 1. Speculate on causes of crash
53 enilria : Haven't AA and UA both filed for Ch11 since 9/11? Doesn't that mean that essentially UA and AA are now different companies no longer liable for claim
54 T5towbar : I'm not leaving them out either........ Hell, we as taxpayers had to bail out AIG, and they were the biggest insurance company of them all. So I've n
55 Post contains links milesrich : And both of these airlines filed Bankruptcy Petitions after 9-11-2001, the date the claims come from; therefore, this is really a fight between the i
56 rcair1 : There are some who support tort reform. Unfortunately, we have not been able to get it passed. No - a building is not brought up to new code standard
57 milesrich : This has little to do with Tort Reform, this is a contest between insurance carriers, and is quite normal. The Question is are the insurers of the WT
58 Post contains images kgaiflyer : For some reason, this makes me think of Brittany Spears In DC (where one of the 9/11 flights originated) dozens of TV ads run daily trolling for clie
59 JHCRJ700 : This is absoulutley ridiculous. The airport security should be sued not the airlines. Things like this embarass me as an american.
60 DTWPurserBoy : All of the families affected by the tragedy of 9/11 received generous compensation for the horrible losses they experienced. UA and AA did nothing wro
61 SmittyOne : My first take on this is a little bit different... The US has treated the 9/11 attacks as an "Act of War" against the entire United States in many way
62 AirframeAS : You know, you have a good point that I didn't think about. This is exactly what the terrorists wanted us to do: pit American vs. American against eac
63 FX1816 : Again as many have said, how can you even sue the security company? The items brought on board the aircraft were LEGAL at the time of the incident. I
64 flymia : The airlines have attorneys on salary, as almost all large companies do.
65 AirframeAS : It still costs money. My point still stands.
66 flymia : Yes I understand. I am just pointing out that it is not like AA is paying attorneys $500 a hour. Unless they need a specialist or go to trial and nee
67 LV : {**sarcasm***} You know the plantiff's may be on to something here.... sue the people that supplied what was used to commit the crime. My dad's house
68 rcair1 : I was responding to the question from across the seas that it seems everybody sues everybody in the US - and that does have to do with tort reform. I
69 Maverick623 : If a lawsuit is truly frivolous, the plaintiff faces punishment. Very few lawsuits are thrown out due to being "frivolous", but rather due to lack of
70 135mech : After 9-11, one of the specials I watched on it, talked about the designs of the WTC twin towers. AT THE TIME...707's and DC-8's were "new" and they
71 rcair1 : Unfortunately - all too often this is not sarcasm.
72 Post contains images steeler83 : I can see I am 67 replies too late to this one, but I agree with both this statement and this whole schpiel about AA and UA somehow being held liable
73 rcair1 : While technically true - it is better stated "may face". Many more should be. I think that is one of the points. This lawsuit - which as many have st
74 Beardown91737 : The third airline is probably Colgan. That is the carrier that Atta and al-Omari boarded at PWM to get to BOS. Besides this thread, the only other ac
75 flightsimer : Actually, quite the opposite and this is also the opinion of many experts... The design of the buildings was what saved thousands of lives that day.
76 DarkSnowyNight : Until they need one. Actually, Divorce Law (or Family Law as the more palatable euphamism goes), is the bulk of my experience as well. And I have to
77 DTWPurserBoy : Most engineers that I have read have agreed that it was the unique design of the towers that let them stand for as long as they did and this is a dir
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 Charge $15 For Some Seat Changes posted Fri Apr 13 2007 19:11:23 by DeltaFFinDFW
AA To Use 763 For HNL-NRT posted Sun May 23 2004 22:02:33 by Qqflyboy
UAL Not To Emerge From Chapt 11 Early posted Fri Aug 29 2003 20:53:34 by Artsyman
Lawyer: "AA And UA Responsible For 9-11" posted Fri May 2 2003 03:27:19 by UALPHLCS
AA To Pay $1.2million For Penalties posted Thu Mar 14 2002 05:53:55 by Jiml1126
Boeing,AA,UAL Responsible For 9/11 posted Tue Sep 9 2003 22:13:09 by Az747
UAL/AA - Special Announcements For 09/11 posted Tue Sep 10 2002 15:56:03 by Tripleseven
AA To Retire Up To 11 757s; Trim Capacity 3% posted Mon Oct 10 2011 16:11:19 by SkedGuy
AA DFW-NRT Diversion To Aleutian Islands July 11 posted Sun Jul 11 2010 22:24:01 by crosswinds21
DOT Awards 11 US-Brazil Frequencies To AA, 0 To DL posted Wed Jun 16 2010 07:23:27 by C010T3
AA To Use 763 For HNL-NRT posted Sun May 23 2004 22:02:33 by Qqflyboy
UAL Not To Emerge From Chapt 11 Early posted Fri Aug 29 2003 20:53:34 by Artsyman
Lawyer: "AA And UA Responsible For 9-11" posted Fri May 2 2003 03:27:19 by UALPHLCS
AA To Pay $1.2million For Penalties posted Thu Mar 14 2002 05:53:55 by Jiml1126
Boeing,AA,UAL Responsible For 9/11 posted Tue Sep 9 2003 22:13:09 by Az747
UAL/AA - Special Announcements For 09/11 posted Tue Sep 10 2002 15:56:03 by Tripleseven
AA To Retire Up To 11 757s; Trim Capacity 3% posted Mon Oct 10 2011 16:11:19 by SkedGuy
AA DFW-NRT Diversion To Aleutian Islands July 11 posted Sun Jul 11 2010 22:24:01 by crosswinds21