Originally Posted by
perseus11
Maybe so, but can you provide a credible source as to why NOT just PHL-TLV was axed, but all of Israel? I mean it's not like there's a pittance of travel between the U.S. (NYC, LAX, etc.) and Israel. It's quite difficult to swallow that AA dropped Israel for financial reasons, when they fly to (for example) ATH, which is nearly as far and primarily Tourist/Cruise traffic. AA essentially ceded Israel to their U.S. rivals, Delta and United - why ?
PHL-TLV was the only Israel flight for AA. It was axed because the market sucked. One surely cannot possibly compare the success of NY/LA-TLV with a place like Philly to TLV.
Originally Posted by
anabolism
What is "TG?" Never seen that acronym before.
As to what the statement means, my reading is that QR is saying that AA's financial situation doesn't meet their investment objectives. Presumably, QR wanted to invest in a US airline to both foster a closer relationship and generate decent return. But that's just my interpretation of the statement.
To me, TG = Thai Airways.