burkey

Just a few interesting comments in an article from the June issue of Airline Business, by Kevin O'Toole:


"It is not a priority to find a new partner in Canada," says Carty.

Carty makes no secret that American would "love to see Swissair come into the alliance".

AAPlatinum

Gil would also love to see Swissair join oneworld!!

hsi.chang

Article can be found at:
http://www.amrcorp.com/AB_2.htm

and
http://www.amrcorp.com/AB_1.htm

burkey

hsi-- please be carefull about posting direct links as you have... the main reason I posted just the comments above. in the distant past direct links as such were posted and the site was promptly brought down due to the heavy volume of traffic flow. and i'd hate to have the main site go password. thanks.

hsi.chang

I would think that PR type stuff posted on a company's corporate site is meant to be read by a wide audience. It is not a secret link.

Shareholder

And for copyright reasons, it is preferrable for us to provide links to articles, etc. than to cut and paste these items into our posts.

burkey

If the source is documented properly, there shouldn't be an issue. My point being that while this is quasi-PR related, the above links do not point to the orgional source, rather to a place not intended for public use. Again, I'd prefer not to loose that source. It's somewhat like posting elite phone numbers... surely you'd respect that.

[This message has been edited by burkey (edited 07-18-2000).]

doc

Thanks for the news, burkey. And for the link, hsi.chang-

"...please be carefull about posting direct links as you have..."

More UNwritten rules.

Sorry, I just don't see this!

Gabriel

I don't agree with the analogy that it's similar to posting elite phone numbers since the site specifically states "COPYRIGHT: Free re-use".

FewMiles

I guess I'll jump into this debate too.

1) The webpages linked are on a website that is publicly accessible (no password).

2) One should consider content on a webpage as published information and therefore copyrighted.

So, why shouldn't hsi.chang link directly to the articles? Show people the source of the information and let them read it for themselves. Posting just part of the information is a summary at best (people get curious) and unsubstantiable heresay at worst (i.e. "what's your source?"). Posting the entire article on FT, on the other hand, would be a copyright infringement. Thus providing a link to the original source is the best way to handle it.

burkey: do you mean that the AMRcorp website was brought down with heavy traffic? If this article is not for public use, why is publicly accessible on the amrcorp.com website and not, for instance on the company's private intranet? Please don't take this as me bashing you about this or anything. It's just that if this article linked to by hsi.chang was not meant to be publicly accessible in the first place, they are going to remove it or password protect it anyways.

Back to the original comment by Carty... It is indeed an interesting one. Canada is too small a market to worry about?

FewMiles..

burkey

You guys are missing the point completely. No doc, it's not unwritten rules, it's simply common sense.

The above links are NOT from the public use side of the website, and yes, once AA rolls out the home computer system, I expect it to only be accessable on their intranet, password protected and all. For now, it's a great resource, let's not loose.

Once again, a similar situation happened before many of you were ever on FT, with another airline, and caused problems. I'm simply trying to aviod that again.

hsi.chang

Let's stop bickering about this. The link came from AA's "Employee Communications" site, basically an area of their corporate site, which is not protected. In this area, there are plently of links to other AA sites which some does have protection. The information presented in this area is all public information, except that it is probably available a few days earlier. I do understand Burkey's point regarding not publishing it, however, I doubt the AMR corporate site can't handle the added traffic from Flyertalk. So the only reason why they would remove public access to this area is if they cared that the public had access to it, and since we know AA employees regularly visit Flyertalk, any mention of information from this "secret" area would have shut it down, direct link or not.

doc

Brent - "simply common sense" which I sadly lack! Maybe it's NOT so "common"!

In any case, no problem!

BTW- MH is seemingly about to enter OW!
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum83/HTML/000284.html