Press Release Archives
Oct 18, 2018, 6:43 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: PIT
Programs: OZ Diamond, UA Gold
Posts: 9,917
Press Release Archives
I'm working on my Bachelors thesis, and for part of it I want to look through old press releases of airlines. I'd be looking from 1991-2008, at a variety of airlines, but right now I'm trying to find some info from CO. Specifically what I'm looking for right now is anything regarding the EU-US Open Skies negotiations, as I know CO led an attempt to derail the negotiations in 2006. The UA Press release page is utterly horrid to search through, and I doubt old CO releases are on that page. I was wondering if there was another place the press releases might be, for CO right now, but if anyone knows a good place for OAL as well that would be useful.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Oct 18, 2018, 7:11 am
#2
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Chicago
Programs: AA EP, UA Gold-MM, UA 1K (former), GS (former),SPG LT Platinum, Hyatt Diamond, HH Diamond
Posts: 2,299
I'm working on my Bachelors thesis, and for part of it I want to look through old press releases of airlines. I'd be looking from 1991-2008, at a variety of airlines, but right now I'm trying to find some info from CO. Specifically what I'm looking for right now is anything regarding the EU-US Open Skies negotiations, as I know CO led an attempt to derail the negotiations in 2006. The UA Press release page is utterly horrid to search through, and I doubt old CO releases are on that page. I was wondering if there was another place the press releases might be, for CO right now, but if anyone knows a good place for OAL as well that would be useful.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Oct 18, 2018, 7:15 am
#3
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: PIT
Programs: OZ Diamond, UA Gold
Posts: 9,917
I've got access to the quarterly reports through EBSCO, but can't seem to find press releases on EBSCO nor LexisNexis. May be the case that my university library doesn't subscribe to a press-release archive.
Oct 18, 2018, 8:41 am
#4
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Chicago
Programs: AA EP, UA Gold-MM, UA 1K (former), GS (former),SPG LT Platinum, Hyatt Diamond, HH Diamond
Posts: 2,299
Oh, sorry that was my best suggestion. Good luck with your search!
Oct 18, 2018, 9:52 am
#5
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Colorado
Programs: UA Gold (.85 MM), HH Diamond, SPG Platinum (LT Gold), Hertz PC, National EE
Posts: 5,652
Try a year by year search. I haven't looked at the results and if they apply to what you are trying to accomplish, but my Investigator wife has taught me well to be very specific in how I word search terms.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Cont...hrome&ie=UTF-8
https://www.google.com/search?q=Cont...hrome&ie=UTF-8
Oct 18, 2018, 10:07 am
#6
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: SEA
Programs: United: Gold, HHonors: Gold, Marriott: Gold, AA, US, AGR
Posts: 397
Another resource you could use is Wayback Machine, which are archives of webpages. The earliest it goes back for United though is about 2000: https://web.archive.org/web/20000822...2,1481,00.html
Oct 18, 2018, 11:23 am
#7
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,220
Bloomberg has old press releases. Below is from May 3, 2006, also found it here: https://www.finanzen.net/nachricht/a...irlines-586344
Continental Airlines Statement on D.O.T. Proposal to Allow Foreign Control Of U.S. Airlines
HOUSTON, May 3 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Continental Airlines (NYSE: CAL)
said today that, based on its initial review, the supplemental proposed rule
allowing foreign control of U.S. airlines issued today by the Department of
Transportation fails to resolve the significant legal and policy concerns
raised by Congress, industry and labor.
While the revised DOT proposal purports to allow a U.S. shareholder
majority to revoke foreign control of airline operations, this proposal makes
it clear that foreign investors will be allowed to control all significant
decisions at a U.S. air carrier and highlights the unworkable nature of
bifurcating control of a corporation.
"The DOT has abdicated its responsibility to ensure actual control by U.S.
citizens, relying instead on the unreasonable hope that U.S. shareholders and
directors might reassert the very control DOT is unwilling to require," said a
Continental spokesperson, pointing out that "U.S. citizen shareholders are
even less likely to revoke control held by foreign owners than U.S. voters are
to amend the Constitution."
The proposed rule, even as now supplemented by DOT, is still unlawful and
will not withstand either Congressional scrutiny or the expected court
challenges.
Only Congress can change the law regarding foreign control of U.S.
airlines. Over the last six months, the Congressional message could not be
clearer. The law requiring "actual control" of U.S. airlines by U.S. citizens
means exactly what it says.
Congress has made its concerns abundantly clear to the DOT. The message
is unmistakable and is coming from both sides of the Capitol and from
Republicans and Democrats alike. Nearly 190 Members of the House of
Representatives have introduced legislation which states that DOT's proposals
are contrary to the "plain language" of aviation statutes and prohibits DOT
from issuing a final ruling for a period of one year. The House
Appropriations Committee unanimously adopted report language directing the
Secretary of Transportation to refrain from issuing a final rule for 120 days
and expressing serious concerns about "any rule which would allow any minority
foreign investor to exercise control or decision-making authority over any
aspect of a U.S. carrier's operation." Finally, the Senate Appropriations
Committee recently passed statutory language prohibiting DOT from using any
money to make final a foreign control rule making.
While Members of Congress have been willing to give DOT a chance to
rewrite the proposed rule in a manner consistent with the law, it is clear
that Congress will not be mollified with the ineffectual changes proposed
today.
The DOT's supplemental proposed rule is a bad rule designed to clench a
bad deal between the European Union and the U.S. DOT has previously admitted
that it is promulgating the proposed rule because the EU has demanded that it
do so as a condition to signing the proposed U.S.-EU "open skies" treaty.
DOT's dogged defiance of Congress, as well as industry and labor critics,
shows how far DOT will go to appease the EU. The "open skies" deal is
anything but open, as neither it nor the DOT have provided for effective U.S.
airline competition in the EU's most important business aviation market,
London Heathrow. Under the treaty, Continental will be permitted to fly to
Heathrow, but it won't be permitted to land there, as daily slots at
commercially reasonable times are simply not available, nor are adequate
facilities.
SOURCE Continental Airlines
Continental Airlines Statement on D.O.T. Proposal to Allow Foreign Control Of U.S. Airlines
HOUSTON, May 3 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Continental Airlines (NYSE: CAL)
said today that, based on its initial review, the supplemental proposed rule
allowing foreign control of U.S. airlines issued today by the Department of
Transportation fails to resolve the significant legal and policy concerns
raised by Congress, industry and labor.
While the revised DOT proposal purports to allow a U.S. shareholder
majority to revoke foreign control of airline operations, this proposal makes
it clear that foreign investors will be allowed to control all significant
decisions at a U.S. air carrier and highlights the unworkable nature of
bifurcating control of a corporation.
"The DOT has abdicated its responsibility to ensure actual control by U.S.
citizens, relying instead on the unreasonable hope that U.S. shareholders and
directors might reassert the very control DOT is unwilling to require," said a
Continental spokesperson, pointing out that "U.S. citizen shareholders are
even less likely to revoke control held by foreign owners than U.S. voters are
to amend the Constitution."
The proposed rule, even as now supplemented by DOT, is still unlawful and
will not withstand either Congressional scrutiny or the expected court
challenges.
Only Congress can change the law regarding foreign control of U.S.
airlines. Over the last six months, the Congressional message could not be
clearer. The law requiring "actual control" of U.S. airlines by U.S. citizens
means exactly what it says.
Congress has made its concerns abundantly clear to the DOT. The message
is unmistakable and is coming from both sides of the Capitol and from
Republicans and Democrats alike. Nearly 190 Members of the House of
Representatives have introduced legislation which states that DOT's proposals
are contrary to the "plain language" of aviation statutes and prohibits DOT
from issuing a final ruling for a period of one year. The House
Appropriations Committee unanimously adopted report language directing the
Secretary of Transportation to refrain from issuing a final rule for 120 days
and expressing serious concerns about "any rule which would allow any minority
foreign investor to exercise control or decision-making authority over any
aspect of a U.S. carrier's operation." Finally, the Senate Appropriations
Committee recently passed statutory language prohibiting DOT from using any
money to make final a foreign control rule making.
While Members of Congress have been willing to give DOT a chance to
rewrite the proposed rule in a manner consistent with the law, it is clear
that Congress will not be mollified with the ineffectual changes proposed
today.
The DOT's supplemental proposed rule is a bad rule designed to clench a
bad deal between the European Union and the U.S. DOT has previously admitted
that it is promulgating the proposed rule because the EU has demanded that it
do so as a condition to signing the proposed U.S.-EU "open skies" treaty.
DOT's dogged defiance of Congress, as well as industry and labor critics,
shows how far DOT will go to appease the EU. The "open skies" deal is
anything but open, as neither it nor the DOT have provided for effective U.S.
airline competition in the EU's most important business aviation market,
London Heathrow. Under the treaty, Continental will be permitted to fly to
Heathrow, but it won't be permitted to land there, as daily slots at
commercially reasonable times are simply not available, nor are adequate
facilities.
SOURCE Continental Airlines
Oct 18, 2018, 1:29 pm
#8
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: PIT
Programs: OZ Diamond, UA Gold
Posts: 9,917
Thanks all for the ideas, I’ll check them all out. I need to comb through a lot of airline press releases, so the search is on!
Blort, that is the exact press release I was looking for today. I had found a title in a journal article, I had found an old URL to the CO site, but I could find the release. I guess Bloomberg changed the title slightly when they released it, that’s why I couldn’t find it through Google, and we don’t get Bloomberg in our university databases.
Bloomberg has old press releases. Below is from May 3, 2006, also found it here: https://www.finanzen.net/nachricht/a...irlines-586344
Continental Airlines Statement on D.O.T. Proposal to Allow Foreign Control Of U.S. Airlines
HOUSTON, May 3 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Continental Airlines (NYSE: CAL)
said today that, based on its initial review, the supplemental proposed rule
allowing foreign control of U.S. airlines issued today by the Department of
Transportation fails to resolve the significant legal and policy concerns
raised by Congress, industry and labor.
While the revised DOT proposal purports to allow a U.S. shareholder
majority to revoke foreign control of airline operations, this proposal makes
it clear that foreign investors will be allowed to control all significant
decisions at a U.S. air carrier and highlights the unworkable nature of
bifurcating control of a corporation.
"The DOT has abdicated its responsibility to ensure actual control by U.S.
citizens, relying instead on the unreasonable hope that U.S. shareholders and
directors might reassert the very control DOT is unwilling to require," said a
Continental spokesperson, pointing out that "U.S. citizen shareholders are
even less likely to revoke control held by foreign owners than U.S. voters are
to amend the Constitution."
The proposed rule, even as now supplemented by DOT, is still unlawful and
will not withstand either Congressional scrutiny or the expected court
challenges.
Only Congress can change the law regarding foreign control of U.S.
airlines. Over the last six months, the Congressional message could not be
clearer. The law requiring "actual control" of U.S. airlines by U.S. citizens
means exactly what it says.
Congress has made its concerns abundantly clear to the DOT. The message
is unmistakable and is coming from both sides of the Capitol and from
Republicans and Democrats alike. Nearly 190 Members of the House of
Representatives have introduced legislation which states that DOT's proposals
are contrary to the "plain language" of aviation statutes and prohibits DOT
from issuing a final ruling for a period of one year. The House
Appropriations Committee unanimously adopted report language directing the
Secretary of Transportation to refrain from issuing a final rule for 120 days
and expressing serious concerns about "any rule which would allow any minority
foreign investor to exercise control or decision-making authority over any
aspect of a U.S. carrier's operation." Finally, the Senate Appropriations
Committee recently passed statutory language prohibiting DOT from using any
money to make final a foreign control rule making.
While Members of Congress have been willing to give DOT a chance to
rewrite the proposed rule in a manner consistent with the law, it is clear
that Congress will not be mollified with the ineffectual changes proposed
today.
The DOT's supplemental proposed rule is a bad rule designed to clench a
bad deal between the European Union and the U.S. DOT has previously admitted
that it is promulgating the proposed rule because the EU has demanded that it
do so as a condition to signing the proposed U.S.-EU "open skies" treaty.
DOT's dogged defiance of Congress, as well as industry and labor critics,
shows how far DOT will go to appease the EU. The "open skies" deal is
anything but open, as neither it nor the DOT have provided for effective U.S.
airline competition in the EU's most important business aviation market,
London Heathrow. Under the treaty, Continental will be permitted to fly to
Heathrow, but it won't be permitted to land there, as daily slots at
commercially reasonable times are simply not available, nor are adequate
facilities.
SOURCE Continental Airlines
Continental Airlines Statement on D.O.T. Proposal to Allow Foreign Control Of U.S. Airlines
HOUSTON, May 3 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Continental Airlines (NYSE: CAL)
said today that, based on its initial review, the supplemental proposed rule
allowing foreign control of U.S. airlines issued today by the Department of
Transportation fails to resolve the significant legal and policy concerns
raised by Congress, industry and labor.
While the revised DOT proposal purports to allow a U.S. shareholder
majority to revoke foreign control of airline operations, this proposal makes
it clear that foreign investors will be allowed to control all significant
decisions at a U.S. air carrier and highlights the unworkable nature of
bifurcating control of a corporation.
"The DOT has abdicated its responsibility to ensure actual control by U.S.
citizens, relying instead on the unreasonable hope that U.S. shareholders and
directors might reassert the very control DOT is unwilling to require," said a
Continental spokesperson, pointing out that "U.S. citizen shareholders are
even less likely to revoke control held by foreign owners than U.S. voters are
to amend the Constitution."
The proposed rule, even as now supplemented by DOT, is still unlawful and
will not withstand either Congressional scrutiny or the expected court
challenges.
Only Congress can change the law regarding foreign control of U.S.
airlines. Over the last six months, the Congressional message could not be
clearer. The law requiring "actual control" of U.S. airlines by U.S. citizens
means exactly what it says.
Congress has made its concerns abundantly clear to the DOT. The message
is unmistakable and is coming from both sides of the Capitol and from
Republicans and Democrats alike. Nearly 190 Members of the House of
Representatives have introduced legislation which states that DOT's proposals
are contrary to the "plain language" of aviation statutes and prohibits DOT
from issuing a final ruling for a period of one year. The House
Appropriations Committee unanimously adopted report language directing the
Secretary of Transportation to refrain from issuing a final rule for 120 days
and expressing serious concerns about "any rule which would allow any minority
foreign investor to exercise control or decision-making authority over any
aspect of a U.S. carrier's operation." Finally, the Senate Appropriations
Committee recently passed statutory language prohibiting DOT from using any
money to make final a foreign control rule making.
While Members of Congress have been willing to give DOT a chance to
rewrite the proposed rule in a manner consistent with the law, it is clear
that Congress will not be mollified with the ineffectual changes proposed
today.
The DOT's supplemental proposed rule is a bad rule designed to clench a
bad deal between the European Union and the U.S. DOT has previously admitted
that it is promulgating the proposed rule because the EU has demanded that it
do so as a condition to signing the proposed U.S.-EU "open skies" treaty.
DOT's dogged defiance of Congress, as well as industry and labor critics,
shows how far DOT will go to appease the EU. The "open skies" deal is
anything but open, as neither it nor the DOT have provided for effective U.S.
airline competition in the EU's most important business aviation market,
London Heathrow. Under the treaty, Continental will be permitted to fly to
Heathrow, but it won't be permitted to land there, as daily slots at
commercially reasonable times are simply not available, nor are adequate
facilities.
SOURCE Continental Airlines