 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Prologue edit
I've just re-vamped this page & updated the US Code and CFR references etc. as they were either obsolete or inaccurate. I've also put in a bit more stuff on exceptions as this is the main topic of interest, either from a US viewpoint ('Whoops, I got the wrong plane, can I claim my expenses?') or from a non-US viewpoint ('I'd like to use the airline that we have the best deal with and save on travel expenditure and it would be nice to be able to use the air miles I get...').
As you can probably tell, this subject has been a contractual thorn in my side for some time but I've tried to be as objective as possible on what is essentially a piece of out-dated, anti-competitive and restrictive trade practice, matched only in its one-sidedness by the purportedly 'open' bilateral Open Skies agreements that are proliferating between the US and other states. This goes some way to explain the impasse on the US/EU negotiations at the moment.
Incorrect title edit
I believe the title should read: "Fly America Act" as per the text of the article and all the references within it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Modro (talk • contribs) 15:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
Brazil edit
I am a USG employee in Brazil. There is no Open Skies agreement between the U.S. and Brazil. Simon Henshaw
Re:Brazil edit
You are correct - neither is there one with Saudi Arabia, the air transport agreements with these countries are not Open Skies as per the State Dept definition. I have corrected the entry. Pete Modro
What? edit
This page does everything, except telling me what the damn thing is! Exceptions, who it applies to, where it came from, but not what it actually means! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
History edit
When was the Act passed? – Kaihsu (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Assessment edit
Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Grades clearly states in the 'More detailed criteria' part of Start-Class:
... the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability.
No article that is wholly unsourced can satisfy the criteria for Start-Class, and therefore cannot be more than a stub. --RexxS (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)