Doesn''t the sale of Worldspan by AA, prove that TWA could have sold it instead? Was TWA really abo

[latreal]

Even if(and that is a huge, gigantic, not gonna happen, IF) TWA wins in court, the assets that AA purchased were still legally BOUGHT AND PAID FOR by AA so I'm not getting the stolen goods reference.

Really I do get it and know that you are bitter even with the smiley faces at the end. Hey us AAers have not 1 thing to be upset about (except the new contracts), so these are for TWA(or what use to be TWA)

.

 

[FrugalFlyer]

----------------
On 7/29/2003 6:18:49 PM AAplanesareold wrote:

If TWA prevails in court, it may very well be considered stolen goods.

----------------​

Don't you mean damaged goods?

 

[AAplanesareold]

----------------
On 7/30/2003 10:55:25 AM latreal wrote:

Even if(and that is a huge, gigantic, not gonna happen, IF) TWA wins in court, the assets that AA purchased were still legally BOUGHT AND PAID FOR by AA so I'm not getting the stolen goods reference.

Really I do get it and know that you are bitter even with the smiley faces at the end. Hey us AAers have not 1 thing to be upset about (except the new contracts), so these are for TWA(or what use to be TWA)

----------------​

If the TWA led lawsuit wins and it is proven that AA lied to the government, creditors, etc.; I have a gut feeling that the assets will revert back to TWA (what's left of it) or some court appointed trust. In that case, AA may actually owe TWA money, since AA has sent quite a few TWA aircraft to that big crapper in the sky (OK, desert).

 

[AAplanesareold]

Go big red!