Regulations & Safety
Airline Baggage Tag Fraud Risks and Security Measures in 2024
Explore how discarded airline baggage tags enable fraud and identity theft, impacting airlines and travelers globally in 2024.
The simple act of discarding an airline baggage tag at an airport may seem trivial, but recent warnings from industry professionals have revealed it as a significant security vulnerability. Action 9 attorney Jason Stoogenke and several airline insiders have highlighted how criminals are exploiting this oversight to commit identity theft and perpetrate fraudulent baggage claims. As air travel becomes more digitized and streamlined, the convergence of accessible personal information and high-volume airport environments has created fertile ground for fraud. This article explores the mechanics of baggage tag fraud, its financial and operational impact on Airlines and travelers, and the evolving strategies for mitigation.
Airlines are facing a surge in fraudulent claims, with Delta Air Lines reporting a notable “influx” directly linked to the misuse of discarded baggage tags. Documented cases have shown criminals successfully extracting hundreds of thousands of dollars from airlines by exploiting information found on these tags. With the airline industry spending billions annually on mishandled baggage, the implications of such fraud are both widespread and costly. Understanding the risks and implementing effective countermeasures is becoming an essential aspect of modern travel security.
This analysis draws on expert insights, industry data, and real-world examples to provide a comprehensive overview of the issue, offering practical recommendations for travelers and highlighting the broader context of travel-related fraud.
Baggage tag fraud is a sophisticated form of identity theft that leverages the routine behaviors of travelers and the operational needs of airlines. According to a Delta Air Lines baggage claims manager, criminals often position themselves in baggage claim areas, watching as passengers remove and discard their luggage tags. These tags, which typically contain a passenger’s full name, flight numbers, airline details, baggage ID numbers, and sometimes frequent flyer membership numbers, provide enough information for scammers to file convincing false claims.
The process is straightforward yet effective. Criminals collect discarded tags and use the information to create fake email addresses, generate random phone numbers and addresses, and submit detailed claims for supposedly missing or stolen items. Airlines, obligated to compensate up to $3,800 for domestic flights and about $1,750 for international flights under the Montreal Convention, can become easy targets if the claims appear legitimate and the provided information matches their records.
The systematic nature of these operations suggests organized criminal activity. Not only do criminals exploit airport environments, but similar tactics have been reported in hotels, where travelers may leave baggage tags behind in their rooms. This adaptability indicates a broader strategy targeting the travel industry at multiple points, exploiting vulnerabilities wherever personal information is left unprotected.
“Scammers have developed systematic approaches to collecting discarded tags, understanding that the information contained within these seemingly worthless pieces of paper provides everything necessary to initiate fraudulent claims against airlines.”, Delta Air Lines baggage claims manager The financial repercussions of baggage tag fraud extend well beyond individual travelers. Airlines worldwide handled 33.4 million mishandled baggage cases in 2024, incurring approximately $5 billion in related costs. While not all of this is directly due to fraud, systematic exploitation of baggage tags is a substantial contributor.
High-profile cases, such as that involving Louisiana residents Pernell Anthony Jones Jr. and Donmonick Martin, illustrate the scale of potential losses. Over several years, these individuals defrauded airlines of more than $550,000 by filing false claims using information obtained from baggage tags. Their operation, which included booking flights under false identities and submitting claims for items that were never lost, demonstrates how lucrative and persistent these schemes can be. The structure of airline compensation policies creates strong incentives for fraud. With relatively low barriers to filing claims and high potential payouts, organized criminals are increasingly targeting airline systems. Even as baggage mishandling rates improve, down to 6.3 per 1,000 passengers in 2024, fraudsters may find it easier to slip through the cracks as legitimate claims become less frequent and potentially receive less scrutiny.
Industry experts are divided on the scale but united on the seriousness of the threat. Gary Leff, a travel industry analyst, acknowledges the theoretical risk but notes that airlines’ sophisticated baggage tracking systems make it hard for criminals to claim a bag was lost if it was actually delivered. However, a more common tactic is to claim items were missing from bags that were delivered, a scenario harder for airlines to disprove.
Security professionals and travel editors, like Clint Henderson of The Points Guy, urge travelers to treat baggage tags like sensitive financial documents. The rationale is clear: the personal data on these tags can be the gateway to more significant identity theft or fraud. Cybersecurity experts further warn that the risk is not limited to physical theft; digital breaches involving travel-related services have exposed hundreds of thousands of records, demonstrating the value of travel data to criminals.
The consensus is that while not every discarded tag will lead to fraud, the risk is real and growing, especially as criminal tactics become more sophisticated and as travel resumes post-pandemic. The need for traveler awareness and improved industry practices is more pressing than ever.
“Travelers should treat baggage tags as they would bank statements or credit card receipts, shredding them at home rather than discarding them in public spaces.”, Clint Henderson, The Points Guy Baggage tag fraud is part of a larger ecosystem of travel-related scams and identity theft. The digitization of air travel, with widespread use of barcodes, RFID tags, and digital boarding passes, has increased both convenience and vulnerability. Airports, processing thousands of passengers daily, provide an ideal environment for criminals to operate with minimal risk of detection.
Internationally, responses to this threat vary. Japan, for example, has introduced secure disposal bins for baggage tags near baggage claim exits, acknowledging the security risk posed by discarded travel documents. In contrast, many Airports in other countries lack such infrastructure, leaving travelers to manage their own security.
Airlines and security professionals recommend several practical steps: retain baggage tags until you return home, shred them before disposal, and consider using privacy luggage tags that conceal personal information. Technology solutions, such as digital tracking devices (e.g., Apple AirTags), offer additional security by allowing travelers to monitor their luggage without exposing personal details.
Advanced technologies are reshaping baggage security. Digital trackers provide real-time location monitoring, reducing reliance on visible tags and minimizing exposure of personal information. Privacy-focused luggage tags, with covers or sliding panels, offer a low-tech but effective way to obscure sensitive data. On the industry side, airlines are beginning to adopt artificial intelligence and machine learning to detect suspicious claim patterns. These systems can flag potentially fraudulent claims based on unusual activity, helping to stem losses before they escalate.
Looking forward, technologies like blockchain for baggage tracking and biometric identification could further reduce vulnerabilities. However, these solutions require significant investment and coordination across airlines and airports, making widespread adoption a longer-term prospect.
The exploitation of discarded baggage tags is a clear and growing threat, with organized criminals leveraging the smallest lapses in traveler vigilance to commit large-scale fraud. As airlines and airports continue to modernize, they must balance operational efficiency with robust security measures, recognizing that even minor information leaks can have major financial and reputational consequences.
The future of travel security will likely be shaped by a combination of technological innovation, regulatory adaptation, and consumer education. As awareness grows and industry practices evolve, travelers will play a crucial role in safeguarding their own information, while airlines and regulators must work together to close the gaps that criminals continue to exploit.
Why is it risky to throw away baggage tags at the airport? What should travelers do with their baggage tags after a flight? Are there any technological solutions to prevent baggage tag fraud? How much can airlines be required to pay for lost or mishandled baggage? Is baggage tag fraud a widespread issue? Sources: Yahoo News
The Hidden Dangers of Discarded Baggage Tags: An Emerging Threat to Airline Security and Consumer Protection
Understanding the Mechanics of Baggage Tag Fraud
Financial Impact and Industry Costs
Expert Analysis and Professional Perspectives
Broader Context and Industry Responses
Technological Solutions and Future Developments
Conclusion and Future Implications
FAQ
Discarded baggage tags can contain personal information such as your name, flight details, and frequent flyer numbers, which criminals can use to file fraudulent baggage claims or commit identity theft.
Experts recommend retaining baggage tags until you return home and then shredding them to prevent unauthorized access to your personal information.
Yes, digital tracking devices and privacy-focused luggage tags can help protect your information. Some airports are also introducing secure disposal bins for travel documents.
Airlines may be required to compensate up to $3,800 for domestic flights and about $1,750 for international flights, depending on regulations and the Montreal Convention.
While not every traveler is affected, documented cases and industry warnings indicate that the risk is growing, especially as criminals adapt their tactics and exploit operational vulnerabilities.
Photo Credit: NFC Tags
Regulations & Safety
ICAO Sets Global Limits on Power Banks for Flight Safety
ICAO enforces global rules limiting passengers to two power banks and bans in-flight charging to prevent lithium battery fires on commercial flights.
This article is based on an official press release from the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
On March 27, 2026, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) announced immediate, globally standardized restrictions on the carriage and use of lithium battery-powered power banks on commercial flights. Driven by a sharp increase in in-flight battery fires and thermal runaway incidents, the new mandate fundamentally changes how passengers travel with portable chargers.
According to the official ICAO press release, the new regulations legally limit passengers to two power banks each and strictly prohibit recharging them at any point during a flight. This regulatory shift amends the Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (Doc 9284) and establishes a universal baseline for all 193 ICAO Member States.
By standardizing these rules, the global aviation industry aims to mitigate the severe risks associated with lithium-ion battery fires in pressurized aircraft cabins, prioritizing passenger safety over in-flight convenience.
The new specifications, which took effect immediately upon announcement on March 27, 2026, create a unified legal framework for international and domestic air travel. Airline passengers are now legally restricted to carrying a maximum of two power banks per person. Furthermore, passengers are strictly prohibited from plugging in or recharging these devices while on board the aircraft.
The ICAO notes in its release that flight crew members are exempt from these specific limitations. Crews may continue to carry and use power banks in accordance with the operational requirements of the aircraft. The new rules were recommended by the ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel, endorsed by independent technical experts from the ICAO Air Navigation Commission, and officially approved by the 36-state ICAO Council.
The core issue driving this sweeping regulation is the risk of thermal runaway in lithium-ion batteries. When a battery is damaged, defective, or overheats, it can enter an uncontrollable, self-heating state that releases flammable gases and causes intense fires. At cruising altitudes of 35,000 feet, cabin pressure can cause a weak or degraded battery to expand and rupture more rapidly than it would on the ground.
Historically, passengers have charged devices inside carry-on bags stored in overhead bins. If a fire starts inside a closed bin, it is difficult for flight attendants to detect the smoke early and extinguish the flames quickly. The ICAO’s decision follows a highly documented spike in battery-related aviation emergencies over the past two years. A primary catalyst for the new rules was the Air Busan fire on January 28, 2025. According to industry incident reports, an Airbus A321 preparing for takeoff at Gimhae International Airport in South Korea caught fire after a passenger’s power bank short-circuited inside an overhead luggage bin. The cabin filled with smoke, forcing the emergency evacuation of all 176 passengers and crew via inflatable slides, resulting in seven minor injuries.
Furthermore, data from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recorded a record 81 to 89 lithium-battery incidents in 2024, averaging over 1.5 per week. By August 2025, the FAA had already tracked 50 verified battery-related incidents for the year.
Before the ICAO’s global mandate, several countries and major airlines had already begun fragmenting the regulatory landscape with their own strict policies. Following the Air Busan fire, the South Korean government banned the storage of power banks in overhead bins in March 2025. Shortly after, in May 2025, Southwest Airlines became the first U.S. airline to require that any power bank used during a flight remain visible and unplugged while inside a bag or bin.
By early 2026, the restrictions had intensified. The Lufthansa Group implemented a blanket ban on the in-flight use and charging of power banks across all its airlines in January 2026, limiting passengers to two devices. Japan’s transport ministry also notified airlines of an impending nationwide ban set to take full effect in April 2026. Other carriers, including Singapore Airlines, Qantas, Emirates, Cathay Pacific, and EVA Air, instituted severe restrictions throughout 2025.
We view the ICAO’s intervention as a necessary step to eliminate the confusing patchwork of airline-specific regulations that frustrated travelers throughout 2025. For the everyday passenger, the era of relying on high-capacity power banks to keep devices charged on long-haul flights is effectively over; travelers will now have to depend solely on built-in aircraft USB and power outlets.
Moreover, this mandate aligns perfectly with the broader ICAO Strategic Plan 2026–2050. As noted in the organization’s strategic documentation:
The ICAO has set a long-term aspirational goal of achieving “zero fatalities” in international commercial aviation by 2050.
Mitigating the emerging risk of lithium battery fires is a critical step in protecting passengers and aircraft from catastrophic mid-air emergencies. While primarily a safety mandate, the ICAO also notes that these improvements reflect the organization’s overarching commitment to a sustainable and secure aviation network, supporting their parallel goal of reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.
Yes, but you are legally limited to a maximum of two power banks per person, and they must be brought in your carry-on luggage, not checked bags. No. Under the new ICAO regulations effective March 27, 2026, passengers are strictly prohibited from recharging power banks or using them to charge other devices at any point during the flight.
Yes. The mandate amends the Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air, establishing a universal baseline for all 193 ICAO Member States and their respective commercial airlines.
Sources:
The New Global Standard for Power Banks
Passenger Limits and Crew Exemptions
The Threat of Thermal Runaway
Catalyst Incidents and Rising Danger
Transitioning from Fragmented Rules to Universal Safety
Airline Policies Preceding the Mandate
AirPro News analysis
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Can I still bring a power bank on my flight?
Can I charge my phone using a power bank during the flight?
Does this rule apply to all airlines?
Photo Credit: Envato
Regulations & Safety
NBAA Supports ALERT Act to Enhance Aviation Safety After 2025 DCA Collision
The NBAA supports the ALERT Act requiring collision avoidance tech for aircraft, addressing safety gaps after the 2025 DCA midair collision. NTSB opposes due to ADS-B loopholes.
This article is based on an official press release from The National Business Aviation Association (NBAA).
On March 25, 2026, the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) announced its strong backing for the Airspace Location and Enhanced Risk Transparency (ALERT) Act, officially designated as H.R. 7613. The legislation is scheduled for markup on March 26 by the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure (T&I) and the House Armed Services Committee.
The ALERT Act was introduced in February 2026 by House T&I Committee Chair Sam Graves (R-MO) and Ranking Member Rick Larsen (D-WA), alongside Armed Services Chair Mike Rogers (R-AL) and Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA). According to the NBAA press release, the bill aims to address critical safety recommendations made by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) following a catastrophic midair collision near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) in early 2025.
While the legislation has garnered broad support from major aviation industry groups who praise its practical approach to safety, secondary industry research indicates it faces fierce opposition from the NTSB. The safety board argues the bill contains dangerous loopholes regarding equipment mandates.
The ALERT Act requires civil fixed-wing and rotorcraft to improve situational awareness by equipping with collision mitigation, avoidance, and alerting systems. However, the NBAA emphasizes that the bill achieves this while recognizing the diverse composition of the business aviation fleet.
In the official press release, NBAA President and CEO Ed Bolen expressed gratitude for the swift action by the House T&I Committee.
“This legislation aims to dramatically improve safety in today’s operations by closing existing gaps identified by the NTSB,” Bolen stated, adding that it advances the certification of future safety systems.
Beyond equipment mandates, the NBAA notes that the measure would enhance air traffic control (ATC) training, lower the risk profile in mixed-use environments, address the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) safety culture, and improve stakeholder coordination. Bolen highlighted that while the bill focuses on the highly congested DCA airspace, its benefits will extend throughout the entire National Airspace System (NAS).
To understand the urgency behind the ALERT Act, it is necessary to examine the tragedy it aims to prevent from recurring. According to industry research and official government reports, on January 29, 2025, a U.S. Army Sikorsky UH-60L Black Hawk helicopter on a training mission collided with a PSA Airlines Bombardier CRJ700 passenger jet (operating as American Eagle Flight 5342) over the Potomac River, just southeast of DCA. The crash resulted in the deaths of all 67 individuals aboard both aircraft, including 60 passengers and four crew members on the airplane, and three crew members on the helicopter. It stands as the deadliest U.S. aviation accident since 2001.
The NTSB released its final investigative report on the collision on February 17, 2026, issuing 50 distinct safety recommendations. According to public findings, NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy blamed a “dizzying array” of systemic failures.
Chair Homendy stated publicly that the tragic collision was “100 percent preventable.”
Key findings from the NTSB investigation included:
The ALERT Act gained legislative momentum only after a competing Senate bill failed in the House. In December 2025, the Senate passed the Rotorcraft Operations Transparency and Oversight Reform (ROTOR) Act (S.2503), which strictly mandated integrated ADS-B In (Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast) technology for all aircraft.
According to legislative records, the ROTOR Act failed to secure a two-thirds majority in the House on February 24, 2026. It faced opposition from the U.S. military and Rep. Sam Graves, who argued the strict mandates would be overly burdensome to certain operators. Following this failure, the House shifted its focus to the ALERT Act.
While the NBAA, Airlines for America, and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) heavily back the ALERT Act, the NTSB strongly opposes it in its current form.
Industry research reveals that the NTSB’s primary criticism centers on an “ADS-B loophole.” While the ALERT Act retains a form of an ADS-B In mandate, it allows operators to comply using portable ADS-B In receivers, such as tablets. The NTSB argues that portable units can lose signal if blocked by the aircraft’s fuselage and require pilots to divert their attention away from the cockpit windows. Chair Homendy has publicly criticized the ALERT Act for providing exemptions to lifesaving technology that she asserts would have prevented the DCA tragedy.
We observe that the core conflict surrounding the ALERT Act represents a classic tension in aviation regulation: the push for absolute safety versus the economic and technical realities of a varied aircraft fleet. When industry advocates, such as the NBAA, praise the legislation for recognizing the “diverse composition” of the fleet, this serves as a legislative euphemism for the financial burden that strict, integrated ADS-B In mandates would impose on operators of older or smaller aircraft.
The allowance for portable receivers is a calculated compromise by lawmakers. However, it places Congress in the difficult position of weighing industry practicality and cost-effectiveness against the stark, data-driven warnings of the NTSB following a historic loss of life. As the March 26 markup approaches, we expect this tension between universal mandates and flexible compliance to dominate committee discussions. The Airspace Location and Enhanced Risk Transparency (ALERT) Act (H.R. 7613) is a bipartisan aviation safety bill that requires civil fixed-wing and rotorcraft to equip with collision mitigation systems, enhances ATC training, and mandates route updates to improve safety in mixed-use airspace.
According to public statements, the NTSB opposes the ALERT Act because it allows operators to use portable ADS-B In receivers (like tablets) rather than mandating integrated systems. The NTSB argues portable units are prone to signal loss and distract pilots.
The NTSB’s February 2026 report cited multiple systemic failures, including flawed airspace design by the FAA, over-reliance on visual separation by air traffic control, equipment failures on the military helicopter, and a lack of adequate collision-avoidance technology on both aircraft.
Sources:
The ALERT Act and Industry Support
The Catalyst: The January 2025 DCA Tragedy
NTSB Findings and Systemic Failures
Legislative Friction: ALERT vs. ROTOR
The Portable ADS-B Loophole Debate
AirPro News analysis
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the ALERT Act?
Why is the NTSB opposing the ALERT Act?
What caused the January 2025 DCA collision?
NBAA Press Release
Industry Research and NTSB Public Findings
Photo Credit: Reuters
Regulations & Safety
US Senate Funds DHS Ending Six-Week Shutdown Impacting Airports
The US Senate passed legislation to fund most of DHS, ending a six-week shutdown that caused TSA staffing shortages and airport delays amid the 2026 Iran War.
This article summarizes reporting by Bloomberg and journalists Steven T. Dennis and Erik Wasson. The original report is paywalled; this article summarizes publicly available elements and public remarks.
The US Senate passed legislation early Friday, March 27, 2026, to fund the majority of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), signaling an end to a grueling six-week partial government shutdown. According to reporting by Bloomberg, the legislative breakthrough provides a path to resolve the severe operational crisis at US Airports and removes a major domestic stressor during a highly volatile global economic period.
The shutdown, which began in mid-February 2026, led to massive security lines, closed checkpoints, and a mass exodus of unpaid Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officers. The compromise arrives as the US economy faces historic inflationary pressures driven by the ongoing 2026 Iran War and a resulting global energy crisis.
The core of the partisan dispute centered on funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Democratic lawmakers refused to approve DHS funding without strict guardrails on immigration enforcement, including mandatory body cameras, ID requirements, and restricted enforcement in sensitive locations. As noted in public research and secondary reporting, these demands followed public outrage over the fatal shootings of two US citizens, Alex Pretti and Renee Nicole Good, by federal agents in Minneapolis in January 2026.
After seven failed attempts to advance funding, the Senate successfully passed a deal that funds most DHS subagencies. This includes the TSA, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Coast Guard, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).
Notably, the agreement excludes funding for ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations. ICE operations were largely insulated from the shutdown because they had previously received tens of billions of dollars through a Republican reconciliation bill passed the previous year, known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA).
“We have to rein in ICE and stop the violence,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer stated regarding the negotiations.
The shutdown triggered a severe crisis across the US aviation system. TSA officers, classified as essential workers, were forced to work without pay for over 40 days. Industry estimates indicate that by late March, between 450 and 480 officers had resigned.
Absentee rates skyrocketed across major hubs. Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson experienced a 38% absentee rate, while Houston’s Hobby Airport saw rates hit 55% on a single day. At Houston’s George Bush Intercontinental Airport, wait times exceeded four hours, and premium security lanes like CLEAR and TSA PreCheck were shuttered, wiping out expedited screening for frequent flyers. “We are being forced to consolidate lanes and may have to close smaller airports if we do not have enough officers,” Acting TSA Administrator Ha Nguyen McNeill warned Congress mid-crisis.
To mitigate the crisis, President Donald Trump ordered ICE officers to supplement TSA checkpoint staffing, a move heavily criticized by union leaders who argued ICE agents lacked proper passenger screening training. On March 26, Trump also announced an executive order to immediately pay TSA agents using repurposed OBBBA funds.
“All DHS workers must be paid immediately… Congress needs to continue working to pass a real, bipartisan appropriations deal,” stated Everett Kelly, president of the American Federation of Government Employees.
The economic threat of the shutdown was heavily compounded by the ongoing 2026 Iran War. Following the closure of the Strait of Hormuz on March 4, 2026, global oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports were severely disrupted.
Brent Crude prices surged past $120 per barrel. The International Energy Agency (IEA) reported a global loss of 11 million barrels of oil per day, an impact described by economic analysts as worse than the 1970s oil shocks combined.
IEA Head Fatih Birol warned that the Middle East conflict is the “greatest global energy and food security challenge in history.”
Geopolitical tensions remain high, with the US and Israel engaging in airstrikes against Iranian positions. President Trump has threatened to obliterate Iran’s power plants if the Strait of Hormuz is not reopened, while Iran has threatened retaliatory strikes on US and Israeli energy infrastructure.
We observe that the resolution of the DHS shutdown removes a critical bottleneck in domestic travel infrastructure, but the aviation industry remains highly vulnerable to the macroeconomic shocks of the 2026 Iran War. The loss of hundreds of experienced TSA personnel during the 40-day pay lapse will likely result in lingering inefficiencies at major hubs, even with funding restored.
Furthermore, the reliance on repurposed funds and emergency executive orders highlights the fragility of federal aviation security funding. Airlines and airport operators will need to prepare for sustained operational volatility as global energy prices continue to pressure operating margins and consumer travel demand.
The US Senate passed legislation to fund most of the DHS early Friday, March 27, 2026, forging a path to end the six-week partial shutdown.
TSA officers worked without pay for over 40 days, leading to massive resignations and absentee rates as high as 55% at some airports, which forced the closure of multiple security lanes. No, the compromise deal excludes funding for ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations, which was already funded by a previous reconciliation bill known as the OBBBA.
The Legislative Compromise and DHS Funding
Resolving the Political Standoff
Airport Chaos and the TSA Crisis
Staffing Shortages and Operational Meltdowns
Emergency Interventions
Broader Economic Context: The 2026 Iran War
Historic Energy Shock
AirPro News analysis
Frequently Asked Questions
When did the DHS shutdown end?
Why were TSA lines so long during the shutdown?
Did the new Senate bill fund ICE?
Sources
Photo Credit: David Grunfeld – The New Orleans Advocate via AP
-
Commercial Aviation4 days agoeasyJet to Fit Ultra-Lightweight Mirus Kestrel Seats on 237 New Aircraft
-
Regulations & Safety3 days agoAir Canada Express Flight 8646 Collision at LaGuardia Airport Investigated
-
Regulations & Safety5 days agoAir Canada Express Jet Collides with Fire Truck at LaGuardia Airport
-
Business Aviation1 day agoJacksonville Begins Otto Aerospace Facility for Phantom 3500 Jets
-
Regulations & Safety1 day agoHelicopter Crash Near Kalalau Beach Kauai Kills Three