Elon Musk says nobody is approving his tweets after the SEC settlement – The Verge

Elon Musk doesn’t respect the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), he said in an interview with CBS’s 60 Minutes that aired Sunday night.

Musk told CBS’s Lesley Stahl that none of his tweets have been censored since reaching a settlement with the SEC in September. He said that no one has to read his tweets before he hits send. He also explained he’d personally picked his successor as Tesla’s chairperson, before undercutting her authority by saying he could “get anything done that I want.”

The Tesla CEO announced in a tweet this August that he wanted to take his electric car company private, and that he had “funding secured” from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund. The from-the-hip announcement sent Tesla’s stock price soaring. When it became clear that Musk did not have a deal in place, though, the SEC spun up an investigation and swiftly filed a securities fraud lawsuit against Musk over the tweet.

Two days later, Musk reached a settlement with the agency that required him to pay a $20 million fine, step down as chairman of the Tesla, name two new independent directors to the board, and install oversight regarding his public communications about the company — including his tweets.

“The only tweets that would have to be, say, ‘reviewed’ would be if a tweet had a probability of causing a movement in the stock [price],” Musk told Stahl. “Otherwise, it’s, ‘hello, first amendment.’ Like, freedom of speech is fundamental.”

The language of the settlement that he signed in September states that he has to:

comply with all mandatory procedures implemented by Tesla, Inc. (the “Company”) regarding (i) the oversight of communications relating to the Company made in any format, including, but not limited to, posts on social media (e.g. Twitter), the Company’s website (e.g. the Company’s blog), press releases, and investor calls, and (ii) the pre-approval of any such written communications that contain, or reasonably could contain, information material to the Company or its shareholders.

That language doesn’t say every tweet he crafts needs to be run by a lawyer — only the ones that could influence the market. In theory, then, Musk is free to tweet “I [black heart emoji] anime” without consulting one of Tesla’s lawyers.

But unless someone is screening every tweet Musk wants to send, it’s difficult to say for sure that the market-influencing tweets will all be properly vetted before they’re published. The oversight the SEC wanted to be put in place, then, appears to be completely reliant on him.

Stahl pressed Musk on this potential gap in the logic, and Musk laughed it off before taking a direct shot at the SEC. Here’s the full exchange:

STAHL: “But how do they know if it’s going to move the market if they’re not reading all of them before you send them?”

MUSK: “Well, I guess we might make some mistakes. Who knows?”

STAHL: “Are you serious?”

MUSK: “Nobody’s perfect.” [Laughs.]

STAHL: “Look at you.”

MUSK: “I want to be clear, I do not respect the SEC. I do not respect them”

STAHL: “But you’re abiding by the settlement, aren’t you?”

MUSK: “Because I respect the justice system.”

Later in the interview, Musk was asked about his company’s new chairperson, Robyn Denholm, who replaced him as part of the settlement. The “impression was that [Denholm] was put in to kind of watch over you,” Stahl said. Typically, the job of the chairperson of a board of directors is to serve as the CEO’s boss.

“That’s not realistic, in the sense that I’m the largest shareholder in the company, and I can just call for a shareholder vote and get anything done that I want,” Musk replied.

Stahl did not ask Musk about the part of the settlement that required him to pay a $20 million fine as a result of his tweets from August. But when he was asked about the fine October he said — on Twitter, of course — paying out that money was “worth it.”

Read More

Roche Executive Daniel O’Day to Be Named Gilead CEO – The Wall Street Journal

Gilead Sciences Inc. is planning to hire industry veteran Daniel O’Day to take the helm and help the drug company revive sales and recover from a disappointing deal, according to people familiar with the matter.

Mr. O’Day, whose hiring could be announced as soon as Monday, would become Gilead CEO after a long career at Switzerland’s Roche Holding AG, most recently running its pharmaceuticals group, the people said. In the role, Mr. O’Day oversaw successful launches of several new cancer and other drugs, and turned the business…

Read More

Tesla tests Autopilot navigation for traffic lights and roundabouts – Engadget

Tesla has teased that Navigate on Autopilot will gradually handle more and more driving responsibilities, but those aren’t just fanciful long-term plans — they’re very much on the roadmap for the near future. In the midst of a public pitch for Navigate on Autopilot, Elon Musk mentioned that Tesla is currently testing “traffic lights, stop signs & roundabouts” in pre-release software. It’s hard not to be a bit skeptical of Musk’s claim that you’ll soon travel to work with “no driver input at all,” but this is promising if the very thought of entering a busy roundabout makes you nervous.

Read More

Investigation of generic ‘cartel’ expands to 300 drugs – The Washington Post

Executives at more than a dozen generic-drug companies had a form of shorthand to describe how they conducted business, insider lingo worked out over steak dinners, cocktail receptions and rounds of golf.

The “sandbox,” according to investigators, was the market for generic prescription drugs, where everyone was expected to play nice.

“Fair share” described dividing up the sales pie to ensure that each company reaped continued profits. “Trashing the market” was used when a competitor ignored these unwritten rules and sold drugs for less than agreed-upon prices.

The terminology reflected more than just the clubbiness of a powerful industry, according to authorities and several lawsuits. Officials from multiple states say these practices were central to illegal price-fixing schemes of massive proportion.

The lawsuit and related cases picked up steam last month when a federal judge ruled that more than 1 million emails, cellphone texts and other documents cited as evidence could be shared among all plaintiffs.



Mylan CEO Heather Bresch, testifying on Capitol Hill in 2016, faced public scrutiny for her company raising the price of its EpiPen by about 500 percent. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)

What started as an antitrust lawsuit brought by states over just two drugs in 2016 has exploded into an investigation of alleged price-fixing involving at least 16 companies and 300 drugs, Joseph Nielsen, an assistant attorney general and antitrust investigator in Connecticut who has been a leading force in the probe, said in an interview. His comments in an interview with The Washington Post represent the first public disclosure of the dramatically expanded scale of the investigation.

The unfolding case is rattling an industry that is portrayed in Washington as the white knight of American health care.

“This is most likely the largest cartel in the history of the United States,” Nielsen said. He cited the volume of drugs in the schemes, that they took place on American soil and the “total number of companies involved, and individuals.”

The alleged victims were American health-care consumers and taxpayers, who foot the bills for overcharges on common antibiotics, blood-pressure medications, arthritis treatments, anxiety pills and more, authorities say. The costs flowed throughout the system, hitting hospitals, pharmacists and health insurance companies. They hit consumers who lack prescription drug coverage and even those with insurance, because many plans have high deductibles and gaps on prescription drug benefits.

In just one instance of extraordinary cost spikes, the price of a decades-old drug to ease asthma symptoms, albuterol, sold by generic manufacturers Mylan and Sun, jumped more than 3,400 percent, from 13 cents a tablet to more than $4.70. The example is documented in a lawsuit brought against the generic industry by grocery chains including Kroger.

“Everyone is paying the price,” Nielsen said. He offered a single word to explain the behavior: “Greed.”

While precise estimates of alleged overcharges have not been released, generic-industry sales were about $104 billion in 2017. Excessive billings of even a small fraction of annual sales over several years would equal billions of dollars in added costs to consumers, according to investigators.

Generic manufacturers reject the accusations. They contend officials lack evidence of a conspiracy and have failed to prove anti-competitive behavior.

Among the 16 companies accused are some of the biggest names in generic manufacturing: Mylan, Teva and Dr. Reddy’s. Mylan denied wrongdoing in an emailed statement. Sun, Teva and Dr. Reddy’s did not respond to requests for comment. In a court filing, Teva said allegations of a price-fixing conspiracy “are entirely conclusory and devoid of any facts.”

But investigators say voluminous documentation they have collected, much of it under seal and not available to the public, shows the industry to be riddled with price-fixing schemes. The plaintiffs now include 47 states. The investigators expect to unveil new details and add more defendants in coming months, which will put more pressure on executives to consider settlements.

Two former executives of one company, Heritage Pharmaceuticals, have pleaded guilty to federal criminal charges and are cooperating with the Justice Department in a parallel criminal case. A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment.

The alleged collusion transformed a cutthroat, highly competitive business into one where sudden, coordinated price spikes on identical generic drugs became almost routine. Competing executives were so chummy they had an alphabetical rotation for who picked up the tab at their regular dinners, according to a person familiar with the investigation who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the case remains under investigation.

Annual trade conferences and “Girls Night Out” cocktail meetings were other prime opportunities to swap sensitive information about markets and prices, according to court documents.

“It’s particularly ironic since the whole idea of generic drugs was we would get a lower price,” said Henry Waxman, the Democratic former California congressman who co-wrote the 1984 law establishing the Food and Drug Administration’s rules for generics. “If generic versions are higher than need be through rigged systems, that undercuts the whole idea.”

Generics account for 90 percent of the prescriptions written in the United States but just 23 percent of costs, according to the industry trade group, the Association for Accessible Medicines.

And generic drugs do act as a check on soaring drug bills fueled by brand-name manufacturers. In the Medicare prescription-drug program, according to a government study, prices on a benchmark set of older generic drugs dropped 14 percent between 2010 to 2015.

But for some generic manufacturers, the anti-competitive agreements drove up prices on most, if not all, of the products they sold, according to the states.

Officials say they have documented price increases of up to 2,000 percent. Throughout 2013 and 2014, soaring generic prices sparked consternation at drugstores and among state and federal lawmakers. Independent pharmacists said they were dismayed to learn of the price-fixing allegations.

“There’s old, old drugs that have been around a long time, and all of a sudden their price has increased by hundreds of percent and we don’t know why,” said J.D. Fain, owner of Pieratt’s Pharmacy in Giddings, Tex., a small town an hour drive east of Austin.

Unlike the brand-name drug industry, which gets years of patent exclusivity for novel drugs, generic companies operate in a market that was designed to save consumers and taxpayers large sums through aggressive competition. When the FDA grants approval for a generic product, the first company in the door gets six months of exclusive rights to market the drug. The price discount from the brand-name product is relatively small, say 10 percent.

Prices plunge as much as 50 percent once a second generic enters the market, the FDA has estimated. And by the time six or seven generic companies are competing on a particular drug, the price has declined 75 percent.

Rigging the market has turned that model upside down for some drugs, state officials say.

“It makes me angry,” said Eric Belldina, an operator of pharmacies in Masontown and Morgantown in West Virginia. “Most people think when their prices go up it’s because of a raw-ingredient shortage, not thinking the companies are sitting down, saying, ‘Hey, let’s do this.’ ”

The states’ lawsuit contains particularly pointed allegations against Mylan and its president, Rajiv Malik, who is personally named as a defendant. Mylan faced public scrutiny in 2016 for raising the price of its EpiPen, to treat allergic reactions, by about 500 percent.

Although the EpiPen was not a generic product at the time, the outcry from physicians, patient groups and members of Congress drew negative attention to the second-largest generic manufacturer.

While traveling in the United Kingdom in 2013, Malik took a phone call from an executive of a competing firm, Heritage, the states say in their lawsuit. Heritage had won FDA approval to market a version of the antibiotic doxycycline called Doxy DR, which is used to treat acne and a long list of infections.

That would put it in direct competition with Mylan for sales of the drug.

During the transatlantic phone call, Malik and the Heritage executive, Jeff Glazer, agreed to divide up the sandbox, the U.S. market for sales of Doxy DR, according to the lawsuit by states and similar complaints by independent pharmacies and grocery-store chains.

During subsequent conversations, according to the complaints, Mylan agreed not to sell Doxy DR to CVS and the wholesaler McKesson — sales volume worth about 30 percent of the U.S. market for the drug. As part of the alleged deal, Heritage agreed not to set a low price.

Without a reduction in price, U.S. consumers ended up the biggest losers in the deal.

Mylan said it has no evidence its executives did anything wrong. “We have been investigating these allegations thoroughly and have found no evidence of price fixing on the part of Mylan or its employees,” the company said in a statement. “Mylan has deep faith in the integrity of its president, Rajiv Malik, and stands behind him fully.”

Heritage did not return repeated phone messages seeking comment. Glazer and another Heritage executive, Jason Malek, pleaded guilty in 2017 to federal charges of conspiring to rig prices and stifle competition. The terms of their plea agreements said they are cooperating with a Justice Department criminal probe.

A drug to treat bone issues related to cancer, zoledronic acid, was the subject of another alleged price-fixing scheme, this time between Heritage and Dr. Reddy’s. Heritage became the first generic manufacturer of the drug in the spring of 2013, but Dr. Reddy’s was close behind. Executives at the companies cut deals so each got a “fair share” of the market, while also conspiring to fix an inflated price, the complaints said.

Dr. Reddy’s, which did not respond to requests for comment, wound up with about 60 percent of the market and Heritage claimed 40 percent, according to the states’ lawsuit.

Investigators cited evidence that executives knew they were acting illegally. As the discussions with Dr. Reddy’s took place, according to the complaints, a Heritage executive “sent a text message to his entire sales team reminding them not to put their pricing discussions with competitors in writing.”

Mysterious price spikes continue to roil pharmacies and patient groups occasionally, though widespread price collusion was curtailed after authorities issued subpoenas in recent years, said Michael Cole, a Connecticut assistant attorney general actively involved in the case. But many drugs remain at artificially inflated prices.

“There have not been rollbacks in the price increases,” he said. “We’re still paying.”

Read More

Man gives up first-class airline seat to mother with sick baby, on his own birthday – NY Daily News – New York Daily News

Lucy has a chronic lung condition and needs an oxygen tank — a tight fit for an economy class seat situation. Since the premature birth of Lucy and her twin sister, Eva, last year, Zwick has been shuttling back and to Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia from their home in Orlando with Lucy. The two babies had to be intubated after arriving several weeks early, which left them with chronic lung scarring. Lucy needs special treatment.

Read More

How Much Do You Need to Save for Retirement? A Look at the 4% Solution – The Motley Fool

Whether you’re maxing out your 401(k) plan contributions or have hardly begun to think about retirement savings, it’s a good idea to have a sense of how much you’ll actually need once you hit your golden years. Since the average retiree will draw just $17,532 next year in Social Security benefits, most people retiring today will likely need to tap their savings or keep working to make ends meet.

A time-tested method of calculating whether your retirement savings are sufficient is known as the 4% rule. Back in the ’90s, a financial advisor found that if you withdraw 4% of your savings during each year of retirement, adjusting for inflation each year, then there’s almost no chance you’ll exhaust your savings.

Retirement savings jar with coins and an alarm clock to the left.

IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.

A benchmark for retirement savings

On the positive side, the 4% rule provides a valuable estimate of how much income your retirement savings will yield each year. If you’ve saved $250,000, for example, then the 4% rule says you can safely withdraw roughly $10,000 per year in retirement. If you receive the average Social Security benefit, you’ll get $27,532 in total.

Because the 4% rule can (in theory) tell you how much money you can withdraw each year, it can also help you determine whether your savings are sufficient. If you calculate, for example, that you need $60,000 annually to be comfortable in retirement and will get $17,500 from Social Security and $10,000 from your savings, then you’ll be $32,500 short. That means you’ll need to boost your savings and/or reduce your costs. That could mean working and saving longer or moving to a smaller home in a more affordable area, for instance.

Young people can harness the 4% rule to forecast how much they’ll need for a comfortable retirement. If you’re 25, for example, and calculate that you want $60,000 yearly in retirement, you can aim for the savings the 4% rule indicates you’ll need. The rule of thumb here is that you multiply the desired yearly income by 25.

Bear in mind, though, that if you want the purchasing power $60,000 currently provides, you’ll need to factor inflation into your savings calculations. Over the past century, inflation has averaged 3.22% annually, although it varies a great deal from year to year. It’s a good idea to use an inflation calculator like this one to see how much of your income will be replaced at retirement.

Further, when you’re thinking about inflation, keep in mind that, although Social Security benefits receive periodic cost-of-living adjustments, those don’t entirely keep up with inflation. That’s partly because the measures used don’t reflect retirees’ disproportionately high healthcare costs. Forecasting increases in Social Security benefits is tough, frankly, because a systemwide Social Security benefit adjustment going forward can’t be ruled out. But it’s prudent to make your inflation estimates on the high side of the 100-year average because of the lag.

Ultimately, for that $60,000 per year in retirement, you’ll likely need a bit more than $1 million in retirement savings in today’s dollars.

Assumptions behind the 4% rule

But it’s important to remember that the 4% rule is a benchmark, not an infallible law. The 4% rule was devised 24 years ago as a method to let retirees know how much they could withdraw every year without running out of money. It used some very specific assumptions. Our times — and your situation — could be very different from those bedrock assumptions. If they are, you’ll need to factor different scenarios into your 4% rule calculations.

1. It assumes a portfolio split 60%/40% between stocks and bonds

The 4% rule assumes 60% of your portfolio is in stocks, while 40% is in bonds. Your own portfolio — depending on your age, goals, and risk tolerance — may have a different allocation. A good rule of thumb is to subtract your age from the number 110 to determine what percentage of your portfolio to place in stocks. The remainder should be in fixed-income investments, such as bonds. So a 25-year-old would keep 85% of a retirement portfolio in equities, while a 75-year-old would keep just 35% in them.

The reason this handy rule works? Over time, stocks have returned on average substantially more than any other asset class, so they can power a retirement portfolio’s returns over the decades. But stocks also fluctuate. Down years in the stock market can hurt a portfolio. A younger person will likely have time to regain losses, but a retiree should manage risk by having proportionately more invested in less volatile investment classes — while still being able to partake in potential stock market upside.

One caveat here, though. You also need to factor in your own risk tolerance. Yes, stocks have historically performed well over time. But if the idea of a bear market keeps you up at night, you need to adjust your portfolio to reflect your risk tolerance, and get some sleep. A risk tolerance quiz can be found here.

Keep in mind, however, that if you have a portfolio more heavily invested in bonds, the 4% rule may need to be adjusted. You may need to withdraw less than 4%. If you’re more aggressively invested in stocks, you could withdraw more, although you will also want to factor in the potential effects of market volatility on aggressive investments.

2. It makes specific bond yield assumptions

The 4% rule was developed with bond yields of the 1990s in mind. For the past decade, bond yields have been about half what they were in the mid-1990s. If you purchased bonds with very low interest rates, you may have to ratchet down the 4% assumption accordingly.

Interest rates have been on an upward climb since late 2015, which means bond yields will rise as well. Remember, though, that when yields rise, bond prices go down. So factor in both the prices and yields in your portfolio when tailoring your assumptions.

3. It is set up to make funds last 30 years

The 4% rule is designed to ensure that your retirement funds last 30 years. But frankly, you may not need your savings to last that long. An increasing number of Americans are working into retirement age. If you plan to work until 70, for example, you may not need to tap your nest egg for 30 years. In addition, only about 10% of the U.S. population lives to the age of 95. While it’s important to ensure that your retirement funds last, you may also want to make prudent estimates of your expected longevity.

If you don’t need your nest egg to last 30 years, restricting yourself to 4% may be stinting unnecessarily. It may be possible to withdraw 4.5% or 5%.

The bottom line here? Use the 4% rule as a benchmark to calculate whether you’re heading toward enough savings for a comfortable retirement. But factor in the scenarios that fit your specific situation as well.

Read More

Former Venezuelan General Takes Helm Of OPEC | OilPrice.com – OilPrice.com

In what some saw as a sign of OPEC’s growing irrelevance in the world of oil, Venezuela’s Oil Minister Manuel Quevedo will take the helm of the cartel beginning next month for a year. In an analysis of the situation, the Wall Street Journal’s Benoit Faucon and Kejal Vyas argued Quevedo’s appointment could be the spark that starts an explosion in the cartel.

Although Quevedo, a former general, said he will seek stability, “a deal that is fair to everyone” and comes in response to oil fundamentals rather than politics, expectations are not very high.

There are internal tensions in OPEC that became painfully obvious in the days ahead of the Vienna meeting that took place yesterday. Some OPEC members are angry with the de facto leader of the group, Saudi Arabia, who has been getting cozy with Russia over the last two years, raisin suspicions it is putting its own interests above the cartel’s.

What’s more, co-members of OPEC believe Riyadh bowed to Washington when it started pumping more in July, after President Trump accused OPEC of artificially keeping prices high. Now, thanks to this record-high production, prices are down once again and OPEC needs to begin cutting again. But not all members can afford it and Venezuela is one of them.

The South American country’s oil production has slumped to 1.2 million barrels daily, down by some 29 percent over the past 12 months, which coincides with Quevedo’s tenure as minister and stands in contrast to efforts by Caracas to reverse the decline and increase production by 1 million bpd by the end of the year. Since it is already December, the chances of this happening are slim to none.

Related: The Saudi Dilemma: To Cut Or Not To Cut

Quevedo’s background and the government he represents are seen by some analysts as a problem in their own right, then. Caracas is at odds with Washington, which recently again started talking about sanctioning crude oil exports to the United States. But OPEC’s leader is cozy with Washington, so there is certainly space to speculate about various national interests clashing within the cartel.

What makes the situation particularly challenging, however, is what looks like a growing feeling that OPEC is becoming irrelevant. Earlier this year the United States, Russia, and Saudi Arabia all hit new records in production, with the United States emerging as the top producer, at a daily rate of 11.7 million barrels, Russia pumping 11.4 million bpd, and Saudi Arabia producing 11.02 million bpd. These three, in other words, account together for about a third of global oil production, which is this year seen by the EIA at 100.09 million bpd.

Some smaller OPEC members have, unsurprisingly, begun feeling a little left out of the big picture in this situation. Qatar’s decision to leave the cartel after almost six decades as a member came as a shock at the beginning of this week, despite the fact it is a small oil producer. The country’s finance minister said the decision was motivated by a focus on growing natural gas production, but it did smack of leaving a sinking ship.

It’s highly unlikely that any OPEC president could resolve the internal divide in OPEC. With a president who represents one of the more disgruntled members of the cartel at the helm, the future of the group becomes even more uncertain.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:

Read More

Norwegian Cruise Line ship leaves couple stranded in Cuba after departing early – Fox News

Kevin Rohrer’s and his girlfriend’s vacation ended abruptly in Havana, Cuba after their cruise ship left without them on a recent four-night Norwegian Cruise Line sailing in the Caribbean.

According to News.com.au, the American couple returned to the dock more than an hour ahead of what they thought was the Norwegian Sky’s 5 p.m. departure time only to find the ship was already gone.

“It was a frightening situation. We were devastated,” Rohrer said in his complaint to the cruise company. “We exchanged money and we took a taxi to the airport. American Airlines told us they wouldn’t take a credit card and quoted us 472 pesos ($465). We didn’t have that much money.”

Nonetheless, the couple appears to be out of luck as Norwegian Cruise Line made multiple notes of the departure time change well in advance of the cruise.

Nonetheless, the couple appears to be out of luck as Norwegian Cruise Line made multiple notes of the departure time change well in advance of the cruise.
(Norwegian Cruise Line)

The couple managed to book a flight home and Rohrer has since contacted consumer rights group Elliott Advocacy.

Read more from TravelPulse:

Nonetheless, the couple appears to be out of luck as Norwegian Cruise Line made multiple notes of the departure time change well in advance of the cruise. What’s more, the company’s terms and conditions point out that “shipboard time may differ from the port of call” and that it’s the “guest’s responsibility to pay all expenses incurred to rejoin the ship” in the event they are left behind.

In a statement to Michelle Couch-Friedman of Elliott Advocacy, Norwegian Cruise Line said it notified guests of the time change and circulated it on their e-documents more than a month before the Havana stop. “Additionally, the day before calling into Havana, the Cruise Director announced the new time repeatedly throughout the day and additional signage was placed on the gangway for all those disembarking to see,” the cruise line stated.

The hard-learned lesson is one that all travelers should take note of. “In the end, it’s the traveler’s responsibility to know when to be back on-board that ship. If you miss your cruise home, unfortunately, there’s no one to turn to for a refund or reimbursement,” said Couch-Friedman.

This story was originally published by TravelPulse.

Read More

Winter Storm Diego: American Airlines cancels nearly 1,000 Sunday flights due to weather – USA TODAY

Catching a flight on Sunday? Get ready for major travel trouble if your flight is in the path of Winter Storm Diego.

American Airlines said it has proactively canceled 1,100 Sunday flights due to the storm. That is on top of 225 cancellations on Saturday.

The cancellations are now expected to spill into Monday, with American saying late Saturday that 300 Monday flights have been canceled.

The bulk of the canceled flights are to and from Charlotte, North Carolina, where American has a major hub. The airline said it is reducing operations at Charlotte Douglas International Airport beginning Saturday night. 

All flights to and from Charlotte on American’s regional partners are canceled for Sunday and more than two out of three of its other Charlotte flights are canceled. 

Since Charlotte is a major connecting hub for American, the cancellations also impact passengers headed to and from destinations not affected by the storms.

Southwest Airlines has canceled four flights to and from Charlotte on Sunday in addition to canceling the last four flights due to arrive at the airport on Saturday.

Travelers are advised to check their flight status before they head to the airport.

American, Southwest and other airlines have had travel waivers in place this week, allowing passengers scheduled to fly to, from or through Charlotte and other cities to change their plans without penalty to get out of the storm’s path.

Travelers who didn’t change their flights are eligible for a refund if there flight is canceled, even if they have a nonrefundable ticket.

More: List: Airlines waive change fees for big winter storm in South

More: Police meet British Airways plane upon landing after passenger turns violent mid-flight

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2018/12/08/winter-storm-diego-american-airlines-cancels-nearly-1000-flights-charlotte-douglas-international/2251037002/

Read More