Along these lines, the House Report that accompanied the Immunities Act states that the making of “a single contract” in the United States can support jurisdiction. H.R. Report No. 1487, 94th Cong., 2nd Sess. 16, reprinted in 1976 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 6604, 6615. Consistent with this approach, courts have held that the national airline of a foreign government is subject to the jurisdiction of United States courts if it or its agents sell a plane ticket or otherwise make travel arrangements in the United States (creating a duty of care in providing safe passage), and the flight crashes during travel outside the United States. See, e.g., Schoenberg v. Exportadora de Sal, 930 F.2d 777, 782-83 (9th Cir.1991); see also Sugarman v. Aeromexico, Inc., 626 F.2d 270, 272-74 (3d Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). Jurisdiction is present even if the plane was
holding that jurisdiction was present for complaint alleging injury from an extended delay between flights at a foreign point where tickets were sold in the united states holding that interest received by a foreign corporation on a tax refund from the united states was interest on an interestbearing obligation of a resident of the united states within income tax statute holding that if an injury is unexpected from the workers point of view it qualifies as an injury by accident holding that united states admiralty jurisdiction extended not only to the high seas but also to american vessels in foreign waters holding inter alia that a united states court retains jurisdiction over persons arrested on a foreign ship beyond the us navigable waters when said arrest violates a treaty to which the united states and the foreign country are parties