Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
4 Engines 4 Long-Haul, Made A Difference To You?  
User currently offlineDIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 27
Posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5279 times:

This debate over two or more engines for crossing oceans started years ago. Remember everybody feeling unsure about taking "less-than-three" engines across the Atlantic when were introducing the 767 for trans-Atlantic service?

Seems this debate lives on. My question is to you who travel across the oceans in a twin, a three-holer, and/or a quad: Does it make you any uneasier knowing that you are boarding a twin for an ocean crossing? On the other hand, does it make you feel better boarding a tri-jet or a four-holer for the same type of flights?

I ask this in light of the recent UAL 777 that shutdown an engine over the South Pacific somewhere between the U.S. and Australia area. Anyway, I think it diverted to Hawaii. . .but it took several hours. How do you think those pax felt, or what was going through their minds? I think it stands as the longest ETOPS emergency operation thus far.

DIA

P.S. Virgin thinks it makes a big difference:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Colin K. Work





Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
98 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13745 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5230 times:

I don't particularly care really.

I can't see it making much of a difference in terms of safety if everything is ticked off the checklist.




Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8198 posts, RR: 54
Reply 2, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5217 times:

It makes a difference to me, in as much as if there is a choice between a twin and something more substantial and the price is the same, I'll take the 3 / 4 engine plane. If the twin is cheaper and it's a decent airline, I'll take it. That's on the Atlantic. On the Pacific, I wouldn't take a twin. Well, kind of (I have flown on a 757 between San Fran and Maui a couple of times). I certainly wouldn't fly a twin to NZ.

Everything in Virgin's fleet has four engines, I don't think that's a bad policy, it gives them an extra margin of safety over airlines that use twins across the pond. I don't think a UA 777 is by definition dangerous, but no one can say it offers the same levels of redundency you get on a 747-400.



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineTreg From Estonia, joined Oct 2001, 538 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5199 times:

Cedarjet, well said.
I couldn't agree more!


User currently offlineDIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 27
Reply 4, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5198 times:

Thanks for your answer Cedar707. Big grin On a side note, you caught my eye when you said:I'll take the 3 / 4 engine plane. If the twin is cheaper and it's a decent airline, I'll take it. Now, I'm just being curious here. . .what airlines do you find indecent? Do you mean an airline like a third-world airline, or do you have some well-known airlines in mind?

Cheers,
DIA



Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5197 times:

I wouldn't take a twin. Well, kind of (I have flown on a 757 between San Fran and Maui a couple of times). I certainly wouldn't fly a twin to NZ.

You should actually break out a globe. SFO-Hawaiian Islands is THE longest overwater (without diversion airports) of the pacific crossings. In fact, I believe the only longer stretch is in the deep South Atlantic (for example, the JNB-EZE great circle routing).

Once you've gotten to HNL, the path to NZ has far more alternates.

Steve


User currently offlineNa From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10817 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5170 times:

I fully agree with cedarjet. If price and flight schedule are comparable, there is only one way to go for me on longhaul:
4 Engines 4 Long-Haul, definitely. That quads look better, is a nice side-aspect too.


User currently offlineJayDavis From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 2000 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5145 times:

I flew my first trip to Asia on the carrier I work for, Korean Air.
We flew from DFW to ICN on a B-777 aircraft. I did NOT feel unsafe
whatsoever, by only having two engines versus three or four.

Most of you people on this forum are rather intelligent, but some of
you need to pull out a globe! We (KE) did not fly straight across from
DFW to ICN. We flew to the West Coast, flew up the West Coast over
to Alaska, crossed the Bering See and then headed back down to Korea.

I am certain, without a doubt that we would have had PLENTY of time
to make it to a diversion airport if we had needed to.

I think the four engines for long haul is just a great marketing gimmick
that Virgin is using against it's competitors, AA, UA and others which
fly 767's and 777's on the North Atlantic market.

As long as the airline is safe, it doesn't matter whether it has two,
three or four engines for me on a long-haul flight. I've also flown
from SFO to HNL on HA with a 767 and I felt safe on it also.


Jay


User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8198 posts, RR: 54
Reply 8, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5098 times:

Re airlines I'd avoid if they were flying a twin across water? I dunno, Birgenair, those Turkish charter airlines that have been in business for three years and fly 757s to the Caribbean via Gander. Name some airlines and I'll tell you if I'll fly them. Remember Jezair? A310s from Budapest to Toronto, Melbourne etc? Hmmmmm...

I think it comes down to how collectively experienced the corporation is - every year that passes, an airline's maintenence procedures get better, mistakes are made and learned from, that kind of thing.



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 34
Reply 9, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5044 times:

Flew on an A330 to Canada, beautiful... Systems teacher reminded me today how the wings flap during turbulence, and how they are glued on... lol.

Doesn't bother me, however i'd choose a jumbo over an A340/777 anyday!


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5036 times:

not only is 4engines4longhaul utter hogwash... but I definitely would go out of my way in both time and money if it meant being able to fly a twin!

~CB


User currently offlineDIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 27
Reply 11, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5025 times:

Thanks Cedarjet. I can honestly tell you that I haven't heard of one of the airlines you mentioned!  Laugh out loud That being said, I probably couldn't name an airline that you wouldn't fly. Good analysis on the experience, point well taken. . .never thought of it that way.

JayDavis and Concordeboy: I agree with your statements about hardly ever really making an "ocean crossing" due to the curvature of the Earth and direct-routing. . .but for sake of arguement, ETOPS is very much alive and on the minds of many. It is established for a reason, especially for those stretches that really do cross a bit of big blue.

Cheers,
DIA



Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
User currently offlineH. Simpson From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 949 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5016 times:

More Engines = Longer Startup time...

User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6968 posts, RR: 76
Reply 13, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5000 times:

Call me stupid but...

If there's an engine failure on a tri/quad, wouldn't you divert anyway as you wouldn't be able to attain your normal cruising altitude where fuel burn is ideal?

Any engine failure, whether it be on a 2, 3 or 4 engined plane would be a nuisance and for the pax... 2,3,4 engines don't matter, if one failed, it still failed !

For me, I follow Cedarjet's opinion in general...

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineBrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3017 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4987 times:

I would definitely fly a twin before getting on an MD-11, much as you guys love them, I don't view them as safe as Boeing or Airbus aircraft. Delta's air turnbacks due to smoke in the cabin make me uncomfortable, and there have been several. Not good after SR111. Oh well, the MD-11 will be gone soon at DL anyways.


Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlineDIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 27
Reply 15, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4970 times:

Good point Mandala499. Although, in a diversion due to an engine loss, wouldn't you feel more comfortable if you still had two or three engines in reserve rather than one ?


Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 19
Reply 16, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4966 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

No one, Airbus, Boeing or anyone else in the industry have proven that 4 engines is better (safer) than 2 engines. An ETOPS certified 767/777 is just as capable as a A340/747 on transoceanic flights, so really it's not an issue for me. ETOP's sole purpose is to enable long, over-water flights, and it does that exactly.




In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offlineBrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3017 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4962 times:

Thought I would add a joke to this thread....

ETOPS-Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim.



Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlineJayDavis From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 2000 posts, RR: 15
Reply 18, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4933 times:

I find it also very ironic that the four engines for long haul is aimed squarely at Boeing, yet Airbus produces the A-300 and A-330 and those are both two engine aircraft which fly over the water. Sabena used to fly an A-330 from BRU to DFW so is that aircraft not safe, also?


Jay


User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8198 posts, RR: 54
Reply 19, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4906 times:

JayDavis, "four engines for long haul is aimed squarely at Boeing" - I don't agree at all. Virgin are a major Boeing customer, with a big fleet of 747s and a supporter of the Sonic Cruiser. I think it's aimed at BA, who use a lot of 777s across the puddle; and the US airlines - there isn't a single 'november-reg' quad flown into the UK.


fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7811 posts, RR: 16
Reply 20, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4890 times:

No difference whatsoever. Rather I believe there have been enough studies about the effectiveness of ETOPS regulations that they should be applied to all aircraft flying overwater. The difference is that a twin is certified to fly sans one engine for 180 mins. No quad or trijet is. The twin is also certified with fire supression equipment that will keep a fire down for the certfied period of time.

If anything the twin operates overwater under a tighter regulatory scheme that is superior to the quad.



Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlineDIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 27
Reply 21, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4887 times:

"I think it's aimed at BA, who use a lot of 777s across the puddle; and the US airlines."

My sentiments exactly. I think Cedarjet hit this one on the nose. I would think they would, in a way, be shooting themselves in the foot if it was aimed at Boeing (i.e.A330). That was an interesting angle, though, Jay.

DIA



Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
User currently offlineCaravelle From Norway, joined Aug 2000, 666 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4847 times:

Funny this thread appeared again after so many years. Of course you "feel safer" with three or four engines. But, honest, what time did that really matter? An engine failure in mid flight? Not bloody likely, apart from some odd bird strikes at approx 10 000 feet.
Anybody here who can tell the story to the full? Who really been there and done that?
Though, having said what I said I don't mind an additional two or three engines to take me back to home base...

- caravelle



Trains and boats and planes....
User currently offlineBrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3017 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4823 times:

there isn't a single 'november-reg' quad flown into the UK.

UA flies some 744 into LHR at high traffic times (ie summertime)



Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 21
Reply 24, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4817 times:

Well ,with the proposed changes to quads to bring their maintenance to similar levels to twins this might become academic in a few years apart from the very heaviest types.

25 Turbolet : Four engines seem 'right' to me when flying long haul. Two engines is adequate for inter-European hopping.
26 Korg747 : OK I have a question, can any of those big 4 engine planes fly on just one if the other three failed? because if it can't then it doesn't matter if it
27 Post contains images Mandala499 : DIA, Well, not sure if I'll be more scared being in a 4 engined job when there's an engine failure. Been through an engine failure on a dodgy airline
28 Arsenal@LHR : OK I have a question, can any of those big 4 engine planes fly on just one if the other three failed? because if it can't then it doesn't matter if it
29 Prebennorholm : I don't think that there is any safety issue. But as rules are, then an ETOPS twin with for instance a faulty fault indication on a perfectly well fun
30 M717 : There's obviously not a whole lot of people on this thread that have any idea what is involved in ETOPS certification. Particularly requirements for a
31 Mandala499 : M717, Let me guess... 1. Security alert or unruly pax... 2. Ill Pax 3. Weather 4. actual airplane equipment problem... in the right order of frequency
32 Post contains images M717 : Mandala499, Bingo. In one word, passengers. In other words, those that are making all the noise on this thread about preferring to be on a "quad" inst
33 N754pr : I'll take a 747 or A340 ANYDAY over any ocean.
34 Flight152 : Most people here fail to understand the fact that 4-engined planes are twice as likley to have an engine failure over a twin-engine plane. Twns can fl
35 Post contains images BA : For me it doesn't matter whether I fly on a twin, or a trijet, or a quad. I trust that planes are maintained well enough for transoceanic travel. If I
36 Schooner : I believe (and stand to be corrected) that ETOPS certificated aircraft have to pass more stringent standards for fire suppression in the holds (ie, lo
37 Post contains images Shawn Patrick : Aircraft safety records are enough to comfort me. Actually, aviation safety records are enough to comfort me. I'm more likely to get killed in a car a
38 N79969 : You cannot lose 3 engines on a quad and maintain 'normal' flight. You can stay aloft and land eventually but a quad on a single engine will driftdown
39 BA : I believe (and stand to be corrected) that ETOPS certificated aircraft have to pass more stringent standards for fire suppression in the holds (ie, lo
40 N79969 : BA, "You can lose an engine on a twin and still continue to the destination. With the case of quads, you can lose 3 engines and still continue to your
41 N79969 : One minor clarification: If 340/747 lose 3-engines, they cannot continue to the destination unless that is the closest diversion airport.
42 BA : Flying a 340 or 747 on a single engine is not in any way 'normal' flight. I did not contradict myself. If you lose 3 engines on a quad, you have to di
43 HaanZ : I never plan my travel based on the number of engines. 4 engines 4 long-haul is a catchy slogan imposed by Virgin Atlantic - and that is what I take i
44 Post contains images Sllevin : Remember, if the pilot wanted to, he could fly an A340 or 747 at the cruise speed of a Cessna 172 (160-180knots). I want to order three of those 180 k
45 Post contains images Jwenting : Cessna rates the Skyhawk SP at 126 knots max at sealevel, 124 at altitude. that's KIAS of course, so groundspeed could well be around 180 at altitude
46 Spk : Most people here fail to understand the fact that 4-engined planes are twice as likley to have an engine failure over a twin-engine plane. That was th
47 MD-11 forever : Just a small example out of my professional experience. We happened to receive an engine in our shop which suffered an inflight-shutdown (of course on
48 Sllevin : That was the best marketing twist ever invented by Boeing. Actually, that adage (which is certainly true) has been around for ages. Long before the 77
49 Aroundtheworld : Okay joke time... Two friends are on a transpacific flight in a 747 when there is a shudder in the plane...shortly after the pilot announces they have
50 JBirdAV8r : Remember, if the pilot wanted to, he could fly an A340 or 747 at the cruise speed of a Cessna 172 (160-180knots). I'm going to have to go ahead and di
51 Na : I witnessed the frightened passengers of a 767 that had to make an emergency landing after an engine blew. I knew a few of them (they were guests in t
52 Post contains images Aroundtheworld : After posting my hideous joke I figure I should actually answer the question... I really don't care how many engines and never really put any thought
53 Ha763 : Any time an engine goes out and pax know about it, many of them will freak no matter how many engines a plane has. I remember all the complaints passe
54 JBirdAV8r : always kinda wanted to do the castaway thing anyway You mean the castaway thing where the engine comes up out of the water, still running, threatens t
55 MD-11 forever : @JBirdAV8r You said: "Four-engined airplanes have their fatigue factor as well. Airlines with fleet-common engines (say, PW4000's on 767's and 744s')
56 La Carlota : I cross the Atlantic about 15-20 times a year, and I particularly don't feel unsafe being on a twin jet. Whatever the plane is, it's ok with me. I tr
57 Post contains images Backfire : Most people here fail to understand the fact that 4-engined planes are twice as likely to have an engine failure over a twin-engine plane. Here's some
58 Post contains images JBirdAV8r : MD-11, As I'm not a mx expert I can't back that up with cold hard facts. I heard it "through the grapevine" on someone else's posting (I can't for the
59 Post contains images Captain.md-11 : Forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but I find it suprising, that the airline who cries on and on about '4 engines 4 longhaul',in fact used
60 Staffan : Inflight it might not matter very much, but on takeoff a tri or a quad would be safer if a bunch of birds decide to play chicken race with you. Staffa
61 Goboeing : 4 engines is 4 a waste of fuel...thus higer airfares for the passengers who probably don't care how many engines are on the plane, as long as there's
62 Tom_eddf : All those of you saying that the possibility of an all-engine failure is close to zero should remember the incident Eastern Airlines had with one of t
63 BA : Sorry my bad, I was in a hurry yesterday. I meant to say the Cessna 182S Turbo Skylane. This rule generally applies to all types of aircraft (props an
64 AvObserver : I'm a firm believer in redundancy so I'd prefer 4 engines on a long flight, however, I'm not afraid to fly a twin. Economic realities being what they
65 Post contains images BA : Wouldn't it have been interesting to see this bird built? This was going to be the original 747-300. Basically Boeing was proposing this variant to be
66 Cloudy : Ultra high-thrust engines like those found on the 777s have a tendency to crack (the fan blades and compressors inside) moreso than lower-thrust engin
67 N79969 : BA, You have some very strange ideas about what constitutes 'normal' flight. I repeat a quad on a single engine is not 'normal' flight by any stretch
68 BA : Cloudy, True, but even if an ultra high-thrust turbofan is not running at maximum thrust, it is still prone to more fatigue overall because of how the
69 N79969 : "Basically you're saying that anything that is not powered by all it's engines is not normal flight. Then gliders are not normal flight because they a
70 BA : No, I did not say that. If a 747 or 340 lose one engine, then they can continue or divert depending on the PIC's assesment of the circumstances. They
71 Boeing 747-311 : I personally dont care whatever kind of plane that it has, as long as it has engines, is the only thing that matters to me.
72 N79969 : "A340s, 747s, and other quads have been tested more than 8 hours flying time on 1 engine." Tests conducted during certification go well beyond the cer
73 Sllevin : If I were on a quad with 3 engines out, I would be worried. I don't know if a quad with 3-engines out could even maintain MOCA on many routes. I reali
74 Douglas DC-9 : As long as it is an American made plane I'll be fine! I mean take the DC-9 for example. I trust the craftmanship, and work quality as well as the weld
75 BA : Tests conducted during certification go well beyond the certified operating limits of an airplane. I don't know how many times I said this N79969 and
76 N79969 : "Periodically, 747s will shut down 2 or 3 of there engines during descent to save on fuel. A perfectly acceptable maneuver. I'm sure A340s use a simil
77 Cloudy : BA said... True, but even if an ultra high-thrust turbofan is not running at maximum thrust, it is still prone to more fatigue overall because of how
78 Na : A major fact why twins seem to be as safe as quads or trijets is that twins are comparatively young aircraft, their engines the latest technology. Alm
79 ZSSNC : As was mentioned before, I think it largely depends on the maintenance how safe a trip with a twin-engine aircraft across any of the big ponds would b
80 Dynkrisolo : Na: Define "big twins". So, do you mean the 300, 310, 757, and 767 don't count? Just a friendly reminder, the 744 came after the ETOPS regulations wer
81 Sllevin : I don't know how many times I said this N79969 and Sllevin, but I am not talking about rules and regulations. I'm talking about aircraft capability.
82 Na : Dynkrisolo, I refer to big longdistance twins that are competitors somehow to quads. The 757 doesn´t count here, its just midsize (and its the worst
83 M717 : BA said: "Periodically, 747s will shut down 2 or 3 of there engines during descent to save on fuel. A perfectly acceptable maneuver. I'm sure A340s us
84 Post contains images Dynkrisolo : So, the 310 is not big, but the 767 is? Be consistent. The 762 is about the same size as the 310. A large number of 310s and 300-600Rs, mid-range or n
85 Bmacleod : My heart almost jumped a few years back when I saw non-stop service between Vancouver and London, UK on a AC 762. HELLO??? MAJOR MISPRINT HERE!!!![Edi
86 Gigneil : One of Continental's 767-200ERs would easily fly YVR-LHR. N
87 Bmacleod : This wasn't a 767-200ER!!!!
88 Hamlet69 : Na, "Btw, to all the experts saying twins are as reliable as quads: The Titanic is unsinkable! (also an expert´s judgement)." I'm not going to get in
89 Na : My Titanic comparison was meant as a teaser. And it worked. Dynkrisolo, when I prolong your logic, we should all fly in single-engined aircraft in the
90 Aroundtheworld : Personally I think this whole argument er "discussion" is a tad silly. If we are all aviation enthusiast...and are not scared to get on a plane then
91 Dynkrisolo : Na, I don't see how your teaser "worked". Your teaser only shows your lack of understanding of the issues. No. Single engine does not have any redunda
92 Bmacleod : One of Continental's 767-200ERs would easily fly YVR-LHR. I wouldn't trust a 767-200ER on such a long route. The MINIMUM for this route would be a 767
93 N79969 : The 762ER has the greatest range of all 767 variants.
94 MD-90 : Totally unrelated to this (well, almost), Mike Boyd today had a great comment. "Finally, on a totally separate subject, there's a story floating aroun
95 Bmacleod : The 762ER has the greatest range of all 767 variants That is beside the point, N79969. Just because it has the range doesn't mean it should be operate
96 777236ER : That is beside the point, N79969. Just because it has the range doesn't mean it should be operated on such a long flight. 767-200ERs are pretty much 7
97 N79969 : Bmacleod, 777236ER is correct. The 763 and 762 are the same plane essentially. The shorter fuselage does not make the 762 less safe in anyway. Matchin
98 Post contains images KLAX : That is beside the point, N79969 Oh absolutley! Also, I hope most of you know that it wasnt Virgin that painted the "4 engines 4 long haul" slogan on
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why 4 Engines 4 Long Haul? posted Fri Feb 3 2006 05:57:27 by Rigo
TAP New Long-haul Fleet According To TAP News. posted Sat Nov 26 2005 10:58:39 by CV990
NZ Long Haul Cabin Crew To Strike For 3 Days posted Sat Jul 2 2005 09:42:32 by 777ER
4 Engines 4 Long Haul? posted Thu Dec 9 2004 21:36:44 by Aerlingus330
Air Asia Plans To Fly Long Haul! posted Tue Nov 28 2006 07:47:06 by CoolSkyGuy
China Airlines To Place Long-haul Order In 07H1 posted Fri Nov 24 2006 22:16:01 by Jimyvr
Aeroflot To Get 45 A320s And 45 Long-haul Planes posted Tue Nov 21 2006 19:34:14 by Thorben
LH To Place Long Haul Order In Dec. Won't Cut A380 posted Thu Sep 21 2006 16:28:55 by NYC777
BMI To Install Lie Flat Beds On Long Haul posted Tue Sep 19 2006 19:32:31 by Jamesontheroad
Delta To Annouce New Long Haul Domestic Product posted Wed Sep 13 2006 05:12:57 by OA412