Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus Production Plant In The US  
User currently offlineArniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Posted (10 years 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 8467 times:

Just heared on a Bussines channel that Airbus is actively looking for a bussines-partner (Lockheed most likely) to build a new production plant in the US to build its A330 tanker plane (23 billion$-contact).
Looks like they are really competing with Boeing for the contract and who knows they might even start a production line for the civil market too.


[edit post]
50 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTW741 From Liechtenstein, joined Sep 2004, 478 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (10 years 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 8293 times:

http://www.usatanker.com


TWA - we showed you how good we have been!
User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4109 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (10 years 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 8257 times:

No matter how much you guys want to believe it, the US government is not going to give a multi-billion dollar contract to a FOREIGN company. Even if they are built here, that would be the biggest slap in the face they could give to Boeing. Now, I'll agree that the tanker contract was corrupted, and maybe even scammed, but this is Boeing's contract to win, one way or another.

User currently offlineTW741 From Liechtenstein, joined Sep 2004, 478 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (10 years 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 8209 times:

this is Boeing's contract to win

when there is just 1 supplier for the goverment then there is no need to start a bidding process - it would just be a simple message from the White House or Capitol or whoever pays the bill to Boeing saying "build it and give us your bankers details so we can pay you".






TWA - we showed you how good we have been!
User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4109 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (10 years 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 8187 times:

TW741, The US consistently has "contract wars" between the major defense contractors in the US (Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop, etc). This IS Boeing's contract to win, unless another US manufacturer is able to come up with something better very soon. I'm not an Airbus hater, but they aren't getting this one.

User currently offlineTW741 From Liechtenstein, joined Sep 2004, 478 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 8137 times:

I'm not an Airbus hater

Me too Big grin

I am neither an Airbus fanatic nor a Boeing fanatic (well, may be the 707 and 727)....I am neither favouring A nor B in any way since my all time favorite aircraft have always been the Lockheed L.1011, the McDonnell-Douglas DC9-MD80/90 family and the De Havilland Dash-7 as well as a few British Aerospace BAe aircraft.
I just posted the link for the topic starter to get some additional information.

So I am totally neutral in this respect  Smile


=TW741=



TWA - we showed you how good we have been!
User currently offlineKEESJE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 8132 times:

This IS Boeing's contract to win, unless another US manufacturer is able to come up with something better very soon

Perhaps the Lockheed KC330, with the preferred Pratt engines, and lots of Honeywell, Rockwell and Lockheed content. Assembled and maintained somewhere in Wichita, creating lots of new long term US jobs there and giving the armed forces a better tool to do their job..

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2001843766_boeing26.html



User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4109 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (10 years 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 8111 times:

Perhaps the Lockheed KC330, with the preferred Pratt engines, and lots of Honeywell, Rockwell and Lockheed content. Assembled and maintained somewhere in Wichita, creating lots of new long term US jobs there and giving the armed forces a better tool to do their job..

Last time I checked, Lockheed-Martin wasn't a member of EADS and wasn't named Airbus. Think of it this way. If the US bought KC330s, they would be giving money to the EU, who would then give that money to Airbus to develope that A350-thing. Now, not saying this would actually happen, but it could, and we should all be mature enough to accept that. So, if the US bought these KC330s, they would not only be hurting Boeing in the defense field, but possibly in the commercial field as well. It won't happen, and nothing will make me say different. I'm not afraid to be wrong because I know I'm right.  Big grin


User currently offlineKEESJE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 8034 times:

Think of it this way; Europe is buying for Billions of JSF fighters from Lockheed, time to get something back for this tax payer money..

Lockheed is not best friends with Boeing (how many trails running?)

Lets be rational and may the best win..

 Acting devilish




User currently offlineAdh214 From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 360 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7984 times:

Frankly, as a US taxpayer, I hope the US government gets the best deal possible and not just give this to Boeing as a piece of pork barrel politics. If Boeing competes and wins great. If not, let's get ready for the Airbus.

Andrew


User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5404 posts, RR: 53
Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7975 times:

1) It has nothing to do with giving the contract to a European company. The US has used European contractors in the past for weapons systems and will continue to do so.

2) Rather than starting a new thread on this, why couldn't you have added to the existing threads in military aviation?

3) As I've said again and again and again, a KC-330 is not what the USAF wants for a multitude of reasons. As I've stated again and again and again, a KC-330 would be remarkably bigger than the KC-135, the KC-10, a KC-767 and even the C-17. The USAFhas stated that the footprint of a KC-330 is too big for their liking. Further, there's the lack of an off-the-shelf cargo door. Putting up a nice pretty picture of an artist's conception is one thing. Actually finding one is quite another. I've said it before and I'll say it again - as of right now, the Air Force prefers the KC-767 design to the KC-330. Rather than continue to rehash the same issues, why not instead just sit tight and see where the chips fall?

[Edited 2004-10-19 15:50:40]


South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineBENNETT123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7690 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (10 years 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 7664 times:


I have not seen the Spec for the new USAF tanker, and think that the best place to start in selecting a Tanker, is to see which contender best matches the Spec.

It seems that unless Lockheed re-enters airliner production, that your choice is Boeing or overseas.

If the latter is not acceptable, then why waste time with competitions.

I trust that you will not complain if Europe does the same.


User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5404 posts, RR: 53
Reply 12, posted (10 years 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 7587 times:

Bennett - ask and you shall receive  Smile

KC-135 Stratotanker
Wingspan: 130 feet, 10 inches (39.2 m)
Length: 136 feet, 3 inches (40.8 m)
Height: 38 feet, 4 inches (11.5 m)

KC-767
Wingpsan: 156 feet, 1 inch (47.57 m)
Length: 159 feet, 2 inches (48.51 m)
Height: 52 feet (15.85 m)

KC-330
Wingspan: 197 feet, 10 inches (60.3 m)
Length: 193 feet, 7 inches (59 m)
Height: 55 feet, 2 inches (16.83 m)


And an overlay comparison of the size difference between the 767 and the 330.






South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineMD80Nut From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 958 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (10 years 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 7531 times:

I believe the bottom line should be to provide the US Armed Forces with the best possible option, period. That's why I would like to see an open competition, not an automatic award to Boeing. Please understand I am not pro-Boeing or pro-Airbus on this issue, I just want the US Armed Forces to get the best.

The fact is the A330-200 is not just a newer, more advanced aircraft than the 767-200ER, it's also larger and has greater fuel capacity. That means greater efficency, cargo carrying ability and more fuel that can be offloaded to other aircraft. I find myself wondering, why doesn't Boeing offer the 767-300ER? It would come closer to the A330-200 in terms of capacity at least.

If Airbus wins the contract and opens a production line in the US, yes, Boeing would suffer. On the other hand, many new aerospace jobs would be created in the US, plus the many American companies already supplying Airbus would benefit. KC330s with either GE or PW engines would have lots of US made content. Yes, EADS and Europe would also benefit, but given how much they buy from America I don't see that as a bad thing. And lets not forget, Europe buys a lot of US military euipment, if we want them to keep buying our military equipment, maybe we should buy theirs too.

Maybe they could build all KC330s here, not just the USAF models. Means more work here in the long run.

FriendlySkies, I do think you're right. Politics will probably win out in the end and Boeing will get the contract. I just would like to see a fair, honest competiton and evaluation.

cheers, Ralph



Fly Douglas Jets DC-8 / DC-9 / DC-10 / MD80 / MD11 / MD90 / 717
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (10 years 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 7480 times:

I have not seen the Spec for the new USAF tanker, and think that the best place to start in selecting a Tanker, is to see which contender best matches the Spec

You forgot? Darleen/Pentagon let Boeing rewrite the Spec. to fit the Kc767 and disqually the A330.

 Wow!

I would not be surprised if the size "issue" isn´t coming from the USAF...

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/8294037.htm%3F1c

It´s always worse then you think..


User currently offlineGMUAirbusA320 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 243 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (10 years 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 7493 times:

No matter how much you guys want to believe it, the US government is not going to give a multi-billion dollar contract to a FOREIGN company. Even if they are built here, that would be the biggest slap in the face they could give to Boeing. Now, I'll agree that the tanker contract was corrupted, and maybe even scammed, but this is Boeing's contract to win, one way or another."

Look no further than the EMBRAER website. It's happening. They're getting a great deal from EMB to make the 145 platform for the U.S. Army. You better get a better grip on your avaition FriendlySkies....j/k  Big grin

Cheers!
GMUAirbusA320

8/3/2004
EMBRAER ERJ 145 PLATFORM SELECTED AS PART OF WINNING BID ON U.S. ARMY AERIAL COMMON SENSOR PROGRAM

Embraer, part of the Lockheed Martin team, will provide its ERJ 145 platform for the U.S. Army’s next-generation battlefield surveillance system called Aerial Common Sensor (ACS) under a Systems Development and Demonstration (SDD) contract awarded yesterday.
Under the US$879 million SDD contract, the team will deliver five certified, mission ready airborne ISR systems, with initial testing planned for 2006. The balance of the effort would be performed under a follow-on low rate initial production contract anticipated in 2007, followed by a full rate production contract in 2009. The full contract has a potential value for the Lockheed Martin team of more than US$7 billion over the life of the expected 20-year program.

“The U.S. Army has chosen a system, and an airframe, that will provide unmatched capability, economics, performance and growth – all of which will directly enhance the performance of U.S. Army ground forces in any part of the world they may deploy,” said Embraer President and CEO Maurício Botelho.“With more than 800 units in operation and 5.5 million of in-flight hours, the well matured ERJ 145 platform has accumulated impressive reliability, dispatch, and safety records, which, combined with its low acquisition and operating costs, make it especially attractive for special applications like the ACS Program. Embraer is very excited to be a part of this team, and also to be moving forward with our plans for opening a new assembly facility in Jacksonville.”

ABOUT THE ACS PROGRAM

ACS will replace current ISR aircraft, including the Army’s Guardrail Common Sensor, the Airborne Reconnaissance Low aircraft and the Navy’s fleet of EP-3 aircraft. Under the System Development and Demonstration contract awarded today, the Lockheed Martin team will combine and enhance the capabilities of the current systems on these platforms into a single ISR mission package on a standard airborne platform.

ABOUT THE ERJ 145 FAMILY OF REGIONAL JETS

Embraer’s ERJ 145 family provides the capacity and flexibility needed by operators to satisfy wide variations in demand and frequency that are typical of regional markets. Embraer aircraft have a rugged, proven structural design developed specifically for regional airline missions. They are well suited for high frequency use and typically operate around 2,800 flight hours per year.

The ERJ 145 family members (the 37-seat ERJ 135, 44-seat ERJ 140, 50-seat ERJ 145 and 50-seat ERJ 145 XR) share 95 percent commonality among all models, with low operating, crew training and maintenance costs. The ERJ 145’s systems and main components can be easily accessed, simplifying maintenance activities and allowing faster turnarounds.

The ERJ 145 family platform has also been used to enhance Embraer’s presence in other aviation segments, including the Corporate and the Defense markets. Embraer’s Legacy Executive and Shuttle aircraft are derived from the ERJ 135 platform, whereas Defense products, such as the EMB 145 AEW&C (Airborne Early Warning and Control), the EMB 145 RS/AGS (Remote Sensing/Air-to-Ground Surveillance), and the EMB 145 MP/ASW (Maritime Patrol and Anti-Submarine Warfare) are based on the proven ERJ 145 platform.

Note to Editors

Embraer (Empresa Brasileira de Aeronáutica S.A. - NYSE: ERJ; Bovespa: EMBR3 and EMBR4) is a major aerospace company with 34 years of experience in designing, developing, manufacturing, selling and providing after sales support to aircraft for the global airline, defense and corporate markets. With headquarters in São José dos Campos, state of São Paulo, the Company has offices and customer service bases in Australia, China, France, Singapore and the United States. Embraer is among Brazil’s leading exporting companies. As of June 30, 2004 Embraer had a total workforce of 14,207 people, and its firm order backlog totaled US$ 10.5 billion.

Contacts



User currently offlineIowa744fan From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 931 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (10 years 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7278 times:

GMUAirbusA320,

There is one major difference between this and the tanker contract though. Who in the US was offering a competing aircraft? No one in the US produces aircraft of this size, hence a major reason why a foreign manufacturer was chosen. The main producers of this size of aircraft would be Embraer or Canadair. I highly doubt it would be worth the investment and time for Boeing to make a new aircraft for this order. In contrast, the tanker contract is for an aircraft of the size that is produced by a major company in the US. Boeing already has a long-standing tradition of building tankers for the Air Force (KC-97s, KD-135s, and KC-10s...via McDD). Boeing, a domestic company, is offering a product for this need. These two deals and the backgrounds are vastly different.

I agree with a couple of people here that the US government will eventually choose Boeing for this contract. After all, what would it look like if the US government went to all this hassle with the WTO about subsidies and arguing how the EU is doing illegal stuff and then turn their backs on Boeing and order from Airbus? I am not saying that one aircraft is better than the other and I have no idea which one the Air Force really prefers, but as a taxpayer, I would rather see my money being spent on a product that is being offered locally. If they look into the Airbus tanker and think about it as a means of getting Boeing to lower the price a bit, great. However, I agree that this is still going to be Boeing's contract. If the Air Force wanted a bigger aircraft, you know that Boeing would offer the 763 or even the 777 to get the contract, so I think that Airbus is going to be left out in the dark on this one.

Also, remember that this stuff does not just happen on this side of the Atlantic. When the UK initially took 4 C-17s from Boeing, they were pressured by the EU to order the AM440 (what is it called?) and so they signed those lease agreements...even though from what I understand, the terms were the most ridiculous imaginable (Boeing was smart and took advantage of the situation). Wasn't there also pressure for a while for the EU governments to purchase the Eurofighter too? If France, Germany, or the UK wants to order a tanker fleet, I would completely understand it if they only ordered the Airbus tanker and not the Boeing model. Their people pay the taxes which will pay for the aircraft, it should be spent on a local product. Did the UK order the 330 tanker? I read somewhere that British Airways was pushing for the 767 model so that they could have their passenger models converted and sold the the RAF. The article said that BA was displeased at the outcome, so I take it that meant an Airbus tanker order? Not sure about this situation.


User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (10 years 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7210 times:

I personally think B will win this one, but to pressure down the price (so B makes less money) A is going to make a serious low bid and add jobs in the US....


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 984 posts, RR: 51
Reply 18, posted (10 years 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7166 times:

Think of it this way; Europe is buying for Billions of JSF fighters from Lockheed, time to get something back for this tax payer money..

Are you saying we owe Europe something?

The fact is the A330-200 is not just a newer, more advanced aircraft than the 767-200ER, it's also larger and has greater fuel capacity. That means greater efficency, cargo carrying ability and more fuel that can be offloaded to other aircraft

The KC-767 and A330-T carry roughly simmilar fuel loads, but the 767 carries fuel in underfloor tanks while the A330 uses its main tanks. Thus, the A330 carries around more empty aircraft. Also, the two aircraft have the same number of refueling booms/drouges, so no aircraft has a significant advantage in terms of offload capability.

The USAF wants a KC-135 replacement... not a KC-10 replacement


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (10 years 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7095 times:

The A330 has the same engines as the 767.

It caries significant more fuel further and has superior passenger and cargo capabilities.

It met the USAF original specification better then the KC767

It was offered to the USAF at significant lower cost the the Kc767..

It is an embarrassing story..


User currently offlineJc2354 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 586 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (10 years 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7072 times:

Isn't the A330 tanker being built for the RAF?

As for foreign aircraft purchases, I thought the Marines had Harrier jets.

Jack



If not now, then when?
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 21, posted (10 years 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7058 times:

There is one major difference between this and the tanker contract though. Who in the US was offering a competing aircraft? No one in the US produces aircraft of this size, hence a major reason why a foreign manufacturer was chosen

Cough.....Gulfstream....Cough....Gulfstream....

And actually I am a bit surprised that the GV didn't get the contract. I would have though the longer legs would have been the winner.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineTrident2e From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (10 years 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7038 times:

Friendly Skies - you very elequently present the case for the defence in the matter of Boeing's whining and whinging about subsidies for Airbus. The very fact that the US would not give such a contract to a foreign company is the very evidence of indirect subsidy that the EU will use against the US at the WTO. Well done!

User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (10 years 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7009 times:

I think Lockheed ought to dust off the L-1011 plans, scrap the #2 engine, update the essentials, and offer it as a tanker.

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 24, posted (10 years 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7006 times:

Why does everybody assume that Airbus would take another airframe maker as their partner in a US A330.

I could easily see a scenario where a component maker for Airbus becomes the primary. For example Sikorsky was not the prime contract for the S-60B helicopter. If memory serves IBM was, they where the ones that developed the anti-submarine mission packet, Sikorsky was a subcontractor that only provided the airframe.

and as far as manufacturing sites. I could see a scenario, where a component make developes say the underfloor tanks (Nothing prevents them from being developed and installed in a KC-330 increasing it's payload) bids the contract and then subcontracts airframe manufacture to Airbus.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
25 FriendlySkies : I never once said that the A330MRTT was a bad aircraft or couldn't meet the specs of the US. But I've accepted the fact that the US government is not
26 DfwRevolution : If memory serves IBM was, they where the ones that developed the anti-submarine mission packet, Sikorsky was a subcontractor that only provided the ai
27 N685FE : L-188, I was thinking the same thing. We have Cessna, Raytheon/Beech, Lear/Bombardier, and Gulfstream. If they were to choose Lear/Bombardier that wo
28 L-188 : Could have been TI, but the point stands. In that case the airframe contractor was a secondary. Well forgein aircraft purchases lets see here. The Mar
29 Cwapilot : "Think of it this way; Europe is buying for Billions of JSF fighters from Lockheed, time to get something back for this tax payer money.." Something f
30 Arniepie : L-188 Just a question ,didn't they also bought some mirages or its israeli derivative at one time to use in an agressor role? I'm sure iI heared it on
31 Post contains images FriendlySkies : Something for their money....hmmm....didn't they receive JSF's?! I thought that was what they gave their taxpayer money for.... Seeing that the JSF do
32 L-188 : Your right Airniepie. They had those F-21's which where IAI Kfirs for agressor training. They slipped my mind.
33 Ken777 : The problem that A faces is the fact that we have elections every two years and no one in congress would go along with A getting the contract. Why mak
34 Dl021 : l-188 It was a cost and availability issue for the contract. We do supply engines for the ERJ and there is precedent for the ARL aircraft being foreig
35 Iowa744fan : L-188, Crap. I have such tunnel-vision towards the commercial sector that I completely forgot about Cessna and Gulfstream. Keesje, Let me ask you this
36 L-188 : Well Cessna and Raytheon (Beech) really don't have anything in that scale. But I think that Dl021 hit on the head, Embrear probably had the lower bid.
37 Gigneil : The A330 has the same engines as the 767. Not at all true... while the GE and PW engines are derivatives of models offered on the 767, they're dissimi
38 Atmx2000 : Using the JSF as a reason for why the US should buy an Airbus tanker isn't a very strong point. Many of the European countries purchasing the JSF are
39 Post contains images Solnabo : Sounds like music to my ears with Airbus plant in US Micke/SE
40 Post contains images RayChuang : Ah ha! Maybe Airbus will build the bleedless version of the A330 (aka A350) as part of the USAF tanker contract in the USA using GENX engines rated at
41 AFROTC : Ummm FriendlySkies the JSF (F-35)does exist and there are prototypes flying now. www.jsf.mil As far as this whole KC330 thing is concerned it is my de
42 Post contains images KEESJE : Not at all true... while the GE and PW engines are derivatives of models offered on the 767, they're dissimilar in most regards. Neil, they are slight
43 BENNETT123 : What I was trying to determine was what the USAF actually wanted. Clearly both aircraft are bigger than the KC135, but presumably the USAF is happy wi
44 Areopagus : the B57, for types of aircraft where there was no conceivable domestic alternative,... The domestic alternative was the Martin B-51, but the Canberra
45 MNeo : am I the first to realize this. IF airbus gets the contract jobs in the US will be created keeping people happy thus keeping senators happy. A plant o
46 M27 : MNeo No, I don't think your the first to realize this. I think Airbus is aware of it, and thats the game they are trying to play now(Political). Let t
47 Dl021 : Besides...no way can EADS justify building a complete line for their A-330 in the US or a contract of this size. They don't have a cargo door and they
48 Gigneil : What are you talking about? The A330 MRTT does have a cargo door, and does have a refuelling system (at least two drogues, and a boom). Opening a new
49 Trvlr : If Airbus builds the plant in the US, and also moves final assembly of the plane to the US, I can see it happening. In fact, I'd be all for it. Additi
50 Post contains images ILSApproach : Let's see Bush wins.................A330's built in Europe and thousands gone at Boeing. Kerry wins.............................KC767's built in the U
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...
Airbus In The US, Boeing In The EU posted Thu Apr 18 2002 18:20:40 by Udo
Airbus In The US posted Mon Jul 30 2001 10:29:49 by Sebolino
How Much Subcontracting Does Airbus Do In The US? posted Thu Jul 6 2000 15:22:29 by F4N
Old DC-3 Transcon Routes In The US posted Wed Nov 15 2006 19:32:37 by DIJKKIJK
AF's 773s In The US posted Mon Nov 6 2006 01:15:50 by Cleared2Land4
Icelandair In The US posted Sun Nov 5 2006 23:17:24 by Walter747
What Are Finnair's Cities In The US? posted Fri Nov 3 2006 19:13:55 by Eastern023
Shortest International Airport Runway In The US posted Sat Oct 28 2006 20:07:50 by Fll2993
Any 737-200s In Scheduled Operations In The US? posted Sun Oct 1 2006 18:23:01 by Jlbmedia
Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US? posted Wed Sep 27 2006 03:59:28 by Remcor