Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?  
User currently offlineAvalon From Australia, joined May 2005, 87 posts, RR: 1
Posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 11106 times:

The B767-400 does not seem to have much of a future. Today, its competition would seem to be from other Boeing planes, the 777 & 787 families, as much as from the A330/350's.

I am wondering whether Boeing could reasonably have assumed at the development time of the 767-400 that the action was or had already moved on from the 767 to the 777 (assuming the 787 was still too far into the future at the time).

Therefore, did Boeing waste time & money in developing the 767-400, or is there still a future for it?

61 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLazyshaun From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 549 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 11080 times:

I personly don't like they 764, and I think if you want and aircraft with the cappacity of a 764, buy a 777-200!!! They have the same (roughly) capacity and are much nicer looking!!!
I can't see much of a great future for the 764...



I came. I saw. I conquered
User currently offlineMaersk737 From Denmark, joined Feb 2004, 710 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 11049 times:

No future Smile

But it was not a waste of money though.

Cheers

Peter



I'm not proud to be a Viking, just thankfull
User currently offlineVHXLR8 From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 500 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 11050 times:

Quoting Avalon (Thread starter):
I am wondering whether Boeing could reasonably have assumed at the development time of the 767-400 that the action was or had already moved on from the 767 to the 777

I think that is a fairly broad statement in regards to the 767. Sure, a lot of airlines have replaced their 767s with 777s (as well as A330s etc); but there are still a lot of 767s out there operating routes which are not viable for a 777 to operate. Indeed, while the world's airlines and aircraft companies seem to be focusing their new found efforts on 'long-thin' routes; 'short-fat' routes (high frequency ones at least) seem to have been forgotten.
A lot of people are quick to talk up the 777 or A330 (I shall leave out the 787 for the sake that it is too new to be properly compared to the two previously mentioned) as replacements for the 767, but are just as quick to forget that one of the markets that made the 767 such a success was that of the high-frequency-short-fat market.

For an example, I shall use Qantas. On it's MEL-SYD flights (one of the busiest routes in the world), the 767s are the perfect aircraft. They have the capacity, and yet their 'not too big' size makes them perfect for quick turnarounds for very short flights. The A330 200, which QF originally purchased with MEL-SYD in mind, realistically was too big for the turnarounds, and has found it's niche with MEL/SYD-PER flights. Hence, QF are now stuck with the ageing fleet of 763s because they can't afford anything smaller on their lucrative MEL-SYD route, yet nothing else has come along to replace it for a reasonable cost.
When I say reasonable cost; herein lies the problem, the cost of the 764 was deemed by too many airlines to be excessive for what it was. In the end, only two airlines operate it; making it even more unattractive for other potential customers.
In the end, beautiful aircraft; bad timing/marketing/economics.
"sigh", ok, I'm finished  Smile


User currently offlineDAL767400ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 11049 times:

I would say it in a different way, Boeing did not spend enough money on the 764. The 764 was launched based on orders by DL for 21 (all taken), 26 for CO (down to 16), and 5 IIRC from ILFC (cancelled). Due to this small number of interested carriers, Boeing put alot of focus on building the plane based on the needs of the airlines. DL wanted a high-density L1011 replacement above the 763 on domestic routes, including to Hawaii, and CO wanted a DC-10 replacement for European and South American flights. Due to the fact that these routes were all rather short in international terms, Boeing came up with a range of only 5,645nm, vs the 763ER's 6,105nm range. While this was appropriate for the operations CO and especially DL wanted to use the 764 on, it made for a large disadvantage for other airlines that would have potentially been interested. Not to mention it was also a disadvantage with regards to the A333. That's why Boeing wanted to launch the 764ERX, but it was only a half-hearted attempt. Kenya Airways placed an order for 3 examples, but seeing as how Boeing didn't really care about the 764 anymore, Kenya went with the 772. And it's not like there was no interest for the 764, alot of European charter airlines expressed interest in the 764 if Boeing would decide to significantly improve the range. It could also be speculated that, had Boeing increased range, CO might not have cancelled their 10 orders for more 772s.
It is sad to see the 764 being such a bastard like the 743, but Boeing screwed up here, and the 764 production line is essentially history, with even the USAF order anything but clear.


User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25718 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 11045 times:

The B767-400 was basically built by Boeing to satisfy the specific needs of Continental and Delta for a domestic DC-10 / L-1011 replacement respectively.

Boeing did not have a suitable product to offer the carriers as its 767-300 was too small, while the B777 was too large. Boeing did not want to simply hand over orders to Airbus with its A330 and instead countered with the enlarged and slight modernized B767 version.

If not for 9/11 it would have been likely both carriers would have placed additional follow on orders for the 767-400, along with potentially additional US and foreign orders. The B767-400 from an cost and operating point of view is a formidable aircraft and fit the niche very well for the two US airlines.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineMidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10973 times:

The 767-400 was not a waste of money, it was an aircraft that was built to take care of long time Boeing customers, Delta & Continental, as several other airliners.net members have said.

As far as money, the 767 line was a very profitable aircraft for Boeing, so the actual R&D that went into the 767 did not result in a loss for Boeing.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineJrlander From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 1105 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10968 times:

Having flown both Delta and Continental's planes, I like them from as a passenger. The coach seating in the 2-3-2 is quite comfortable. They do have significantly less capacity than a 777. Delta's do not, but only because they have much higher capacity configuration with a domestic first class product. I do think that if Boeing had either improved the range of the product, or instead launched a shorter 777 and not this plane, sales would have been better.

User currently offlineAvalon From Australia, joined May 2005, 87 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10958 times:

Quoting VHXLR8 (Reply 3):
Hence, QF are now stuck with the ageing fleet of 763s because they can't afford anything smaller on their lucrative MEL-SYD route, yet nothing else has come along to replace it for a reasonable cost.

Would you say, then, that the 764 would be a good replacement for QF on its short, fat routes such as MEL-SYD - if not for the purchase price?

Do you think its fuel efficiency, turnaround time, size at gates (at Mel, Syd) is all otherwise ok?

One of the reasons I began this thread is that I contantly marvel at how the 763 looks like it is going to go down in history as a real success - a real survivor - yet the 764, rather than carrying on this success, seems to be a dud.


User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10948 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 5):
The B767-400 was basically built by Boeing to satisfy the specific needs of Continental and Delta for a domestic DC-10 / L-1011 replacement respectively.

Partly.

They also took it on the World Tour and showed it to a lot of prospective buyers. All turned them down because

1. The A330 killed it on cargo (the LD3 versus LD2 issue again)
2. Far too late to market (clients like Britannia looked, smiled and said sorry, we've already bought the 763)
3. Lack of range, although the 767-400ERX was proposed. That further development was not considered worth the outlay after poor reception of the base model. Only one airline expressed solid interest and then converted their order to the 772.

If the 767-400ER had come to market earlier then Boeing could have picked up converted 763 orders and benefitted from the price point difference, or even stolen some A330 business where freight wasn't as critical an issue but capacity was.

The same broadly applies to the 753, again too late to market. The 752 engines and wing were designed from the outset with a stretch in mind, but Boeing declined to offer the variant until far too late in the product cycle.

neither plane is remotely a bad aircraft, just a case of the right plane at the wrong time.


User currently offlineTinPusher007 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 977 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10938 times:

Quoting Lazyshaun (Reply 1):
I personly don't like they 764, and I think if you want and aircraft with the capacity of a 764, buy a 777-200!!! They have the same (roughly) capacity and are much nicer looking!!!
I can't see much of a great future for the 764...

Its a good thing you're not an airline executive with a statement like that one. The 777 and 764 do not have the same capacity. The 777 holds much more pax AND cargo. The 777 is also more expensive and heavier. These aircraft were built for different missions in mind with 764 being all but custom built for CO and DL as mentioned before. No airline orders an airplane based on how they look. But while we're at it the 764 is a very aesthetically pleasing aircraft...I don't know what you see when you look at one.



"Flying isn't inherently dangerous...but very unforgiving of carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
User currently offlineDeltaWings From Switzerland, joined Aug 2004, 1294 posts, RR: 17
Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 10799 times:

Although its economics are great, airlines didnt seem to want it, which is sad. So i guess when DL And CO retire their 764s one day, they will be scrapped straight away because no airline likes it.


Homer: Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 10686 times:

The 764, as pointed out, was built specifically for the needs of CO (as a DC10 replacement) an DL (as an L1011 replacement).....it was not a costly variant to develop. Did Boeing hope to sell more? Of course it did, but that did not work out for a few reasons - the 764 lacked the range some airlines were looking for, the cargo issue has always been a problem for the 767 family, and the A332 had come on to the market which gave the 767 family (and the 764 is particular) a new updated and more advanced competitor. There is a reason why Boeing is now developing the 787. In certain ways, the A332 benefited from being the smallest member of the larger A330/340 family, while the 764 was limited by being the largest member of the 757/767 family.

Also, dont forget that the timing was all wrong for the 764 (and the 753)....sales of the types were hurt by the downturn in the world economy, and the tailspin that airlines went into after 9/11.

I think that Boeing made a mistake by tailoring the 764 to the needs of DL and CO - the aircraft did not have wide enough appeal.


User currently offlineMidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 14
Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 10631 times:

Quoting DeltaWings (Reply 12):
Although its economics are great, airlines didnt seem to want it, which is sad. So i guess when DL And CO retire their 764s one day, they will be scrapped straight away because no airline likes it.

You are looking at a long time before the 767-400 is retired & as far as being scrapped, the answer would be no, the 767-400 would be an idea for a charter airline of some sort.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineTockeyhockey From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 952 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 10599 times:

what version of the 767 is the new tanker based on?

User currently offlineAvalon From Australia, joined May 2005, 87 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 10543 times:

I take the point, made by many, how the 767-400 was a replacement for L1011's & DC10's - but was the 767-400 not also designed to be a replacement for the 767-300?

I do not know whether it was or was not - but I would be very interested to know!

I ask this because there are so many 767-300s still around, largely (it would seem) because they are well suited to the high-frequency, short, fat sectors such as Mel-Syd - and there seems to be no replacement from either A or B for a high density/quick turnaround jet that is not so wide that it cannot fit into existing domestic gates.

Qantas tried to replace its 767-300s on the busiest domestic sectors with A330's (332's, I believe), but it did not work because (according to many persons here) they were too big for the domestic gates & took too long to turn around. Cargo was not the issue - the speedy dispatch of masses of passengers was.

Why then, has the 767-400 not been taken up as the natural successor to the 767-300 on these high frequency, fast-turnaround, short, fat routes?


User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2950 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 10514 times:

Quoting Tockeyhockey (Reply 15):
what version of the 767 is the new tanker based on?

The new tanker, like the AWACS, is based on the 762, however the USAF has ordered one 764 airframe for its testbed platform of the new E-10. In theory there could be orders from the USAF to replace the entire JSTARS, Rivet Joint and E-3 fleet.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7211 posts, RR: 57
Reply 17, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 10469 times:

As yields fall, and low cost competition increases short fat routes are increasingly flown with A321/738 equipment.

Aircraft like the A300/763 on short haul routes are increasingly being replaced by 738,752 and 321's and not by new wide bodied aircraft. The era of the short haul wide bodied market is diminishing rapidly - with the exception of Japan. Even medium haul routes are getting the same treatment (NYC - California for example).

For this reason, the expected rush of domestic 330, 764 and 787 orders has not happened.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 18, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 10322 times:

Quoting Avalon (Reply 16):
but was the 767-400 not also designed to be a replacement for the 767-300?

No, it wasn't. The 767-400 and the 767-300 are not the same size aircraft. They're members of the same family and cover different market applications.

N


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 984 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 10293 times:

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 13):

Also, dont forget that the timing was all wrong for the 764 (and the 753)....sales of the types were hurt by the downturn in the world economy, and the tailspin that airlines went into after 9/11.

I think that Boeing made a mistake by tailoring the 764 to the needs of DL and CO - the aircraft did not have wide enough appeal.

Among other reasons:

- Airbus had tremendous momentum with the A332 that was impossible to reverse.

- The payload/range (or lackthereof) issue

- Late offering. Boeing probably would have gotten a few more customers had they offered the 764ER in the late-80s early-90s.


User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 10272 times:

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 10):
neither plane is remotely a bad aircraft, just a case of the right plane at the wrong time.

Well said for both the 764 and 753. Good airplanes, but development came far too late into the game for them to be a huge success.

I hope Boeing does not make the same mistake with the 787-10 or the 772 replacement.



One Nation Under God
User currently offlineAvalon From Australia, joined May 2005, 87 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 10186 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 18):
The era of the short haul wide bodied market is diminishing rapidly - with the exception of Japan.

If this is the case, add Australia to the list of exceptions.

The short haul wide bodied market is not diminishing here. There are LCCs here operating B738s & A320s between Syd & Melb - but the QF flight schedule from Melb-Syd has not diminished as a result of these entrants (including its own Jetstar) and continue to be mostly 763s, which are usually full, often at half hour frequencies.

As mentioned, A330s are also used between Mel-Syd and they are criticised not for carrying too many passengers, but for not turning around quickly enough for the return trip.


User currently offlineGearup From Canada, joined Dec 2000, 578 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 10174 times:

If 9/11 never had happened, I think the 764 would have sold better. I was fully expecting many more orders for this airplane once it went into revenue service. Such a pity, it's a really good aircraft!

GU



I have no memory of this place.
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7211 posts, RR: 57
Reply 23, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 10138 times:

Quoting Avalon (Reply 22):
- but the QF flight schedule from Melb-Syd has not diminished as a result of these entrants (including its own Jetstar) and continue to be mostly 763s, which are usually full, often at half hour frequencies.

One route doesnt make a theory. For example, how many intra european routes are flown with wide bodies these days? What age are these widebodies? Even the longest intra - european routes (LHR-ATH) are increasingly flown by single aisle equipment.

Of the successful operators, probably only LH and BA operate widebodies intra-europe, and these airlines are operating aircraft approaching the end of their inservice life. They will be replaced with 321 aircraft. The same is happening in the US. Routes that were operated by 767's are increasingly flown with single aisle equipment, such as the 737 / 757, in future the only exception will be intercontinental add-ons or flights between intercontinental services (DL at ATL)



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineMD80Nut From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 955 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 9809 times:

I agree with those who say one principal reason for the 764's lack of success was it's timing. I believe had it come out years earlier, before the A332 and 777, it would have sold better.

However, I don't think it was a waste of money. Since it was a development of an existing family, it's development costs were not as high as those for a brand new model. Also, it proved the raked wingtip concept we see used in the 773ER and 772LR today.

Cheers, Ralph



Fly Douglas Jets DC-8 / DC-9 / DC-10 / MD80 / MD11 / MD90 / 717
25 Avalon : I stated that the Australian situation should be included as one of the exceptions you listed (the other being Japan) - no theory is being asserted.
26 PBIflyguy : Seems to me we are defining success strictly by the number of deliveries. As has been made clear, the 764 was built to replace the aging L-1011's and
27 N79969 : I think MD80nut hit it on the head here. As it was a stretch of an existing airplane, Boeing really did not have to invest enormous resources to devel
28 Gigneil : Honestly, I think the 767-400 would have been the right choice for Qantas. The plane has a heritage of short-haul high frequency operations, would hav
29 Srbmod : In a way, perhaps Boeing waiting a little to late to develop this version. By the early 1990s, many airlines were beginning to retire or were looking
30 Dutchjet : Good point - Boeing also went back and forth between offering a 777-100 variant and the 767-400 variant to cover this mission. CO and DL determined t
31 Sfoerik : The 764's were developed for DL and CO to replace their L-1011's and DC-10's. It accomplished exactly that. It is a very comfortable plane, quiet , an
32 September11 : 767-400 is like an enlarged 757-300 to me... Funny is that 764 is popular but only DL and CO fly them.
33 Yyz717 : The 764 was the right aircraft at the wrong time. It should have been launched in say 1992 when most 763 carriers were still adding 767's. The 764 wou
34 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : Hmm, in the recurring mantra of "built for DL and CO" many of you seem to have forgotten (or at least, not mentioned) that Boeing actually built the p
35 Ikramerica : you beat me to it. it also demonstrated the 777 interior features (carried to other 76x models), flight deck, etc. and added a second loading door fo
36 BigB : Actually, it was AA that was in the driver seat for the design of the 764. CO/DL were back seat riders.
37 Post contains images LY4XELD : When I interned at Boeing in 2001, the engineer next to me said something along the lines of "That airplane was the dumbest airplane we ever built. No
38 Ikramerica : Maybe he wanted his ideas used instead? Or he would have rather worked on something else, or he didn't get to work on that one, or blah blah blah. Why
39 777STL : Leave it to an engineer to say something like that. From a business standpoint the 764 was genius because it was worth any loss Boeing took on it pur
40 Post contains images Dan2002 : -Dan
41 Pope : But one has an International BizE section and the other just has a smaller than usual domestic first class product. A passenger comparison is just no
42 ConcordeBoy : ...curious: whom here said anything about interchangeability, or a like comparison vis-a-vis 772ER operations?????
43 WhiteHatter : If you mean the Kenya Airways order which later became a deal for the 772ER, then yes and no. Kenya wanted the higher gross weight and longer range d
44 Ikramerica : Get off it. You can't try to compare apples to oranges and then claim you didn't specifically do so. And I think asking if we ever compared them does
45 N1120A : The 772 has much more capacity in a similar configuration to the 764, as well as range (if you are talking about the ER model). It is also much heavi
46 Post contains images Socal : The Boeing 767-400's are not a waste of time/money. This aircraft has its purpose in the domestic routes, yeah it only has 2 operators but these aircr
47 Malaysia : The Boeing 767-400 is the greatest jetliner ever made second to the L-1011, hence it being the DL replacement. I flew on them probably 30+ from LAX-HN
48 SpinalTap : The only way Boeing conceivably didn't screw up is if they stopped Delta (and Continental - unlikely with their CEO at the time) from ordering A330s.
49 LACA773 : Why didn't AA or UA take any 764s? It seems like it would have been a good fit for them as well?
50 Gigneil : No, it doesn't. It has different controls and avionics and a wholly different cockpit. It has the same type RATING. What? Its not even remotely a rep
51 ER757 : You think maybe this could be why they are reluctant to enlarge the 787 in order to secure an order from EK?
52 Toxtethogrady : "Boeing did not spend enough money on the 764. The 764 was launched based on orders by DL for 21 (all taken), 26 for CO (down to 16)" This appears to
53 Gigneil : CO could order more 764s if they wanted, and probably have them delivered in just a few months. They declined when Boeing offered. N
54 Toxtethogrady : A pity. They're finally going to make some money, and their summer loads suggest they could get some mileage out of those planes. They're yanking wide
55 VHXLR8 : Yes, I do think that the 764 would be a great replacement for QF's 763s (at least the 767 336s, which are really pretty lame inside). Absolutely!! To
56 Post contains links AirRyan : One thing to keep in mind is that in Continental's 764's for example, you can get 1" more pitch in economy at 32" versus the 772 at 31". Weigh this in
57 N1120A : Which means that it has full flight crew commonality and only the stupidity at DL can change that Well, the 789 is already 764 sized. The issue with
58 Post contains links AirRyan : The KC-767 has the cockpit from the 764 in it, and will be offered that way to the USAF again for the tanker bid. I believe it's sort of a spinoff of
59 Ikramerica : the 788 is 764 sized, the 789 is bigger. At least that's what I determined by looking at Boeing.com. Once I really looked at the numbers, this shocke
60 DeltaWings : The 788 is not as big as the 764, but it is slightly bigger then the 763, yes. I think you can say that the 788 is as big as the A300.
61 N1120A : The 788 may carry 5-10 more seats in a 3 class configuration than the 763, but for all intents and purposes it is a straight across replacement. Same
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...
Loyalty Programs A Waste Of Time? posted Fri Mar 24 2006 16:12:39 by HB88
B772LR Record Flight A Failure/Waste Of Time? posted Mon Nov 14 2005 20:40:45 by Cloudyapple
A380 Tour A Failure/waste Of Time? posted Mon Nov 14 2005 03:25:53 by Squirrel83
Alitalia Runs Out Of Time And Money posted Tue Oct 4 2005 12:19:35 by Beaucaire
717: Waste Of Time posted Wed Feb 13 2002 05:58:18 by Qantas777
General Aviation A Huge Waste Of Money? posted Tue Feb 21 2006 21:47:10 by Checkraiser
Sales Of B767-400 posted Sun Oct 3 2004 16:54:45 by Fluorine
CO Cancelling Part Of B767-400 Order posted Tue Oct 9 2001 00:42:49 by Teahan
Gulf Air Rumours (B767-400 & B777) posted Wed May 23 2001 00:11:47 by Teahan
Poor Sales Of B767-400 posted Thu Jan 4 2001 07:09:42 by KrisworldB777
Loyalty Programs A Waste Of Time? posted Fri Mar 24 2006 16:12:39 by HB88
B772LR Record Flight A Failure/Waste Of Time? posted Mon Nov 14 2005 20:40:45 by Cloudyapple
A380 Tour A Failure/waste Of Time? posted Mon Nov 14 2005 03:25:53 by Squirrel83
Alitalia Runs Out Of Time And Money posted Tue Oct 4 2005 12:19:35 by Beaucaire
717: Waste Of Time posted Wed Feb 13 2002 05:58:18 by Qantas777
New Pics Of DL's B767-400 W/ BE posted Fri Dec 29 2006 17:43:28 by N808DE
Operators Of The B767-400 posted Sat Dec 2 2006 02:31:36 by Continental123
General Aviation A Huge Waste Of Money? posted Tue Feb 21 2006 21:47:10 by Checkraiser
Sales Of B767-400 posted Sun Oct 3 2004 16:54:45 by Fluorine
CO Cancelling Part Of B767-400 Order posted Tue Oct 9 2001 00:42:49 by Teahan