Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Bill Seeks Anti-missile Technology On A380  
User currently offlineVirgin744 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 919 posts, RR: 4
Posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 9696 times:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor.../uscongressattacksair_050615211515

Its not something new to airlines (I think El Al has this sort of technology) but to pass a bill that makes it a requirement seems to me that maybe a few politicians want to make life hard for Airbus? I wonder what the threshold is for planes to install the system in terms of passengers - 600? 700?

If this is something that will be implemented, then it wouldnt suprise me if manufacturers design planes to hold lower numbers of passengers in the future.


virgin744

103 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBigB From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 596 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 9658 times:

It is only gonna be a Device that is installed and the bottom of the fuselarge at the Tail end of the Aircraft. Its supose to release come kind of Freq or signal to mess a missle heat sensors/systems up that is coming after the aircraft. Hard to explain, but I seen reports in the past about this because of the threat of heat seeking missles being launch from the ground at departing and arriving traffic at the airports.


ETSN Baber, USN
User currently offlineMonteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 29
Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 9648 times:

That is absolutely ridiculous! I thought I'd heard it all until I read that article.


It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
User currently offlineSq212 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 272 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 9613 times:

Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 2):

I wonder what airlines would say if to include B747s?

Cheers


User currently offlineVirgin744 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 919 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 9576 times:

Raytheon has just introduced a new system using beams and microwaves that would be installed at airports to counter any such threat in the vicinity of an airport. They are currently in Paris showing it off, but this system if introduced would additionally require the A380 to have anti-missile technology in the plane as well


virgin744


User currently offlineGemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5606 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 9518 times:

Ha Ha Ha

Is he talking about a certification requirement? Well that wont worry any pax operator, (cargo aircraft presumabley will not be such a tempting target), no US based pax airline has ordered it!

If he is talking about requiring it for aircraft of any nationality needing it to fly to the US, well I wonder how he will react when all EU countries require all Boeing aircraft to be preceeded by a man carring a red flag as they cross into EU airspace!!!  Smile

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 9469 times:

Seriously - who voted for this John Mica idiot ? Why doesn't he just up and say "I hate France, I hate Airbus, I want to make life hell for both !" - it would be slightly MORE subtle than this lame-ass bill.

User currently offlineToulouse From Switzerland, joined Apr 2005, 2757 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 9433 times:

What a LOAD OF BLOODY IDIOTIC RUBBISH...


Long live Aer Lingus!
User currently offlineZeekiel From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 9347 times:

This guy must have some serious issues.

On an A380. Why not a 767 or 757? Why not a 346 or a 310? Or a 747ADV?

The comment "irresistable terrorist target" just reeks of ignorance and lack of knowledge. There is no statistical evidence and no proof the above statement is true.

It is true that the A380 is a symbol of civil aviation progress and technological supremacy (don't let this turn into a Airbus vs Boeing thread. Please!).

But, it is an aeroplane just like thousands that are also flying.

For surface to air missiles in the United States. That should be a federal government problem to try and keep them out. Stop the problem at the root and not at the tip.

Cheers

Zeekiel


User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 9, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 9299 times:

Quoting Virgin744 (Thread starter):
I wonder what the threshold is for planes to install the system in terms of passengers - 600? 700

See the average for the 747Adv and you will have your answer i suspect.



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 9293 times:

Once more again some idiotic nationalistic politicans show pure jealousy and try to hit the product of one of the EU's most important exporters. Why don't they also include B747s in the bill? Where's the line? 400 people? 500 people? Terrorists don't need an A380 to cause a disaster. They should either include all kinds of commercial jets in the bill or forget that brain fart idea...  talktothehand 


Regards
Udo


User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 11, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 9288 times:

Sad thing is he's wrong anyway - a MANPAD would have less of an effect on an A380 than say, a 757. More target, more redundencies etc - you couldnt bring down an A300 with one - what chance have you got with a plane twice the size?


What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineVirgin744 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 919 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 9243 times:

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 9):
See the average for the 747Adv and you will have your answer i suspect.



That's what I was thinking too. Can you imagine it if a reporter were to ask John Mica what he expects the threshold to be before a plane is required to have it installed?
"Ahhem, whatever the max pax load of a 747adv is"  Wink


virgin744


User currently offlineCol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2093 posts, RR: 22
Reply 13, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 9094 times:

Welcome to American Politics. The Crazies are in town again. At 9-11 they were American Airlines, flying 757/767's killing all those poor people. Someone needs to explain this to our lacking in knowledge friend.

User currently offlineTornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 8962 times:

"'When you launch a new aircraft that can carry the population of a small village it must require -- at a minimum -- a missile defense system as standard operating equipment,' states the text of the bill, presented by Republican lawmaker from Florida, John Mica who heads the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. <-- from the article in the link.

Hmm... a Republican from Florida... just like Governor Jeb Bush. Just stating a point, not starting any political BS. Read into it as you will.

(EDIT to add quotation marks for the quote)

[Edited 2005-06-16 15:08:14]

User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3507 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 8938 times:

This is absolutely ridiculous. Yet another way of "fair competition".

User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16990 posts, RR: 67
Reply 16, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 8847 times:

Quoting Zeekiel (Reply 8):
For surface to air missiles in the United States. That should be a federal government problem to try and keep them out. Stop the problem at the root and not at the tip.

There should indeed, but it's sorta hard to implement. If nothing else, a couple of whizkids could probably build one in their garage. If you're not trying to shoot down an F-16, it's not exactly rocket science. Heatseekers are at least 60 years old after all.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineMonteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 29
Reply 17, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 8759 times:

This guy is either putting a value on the lives of people who aren't travelling on A380's or he is pulling this idiotic tripe as a way of obstructing it! Anyway you look at this is stupid, and I am really beyond this kind of political garbage!


It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
User currently offlineThucydides From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 95 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 8713 times:

Quoting Udo (Reply 10):
Once more again some idiotic nationalistic politicans show pure jealousy and try to hit the product of one of the EU's most important exporters



Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 6):
Seriously - who voted for this John Mica idiot ?

Did you guys vote for those "idiots" (or maybe I should use "weasels"  Wink) Chirac and Schroeder and all of the loonies in the French National Assembly and the Bundestag? Maybe you did and maybe you didn't, and maybe I voted for Mica and for Bush, but do you really need to put such childish remarks into this discussion?

As for the bill, it has been introduced, that is all. However, Mica is the subcommittee Chairman with jurisdiction over aviation in the United States. He has been an aggressive proponent of defensive systems, so this is nothing new. He, like any other politician, is using the current "excitement" and "newness" of the A-380 to attract attention to an issue he believes is important.

If you had read a bit more than a wire story press release (and this community is notorious for nit picking every little journalistic factual error in press releases), then you would have learned that the proposed legislation would require the use of MANPADS two years after the FAA has certified the systems airworthy and safe and that Mica is proposing that as this will undoubtedly be the largest commercial airplane, that the roll out of these systems (if ever approved) should start with the largest airplanes. Yeah, maybe he is also getting a bit of a dig in at Airbus, but I would not be so quick to judge his underlying motives and belief in the importance of protecting commercial aviation from these threats.

Also, I am sure that if this bill were to proceed, Airbus's lobbyists will be all over it to ensure that large Boeing aircraft are covered as well, and for that matter, all interested parties (manufacturers, customers, contractors, etc) would be lobbying to have someone else pay for it.

Quoting Zeekiel (Reply 8):
For surface to air missiles in the United States. That should be a federal government problem to try and keep them out. Stop the problem at the root and not at the tip.

As for this comment, Mica sponsored legislation that passed the House last year that if enacted would among other things seek to reduce the number of weapons that are out there. So I would say that he is taking a pretty broad approach to the issue. Again, rather than just responding to a wire story off of yahoo, why don't you guys look into it a bit more.


User currently offlineTrident2e From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 8690 times:

This won't happen because if it did the EU would require Boeing to do the same on the 787. Americans are running scared at the success of the A380 and are doing what they do best - blustering.

User currently offlineKennyK From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 482 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 8692 times:

Well no US airline is going to buy the A380 anyway and no American in their right mind is going to fly on an inferior European aircraft flown by none US airlines so what's the problem?

If anything such a system should go on the 777 and 787 and perhaps 747Adv that are going to US airlines, they're far more likely to be threatened.

Or, being naive, is this another dig at Airbus, no, I must be mistaken  eyebrow 


User currently offlineMd80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 8635 times:

It is all total crapola. If this so-called "system" was that effective then it would already be aboard ALL fighter aircraft. For goodness sakes, one normally has to pull mega-G's to avoid contact with modern tracking missiles.

It's simple, a lumbering airliner can NEVER avoid even a low-tech tracking system. Electronic countermeasures may be able to "scramble" the brains of an incoming missile if it is far enough away, but within a nm or two that huge object belching heat will be hit, without question.

Can we say "waste of money"?


User currently offlineLonghaulheavy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 402 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 8592 times:

Every government tries to get digs at the other. It's called a non-tariff barrier, and the hopes are to make another nation's goods more expensive or to exclude them altogether.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the spat 5 or 6 years ago when the EU Commission promulgated guidelines limiting the bypass ratio of new engines, greatly favoring the ratios on European engines, even though such ratios didn't directly correlate to noise or environmental standards.

Whine, whine. The EU does it too.

[Edited 2005-06-16 16:19:35]

User currently offlineThucydides From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 95 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 8550 times:

Quoting Longhaulheavy (Reply 22):
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the spat 5 or 6 years ago when the EU Commission promulgated guidelines limiting the bypass ratio of new engines, greatly favoring the ratios on European engines, even though such ratios didn't directly correlate to noise or environmental standards.

I thought about it, but was trying to pull the discussion back to a rational discussion on missile threats...it is a very good point though and one of the NTB's that preceeded the ongoing dispute over subsidies.


User currently offlineAMSSpotter From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 271 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 8537 times:

For some "totally unknown" reason, certain people have somehow determined that the Boeing 747 (and it is a beautiful aircraft) has set "the maximum" in many ways. Whether it's about it's dimensions, the amount of people it can carry, it's MTOW or the amount of time it requires to (de)board the aircraft: 747 = MAXIMUM in many, many ways.
Everything that exceeds the magic "maximum" just causes too many problems. That's why anti-missile technology only needs to be implemented on the A380 and not on any other aircraft.
Ridiculous but, in this case, probably just CORRUPT.


25 JGPH1A : The issue is only "important" because it generates fear in the minds of US voters - fear that the Republicans just love to pander to. If missiles are
26 Boeing7E7 : Running scared? That's freakin' hillarious. Let me know when "technical integration problems delaying delivery" equate to success. Far as I can tell,
27 NorCal : It is so ridiculous it probably won't pass.....I hope....I'm not sure if this is an anti-Airbus thing or just another attempt to scare the crap out o
28 Post contains images Udo : If you talk to me, then the answer is "no". If an American politician points his finger at possible threats for the A380 while totally ignoring the s
29 Pope : Before everyone says this is ridiculous let me pose the following question: If European regulators can ban certain aircraft from their skies for noise
30 Thucydides : If you had bothered to look into it a bit more than just responding to the silly wire story and if you had more than a simplistic view of politicians
31 Danny : This is an effort to give Boeing competitive advantage. Nothing more. I hope this never happens in the country claiming to have free economy.
32 Post contains links Thucydides : I don't think that you can accuse the Republicans of pandering to fear any more than you can accuse any other politician around the world of panderin
33 Greyhound : I think I share your opinion Udo, even if not exactly. How expensive would it be to install this system on each aircraft? As long as the price isin't
34 JGPH1A : It's not the price that's the issue, it's the principle - this is a total surrender. Next it'll be fighter escorts, or duct-taping each passenger to
35 Thucydides : Not sure about your logic hear Danny on how this would give Boeing a competitive advantage...if we get to a point to where these systems can be deplo
36 Danny : It is pretty obvious. If only A380 would be required to have very costly anti-missile system that 747 would suddenly become more cost effective.
37 Thucydides : Talk about irrational fears, you have quite an active imagination here tying a simple proposal to make commercial aviation more secure by using and p
38 Post contains images Md80fanatic : Ummm, can we leave the better aircraft out of this?
39 JGPH1A : Listen to yourself. "Mitigate a missile attack". Why not technology to mitigate a meteor/space junk strike, or an alien invasion ? They're just as li
40 Greyhound : Let me run for cover real quick before the government comes and gets me. I don't see any problem in installing anti-missile systems on airplanes (oth
41 RichardPrice : The Stinger (the best shoulder mounted missile system atm) has a maximum ceiling of 12500ft, with a range of 15700ft. Surely, with those sort of limit
42 Thucydides : Again Danny, where is the competitive advantage? The proposed legislation, even if enacted based solely on what we have read in press releases and wir
43 Thucydides : RichardPrice - Good points!
44 Ned Kelly : If these anti missile devices are fitted to the A380 (or any plane for that matter), won't these planes then become the hijackers favorite target? How
45 Post contains images Greyhound : Good point. I didn't think of this one. A good alternative if noone wants something on aircraft. All you have to do is convince Congress now. Good lu
46 Daedaeg : I think before everyone gets overly defensive, one must understand that there is an ongoing debate in congress over anti-missile defense systems on al
47 GoAllegheny : Democrats in the House and Senate have introduced broader legislation -- the Commercial Airline Missile Defense Act -- that would require all turbojec
48 Aither : ... and all this debate during the Paris Air Show... A coincidence no doubt ! Did someone talked about fair competition ?
49 Post contains images SparkingWave : Anti-missile defense systems are a good idea. The Airbus A380 is a good start, but these systems should be required to be deployed on all aircraft, pe
50 Post contains images FlyMeToTheMoon : The politicians are iditios. However, if you read between the lines you realize that in fact Boeing and Raytheon - through their lobby - put Mr. Mica
51 Gearup : It would take some anti-missile system to stop an attack from a US Navy AEGIS cruiser. Those poor folks on that Iranian Airbus had no chance and I do
52 Theredbaron : Just remember..... The U.S. Fear Machine is still pumping 24/7....and its alive and well at the congress...
53 Joni : If these antimissile systems are so effective, when what's the point of building missiles to begin with? I seriously doubt if an antimissile system w
54 RichardPrice : I dont think ANY antimissile system installed on commercial aircraft can ward off an attack from a military aircraft, period. Modern A2A missiles are
55 GQfluffy : LoL. You think you know so much, why don't you come over and try to run for office then try and impliment laws to do this. Don't start a political de
56 Thucydides : Care to back this statement up?
57 RichardPrice : Keeping weapons out of the US would be harder than keeping drugs out of the US and look how that ball of legislation is going. Should bus companies b
58 GQfluffy : Not wanting to get into this...but here goes... Americans (myself included) want our "liberties". So we get them, regardless of consequence. People co
59 Post contains images Udo : Sure, don't like an issue, blame the media... I did not talk about all politicians... So what are his great efforts? Banning spotters from airports?
60 RichardPrice : I agree, its impossible, but what happens when an airliner gets shot down in US airspace and the onboard antimissile system doesnt do a damn bit of d
61 EnviroTO : They are probably going to require all clothing, vehicles, buildings, bridges, etc be made to withstand cluster bombs because there is a whole bunch o
62 Thucydides : Udo - All I was pointing out was that contrary to many of the initial posts, yours included, that claimed that this Congressman was specifically targ
63 Zeekiel : I realise that. I actually looked up his sponsoring of legislation before I posted. My comment was related to the border control, rather than legisla
64 Vivek0072 : How about some armour , stealth and two F-22 accompanying the A380 every time ?
65 Glideslope : Personally, I think installing some type of Anti-Missile System would be wise. Singling out the 380 with legislation would be a mistake. Depending on
66 Zeekiel : I mean the incident at Tenerife between the two 747's was bad enough. But what apart from the public spectacle, would it make it more or a target or
67 Bronko : While I don't agree in singling out the A380 with this bill, who wouldn't rather fly on an aircraft with anti-missle defense systems than one without?
68 Fly2CHC : Surprise, surprise - looks like they are up to the same old tricks again! At around the same time that it became evident the Boeing 2707 supersonic ai
69 Post contains images Davejondi : It doesn't matter how many people are on board, if this system is required on the 380 it should be required on all commercial aircraft. While I've alw
70 WAH64D : Having a ground based anti-missile system at an airport is just not possible. Heat seekers are pretty much "unjammable" these days and any electronic
71 Birdbrainz : I can't believe that anyone (especially those familiar with the US Congress) is taking this seriously. The members of the US Congress are always runni
72 Magyar : >> electrical equipment in the vicinity of the airport. The only semi-viable option would be a point defence system like a radar equipped multi-barrel
73 Kaneporta1 : To start with, here are some questions: Does the guy want the system on all A380s or just American registered ones? If he's talking about all A380s an
74 Wukka : Nothing more than more posturing and fear-mongering by our politicians... yet again. The net result is that guys with sticks and guns will now harrass
75 Tackleberry970 : OK people, let's put our prejudice and wise cracks aside and actually look at the FACTS of this article. FIRST...IT IS A NEWS ARTICLE, written by a jo
76 GothamSpotter : The A380 is a target not because it is a symbol of great technology, but simply because it might be holding almost 600 people. It's only a matter of t
77 Post contains links Thucydides : Thanks for making these points, and sorry, I thought I posted the link to the press release, which is on the House Transportation Committee website -
78 ER757 : Yes you're being cynical and no there is no pattern here. This idea has been floating around the USA since shortly after 9/11. I've seen at least 3 o
79 Kaneporta1 : I can think of a few reasons why some people would want to attack the "American power and economic might" but I'm pretty sure those people have nothi
80 Monteycarlos : Another "issue" which has been over-complicated by pointless debate. Here is the real issue: If it has to be on the A380 it has to be on every other p
81 Jonathan L : Ah yes, another dumb piece of corporatism proprosed in our idiotic GOP-controlled congress. It sounds like a bill made for Raytheon or whoever is maki
82 Post contains links FlyMeToTheMoon : Absolutely would care to back this statement up. Here is the link from the Federal Election Comittee's website. Do a search on the page and see how m
83 FlyMeToTheMoon : Fluffy - to set the record straight I made no assertion - explicit or implicit - that the government should be able to stop weapons from getiing in.
84 JGPH1A : Good for you - it's early days, we'll see how she gets on. I'm not a blind Airbus chauvinist, I'm happy to fly on anything with wings. And I'm not Fr
85 Post contains images GQfluffy : Fly- I do believe I owe you an apology. From the looks of things, I really buggered it up and somehow thought I was quoting you instead of someone els
86 Post contains images GothamSpotter : Indeed, because we know no Democrat politician has EVER proposed a bill or pulled some strings to benefit a corporate donor or wealthy constituent.
87 Pilottj : Hmm, might as well stick those anti missle systems on some 172s...help out Fatherland Security!
88 Virgin744 : To quote John Mica from the FEC site he said "Therefore, starting with extremely large passenger aircraft capable of carrying such a large number of p
89 RichardPrice : If you have a city or town with less than 800 people in it, then you are severly distorting the meaning of those designations. 800 people would barel
90 MidnightMike : It was just a bill proposal, so it may not even get vote. There has been talk in the US Congress to have the anti-missle system on all aircraft opera
91 Post contains images Virgin744 : RichardPrice, I assume you are reffering to John Mica and not me as you those were his comments virgin744
92 Joni : Wasn't the DHL incident in Iraq? Since DHL is a US-based company and the US is occupying Iraq (and uses DHL planes to ferry milirary items) that make
93 Post contains images RichardPrice : Yes, sorry I just quoted your quote because it was at hand!
94 Widebody : It's not OK to shoot an aircraft out of the sky with 800 people, but it is if it has 500 or less?! Rules like this are introduced via Type Certificate
95 Pope : I don't believe that's correct. At least in the US, noise regulations seem to be an airport by airport issue not a national FAA decided matter.
96 NoUFO : Pope, Either way you are comparing apples to oranges. Noise regulations don't single out one aircraft and they actually make sense.
97 Pope : Only to the people supporting them.
98 ER757 : Actually no - DHL is a Dutch company, and it's parent company, Deutsche Post, is German.
99 Thucydides : Hey Moon - I got a little bit of news for you, Members of Congress rarely get bought off with $6,250 contributions from one company and $5,000 from t
100 Thucydides : Um, I think Pope and a couple of others who have mentioned it are referring to EU Council Regulation 925/99, which was the so-called "hush-kits" regu
101 Post contains images Airbuzz : I don't really see nothing strange there... It's just another smart move of the US government for tracking down terrorists or defending from, like: Th
102 DarthRandall : You mean like a big one of those three-hundred dollar machines that are supposed to screw up police speed guns? I would have to see that work to beli
103 Bennett123 : If it is needed, then all airliners should have it. If cost/weight is the issue start with A350/B787 and bigger.
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...
US Senate To Vote Anti-missile Law For A380 posted Sun Aug 7 2005 15:46:48 by Beaucaire
BA May Put Anti-Missile Systems On Planes posted Mon Sep 8 2003 10:19:39 by Keesje
Boeing Begins Installing Anti-Missile On 747s. posted Wed Sep 5 2007 00:46:41 by FXramper
US Carriers - Missing On A380 And Intl Routes? posted Sun Nov 26 2006 02:55:38 by Acabgd
US Lawmaker Wants Limit On A380 Airport Upgrades posted Sat Jun 24 2006 18:47:25 by Manni
US Anti-missile Systems Fly posted Sun Dec 4 2005 01:12:02 by AeroWeanie
Tim Clark On A380 Cracks posted Fri Mar 9 2012 15:53:16 by KAL7478
FAA Bill: Policy For Musical Instruments On-board posted Wed Feb 8 2012 14:12:30 by aircellist
US Airlines To Spend Over $2b On Elites, Perks posted Tue Nov 22 2011 00:36:11 by rising
Emirates To Go Triple Daily On A380 To LHR posted Wed Nov 16 2011 05:12:07 by EK156