Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Question: Can Boeing Replace 744 With Larger Twin?  
User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days ago) and read 8070 times:

Is it possible or practicle for Boeing to replace the venerable 744 with a super-large twin? With the success of the 777 and the advent of the 787 with the new technology, can a twin be made large enough to hold 450 pax?

Could the GE 90-115 engines be uprated to support such an aircraft or would an entirely new engine have to de developed?


One Nation Under God
61 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21477 posts, RR: 60
Reply 1, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days ago) and read 8044 times:

The GE90x, using the lighter composite developed for the GEnx, could produce the same power with less weight. So that's 115k, which would be the min thrust needed to lift such a plane if the the other engine fails.

The fuselage, using 787 technology, could be 773+ size with the same weight.

But the length of any such plane would be the limiting factor. Right now the 773 is almost the length of the 346, longer than both the 744 and 380. The 744Adv would be about that length, too.

So is there some rule at airports that says the 346 is as long as it gets?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineAa777flyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days ago) and read 8044 times:

Wow, that would be a pretty big twin. I am sure it can be done.

User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 7989 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
So is there some rule at airports that says the 346 is as long as it gets?

The 346 is actually a few meters shy of the limit. Aircraft must fit into an 80m x 80m box.

A twin to replace the 744 would need to be wider (to accomodate 3-4-3 but 3-5-3 would be better) and longer than the 773.

The GE90 could be uprated to 127,000 pounds probably. But the question is, is that enough? No. The 747Adv will have as much as 264,000 pounds of thrust and its a quad with a better engine out profile. A twin would need much, much more power than that.

At this time, it cannot be done, at least not to provide the same range/payload capability.

N


User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10657 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 7960 times:

Thinking into the future, I sadly must admit, it can be done. And the projected joint successor of 777-300 and 747 might be a gigantic twin in Boeings planning, though I hope a quad concept will still have a chance.
Thats why I hope the 747 Adv. will become reality.
I hate to think of an aviation world full of aircraft who are all underwing-twinjets, the most common and therefore already now most boring configuaration.


User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 7885 times:

I feel your pain, but with twins being far more economical to operate, I too fear that the twin is the inevitable successor someday. Perhaps not too soon, but Boeing seems to be going in that direction.


One Nation Under God
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 7844 times:

If the objective is to replace the B777-300 and B747 with a twin (assuming that a B787-10 replaces the B777-200ER), then we might start with a planned family with fuselage lengths of 60, 70, and 80 meters. A B777 width cabin would not suffice. A circular 270 inch fuselage would accomodate a generous 3-4-3 seating or 3-5-3 at slightly better than B747 comfort levels. The overhead space could accomodate crew rest, passenger bunks, lavs, and galleys -- freeing up main deck space for passenger seating.

As for engines, Boeing would build the 60 meter version first. It would probably weigh less than the B777-300ER, so the GE-90 could be used. Perhaps the 70 meter version could also use a GE-90 (perhaps at 125K lbs thrust). The 80 meter version might need an all new engine or perhaps the GE-90 would rise to the occasion. PW and RR might want to develop all new engines. Quite a bit of progress has already been made in SFC since the GE-90 and more will be made during the time a new engine would be developed.

It seems very clear to me that a twin seating up to 500 could be developed.


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12910 posts, RR: 100
Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 7812 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DAYflyer (Thread starter):
Could the GE 90-115 engines be uprated to support such an aircraft or would an entirely new engine have to de developed?

The catch starts becoming the strength of the engine thrust wake.
As others have noted, the SFC would drop significantly with new designs. But as any graduate of basic propulsion theory knows, the trade off is a larger fan diameter.

What the limit on size comes down to is "will enough runways be widened for the A380 to make a large twin practical." The large engines could be built. They're just going to be pretty far out on the wing to give them the ground clearance they require.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 6):
PW and RR might want to develop all new engines.

All three manufacturers would want to develop new engines. At 125k+ of thrust, these new engines would logically be geared turbo fans. Ok, I'm biased!  bigthumbsup 

Also, I'm betting that the 80m*80m "box" will be expanded in the next decade. I have no proof, just a hunch.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineWukka From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1017 posts, RR: 16
Reply 8, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7767 times:

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 7):
They're just going to be pretty far out on the wing to give them the ground clearance they require.

That was my thought, as well. And the further out they are, the more that asymmetry is noticed, both structurally, and in handling (based on physics and rotation around a vertical axis) in the event of an engine-out. Perhaps some huge tail-mounts... or overhead wings?  biggrin 

Overhead wings might be kinda' cool... then you could look out the window at the huge barn-sized powerplant pushing you through the air.



We can agree to disagree.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39721 posts, RR: 75
Reply 9, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7688 times:

Can Boeing Replace 744 With Larger Twin?

Gosh I hope not!



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 10, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7640 times:

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 7):
What the limit on size comes down to is "will enough runways be widened for the A380 to make a large twin practical." The large engines could be built. They're just going to be pretty far out on the wing to give them the ground clearance they require.

Huh? We're talking about a twin. There is no way that the engines would be as far out as the outboard engines on a B747 -- or even an A340.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 7):
I'm betting that the 80m*80m "box" will be expanded in the next decade. I have no proof, just a hunch.

I would be surprised. Enlarging the 80m*80m box would be extremely expensive and entirely unneeded. No one is even building an 80 meter long airliner yet. The only airliner with an 80 meter wingspan is the WhaleJet. Even the B747Adv would not have an 80 meter wingspan.


User currently offlineEatmybologna From France, joined Apr 2005, 412 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7613 times:

Why not compromise and go with a tri-engine?


Isn't knowledge more than just the acquisition of information? Shouldn't the acquired information be correct?
User currently offlineTjwgrr From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2425 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7553 times:

Wow!

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/photos/big/00000911.jpg



Direct KNOBS, maintain 2700' until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26 left approach.
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2815 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7527 times:

What is that? It's insanely long!

User currently offlineBlue_Angel From France, joined Jun 1999, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7488 times:

Quoting Eatmybologna (Reply 11):

I had the same idea than you  Wink


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21477 posts, RR: 60
Reply 15, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7485 times:

Quoting Eatmybologna (Reply 11):
Why not compromise and go with a tri-engine?

maintaining that tail engine and the weight is an issue.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 6):
A circular 270 inch fuselage would accomodate a generous 3-4-3 seating or 3-5-3 at slightly better than B747 comfort levels.

Heck, at that size, the real luxury would be 2-3-3-2 econ seating (18" wide), 2-2-2-2 business seating (22"), and 1-2-2-1 first suites. Now that would be a luxurious layout.

A frugal airline would do a two class 3-3-3-3, 2-2-2-2. (17"/22") and still provide 747 or better comfort. Or for an airline like VS, the angled upper class suite would be 1-2-2-1.

Also, would the "bubble top" idea need to be dead? Not the same extreme we see it now on the 747, or the full deck of the A380, but just two feet taller in front to be able to put the cockpit above the main cabin with pilot rest/crew rest in the crown space, tapering toward the back, still providing the options Boeing is showing for the 747Adv. Pushing First pax seats forward into the nose like on the 747 really helps with the 80x80 length problem. And it would make this jet a more viable all cargo version, with a swing up/open nose.

There would also be a great economic advantage to developing the GE90x engine, as Boeing would be able to apply it to the 772LR/773ER jets as well. Then the GENx engines would power the midsize planes (and any 747Adv), the GE90x would power the large planes. A GENx variation from the 783 could also be used on the larger two 737/757/762 replacement models, with a next gen CFM for the smaller two 737 replacements. Of course, this also would hold true for RR engines, including if they want to enter the 115k+ market.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineWukka From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1017 posts, RR: 16
Reply 16, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7440 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 10):
Huh? We're talking about a twin. There is no way that the engines would be as far out as the outboard engines on a B747 -- or even an A340.

Right, Zvezda, we're talking about a twin. The 74x and the 34x are quads. It's the overall fan diameter to provide an equal amount of thrust for one engine on one side vs. two distributed engines on one side that makes this an issue. The placement of the center of thrust would certainly bring the larger single engine on a twin closer to the fuse than the furthest outboard of a quad based on equal displacement... but, the diameter of the engine required on the twin becomes an issue with ground clearance. Extended height gear might be an option to keep the cowling from digging into the concrete on an underwing design, but then it becomes a design / torque / structural issue for the gear around the horizontal axis on rotation and landing.



We can agree to disagree.
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 17, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 7349 times:

Quoting Eatmybologna (Reply 11):
Why not compromise and go with a tri-engine?

Quads are of superior design than trijets. The tail and rear fuselage construction of a tri is so heavy and complex that you ruin any advantages.


I maintain that even a 130,000 pound GE-90 is insufficient to power an aircraft with the range and payload capability of a 747-400.

N


User currently offlineFlyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, RR: 56
Reply 18, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 7343 times:

Although I am no rocket scientist, I think it would be hard to make an aircraft like the B744 with 2 engines that produced 113500 lb of thrust each. Unless you have some kind of new technology to invent big-ass engines that were really powerful.

Quoting Glom (Reply 13):
What is that? It's insanely long!

It's called photoshopping  Wink



Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 19, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 7344 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 6):
A circular 270 inch fuselage would accomodate a generous 3-4-3 seating or 3-5-3 at slightly better than B747 comfort levels.



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 15):

Heck, at that size, the real luxury would be 2-3-3-2 econ seating (18" wide), 2-2-2-2 business seating (22"), and 1-2-2-1 first suites. Now that would be a luxurious layout.

The WhaleJet has a 281 inch fuselage width. Because of the inefficiencies of metal in an ovoid fuselage, the interior width would be much nearer. Airbus have not proposed any three aisle seating arrangements and I don't believe they have enough width to do so sensibly. Another 20 or so inches would be required. At 270 inches (exterior diameter), one could fit 3-4-3 or 3-5-3 in Economy, 2-2/2-2 in Business and 1-2-1 First suites in a herringbone arrangement. Aisles would need to be 24 to 30 inches to have reasonable embarcation/debarcation times.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 15):
Also, would the "bubble top" idea need to be dead? Not the same extreme we see it now on the 747, or the full deck of the A380, but just two feet taller in front to be able to put the cockpit above the main cabin with pilot rest/crew rest in the crown space, tapering toward the back, still providing the options Boeing is showing for the 747Adv. Pushing First pax seats forward into the nose like on the 747 really helps with the 80x80 length problem. And it would make this jet a more viable all cargo version, with a swing up/open nose.

Good points. Keep in mind that the height of a B747 from the low point of the fuselage to the top of the hump is 309 inches. The change to a composite fuselage could reduce that to about 300 inches with the same interior space.

Quoting Wukka (Reply 16):
It's the overall fan diameter to provide an equal amount of thrust for one engine on one side vs. two distributed engines on one side that makes this an issue.

The question was about airports being able to accomodate the aircraft. There is no way that one would "solve" the ground clearance problem by putting the engines farther out than the outboard engines of existing quads because that would cause other problems including 1) the thrust would be too far from the centerline for single-engine takeoffs and 2) the wings would need to be much stronger and hence heavier. Longer landing gear is the obvious solution to the ground clearance issue.


User currently offlineWukka From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1017 posts, RR: 16
Reply 20, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7239 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 19):
There is no way that one would "solve" the ground clearance problem by putting the engines farther out than the outboard engines of existing quads because that would cause other problems including 1) the thrust would be too far from the centerline for single-engine takeoffs and 2) the wings would need to be much stronger and hence heavier.

Not necessarily. Current wing design has +horizontal from the wing root on out from the center, giving them somewhat of a "V" shape. This, over the length of the wing, can give a few more feet of clearance for engine mounting. One also has to account for downward flex based on the weight of the engine, of course.

I don't think that anyone suggested going further off of the midline than the furthest out of the existing quads. If I missed that suggestion, I apologise!



We can agree to disagree.
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7157 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 17):
I maintain that even a 130,000 pound GE-90 is insufficient to power an aircraft with the range and payload capability of a 747-400.

I agree and any twin replacent of that scale is going to have to be wider, not longer. With the 80 meter box, the only way is to increase the cabin width by about 20"-24.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 22, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7156 times:

Quoting Wukka (Reply 20):

I don't think that anyone suggested going further off of the midline than the furthest out of the existing quads. If I missed that suggestion, I apologise!



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 7):

What the limit on size comes down to is "will enough runways be widened for the A380 to make a large twin practical." The large engines could be built. They're just going to be pretty far out on the wing to give them the ground clearance they require.

The only reason runways might need to be widened would be to prevent ingestion of material. There must be concrete or asphalt under the engines which is why a lot of taxiways have been widened to accomodate the WhaleJet.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 23, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7126 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 17):
I maintain that even a 130,000 pound GE-90 is insufficient to power an aircraft with the range and payload capability of a 747-400.

Not everyone needs 8000nm range. Might Boeing not choose to offers models with different wings as they have with the B787-3 and B787-8/9? The short range versions could, I believe, be powered by 120K or 125K lbs thrust engines. The long range versions would need 135K to 145K lbs thrust and I don't think the GE-90 can be certified to 145K lbs.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21477 posts, RR: 60
Reply 24, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 7064 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 19):
The WhaleJet has a 281 inch fuselage width. Because of the inefficiencies of metal in an ovoid fuselage, the interior width would be much nearer. ... Another 20 or so inches would be required. At 270 inches (exterior diameter), one could fit 3-4-3 or 3-5-3 in Economy, 2-2/2-2 in Business and 1-2-1 First suites in a herringbone arrangement. Aisles would need to be 24 to 30 inches to have reasonable embarcation/debarcation times.

A. I thought he was talking an interior of 270 inches. The A380 has a main cabin interior of 259 in.

B. No it wouldn't need 20 more inches. 270 would be more than enough to fit 2-3-3-2 at 18" seats with 24" aisles, or 17" with 21" aisles in a cattle car configuration. It's more desirable than 3-4-3 or 3-5-3, and holds the same or more people per row.

C. 30" is pretty damn wide for an economy aisle. 24" is fine, and 21" is still workable. With three aisles, the luxury economy seating loads 3.333 seats per row per aisle, and even in the dense economy seating, each aisle only loads 4 seats per row. This would really speed up embarkation, not slow it down, as it would make it among the best ratio jets in the sky. Compare with an ERJ (3 seats per row per aisle), 767 (3.5 seats per row per aisle), CRJ/E170/787/A300/310/330/340/350/380(upper) (4 seats per row per aisle), DC10/MD11/L1011/777 (4.5 seats per row per aisle), MD-80/Fokker/747(main)/A380(main) (5 seats per row per aisle), 707/727/737/757/A320/747(upper) (6 seats per row per aisle).

All you'd need would be a wider door 2 to ease boarding, but a standard door 1 would suffice. Also at this width, the fuselage would likely be ovoid in the wide direction versus the tall, or some sort of "double bubble" design, but not stacked. I know this multiple tube design has been explored at Boeing and other places, even in a flying wing design.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
25 Zvezda : A cabin width of 270 inches could just accomodate a three aisle configuration, however, that would require a fuselage diameter of at least 280 inches
26 Wukka : I don't think that you're getting what we're saying. Modern wings tend to taper up (higher off the ground) the further away from the fuselage of the
27 Zvezda : Of course I get that. Lightsaber was talking about widening runways because the engines would have to be farther out. That's absurd. As I pointed out
28 DAYflyer : I think it is entirely feasable to do this. I think if you upgrade the GE 90 series to 145K of thrust it could be done. Then of course the landing gea
29 Zoom1018 : I would also like to have a new 3 holers... a really big trijet would be great!
30 Post contains links and images Kalakaua : To answer your thread topic question... Why not keep both? Haha. Modified Airliner Photos:Design © Fu Ling YuTemplate © Curtis Hedlund Or... Somethi
31 Post contains images United Airline : I don't think so. That will be way too long. For super large aircraft like 400+ seats ones you need 4 engines. But I wonder if Boeing can build a B 74
32 FlyAUA : I really hope this never happens. At least I would never set foot on it!
33 Zvezda : The reduction of structural weight by using composites facilitates going from four engines to two. Slapping two enormous engines on a B747-400 wouldn
34 DAYflyer : I agree, but I do think a 744 replacement is possible in a twin when composite technology is applied.
35 United Airline : When it comes to B 747 replacement we will probably see the B 747-600/700, or an A 380 size aircraft. The BWB is possible too (eventually they will ge
36 HiFi : Tri-holers are not really viable these days... besides the already mentioned maintenance and structural reinforcement problems, a truly efficient air
37 Ikramerica : And then during the evacuation certification failures, they might change their mind... Anyway, a 270" fuselage would allow for 3-3-3-3 tourist seatin
38 Gigneil : I don't think that a third aisle would get certified. It poses some exit problems. How do you escape from the middle aisle. N
39 Starlionblue : With a total thrust of 264k for a four holer (747Adv) you would need each engine on your proposed equivalent twin to be rated at 198k. That's quite a
40 Ikramerica : same way you "escape" from ANY aisle? at the cross overs/doorways. just like any other plane, there is a minimum distance to an emergency exit for any
41 Zvezda : 12 seats at 18 inches each is 216 inches plus 3 aisles at 20 inches each comes to a cabin width of 276 inches. There is no way to fit a 276 inch wide
42 DAYflyer : At 280+ inches, it gives new meaning to the term widebody!
43 Widebodyphotog : Boeing has done several project studies with three isle configurations, on both single deck and double deck aircraft. Most recently on a proposed 747
44 Gigneil : The A380 is 281 inches wide. N
45 Post contains links and images Widebodyphotog : Some details: Cabin width trim-to-trim: 324 inches Circular Fuselage diameter: 342 inches Lower cargo hold height: 98 inches Length overall: 248 feet
46 Zvezda : Widebodyphotog, Thanks for providing the details on the example above. I infer from the 342 inch circular cross section (three stairways is also a goo
47 Post contains links and images DfwRevolution : >> Thanks for providing the details on the example above. I infer from the 342 inch circular cross section (three stairways is also a good clue) that
48 United Airline : The BWB will be double deck I guess? Wonder if they will resurrect the B 747-600/700 concept. The 700 is similar to the design of the A 380.
49 United Airline : So there is a chance that it will be double. I hope they will keep it double deck. So will the new aircraft be bigger than the B 747? If yes I suppos
50 Zvezda : Any double decker will be significantly larger than and not a replacement for the B747.
51 DfwRevolution : >> Wonder if they will resurrect the B 747-600/700 concept. The 700 is similar to the design of the A 380. Chance of that is virtually zilch... the c
52 United Airline : I suppose Boeing will build an all new superjumbo/jumbo eventually to replace the B 747 and the replacement will be bigger than the B 747. Doubt repla
53 Post contains images Ikramerica : you are trying so hard to be right, you aren't reading what I wrote. You talked of packing people in, but you give them 18" seats? Come now, that's l
54 Zvezda : The term everyone uses for that concept is "cabin width" not "fuselage diameter". "Fuselage diameter" is an exterior measure.
55 Widebodyphotog : This is not correct... A three seat unit with 18 inch seats is 62 inches wide. Four of them across a cabin plus three 20 inch isles is 308 inches acr
56 United Airline : Eventually when the demand is there, I am sure Boeing will build an A 380 size aircraft.
57 Gigneil : That doesn't matter. A twin needs MORE thrust than a quad, by a relatively significant margin. 160k lbf/engine is simply not anywhere near enough. Th
58 Widebodyphotog : This is not necessarily the case... It's not quite that cut and dry. Engine out performance is not just a matter of power to weight ratio. Wing loadi
59 Post contains images Zvezda : Thank you for again correcting me on this. It's the second time I forgot. Perhaps I shouldn't post right after 10 hour time changes. Actually, for a
60 Widebodyphotog : For a given weight yes, but thickness certainly not. As I said before fuselage skin thickness is much greater for CFRP contruction than Al. 787 nomin
61 Post contains links and images Widebodyphotog : 747ADV may incorporate extensive crown space area use to include galley cart storage and crew rests. Here are some images from overhead galley studie
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...
Can Boeing Preempt A350RN With B777 Announcement? posted Fri Jun 2 2006 21:41:02 by Baron95
Why China Airlines 744 With Boeing Colors? posted Wed Sep 6 2006 19:38:14 by RedFlyer
Can Boeing Ever Replace The 757? posted Mon Aug 28 2006 23:10:24 by KSUpilot
Will KLM Replace Their 744 With 747-8? posted Sun Feb 19 2006 19:28:08 by Checo77
QantasLink To Replace BAe146s With Boeing 717s posted Fri Oct 29 2004 08:57:21 by QantasffCL
Qantas Boeing 744 With 6 Engines? posted Sat May 22 2004 14:53:31 by FJWH
Can Someone Help Me With This LAX Question? posted Wed Oct 2 2002 21:50:19 by Ups763
Why Did AF Replace A340 With 744 In Atl? posted Fri Jun 29 2001 19:38:37 by Delta777-XXX
Can Someone Help Me With My Travel Plan? posted Tue Nov 21 2006 09:07:52 by Palladium
FI: A380 Crisis: Can Boeing Exploit A380 Delays? posted Mon Oct 9 2006 18:31:12 by Leelaw