Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The A380, Airlines That Can`t Afford Them, Yet.  
User currently offlineManni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 22
Posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 7593 times:

There gotta be a couple airlines out there, that would like to add the A380 to their fleet but just can`t afford them, yet. Pure speculation, offcourse, but why not have a go.


SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
79 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineThorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 7562 times:

United
Northwest
US Airways


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 7540 times:

Quoting Thorben (Reply 1):
US Airways

Huh?

They don't fly 747s so why include them?



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineShenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1712 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 7537 times:

I'll bet there are a lot of people that would like a BMW 7 Series, but can't afford them.

User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25561 posts, RR: 86
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 7508 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 2):
They don't fly 747s so why include them?

I'll bet that if CEO Parker spoke really nicely to Airbus, the new US Airways could have three or four in a trice.

 

cheers

mariner

[Edited 2005-09-21 09:49:11]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlineThorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 7455 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 2):
Huh?

They don't fly 747s so why include them?

Because they have many Airbusses and are a large carrier. Besides, IIRC they are making profit on their international routes and losses on the domestic ones. Therefore they might want to expand their international business.


User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 7350 times:

Quoting Manni (Thread starter):
There gotta be a couple airlines out there, that would like to add the A380 to their fleet but just can`t afford them, yet. Pure speculation, offcourse, but why not have a go.

I would have to say the following,

South African Airlines
Philipine Airlines
Garuda Airlines
Gulf Airlines
Northwest Airlines
United Airlines

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 7242 times:

Quoting Mariner (Reply 4):
I'll bet that if CEO Parker spoke really nicely to Airbus, the new US Airways could have three or four in a trice.



Quoting Thorben (Reply 5):
Because they have many Airbusses and are a large carrier. Besides, IIRC they are making profit on their international routes and losses on the domestic ones. Therefore they might want to expand their international business.

But they don't really have hubs in the large cities that would warrant such large aircraft, nor do they have rights or much enough traffic to the key slot limited airports outside the US. If they did they would have been using 747s already.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 76
Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 7158 times:

British Airways...current are not in a position to buy any new aircraft


We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineThorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 7050 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 7):
But they don't really have hubs in the large cities that would warrant such large aircraft, nor do they have rights or much enough traffic to the key slot limited airports outside the US. If they did they would have been using 747s already.

After the merger with America Wet they'll probably have some hubs. But as far as I remember their current hubs are Philadelphia and Charlotte, I don't think they are ready for an A380. To FRA they might use one, but they don't have the right to land at LHR, so their need is indeed a little limited.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 8):
British Airways...current are not in a position to buy any new aircraft

Why are they not in the postition??

Besides, has anybody said Iberia yet?? They might use them to JFK, MEX or EZE.


User currently offlineBCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 7028 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 8):
British Airways...current are not in a position to buy any new aircraft

If they wanted to, BA could easily raise or find the finance to place a large aircraft order, whether for A380s, 787s, 747Adv etc. The management is, however, more concerned about reducing their current debt so that BA will soon be in a stronger financial shape.



MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2827 posts, RR: 42
Reply 11, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 6972 times:

Quoting Thorben (Reply 1):
United

United has moved away from 747s in favor of 777s. I doubt this will change.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 1):
Northwest

Northwest I could see because of NRT, but they don't have a need for the plane outside of the NRT routes, and they can't use enough A380s for it to be worth the logistical cost.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 1):
US Airways

No transatlantic hubs, no LHR slots. Nope. Maybe A350s here.

While we are speculating, I say that B6 and F9 need this plane. Everyone needs a new Wonderjet!


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11837 posts, RR: 62
Reply 12, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 6945 times:

Quoting Thorben (Reply 1):
United
Northwest
US Airways

I highly doubt that any of those airlines will ever fly the A380 -- and if they do, likely because of an Airbus bribe, they won't for long because the enormous (negative) financial implications from it will either force them to ditch the plane or cause them to go out of business. I address US below -- but as for NW and UA -- where would they possibly fly that A380 and fill it up, profitably, on a consistent, daily, year-round basis? The answer: nowhere.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 5):
Because they have many Airbusses and are a large carrier. Besides, IIRC they are making profit on their international routes and losses on the domestic ones. Therefore they might want to expand their international business.

Thorben -- let's be real, here. You will never see US flying an A380 -- I don't care how much cash Airbus bribes them with. There is absolutely no need or network/market justification for flying that plane anywhere in the entire USAirways system pre- or post-merger. Quite honestly -- the same goes for NW and UA as well -- they don't need a plane that big!


User currently offlineA360 From Portugal, joined Jun 2005, 434 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 6911 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 12):
-- and if they do, likely because of an Airbus bribe,

 laughing   laughing 


User currently offlineThorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 6899 times:

United has 31 744s and dozens of T7s. They should be able to use some A380s, even if it's just a dozen. They have enough A32x-Pilots that can easily switch to the A380. And they can operate it out of JFK, SFO, ORD, or LAX to either LHR, FRA, CDG, NRT, HKG, or PVG.

Northwest has Airbus A330s and A32X, they would have the pilot commonality, too. They have 16 744s and enough other widebodys. They could use it from Detroit to European and Asian destinations. They would mabey only need half a dozen, but they could use them. There are enough airlines that have ordered only 4-10 A380s.

OK, US Airways is a wild guess, but we'll see what happens.

Commavia, I will not comment your remarks about bribes.


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11837 posts, RR: 62
Reply 15, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 6864 times:

Quoting Thorben (Reply 14):
United has 31 744s and dozens of T7s. They should be able to use some A380s, even if it's just a dozen.

Just because an airline flies 777s and 747s doesn't mean they need A380s. UA is a perfect example, as you used it -- they have both those aircraft, and have absolutely no need for the A380.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 14):
They have enough A32x-Pilots that can easily switch to the A380.

If UA got A380s, it would be very senior current 744 pilots -- not A320 pilots -- that would be flying it.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 14):
And they can operate it out of JFK, SFO, ORD, or LAX to either LHR, FRA, CDG, NRT, HKG, or PVG.

Where? Most of these routes you mentioned could support the A380 on a sustained basis (year-round, long-term) without frequency reductions, which would make the route unviable. Of the very few routes UA could perhaps operate the A380 profitably on (on a route-specific basis) like LAX-SYD, etc., the economics of operating an entire fleet of such enormous airplanes for only a tiny number of routes that could actually support that fleet would make it an uneconomic proposition.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 14):
They could use it from Detroit to European and Asian destinations.

Where? There is not a single NW route from DTW to Asia or Europe that could support the A380 on a consistent basis. NRT is doing just fine with 2 747s, and NW won't want to compromise frequency and lose precious NRT slots just so it can fly a behemoth of a plane. Same for DTW-AMS. Frequency (A330s, maybe a few 747s) will easily win out over such a huge plane.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 14):
Commavia, I will not comment your remarks about bribes.

You don't have to. Airbus' actions with the US reorganization (and I'm not criticizing them by the way, just calling them what they are) speak for themselves.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 76
Reply 16, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 6744 times:

Quoting Thorben (Reply 9):
Why are they not in the position??

They don't have funds to cover retirement funds of employees, they have not had new aircraft for some time. If memory serves correct, their last new aircraft (320 series) was ordered by a smaller airline that BA absorbed.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 6683 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 12):
highly doubt that any of those airlines will ever fly the A380 -- and if they do, likely because of an Airbus bribe, they won't for long because the enormous (negative) financial implications from it will either force them to ditch the plane or cause them to go out of business



Quoting Commavia (Reply 12):
You will never see US flying an A380 -- I don't care how much cash Airbus bribes them with.

Hmmm! you seem to be using the word 'bribe' there rather freely!!


User currently offlineAirlinelover From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 5580 posts, RR: 22
Reply 18, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 6652 times:

Quoting Thorben (Reply 1):
United
Northwest
US Airways

Let's not forget that these 3 airlines don't WANT the A380.. It's not as much a matter of affording it..

Chris



Lets do some sexy math. We add you, subtract your clothes, divide your legs and multiply
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11837 posts, RR: 62
Reply 19, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 6632 times:

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 17):
Hmmm! you seem to be using the word 'bribe' there rather freely!!

I don't think so, and please let me clarify what I mean.

Airbus came to a weak and (then) dying USAirways and essentially said, "give us billions for planes and we'll give you hundreds of millions to operate with right now."

Now, AirNZ -- If I came to you after you had just filed for bankruptcy (just a complete hypothetical, I mean no disrespect AirNZ) and said:

"AirNZ, I know that if you survive bankruptcy you are probably going to spending about $20,000 on a new car in the next few years. I'll give you $2,000 right now and then in two years, you promise to buy a $20,000 car from me because I'm really have a hard time getting them off the dealership lot. I help you survive right now, you help me sell some of my cars later."

An extended metaphor, no doubt, but this is essentially what Airbus said to US. Knowing that their A350 is going absolutely nowhere compared to the blockbuster success of the 787, Airbus essentially offered US cash right now in return for a guarantee of airplane orders for their poorly selling A350 later. AC did the exact same thing with maintenance contracts -- they offered US $75M in cash in return for hundreds of millions in maintenance outsourcing contracts over the next few years.

Let me be clear about this: I am not in any way criticizing what Airbus (or AC) for that matter have done. I have said that here again and again. It was a smart and prudent business decision on their part that required relatively small up-front investment in return for much larger cash revenues later in the future. It was smart, but in my mind -- you call a spade a spade, you call a "bribe" a "bribe." This was a legalized bribe.

I don't think that is using the word too freely at all.


User currently offlinePHXinterrupted From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 474 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 6576 times:

Quoting Thorben (Reply 5):
Because they have many Airbusses and are a large carrier. Besides, IIRC they are making profit on their international routes and losses on the domestic ones. Therefore they might want to expand their international business.

Yes, they are a larger carrier, but not a large international carrier.



Keepin' it real.
User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 6562 times:

JAL and ANA - they can afford A380s financially but not politically.


A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 22, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 6491 times:

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 21):
JAL and ANA - they can afford A380s financially but not politically.

Good one Cloudyapple. Lets just hope that they change their mind as soon as they see they full potential of the A380.

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25561 posts, RR: 86
Reply 23, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 6479 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Commavia (Reply 19):
Airbus came to a weak and (then) dying USAirways and essentially said, "give us billions for planes and we'll give you hundreds of millions to operate with right now."

You know this is what happened? That's odd. As I understand it, the deal was engineered by GE.

GE needed someone to complete the package of financing basically to get US Airways off their hands and went to their pals at Airbus.

And while it is true that $250 million can be categorized as "hundreds of millions", I think your characterization is stretching it. To say the least.

As for United - well, they'll be competing qith the Qantas A380 on at least one route, and if Singapore does get rights to fly SYD/LAX I think you can bet they'd put the A380 on it.

 Smile

cheers

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3682 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 6469 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 19):



Quoting Commavia (Reply 19):
-- you call a spade a spade, you call a "bribe" a "bribe." This was a legalized bribe.

I don't think that is using the word too freely at all.

No no. That's not too freely, that's just stupid.

You call "bribe", an help given by Airbus which can make them have a future customer ? LOL.
In which world are you living ?

Legalized bribe ? Is this a new concept invented for Airbus bashing ?


25 N328KF : Hope schmope. They will decide to get it if they want it. It's clear that they don't want it, and it is conjecture that they need it.
26 Post contains images WINGS : Now we all know that if we change the letter A for a B, then the B380 would sell like hot cakes in Japan Regards, Wings
27 Post contains images Thorben : Still more likely than an all-737 operator. If an airline has 747s and 777s it is probably using them on intercontinental flights. And there the comp
28 Post contains images Glareskin : No, cloudyapple is right. They will first buy it when it's called 747adv.
29 Cloudyapple : If they ever buy A380s they'll pack 800 seats on each and put them on domestics. If they have any spare then they'll put them onto LHR/LAX. I don't s
30 Mariner : Doesn't anyone have sense of humor anymore? In this thread we have the collision of two airliners.net myths: (i) Airbus gives its planes away for prac
31 ARCJET : I'm sure our US airlines are waiting for CRJs and ERJs that can perform trans-atlantic routes instead of spending the big bucks for the beautiful beas
32 Post contains images A360 : Hehe! I'm imagining all those precious LHR slots filled with american CRJ's!
33 Dan2002 : Did I miss the memo that somehow proved B767, 777, and 747s are second best? Judging by other posts ive read from you, I bet if it were up to you eve
34 Kappel : Take a chill pill dude, no need for those words in here
35 Birdbrainz : Never mind the fact that all three are bankrupt. While it's true that US Air is just emerging, it has it's work cut out for the next three years just
36 Post contains images Thorben : Na na, I've said it often enough, the market is going towards more point to point flights with smaller aircraft. At least in Boeing's world, so they
37 Post contains images Dazeflight : well considering a lot of A.net members suggest that a 'real' pilot would never fly a yokeless plane there shouldn't be too many jumbo pilots who app
38 Daron4000 : Actually, I think there are enough routes for UA to justify an A380 if they ever were proftible enough to make enough money to finance it by themselve
39 Dan2002 : Ok, but I need to respond to Thor that yells around wrong things about the B747 and B777. You have no way to prove what you are saying about Boeing a
40 EmmenezMoi : You might want to check the definition of "bribe" in a dictionary... (hint: you can't bribe a company, only persons)
41 Dazeflight : It's not so obvious at all, because Airbus claims that there is 35% more space per pax in a typical layout. ciao Daniel
42 Post contains images Dan2002 : Keywords here Airbus claims!, whenever a manufacturer claims something, I wouldnt take it 100%, be it Boeing or Airbus. Tschüs Dan
43 Post contains links and images Thorben : Which wrong things? Prove what? I quote: "According to Airbus, the A380 has about a 13 percent lower fuel burn than the 747 and is the first long-hau
44 C5onknees : I honestly dont see the huge deal with the A380, wow.. it's a double decker with alot of seats. Lockheed did this in the 70's but did'nt add seats and
45 Commavia : To answer your first question -- yes. That is exactly what I call Airbus "helping" a customer to make it a bigger "future customer." When I come to y
46 Dan2002 : Re-read the thread on LH and the 777 and get back to me. ditto. " target=_blank>http://www.atwonline.com/news/story....=1136 All of these things are
47 Mariner : So - um - what do you call it when Boeing "invests" a big bunch of money in AirTran - right before Airtran orders a big bunch of Beoings? cheers mari
48 Thorben : I did. Now, which one of them is not OK? Who else are they supposed to be from? We'll see what the carriers say by the time they use them. Why? I don
49 Commavia : Bribery!!! I don't discriminate. Boeing "helping" a customer to secure an order is just as much bribery as Airbus doing it with US. They are one in t
50 Mariner : Criticism is implicit in the use of the word "bribery", because a bribe is, by definition in the US, an illegal action. cheers mariner
51 Commavia : Well -- let me be the first to implicitly say that I'm not criticizing Airbus. Obviously -- the word "bribery" would never hold up in a court of law
52 Mariner : So if Warner Brothers invests in a cinema in New York, which cinema agrees to show some - stress "some" - Warner Brothers films, that is bribery? Yike
53 Tornado82 : To get back to the TOPIC of this thread... which are hypothetical situations involving broke airlines buying expensive huge planes. Regardless of who
54 Birdbrainz : Not necessarily. How much commonality is there between the 320 and 380 cockpit. You seem to be very knowledgable in the subject. Large airlines typic
55 Bohlman : What in the name of the aviation gods are you spewing?!? You are not only 90% sure, but you're 100% right. I'll just paste the FAA FAR Part 121 secti
56 Post contains images USADreamliner : Adria can use it on the very lucrative Ljubljana-Osaka Mexicana on Mexico-Athens-Dubai Malev on Budapest-Jakarta-Melbourne SN Brussels on Brussels-Bas
57 YULWinterSkies : Air India Kingfisher (yes, they have orders...) possibly Jet Airways Garuda PIA ... and any big airline from comparable countries that I havent though
58 Lufthansa : Hmnmm I disagree with those who think UAL can't operate this plane A small fleet based out of LAX and SFO could work wonders. The A380's direct operat
59 Commavia : As I was the one who entered the "bribe" comment into the discussion -- I like to respond to your comment, Lufthansa. I never said that in general "A
60 NASOCEANA : I doubt that any U.S. Carrier (besides Cargo FX and UPS) would acquire the A380 because of the pilots Unions. Most pilots would favor newer planes and
61 Simong : Quoting Zeke British Airways...current are not in a position to buy any new aircraft I think perhaps you need to update yourself a little on the finan
62 Thecheese : Heh, Alaska Airlines can use them on the Fairbanks-Deadhorse and Juneau-Nome routes.
63 UAL777 : This is absolute BS. If the A380 is SOOO efficient, why cant it make weight. Lets be realistic. In terms of comfort the 777 crushes every other wide-
64 Kappel : No way, in terms of comfort, the a330 and a340 have the 777 beat. economics is a different matter tho. Besides, all airlines that have announced seat
65 Kappel : PIA will not buy Airbus with their current relationship with the US.
66 Post contains images Thorben : Look at carriers such as: Kuwait Airways, EL Al, Austrian, LTU, Alitalia, Corsair, Air New Zealand, SAS, Asiana, Swiss, Air Austral, TAP, Egyptair, G
67 Commavia : Allow me to rephrase so what I mean is exactly clear: Airlines in the United States simply don't, generally speaking, operate tiny little subfleets o
68 Post contains images Milan320 : If you want fun, fly a Cessna, not a passenger plane. Safety comes first not fun!!! And it's not as easy to land as you think ... it's not FS9 mate!
69 Thorben : Maybe never.... So, airlines don't care what the airports want?? I'd say, if the airport has a limited number of slots they won't care what the airli
70 JoFMO : Some people will never understand. But I try it again. There are certain routes on earth where you can't fly with high frequencies. You should have a
71 Birdbrainz : Thanks! I thought so. Anyhow, I'm starting to wonder why I'm bothering to educate some dude about how the seniority system operates. It seems to be a
72 Bohlman : Cute. No, they aren't. And regardless, it's not whether or not the cockpits are similar or not, it's whether or not the systems, performance figures,
73 Commavia : Welcome to my world, but I digress. What I'm talking about is not just more frequencies, although that is definitely part of it. It's called "staging
74 Birdbrainz : Commavia, my sincerest apologies. I should have known better as we're in agreement 90%+ of time. I see that we're back to the usual suspects at the A
75 Thorben : I wonder why I spend time doing searches on the internet to take Boeing fans their illusions away. I wrote that they have the same hire date and ther
76 Bohlman : Yeah, I'll address these one by one. So Airbus was the first one to introduce commonality between airplanes? How is that, when the first A320 wasn't
77 Birdbrainz : You mean searches on airbus.com? Yes, and once again, the one with the lower line number wins, whether or not he/she is flying Concorde or a Metrolin
78 Post contains links and images Thorben : Please ask Airbus, that's where the text is from. Ask Airbus. Besides, I agree with you the 757/767 where there before the A320. Leave alone the A321
79 Slarty : You two should get a motel room ... LOL
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...
Is The A380 Showing Up On Any Scheds Yet? posted Mon Jan 16 2006 00:12:49 by UAL747
What Is The Largest Plane That Can Fly Out Of Cos? posted Sun Nov 25 2001 07:37:45 by DeltaBoy777
When Will The A380 Start Flying With Airlines? posted Wed Oct 25 2006 13:40:08 by JamesJimlb
Wow! A Thread That Has Nothing To Do With The A380 posted Sat Oct 7 2006 19:37:20 by 727200er
Can The A380 Possiblibly Be Profitable Now? posted Fri Oct 6 2006 16:45:39 by MD88Captain
Singapore Airlines Will Receive The A380 In Oct 07 posted Tue Oct 3 2006 19:52:33 by Singapore_Air
Why It Makes Sense For Airlines To Keep The A380 posted Wed Sep 27 2006 05:06:27 by WingedMigrator
Has The A380 Arrived At Farnborough Yet? posted Sat Jul 15 2006 21:02:25 by A380Heavy
Can The A380 Land At Manchester? posted Thu May 25 2006 10:57:20 by Thegregster
The A380 Update - More Interesting For Airlines? posted Mon Apr 24 2006 14:41:27 by OyKIE