Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Could We See The End Of NZ's LHR-LAX-AKL Service?  
User currently offlineGilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3052 posts, RR: 2
Posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 10551 times:

I have just been reading the very long thread about NZ new LHR-HKG-AKL service they are launching in October and how many people say how crap and aweful it is to transit through LAX.

It is commonly known by the savvy traveller and the travel industry, transitting through through the US onwards to a foreign destination is far from ideal and now UK passengers have an alternative with NZ to go via HKG.

Going by many comments I have read on here and heard from people in the Travel Industry the new route is going to be a great success and passengers are going to have a real choice now when comes to direct flights to AKL. I suspect the routing via LAX is going suffer severely.

Would it be worthwhile NZ consider dropping the LAX-LHR portion of the route and send both LHR-AKL routes via HKG or another Asian city?

Do they carry many passengers on the LHR-LAX route alone?

69 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineZkojh From China, joined Sep 2004, 1724 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 10534 times:

the chances of NZ dropping this part of the route is very slim, NZ#1 does ok at the moment between LHR and LAX with loads about 80% full at times,

it also offers connections to other parts of western USA and Canada with our 'Star Alliance' airlines, UA, US and AC, also we have many connections to the south pacific islands's with our 763's and later on our T7's, LAX Airport is our northern hub of operations on the ANZ network and we have been there many years,

also flying westwards and eastwards from LHR offers the only true around the world airline which is good news for NZ and Star..



CZ 787 to AKL can't wait.
User currently offlineZKSUJ From New Zealand, joined May 2004, 7110 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 10502 times:

Can't see it happening to be honest. NZ1/2 is currently the 'showcase route' for NZ from what I gather, not to mention that the loads are quite good according to the other thread.

User currently offlineKdm From New Zealand, joined Feb 2006, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 10496 times:

What say they went through San Francisco instead of LA?

User currently offlineGilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3052 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 10485 times:

I appreciate people saying the route is very busy with 80%+ payloads. - But surely many people will switch to the routing via HKG to avoid the aweful transit at LAX?

If this happens that will have a knock on effect, and until October this is the only routing available to London with NZ.


User currently offlineBNE From Australia, joined Mar 2000, 3189 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 10481 times:

AKL-LAX-LHR is also quicker flying time, than it will be by going via HKG

I can't see NZ dropping LAX-LHR



Why fly non stop when you can connect
User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5216 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 10443 times:

Quoting Gilesdavies (Reply 4):
But surely many people will switch to the routing via HKG to avoid the aweful transit at LAX?

This is one of those big lies that seem to be endlessly propogated as truth.
The fact is that through passengers on NZ1/2 go to an in-transit holding lounge without any formalities, there is nothing more to it than that. This would be no different in SFO. It has been said that the lounge used at LAX is rather spartan, this may be so.
I would expect that a transit in HKG would be identical.


User currently offlineQfba From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 41 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 10435 times:

You must clear US immigration at your first point of entry regardless if you are only a tranist passenger.

AC pax travelling SYD/YVR via HNL are required to clear immigration fro this reason!!


User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5216 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 10402 times:

Quoting Qfba (Reply 7):
You must clear US immigration at your first point of entry regardless if you are only a tranist passenger.

My understanding is that this is not so for NZ1/2. I believe BA has a similar exemption. The acronymn for this exemption was included in a recent posting on another thread.


User currently offlineGilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3052 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 10375 times:

You do need to clear Immigrations at LAX even if transitting through the airport...

Here is an extract from Air New Zealands website:
http://www.airnewzealand.co.uk/trave...ng_your_trip/transiting_via_la.htm

Transit Procedure in Los Angeles

In order to meet new security requirements of the US Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), all customers transiting through Los Angeles (LAX) on flights NZ1 to Auckland and NZ2 to London must remain in the transit facility while in Los Angeles. EXCEPTION - Business class passengers (see bottom of page for more information).

The following information is to help you understand what you can expect during your transit time in Los Angeles.

Procedure for customers transiting in Los Angeles on NZ1 or NZ2

1. As you leave the aircraft in Los Angeles, Air New Zealand ground staff will direct you to the transit area where you will be required to present your passport and completed U.S. Immigration form to US CBP officials for inspection.
2. There is no requirement to complete Customs documentation when you're in transit.
3. Boarding passes for re-boarding the aircraft should be retained for the continuation of the journey.
4. The entry formalities require every passenger aged 14 - 79 to have a photo taken by the US CBP officials, and will have their left and right index fingers fingerprinted (except for US and Canadian citizens)

There is helpful information about completing the immigration form in the "Customs and Immigration" section at the back of the Air New Zealand Magazine. It's critical that these forms are correctly filled in, so if you make an error or aren't sure whether you've got it right please ask one of your Cabin Crew for help and if necessary a new form.

* The processing requirements of U.S. CBP can cause a wait to enter the transit facility. We are sorry if you experience delays getting to the transit area.
* We know queuing can be uncomfortable so we'll be offering refreshments while you wait to be processed by the authorities.
* If you need to use a toilet before entering the transit area please ask one of our Air New Zealand ground team members for directions.

The following are available complimentary to you while you're in the transit facility:

* Coffee and tea
* Soft drinks
* Potato chips and biscuits
* A selection of fresh fruit
* Duty Free selection available for purchase

Should you require any assistance in the Transit Facility, please do not hesitate to contact one of the Air New Zealand ground team.


User currently offlineB747-4U3 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 991 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 10357 times:

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 6):

I would expect that a transit in HKG would be identical.

Actually, no.

In Hong Kong you are free to wander around the terminal and duty free shops. The terminal, is modern and airy with excellent facilities.


User currently offlineStarGoldLHR From Heard and McDonald Islands, joined Feb 2004, 1529 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 10297 times:

Quoting B747-4U3 (Reply 10):
would expect that a transit in HKG would be identical.

As is the way in the rest of the world.. and how it should be.



So far in 2008 45 flights and Gold already. JFK, IAD, LGA, SIN, HKG, NRT, AKL, PPT, LAX still to book ! Home Airport LCY
User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8188 posts, RR: 54
Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 10220 times:

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 6):
I would expect that a transit in HKG would be identical.

Ha ha, yeah right. When you're in transit at HK (or anywhere else), you just get off the plane and go shopping for an hour - beautiful experience. Just have a Diet Coke and a fag, maybe buy a portable DVD player, get back on the plane and go. You don't get fingerprinted or photographed, that's for sure.



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineAeroman62 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 158 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 10198 times:

Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 12):
As is the way in the rest of the world.. and how it should be.

You don't live in a country where people hijacked planes and flew them into three buildings.....we're probably over reacting, but cut the US some slack, we find the abudance of surveillance cameras in and around London excessive, however I don't think anyone in the UK after last summer would question their utility. It is a new world we live in.


User currently offlineCrossChecked From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 257 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 10177 times:

Quoting Aeroman62 (Reply 13):
You don't live in a country where people hijacked planes and flew them into three buildings.....we're probably over reacting, but cut the US some slack, we find the abudance of surveillance cameras in and around London excessive, however I don't think anyone in the UK after last summer would question their utility. It is a new world we live in.

Would have thought we'd be past using 9/11 as an excuse for excessive security measures in the US. Seems that America enjoys making things difficult for people and the use of 9/11 is an excuse that very few people would argue with for fear of appearing insensitive.

You're right that we have a lot of CCTV cameras, but at the same time, they don't impact on you unless you're doing something you shouldn't. We increase security in a number of ways but very, very few of them are noticeable while almost every time the US increases security, it has a direct impact on the public (enhanced security at TSA, transit passengers going through Immigration etc.).

I've done the NZ1/2 before and while an absolutely pain in the arse, the transit malarky wouldn't put me off using the service again. I like NZ and I think they have excellent staff, but the transit procedure is just terrible. I'm surprised the airline couldn't work something out to avoid the need to "enter" America before leaving again.



Cabin crew, doors to manual and cross check.
User currently offlineHS748 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 10104 times:

Quoting Aeroman62 (Reply 13):
we're probably over reacting

Now that has to be the under-statement of the year.


User currently offlineXkorpyoh From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 821 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 10009 times:

I think this immigration check point for transit passenger is useless. Even requiring an US visa for a transit/connection passenger is useless too.
They should follow the example of Australia with their electronic visas and have does on transit complete one for transit/connection purposes before the trip begins (online or with a travel agent for verification at check-in on the first boarding point). In that way the US will know who is coming and match it with any black list they have to get the "terrorist/criminal" before it boards the plane.
IF those in transit are in a secured transit lounge, they shouldn't go through all that trouble. The US airlines are loosing business because of this immigration requirements and many airports in the US are equiped to keep those in transit in a separate secured area.

In the same note, I get really annoyed when I connect in airports where they make you go through security again before going to the connecting gates. Examples: LHR (the worst), ICN, NGO, ATL, NRT...among others.
IF you are coming from a flight that was processed through security before boarding why is the pupose of doing security again if you deplaned in a secured area?!?!?!?


User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26128 posts, RR: 50
Reply 17, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 9995 times:

I doubt you'll see NZ1/2 disappear operating via LAX.

The added HKG-LHR service and any loss of UK-NZ transit via pax via the US will simply allow NZ to free up needed seats for local sale on LAX-LHR and LAX-AKL legs which were previously occupied by transit passengers.

Overall NZ has established itself quite well on the LAX-LHR route now for years and sells a fair portion or both premium and economy seats localy on the the US-UK leg, with a good portion being Star alliance flyers from both the US and Europe. While admittedly NZ does not have the premium yield mix as good as BA on the route it does not do shabby at either.
A worst case scenario I could ever see is switching the LAX-LHR leg to a 777 as more are introduced into the fleet.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5216 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 9916 times:

Quoting Gilesdavies (Reply 9):
You do need to clear Immigrations at LAX even if transitting through the airport...

My apologies, I stand corrected

Quoting B747-4U3 (Reply 10):
Actually, no.
In Hong Kong you are free to wander around the terminal and duty free shops. The terminal, is modern and airy with excellent facilities.

So an uncleared passenger is free to wander at will. What is to stop them leaving the terminal?

Quoting Xkorpyoh (Reply 17):
In that way the US will know who is coming and match it with any black list they have to get the "terrorist/criminal" before it boards the plane.

I observed a NZ gate agent making a list of names and passport numbers for probably that purpose last time I flew AKL-SFO.


User currently offlineHS748 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 9891 times:

Quoting Xkorpyoh (Reply 17):



Quoting Xkorpyoh (Reply 17):
In the same note, I get really annoyed when I connect in airports where they make you go through security again before going to the connecting gates. Examples: LHR (the worst), ICN, NGO, ATL, NRT...among others.
IF you are coming from a flight that was processed through security before boarding why is the pupose of doing security again if you deplaned in a secured area?!?!?!?

Because we do it better than you do!


User currently offlineFlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2103 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 9876 times:

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 19):
So an uncleared passenger is free to wander at will. What is to stop them leaving the terminal?

Because they'd have to get through Customs and Immigration to leave the terminal. Do that and they won't be able to get back on their flight in a hurry!

Quoting Aeroman62 (Reply 13):
You don't live in a country where people hijacked planes and flew them into three buildings.....we're probably over reacting, but cut the US some slack, we find the abudance of surveillance cameras in and around London excessive, however I don't think anyone in the UK after last summer would question their utility. It is a new world we live in.

Actually CCTV been is use for quite a while. Largely discrete it's an added measure of security. Many people using public transport feel better for its presence. And though 9-11 was one of those world changing events, 7th July wasn't on the same scale for the UK, partly because many people remember 30 years of bomb campaigns by the IRA, who bombed tube trains in the 1970s, as well as many other targets. I don't think we'll drop our guard, but at the same time most British people will try to lead as normal a life as possible.



Let's Go British Caledonian!
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26128 posts, RR: 50
Reply 21, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 9858 times:

Quoting Xkorpyoh (Reply 17):
The US airlines are loosing business because of this immigration requirements

Agreed, however the theory the US authorities are working on is that to be able to fly on a in-transit flight via the US, you need to have complied with the same requirements of everyone else onboard.
Otherwise it would be quite an easy terrorist ruse to book a in-transit flight to the US if the screening requirements were lower for transit passengers.
While an electronic visa might seem convenient, I doubt it would even come close to back ground and security checks the in-person Embassy interviews required for many nationalities to gain a US visa.

Quoting Xkorpyoh (Reply 17):
and many airports in the US are equiped to keep those in transit in a separate secured area.

I only know if a handful of US airports that have sterile in transit facilities.
At LAX only two terminals - TBIT and T-2 have smallish rooms in which the in transit pax can be segregated.
US airports have simply never been designed for international in-transit passenger handling.

Quoting Xkorpyoh (Reply 17):
why is the pupose of doing security again if you deplaned in a secured area?!?!?!?

Because its a well placed ICAO recommendation and followed by near every aviation and security authority.
Just because you have cleared security in one overseas location does not mean you should be entitled to travel unchecked without follow up checks.
The security and political situation in several countries in many parts of the world leave much to be desired. Would you want passengers from country XYZ, possibly from a state sponsor of terrorism, or from a country in the midst of a civil war with questionable government security to be allowed to roam free in the worlds air transport system? Even today there remains international airports in places such as Africa that due to lack of working modern equipment only provide cursory hand checks of persons and baggage!
Hence the prudent approach is simply to rescreen all the arriving passengers before they can depart again.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6456 posts, RR: 38
Reply 22, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 9579 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 18):
A worst case scenario I could ever see is switching the LAX-LHR leg to a 777 as more are introduced into the fleet.

What if they only buy the 77W and no 748? The 744's are bound to go once that order is delivered.



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlineB747-4U3 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 991 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 9483 times:

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 19):
So an uncleared passenger is free to wander at will. What is to stop them leaving the terminal?

I meant free to wander airside. If they want to leave the terminal and go landside they can, but will have to pass immigration first, and thus might miss their conecting flight (not a security risk as their bags will be offloaded when they fail to turn up for the flight).

Furthermore, unlike some countries, Hong Kong has a very relaxed immigration policy where most countires' nationals are allowed to enter visa-free (something like residents of 140 different nations can enter HK without a visa). Compare that to other countries where some people need a visa just to pass through the airport!


User currently offlineAlaskaqantas From New Zealand, joined Dec 2005, 906 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 8993 times:

Cedarjet, how true you are!! Smile
also there are some people that just use LAX-LHR that don't start in AKL. plus their business class is cheaper then Virgins... yes Virgin does have some extra stuff like massages and such, but I think that business people flying them don't look at that kind of stuff.
so no I don't think that they will drop it... I hope not!
~Cheers-
~~Kyle H.



to some people the sky is the limit, to aviation enthusiasts, its home!
25 Freqflyr : StarGold LHR said "As is the way in the rest of the world.. and how it should be." I respect what you said...if you don't like this policy, please mov
26 LPLAspotter : Nahhhh, to hell with LAX, I'll go via BKK, spend a couple days there and then fly to AKL. Sounds like more fun. WAIT - IT WILL BE MORE FUN! LPLAspotte
27 Jumbo747 : I was excited when I came to know about the new route to LHR. But it will be sad to lose LAX-LHR market. I do not see it happens because of the follow
28 Planetime : Agreed, not likely that it will be dropped. LAX is their primary international city outside the AUS/NZ region. Also the transit for NZ is not as bad
29 N1120A : Given that New Zealand and the UK are visa waver countries, I would venture to guess that you could clear immigration and customs if you wanted to and
30 SunriseValley : So.......what does all this mean in practical terms?
31 N1120A : It means that transiting LAX if you are flying NZ isn't a big deal.
32 CXA330300 : Well, lets be fair: the US is huge, and its rich, and its powerful. Obviously many are going to hate a huge, rich, and powerful country, and people do
33 Planemanofnz : Only a limited percentage of people actually fly the whole way AKL-LAX-LHR. Traffic also consits of fifth freedom rights travellers from LAX to LHR.
34 IL96M : This is interesting for Star Alliance passengers. I take NZ 1/2 about 4-5 times per year, LAX-LHR and return. It is a great flight; their economy is
35 Rongotai : There are a lot of people here who have actually experienced the NZ1/2 LAX transit many times. I'm one of them. After four experiences on business tri
36 777ER : NZ will never give up AKL-LAX-LHR. Even if every passenger doesn't continue to LHR or AKL from LAX, NZ will make up those numbers with passengers who
37 Jm017 : I have had the pleasure of experiencing this first-hand. After clearing customs and immigrations in a US airport, I was surprised how UNSECURE the te
38 Jfr : Absolutely.......I take this flight 6+ tiimes a year, and it's almost always full. If anything, I've had to take the earlier NZ6 because NZ 2 is choc
39 Post contains images BHMNONREV : I would concur with this statement. I am a US citizen working in the Middle East and travel to the US 3-4 times per year and am subjected to the same
40 Aerorobnz : You are correct with that assertion, with the exception of NZ1/2 where the bags stay onbaord the aircraft. Yes technically we'd be fine to 'enter' th
41 767ER : There is no way that NZ will ever give up LAX. They have been flying there since 1965 - not that should count for much. Loads on the LAX sectors are a
42 Post contains images Planetime : Overall US is hard place to transit from, but for the NZ1/2 there is some special arrangement made that make it easier. It is a little exagerated spe
43 N1120A : Remember, you wont have to worry about waiting for your bags because you wont be claiming them. That will save you a bunch of time. Additionally, I h
44 Tope98 : sadly thats they way it is... i dont agree with many of your rules, and as people have mentioned here officers can be very rude with tourist sometime
45 MotorHussy : NO would be the answer, it's an incredibly successful route in spite of the debacle of transiting through LAX. I'm looking forward to doing the round
46 Post contains images Zkpilot : The short answer is no. It is a high yield, high load factor flight and will remain so even with the HKG service. NZ picks up a lot of local traffic
47 Koruman : For Air New Zealand, LAX-LHR, AKL-LAX and SFO-AKL all make more profit than AKL-LHR, simply because the fares are roughly 80% of AKL-LHR, but for half
48 Ikramerica : Yes, and the reason for this is NOT trivial. People need to do a little research about the very early planning of 9/11, "Bojinga" and the bombing of
49 Pulkovokiwi : Air New Zealand will never give up AKL-LAX-LHR. Air New Zealand do their homework. Qantas did not many years ago when they started 707 service to the
50 Post contains images Zkpilot : For once I find myself agreeing with you Pulkovokiwi! keep it up!
51 777219ER : I transit LAX regularly and it is not the easiest Airport to Transit through. The Transit lounge is the pits. The best bet is to use NZ6 so you have 3
52 Gemuser : In 1954 when QF started L749 services to the US, SFO was the only available city in the bilateral. Pan Am services also orginated in SFO. Also SFO wa
53 Travelin man : Unfortunately (as somebody mentioned above) US airports, and LAX in particular, are NOT set up for that to happen. You have Air New Zealand using the
54 Planetime : What is being planned on T2 @ LAX? Or is it NZ is moving out of the current terminal. Never been to T2 @ LAX can anybody tell me how it is? Only ones
55 LPLAspotter : What exactly is the time saving by going through LAX versus let's say HKG, SIN, or BKK? The important thing is that everyone has a choice. Mine is to
56 Gilesdavies : Just a little suggestion... Even though the UK does have high security in place for air travellers, could it be possible for the UK to have an agreeme
57 ZKOJH : I must say the many times I have flown to AkL, always gone via LAX, and don't find it that much of a hassel, i mean your only on the ground for 2 hrs,
58 Planetime : There is actual US immigration and customs station in Canada's major airports so when flying into US from YYZ-LAX you technically enter US after you
59 Zkpilot : Terminals 1,2,3 and part of the TBIT are going to be demolished to make room for moving the runway (they want to put a centre taxiway between each of
60 Planetime : I thought that was part of the LA Master Plan that the preivious mayor supported but the current mayor is not so keen on making priority. I could be
61 Post contains links Zkpilot : http://www.laxmasterplan.org/ aparently it has already been agreed to with the NIMBY's, just not the timeplan
62 Scbriml : Not for much longer unless you have a biometric passport. I have recently renewed both my passports and I will have the pleasure of having to apply i
63 Zkpilot : New Zealand govt has been issuing Biometric passports for about a year now... I've noticed lots of Australians with BM PP's, a couple of German ones,
64 Scbriml : Not a big surprise. Allegedly they are just starting to be issued now. By the end of August all new passports issued will be BM. However, the recomme
65 Speedbirdcrew : If your passport was issued as a non biometric passport before the cut off date (this year sometime i think) then doesnt that mean you are still ok t
66 Brucek : ANZ enjoys a unique benefit in being able to access LHR from the USA (I'm not sure if this grandfathering is exclusive to LAX or not). To give up thi
67 BlrBird : even in HKG you have to go thro security again to connect to your next flight! Even UK does this to lot of nationalities!
68 Abrelosojos : = Wow. Incoherent ramblings are always the best way to get your point across. I was in NYC too on 9/11; yet, I don't feel the need to make it an even
69 Gemuser : What do you mean? NZ access to LHR from the US is not unique and is not in any way "grandfarthed". What privilige? NZ departs/arrives LAX for LHR und
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...
When Will We See The End Of The A343? posted Mon Nov 10 2003 02:51:01 by ACB777
When Shall We See The Launch Of Spice JET? posted Sat Apr 30 2005 19:31:10 by JoyA380B747
Could ATL See The Return Of KLM 747's? posted Tue Feb 8 2005 04:36:19 by AV8AJET
Check Hauling --- Could This Be The End Of It posted Wed Oct 29 2003 02:21:22 by Atcboy73
Can We Expect To See The A388 By The End Of 2004? posted Wed May 28 2003 03:03:38 by N754pr
Sad To See The Demise Of The 737 At LHR posted Mon Nov 28 2005 19:48:33 by Bigpappa
The End Of Airbus 'Launch Aid' As We Know It? posted Tue Oct 11 2005 13:32:44 by NAV20
The End Of An Industry As We Know It posted Wed Dec 15 2004 06:14:40 by BlackKnight
Does This Mark The End Of Spotting As We Knew It? posted Thu Sep 13 2001 06:10:46 by Boeing757fan
A350 Decision By The End Of November posted Tue Nov 14 2006 16:39:30 by Thorben