Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No UA In LGW?  
User currently offlineApodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4257 posts, RR: 6
Posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7546 times:

Ok, now before people start flaming me about airlines preffering LHR to LGW for various reasons, I have some legitimate observations about this, and was wondering what people thought about this.

1. United is the only one of the US legacy carriers not to serve LGW. Even AA, which does serve LHR and with the Oneworld alliance incentives, still sends metal to LGW from non Bermuda 2 cities.

2. DEN is currently not a Bermuda 2 city. If UA ever launched service from here, it would have to be to LGW, which would also force BA to move the DEN-LHR flight to LGW. Now UA, which has a large frequent flyer base in DEN, would be able to scoop up much of the O and D on this route from BA, and BA wouldn't be able to connect passengers as easily with more of their flights being at LHR. Also, this would allow UA to tap into a huge feeder market in that are, where they could feed a lot of passengers from destinations (ASE comes to mind) to LGW in just one stop, instead of two stopping them to LHR. UA would kill BA on this route.

3. There really isn't much Star Alliance opportunities to feed passengers in LHR. If UA is going to feed into the Star Alliance, they would be more likely to send passengers to FRA, where they could connect on LH. Therefore most of the PAX are going to be O and D in London. I have read that the locals on that side prefer LGW to LHR for ease of access, and ease of use. I have found most americans who make the trip to have the same view, especially since Terminal 3 in LHR is a zoo compared to the south terminal at LGW.

4. It would allow them to add flights to London without getting new LHR slots. While they still have LHR and will still focus service there, they can run maybe one 763 from both ORD and IAD. Or they can do it to get DEN service without waiting for Bermuda 2 changes, since Bermuda 2 changes likely mean DL, NW, and CO will step up competition at LHR.

Just some thoughts. I will post more later, but this has been on my mind for a while, and I was wondering what people thought of it. I had United benefits for a while, and as much as I like London, the one reason I didn't non rev over there, was Heathrow. Now that I have benefits on US, which serves Gatwick, I am much more likely to go back over there.

51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20487 posts, RR: 62
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7535 times:

I actually prefer LGW over LHR myself, but why would UA want to start up a new station just for one flight a day when they paid hundreds of millions of dollars to serve the airport across town?


International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineJetdeltamsy From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2987 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7515 times:

UA serves Heathrow because that's where the money is.

There is little or no money to be made at LGW.

AA continues their presence there for prestige.

All the rest can only get the rights to LGW.

[Edited 2006-05-28 07:05:01]

[Edited 2006-05-28 07:05:30]


Tired of airline bankruptcies....EA/PA/TW and finally DL.
User currently offlineBoeingFever777 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 409 posts, RR: 53
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7515 times:

How many flights does UA have going into LHR daily?

SFO-LHR 1x daily
LAX-LHR 1x daily
ORD-LHR 1x daily
IAD-LHR 1x daily
JFK-LHR 1x daily

Am I missing any?



Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre.
User currently offlineChrisA330 From Canada, joined Oct 1999, 630 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7498 times:

More like:

SFO-LHR 2x daily
LAX-LHR 1x daily
ORD-LHR 3x daily
IAD-LHR 4x daily
JFK-LHR 1x daily


User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25056 posts, RR: 46
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7490 times:

Dont assume that all US legacy carriers serve LGW by choice. It has been made very clear they all would rather have the ability to serve LHR instead.
If/when an open skies agreement comes to pass and the carriers can secure needed slots, expect a mass migration away from LGW for the US airlines.

The reason AA is at LGW is that is served LGW prior to its acquisition of TWA's authorities. As Bermuda II did not allow service to LHR primarily from the carrier DFW hub which forced to maintain is position at LGW and add service to non Bermuda II cities eventually.

United was in a much different situation as the carrier did not serve London (an barely Europe) at all prior to its purchase of Pan Am LHR routes.
A single DEN flight at LGW would not be a very marketable flight for United particularly as it would lack tie in with Star partners particularly BMI. Also remember LGW provides lower overall yields particular for premium classes which prefer LHR. Lastly, the cost of running a separate London station for a single flight would even further diminish profit potential.

In regards to facilities, at LHR, T-1 will become the Star Alliance terminal as part of facility realignment after T-5 comes on line making connections much easier under a single roof.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineCornish From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 8187 posts, RR: 54
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7468 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 1):
but why would UA want to start up a new station just for one flight a day when they paid hundreds of millions of dollars to serve the airport across town?

And for that matter have been selling/transferring some of their slots at LHR to boot.

It would make no sense for their business model to start offer a single flight into LGW when they can just transfer traffic through one of their US hubs onto a LHR flight.



Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
User currently offlineBoeingFever777 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 409 posts, RR: 53
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7468 times:

Quoting ChrisA330 (Reply 4):
More like:

SFO-LHR 2x daily
LAX-LHR 1x daily
ORD-LHR 3x daily
IAD-LHR 4x daily
JFK-LHR 1x daily

Thanks Chris... Just looked at the UA.com website, didn't really know the frequency. I was more making sure I got the cities correct. (11) dailys to LHR is a few though. Thanks again  Smile



Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre.
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25056 posts, RR: 46
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7461 times:

Quoting ChrisA330 (Reply 4):
LAX-LHR 1x daily

Goes double daily starting next week.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20487 posts, RR: 62
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7440 times:

Another way of looking at this is, what would UA really gain by flying DEN-LGW?

I live in PDX and can fly to LHR on UA with a single connection in either SFO, LAX or ORD.

Is there any city of significance west of the Mississippi that UA serves that's not connected to one of those three gateways?



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7418 times:

You raise a good point that UA sacrifices money by not operating DEN-LGW, but, on the other hand, I think they feel that cost of setting up shop at LGW for a single flight would make it uneconomical.

Steve


User currently offlinePlanesarecool From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 4121 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7403 times:

Also there is question of gate space at Gatwick. In the south terminal there is pretty much no room in the mornings (which is when they would want to be here).

At a typical peak time at Gatwick south terminal, US, NW and VS pretty much take up the satellite, CO take up gates 13, 15, 17 and either of 12, 14 or 16 (CLE flight), QR use Gate 19, MON use gate 21. 23/24/25/28 is used pretty much by charter long hauls and the 'even numbered' gates 12-22 are occupied mainly by charters, easyJet or European carriers, such as PS and KM. Of course a B767/B777 in gates 1-10 would be out of the question.

In the north terminal - DL, EK, CE, FCA and AEU would take gates 46-50. Long haul gates 50-60 (minus 56/57) would be used by BA. 61-63 are taken by AA. In pier 6, Etihad use 102, BA use 111 and 101 is usually taken by either FCA or AEU.

So if they were to start services to LGW, they would probably find themselves on a remote stand, just like Ghana International, which isn't going to be popular with passengers.


User currently offlineApodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4257 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7364 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 5):
Dont assume that all US legacy carriers serve LGW by choice. It has been made very clear they all would rather have the ability to serve LHR instead.
If/when an open skies agreement comes to pass and the carriers can secure needed slots, expect a mass migration away from LGW for the US airlines.

I still don't see why this is. I can't believe that people would pay that much more to be only 10 miles closer to London, but with much much worse access into the city, not to mention the confusion and the crowds that LHR have, and the traffic. LGW is so much simpler. And with everyone being at LGW, how can United compete with that being in a worse airport? I just don't get it.


User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7357 times:

I happen to like Gatwick, but Heathrow still works better for most people. Especially if you are not going into the city itself, then the connections from Paddington are better.

In addition, Heathrow still has significantly more connecting options, especially as far as Star Alliance goes.

Steve


User currently offlineCornish From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 8187 posts, RR: 54
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7342 times:

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 13):
n addition, Heathrow still has significantly more connecting options, especially as far as Star Alliance goes.

Absolutely - remember Bmi has no presence at all in LGW so there's no Star connections to other points in the UK or Ireland and only limited connection possibilities by other star carriers into Europe.



Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 20
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 7153 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Apodino (Reply 12):
I still don't see why this is. I can't believe that people would pay that much more to be only 10 miles closer to London, but with much much worse access into the city, not to mention the confusion and the crowds that LHR have, and the traffic. LGW is so much simpler. And with everyone being at LGW, how can United compete with that being in a worse airport? I just don't get it.

This is a myth, LHR has excellent access into central London, by tube (Piccadilly line, 40-45 minutes), Heathrow Express, (15 minutes), by taxi (expensive though), there are also many buses and coaches going into central London and all areas around London. All the tourist and business areas are less than 10 miles away. LGW is in rural England, 25 miles away from London. As for the crowds, LHR is not unique, there are crowds at JFK, LAX, CDG, FRA, NRT, SYD, YYZ or any major airport in the world, LHR is no different. And LGW is hardly a small and local airport, it is much smaller and is extremely crowded unless you fly in at late evening or early morning. The South terminal is like a zoo during the day, nobody can confidently say that LGW is less crowded than LHR, it doesn't feel like it.

There is also the question of economics, United flies to where it can make money, the yields are much higher at LHR, businessmen prefer to fly from LHR, it's supply and demand. LGW caters mainly for leisure and tourist markets.



In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 7118 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 9):
Another way of looking at this is, what would UA really gain by flying DEN-LGW?



Quoting Sllevin (Reply 10):
You raise a good point that UA sacrifices money by not operating DEN-LGW, but, on the other hand, I think they feel that cost of setting up shop at LGW for a single flight would make it uneconomical.

Steve

Firstly, if UA opened up DEN-LGW, BA would be forced to move its Denver service back to LGW (it now can operate to LHR due to lack of competition, a wierd provision in B-2), for me, thats reason enough......if BA was at LGW, it could not offer all of those connections to Europe/mid East, etc, which would benefit the DEN-FRA flight operated by STAR partner LH.

Second, Denver is a major hub for UA that should have access to London, even if it is Gatwick.......CO manages with Gatwick out of its hubs, DFW uses Gatwick out of LGW and survives, etc.....a daily 777 on DEN-LGW is long overdue.

Quoting Apodino (Reply 12):

I still don't see why this is. I can't believe that people would pay that much more to be only 10 miles closer to London, but with much much worse access into the city, not to mention the confusion and the crowds that LHR have, and the traffic. LGW is so much simpler. And with everyone being at LGW, how can United compete with that being in a worse airport? I just don't get it.

Pax prefer LHR........thats London's airport in most pax mind; Gatwick, Luton, Stansted are all alternate choices and it will always be like that. LHR is prefered for connection possibilities, etc. Do you think that the renegotiation of Bermuda 2 would have become such a mess and poltical issue if the US carriers stuck at LGW did not want Heathrow access so badly?? Simple answer, LHR is the flagship airport for the UK and its where the most money is to be made.


User currently offlineB707Stu From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 918 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7070 times:

Quoting Apodino (Reply 12):
I still don't see why this is. I can't believe that people would pay that much more to be only 10 miles closer to London, but with much much worse access into the city, not to mention the confusion and the crowds that LHR have, and the traffic. LGW is so much simpler. And with everyone being at LGW, how can United compete with that being in a worse airport? I just don't get it.

Quite simple, ask anyone who lives North of London, for them LGW is awful to get to. With the exception of CO passengers going from other UK airports, and maybe a few DL and US paxs from MAN, LHR is far more convenient for UK O/D travellers north of London for long haul service, period.


User currently offlineKiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8548 posts, RR: 13
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7059 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think that if the UA/US merger had gone ahead then UA would serve DEN-LGW as they would also have other services to LGW ( CLT and PHL ) - this is assuming of course that the merger would not have killed the airline off completely .

Incidentally , I know that BII is a very complicated agreement , but why is it that a UK carrier ( BA) can serve DEN-LHR but not a US carrier , even one with 'grandfathered' rights into LHR ( UA) . I know that if UA started DEN-LGW that BA would have to change to LGW ... but if BA decided that was uneconomical and just dropped DEN altogether I believe that UA would still have to operate DEN-LGW not DEN-LHR ? I know that there are quite a few BII experts on Anet so I would be interested in your views on this.



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20487 posts, RR: 62
Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7019 times:

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 16):
a daily 777 on DEN-LGW is long overdue

I don't know if I would go that far. Back when CO operated a hub at Stapleton, CO 34/35 to LGW sometimes couldn't even operate daily all year round, it was just too hard to fill a DC-10 even with the Hawaiian and South Pacific connections to it. I used to love that flight because it was usually so lightly loaded. Western tried it too, and it didn't even last two years.

The idea of killing BA's flight to LHR just to operate a doubtful service to LGW doesn't seem like the best of strategies, but then, I'm not an airline CEO, armchair or otherwise.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineA340600 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 4105 posts, RR: 51
Reply 20, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6995 times:

Quoting B707Stu (Reply 17):
Quite simple, ask anyone who lives North of London, for them LGW is awful to get to. With the exception of CO passengers going from other UK airports, and maybe a few DL and US paxs from MAN, LHR is far more convenient for UK O/D travellers north of London for long haul service, period.

But it's horrible to get to the South of England, which many people want to travel to, fair enough not as many as London. But the South Coast is very popular as are parts of Kent etc which are much easier to access via LGW.

Sam



Despite the name I am a Boeing man through and through!
User currently offlineUalcsr From United States of America, joined May 2006, 485 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6982 times:

Aresenal....

I agree; LHR has excellent connections into Central London and is much more accessible than LGW. Further, there are many more affluent, business travellers in the western and northern areas of London than there are in the south; for these pax, LHR is much closer and offers a much wider variety of flights than LGW. Finally, you have to consider the Surrey/Reading/Berkshire factor. Most communities in these areas are relatively affluent--Reading is a major business center in the UK--and they're all much closer to LHR than LGW. Bottom line, LHR is where the money's at and I can't see UA spending money to open a new station which would probably be marginally profitable, if at all.


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 22, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6933 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 19):

I don't know if I would go that far. Back when CO operated a hub at Stapleton, CO 34/35 to LGW sometimes couldn't even operate daily all year round, it was just too hard to fill a DC-10 even with the Hawaiian and South Pacific connections to it. I used to love that flight because it was usually so lightly loaded. Western tried it too, and it didn't even last two years.

The idea of killing BA's flight to LHR just to operate a doubtful service to LGW doesn't seem like the best of strategies, but then, I'm not an airline CEO, armchair or otherwise.

I too remember the Western and CO experiments......but those were a very long time ago. Back then, UA, WA, Frontier-1 and CO all shared Denver and before airline traffic and international traffic boomed. UA now is the key powerhouse in UA: aside from small but clever Frontier-2, UA owns Denver as far as O&D and connecting traffic and certainly has the power to make Denver-London flights work. Just look at how well BA and LH have done out of Denver - rumor has it that those flights make lots of money and go out with great loads and very nice yields one a year round basis.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20487 posts, RR: 62
Reply 23, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6913 times:

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 22):
Just look at how well BA and LH have done out of Denver - rumor has it that those flights make lots of money and go out with great loads and very nice yields one a year round basis

I don't disagree with you at all that DEN is a viable international gateway, nor that BA and LH are having their cake and eating it too to LHR and FRA.

It's simply my opinion that the reason those flights have been viable is because they are to airports that themselves are important in the scheme of things, and are where people want to fly. I still don't see the economic sense of UA splitting up their investment at LHR, and hacking off the connection DEN has to LHR, even if they don't run it, just to fly once a day into LGW.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 6864 times:

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 16):

Second, Denver is a major hub for UA that should have access to London, even if it is Gatwick.......CO manages with Gatwick out of its hubs, DFW uses Gatwick out of LGW and survives, etc.....a daily 777 on DEN-LGW is long overdue.

Just because a city is a hub for an airline, that doesn't mean that it should fly to every city the other hubs fly to, in particular international flights. Just because DL flies to LGW from ATL and CVG doesn't mean that SLC (or JFK) should have a flight there as well. DL doesn't offer JFK-LGW flights because of the number of NYC-London flights already (British Airways, Air India, American, Eos, MaxJet, Kuwait Airways, Royal Jordanian, United, Virgin Atlantic @ JFK and British Airways, Continental, and Virgin Atlantic @ EWR). I think that someone like VS, BD, or BA could probably jump in on ATL-MAN and do pretty decent, but is unlikely to happen.


25 VV701 : This is hugely misleading. It reads as if you are saying that all of London's tourist and business areas are less than 10 miles from LHR. Of course i
26 Dutchjet : Being that UA has yet to launch a Denver-Gatwick service, your position is the one that UA most likely agrees with, that is, its not worth the effort
27 AeroWesty : BA is filling up its planes not just to London, but to Heathrow. Does anyone know what the O&D or connecting traffic numbers are on UA's change of ga
28 Dutchjet : True, and Lufthansa is filling up planes to Frankfurt. And, UA tries to route pax travelling from Denver to Europe and return via its other hubs. UA
29 Burnsie28 : I thought it had to be a Bermuda II in order for that city to be even served from LHR. VS wants to go some places but cant because of Bermuda 2, citi
30 Dutchjet : To be honest, I dont know, but the Detroit-London route has a long history with US carriers......PA, DL, then NW. When Pan Am first flew Detroit-Lond
31 AeroWesty : Yup, in 1969 PA54/55 flew DTW-LHR with (interline?) service on NW from MSP. PA56/57 flew DTW-BOS-LHR.
32 Post contains links and images A330323X : Yes. And UA was not just planning on starting DEN-LGW after the UA/US merger, UA was also going to start flying IAD-LGW to complement its IAD-LHR ser
33 RoseFlyer : United has downsized LHR in recent years and has sold off slots. They are doing the opposite of expanding in LHR, so I can't see why they would want
34 Gigneil : That's just simply not true. AA continues their presence there because DFW needs service to London. UA would have switched that PHL service to LHR so
35 UAL777UK : Its the worst kept secret at UA, that when and if open skies are signed for LHR, UA will open a route to DEN. Theres massive potential for that route
36 Dtwclipper : Isn't there a member of its alliance that could take care of it's ground services?
37 Dutchjet : I was thinking exactly the same thing, or a ground service company could handle a LGW flight. And, not that there a several stations in Europe to whi
38 UAL727LHR : Unfortunately for UA, Rose is right, UA have downsized at Heathrow over the last several years. The reasons for this are manyfold and not just poor f
39 Boysteve : Personally I think that LGW is better connected than LHR. From LGW you have Gatwick Express (30 mins to Victoria every 15 minutes) which is within wa
40 Gigneil : JFK-HKG lasted a very, very short time and was never successful. That route is outside the range of their low MTOW 777s with any workable payload, an
41 RoseFlyer : Does anyone know how many slots United actually controls at LHR? I know that they have 11 daily flights, but how many slots do they have. I have hear
42 Bmiexpat : If bmi were able to use the slots they have to fly to the US from LHR then they would be a very successful airline indeed!
43 Jetdeltamsy : The BIG $$ is business and first class (paid) fares between North America and cities connecting through Heathrow to onward destinations. Not to menti
44 Apodino : I think one thing people forget. If all these US airlines race to LHR in the event of a Bermuda 2 relaxation, you are talking about at least a potenti
45 SFORunner : Star Alliance non-stop flights from LHR/LGW (on May 29 - according to the Star Alliance timetable) ARN x6/x0 CPH x6/x0 FRA x10/x0 CDG x5/x0 MUC x7/x0
46 Laxintl : Not according to the masses. LHR was the number airport in Europe and third busiest overall worldwide by passenger volume. Its pretty indicative how
47 OA412 : Actually UA never operated JFK-CDG. They did apply for the route and announce their intention to service it but, IIRC, the slots (the US and France d
48 Humberside : And also EDI, ABZ, INV, GLA, BHD, DUB, MAN, LBA, MME, CDG, HAJ, BRU, NCE, ALC, PMI, Venice, Naples (I think), Mumbai, Jeddah and Riyadh on bmi. Oslo,
49 VV701 : If bmi 'use the slots they have to fly to the US' then they will lose most of their existing customer base and have to establish themselves in a new
50 A330323X : Actually, BD has already been approved by the DOT to join the Star transatlantic ATI, effective upon open skies being reached between the U.S. and U.
51 Post contains images MAS777 : If you note all these valid points above - you can see that LGW is indeed much better accessed only if travelling by RAIL. This is a big problem for
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...
Why No Tupolev In US posted Tue Oct 31 2006 23:02:27 by KingAirMan
Why No Windows In Toilets posted Sun Sep 17 2006 14:19:03 by Albird87
Why No UA 757-200 Ops Across The Atlantic? posted Wed Aug 9 2006 20:48:51 by DptMAN
Why No 757's In India? posted Tue Jul 4 2006 09:49:08 by Deaphen
Why No Southwest In MSP? posted Tue May 9 2006 07:10:36 by NW757MSP
Why No 767s In NW Fleet From Early Days? posted Fri Feb 17 2006 09:03:28 by AirCanada014
Why No EZY In Brussels? posted Fri Jan 13 2006 20:43:24 by VinnieWinnie
Why No Airbuses In Polished Metal Colour Schemes? posted Fri Nov 18 2005 00:47:45 by Acho
Why No Glare In 350? posted Wed Jun 29 2005 00:33:29 by Ruscoe
Why No UA Mainline At RDU? posted Tue Jun 14 2005 06:27:59 by Usairwys757