Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Truth Revealed RE 2005 A320 China Orders  
User currently offlineMham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3723 posts, RR: 3
Posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4877 times:

By Joshua Fellman
June 15 (Bloomberg) -- Air China Ltd., the nation's biggest overseas
carrier, signed an order to buy 24 Airbus SAS A320 aircraft for
about $1.74 billion for delivery between 2007 and 2010, the Chinese
carrier said in a statement.

The purchase is part of China's 150-plane order from Airbus first
announced on Dec. 5 last year and logged on the European
manufacturer's 2005 books.

28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1725 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4846 times:

Here's a link:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...00080&sid=af8JcBloAKQ0&refer=asia[

The Bloomberg piece doesn't say that this is part of the order for 150 signed at the last minute in December. I think we need to get some additional confirmation that this isn't a new order or a renegotiation. If it isn't, there has been some pretty serious cooking of the books going on.



WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offlineFlyingDoctorWu From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 307 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4846 times:

That's a rather biased manner of reporting this information......

Nonetheless that means that Airbus still has another 126 A320 series orders coming from China this year (that they cannot or shouldnt count torwards this year's totals.)


User currently offlineFlyingDoctorWu From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 307 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4840 times:

Source


here's your source for out of 150 package announced last year


User currently offlineMham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3723 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4799 times:

It appears the link posted for Bloomberg is outdated, but I cannot find the updated link. However, Forbes is reporting the same news:

HONG KONG (XFN-ASIA) - Mainland flag carrier Air China Ltd said it will acquire 24 Airbus 320-series aircraft as part of an earlier agreement involving the airline's fleet expansion signed last year.

http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2006/06/14/afx2816412.html


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12884 posts, RR: 46
Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4618 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Calm down folks. This is exactly how Airbus has handled their previous Chinese "bulk orders". yes 

If you check Airbus's O&D spreadsheet the initial 150 order is shown as being CASC. As the individual airlines take their allocation, the numbers will be reduced from CASC and added to the airline. Next month's O&D spreadsheet will show CASC down to 126 and Air China will show the 24 from this announcement.

No "truth" has been revealed. No new orders will be added. There's no cooking of the books. Get over it! sarcastic 



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently offlinePanAm_DC10 From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 4217 posts, RR: 89
Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4595 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
COMMUNITY MANAGER

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 5):
If you check Airbus's O&D spreadsheet the initial 150 order is shown as being CASC. As the individual airlines take their allocation, the numbers will be reduced from CASC and added to the airline. Next month's O&D spreadsheet will show CASC down to 126 and Air China will show the 24 from this announcement.

Thank you Scbriml I've spent most of the day trying to get that point across but no-one semed to believe me and the threads got deleted which really got up my goat because all I had done was post fact's instead unfounded allegations. But the orders will appear under their CASC 2005 order date. So nothing to add to the totals this year.

Anyway I found another forum and I'll be interested to see how those whom can't look forward will respond when they see the fact's.

There are 9 x A319 orders listed by Airbus for Air China, it should be noted that these 9 frames are not part of the 150 Framework Agreement so you're right, 126 to go and feel we'll see a few more announcements prior to and after Farnborough.

I'm just pleased to see that we're seeing the breakdown between the 6 carriers which will be getting them

Regards, PanAm_DC10



Ask the impossible to achieve the best possible
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12884 posts, RR: 46
Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4513 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Reply 6):
Thank you Scbriml I've spent most of the day trying to get that point across but no-one semed to believe me and the threads got deleted which really got up my goat because all I had done was post fact's instead unfounded allegations. But the orders will appear under their CASC 2005 order date. So nothing to add to the totals this year.

I know that, you know that, quite a few others know it as well. Unfortunately, the Airbus bashers are having a good time of it recently and won't let a little thing like facts get in the way of a good bash session.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21582 posts, RR: 59
Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4427 times:

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 7):
I know that, you know that, quite a few others know it as well. Unfortunately, the Airbus bashers are having a good time of it recently and won't let a little thing like facts get in the way of a good bash session.

Because Boeing didn't do it this way and thus "lost" last years race despite booking more orders using their method of counting. Airbus only booked more orders by counting the 150 A320s without having carriers attached.

Is it semantics? Yes.

But considering how Airbus went about it, and the PR they had surrounding it, it sure seems rigged to a layman who doesn't understand why Airbus can do no wrong...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineNudelhirsch From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 1438 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4363 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):
Because Boeing didn't do it this way and thus "lost" last years race despite booking more orders using their method of counting. Airbus only booked more orders by counting the 150 A320s without having carriers attached.

Is it semantics? Yes.

But considering how Airbus went about it, and the PR they had surrounding it, it sure seems rigged to a layman who doesn't understand why Airbus can do no wrong...

And did they win a big price for that? No. So what?



Putana da Seatbeltz!
User currently offlineAbba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1385 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4237 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):
But considering how Airbus went about it, and the PR they had surrounding it, it sure seems rigged to a layman who doesn't understand why Airbus can do no wrong...

...And Boeing would be able to include orders they received in 2004 in their account for 2005 which Airbus wouldn't as they already had counted them in 2004. What is important is that each of the two counts their China orders in a consistent way year after year.

Get over it! Why do you never grow up? This "misplaced sports fan mentality" that considers A & B as football teams is childish at best.

Abba


User currently offlineMrComet From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 561 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4185 times:

No matter what Airbus or Boeing does with the numbers, in the end, someone will sell more planes than the other. Boeing is conservative being in a tough stock market. Airbus is not. You will also notice Airbus regularly reports many more cancellations than Boeing. In the end, either approach is acceptable as long as they remain consistent although I like the Boeing approach more.

Airbus loses 10 points for style for their pompous year end declarations of beating Boeing when everyone knows its just an accounting win. It all comes home to roost this year with Boeing selling some 400 plus planes to Airbus's 80 plus planes.



The dude abides
User currently offlinePanAm_DC10 From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 4217 posts, RR: 89
Reply 12, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4102 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
COMMUNITY MANAGER

Quoting Abba (Reply 10):
...And Boeing would be able to include orders they received in 2004 in their account for 2005 which Airbus wouldn't as they already had counted them in 2004.

If I may correct you sir but you are wrong. Boeing announced Hapag Lloyd on January 6 2005 and acknowledged the order was placed in December 2004 which meant they didn't count them in their 2005 totals

"The order is valued at $655 million at list prices. Hapag-Lloyd begins taking delivery during the first quarter of 2006. The orders, signed in late December, are accounted for in Boeing's 2004 sales figures."

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2005/q1/nr_050106g.html

The same applies to Bavaria Leasing announced January 12 2005

Delivery of the airplanes begins in 2005 and extends through 2007. All six airplanes were previously accounted for in 2004 Boeing order tallies, although not announced.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2005/q1/nr_050112g.html

So as you can see there is total transparency in the way Boeing have logged the orders to which you refer and I will respectfully disagree with the quote of yours I listed above.

Regards, PanAm_DC10



Ask the impossible to achieve the best possible
User currently offlineAbba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1385 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3962 times:

Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Reply 12):
If I may correct you sir but you are wrong. Boeing announced Hapag Lloyd on January 6 2005 and acknowledged the order was placed in December 2004 which meant they didn't count them in their 2005 totals

eh... I cannot follow you here. What does Hapag Lloyd have to do with China? The discussion was about how the Chinese orders are being counted. When the order is booked with the central government (as Airbus) or when the order is later distributed between the local Chinese carriers (as Boeing). If you count the orders from China early you cannot count them later as well and visa versa - so Boeing in 2005 might have been able to take advantage of counting orders recived from the central government in 2004 as they became distributed in 2005 to local Chinese airlines. Something Airbus could not have done as they have counteded their orders for that year with the central government already in 2004.

Abba


User currently offlinePanAm_DC10 From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 4217 posts, RR: 89
Reply 14, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3706 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
COMMUNITY MANAGER

Quoting Abba (Reply 13):
eh... I cannot follow you here. What does Hapag Lloyd have to do with China?

Everything, I read your following statement as inferring that Boeing were including booked orders in 2004 in their 2005 totals

Quoting Abba (Reply 10):
...And Boeing would be able to include orders they received in 2004 in their account for 2005 which Airbus wouldn't as they already had counted them in 2004.

That statement, to me, is a clear inference that Boeing were double counting orders and I responded with evidence that they do not do so. I rebuked your implication in the interests of clarity sir.

As for China, Boeing received an LoI for 70 plus a "verbal commitment" for another 80 in 2005. They booked 50 in December 2005 as follows;

11 x 73G for CZ
9 x 738 for CZ
10 x 738 for Xiamen
5 x 738 for Shanghai
3 x 73G for China Eastern
1 x 738 for China Eastern
6 x 738 for Hainan
5 x 738 for Shenzhen

The other 20 were booked this year as follows

10 for Air China
4 for Hainan
6 for Shandong

All 70 accounted for with another 80 to come.

As for Airbus, the announcements we now see are confirmation of the transactions between the the CASC and the various airlines. 24 announced by Air China and 126 to go. Be interesting to see the final breakdown. Of Note Air China and China Eastern have also booked some of the 80 outstanding Boeing orders too.

Regards, PanAm_DC10



Ask the impossible to achieve the best possible
User currently offlineAbba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1385 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3628 times:

Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Reply 14):
That statement, to me, is a clear inference that Boeing were double counting orders and I responded with evidence that they do not do so. I rebuked your implication in the interests of clarity sir.

NOT AT ALL. You seem not to understand how the Chinese aviation market works. So let me explain this as this market operates rather differently from the rest of the world.

You must first understand that an order with a Chinese airline is not placed directly with that particular airline. An order is always placed with the central Chinese government. This means that there is a fair bit of foreign and trade policy involved in this whole thing and that you will often see that airline contracts are signed at official meetings. You will also see that - over time - Airbus and Boeing seems to get about 1/2 of the Chinese market each and that orders suddenly can become much less if a political leader of the US or Europe says something that the Chinese leadership does not like. It happened to Bush/Boeing last year (even if the shortfall seems to have been made up later).

To what extent the Chinese airlines actually have a say in what planes they are to operate is difficult to say for an outsider. My guess - based on almost 13 years living in Hong Kong - is that these deals might be done in a kind of dialogue between the central government and the airlines through which a compromise is reached allowing for the central government to achieve its political goals and the airlines to get - more or less - the kind of equipment they want. Nevertheless, you will see many Chinese carriers such as China Southern flying both 737s and 320...

Now, after an order is placed with the central government, the next step is for that order to be divided between the airlines that are to operate the the aircrafts so ordered. At this stage new contracts is being signed with the individual airlines and my guess is that at this stage special requirements for the different airlines are being negotiated and put on paper.

Now, this systems allows for two different ways of counting China orders which will put the orders in different years as this process takes time. You might count an order at the time the first contract being signed with the central government - with pomp and circumstances - during a summit of a kind. This is what Airbus is doing, but not Boeing. This means that when both Airbus and Boeing both signed contracts with the central Chinese government in 2005 only Airbus counted those orders in their 2005 account. Boeing didn't.

However, it is important to understand that the story does not stop here (as some seems to believe). Because as Boeing is taking another approach to this and counting the orders - not when the contract is signed with the central government - but when contracts are signed with the individual airlines they would have had quite a few frames to count in 2005 that is covered by contracts signed with the central government in 2004 - just as Boeing will have quite a few airplanes to count in 2006 that are covered by their contracts with the central government in 2005. These orders will Boeing count as they haven’t counted them before. Airbus wouldn’t as they have already counted them.

So my point is: the disadvantage for Boeing (relative to Airbus) in NOT counting the central government orders in 2005 is balanced by them counting the individual airline contracts this year that is covered by central government contracts signed in 2004 (or before or in early 2005 for that matter). Neither Boeing nor Airbus is counting their orders with China twice. They only count them at different stages in the process and as long as they keep counting consistently, comparison is fair as any advantages or disadvantages of the two methods is being balanced over time.

Is the point clearer now?


Abba


User currently offlinePanAm_DC10 From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 4217 posts, RR: 89
Reply 16, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3489 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
COMMUNITY MANAGER

Quoting Abba (Reply 15):
NOT AT ALL.

Respectfully Abba, please read your quote again. The impliction you were trying to make, in response to the othe member, is clear and I clarified it. If we disagree, then so be it.

Quoting Abba (Reply 15):
You seem not to understand how the Chinese aviation market works. So let me explain this as this market operates rather differently from the rest of the world.

I believe I understand perfectly how it works, more so than most. Look back over my previous posts and you will see that I knew exactly why China ordered 70 + 80 737s whilst going the whole 150 A32X with Airbus.

Please, and again with respect, spare me the lecture because I do undertsand what I'm talking about, some others, seemingly don't. That is not to question your 13 years in HK. But I do understand that both Boeing and Airbus operate under different Regulatory enviroments and book their orders under different circumstances. Fact is that if you check any of the Boeing orders placed this year under the second tranche of 80 they (the respective airline) state that an "umbrella" agreement covers the "Material Transaction" notification rules as governed by the HKSE

Here's an excerpt from Air China which covers some from the 2006 agreement

"On April 19 2006 the Company announced that on the same date the Company and the AIE entered into the Boeing Aircraft Purchase agreement with the Boeing Company, pursuant to which the Company has agreed to purchase 15 Boeing 737 Aircraft from the Boeing Company.
The Boeing Aircraft Purchase Agreement was entered into a framework agreement entered into between the Boeing Company and the China Aviation Supllies Import and Export Group Corporation on April 11th 2006 (the 2006 Framework Agreement)"


Source: Air China Filing http://www.hkse.com

The same could be asked of China Eastern and 15 737s ordered at the same time only in this case, as they bought 4 in 2005, they refer to a 2005 "umbrella agreement" implemented as they knew they would place an order and another filing in 2006. They save on legal fee's by doing that.

If these were agreed to on those dates, why are they not yet listed on Boeing's site, even as UFO?

Abba I shall refer you to the following which I have already posted in this thread.

Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Reply 6):
Thank you Scbriml I've spent most of the day trying to get that point across but no-one seemed to believe me and the threads got deleted which really got up my goat because all I had done was post fact's instead unfounded allegations. But the orders will appear under their CASC 2005 order date. So nothing to add to the totals this year.

I am not questioning the validity of the orders at all, I have stated in the same reply that I am pleased we are finally starting to see the breakdown between carriers from the agreement. It's just that these go under last year and the Airbus "PR" machine will do their utmost to imply these are "new", which is what they are not. If it was Boeing, I would be saying exactly the same thing which is why I used HKSE filings to question why firmed orders with Chinese carriers, which you state is how Boeing book them, have yet to appear on Boeing's website.

Quoting Abba (Reply 15):
Is the point clearer now?

Again, with respect, no clarification was needed from my perspective and I thank you for the conversation.

Regards, PanAm_DC10



Ask the impossible to achieve the best possible
User currently offlineFlyingDoctorWu From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 307 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3416 times:

I think myself that it is ore appropriate to count the orders when they are firmed up with the respective airlines... at that point the manufacturer (Boeing or Airbus) knows some very important things:
1) which airline is recieving the plane
2) exactly what plane they are delivering
3) and when they will be delivering such plane...

just counting the umbrella agreement means nothing because the manufactor doesn't know any of those points


User currently offlinePanAm_DC10 From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 4217 posts, RR: 89
Reply 18, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3364 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
COMMUNITY MANAGER

Quoting FlyingDoctorWu (Reply 17):
just counting the umbrella agreement means nothing because the manufactor doesn't know any of those points

I suggest you read Abbas reply #15 as he explains it well enough. The umbrella agreements I refer to are specifically in relation to Material impact statements for filings with the HKSE of which most Chinese carriers are listed on. The term I believe you meant to use was Framework Agreement which are those entered into between the respective OEM and the CASC.

Regards, PanAm_DC10



Ask the impossible to achieve the best possible
User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3360 times:

Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Reply 18):
I suggest you read Abbas reply #15 as he explains it well enough. The umbrella agreements I refer to are specifically in relation to Material impact statements for filings with the HKSE of which most Chinese carriers are listed on. The term I believe you meant to use was Framework Agreement which are those entered into between the respective OEM and the CASC.

Doess this umbrella agreement include the CASC putting deposit for the plane?

Cheers,
PP

[Edited 2006-06-16 06:49:23]

[Edited 2006-06-16 06:49:49]


One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlinePanAm_DC10 From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 4217 posts, RR: 89
Reply 20, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3353 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
COMMUNITY MANAGER

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 19):
this umbrella agreement includes the CASC putting deposit for the plane?

Yes, the CASC have placed a deposit, the Airline is informed of their allocation and factor it into their filing.

Off to the World Cup if you will excuse me.

Regards, PanAm_DC10



Ask the impossible to achieve the best possible
User currently offline707lvr From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 585 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3319 times:

I have a feeling we will be having this same debate in June, 2007 after Airbus counts these 150 aircraft as 2006 orders.

User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12884 posts, RR: 46
Reply 22, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3226 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FlyingDoctorWu (Reply 17):
2) exactly what plane they are delivering

Check Airbus's O&D spreadsheet for an exact breakdown of the CASC 150 order in to A319s, A320s & A321s. It's been there since the order was booked.

Quoting FlyingDoctorWu (Reply 17):
just counting the umbrella agreement means nothing because the manufactor doesn't know any of those points

It does. A contract is signed and deposits paid. It's a firm order.

Quoting 707lvr (Reply 21):
I have a feeling we will be having this same debate in June, 2007 after Airbus counts these 150 aircraft as 2006 orders.

As I clearly explained above, Airbus doesn't count these orders twice. But of course if you have a single shed of evidence that Airbus has counted an order twice, I'm sure you'd be delighted to share it with us here..... I won't hold my breath! wink 



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently offlineAbba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1385 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3220 times:

Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Reply 16):
Respectfully Abba, please read your quote again. The impliction you were trying to make, in response to the othe member, is clear and I clarified it. If we disagree, then so be it.

I think that we are somehow misunderstanding each other (even if I still do not understand what the HKSE has to do with this discussion. Neither Airbus nor Boing is - to my knowledge - under HKSE rules when it comes to how they count their orders...)

OK - If I have expressed myself a little unclear then I can change this

Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Reply 12):
Quoting Abba (Reply 10):
...And Boeing would be able to include orders they received in 2004 in their account for 2005 which Airbus wouldn't as they already had counted them in 2004.

To

Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Reply 12):
Quoting Abba (Reply 10):
...And Boeing would be able to include orders they received under an umbrella agreement with the central government in 2004 in their account for 2005 where they became distributed to individual airlines which Airbus wouldn't as Airbus already had counted them in 2004 when they signed the umbrella agreement with the Chinese government.

To put it simple: Both Boeing and Airbus count their orders ONCE even if they do not count them at the same stage in the process. But they are all counted.

Abba


User currently offline707lvr From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 585 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3067 times:

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 22):
Quoting 707lvr (Reply 21):
I have a feeling we will be having this same debate in June, 2007 after Airbus counts these 150 aircraft as 2006 orders.

As I clearly explained above, Airbus doesn't count these orders twice. But of course if you have a single shed of evidence that Airbus has counted an order twice, I'm sure you'd be delighted to share it with us here..... I won't hold my breath!

Sorry, I should have been more clear. It doesn't matter. The entire process has become a circus.


25 Clickhappy : The whole issue is spin, and it is very confusing. My feeling is that Airbus plays games with their order book. It also doesn't help that press releas
26 CX747 : Shell games are shell games folks. You can only count an order ONCE. Airbus counted this order last year. It goes towards last years order "win" and n
27 PanAm_DC10 : Abba Thank you for a qualified response and for stating that there may be a misunderstanding. This forum is for learning and discussion so in the inte
28 Abba : Well - you may say so. There usually is, however, also quite some press coverage when Boeing signs an umbrella order. I think that neither A nor B wo
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...
Air China Orders 20 A320 posted Thu Jun 15 2006 10:38:41 by Johnny
The China Orders And 2005 "totals"... posted Thu Jan 19 2006 04:10:41 by Ikramerica
China Orders 502 Planes From.... posted Thu Nov 16 2006 06:11:20 by Jimyvr
Air China Orders RR Trent 1000 For 787s posted Wed Sep 13 2006 13:58:36 by PanAm_DC10
Question Re: DL 777 Unfilled Orders posted Tue Jul 25 2006 18:30:13 by Panamair
China Orders More 737s; Boeing Has Won A $2.6bn posted Fri May 13 2005 04:10:39 by Squirrel83
Airbus 2004/2005 Confirmed/Unconfirmed Orders posted Wed Jan 12 2005 18:13:01 by Teahan
Air China Orders? posted Sat Oct 9 2004 20:27:42 by European
Air China Orders 7 B737-700 posted Thu Sep 2 2004 08:37:41 by PANAM_DC10
RE: Boeing Commercial Aircraft Orders Orders posted Sun Aug 15 2004 18:54:22 by NWA757