Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
B787 Getting More Overweight?  
User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 11856 times:

It may be that the 787 weight issues are getting worse, despite Boeing's efforts to control them.

Here's an article from Sept 2005, where they say the plane was about 2% over the design weight (and that this is already more overweight than 767 or 777 were at a similar point in the program)

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...gy/2002486350_787globalside11.html

And here's a fresh source, attributing the weight to the metal mesh Boeing is inserting in the fuselage structure and putting the figure at 2,5%:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/277220_air12.html

96 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDarrenthe747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 11834 times:

well as we all know Boeing is well known for underestimating their final production model specs so they have some breathing room. It's really to soon to tell what exactly is going to be a problem until the jet takes more shape.

User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 11809 times:

Quoting Darrenthe747 (Reply 1):
well as we all know Boeing is well known for underestimating their final production model specs so they have some breathing room

This would be the case for a traditional metal fuselage. Now that Boeing are going down the path of a full composite fuselage many uncertainties are still unknown.

I'm confident that Boeing will manage to achieve it's targets by other means.

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1557 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 11558 times:

I suppose you gentlemen noted the date of the article.?

Ruscoe


User currently onlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20499 posts, RR: 62
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 11527 times:

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 3):
I suppose you gentlemen noted the date of the article.?

Wednesday, July 12, 2006



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineBeaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 11527 times:

"Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Aerospace Notebook: Lightning a weighty issue for the 787"

Thats' the one with 2,5% overweight...



Please respect animals - don't eat them...
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1557 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 11481 times:

"but the plane will be within the weight promised to airline customers."

This makes it a non issue. Boeing set very severe internal weight goals to cover such contingencies.

Ruscoe


User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 11436 times:

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 6):
"but the plane will be within the weight promised to airline customers."

This makes it a non issue. Boeing set very severe internal weight goals to cover such contingencies.

Boeing has, apparently wisely, not promised the airlines everything. So the plane may be able to fulfill what was promised to airlines even if it won't be able to do everything now quoted on the Boeing website.

Also performance differences to the present A350 will be significantly changed in the Airbus' favour if the A350 comes in at target weight and the B787 2,5% over.


User currently offlineFlying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4161 posts, RR: 36
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 11422 times:

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 6):
"but the plane will be within the weight promised to airline customers."

This makes it a non issue. Boeing set very severe internal weight goals to cover such contingencies.

Ruscoe

Airbus told airline customers "that the A380 will be delivered in time"... Never take for granted what OEMs - regardless if Airbus or Boeing - are telling you officially. And: goals can be achieved - or they can be missed, no matter how severe they are.



Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
User currently offlineDistantHorizon From Portugal, joined Oct 2005, 224 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 11422 times:

"Boeing said it is not sure it will be able to meet the target weight of the 787, but the plane will be within the weight promised to airline customers."

What other thing could they say?

"We always planned to deal with this issue, but we did not anticipate the complexity," acknowledged Boeing's Scott Strode, head of 787 development and production.

So did they antecipated the weight problem conected?

I really hope Boeing can find a way of dealing with the many problems that are still to appear (most of them completly new ones), but they will have serious dificulties with this one: most of the plane in not made by Boeing.


User currently offlineLS737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 11390 times:

Quoting WINGS (Reply 2):
Now that Boeing are going down the path of a full composite fuselage many uncertainties are still unknown.

"Many uncertainties are still unknown". Have you been taking lessons from Donald Rumsfeld? Big grin


User currently offlineManni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 23
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 11337 times:

2,5% what would that be in KG for the 787-8? Boeings best selling 787 so far IIRC.


SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8998 posts, RR: 75
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 11282 times:

Dont know what all the fuss is about, when they deliver the aircraft, it will be the best they could have achieved at the time. No doubt with time later production aircraft may well be lighter still.

Speculating about a percent or two when we dont know all the baseline parameters is pointless.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 11109 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 14):
Speculating about a percent or two when we dont know all the baseline parameters is pointless.

Where have you been during the last few years..

Quoting Darrenthe747 (Reply 1):
well as we all know Boeing is well known for underestimating their final production model specs

please speak for yourself, IMO this is an un-eraseable A.net legend

The lightning issue was mentioned months ago but quickly dismissed by folks here as bashing and as quickly forgotten.
http://www.airliners.net/discussions...general_aviation/read.main/2640551


User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7119 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days ago) and read 11018 times:

Keesje
"The lightning issue was mentioned months ago but quickly dismissed by folks here as bashing and as quickly forgotten."

Is this the result of:
A. Pro Boeing slant on this web site

B. Aircraft not yet assembled

??????????


User currently offlineBoeingBus From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1596 posts, RR: 17
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days ago) and read 10974 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 15):
The lightning issue was mentioned months ago but quickly dismissed by folks here as bashing and as quickly forgotten.

It's still a nonissue.... It's a nonissue because the plane is still in its design stage and quickly moving into production and test phase. This is nothing Boeing can't handle. Period!

Why do people blow things out of proportion. Boeing has a target, they missed it by 2.5. The total weight with the 2.5% still meets customers expectations. This just demonstrates that Boeing is doing the right thing to always set the benchmark high and strive to make it the best.

So tell me where is the problem? Many of you need to get a life and stop finding issues when there are non. Non yet, at least.



Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days ago) and read 10941 times:

How long before it's officially declared as obese?  Wink


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 offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days ago) and read 10925 times:

Quoting Joni (Reply 7):

Also performance differences to the present A350 will be significantly changed in the Airbus' favour if the A350 comes in at target weight and the B787 2,5% over.

Not really, the weight difference between the two is so large to begin with.

That's why Boeing only had to give looser guarantees to its customers.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 15):

The lightning issue was mentioned months ago but quickly dismissed by folks here as bashing and as quickly forgotten.

Let's not forget the A350's composite wings will have the same issue.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days ago) and read 10899 times:

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 17):
This is nothing Boeing can't handle. Period!

Why do people blow things out of proportion. Boeing has a target, they missed it by 2.5.

I think we have to evaluate this issue from all angles, quote every airline exec / annalist that says / thinks something about it, put the 2.5% line at the end of each 787 article, draw far reaching conclusions and bring it up many times over again for months to come.

Broken promises, angry airline customers, doom scenarios.

And do the same process over again for every (possible / likely) delay.

 Smile Nah.. Jooking

Can't wait to see the first real 787!


User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5746 posts, RR: 47
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days ago) and read 10795 times:

While this might be a wet dream for all the Boeing haters out there, IMO, Boeing will probably come in at or slightly above weight (>1%).


That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days ago) and read 10761 times:

Quoting Joni (Reply 7):
Boeing has, apparently wisely, not promised the airlines everything. So the plane may be able to fulfill what was promised to airlines even if it won't be able to do everything now quoted on the Boeing website.

I did not know that the airlines are that stupid to sign billion dollars contract without knowing what they are going to get  Yeah sure. Do you have anything to back up this statement? If not then it is only your opinion and means nothing.

Not the doubt the Seattle PI article, but there is a very vague description to when was the 2.5% number released. If you compare the wordings of the Seattle PI article to the previous Seattle times article, the timing of the Information is much more clearer on the earlier article. In my opinion, the writer just take whatever number they get from earlier statements and put it into perspective to support his story.

BTW the overweight estimation will be with respect to the OEW. In the first article, the aircraft was said to be ~5000 lbs overweight, which is about 2% of the OEW. This is 1% overweight by Airbus's accounting method  Wink

Cheers,
PP



One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlineKhobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 10735 times:

Quoting Joni (Reply 7):
Also performance differences to the present A350 will be significantly changed in the Airbus' favour if the A350 comes in at target weight and the B787 2,5% over.

The performance promises made to the airlines have added weight taken into account. Thus even if the 787 turns out to be over its target design weight, the airlines will still get the performance they were promised. So no advantage to Airbus at all.


User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 10598 times:

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 22):
I did not know that the airlines are that stupid to sign billion dollars contract without knowing what they are going to get Yeah sure. Do you have anything to back up this statement? If not then it is only your opinion and means nothing.

Um, please read reply 7 again. I specifically said that Boeing has promises to the airlines and looks to be able (according to B) to fulfil them. Those promises are looser than the ones on B's website, which apparently depend on the plane making the design weight.

Quoting Khobar (Reply 23):

The performance promises made to the airlines have added weight taken into account. Thus even if the 787 turns out to be over its target design weight, the airlines will still get the performance they were promised. So no advantage to Airbus at all.

The airlines will get the performance they were promised, but the performance they get will be worse than what it would be if the plane made the design weight. Thus if the B787 winds up 2,5% overweight, it's definitely an advantage to Airbus compared to the situation where it was 0% overweight.


User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2826 posts, RR: 42
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 10598 times:

Quoting Joni (Thread starter):
And here's a fresh source, attributing the weight to the metal mesh Boeing is inserting in the fuselage structure and putting the figure at 2,5%:

Spin.

From the same artcle:

Quote:

Boeing said it is not sure it will be able to meet the target weight of the 787, but the plane will be within the weight promised to airline customers.

It is interesting that Boeing has to do this work on lightning proofing the plane.

Quoting Joni (Reply 7):
Boeing has, apparently wisely, not promised the airlines everything. So the plane may be able to fulfill what was promised to airlines even if it won't be able to do everything now quoted on the Boeing website.

What promises are you accusing Boeing of breaking? Can you be explicit?

I think that Boeing will eventually pull this plane back to target weight. Remember that a huge chunk of the last of theA380's major weight problems was solved by reducing the weight of seats and internal furnishings.


User currently offlineLawgman From Canada, joined Feb 2005, 71 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 10582 times:

Quoting Joni (Thread starter):
And here's a fresh source, attributing the weight to the metal mesh Boeing is inserting in the fuselage structure and putting the figure at 2,5%:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine....html

As a passenger and not an airline exec (and as someone who was stuck on a roller-coaster of a ride on AC from YYZ to FLL 3 years ago), I found the anti-turbulence system talked about in this article to be much more interesting.


25 Baroque : I dont think you can bring Rummie into this LS737 unless we are talking about the 787 lite - the one that has an OEW of about 56 t (joke!). If the ev
26 Ckfred : I remember watching a documentary on the building of the 777. UA had a clause in its contract about weight, so the 777 was put on a scale. It was abou
27 Khobar : Sorry, but no. The performance of the 787 isn't based on its design target weight, so the performance of the 787 will not be hindered in any way. The
28 Post contains images Stitch : Not if the A350 is sized like a 777. Boeing has not "missed" anything, since the final weight is not known. They are currently 2.5% over what they wa
29 AirFrnt : Do you have sources for these statements? Performance of aircraft almost always is affected first and foremost by it's weight. If your arguement is t
30 Post contains images Eatmybologna : I told B787 to stay away from McDonalds and to start exercising. Sheesh! E-M-B
31 Ken777 : It would be interesting to know how much room Boeing has between their internal target weight and the assured max weight they gave the airlines. If th
32 Post contains images 787engineer : How do you know the performance "estimates" for the 787 weren't drawn from the performance guarantees given to the airlines? That would mean the perf
33 Texfly101 : Yes, that's true. I wrote a response in a thread last year where I said that this would become a major issue and was dismissed as "this is nothing to
34 Post contains images Astuteman : This was either an excellent comment, taking the moral "high road" that we all should adopt , or an excellent comment completely taking the piss out
35 Post contains images Revelation : Or nicknamed the WalrusJet?
36 PolymerPlane : Since any plane does not have any grounding, how does CFRP plane is in worst shape than metal aircraft? I would think that since CFRP is a bad conduc
37 Post contains images Khobar : No, that wasn't the point of the original argument which was that the weight issue would be an advantage for Airbus, and that is incorrect since that
38 Post contains images NADC10Fan : Here's the sole point amid all the wonderful AvB foolishness which sprouted here that's worth making: Not a single full 787 airframe is together and f
39 Revelation : As hinted at in the 2nd article above: Since there are so few metal parts, and all of the metal parts have less resistance than the composite parts,
40 Post contains links Revelation : The accident report for the lightning hitting the glider is here. Follow the "figure" links inside the report to see cool pictures of what happens to
41 DAYflyer : Check with Qatar. The signed for the A-350 and it is now in it's fourth re-design. They apparently have experience in this regard.
42 Khobar : Boeing said the 787 will do X and that's what it will do. Airbus countered that their A350 will do Y which is better than X. If Airbus is basing Y on
43 Post contains images BoomBoom : I wouldn't count on the A350 coming in on target, given Airbus' experience with the A380. After all, Airbus is famous for making heavy planes, aren't
44 Kaneporta1 : Nice spin. So we have: A300 A310 A32x A330 A340 A380 Apart from the A380 which is the biggest, most advanced and most complex airliner ever made, whi
45 BoeingBus : Yes they have. They missed their internal target weight, which you dont have access to. So you don't know but people that actually work at Boeing do!
46 Post contains images Glideslope : Wow, your the last one I'd expect to speak the truth on Airbus.
47 PolymerPlane : Well they hasn't signed anything yet, just MoU which means squat. The biggest mistake they made IMO was letting their 787 slot go. Cheers, PP
48 Texfly101 : A lightning strike is simply the passage of electrons from the earth to the atmosphere. The plane acts as a part of the conductive path. The electron
49 Post contains links and images DeltaDC9 : Yes it is. They could not handle corporate espionage without getting caught! Massive would be the word. How logic took you there is a mystery. The pa
50 Kaneporta1 : You pretty much nailed it. I should add that the mesh is designed to take the energy of the lightning, but in the process it will evaporate. This mea
51 Post contains images Keesje : Thnx Thnx for your informative explanation!
52 PolymerPlane : Well yeah, website numbers are not a promise. The contract numbers are the ones that bind. That does not mean Boeing does not promise everything. The
53 Texfly101 : Thats true, reading and viewing their studies is where a lot of my info comes from. That and a lot of job related course work in this area. But it ha
54 Ruscoe : 3 things: 1.The recent article is just a rehash of the Sept 11 2005 article, with a speculative extra .5% added. 2. Boeing new very early on that they
55 DeltaDC9 : You make an excellent point there, they might be going to extra lengths due to the fact that certification must be a shoe in. I would imagine over-en
56 BHMBAGLOCK : I don't know exactly how long Boeing has been working on this but can tell you that it was a part of the V-22 from the beginning and that goes back n
57 MCIGuy : I think it's great (and smart) that Boeing is being so forthcoming with it's customers and Joe Public.
58 Dimondan : From classes, we are taught that manufactures usually do go over their design weight sometimes up to 10%. It is nothing to be alarmed about, they just
59 F14ATomcat : Now how old is the V-22 program? Boeing was working on this technonlogy as of at least as far back as 1988 when I attended a recruiting seminar in en
60 Baroque : Great information Texfly101. Presumably one of the tricks is that after you have got the electrons away from places you dont want them, you have to f
61 Boeing7E7 : Totally moot. The 350 was a flying tank in comparison to the 787. Unless of course it's 2.5% over a target that was 5% less than what it should be en
62 Glacote : No, Boeing does not state that 2.5% over Boeing's target weight makes it below or at the customer's promised weight. They state that they will eventu
63 Post contains links BoomBoom : Gee, can you dig up one of these posts? The issue is not what weight the 787 is during development, it what it ends up at. At one time the A380 was 2
64 Lotsamiles : Texfly101, thanks for the great technical posts.
65 Post contains images Astuteman : Are you abusing controlled substances? Directly from the link YOU just provided...... Quote:- "Six months before flight tests and less than a year be
66 Saturn5 : And I wonder the same about you. His point is absolutelly essential - if you don't know the baseline this is pointless discussion.
67 GBan : Are you sure about this? How can the mesh be replaced??
68 Post contains images Iwok : when hit by lightening, you want the fuselage to act as a faraday cage, so that all the charge goes to the outside skin and the pax stay safe. In thi
69 Post contains links Joni : Re-read post 7, please. I specifically said they _didn't_ promise everything, i.e. they didn't promise the plane being delivered at design weight but
70 Post contains images Astuteman : I think you hit the same problem as I had with these statements Correct, at least according to EK's Tim Clark - as BoomBoom very kindly reminded us .
71 PolymerPlane : funny though, EK's Clark said the A380's weight target is 240 tons, while from airbus website, the OEW is 276.8 tonnes. That's 15%, quite a bit of ove
72 Post contains images Astuteman : Funnily enough, no I don't. From the article:- "That weight is without cabin furnishings". In other words a "bare airframe weight". The OEW would inc
73 Rheinbote : While weight vs design weight target gives you an indication how well weight is managed during development, it doesn't provide any clue on how weight
74 Joni : No, it doesn't. However in this thread we're discussing mainly the design vs. actual weight.
75 Baroque : That and a bit more. Even within the fibres, all is not simple. Conductivity is much higher in the basal plane but is much less across those planes.
76 Post contains images Parabolica : By far the best response on A.net this week. P-
77 BoomBoom : YOU did some very selective quoting from the linked article I provided. Why did you leave out this? If the planes target weight was about 239 tons th
78 BoeingBus : I suggest you re-read the article. But I forgive you because your French... Here it is: "Boeing said it is not sure it will be able to meet the targe
79 Post contains images Texfly101 : You're very right. Introducing this into a commercial aircraft is quite a bit different than military. And the V-22 and F-22 programs are where Boein
80 ScottB : Exactly why is it logical to assume that numbers provided by sales and marketing are identical to the targets which were internal to the design/engin
81 Khobar : You stated that "performance differences to the present A350 will be significantly changed in the Airbus' favour if the A350 comes in at target weigh
82 Zeke : Just a small correction to your post, most customers I know of opted for a cabin configurations of 15-25t, which is unheard of for the number of pax
83 Katekebo : My two cents... Having worked for several years on both sides of the pond as project manager, I have realized that there is a fundamental cultural dif
84 Glacote : I could not find a reference to these figures - and I strongly doubt they are correct. That would mean 9-12.5% overweight! Quite a "far higher percen
85 Astuteman : Those numbers were in the text, as BoomBoom pointed out. However, if you read the text, they were pure conjecture, about third-hand, and not necessar
86 Post contains links Joni : Now you're just trying to muddy the conversation by throwing stuff around. If you have a document in your hand (titled, for example, "787-800 charact
87 Post contains images BoomBoom : Did you read the article? It says the A380 started out 20-30 tons overeweight by Airbus was able to trim that to approximately 4 tons. Where are the
88 787engineer : Addressing fuel burn is a constant goal of the program, and a push for lower fuel burn doesn't happen overnight. No one solution will solve all fuel
89 Post contains images Stitch : Do GE and RR have their 787 engines on the dyno right now? Because if they do not, I can't see how Boeing can have a firm idea on what fuel burn is g
90 Post contains links ScottB : I'd never have a document entitled "787-800 characteristics" since the aircraft is designated the 787-8. But you can't put down your Airbus pom-poms
91 Katekebo : And the stupid airline executives keep on ordering more and more of these airplanes.
92 HB88 : A "non-issue"?! Holy moly, are you channeling Randy Baseler? C'mon Randy, move towards the bright light, the real world's out there buddy... c'mon, y
93 Post contains links Khobar : Ugh, did something turn up in my post I didn't see? (apologies if so). '"We are about five tonnes over the original spec weight but that is less than
94 Post contains images Joni : Do you have any reason to believe that, aside from generally wanting everything to go well for the B787? No, your post was fine.. it was mine - I not
95 BoomBoom : Ah, the old "since Airbus screwed-up the A380 beyond belief, Boeing will have to do the same with the 787" reasoning.
96 Khobar : I've run into that myself. Just slightly annoying, eh? Not necessarily. Airbus (or Boeing, for that matter) can claim anything they like, and if the
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...
LH Doesn't Rule Out Getting More A380s. posted Sun Nov 12 2006 16:44:10 by Thorben
So Is HP Getting More 757's? posted Thu Jul 8 2004 18:45:30 by Alexinwa
Is Turbulence Getting More Common? posted Thu Apr 29 2004 22:55:51 by Snnams
British Mediterranean Getting More A320/A321s? posted Fri Jan 9 2004 00:28:59 by BA
QX Getting 2 More Q-400's posted Wed Nov 12 2003 18:01:01 by SunValley
Will Air Transat Be Getting More Aircraft? posted Sun Dec 16 2001 17:45:04 by Spotter
A380/B787 Full Electrical Planes Much More Complex posted Sun Jun 18 2006 10:44:56 by ElGreco
Should Overweight Passengers Pay More? posted Sun May 29 2005 09:30:44 by RootsAir
More Talk That The A380 Is Overweight posted Fri Jun 18 2004 21:45:00 by BCAInfoSys
Is Mrtc Effective In Getting AA More Passengers? posted Tue Apr 9 2002 03:31:29 by Bobcat