Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airlines Tremble At Prospect Of $100/bbl  
User currently offlineNWDC10 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 8 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4528 times:

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?t=208849

Northwest officials declined to respond specifically to such suggestions. But in recent financial reports and news releases, Northwest officials have raised the possibility that the company may not be able to absorb escalating fuel costs.

Betsy Talton, spokeswoman for Delta, says high fuel prices "do pose a risk to our plan" to emerge from bankruptcy in 2007. "For 2006, we've seen a nearly $600 million impact from higher fuel prices."


Baggaley agrees that Continental is most at risk of entering bankruptcy protection if oil prices climb to three digits. Despite outperforming most other big carriers by several measures in the past couple of years, Continental has the smallest cash cushion. Continental spokesman David Messing declined to comment on that speculation.


Southwest CEO Gary Kelly discounts the likelihood of $100 oil. "We don't think the fundamentals justify the current price, and certainly not something as high as $100. There's a lot of fear included in the market price right now." Still, Kelly acknowledges that "world events could occur that could push the market price much higher." That's why, he says, Southwest hedges in the first place.

Any way you look at it, U.S. airlines would be overwhelmed by fuel prices approaching $3 a gallon, the jet fuel price that $100 oil would bring.

For consumers, $100 oil likely would lead to higher fares in the long run.
But as Heimlich notes, "It's one thing to raise fares; it's quite another for anyone to actually buy them."

Robert NWDC10

58 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4454 times:

I doubt it as well, but it would mean that lot of airlines had to upgrade their
airplanes ASAP.


User currently offlineNorthwestEWR From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 410 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4337 times:

No, they would have to raise fare ASAP.


ARJ 319 320 333 717 733 735 73G 738 739 742 752 753 762 772 CRJ CR9 ER3 ERJ FRJ J31 J41 D9S D94 D95 M81 M82 M88
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4306 times:

Just a wild (and frightening) thought, but if the price of fuel begins to seriously threaten the existence of the airlines beyond their ability to cope (like rising ticket prices), could the Congress conceivably endorse a return to "regulation"--as in the days of the Civil Aeronautics Board? Frightening because something like the TSA would set aviation policy!   

Seriously, if the viability of the entire air transport system were threatened, the politicians would have to act, not just in the U.S., but anywhere.


Quoting NWDC10 (Thread starter):
But as Heimlich notes, "It's one thing to raise fares; it's quite another for anyone to actually buy them."

  

[Edited 2006-08-22 18:15:58]


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineYULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2169 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4289 times:

Quoting NWDC10 (Thread starter):
Southwest CEO Gary Kelly discounts the likelihood of $100 oil.

Well, I raise 2 hypotheses here :

1. He is bluffing and WN is already prepared
2. He's a loser

Quoting NWDC10 (Thread starter):
as Heimlich notes, "It's one thing to raise fares; it's quite another for anyone to actually buy them."

Good point.



When I doubt... go running!
User currently offline747LUVR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4245 times:

I shudder at the thought of $100/bbl of oil. UGH! I think that would equate to a world recession. IMO.  banghead   faint 

User currently offlineFalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 5963 posts, RR: 27
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4185 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 747LUVR (Reply 5):
I think that would equate to a world recession

Sure would. Fuel prices raise the cost of everything. The railroad and shipping companies would have to raise costs to cover the bills too. Trucks that carry everything will raise prices too. Nearly everything is moved on a truck at one period of time. The price goes up across the board. Companies will cut back to pay for added fuel costs and then salaries will stay the same or go down. We will spend more on energy and less on fun stuff and big ticket items. It is a downward spiral. People talk about alternative fuels, but many of those have huge infrastructure costs and environmental risks worse than oil.

Here on the great lakes there still are some steam powered ships. The oldest ship on the lakes is 100 this year (St. Mary's Challenger 1906). She had a new engine installed in 1955. Several companies have postponed conversion of steam to diesel to save fuel cost. Fuel oil is cheaper. The labor cost of a steam engine was always higher than having a diesel, but now the gap is much smaller. There have even been a couple of steamers than have reentered service (Edward Ryerson 1960 and the Voyager Independent 1952) because of high demand for steel and shippers need the hulls to transport steel making resources. These ships once had the liability of being steamers now that is not such a big problem anymore. If oil prices go back down, then end is near for these ships.

If you think a NWA DC-9 is old you should see some of the ships on the lakes. They would consider the late 70s as new.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineSilentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1962 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4164 times:

If it wasn't for the tons of cash annually handed to politicians by the oil industry, I honestly think that some in the government would be openly discussing heavily regulating oil/fuel prices and production. If the prices continue to go through the roof, based only on speculation and analyst opinions and not based on reality then regulation is something that needs to be considered.

User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4151 times:

Quoting Silentbob (Reply 7):
If it wasn't for the tons of cash annually handed to politicians by the oil industry, I honestly think that some in the government would be openly discussing heavily regulating oil/fuel prices and production. If the prices continue to go through the roof, based only on speculation and analyst opinions and not based on reality then regulation is something that needs to be considered.

How do you regulate something controlled by foreign parties? The US does not determine the price of a barrel of oil, those days are gone. Even OPEC has lost a portion of its control. We can make all the laws we want, but in the end the demand from countries who dont give a damn what we say affect it far more than anything we can do. This is 50% of the price of a gallon of gas almost completely out of our control.

What we can do is make it cheaper to refine on shore, eliminating the primary on shore excuse for high prices. Taxes wont go down on gas, so to me this is the low hanging fruit we need to concentrate on.



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineFalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 5963 posts, RR: 27
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4151 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The gas and electric companies should be regulated again. It seems like service sucks nowadays. When there is a big storm and power goes out it takes days for all the power to come back online. I never used to take that long. After deregulation they all cut employees to the point that service sucks. Big business pays less and the little guy is stuck paying the cost of the entire infrastructure.


My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineSupa7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4143 times:

Heimlich at the ATA is a smart dude.

That said, we have been hearing this message for many years.

If we proved anything in 2005-2006, it is that airlines CAN handle massive runups in oil prices. So can passengers.

$100 oil would raise US air costs about 15% by my rough calcs. That means partly pricing actions, and partly slower growth. Some things would be parked:
* NW DC-9s
* some MD-80s
* some <60 seat RJs

... And that would be it. Life would go on at $100. Would be stressful but the demand that underpins air travel is very strong, stronger than recent alarmists thought when they imagined the fallout from $70 oil.


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4143 times:

Quoting Falstaff (Reply 6):
Quoting 747LUVR (Reply 5):
I think that would equate to a world recession

Sure would. Fuel prices raise the cost of everything. The railroad and shipping companies would have to raise costs to cover the bills too. Trucks that carry everything will raise prices too. Nearly everything is moved on a truck at one period of time. The price goes up across the board. Companies will cut back to pay for added fuel costs and then salaries will stay the same or go down. We will spend more on energy and less on fun stuff and big ticket items. It is a downward spiral. People talk about alternative fuels, but many of those have huge infrastructure costs and environmental risks worse than oil.

This news is why EVERYONE should be supporting the proposed “Consumers Transportation and Energy Security Act of 2006.”

Contact your representative and let them know that you back this proposed bill... especially if you work in aviation... it could save your job and protect your income!

Link to copy of Bill proposal:
http://www.glennbeck.com/2006ads/Con...gy%20Security%20v%206-20%20_2_.pdf

Link to DoD 28-slide presentation:

Vision: DoD/ AT& L intends to catalyze commercial industry to produce
clean fuels for the military from secure domestic resources using
environmentally sensitive processes as a bridge to the future.
http://www.glennbeck.com/2006ads/2006harrison_barna.pdf

Link to B6's 16-slide presentation:

Consumers Transportation and Security Act of 2006
Strategic Vision for Energy Independence
http://www.glennbeck.com/2006ads/jbluctl.pdf

Link to thread about the Bill:
http://www.airliners.net/discussions...eneral_aviation/read.main/2946472/



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineHunUtazo From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 235 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4088 times:

AMR - nwac


CAL - ual/f


LCC - fragments/u/d


LUV - dal/f



dude
User currently offlineCarduelis From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2001, 1585 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4069 times:

For those young enough to remember, there was a worldwide fuel crisis over 30 years ago.

Doubtless there were many then who felt that the airlines would collapse if the price increased. Heaven only knows what the extortionate price was in those days!

Life goes on, and there will always be survivors!

Airlines 'tremble' . . . ?

[Edited 2006-08-22 20:49:05]


Per Ardua ad Astra! ........ Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense!
User currently offlineNWDC10 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4038 times:

Quoting Falstaff (Reply 6):
We will spend more on energy

That's very true. I believe when higher energy costs come to play, it takes more money out of the "general economy" just to pay for energy/fuel. People may buy less food, clothing, may cut back and not eat out as much, many foreclosures on homes will occur etc.

Higher energy doesnt' actually add employment but decreases it. Many businesses will fold, not just airlines. If we want "more security", we need to be force to cut back and be totally independent from impoting oil from other countries. and that means the auto companies better get their a$$ in gear and make 40+ miles per gallon vehicles-not just a few but make all of them 40+ miles per gallon. Also we need to bring energy efficient diesel cars back like they are very popular in England. Jet engines need to be alot more fuel efficient than they alread are-more so than the 787 type engines.

Is this possible? yes. Will it take alot of work? yes but it will all be worth it.

Robert NWDC10


User currently offlineN844AA From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1352 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (7 years 8 months 2 days ago) and read 3985 times:

Quoting 747LUVR (Reply 5):
I shudder at the thought of $100/bbl of oil. UGH! I think that would equate to a world recession. IMO.

Higher energy costs aren't much fun for most people, but oil is currently, what, six times more expensive than it was seven years ago? Most industrial economies are running quite well right now. Even many airlines have managed to adapt. Why would a "mere" 40% increase at this point automatically equal recession?



New airplanes, new employees, low fares, all touchy-feely ... all of them are losers. -Gordon Bethune
User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3920 times:

Don't assume for certain that oil is headed for $100 (at least not in the short term). Here's an article a colleague sent me today that makes a pretty convincing argument that we're headed for $50 a barrel.

http://www.oilintel.com/newshome.cfm?news_id=533&action=showstory


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8045 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3854 times:

$100 oil will be a reality some day - the only question is when. Petrol prices have increased 10 fold since I started driving (OK, I'm sort of old) and over the long term it will continue to rise. That is a problem for the airlines to plan for.

Mid to long term I believe that airlines will start looking at fleet management as a daily function. During a morning review of seats sold they will make a decision that using a 747 on a route in 2 days will be a better match to the seats sold than the 380, so they will use the 747. The 747 will be available as a 777/350-1000 is "under sold" and will be replaced with a 787-8, which is being replaced with a Y1/320RS. In other words, they will fly the plane that will be full, or nearly full, in place of a plane that is only 50-60% full.

This isn't an argument against the 380, or the 748i. It's an argument that the airlines (and their employees) will need to be able to respond very rapidly to actual sales for every flight. This level of response requires a more versatile fleet, but the point will come where the cost of fuel justifies that versatility.


User currently offlineHunUtazo From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 235 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3739 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 17):
That is a problem for the airlines to plan for.

The airlines have already planned for it, it's called Consolidation. Airfares will continue their rise, capacity will be adjusted, not all folks traveling today will be able to afford it tomorrow, all constitiuencies have given, this is the last on the list and should begin to be worked by the spring of next year, or sooner..

Two maybe three very big American Air Carriers, and the loss of one, maybe more low cost carriers.

Consolidation changes everything.



dude
User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13735 posts, RR: 19
Reply 19, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3737 times:

Jet fuel closed at US$89.90 in Singapore yesterday.

Disgusting.



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently onlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5267 posts, RR: 29
Reply 20, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3721 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 17):
The 747 will be available as a 777/350-1000 is "under sold" and will be replaced with a 787-8, which is being replaced with a Y1/320RS. In other words, they will fly the plane that will be full, or nearly full, in place of a plane that is only 50-60% full.

Well then I think you'd need a lot of extra capacity somewhere in your fleet, because if you keep bumping down the size of aircraft, either you end up short a 50 seater and over a 500 seater (for example) and start cancelling numerous flights every day, or you have extra planes sitting around waiting for the right mission to fill.

For example:

Scheduled:

Flight 100 380
Flight 200 744
Flight 300 777
Flight 400 788
Flight 500 321
Flight 600 319
Flight 700 CRJ

If you replace the 380 with a 744, this is what happens:

Flight 100 744
Flight 200 777
Flight 300 788
Flight 400 321
Flight 500 319
Flight 600 CRJ
Flight 700 Cancelled

This leaves you with an A380 with nothing to do, and a short haul flight without an aircraft. This means you'll need extra aircraft to cover an existing schedule, which ties up huge amounts of capital. I don't know exactly where oil would have to be to make this economical, but I'd imagine it's a lot more than $100 a barrel, and at that point demand will drop anyways.

Quoting HunUtazo (Reply 12):
AMR - nwac


CAL - ual/f


LCC - fragments/u/d


LUV - dal/f

Well if you say it enough, after enough time has passed it will likely come true. But you've been saying it for a long time, and other than it being your opinion, there is nothing pre-ordained.

Unless you'd like to share your inside info.  Smile

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 4):
Well, I raise 2 hypotheses here :

1. He is bluffing and WN is already prepared
2. He's a loser

They've done enormously well planning for the oil crisis of today - don't you think a bit of credit is deserved in his statements being potentially accurate? I mean, name an airline that planned better for the current crisis than WN?

In regards to your hypotheses, 1. is a given, inasmuch as they can plan for such an event, while 2. seems pulled out of your hat.

But hey, we're talking about WN here - what the heck do they know?

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8045 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3679 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 20):
This leaves you with an A380 with nothing to do

If you were faced with this type of problem what would you do - fly the 380 or a smaller plane? While the 380 (or 744/8i) is sitting around a lot of airlines would be carrying out some level of maintenance - avoiding the need to pull it later. I believe that there will be more than VLAs that don't fly on low load days.

The other option is to consolidate two flights when possible to fill the plane.

While it would take additional planes, the additional planes would be at the smaller end of the range, as the shift would be downwards. That costs money, but flying too large a plane for the customer load isn't inexpensive either.

While consolidation may provide some benefits it will still be expensive to fly planes with a low pax load. The benefits of consolidation may be the additional smaller planes that can handle the down shift.

Airlines have some pretty sophisticated computer system for load and revenue management. I simply believe that they are going to need to have just as good, if not better, systems in place for daily fleet management that is integrated with their sales systems.


User currently offlineCarduelis From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2001, 1585 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3657 times:

The first rule of ANY form of transportation is that there will be an inbalance of flow . . .

Which means that if you replace a large aircraft with a smaller one, then that aircraft will not be big enough to carry the reciprocal passengers on the return journey or vice versa . . . !

Nice idea, but you have to have a very broad outlook to do it practically . . . and also to handle variations of crew for aircraft different types!

Carduelis, former Member of the Chartered Institute of Transport



Per Ardua ad Astra! ........ Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense!
User currently onlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5267 posts, RR: 29
Reply 23, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3624 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21):
If you were faced with this type of problem what would you do - fly the 380 or a smaller plane?

I really think it is more complex than our conversation. For example, maybe the city you are flying to does not have a crew in place qualified on a different aircraft, or perhaps doesn't have enough F/A's - or too many. Once you start randomly switching aircraft around (by random, I mean close to the day of departure), many things need to be addressed.

If you know that the day after tomorrow you are sending a 744 from NRT to LHR instead of an A380, then maybe today you need to send a 744 so that then you have the proper crew for the return. I think a better situation to serve as an example would be a carrier with the A318/319/320/321 or Boeing equivalent choosing to swap aircraft around as needed. Other than an F/A, there really is very little difference between the aircraft aside from capacity, and the difference in size isn't enough to require parking a plane for the day as a means of right-sizing the flight schedule.

I really have no argument with your point - I agree that airlines are going to need to be smarter about how they use their resources - i just felt that the example as given may not actually work as stated.

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently offlineJdevora From Spain, joined Aug 2006, 351 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3523 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21):
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 20):
This leaves you with an A380 with nothing to do

If you were faced with this type of problem what would you do - fly the 380 or a smaller plane?

The problem is that a parked plane will cost you money as well (parking fees, lease...), so it is very unlikely that you have a 777 (for example) just "sitting arround" for replace the half full A380/B7478


25 Revelation : Unfortunately the trend is going in the opposite direction. The current administration did not oppose the mergers of Exxon/Mobile and Texaco/Chevron.
26 TVNWZ : Actually he is correct. The fundamentals do not call for this. But, greed and fear do. It is costing hardly more to produce and refine a barrel of oi
27 VEEREF : And actually sell their product at or above cost? Nah, much easier to go to the employees and have them take more paycuts![Edited 2006-08-23 19:48:13
28 Dc10s4ever : I doubt we will EVER see $50 again. I dont even thing we will see $60 again. I think we will run in the $70-80 range for the next 6-12 months, then s
29 Post contains links Revelation : They have to sell at the price of their lowest priced competitor, otherwise the employees will get 100% pay cuts instead of 40% pay cuts. I read the
30 VEEREF : Or just hire on at Wal Mart and get pay raises.
31 Post contains links Planemaker : Oh, without a doubt oil should be lower than $78/bbl. Following up on the oilintel article, here are some links to other interesting stories that pic
32 Glom : Maybe now's the time to invest in some nuclear turbofans. SYD-LHR non-stop and no need to refuel.
33 Lijnden : Think creative: Instead of trying to 'protect' oil resources in the middle east (Iran), Nigeria is maybe a better country to invade for oil. There are
34 Glom : What plutonium?
35 EXAAUADL : well the good news is that at the begining of 2005, there was less than 1 million barrels per day of excess capacity. By the end of 2006, there will b
36 Art : Went up from $1.80 per barrel to about $5 per barrel more or less overnight, a 200%+ increase. That produced a world economic depression (not includi
37 Planemaker : Where did you drum that fact up? It just isn't so. Canada imports 927,000 barrels per day of crude oil. A lot for only 30 million people... and an in
38 LTBEWR : One of current factors for $70-77 bbl oil today is a 'war premium', due to the continuing war in Iraq and with the most recent spike due to the Israel
39 EXAAUADL : What I should say is that Canada certainly produces more oil than it consumes. I suspect Canada then imports light sweet crude as Alberta is mostly H
40 Planemaker : You are mistaking supply independence and price independence, though the two are obviously related. The US should aim for energy supply independence,
41 DeltaDC9 : I think you are absolutely correct.
42 Flyboy14295 : Think about the impact on car fuel too. That would send prices skyrocketing. and not to mention the fact that fule is a non-expendable source.
43 FlyDeltaJets87 : Oh, you'll still pay the same price for energy. It's just a matter of where you'll pay it to. If the industry becomes regulated and is funded through
44 Planemaker : Out of curiousity, based on what?
45 DeltaDC9 : A purely economics point of view. Oil is a commodity, and if you "sell it to yourself" at a discount you are still buying it at market and burning th
46 Planemaker : The market is exactly what you are not taking into consideration. If the US were to become energy independent then the price of oil comes down for th
47 Post contains images Zvezda : Yes, the higher the price of jet fuel, the more attractive it is to buy newer, more fuel efficient aircraft. Actually, we would pay more for energy i
48 FlyDeltaJets87 : Hehe, nice to see someone gets it. Just like healthcare: "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free.
49 Planemaker : Not so. FYI, energy is already regulated, directly and indirectly, and for the most part for corporate interests via their lobbies.
50 Ckfred : If oil hit $100 in the near term, it wouldn't last long, because demand would drop, bringing about a price decrease. When Katrina hit last year, price
51 Planemaker : Unfortunately, the geo-political effects are not being addressed as there has not been much, if any, political leadership on this issue. As mentioned
52 NWDC10 : I doubt the US Government and the Oil Industry wants "cheap oil" Robert NWDC10
53 Post contains links Jdevora : We are probably paying a "war premium" but that doesn't mean that this is the only reason for high oil prices. Another reason are that we are "using r
54 DeltaDC9 : You missed my point, we cannot become energy independant even if we produced MORE oil that we consume because we cannot produce all the types of crud
55 Art : That might be the case if the economies of China and India stopped increasing their consumption at a price of $100 per barrel. I don't think that wou
56 Planemaker : You are mistaken. You haven't read or followed the entire thread... " target=_blank>http://www.glennbeck.com/2006ads/Con..._.pdf Furthermore, this is
57 Art : I think there is a problem here: democracy. One of the features of democracies is that they invite their electorates to choose their political leader
58 Planemaker : In one way you are correct. A dictatorship is in an easier position to ignore the competing special interests and do what is in the best interest of
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...
North Central Airlines Aircraft At Time Of Souther posted Fri Apr 20 2001 23:22:02 by Tom in NO
USA Jet Airlines, Inc. At GNV posted Wed Dec 6 2006 02:49:07 by Gatorman96
American Airlines 727 At PHL Vintage Shot posted Sun Oct 22 2006 21:36:33 by Matt D
Airlines Shudder At New Delay For Airbus Superjumb posted Wed Oct 4 2006 16:16:19 by Revelation
Korean Airlines 777 At LAS? posted Sat Sep 30 2006 06:35:20 by Sperl19
Why Does BA Have Cloth Seats At Rear Of B767s? posted Sun Sep 24 2006 20:46:58 by 8herveg
TAM Aware Of F-100 Airstair Type Pax Door Problem? posted Mon Aug 14 2006 18:57:50 by PPSMA
Is Singapore Airlines An Asian Version Of Emirates posted Wed Jun 14 2006 19:55:58 by FL370
Singapore Airlines Hangar At SFO posted Wed May 17 2006 20:42:05 by Singapore_Air
Emirates Just 10 Aircraft Short Of 100... posted Tue Mar 14 2006 23:15:44 by PlaneHunter