Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
First 6 B787s Overweight, 2% Reduction Required.  
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 7 months 11 hours ago) and read 19749 times:

The 787 slightly overweight and a 2 percent reduction will be required. According to Carson, no one area of the structure is to blame — everything from the wing box to the tail to the wiring is slightly heavier than expected.

While the first six aircraft built for testing and certification will exceed optimum weight, the focus is on meeting weight targets from the seventh plane onward.

http://www.compositesworld.com/hpc/issues/2007/January/1561



114 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 11 hours ago) and read 19733 times:

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
While the first six aircraft built for testing and certification will exceed optimum weight,

Optimum weight.. not contractually obligated weight.. This is not even close to news honestly.. Boeing has been saying this for months.



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineKaiGywer From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 12241 posts, RR: 35
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 11 hours ago) and read 19639 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

So not only the A380 needs a diet. Too bad for the Boeing cheerleaders


911, where is your emergency?
User currently offlinePanAmOldDC8 From Barbados, joined Dec 2006, 960 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 11 hours ago) and read 19616 times:

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
The 787 slightly overweight and a 2 percent reduction will be required

Always a normal thing until they get the problemsa sorted



Barbados, CWC soon, can't wait
User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 11 hours ago) and read 19590 times:

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 2):
So not only the A380 needs a diet. Too bad for the Boeing cheerleaders

Nice dancing pom-pom icon.. but shame you haven't actually noticed that this is actually OLD news and was discussed... oh.. 6+ months ago.



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineMarBergi From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 182 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 11 hours ago) and read 19559 times:

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 1):
Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
While the first six aircraft built for testing and certification will exceed optimum weight,

Optimum weight.. not contractually obligated weight.. This is not even close to news honestly.. Boeing has been saying this for months.

I dont really see what the problem is. As stated as long as the Optimum weight isnt whats been promised to the airlines then Boeing is fine. Also going by Boeings previous peformance they tend to give themselves some wiggle room when it comes to promised spec and delivered spec and I expect this to be no different.


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 11 hours ago) and read 19520 times:

Anyway, next question, how exactly are they going to shed this weight?

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 4):
Osiris30

Dont take it to heart, its not a big deal.


User currently offlineBWIA 772 From Barbados, joined May 2002, 2200 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 11 hours ago) and read 19522 times:

I think something really major has to happen before the Boeing cheerleaders stop cheering. I am sure that the Boeing and its partners will get the problem sorted out.

Regards



Eagles Soar!
User currently offlineEvilForce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 11 hours ago) and read 19491 times:

Quoting EI321 (Reply 7):
Anyway, next question, how exactly are they going to shed this weight?

Scrap all the IFE's. Hand out pre-flight newspapers instead.  duck   duck 


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 11 hours ago) and read 19464 times:

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 4):
oh.. 6+ months ago.

But it's apparently still a problem, it's just not fixed.

Carson says everything is a little overweight. Not an isolated problem. It requires everybody everywhere to work on weight reduction, while ramping up production / completing certification.

I agree with Carson 2007 will be a real challenge.


User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 11 hours ago) and read 19390 times:

Quoting EvilForce (Reply 9):
Scrap all the IFE's. Hand out pre-flight newspapers instead.

Don't forget the tinfoil hats distributed to the pax free of charge (pun intended) to cope with all the static discharging...

Seriously though...
So much for the 'Boeing is always exceeding its targets' mantra from A.net... They may indeed, but clearly not from the start, which indeed isn't such a big deal. (Oh but wait a second, if Airbus does it that way, isn't that called 'taking another shot to get it right'?)

[Edited 2007-01-25 14:46:35]

User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 11 hours ago) and read 19368 times:

Considering the amount of attention the A380's weight problem got i don't see what's wrong with reporting the specifics of the 787's problem.

User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 10 hours ago) and read 19208 times:

OK, what are the "specifics"? The 2% overweight has indeed been in the public domain for quite some time.


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3681 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 10 hours ago) and read 19207 times:

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
the focus is on meeting weight targets from the seventh plane onward.

This part is important, even if it's "optimum weight" Boeing is still trying to reach it.


User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 10 hours ago) and read 19141 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 10):
But it's apparently still a problem, it's just not fixed.

I agree. Not so long ago we were hearing that the problem was virtually solved.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 11):
So much for the 'Boeing is always exceeding its targets' mantra from A.net.

I don't see that argument going away. Too many people accept the contract guarantee weights as being the goal, and then declare that meeting the published target weights is somehow going above and beyond.

[edit - spelling]

[Edited 2007-01-25 15:13:08]


Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineAA1818 From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Feb 2006, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 10 hours ago) and read 19050 times:

Boeing is still meeting its contractual obligations. However, Boeing is not doing what it does best- BEAT EXPECTATIONS. In this case, they will sort it out and beat expectations from the 7th plane. Noteworthy, despite what many say here, however, it is largely sensational.

AA1818



“The moment you doubt whether you can fly, you cease for ever to be able to do it.” J.M. Barrie (Peter Pan)
User currently offlineKaiGywer From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 12241 posts, RR: 35
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 10 hours ago) and read 19002 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 4):
Nice dancing pom-pom icon.. but shame you haven't actually noticed that this is actually OLD news and was discussed... oh.. 6+ months ago.

I try to stay out of Civ Av  Smile



911, where is your emergency?
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 10 hours ago) and read 18878 times:

I'm sure Mr. McNerney and and any other Boeing executives participating in next week's 2006 financial results dog and pony show will be rigorously grilled by the financial analysts and media present on this matter, and all other "concerns" about the 787. Pay close attention to whether or not the forecast R & D spending is increased again as a good substantive/objective indicator of whether Boeing's overall development/industrialization plans for the 787 program remain on track.

User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2826 posts, RR: 42
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 10 hours ago) and read 18782 times:

Quote:

The Boeing Co. (Seattle, Wash.) celebrated the “virtual roll out” of its 787 Dreamliner at an event hosted Dec. 6, 2006 by Mike Bair

And this is getting reposted two months later why?

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 12):
Considering the amount of attention the A380's weight problem got i don't see what's wrong with reporting the specifics of the 787's problem.

I can go back two months ago, or back to October and start reposting all of the end of the world A380 articles to keep the comparison up. Or we can just wait until Boeing's end FY conference in a few weeks and talk about something new, rather then digging up old news to make a point.


User currently offlineN1786b From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 559 posts, RR: 17
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 10 hours ago) and read 18767 times:

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 2):
So not only the A380 needs a diet. Too bad for the Boeing cheerleaders



Quoting BWIA 772 (Reply 8):
I think something really major has to happen before the Boeing cheerleaders stop cheering. I am sure that the Boeing and its partners will get the problem sorted out.

Well the A380 mess, the Noel & company (over 500 employees) insider trading scandal, the clearstream smear campaign, the loss of the order crown, the A350's long gestation and launch, the CEO musical chairs and other untold/unknown stories certainly haven't stopped the Airbus cool-aid drinkers.

Cheerleaders will never stop rooting for their favorite team, myself included.  hyper 

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 16):

I agree. Not so long ago we were hearing that the problem was virtually solved.

Source please?

This is OLD news - even the article states Carson made the comments on Dec. 6th.

- n1786b


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 10 hours ago) and read 18741 times:

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 20):
And this is getting reposted two months later why?

Article is dated January 2007, thats just a line in it.


User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13073 posts, RR: 12
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 10 hours ago) and read 18741 times:

Will there be an additional discount or pricing deal for the 1st 7 - 787's to compensate the purchasing airlines for the additional fuel burn due to the higher weight? Could the retrofit some weight savings in the future, perhaps installed at a check? Still, the 787 will be much more efficient per passanger/mile than other a/c in it's size class, they have reached contractualy agreed to weights, so this is not too big of a deal. I do hope that they can shave that 2% more, and with lighter and stronger materials, and once in use, they can figure out new savings.

User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 10 hours ago) and read 18706 times:

Quoting N1786b (Reply 21):
Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 2):
So not only the A380 needs a diet. Too bad for the Boeing cheerleaders



Quoting BWIA 772 (Reply 8):
I think something really major has to happen before the Boeing cheerleaders stop cheering. I am sure that the Boeing and its partners will get the problem sorted out.

Well the A380 mess, the Noel & company (over 500 employees) insider trading scandal, the clearstream smear campaign, the loss of the order crown, the A350's long gestation and launch, the CEO musical chairs and other untold/unknown stories certainly haven't stopped the Airbus cool-aid drinkers.

Cheerleaders will never stop rooting for their favorite team, myself included.

This is a 787 thread. Im Not really interested in the initial models being overweight, Im interested in how the problem will be solved, thats what we should be disscussing.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6875 posts, RR: 46
Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 10 hours ago) and read 18672 times:

Quoting EvilForce (Reply 9):
Scrap all the IFE's. Hand out pre-flight newspapers instead.

Yeah, but what about the weight of the newspapers?



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5746 posts, RR: 47
Reply 24, posted (7 years 7 months 10 hours ago) and read 18671 times:

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 21):
Will there be an additional discount or pricing deal for the 1st 7 - 787's to compensate the purchasing airlines for the additional fuel burn due to the higher weight? Could the retrofit some weight savings in the future, perhaps installed at a check? Still, the 787 will be much more efficient per passanger/mile than other a/c in it's size class, they have reached contractualy agreed to weights, so this is not too big of a deal. I do hope that they can shave that 2% more, and with lighter and stronger materials, and once in use, they can figure out new savings.

They are within contractual weight. There would be no penalties unless the fuel burn exceeded what is promised. They are trying to trim weight to an internal (read: non-contractual) weight.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
25 AirFrnt : The events that it is referring too, both the virtual roll out, and the financial conference both occurred before December 6th, IIRC. Look, it's alwa
26 EI321 : And whay we need to know is how they will do this.
27 Osiris30 : @keesje: No it's really not news. A while back Boeing said they were 2% over their targets. They also said that the overage didn't impact their custom
28 Revelation : C'mon, go with it! Keesje needed something to cheer him up, and posting bad news about Boeing always does that for him, even if it is recycled bad ne
29 EI321 : Unfortunatly it happens, I suspect that all the airbus fans have been waiting in the grass after the over top critisms that the A380 recieved. I dont
30 Post contains links TeamAmerica : See Reply#8 RE: 787 On Schedule (by Leelaw Dec 6 2006 in Civil Aviation)
31 Post contains images Osiris30 : @ei321: All that has been said there is the first 6 will be over target. There is an assumption being made the design is still 2% overweight. Yet I do
32 Post contains images Leelaw : Remember, the A.net equivalent of a "novena" requires nine separate threads on nine consecutive days for the particular "intercession" being sought t
33 TomB : I have a friend who is an Economics professor in the Long Beach, CA. The friend is a Boeing stockholder and former private pilot. In early January, my
34 FlyDreamliner : So if i am to understand, their testing birds are overweight? It does not sound as if A) they are over contract weight, or B) this birds over optimal
35 Aerobalance : BFD, I'm sure the a/c still meets it's range and payload targets - even at this time of DEVELOPMENT.
36 Post contains images Keesje : Last month the news was the 787 was on schedule and the aircraft was 2% more efficient than promised. The Aircraft was 500 pounds overweight and the
37 Post contains images Stitch : On the plus side, Boeing evidently has six birds in production, so looks like she just might take to the skies on schedule as planned... Also, this we
38 Revelation : Boeing will not keep any 787s. 2 of the first frames are used for structural and fatigue testing and are tested to destruction. I'm not sure these 2
39 Post contains images Leelaw : So far today the stock hasn't been down more than $.50 and volume doesn't seem to be particularly heavy. Nevertheless, it's still not too late for yo
40 Aviator27 : Wow, my head is spinning. Optimum weight, target weight, contract weight, published weight, media weight, web site weight, and weight watchers. The li
41 Zeke : I think it is a little too early to be calling this, 2% could be a small deal, and could mearly be attributed to first production models not being ma
42 Post contains images N1786b : Fine with me - next time tell THEM. Well, what if it is a monthly magazine? I mean this is NOT news and if you wanted to talk about the 787 being ove
43 Post contains links and images BoomBoom : Because apparently it only comes out monthly and this "breaking news" came too late to make the December 2006 issue. Dropping the wireless IFE is goo
44 Poitin : It appears that Wall Street does not read A.net, does it? Or perhaps they understand. I believe that Leelaw has pretty much nailed the real issues to
45 Stitch : Of course, we don't know if all those monies were spent to get the weight down from MSN001 (or whatever serial number the first 787 will have) onward
46 B707Stu : Oh my God that made me laugh. Prediction: As I said in my first ever post to A.Net, the 787 will change the face of economies throughout the world by
47 Art : Is what you say right or is it wrong? Will a 2% reduction in weight be required for the 787 to meet contractual obligations, or won't it? If the answ
48 Halls120 : And what a shocker that Keesje is trying to make something of it. I sure hope he's getting paid for being an Airbus cheerleader.
49 Post contains images TeamAmerica : IIRC Last summer or so Boeing sent teams to each of their suppliers to deal with an overdesign problem. The subcontractors were nervous and adding a
50 Zeke : That is a quote from the article that was linked, not him.
51 AirTran717 : I wouldn't think so, since they will only deliver the first 6 planes overweight. The seventh will be within spec. Why would they discount a plane tha
52 Post contains links Poitin : What in the name of the Nine Pot Bellied Inca gods are they using -- lead? The antennae shouldn't weigh a quarter of that. In any case, Boeing has pu
53 NYC777 : This month we have an article citing 2% Old news, Boeing has been up front on the weight problems. uncertified Dreamlifter - Certification expected i
54 Post contains links Khobar : http://www.komotv.com/news/boeing/4841091.html From Dec. 6, 2006. "Boeing officials have said since earlier this fall that they need to trim the 787'
55 Flashmeister : Please... uncertified (read: experimental) aircraft fly often. Let's not forget that a few short months ago, the beloved A380 was still uncertified,
56 Osiris30 : Just remember.. the next A380 built won't come off the line certified (at least currently) as there is no production cretificate for the program. So
57 Pygmalion : But like you Zeke, he selected an article that was written in December and published in January (it takes a month to print a magazine. I am helped wri
58 SEPilot : After reading the article it sounds to me that the only real news is that the first six frames will be 2% heavier than Boeing desires. What the status
59 Joni : We're working on a small quote here, so we can't exactly know which weight they're talking about. One theory that could be put forth stems from the w
60 Pygmalion : This should be Keesje's signature line.
61 Osiris30 : NO, we're working from a small quote of a much larger quote that was available more than a month ago. Boeing has publically said, in no uncertain ter
62 Domokun : I don't have a hard link to support this point; however, as I seem to remember the first few 777s were also a little heavier than later frames. I seem
63 LY4XELD : Yes, and they are for flight testing and certification. This quote said nothing about the airplanes going to customers.
64 Pygmalion : Frames 1-6 will also go to customers. But not until they strip out the flight test gear, all the extra brackets, test wiring, strain gages, etc. The a
65 Domokun : I thought 1 and 2 were going to be destroyed in various tests in order to gauge the limits of the frame?
66 Post contains links BoomBoom : According to Morgan Stanley (October 2006): http://www.leeham.net/filelib/061029...%20Stanley_Boeing%20on%20track.pdf Bottom line: None of this matter
67 Pygmalion : the static test and fatigue test airframes are tested to failure. Those are not included in 1-6. Actual order is something like; 1, 2, static, 3, 4, f
68 Post contains images EvilForce : Last time I checked aircraft weren't sold by the lb/kg.
69 Pygmalion : they are though. Wait till you get the bill when you ask for an addititional 2000kg of MTOW.
70 Bmacleod : We're only talking about the first 6 787s, so AC's 787s, which won't come until 2010, will meet the correct weight standards?
71 Osiris30 : With all due respect have you even read this thread?!?! All the 787s are withing the 'correct weight standard', they just aren't as light as Boeing w
72 Joni : Ok, I didn't know that, I just recall we had a rather meandering discussion about it some months back. However, do you have a source?
73 NYC777 : Well the just achieved a 150 pound decrrease by switching to a wired IFE system vs a wireless system.
74 Post contains images EI321 : Ill ask it again, as the last 30+ post have established nothing. What are Boeing going to do to reduce this weight???? Where can the savings be made?
75 Osiris30 : Joni I will try and dig up the quote in question. I believe it came out during the last analyst/investor conference call, but I may be wrong on the e
76 Post contains links BoomBoom : http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/277220_air12.html
77 Lumberton : I just noticed that Boeing updated their website and there are 4 new UFO for this "overweight" aircraft.
78 Stitch : It could very well be for PIA, along with the four 777 UFOs.
79 Post contains links BoomBoom : http://archives.seattletimes.nwsourc...g07&date=20061107&query=787+weight
80 Post contains images Brilondon : Reduce the padding in the seats like all the other airlines are doing .
81 Post contains images Shenzhen : Wonder if the 2 percent is OEW, or if Boeing are trying to skew the numbers by saying it is 2 percent of MTOW, like someone else does   Edit.. so muc
82 Glideslope : If you knew what you were talking about, you should have noted this:
83 Dallasnewark : Today is a good day for Keesje and other Airbus cheerleaders. I always found that an interesting aspect of the human nature, we get more out of rejoic
84 Post contains images MCIGuy : I'm psychic! I seriously knew that Keesje was the OP on this thread even before I opened it! Man, I need my own TV show or 900 number or something.
85 Post contains links Pygmalion : Yep. thats why I started this thread... http://www.airliners.net/discussions...general_aviation/read.main/3222372 If the source is good enough for Kee
86 Keesje : I think it is interesting to follow the bird of new aircraft and anything surrounding it. I think it is no problem to discuss the full scope of aircra
87 Tom12 : Not everyone has been on the site every day for the last ... oh .. 6+ months. This news isn't really terrible for Boeing. 2pc isn't really a great de
88 Post contains images FlyMeToTheMoon : At least they got the wiring right
89 EI321 : The IFE?
90 Stitch : After all the bad press Airbus and the A380 program have taken on weight in this forum, it is not surprising that now that the 787 is showing issues
91 BoomBoom : The only difference is, the A380 problems, despite the denials, turned out to be true. And that seems to have touched a nerve...[Edited 2007-01-25 22
92 AirFrnt : The A380 was in final assembly two years ago. The 787 has not even started real assembly yet.
93 Pygmalion : And they have to resort to December news being reprinted in a January magazine to say that there are continuing reports.
94 Post contains images TeamAmerica : In some 90 replies (so far) just about nothing of consequence has been posted. Anybody have actual numbers as to how heavy the 787 is vs. the "intern
95 Pygmalion : yes, they would just get fired if they posted it.
96 Leelaw : Positing that particular query at the outset would certainly have led to a more interesting discussion than what you've wrought with this thread as a
97 FriendlySkies : Wow, another old, not-so-bad 787 news thread from Keesje... Last I heard the 787 was over by about 750 lbs. Boeing has over a year until EIS , so lets
98 SEPilot : Developing new technology always has its hits and misses-all innovative manufacturers have tried things that turned out not to work. IFE is not a saf
99 EI321 : If there nothing to worry about, no need to get do defensive!
100 Shenzhen : Using wireless reduces the work to reconfigure an interior configuration for different routes/seasons. Cheers
101 Centrair : Yes but that means that NW crews will have to diet or carry less make-up.
102 AirFrnt : More liked jabbed repeatedly until you found a area that didn't have armor... But Boeing cheerleaders shouldn't delude themselves. This is not a grea
103 BoomBoom : No shark tail, now no wireless IFE! Another setback for the 787. What next?
104 Post contains images Boston92 : Why don't they just hire one anaesthesiologist per plane to put everyone to sleep for the flight?
105 Baron95 : Keesje, thanks for posting. I am a Boeing fan, and I want to hear ALL news about Boeing and the 787, good or bad. This is news. As a matter of fact, I
106 Post contains images Glideslope : LOL. You are claiming to do this?
107 Post contains links N1786b : Try here and look at the date... http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...aviationdaily&id=news/WEI12076.xml And I quote: "executives estimated that a
108 Post contains images Baron95 : N1786b thanks for posting that link - I haven't read that prior. However, From "will probably be overweight" to "will exceed optimum weight" there is
109 Post contains images Zeke : AFAIK that flight departed and arrived at the same airport AFTER the aircraft had received provisional certification, flight with the pax was a certi
110 Post contains images Astuteman : An excellent post all-round, Stitch. I think there are many fans of the A380 who have endured many years of undue criticism being thrown at the aircr
111 Joni : " target=_blank>http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine....html Thanks BoomBoom, so at least 6 months ago the overweight was indeed with reference to an
112 USAF336TFS : Keesje my friend, had you put your money where your typing fingers are a few years ago, I think you'd be singing a different tune.
113 Halls120 : If I was in charge of aircraft procurement for any airline, the above concerns me more than whether the 787 is currently overweight. Credibility is s
114 AirTran717 : What? Is is a conspiracy theory now? Geeze folks. Come on already and take a dose of reality. Until they deliver the first plane, anything can and do
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...
First 747 Lands In LHR 37 Years Ago Today posted Mon Jan 22 2007 18:02:41 by Treeny
My SQ First Class Flight Is Around The Corner! posted Fri Jan 19 2007 22:04:53 by Zrs70
Pictures: First Look Inside The 747-8I posted Thu Jan 18 2007 19:11:23 by Leelaw
Start Date Soon On First AC 773? posted Thu Jan 18 2007 18:46:48 by Bmacleod
AMR Posts First Annual Profit Since 9/11 posted Wed Jan 17 2007 15:16:30 by UA777300ER
First 787 Parts Are Delivered To Charleston posted Wed Jan 17 2007 04:02:15 by Centrair
First Pic Of 747LCF In Full Color Scheme! posted Tue Jan 16 2007 23:07:27 by HighFlyer9790
Austrian Airlines First Own 777-200ER Ready! posted Tue Jan 16 2007 17:00:05 by Qantas744ER
First Routes For ACs 777S - YUL-YZ, Maybe posted Tue Jan 16 2007 05:06:15 by Dmanmtl
Lounge Admission / Domestic First Class posted Mon Jan 15 2007 22:42:20 by Icelandair