Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Updated 767 400 VS A330-300  
User currently offlineAfricawings From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 112 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 13181 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Fellow A.netters. This questions was originally asked almost 10 years ago but the responses back then were simply musings.

I finally flew on a 767-400 last week from Atlanta to LA. I really liked it. But how does it compare in terms of performance against the A330-200 (I know the A330 300 is bigger and has more range but...). Does the 764 hold up against the A332 or is there simply no contest in terms of airline economics and performance between the two.

Thoughts?

81 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6649 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 13170 times:

Quoting Africawings (Thread starter):
Fellow A.netters. This questions was originally asked almost 10 years ago but the responses back then were simply musings.

I finally flew on a 767-400 last week from Atlanta to LA. I really liked it. But how does it compare in terms of performance against the A330-200 (I know the A330 300 is bigger and has more range but...). Does the 764 hold up against the A332 or is there simply no contest in terms of airline economics and performance between the two.



Quoting Africawings (Thread starter):
Fellow A.netters. This questions was originally asked almost 10 years ago but the responses back then were simply musings.

I finally flew on a 767-400 last week from Atlanta to LA. I really liked it. But how does it compare in terms of performance against the A330-200 (I know the A330 300 is bigger and has more range but...). Does the 764 hold up against the A332 or is there simply no contest in terms of airline economics and performance between the two.

The A330 has more range and cargo space, while the 767-400 has slightly less fuel burn. The 767-400 was mostly made as a niche aircraft for Delta and Continental to replace their L-1011s and DC-10s. It wasn't really expected to sell much, and cost Boeing little money to develop.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineLY777 From France, joined Nov 2005, 2744 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 13163 times:

The 764 is by the way the first a/c to display raked wingtip

[Edited 2007-02-16 15:51:42]


אמא, אני מתגעגע לך
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4884 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13067 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

from Airline Empires, FY2005Q2
NW A333/2 CASM 4.05, cost per block hr 5276, fuel per block hr 1864
US A333 4.11, 5104, 1872
DL 764 4.03, 4984, 1645
CO 764 3.99, 4576, 1739


User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 859 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13073 times:

Niche a/c for DL n CO???

Why did Boeing fly the 764 around the world on a Charm Tour, maybe trying to sell more frames?

Micke//  Yeah sure



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13046 times:

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 4):
Why did Boeing fly the 764 around the world on a Charm Tour, maybe trying to sell more frames?

Of course. Why wouldn't they?



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9668 posts, RR: 68
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13035 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

What did you expect them to do, Solnabo? Lock it in a closet and tell other airlines they couldn't buy one, even if they wanted to?

They also use such flights for testing purposes. After all, one can only do so many PAE-EWR and PAE-ATL trips Big grin


User currently offlineZschocheImages From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 151 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13016 times:

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 4):
Niche a/c for DL n CO???

Why did Boeing fly the 764 around the world on a Charm Tour, maybe trying to sell more frames?

It was created as a niche, but Boeing had hopes that it could possibly catch on elsewhere. By the time that it finally hit the market the 330 had gained major momentum. Personally, I prefer the 764.



Why fly with 2 engines when you can have 3?
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 12990 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 1):
The 767-400 was mostly made as a niche aircraft for Delta and Continental to replace their L-1011s and DC-10s. It wasn't really expected to sell much, and cost Boeing little money to develop.

I think it became a niche plane, it was not made to. It was intended to sell a lot, being a significant upgrade from the previous 767's. It has stretched wing wing, increased takeoff weight capability, a brand new interior, a new flight deck, an all-new main landing gear, structural.modifications etc. I just see no reason why it costed Boeing little..

IMO it (partly) had bad luck, 9-11 came & prevented AA and UA and other domestic carriers to order the significant numbers that were hoped for. The better A332 sealed it's destiny internationally.

http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/767worldtour/index.html



User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9668 posts, RR: 68
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 12963 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Keesje would be correct.

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsourc...21IH2I&date=20000914&query=767-400

With Boeing's longer-range version, dubbed the 767-400ERX, Boeing has a shot at evenly splitting orders for medium-size planes (those carrying 200 to 300 people) with Airbus, Aboulafia said.

Missed it by THAT much.

Lol.


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 12928 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 6):
What did you expect them to do, Solnabo? Lock it in a closet and tell other airlines they couldn't buy one, even if they wanted to?

I think he's pointing to the notion that the 767-400ER was not as big a seller as Boeing had hoped, which is being masked by an a.net myth that it was produced only to sell about 40 of them to DL & CO. Boeing would not have incorporated that many changes to the 767 (inc a redesigned cockpit) if they intended only to sell it to two airlines that already used the 763 as the workhorse of their widebody fleet. I remember a superb special in Flight Internation from the time, Ive long since lost the magazine though, it had a cutaway aswell.


User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6649 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 12884 times:

Rembmer that before Boeing made the 767-400, they wanted Delta and Continental to order the 777-200ER to replace their L-1011s and DC-10s. They both considered the 777-200ER too large, and then offered the 777-100. The 777-100 would have been too heavy, and would have had operating costs that were barely any lower than the 777-200(ER). That is why Boeing made the 767-400. Delta and Continental had specified that it should feature a more advanced cockpit than the tradtitional 777 cockpit. The 767-400 was also used as a test platform for the raked wingtips used on almost all new Boeing widebodies.


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7200 posts, RR: 50
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 12852 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
I think it became a niche plane, it was not made to. It was intended to sell a lot, being a significant upgrade from the previous 767's. It has stretched wing wing, increased takeoff weight capability, a brand new interior, a new flight deck, an all-new main landing gear, structural.modifications etc. I just see no reason why it costed Boeing little..

I would agree; I think Boeing wanted to sell a bunch of them but the A330 outclassed it, just as the 777 has outclassed the A340, giving both Keesje and me something to be happy about.
 Big grin



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineKL808 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1585 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 12828 times:

At one time or another KQ actually ordered some if Im not mistaken. But it was cancelled and changed to B777's.

Drew



AMS-LAX-MNL
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9668 posts, RR: 68
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 12803 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Well, I think Boeing had hoped to sell to more customers (duh) but there were very specific things about the 767-400 that were developed specifically for both Delta and Continental.

The 767-400 was intended as a replacement for aging McDonnell Douglas DC-10s and Lockheed L-1011s.

The wingspan issue was a key point, and what drove the design on the wingtips, Delta wanted a plane that would fit in existing gates at Laguardia.

A fact I have thrown out there before, the engineer who designed the 764 wingtips went on to design golf balls

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/52560_golf29.shtml

Looks like I misspoke above, the 767-400ERX was never launched.


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 12757 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 12):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
I think it became a niche plane, it was not made to. It was intended to sell a lot, being a significant upgrade from the previous 767's. It has stretched wing wing, increased takeoff weight capability, a brand new interior, a new flight deck, an all-new main landing gear, structural.modifications etc. I just see no reason why it costed Boeing little..

I would agree; I think Boeing wanted to sell a bunch of them but the A330 outclassed it, just as the 777 has outclassed the A340, giving both Keesje and me something to be happy about.

Boeing also proposed the 777-100 'against' the A332 before deciding on the 767-400ER. There was also a tri engined 777 design concept from Boeing around 1997 (probably envisaged as a replacement for the L1011 & DC10), although it never got off the ground. This area of boeings line will finally be filled well by the 787.


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4722 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 12735 times:

Quoting LY777 (Reply 2):
The 764 is by the way the first a/c to display raked wingtip

No, it is not.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineCOEI2007 From Vanuatu, joined Jan 2007, 1912 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 12710 times:

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 4):
Niche a/c for DL n CO???

Why did Boeing fly the 764 around the world on a Charm Tour, maybe trying to sell more frames?

Micke//

It was developed for DL and CO. Other a.net-ers have saisd they wouldnt develop it, unless they wanted to sell to more than just DL and CO, but it was developed to keep two of Boeings's larger customers, loyal!


User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 12712 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 9):
With Boeing's longer-range version, dubbed the 767-400ER, Boeing has a shot at evenly splitting orders for medium-size planes (those carrying 200 to 300 people) with Airbus, Aboulafia said.

ROTFL-

We have to frame this one!

Definitely one of the more 'remarkable prophecies of Aboulafia' for sure: Not a single 764 was ever exported and Boeing lost almost a decade because of its reluctance to give up on the relatively new 767.

For a man who calls himself an aviation analyst, it should have been clear where the true advantage of the A330 over the 767 lays. It is not so much in its range, or its seating capacity, it is in its cabin width, which allows for a more efficient seating configuration and the side by side loading of standard containers. Since the 764 didn't tackle any of these, it is remarkable at least to see him predict -completely in error as history has shown- that this plane could turn the tide....

[Edited 2007-02-16 17:38:08]

User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1374 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 12640 times:

Quoting EI321 (Reply 15):
There was also a tri engined 777 design concept from Boeing around 1997

The third engine was an oversized APU that could generate thrust for takeoff. The idea was scratched when the main engines proved capable of sufficient thrust growth. But back in the 70s, a long range 767 variant with a third engine mounted DC-10 style was seriously considered, and it was called 777 at the time.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26021 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 12621 times:

Quoting KL808 (Reply 13):
At one time or another KQ actually ordered some if Im not mistaken. But it was cancelled and changed to B777's.

Yes I was just going to mention that when I saw your post. KQ is the only other carrier I recall that either ordered or came close to ordering the 764.


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9668 posts, RR: 68
Reply 21, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 12605 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Kenya ordered the 767-400ERX, which was never launched, and they switched to the 772ER

The were however 7 orders from an unnamed leasing company at the launch of the 764ER, but these disapeared and I don't think we will ever know why they were for.


User currently offlineCubastar From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 410 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 12564 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 16):
No, it is not.

What was the first? No flame, just would like to know. Thanks.


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 12550 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 20):
KQ is the only other carrier I recall that either ordered or came close to ordering the 764.

I heard a roumer that LOT considered it. Not sure on its reliability though.

Its a bit strange that even though it obviously has good CASMs, its cargo capacity is stated as its main down fall. Then why did do many charter carriers whom already had the 767 go for the A330 instead, presuming they dont need large cargo capabilities.


User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 12472 times:

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 4):
Niche a/c for DL n CO???

Why did Boeing fly the 764 around the world on a Charm Tour, maybe trying to sell more frames?

I believe Keesje nailed this one on the spot. I think the same thing can be said about the "flopped" 753. According to Wikipedia, 764 production is to be closed sometime this year (2007)

Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
I think it became a niche plane, it was not made to. It was intended to sell a lot, being a significant upgrade from the previous 767's. It has stretched wing wing, increased takeoff weight capability, a brand new interior, a new flight deck, an all-new main landing gear, structural.modifications etc. I just see no reason why it costed Boeing little..

IMO it (partly) had bad luck, 9-11 came & prevented AA and UA and other domestic carriers to order the significant numbers that were hoped for. The better A332 sealed it's destiny internationally.


25 EI321 : I wonder could the 764ER potentially be a useful bridging tool for the likes of AA, DL, etc if the 787-9 and -10 waiting list gets much longer, like t
26 BoomBoom : What could they have done a decade ago except produce a me too version of the A330? As things turned out they ended up with the 787, which appears to
27 EI321 : Do what airbus is doing now, an all new design. Not cheap but the best long term answer. Boeing had a market leading plane in the 767 which was bette
28 BoomBoom : If they had done a whole new plane then they wouldn't be doing the 787 now. They couldn't have done monolithic composite fuselage barrels 10 years ag
29 Post contains images Stitch : While I agree he muffed it, and I agree the A332 continued to have advantages over the 767-400ER, I believe a big part was the 777's superiority over
30 EI321 : Wasent the 777 already available?
31 Stitch : Yes it was, but DL and CO didn't want something as big as a 777-200 for every mission, yet wanted something bigger then the 767-300. So they were loo
32 United787 : The A350 is not in response to the 787, they are in a different class. The A350 is in response to the 777. I don't understand why so many A-Netters t
33 Post contains images Slz396 : Are you saying that when a competitor comes out with a new product, the best thing to do is to do nothing for ten years before coming with something
34 United787 : Maybe not 10 years (e.g. A350 is too late a reaction to the 777), but it has seemed to work for the industry that instead of trying to develop a new
35 Stitch : Because they do. If Airbus didn't care about the 787, they would not have offered the A350XWB-800. Look beyond just raw seat counts - especially manu
36 Floridaflyboy : Absolutely, and I would not be at all surprised to see this happen. As delivery slots are getting further and further away, I could definitely see th
37 Baron95 : I'm no fan of R.A. but to be fair your quote is incomplete and your statement that he missed the prediction is incorrect. The complete quote in the a
38 Clickhappy : Well, here are the facts...the 764ERX wasn't launched, and the 767 has been more than eclipsed by the A330-family. So, I guess you can spin that any w
39 LACA773 : I was just thinking the same thing again and have been for quite sometime. I think Boeing could really do well using the 764 as a "bridge" AC until i
40 Post contains links and images A342 : This little bird already had them in the early eighties: View Large View MediumPhoto © S.L. Tsai Followed by its bigger and faster brother in th
41 Columba : Because the airlines evaluate if they order the 787 or the A350.
42 ScottB : Well, let's see. Boeing announced the 7E7 in 2004, and it appears that the A350 will enter service some time in 2013 or 2014. Looks like about ten ye
43 Warreng24 : Can you not be so negative, and enlighten those of us who would like to know what the first aircraft to feature a raked wingtip is?
44 Slz396 : Let's use the same datum as reference: the 787-9 will EIS by 2010, with the A350 about 3 years later... Merely 3 years will separate these 2 planes a
45 Floridaflyboy : Although I agree that the Sonic Cruiser was a stupid waste of money, and proof of Boeing's poor management during the period, I would never call the
46 Stitch : The 767 has still held her own relatively well since the launch of the A330-200, with 286 sold between February 1996 (the month the A330-200 recorded
47 Post contains links BoomBoom : Be sure to frame this one too: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/100543_sonic19.shtml
48 Post contains images Jacobin777 : I'm glad you cleared that typical myth on A.net Stich... The B767-400 ported a lot of technologies from the B777 series (cockpit, etc)...the majour i
49 Clickhappy : So we are comparing the entire 767 line to just one Airbus model, the A332? Come on! As much of a Boeing cheerleader as I am, and the fact that I enjo
50 EI321 : I certainly would not compare three to one in that sense. Where Boeing produced the 762, 763, 764 in the segment, airbus produced the A300, A310, A33
51 7cubed : Is it possible to have posts like these to include some facts? I just think if you're going to disagree you should include something that resembles p
52 Post contains images BoomBoom : Do you think the best thing to do is to rush four different versions to market, sign 100 FIRM orders for Version 4 then drop that and offer something
53 RJ111 : The 764ER is a good and efficient aircraft, but the range/payload performance and inability to handle LD-3s lets it down. It has a decent max payload,
54 Post contains images Ikramerica : That's true. Just because you target the jet at some customers doesn't mean you don't want to sell it to everyone. But at the time, CO was regrouping
55 MakeMinesLAX : Especially when the R&D revolving around composites gave Boeing a headstart on the subsequent 787 project.
56 Stitch : Quite simply because the A332 is the closest model to the entire 767 family. The A330-300 competes closer to the 777-200A, which is why I did not inc
57 Kappel : Why not? NWA did. Having them order the a330 does not preclude them having ordered the 787. While the 764 was most probably not so expensive to devel
58 A342 : Guys, won't you please cool down ? Your posts show once again that one should always read the entire discussion before posting. Have a look at reply
59 FlyLKU : I think the 767-400 may in part be Boeing cashing in on very early work they did on what became the 777. In Business School, back around 1990, I wrote
60 SEPilot : I don't think anyone outside of Boeing has enough information to accurately call the Sonic Cruiser a stupid waste of money. Granted, it has not made
61 Skibum9 : It cost little because Boeing did leverage much from the 777. The new flight deck was an easy and inexpensive option as the 777 and 767 share the exa
62 Zeke : For our airline the 333 seems to fit the mould nicely, we operate our fleet of 330s with 8 different MTOWs (209-233t), 7 different MLWs (177-187t), an
63 BoomBoom : Airbus' dominance was somewhat of a Potemkin Village. A hollow facade that had no staying power. Don't you think it's a bit premature to be declaring
64 Keesje : I got similar feed back from NWA (Atlantic), the unit costs of an A333 fleet at high loadfactors are lower then anything in operation at this moment.
65 Floridaflyboy : I'm saying that from the information I have available to me, I see it as a failure. I am a Boeing fan as much as the next guy, but I think Boeing rea
66 EI321 : Even a 773 at high load factors? Im not sure, I would have to see how much cash Boeing spent on it. There are some positives from the Sonic Criser fo
67 Floridaflyboy : This part I definitely agree on. I've wondered a few times if Sonic Cruiser was nothing more than a decoy for the development of the 787.
68 AvObserver : You might be referring to design studies of a 777 with a thrusting APU, which added about another 15,000 lbs. thrust to that of the main engines. I r
69 A342 : If the route is under 4000nm long, then I'd say yes. At least the 773 won't be better.
70 Aviator27 : You can use CASM to compare costs between airlines but you can't use CASM between different airlines to compare costs between airplanes. If you under
71 FlyLKU : Only those in the boardroom at the time the business case was laid out will really know what Boeing's expectations were for the 764 but my guess is t
72 Cba : CO never ordered the 764 for domestic missions, but for international flights that did not require the capacity of the 777, and for Hawaii flights. C
73 Da man : They actually did have 763 orders, the planes were built (one was even painted), but the order was canceled. I asked this question a while back (try
74 7cubed : I did read the full discussion! Your examples came close to 5 hours after you said "No, it is not". It's no problem, I was interested in knowing what
75 Skibum9 : There are many that think that the whole Sonic Cruiser project was a decoy to get Airbus to settle on building the A380. Meanwhile Boeing's true plan
76 Post contains images A342 : And you asked your question about 5 hours after I posted my follow-up. Sorry to be so mean, but sometimes it is fun seeing people making a fuss over
77 Keesje : Ah Boeing didn´t think the wrong direction & was told so by the airlines & A330 sales figures. I smell a new a.net myth in the making. Lets repeat i
78 EvilForce : I don't think it was a "stupid waste of money". In fact it quite likely would have succeeded had oil prices not blown thru the roof as they did. The
79 Areopagus : Airbus launched the A380 in December 2000, before Boeing announced the Sonic Cruiser in March 2001. So how could the SC have decoyed Airbus into buil
80 EI321 : I simply dont believe that the Sonic Cruiser was a deliberate decoy. if that were true it would also imply that Boeing misled its shareholders as muc
81 BoomBoom : If anyone knows how to start a.net myths, it's you. Isn't it about time for you to start another thread about how the 787 will be delayed?
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...
767-400 Vs A330-200: Speed? posted Mon Jul 19 1999 16:46:36 by CV880
767-400 vs A330 - range/capacity qn posted Tue Feb 16 1999 18:16:30 by jr
AirAsia X Boeing 777-300ER Vs A330-300 Selection posted Sat Jan 6 2007 00:39:18 by Keesje
B747-400 VS B747-300 posted Mon Aug 7 2006 03:27:39 by YULYMX
Airbus 330-200 VS A330-300 posted Mon Jun 5 2006 21:11:02 by YULYMX
Lufthansa A340-300 Vs A330-300 posted Sun Dec 4 2005 15:44:17 by Columba
B767-400 Vs. A330-200 posted Sat Jun 8 2002 14:47:19 by ARN
767-400 Vs. "Classic" posted Fri Jun 7 2002 02:11:01 by Gnomon
767-400 & A330-200 posted Sun Aug 26 2001 17:33:37 by DeanBNE
717, 767-400 & 757-300 Flop? posted Tue Dec 19 2000 19:00:02 by Airmale