Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A380-900 Possibilities?  
User currently offlineIloveboeing From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 796 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 11916 times:

I was thinking about an A380-900. It could be 276 feet long, carry over 1,000 passengers, and be powered by higher-thrust variant GE90-115B engines (127,900 lbs). I know the GE90-115B was built exclusively for the B777-300ER, but could it be used on the A380? I think it will give the extra power it needs for the extra payload. Wouldn't such an aircraft be interesting? It could be used in places like China and India.......

101 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30978 posts, RR: 86
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 11860 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It should in theory fit, since it has a smaller fan diameter then the GP72xxx series and identical to the Trent 900.

However, as noted the engine is exclusive to the 777 family so it would not be available for the A380. Also, the GE90-115 is significantly more powerful then what an A389 would need to get into the air, so it would be uneconomical.


User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2442 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 11861 times:

It's already been thought of, and sometime ago, Airbus even had the standard configuration seat map on it's site at one point. The wing has already been designed with the -900 in mind.

Will it see the light of day? If EK is still around, I'd say yes.  Wink



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineLHStarAlliance From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 11855 times:

IMO this is the real 380 as it will have a better casm than the 388

User currently offlineIloveboeing From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 796 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 11855 times:

Quoting LHStarAlliance (Reply 3):
IMO this is the real 380 as it will have a better casm than the 388

Agreed. The CASM for an A389 would just be amazing!


User currently offlineIloveboeing From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 796 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 11840 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
Also, the GE90-115 is significantly more powerful then what an A389 would need to get into the air, so it would be uneconomical.

But wouldn't the extra power be useful for taking off from shorter runways and higher elevations?


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 11796 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
However, as noted the engine is exclusive to the 777 family so it would not be available for the A380. Also, the GE90-115 is significantly more powerful then what an A389 would need to get into the air, so it would be uneconomical.

I don't know if the GE90 is exclusive to the 777, but I am under the impression that GE couldn't offer an engine in the same power class as the GP7200 for the A380 due to Engine Alliance rules.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineIloveboeing From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 796 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 11761 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 6):

I don't know if the GE90 is exclusive to the 777, but I am under the impression that GE couldn't offer an engine in the same power class as the GP7200 for the A380 due to Engine Alliance rules.

Is the GE90 in the same power class as the GP7200? The GE90-115B is significantly more powerful than the GP7200 (over 25,000 lbs more, I think).


User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 852 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 11730 times:

The A380-900 is what EK wanted in the first place.

Doubt though it will happend in near future, hope I´m wrong.....

Micke//  crossfingers 



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineCJAContinental From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 459 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 11667 times:

When the A380 was in development stages there was a lot about three very possible variants of the A380, the 700, 800, and 900. They differ in capacity, 455, 555, 655, and thus range.

I think the A380-900, was about 79.6 metres long.

Question is, would there be enough demand for this!! EK?



Work Hard/Fly Right.
User currently offlineGQfluffy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 11646 times:

Quoting Iloveboeing (Thread starter):
was thinking about an A380-900.

Isn't the wing on the A388 optimized for the A389?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30978 posts, RR: 86
Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 11629 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Iloveboeing (Reply 7):
Is the GE90 in the same power class as the GP7200?

At the low end, yes.

The GP7200 series is available in 68k, 70k and 77.5k variants.

The GE90 is(was) available in 76.4k, 77k, 90k, 93.7k, 110.1k and 115.5k variants.


User currently offlineIloveboeing From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 796 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 11629 times:

Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 10):

Isn't the wing on the A388 optimized for the A389?

I think so. I read on wikipedia that it was.


User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 11587 times:

Quoting Iloveboeing (Thread starter):
It could be used in places like China and India.......

This assumption keeps popping up. Why exactly would China and India be more likely to use a huge aircraft? Their populations are huge in total, but in terms of those with the affluence to be flying they are roughly equivalent to the US or EU.

China and India have yet to order the scores of A388's that were predicted. There's no evidence that an A389 would do any better.



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineCJAContinental From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 459 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 11536 times:

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 13):
the affluence to be flying they are roughly equivalent to the US or EU.

Affluency is not constant, more people will be able to afford it. Because these routes would be domestic, and around 650 passengers could board, then flight would be cheap anyway.

This is already happening in Japan, check out the flights from Haneda on ANA 777-300's. There could be demand for the A380-900 there to, as one Aircraft with 650 passengers on board, would be more economically viable and efficient than two aircraft with half the number.



Work Hard/Fly Right.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30978 posts, RR: 86
Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 11460 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CJAContinental (Reply 14):
Because these routes would be domestic, and around 650 passengers could board, then flight would be cheap anyway.This is already happening in Japan, check out the flights from Haneda on ANA 777-300's. There could be demand for the A380-900 there to, as one Aircraft with 650 passengers on board, would be more economically viable and efficient than two aircraft with half the number.

And yet Japan has gone from the 747-400 to the 777-300 and soon to the 787-3. The A388's sheer bulk makes her inefficient for short-haul work. The same problem affects the efficiency of the 787-3 (which is far heavier then she needs to be for the missions she will undertake), but the 787-3 can be used at scores of airports within Japan, China and India that the A388 can't. Boeing may yet go back and do a "787-2" that really tries to make a light, efficient high-capacity, high-cycle, short-haul plane that would appeal to the domestic markets of many countries and regions.


User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 16, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 11414 times:

Quoting CJAContinental (Reply 14):
Affluency is not constant, more people will be able to afford it.

You're an optimist. I'm not. I don't see where the fuel will come from to power such a standard of living for another 2 billion people. pessimist 

Quoting CJAContinental (Reply 14):
one Aircraft with 650 passengers on board, would be more economically viable and efficient than two aircraft with half the number.

Economicially viable and efficient for who? From the airline's point of view, two efficient aircraft (A350/B787) allow more flexibility in scheduling and routing. Less risky, by far...especially as fuel prices rise and traffic declines. pessimist 



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4682 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 11403 times:

Quoting Iloveboeing (Reply 5):
But wouldn't the extra power be useful for taking off from shorter runways and higher elevations?

Yes, but there would be way too much excess power that you don't need at the vast majority of the airports. Be assured, the A389 would have enough power even without the GE90-115B.
Also, IIRC, the GE has a worse SFC than the Trent 900 / GP7200.

IMO, future versions of the A380 would be powered by the A350's engines anyway.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineIloveboeing From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 796 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 11346 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 17):
Also, IIRC, the GE has a worse SFC than the Trent 900 / GP7200.

Forgive my limited engine knowledge, but what's SFC?


User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 11273 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
The same problem affects the efficiency of the 787-3 (which is far heavier then she needs to be for the missions she will undertake), but the 787-3 can be used at scores of airports within Japan, China and India that the A388 can't. Boeing may yet go back and do a "787-2" that really tries to make a light, efficient high-capacity, high-cycle, short-haul plane that would appeal to the domestic markets of many countries and regions.

Is there any other airplane remotely in the category of the 787-3 in terms of tons-per-pax? I'm not saying you're entirely wrong, I just fail to see what the competition is for high-density short haul. As far as I can tell, this is the lighest, most efficient widebody ever offered for short haul. What would make the -2 a better fit, other than shaving weight off? (Something that could almost assuredly be done with the -3 as production matures.)



There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4682 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 11223 times:

Quoting Iloveboeing (Reply 18):
Forgive my limited engine knowledge, but what's SFC?

Specific fuel consumption. It describes the amount of fuel used for a standard unit of thrust in a given time. The problem is: different engine manufacturers apply different conditions when stating SFC. Some give it for takeoff, some for cruise (obviously, this is important).

Without going too much into detail: The engines used on the A380 have newer technology than the GE90, and so their fuel burn is lower.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineLHStarAlliance From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 11212 times:

And what about the GEnx on the A389 ?? Would this work ??

User currently offlineIloveboeing From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 796 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 11202 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 20):

Without going too much into detail: The engines used on the A380 have newer technology than the GE90, and so their fuel burn is lower.

Oh ok, I understand now. Thanks a lot!


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4682 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 11195 times:

Quoting LHStarAlliance (Reply 21):
And what about the GEnx on the A389 ?? Would this work ??

Yes, but only the version for the A350. The one for the 787 can't be used as it has no bleed air, and the one for the 748 has not enough thrust.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineBrendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 11090 times:

Quoting CJAContinental (Reply 14):
Because these routes would be domestic, and around 650 passengers could board, then flight would be cheap anyway.

Flying a 773 with ~550pax would be way, way cheaper, and the fuel burn would almost be cut in half.

Quoting A342 (Reply 20):
Without going too much into detail: The engines used on the A380 have newer technology than the GE90, and so their fuel burn is lower.

Yes, but it's not that much lower, the reduction in noise level over the GE-90 is the biggest improvement.


25 AirFrnt : It simply won't happen, unless something dramatically changes world wide. The sales are not there for the 389, to say nothing to supporting a new vari
26 NYC777 : Since the A388 is a niche aircraft then the A389 is even more so. There simply not enough carriers/rouste that would need such an airplane. My underst
27 Post contains images MarcoT : Ehem, the A300-600 at 90.9 tonnes OEW is almost exactly 10 tonnes lighter, and it seates 266 vs 296...
28 Stitch : The 787-3 might beat it on efficiency, however, thanks to the GEnx and Trent 1000 engines, but if JL and NH wanted the A300, they had three decades t
29 Post contains images Atmx2000 : A few problems here. 1. Japanese airports charge landing fees based on aircraft weight. If your load factors are not high on the larger aircraft, you
30 SCAT15F : Actually, the fan diameter on the trent 900 and GPX-7000 are both 116" the fan on the GE90-92B is 123" and the fan diameter on the GE90-115B is 127".
31 WingedMigrator : If the SFC of the Trent 900 is 0.561, I've got a bridge to sell you. The A389, if it sees the light of day, will be powered by the Trent XWB and its
32 SkyyMaster : Why on earth would Airbus want to consider other models of an aircraft they can't sell now? By my calculations, they are still some 260 airframes shor
33 Legoguy : No pictures around of what an A380-900 would look like?
34 Post contains links and images Stitch : Must have gotten my original figures crossed somewhere. Oh, well. I updated them all from the 2007 Engine Yearbook so they're good to go now. While a
35 Post contains images Lightsaber : First, I'm not sure about the obsession with the GE-90. The A380 is by contract the Engine Alliance. GE can not go solo on that airframe until ~2020 I
36 SCAT15F : I would agree, it should be the definitive, most efficient model, but who is going to order it and when?
37 Post contains images WingedMigrator : It is a common fallacy that the A388 needs to come anywhere close to break-even before launching the A389. The launch decision would be made if they
38 Baron95 : Unfortunately so would the trip costs. You'd probably have to fill 450 seats on most routes to break even. That is a *HUGE* risk for any airline. I d
39 Atmx2000 : I agree. In fact I think the money invested in the A380 program to date won't be recovered without offering follow on models. The much greater break
40 Sangas : Once the hoopla of the "ceremonial" delivery to and EIS with SQ later this year, as well as deliveries to and EIS with other early operators in comme
41 Centrair : Not to mention JL and NH's main competition on the core route (HND-ITM) that see the high density config is the Shinkansen. Price is competative and
42 KC135TopBoom : Not really, The GE-90-115B is offered as an optional engine on the B-777-200LR and B-777-200F. But, I guess you can say the engine is used exclusivel
43 A520 : My guess is that, if a 389 fly, it would not be in the near future, but more probably after the EIS of the 350, i.e. in 2015-2020. Technologies develo
44 Post contains images SEPilot : This is I believe why so many airlines are replacing 747's with 777's. You don't make as much money when you have to turn away passengers but you als
45 Tristarfreak : although an A380-9 might be in Airbus' plan for the "long haul" I don't think it is coming soon especially with Airbus trying to get the A350XWB rolli
46 SEPilot : By that time CFRP airliners will be accepted as the only way to go and the A380 will be a dinosaur. Let it die in peace.
47 YULWinterSkies : A 773 with 10 abreast and mostly Y seats is not significantly smaller in capacity than a 744... Remember it is longer. Its victims will be the 767s,
48 Post contains images NoWorries : Assuming there is demand for something the size of A389, if Airbus (or Boeing for that matter) were to build it using spun CFRP barrels, I'm assuming
49 A342 : The comparison is entirely valid. SFC is given per unit of thrust, and so can can compare engines of any thrust class. Why ? Maybe I should have said
50 Poitin : Unfortunately true. All A389 prospects would be A388 purchasers. It makes absolutely no sense for Airbus to go ahead with the A389. However, the same
51 Stitch : Not necessarily. Some airlines might not find the A388's economics to be advantageous, but could find an A389's to be.
52 SkyyMaster : Talk about how advantageous the 389 might be is all well and good, but my question is still the same - who is going to buy it? Airbus has not had a ne
53 SEPilot : As the number of seats increases the CASM decreases by a smaller amount with increased size; so the CASM of the A389 will probably not be all that mu
54 Stitch : True, but airlines looking to replace 747s who do not want to expand frequencies may find an A389 to offer better economics over a 748 then the A388
55 XT6Wagon : The 389 is never going to happen. Airbus WON'T be able to get the money to develop it. Airbus doesn't have the engineering resources to do it. The mar
56 Stitch : In 2000, the head of Airbus' Product Development at the time was quoted as saying Airbus expected nine airlines to buy the A388: JL, NH, IB, BA, CX,
57 XT6Wagon : of which JL, NH, UA, NW had 0.000% chance of ever ordering one.
58 Stitch : Ten years on, that's true. But then they didn't expect EK, QF and LH to order 80 of them, either... *shrug*
59 Art : There will be a new market: Asian tourism ex-India/China etc. Frequency will be of little importance. Ticket price will be of great importance. It's
60 Sangas : If this does indeed happen, it probably won't occur soon enough to help make the A380 program a financial success.
61 XT6Wagon : and it will be served by planes smaller than the A380. China is building huge airports by the handful. India's airports are decidedly NOT A380 "ready
62 Post contains images A342 : And you know that 100% sure ? Go and find a job with Boeing, I'm sure they'll hire you as an analyst.
63 SEPilot : Nobody knows anything 100% sure, but I totally agree with XT6Wagon here. With the trends in the airline industry as they are today there simply isn't
64 A342 : Not the trends today, but those in, say 10 years, are important.
65 SEPilot : Quite correct, but my crystal ball is seriously defective and I have no idea what the situation will actually be in 10 years. All I can do is look at
66 Post contains images Rheinbote : Yeah alright, you need an awful lot of money and engineering resources to do a simple stretch. Not really that much left to be 'developed' for the 38
67 SEPilot : I still remember Everett Dirksen's quote: "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking real money." Funny how 1-2 billion just doesn'
68 Poitin : As I remember, the simple 350 Mk I, with slight improvements to the airframe and the GEnx engines, was a E 5 billion effort, and that did not include
69 TeamAmerica : Not really. The A389 was to use the A388 wing, with strengthening. I believe you are correct that the wing strengthening was to be part of the A388F
70 Glareskin : As much as I'd like the prospect of the A389 I think the question comes at the wrong moment. I don't see anything like this happening before Airbus ha
71 KC135TopBoom : Now, if you take EK out of that, your 80 airplanes drop by more than half. If I knew that, I begin buying the right stocks. There is nothing called a
72 TeamAmerica : My understanding is that the A380-900 was in mind all along, and the wings, tail, landing gear etc. are all designed to be used on that larger model.
73 DAYflyer : Given the abyssmal sales of the 800, I seriously doubt it.
74 EI321 : Your talking about the last iteration of the A350. It was put at €4b. This included something like 90% new componants than the A330. Wings, Cockpit
75 Post contains images WingedMigrator : so true. The picture will be quite different in 2015. By then we'll know which trend won: the VLA slice of the pie getting smaller, or the entire pie
76 Post contains images Astuteman : I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in the (woefully poor) discussions that seem endemic to A-net regarding A389 break-even. Where do I start?
77 Post contains links Jdevora : I agree with you, recently in the thread Updated 767 400 VS A330-300 The 767 400 was called a VERY cheap derivative because it only was a stretch, wi
78 Post contains images Astuteman : Thanks The validity of the some of the arguments I don't have an issue with. It's the inconsistency of some of the arguments which drives me nuts. Th
79 Post contains images EI321 : One thing I have noticed is the lack of claims and counterclaims as to how mutch extra it will cost Airbus to develop the A380-900. Who will start the
80 XT6Wagon : Eh, I've always thought 2-3billion was a minimum with the sharing with the 787 and old shelved 747 programs. Its likely hit the 4billion mark now tha
81 EI321 : I wonder what the thinking behind that was, considering that the -900 will encroach on the 80m box length, making a true stretch of the optimal lengt
82 SEPilot : You have made some excellent points, Astuteman, but I don't believe that the A380 will ever make money, new variations or not. When the 747 came out
83 XT6Wagon : I expect that there is several small cargo firms waiting along side FedEx and UPS for a chance at some nice dirt cheap A380CF frames not all that far
84 SEPilot : My point is that the A380 is very poorly suited to freight hauling, and I doubt many freight operators are going to be interested in it at all, even
85 Post contains images Sangas : This is a smart way for FX, 5X, and perhaps other smaller operators to play the game . Wait to see if the A380 program emulates what happened with MD
86 Post contains images Art : especially about what would be involved in A389 development The competition on the horizon was the Sonic Cruiser, wasn't it, with much higher fuel bu
87 Stitch : I think it was a combination of not wanting to go too far too quickly (as this was brand-new territory for Airbus across the board) and to give them
88 Astuteman : Presumably that's why we all went out of our way to point out the huge amounts of extra weight the 744 was hauling around just so it could be stretch
89 XT6Wagon : Hey, thats just what I've read. More to the point I think its easy to see just how much "stretch" was in it when you look at how much growth in MTOW
90 SEPilot : The ONLY reason for any version of the A380F is volume capacity, as Astuteman pointed out earlier. If that is the rationale then the A389 (if it ever
91 XT6Wagon : FedEx and UPS will both hit the wieght capacity of the A388F at or just before hitting the volume limit. A A389F will just haul around empty space un
92 A342 : I just thought I'd throw in the following: IMO the A389 would have a higher MTOW than the A388F. I'll even go as far to say that it'll have the maximu
93 Jdevora : Are you sure about that? It has been said that FedEx will be able to avoid ANC with the 777F (4,885 nm range vs 380F's 5,600 nm ) because the very li
94 Lemurs : You'd really need someone who is familiar with package freight ops to answer that. They know what the average weight of one of their containers are.
95 Stitch : Comments from those within the package industry on this board and other forums state that would not have been the case and the fact that they bought
96 EI321 : Yet A350WXB engines would reduce fuel burn by, what, 10%
97 XT6Wagon : I was going by Airbus's propaganda numbers which is done at the longer range. Going with a minimum fuel load is IMO not that great of an idea since i
98 Post contains images Stitch : I imagine that depends on the plane and would be impacted by MZFW, MTOW, and maximum fuel volume/weight. So the calculations can be made to support m
99 TeamAmerica : The tailplane would be different? In what way?
100 WingedMigrator : Not sure if I understand what you are saying. The length of the A389 would be just shy of 80 meters, and I don't recall that anybody suggested stretc
101 Post contains images Astuteman : Please stop changing the subject. You could stretch anything if you were really prepared to put the engineering effort in. The issue is which platfor
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...
A380-900 Will Never Sell posted Mon Oct 30 2006 19:53:19 by RedFlyer
Future Airbus A380 Versions, A380-900 LR? posted Mon Jul 11 2005 18:13:21 by Keesje
How Much To Develop A380-900? posted Wed Jun 1 2005 14:18:27 by Art
The Economics Of An A380-900? posted Thu Apr 28 2005 14:24:07 by RJ111
Any Graphics/Images Of The A380-900? posted Sat Apr 9 2005 16:49:55 by Yazoo
A380-900 Would It Be A Lot Of New Work? posted Wed Jan 19 2005 22:16:38 by A380900
EK And VS Want A380-900 posted Wed Jan 19 2005 10:06:10 by KEESJE
New A380(8/900) Callsign posted Sat Sep 25 2004 03:05:22 by VSXA380X800
China Southern Order Trent 900 For A380's posted Thu Dec 8 2005 11:10:56 by PanAm_DC10
A380,the Big Wing And The 900,700 Or 1000 Version? posted Mon May 2 2005 06:19:50 by A380900