Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
GAO:Airbus Jet Could Clog Airports  
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5802 posts, RR: 47
Posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 7579 times:

This is a report from the GAO saying that the A380 could clog US airports:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18357845/


That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 7525 times:

Just trying to raise some kind of non-tariff barrier to the A380 landing in the US.
Not too dissimilar to Concorde.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6788 posts, RR: 17
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 7489 times:

Something I find interesting.....

The company (Airbus) also said the GAO report did not take into account how many more passengers the A380 will be able to carry, replacing smaller jets, into its calculations about airport crowding.

So they are saying that one A380 is going to replace what? 2 777 or 2 747 or 2 767 or 2 330? I don't think so... they will replace 1:1 more than likely.. most airlines are not going to give up frequency, but rather just add the extra seats...

In a letter to GAO, the company said that many of the airport improvements necessary to accommodate the A380 will also be necessary for Boeing Co.'s new 747-8 jumbo planes, which will carry more than 460 passengers.

Isn't the 748 just a small stretched 744? are the wingspans and engines that much larger?


The Los Angeles airports agency has completed $49 million worth of work and plans to spend another $72 million on projects to prepare Los Angeles International and Ontario (Calif.) International Airport for the big new jets.

2 points here... 1. Ontario is expecting the 380 as a backup? Surely not for scheduled service? 2. This $121 million dollars.. where is this coming from? Is this the rent increase that LAX has placed on all of it's airlines or is this only for airlines that have stated they are bringing the A380 in? Is this a government loan or an airport bond? Personally, I would be ticked if I were ANY US, Mexican, Japanese, Chinese, etc.. airline that wasn't going to use the A380 and I had to pay rent so a few airlines could reap the benefits.. I could understand if the all the terminals were getting refitted.. but if it's only specifically for the A380.. oh my gosh..

and for those that say it was done for the 747... the difference is that the 747 was used by a lot of American airlines.. and they airports that actually were upgraded for 747 saw some traffic (even if limited).. the A380 is a very niche airliner.. and even teh 747 is now becoming a niche airline.. but I digress... I could be wrong and if I am, so be it...



Aiming High and going far..
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31412 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7425 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I too believe the A388 will eventually replace the 747 on a 1:1 basis in the fleets of those who order it, which is going to increase the load on airports. Of course, the 747-8 will do the same (though to less a degree) if she becomes popular, as well.

And that is a point many VLA-supporters either don't know or choose to ignore. A388s may allow airlines to bring in 25% more passengers then they can now into LHR or JFK, but can either airport adequately handle that load without extensive - and expensive - expansion and reconfiguration? And not just the terminal area, but the ways into and out of the airports, themselves.


User currently offlineOkelleynyc From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7411 times:

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 2):
1. Ontario is expecting the 380 as a backup?

I always thought that Ontario was being upgraded for UPS freighter service? Since that's out, I guess it would be a "backup" runway.....

I wonder if Ontario has any recourse for recouping their upgrade expenses? Either from UPS or Airbus?



Just give me my Vario, my Ozone Mojo and a gorgeous day of soaring.
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26147 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7400 times:

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 2):
Ontario is expecting the 380 as a backup? Surely not for scheduled service?

No indeed was planned for scheduled service.

ONT is a UPS hub, and carrier had informed airport operator of plans to use A380 to replace MD-11/B747s on Asia services.

Mute point now UPS cancellation.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineGnomon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7202 times:

While it's true that making airports A380-ready is costly, if you read some of the discussions that have taken place in Congress and some of the media fodder emanating from elected representatives (especially from the A380's No. 1 detractor, Rep. Mica (R-Fla.)), it's readily apparent that a lot of this discussion is pure American ethnocentrism and jingoism. Its only motivation: winning the votes of ethnocentric, jingoistic American voters. It plays well for American politicians to speak on the record against European industry that competes head-on with American firms.

What we're doing is cutting off our nose to spite our face. As has been observed time and again, A380 service will bring more European tourists to places like MCO and MIA, more connecting passengers to SkyTeam, Star Alliance, and OneWorld hubs. Better, more robust air service leaves everyone better off. I think the GAO report was facially neutral and unbiased but has since become politicized and spun.

Like the alarmist political fodder, the report speaks in generalities: increased wake-turbulence separation, delays due to ground maneuvering restrictions for the A380, etc. The A380 detractors have presented these issues as culminating in massive and widespread gridlock in the air traffic system. I hardly think that a couple of minutes of additional in-trail spacing behind the handful of super-jumbos operating in U.S. terminal areas are going to cause the sorts of delays they predict. There will be in-trail restrictions behind A380s, just as there are behind everything 752-sized and up. There will be taxi routes not available to A380s, just as there are taxiways at U.S. airports onto which A346s can't turn. The challenges presented by the A380 are nothing new, nor are they insurmountable. Protectionists, momentarily forgetting that the first 747s flew in a world of light aircraft, 707s, DC-9s, and 727s, falsely present them as such.

Whether or not you personally think the A380 will flop, you have to call intellectual dishonesty when you see it.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 1):
Just trying to raise some kind of non-tariff barrier to the A380 landing in the US.
Not too dissimilar to Concorde.

Apt analogy. Airport budget concerns are the rationale for this opposition, but the root of this effort is American protectionism, and everything associated with it.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
And that is a point many VLA-supporters either don't know or choose to ignore. A388s may allow airlines to bring in 25% more passengers then they can now into LHR or JFK, but can either airport adequately handle that load without extensive - and expensive - expansion and reconfiguration? And not just the terminal area, but the ways into and out of the airports, themselves.

LHR and JFK are already in need of "extensive - and expensive - expansion and reconfiguration," IMHO (the former is already getting it). These sorts of investments need to be made -- if not now, then certainly in the future -- and I fail to see why the A380 isn't a perfectly legitimate reason to make them, other than the influences cited above.

[Edited 2007-04-30 04:47:57]

[Edited 2007-04-30 04:49:48]

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21582 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7076 times:

The GAO is not generally a political body, so I'm not sure where some of the politics arguments are coming from. They are clearly and simply stating the obvious. You can't bring in 500 pax on a flight that used to only carry 370 people without crowding the gate space/customs, etc. This is true any time a flight is changed to a larger aircraft, but I guess the jump hasn't been quite this large before, especially for airports that were designed for the 747 classic or smaller.

It's a matter of how much happens at ONCE, the peak flow, as it were. With smaller planes of more frequency (assume an A380 replaces 2 772s, for example), the peak flow rate of pax is lower, the peak flow rate of baggage is lower, etc. And since you need to connect MORE pax from regional flights to get to the A380, flow increases at that bank, too. There's a real concern at some airports that multiple A380s arriving at once will create a real problem.

When 3-4 QF A380s arrive at LAX, for example, how much extra cost will there be to handle that many people all at once?

Quoting Gnomon (Reply 6):
ethnocentrism and jingoism

What does ethnocentrism have to do with this? Are you actually implying that the A380 is some sort of culturally significant thing that must be embraced for that reason?

Quoting Gnomon (Reply 6):
ethnocentric, jingoistic American voters

Most people in the USA have not heard about any of this. The plane, the cost, anything.

They are actually worried about paying for the costs, because every dollar spent upgrading for the large jets can't be spent on pork barrel projects.

Oh, and I'm sure the USA airlines are lobbying too, since nobody here plans to buy the plane.

Politicians care about dollars, not voters. But I guess when an opportunity arrises to insult Americans, people want to take it.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7006 times:

I'm betting the MOST that the 748 will be required to have is extra firefighting equipment and checking for wingtip clearance so that operations can be limited if runway/taxiway or runway/runway clearances are not wide enough. Note that the A380 has "special" requirements that let it operate from many airports that are barely 747 capible. Taxiways and runways no wider than the 747 in the load bearing sections, some cases inadaquite clearence between runways and taxiways, and other "failures". Doesn't mean that the A380 is unsafe at these locations, just means the pilots have to be on the ball more, and that the Air and ground controlers have to have thier shit together when an A380 comes in. All airports that are going to see routine operations are sorting out the clearence issues with runway separations if its currently an issue. Again an operational concern not a safety one.

The 748 will also have to be evaluated for gate usage with its extra size, but thats every aircraft coming on line that isn't the exact same size to the mm of an old one.


User currently offlineGnomon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6984 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
What does ethnocentrism have to do with this? Are you actually implying that the A380 is some sort of culturally significant thing that must be embraced for that reason?

Of course not. But opposition to the A380 has given some members of Congress political mileage -- they've used the GAO report to oppose the use in America of a non-American product. They've appealed to those voters who do have a very ethnocentric perspective. Things might be different in California, which is decidedly progressive, but I can assure you that in rural areas and in manufacturing-heavy districts of the East and the South, comments with half-truths like, "In some cases, all other aircraft on the ground may need to stop completely while the A380 lumbers through," http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070427/bs_nm/airbus_a380_us_dc, resonate very well with constituents. These sorts of vivid notions, while perhaps not entirely correct from an operational standpoint, are calculated to play on certain sentiments among voters.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
Most people in the USA have not heard about any of this. The plane, the cost, anything.

Very true. But some have indeed read stories like the above (and others), reporting politicians' sound bytes regarding the A380, and these reports certainly color their perception of the aircraft. And I can guarantee you that voters who are connected to American manufacturing, or who generally have a low opinion of the rest of the world, respond very favorably to such statements. I've heard exactly these types of reactions firsthand -- just this week, in fact.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
he GAO is not generally a political body, so I'm not sure where some of the politics arguments are coming from.

I agree, in a general sense, that the GAO itself is not politically motivated. I don't think the report shed a lot of light on the operational issues presented by the A380. It's incomplete, IMO, but, hey, it's good enough for government work.

My problem -- and what motivated me to post -- is not the GAO report, but rather lawmakers' response to the report, and their use of it to pander to protectionist voters.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
But I guess when an opportunity arrises to insult Americans, people want to take it.

As an American who deals daily with "American-bashing," I just wish we'd stop giving the world so much material!


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6937 times:

So should airbus be forced to foot the bill for the millions or so in airport improvements for the A380... that the A380 won't fly into now that they pissed off FedEx or UPS?

There is a real view by some that the A380 must be bought by anyone who can possibly use it, and that every airport that might remotely possibly have a A380 land there should be forced to upgrade.

I think that there IS some real concerns about the A380's impact on airports that must be looked into. What if you had 2 A380 in 853 seat configurations land within the same hour? Isn't that just a whole hell of alot different than two 400 seat 747's? Its better to ask these questions now, than ask them after an airport turns into a hell hole and the Airline flying the A380 gets the complete shaft with a ban or capacity restriction AFTER they drop alot of money on making the route happen? Simple questions like "hey SQ, how many people will be on your A380, and how many of them might you send in 1 year. in 5 years in 10 years" With a sane and proactive attempt to get a handle on the situation its better for everyone.


User currently onlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5052 posts, RR: 44
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6798 times:

I don't really see where the problem is here. Traffic is going to grow, so airports are going to get more congested. Now, there are two ways in which traffic can grow: bigger planes, or more planes. Both are going to put a certain strain on the airports, but I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out which option will cost the most in the long run...

To those advocating Airbus should foot the bill for A380 improvements: would you also be in favor of Boeing footing the bill for airport expansions due to the increasing number of smaller widebodies?


User currently offlineGlareskin From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1308 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6758 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 10):
I think that there IS some real concerns about the A380's impact on airports that must be looked into. What if you had 2 A380 in 853 seat configurations land within the same hour? Isn't that just a whole hell of alot different than two 400 seat 747's? Its better to ask these questions now, than ask them after an airport turns into a hell hole and the Airline flying the A380 gets the complete shaft with a ban or capacity restriction AFTER they drop alot of money on making the route happen? Simple questions like "hey SQ, how many people will be on your A380, and how many of them might you send in 1 year. in 5 years in 10 years" With a sane and proactive attempt to get a handle on the situation its better for everyone.

There is a possibility that the economically and silent 787 will allow extra slots on European airports or even might reduce curfews. This would implicate that airlines could send 2 787 instead of 1. Asking questions before would be better. Simple questions like "hey CO, how many people will be on your 787, and how many of them might you send in 1 year. in 5 years in 10 years" With a sane and proactive attempt to get a handle on the situation its better for everyone  Confused



There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1605 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6715 times:

I think the GAO is just stating the obvious.

However two points;

1. If the GAO comments are "politically" inspired, I would think it has more to do with protecting the Airlines from seat dumping rather than Boeing

2. The paradox is that if the 380 was selling better, the airport owners would be forced to upgrade, but on current numbers it must be hard to justify the expense.

If you want to see something positive in this, then one could suppose that the GAO thinks the 380 will sell in large numbers.

Ruscoe


User currently offlineJustloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1065 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6583 times:

Willie Walsh, BA CEO said something similar to the GAO report a couple of months ago. He has since discounted his earlier views recently, saying much more positive things about the A380. Hmmmm......

User currently offlineKhenleyDIA From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 427 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6559 times:

Crowding will happen at so many places and in so many different ways. JNB's immigration gets absolutely clogged when a 773 lands. Of course, it would help if they used more then 4 people to check the 300 or so people. CPT's immigration is about the same when a 744 lands. Again, it has a lot to do with staffing and training of that staff.

Now that people can't wait at the gates for their friends and family to arrive, there isn't as much stopping as soon as there used to be. Much more of a flow away from the gate. Just imagine if the A380 entered service while people were still able to wait AT the gate for people arriving! WOW!

KhenleyDIA



Why sit at home and do nothing when you can travel the world.
User currently offlineAerosol From Germany, joined Oct 2000, 560 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6458 times:

Some more stuff from Reuters:

http://yahoo.reuters.com/news/articl...08_N27405749&type=comktNews&rpc=44


User currently offlineCygnusChicago From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6427 times:

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 11):
To those advocating Airbus should foot the bill for A380 improvements: would you also be in favor of Boeing footing the bill for airport expansions due to the increasing number of smaller widebodies?

I think a more apt comparison would be having Embraer and Bombardier pay for expansion. The RJs are the true bane of US airports and travellers.

As to the A380, there'll be so few of them, the entire argument is without any merit. Remember the A300, and how the Port Authority of NY/NJ banned it? Fortunately for Airbus, Boeing called the ban ridiculous.



If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6357 times:

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 11):
To those advocating Airbus should foot the bill for A380 improvements: would you also be in favor of Boeing footing the bill for airport expansions due to the increasing number of smaller widebodies?

No, but somebody has to. If I bought a car twice the width of hummer, and I want to drive in front of your house, should you foot the bill?

The differences between revamping airports because of increase in numbers of airplanes and A380 are that the improvements for the A380 only serve a small amount of interest, while an expansion of an airport to serve larger traffic counts benefits a lot of people and the spending could be justified, just as the spending on highways and the road in front of your house

Cheers,
PP



One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7809 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 6075 times:

Did the same thing happen when the B747 replaced the B707/DC8?.

User currently offlineFlysherwood From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 1115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4962 times:

Quoting KhenleyDIA (Reply 15):
Crowding will happen at so many places and in so many different ways. JNB's immigration gets absolutely clogged when a 773 lands.

I have landed at Charles De Gaulle at 6:30 a.m. when another 747 had landed 10 minutes before us. There were all of three (3) Immigration officers in the Non-EU line. It took an hour and a half just to get through immigration! Can't imagine what will happen when two (2) A380's arrive at the same time!  Sad


User currently offlineDomokun From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 202 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4839 times:

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 13):
1. If the GAO comments are "politically" inspired, I would think it has more to do with protecting the Airlines from seat dumping rather than Boeing

The GAO, at least in principle, is full of bureaucrats who are not politically motivated.

When I was reading articles about this, I could not help but to think what will happen when the first ground incursion between a A380 and another plane occurs. Something tells me it will be blown out of proportion...


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21582 posts, RR: 59
Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4737 times:

Quoting Gnomon (Reply 9):
Of course not. But opposition to the A380 has given some members of Congress political mileage -- they've used the GAO report to oppose the use in America of a non-American product. They've appealed to those voters who do have a very ethnocentric perspective.

That's not ethnocentric. That's jingoism, as you stated. They don't mean the same thing.

But again, it's not, in my opinion, an attempt to sway the American voter, because any voter who's smart enough to know anything about this won't be swayed in this way to vote based on this one issue.

It's about money, campaign contributions, etc. and it's likely there are forces there leading the charge.

Why? Because it will be USA domestic airlines who pay the price to upgrade these facilities, yet none of the USA based carriers are going to fly it. This is quite different from when the 747 came online 37 years ago, and just about all the larger USA airlines were buying them.

Here, you have a cost to upgrade facilities that will be passed on to ALL carriers via landing fees and rents, which means USA domestic passengers will be paying the costs for the most part. If consumers are price sensitive, that means lower yields on thin domestic routes.

This is the argument at least, and to a certain degree, I think there is some merit. I would like to see airports like LAX charge a surcharge to A380s and 748i to help cover the added costs, for example. Not all the costs, but just to help cover. Why should the passenger flying on a 73G from LAX-OAK be charged to make gates at TBIT A380 ready? The runway improvements I can understand, but not the gate improvements...

Quoting Gnomon (Reply 9):
As an American who deals daily with "American-bashing," I just wish we'd stop giving the world so much material!

Nah, you are a self hater. Just admit it, and you'll feel better about yourself.  Wink



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8474 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4720 times:

As long as an airline landing a 380 pays a landing fee that covers its costs there shouldn't be any complaints from the GAO. Some costs, like additional personnel, are simple to calculate. Capital investments are also fairly simple to work out over a period of time. Airports can advise the airlines of the additional costs and the airlines can decide to use the airport or not. That should have been done years ago, leaving us with no surprises.

As far as the airlines go, they understand that they will face increased costs, but will have more pax on the plane to absorb them.


User currently offlineManfredj From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4481 times:

Is the wingspan on a NG 747 that much more than the current one?.....I find that added comment interesting....almost as if they are trying to be politicaly correct including the 747 with the 380 in airport congestion. In addition I hardly doubt that the 50 passenger surpluss over the 747-400 would greatly impact airport's ability to handle this small increase.


757: The last of the best
25 CygnusChicago : Well, pretty much the same will happen as when two 748i's arrive within a few minutes of each other. The root cause of the problem is the "only 3 imm
26 Flysherwood : I didn't say anything different in my post did I? What I was trying to get across is the fact that two planes arriving that seat 560 passengers at th
27 CygnusChicago : Fair point, I misinterpreted your comment - my apologies. Again, only if they stick with 3 people. But actually, it should be better for Americans, s
28 Halls120 : i'm with Airbus on this one. I agree that the GAO is not politically motivated. I also know, from experience, that GAO is full of bean counters who,
29 Post contains images Flysherwood : Amen!!! Thank God for that. Flying out of PDX gives me so many options that many airports in the US do not offer. But traveling overseas, I really do
30 Flysherwood : You are so very right on this. The last place that will put political spin on a report is the GAO. But they get so many things wrong in their conclus
31 Post contains images Flysherwood : You can count on the French Immigration Service to only have three available at 6:30 a.m. with 10 others waiting in the wings drinking coffee.
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...
Airbus A370 Could Hand RollsRoyce Big Engine Prize posted Mon Jun 5 2006 14:48:42 by Keesje
Delivering Jet Fuel To Airports posted Wed Mar 14 2001 21:59:05 by Mls515
New Airbus Jet & Bizarre Jets posted Sun May 9 1999 01:17:27 by [DC-10]Chemical
Could Airbus Do An A350-1100? posted Tue Feb 6 2007 01:56:45 by EI321
Could Airbus Develop An A321-ER? posted Sun Feb 4 2007 09:56:26 by ORDagent
Airbus Could Trigger Nuclear Option Of € Controls posted Mon Nov 27 2006 18:09:54 by Longhaulheavy
Could Airbus Help US Aquire Delta? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 00:24:06 by GoBlue
Could Airbus Bring The A389-schedule Forward? posted Wed Nov 8 2006 00:48:37 by Johnny
FT:Airbus A350 Delay Could Affect US Airways posted Fri Oct 27 2006 12:53:32 by UALMMFlyer
Airbus And Their Jet Lag Zapper posted Fri Aug 25 2006 15:23:24 by Clickhappy