Hjulicher From Liechtenstein, joined Feb 2005, 847 posts, RR: 2 Posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8754 times:
I was wondering whether the B783 could revolutionize the TATL market from the Eastern US to Europe like the 757 has. I checked Boeing's website, and it lists the 783 with a range of 3050 (max) Nm. It seems that with a little bit of tweaking, airlines could use the 783 for routes to Europe, while maintaining wide body service yet carrying large numbers of passengers across to the Atlantic. Furthermore, if airlines opted for mixed 787 fleets, I think that this aircraft could soon become one of the most preferred aircrafts for trans-oceanic flying, while keeping fleet compatibility.
Do you think that the 783 will catch on like the 757 has, and will the 783 be feasible as a TATL 757 replacement?
-----
This is slightly related, but NW's TATL 757s are numbered like 75A, 75B, 75C, etc. Do you think that each aircraft will be configured differently. The reason I'm asking is because on a ticket that i just booked, one flight (DTW-AMS) is operated by a 75A, and the return (DUS-DTW) is operated by a 75C. Just wondering if anybody knew what the difference was. Thanks.
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8733 times:
I think the B783 is a completely pointless airframe, and nobody but the two major Japanese carriers and possibly AA.
3050 nm is completely insufficient for reliable Transatlantic services.
IAHFLYER From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 311 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8714 times:
Overall though not a bad idea, BOS-LHR would not work with its range of 3265NM(GCM), and 783 capabilities of 3050NM. With that being the closet big city pair I can think of, its a no go situation. Although now I think about it, MAN-BOS possibly?
Little airports with the big jets are the best!! Floyd
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3150 posts, RR: 4 Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8704 times:
The 783 will likely do well in short hop useage, and for airlines that have A300 but no gates for full wingspan 787.
Though I think most airlines will pick up all 787-8 unless they are gate width limited on alot of airports since a all 787-8 fleet is more flexible than a mixed 787-3/787-8
Hjulicher From Liechtenstein, joined Feb 2005, 847 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8682 times:
TATL = Trans ATLantic
Couldn't airline/Boeing modify the airframe slightly sot that it would have a little bit more range. With so many passengers, I think it would be useful for flights in/out of Europe. Most airlines (at this point) are planning to implement the B788 on flights to/from US to Asia.
MCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8675 times:
I actually think the 789 will eventually be the best-selling member of the family. The 783 is a niche aricraft for the ultra-high density market in Japan. The might also sell some in China for the same purpose but I don't see any at all being sold in Europe or N. America.
FlyingClrs727 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 624 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 8675 times:
Why not build a shorter 787 based on the lightened 787-3 and use that version to replace the 757 on thin transatlantic routes?
Halls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 8675 times:
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 1): I think the B783 is a completely pointless airframe, and nobody but the two major Japanese carriers and possibly AA.
Maybe for the airline you own and operate, it isn't the best choice. But since at least two carriers have ordered it, obviously they think they can make money operating it.
Kaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2210 posts, RR: 3 Reply 8, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 8664 times:
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 1): I think the B783 is a completely pointless airframe, and nobody but the two major Japanese carriers and possibly AA.
ANA and JAL are the people Boeing intended the 787-3 for. Kind of like the 767-400 for DL and CO.
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 3): Though I think most airlines will pick up all 787-8 unless they are gate width limited on alot of airports since a all 787-8 fleet is more flexible than a mixed 787-3/787-8
Funny thing, American's expensive brand new terminal at JFK can not handle even a 767-300ER with winglets (they can handle it, but only in 777 designated gates). Apparently, the overpaid designers did not consider American would one day order newer, larger aircraft.
The 787-3 exceeds the 767's wingspan by approximately 14 feet. So, even if American buys the 787-3, they will have to demolish and reconfigure the gates at their new terminal.
MCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 8646 times:
Quoting FlyingClrs727 (Reply 6): Why not build a shorter 787 based on the lightened 787-3 and use that version to replace the 757 on thin transatlantic routes?
Because "shrinks" of airliners have never worked well. The reason is the structural requirements become a disadvantage in that the plane's weight loss and range gain aren't proportional to the loss of seats. This might become more possible going forward though, since composite fuselages allow for custom thicknesses. We'll see...
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 10, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 8610 times:
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 7): But since at least two carriers have ordered it, obviously they think they can make money operating it.
Right. JAL, and ANA. As I mentioned.
Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 8): The 787-3 exceeds the 767's wingspan by approximately 14 feet. So, even if American buys the 787-3, they will have to demolish and reconfigure the gates at their new terminal.
I think AA will buy it... but they will base it primarily at MIA.
Surely THAT multibillion dollar boondoggle can accomodate it.
FlyingClrs727 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 624 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 8596 times:
Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 9): Because "shrinks" of airliners have never worked well. The reason is the structural requirements become a disadvantage in that the plane's weight loss and range gain aren't proportional to the loss of seats. This might become more possible going forward though, since composite fuselages allow for custom thicknesses. We'll see...
The 787-3 already uses thinner walls than the 787-8; plus it has lighter landing gear. Why did Boeing leave a place for two model numbers below the 787-3?
Atlantaflyboy From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 73 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 8596 times:
If Boeing's recent history w/ projected range figures on the 777 program prove to be relevant in the 787 program as well, we may see some additional mileage out of the 787-3 once it takes to the skies. It could therefore replace ageing 757's on some routes from NYC/BOS to far western UK/Europe, especially in low headwind summer conditions when additional lift is needed.
I do see a future for the 787-3 in the fleets of AA and DL in the US domestic market. AA could use them for 3 class trans-con service to replace 767's and to the Caribbean from NY/MIA replacing A300's. DL is almost a no brainer to use them for the replacement of domestic 767-300's.
The 787-3 would also be an excellent choice to operate from the Western US to Hawaii markets - good cargo lift, low CASM and an ability to carry lots of bums in seats.
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 13, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 8588 times:
Quoting Atlantaflyboy (Reply 12): It could therefore replace ageing 757's on some routes from NYC/BOS to far western UK/Europe, especially in low headwind summer conditions when additional lift is needed.
MCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 8578 times:
Quoting FlyingClrs727 (Reply 11): The 787-3 already uses thinner walls than the 787-8; plus it has lighter landing gear.
Sure, but there's a limit to "how low they can go". I imagine you'll see something like what you're talking about with Y1. Boeing says it will be a family just like the 787 and will include a 757 replacement. Granted, it's got big shoes to fill, but I think they'll pull it off.
Quoting FlyingClrs727 (Reply 11): Why did Boeing leave a place for two model numbers below the 787-3?
You'd have to ask the marketing boys and girls in Chicago.
Atlantaflyboy From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 73 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 8555 times:
This is why I said "some routes" - DL especially has been operating aircraft in this seat count range to Europe the last few years, on a seasonal basis, quite successfully using domestic configured 767's (both300's and 400's). There are markets that also currently being operated using 757's that could use additional lift and the low CASM and increased cargo capacity of the 787 comparable to the 757 could provide this to airlines at a cost structure that might make the additional seat count worth the risk.
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3150 posts, RR: 4 Reply 16, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 8545 times:
Quoting FlyingClrs727 (Reply 6): Why not build a shorter 787 based on the lightened 787-3 and use that version to replace the 757 on thin transatlantic routes?
Someone here posted that the 787-8 will have the same trip cost as a 757-300. I don't believe the short term costs will be that good, but lifetime costs may make the trip cost that low overall. (Y lifetime cost / X lifetime flights) The 787-3 isn't as much about reducing the costs for short haul, but making the shorter wingspan as high performing as possible. Oh and lowering the MTOW since short haul ops the MTOW does drive costs as Japan's airports have huge landing fees.
Dank From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 829 posts, RR: 16 Reply 18, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 8467 times:
Quoting Atlantaflyboy (Reply 15): This is why I said "some routes" - DL especially has been operating aircraft in this seat count range to Europe the last few years, on a seasonal basis, quite successfully using domestic configured 767's (both300's and 400's). There are markets that also currently being operated using 757's that could use additional lift and the low CASM and increased cargo capacity of the 787 comparable to the 757 could provide this to airlines at a cost structure that might make the additional seat count worth the risk.
Why do it with a 783 when you could do it with a 788? The cabin size is identical. The 783 makes a huge sacrifice in performance to decrease the wingspan and weight. It won't carry the cargo that a -8 will carry over transatlantic range even if they could squeeze out a bit more range. Even the 764 (for all its deficiencies) has much better range than the 783. The 788 and 789 are going to be doing these east coast - europe runs for many of the us carriers. Now, when Y1 eventually rolls around (and the 320RS), you may see some variant of those doing what the 752 now does transatlantic...
Quoting Atlantaflyboy (Reply 12): The 787-3 would also be an excellent choice to operate from the Western US to Hawaii markets - good cargo lift, low CASM and an ability to carry lots of bums in seats.
It would? Isn't LAX to HNL is pushing the range and the -3? and it is cargo limited if you want to stretch the range. The question for carriers is, is it better to have a small fleet of -3s that can only be used for a few routes, or are you better off with a plane that you can swap configurations if you have a shift in operations (I'd fully expect airlines like DL to have domestic and international configurations on the same model, but you would be able to reconfigure planes if your needs changed).
Boeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 8457 times:
Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 8): The 787-3 exceeds the 767's wingspan by approximately 14 feet. So, even if American buys the 787-3, they will have to demolish and reconfigure the gates at their new terminal.
The 767 gates are ADG-IV gates. The 787-3 is an ADG-IV aircraft. There is no difference in gate span. 197' is 197'. If the airport was dumb enough to build aircraft specific gates that's their own damn fault. Even if they failed to address this issue, the use of a -8 or -9 won't make things any better.
As airports become more congested domestically and hub balancing demands larger aircraft to maximize connection opportunities, the 787-3 will become a more viable alternative for growing high density routes currently served by 757's, 767's and even some 777's. It has enough range for all large hub CONUS markets to each domestic fortress hub. It could easily be deployed and woudl be economically viable from the fortress hubs to the following airports:
Atlanta (Hub Hopper)
Boston (Hub Hopper/Transcon)
Chicago (Hub Hopper/West Coast/NY/BOS/DC)
Cincinnati (Hub Hopper)
Dallas/Ft. Worth (Hub Hopper)
Denver (Hub Hopper/East Coast)
Houston/Bush (Hub Hopper/East and West Coast)
Las Vegas (Name it)
Los Angeles (Hub Hopper/Transcon/Hawaii)
Miami (Hub Hopper/Transcon)
Minneapolis (West Coast/NY/BOS/DC)
New York (including La Guardia)
Orlando (ATL/CVG/ORD/BOS/NY/DC/DFW)
Salt Lake City (West Coast/East Coast/Hub Hopper)
San Diego (Fortress Hubs/Transcon/Hawaii)
San Francisco (Fortress Hubs/Transcon/Hawaii)
Seattle (Fortress Hubs/Transcon)
Washington/Dulles (Transcons/Orlando)
Washington/Reagan (Fortress Hubs)
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 8390 times:
Quoting Dank (Reply 18): Why do it with a 783 when you could do it with a 788? The cabin size is identical. The 783 makes a huge sacrifice in performance to decrease the wingspan and weight
Why doesn't UA fly the 772LR to Hawaii? Because they don't need that much aircraft. The cumulative effects of lower acquisition cost, lower fuel burn, lower landing fees, and less maintenance over the life of an aircraft add-up big time if the 787-3 is the right aircraft for the job, and the alternative is abusing a 787-8. This is especially true for airlines looking to replace large fleets of medium-haul widebodies like AA with the A300.
Quoting Dank (Reply 18): Isn't LAX to HNL is pushing the range and the -3?
It's well within the range of the 787-3 with full passenger load.
Dank From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 829 posts, RR: 16 Reply 21, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 8327 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 20): It's well within the range of the 787-3 with full passenger load.
Great circle mapper has LAX - HNL at 2,221nm. Range of the 787-3 is 2,500-3,00-nm and you're not going to carry a ton of cargo that way. Not sure that I'd call that a great choice.
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 20): Why doesn't UA fly the 772LR to Hawaii? Because they don't need that much aircraft. The cumulative effects of lower acquisition cost, lower fuel burn, lower landing fees, and less maintenance over the life of an aircraft add-up big time if the 787-3 is the right aircraft for the job, and the alternative is abusing a 787-8. This is especially true for airlines looking to replace large fleets of medium-haul widebodies like AA with the A300.
Umm, it would help your comparison if the 772 (and ER) were pushing their range/payload on the route. I don't doubt that the 783 is a better choice if it is the right plane for the job. But I think we disagree about how often that is the case for the 783. I wouldn't be shocked either way if AA gets some for their Miami A300 routes. I'm not confident that they'll see many more sales than that.
Kaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2210 posts, RR: 3 Reply 22, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 8276 times:
Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 19): The 767 gates are ADG-IV gates. The 787-3 is an ADG-IV aircraft. There is no difference in gate span. 197' is 197'. If the airport was dumb enough to build aircraft specific gates that's their own damn fault. Even if they failed to address this issue, the use of a -8 or -9 won't make things any better.
Well, AA is dumb enough to build 737-300ER only gates at their new terminal.
Just out of curiosity, what are the different classification of gates? You mention ADG-IV as one of them? (I did a search, could not find anything)
Jonathan-l From France, joined Mar 2002, 494 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 8206 times:
Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 9): Because "shrinks" of airliners have never worked well
The A319 is an A320 shrink and it's one of the best of the family.
The A330-200 is an A330-300 shrink and same there.
But I agree, you can only scale down to a certain extent.
Halls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 8083 times:
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 10): Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 8):
The 787-3 exceeds the 767's wingspan by approximately 14 feet. So, even if American buys the 787-3, they will have to demolish and reconfigure the gates at their new terminal.
I think AA will buy it... but they will base it primarily at MIA.
Surely THAT multibillion dollar boondoggle can accommodate it.
MIA might be a boondoggle, but consider the advantages. Since this airport reconstruction project will never be complete, they will easily be able to make adjustments for future changes in airline fleet sizes.
The sooner AA replaces those ragged A300's on the south america runs, the better.
25 PavlovsDog: Interesting. I was wondering if the 783 could operate from those aiports. I thought maybe the shortened wings would comprimise perfermance so much th
26 DAYflyer: You will see 787-3 replacing 767 on US Transcon flights (JFK-LAX, ORD-LAX, BOS-SFO, etc) when the legacy carriers begin to order the type. Europe is
27 DAL767400ER: That's 3265MI, not 3265NM. BOS-LHR is actually just 2837NM. Were you referring to 767-300ERs?
28 Airbazar: I'm glad someone asked. Why go through all the trouble of trying to fit a square peg in a round hole when the 788 can do the job? The purpose of this
29 DiscoverCSG: How 'bout, "The SlotBuster Express" While another poster asked if the 783 could take off from DCA, I have to ask: Can it park there? Yeah. I think th
30 HiJazzey: Here you go: ICAO / (FAA) design groups: Code A / (Group I) :
31 AirSpare: I guess I'll have to live with the leaking roof for a few more years yet. OT, but I am pretty loyal to AA and have had a lot of in flight conversatio
32 DfwRevolution: And how much cargo do you think airlines are loading on HNL runs? Doesn't change the analogy at all. The 772LR is way too much airplane for west coas
33 Stitch: One needs to remember that at MNZFW, a 787-3 can only tank enough gas to fly about 1500nm. That's plenty to service the Japanese home islands and mayb
34 Dank: No it does, because you are looking at half of the comparison, not the entire comparison. The 772A and 772ER are well above capable for doing the rou
35 ConcordeBoy: ...just like the 772ER is too much aircraft for SIN-India, or the 773ER for CDG-BEY--- but the carriers have chosen to op those type routes with thos
36 Dank: couldn't say that better. Widebodyphotog's charts are an eyeopener. Even though MTOW is some 50+ tons lower on the 783, MZFW and OEW are something on
38 A342: If you load the 783 with its full payload (full pax + full cargo), the range becomes almost completely useless.
39 Dank: Meant to add something to that effect. cheers.
40 EI321: It will, If you dont mind swimming half of the journey.
41 Dank: It's not entirely clear to me that LH is going to go down that route. cheers.
42 EI321: I dont think LH will. They are not the only airline operating A300-600s.
43 N1120A: It would make sense for them to do such given the amount of cargo they carry intra-Europe, not to mention CASM on high capacity works.
44 Jacobin777: ...but those are two great aircrafts...especially the -200....
45 RootsAir: if the 783 is lighter how come it has such a nasty bad range ? Also mention its a shame we won't see many 783's around...its the nicest looking one w
46 FlyingClrs727: Boeing took out structural weight at the expense of MTOW and strength. The fuel tanks hold just as much fuel as 787-8, but the structure isn't strong
47 EddieDude: Like Gigneil mentioned, AA could get some and base them at MIA. There are lots of passengers between Latin American cities and MIA, and the bellies o
48 DiscoverCSG: That WOULD be revolutionary, now, wouldn't it?
49 Stitch: While the 787-3 has the same tankage by volume as the 787-8, it cannot be filled to that level because of a lighter overall structure. So the 787-3 c
50 Airbazar: Except all signs point to them [A300's] being replaced by A321's and more frequencies added. I think that's the route LH will follow.
51 KC135TopBoom: I think you used sm, as the nm for BOS-LHR distance is 2837nm, BOS-CDG is 2997 nm, that one would be pushing it. JFK-LHR would be pushing it, too, at
52 Dank: and potentially abusing some long haul planes between runs. cheers.
53 DAYflyer: Did they install ski's instead?? filler filler filler
54 Stitch: If she just carries passengers and their baggage and no additional cargo, then yes. It's hard to decipher Widebodyphotog's charts, but it is looking
55 Dank: That was my reading of the charts. And the more I look at it, the less desirable the -3 looks. It fits a niche, but that's about all. Add in the lack
56 Jholiiday: Hopefully, in the years to come, when the terminal is finished out to originally specified size, they'll address this![Edited 2007-05-03 00:30:16]
57 Ruscoe: An airline should be able to have Boeing build in whatever weight they want in the 54T difference between the 783 and the 8. Of course it will be the
59 Boeing7E7: ADG-II is an RJ ADG-III is a 737 with winglets (118') ADG-IV is a 787-3 (171' max) ADG-V is a A330/787/777/747 (214' Max) ADG-VI is anything over 214
60 Boeing7E7: And with a 240-250 pax config and cargo the range is about 3,000nm. A direct replacement for the 767-300 and A300 in domestic/west coast-hawaii use.
61 Stitch: Yes, but how much non-passenger cargo do those flights haul? The 787-3 has to trade non-passenger cargo weight for fuel weight on a significantly hig
62 Zeke: I would think you would need a MTOW increase to about 180t and a OEW increase to make the aircraft useful over that range taking into account winds,
63 Boeing7E7: The same as a typical 767-300 operation. About a 70-75k total payload, 25-30k cargo.
64 Hjulicher: How much cargo can the Trans-Atlantic 757's carry? Going back to whether the 783 can be as versatile as the 757 is today, do 757's carry a lot of non
65 Stitch: The same as a typical 767-300 operation. About a 70-75k total payload, 25-30k cargo. I wish Widebodyphotog had filled out the "Available Cargo Payloa
66 Yyz717: Yes, and no. While the sales record and likely future market for the 783 is small, it was a necessary offering to get the 787 launched by a respected
67 Boeing7E7: No. For that flight they can support a 55k payload. Pax account for 37K. You only need 2500nm for domestic use and west coast to Hawaii and it won't
68 Revelation: Not to mention the 787 is wider than the 757, thus more drag and weight and...
69 Boeing7E7: And what? It has roughly the same operational cost of a 757-300 with 20-40 more pax.
70 N1120A: Which doesn't make sense at all given the mission the A300s fill. It also doesn't make sense when you consider slot restrictions at places like Heath
71 Gigneil: No, it really isn't. 3000 nm is barely enough to fly SFO-HNL most of the year. I think cargo is more than you can possibly imagine. That's how that s
72 Stitch: 250 pax on a 787-3 is going to be mighty darn comfy, considering CO, DL and UA already offer that many on their domestic 767-300ERs. So I can imagine
73 EWRCabincrew: We don't have 763s. Our 762s are configured 25/149 for a total of 174 people. Our 764s are configured either 20/236 or 35/200. They are bigger than t
74 Stitch: Sorry, I meant 764s for CO. DL's domestic 764s hold 287, but they are all going international config, correct?
75 DiscoverCSG: We know. It's all in good fun - thanks for the ammo!
76 Boeing7E7: 2+4+2 in coach. Boeing uses 210. Tell that to the 757.[Edited 2007-05-04 07:49:50]
77 Stitch: Then that hurts the 787-3's case even more, since it raises the pax+baggage load by 25% and therefore reduces the amount of fuel it can carry, which
78 Gigneil: The 757 is a 4000 nm aircraft. An MD-90 is a 2500nm aircraft. NS
79 Zeke: The comment by Boeing7E7 was misleading, 210lb/95kg is the design payload used by both A & B for each pax including baggage, 160lb is correct for a p
80 Stitch: Thanks, Zeke. So that matches my original calculations (160lbs pax weight and 50lbs baggage per pax).
81 Boeing7E7: Not without a payload penalty. Engine: Penalty: 535C 49k 53E4/E4B 34k PW 23k Using your 757 comparison, the -3 is a 3,800 mile plane. Exactly how is
Sponsor Message: 
From Liechtenstein, joined Feb 2005, 847 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, 
From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1415 posts, 
From France, joined Mar 2002, 494 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
