Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A380: What Does It Need For A Runway?  
User currently offlineAWombat From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 21 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 17516 times:

The A380 is back in Sydney today to take the press up for a joy ride. Its a nice day for it rain and thunderstorms! My brother who works at the airport, said it was going to Canberra tomorrow and I thought "Wow, thats a short runway with nice hills at either end of the runway".

He thought it was landing and I was wondering if it could land and take off. So the question is, how much runway does an A380 need and is Canberra enough?

23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21526 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 17487 times:

Quoting AWombat (Thread starter):
So the question is, how much runway does an A380 need and is Canberra enough?

Obviously this is like SAA landing the 747s at the museum. The A380 will land there and go on display, never to take off again...  Wink

Of course it's long enough, otherwise they wouldn't be sending it there! A lightly loaded A380 has better short field performance than a lot of other planes, from what I understand.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 17484 times:

The A380 is supposed to be capable of using those runways in which a 747 can operate. So the 8800 ft Runway 17/35 at CBR should be more than enough for the A380 for up to a medium to longhaul flight.

User currently offlineGlacote From France, joined Jun 2005, 409 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 17371 times:

A fully loaded A388 uses less runway than a fully loaded B744 both at take-off and landing.

User currently offlineMotorHussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3203 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 17328 times:

When I was a kid, I went to an airshow in Canberra that had a Lockheed C-5A Galaxy on display which flew in with an assortment of helicopters. If a Galaxy can, then surely the uber-Jumbo...

Regards
MH



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 17238 times:

AWombat, runway length is not a problem. However, because the A380's outer engines overhang a normal runway, there is a risk of dust/grit being thrown up into the intakes during the landing run (even though I believe that the A380 only has reverse thrust on the inboard pair). For that reason, most runways will need widening to accommodate the A380. The widened area does not, however, have to be fully loadbearing; at Melbourne, for example, only light tarmac shoulders have been provided.

Bigger issues arise with taxiways - the A380's 'turning circle' is larger than that of a 747 and therefore quite extensive taxiway works will be required at many airports. Hardstanding areas may (probably will) need to be strengthened to allow for the extra weight. Terminal gates will also have to be widened to accommodate the larger wingspan, and most terminals will also require a second level and extra jetways to permit disembarkation from the A380 upper deck.

Where the airports (unwisely in my opinion) are 'going overboard' is in the area of extra terminal space, baggage claim areas, shops, car parking etc.. Melbourne Airport, for example, got 'carried away' (IMO) by the talk of 850 passengers back in 2004, and commissioned a big terminal extension; they maybe look a bit silly now that even Airbus are saying that 525 passengers look like being the norm.

Melbourne looked like getting off lightly early on; the original estimate to become 'A380-ready' was stated to be only $A50M. However, by 2005, the estimate had been quietly raised to $A220M. God knows what the actual 'outturn' cost will be; all I know is that every time I park at Tullamarine it seems to cost me five bucks an hour more than the last time!

This story gives a fair summary of the extent of the works at MEL:-

http://www.melbourne-airport.com.au/...ort/media_releases_item.asp?id=248

[Edited 2007-06-07 06:02:21]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineMotorHussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3203 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 17194 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5):
Hardstanding areas may (probably will) need to be strengthened to allow for the extra weight.

I don't think so. I've read that the weight born on each tyre is the same as that of the current 744.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5):
Terminal gates will also have to be widened to accommodate the larger wingspan,

Most 744 capable terminals have a corner gate or some such that has extra space. It'll just mean that only a smaller spanned aircraft will be next door.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5):
most terminals will also require a second level and extra jetways to permit disembarkation from the A380 upper deck.

That would be a luxury that only the likes of DXB is installing. Most airports and terminals will continue with the single level jetways to/from the A380's main deck.

Regards
MH



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 17172 times:

Probably right about the bearing capacity of the aprons, MotorHussy - that's why I said 'may.' Melbourne are certainly proposing apron works (see the press release I linked to) but whether that's just enlargement, as opposed to strengtheing, I don't know.

Quoting MotorHussy (Reply 6):
That would be a luxury that only the likes of DXB is installing.

Please see the press release:-

"Construction already underway at Melbourne Airport will ensure Victoria is ready to welcome the double-decker aircraft when it arrives. Work has commenced on a 5,000m2 expansion of our international terminal building, which will increase public seating capacity by 165%. A third level is being constructed above the terminal extension, which will house new “penthouse” airline lounges with terrific views over Mount Macedon and the airfield.

"Terminal works are also underway to install two new gates with dual aerobridges that will enable passengers to board and disembark the A380 from both levels of the double-decker aircraft. These gates will have the flexibility to accommodate two A380 or up to four smaller aircraft at any one time."



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3409 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 17109 times:

Airbus got it argued in that the A380 didn't need wider runways and taxiways than the 747 as far as the load bearing surface goes. They only require extra shoulder width to keep dirt and other objects out of the outer engines.

Now, personaly I think this IS a mistake given the extra width on the A380 MLG, but who knows, maybe by some massive stroke of luck none of them will ever put a set of wheels off at MTOW taxing to the runway. There is just very little room for error left.


User currently offlineJonathan-l From France, joined Mar 2002, 504 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 16997 times:

Nav 20, quoting the article you posted a link to:

"Melbourne Airport is investing $220 million in building and construction projects to improve and expand its terminal precinct, runway and apron facilities. These works are designed to support continued passenger growth, and to prepare Melbourne to welcome the new generation A380 aircraft, which will have 35% more seats than a 747 jumbo"

The $220 million, as mentioned, is to support passenger growth, not solely to accommodate the A380.
And why just look at costs? If your airport needs to be A380 ready to retain or to win an airline, there is a revenue side to it as well. If Branson had said to Las Vegas, "I'm bringing the A380" to McCarran, I'm willing to bet that the airport director would have found a slightly more subtle answer than "I'm pissed, nowwe would have to add more toilets to the terminal" to accommodate the A380 (not exact quote but the mention of toilets was one of his BIG counter-arguments).

Next thing you know, people will start saying that the 747-8 will not cost a penny to accommodate at airports although it is exactly in the same ICAO/FAA category as the A380 and will be the longest aircraft (yes, even longer than the A340-600) out there.
All these costs are integrated into larger scale than accommodating just one aircraft. At 5% growth per annum on the passenger side, whether that growth will be driven by A380, 787, A350 or 747-8 is irrelevent in the grand scheme of things. In the end, an airport has to be able to cater for more passengers.

Did you know that Orly had to completely redo one of its runways because Air France decided to operate its 777-300ER out of there? The fact of the matter is that those 777-300ER (10 abreast) are some of the highest capacity aircraft operating from Orly, generating additional revenue for the airport.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3409 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 16933 times:

Quoting Jonathan-l (Reply 9):
Next thing you know, people will start saying that the 747-8 will not cost a penny to accommodate at airports although it is exactly in the same ICAO/FAA category as the A380 and will be the longest aircraft (yes, even longer than the A340-600) out there.

Its very very likely that the 748 will NOT see any extra requirements over the 744 other than runway and taxiway separation due to the increased wingspan.

It has FAR less issues with radius of taxiway curvature than the A346. and in fact can turn tighter than a 777 Its going to be certified for 0 extra passengers over the 744. The only real difference as far as airport operations not at the terminal goes, the 748 will have a higher ground pressure on the MLG according to the Boeing documents.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 16924 times:

Quoting Jonathan-l (Reply 9):
The $220 million, as mentioned, is to support passenger growth, not solely to accommodate the A380.

That's what 'all the girls say,' Jonathan-I.   Our trouble is that Melbourne Airport is managed by a subsidiary of Macquarie Bank, who (on recent evidence) are never averse to 'trading up' a deal (always provided that the risk involves OPM ('Other People's Money').

Quoting Jonathan-l (Reply 9):
And why just look at costs?

Sorry - habit of mine from my professional days. If I see a figure of $A220M. my built-in 'viability analysis' mindset immediately starts thinking in terms of increased revenue of say $A30M. p.a. to cover annual interest, repay the debt, and provide a 'return on risk.' I honestly don't see the arrival and departure of a hundred or two extra passengers per day as coming anywhere near generating that sort of additional net revenue.

Further, Victoria is a highly-populated state by Australian standards but it doesn't have all that many taxpayers by world standards - $220M. therefore represents about $100 of MY money. And I know damn well what the airport managers will be relying on to squeeze out extra revenue; higher parking charges, higher airport charges, higher rents for the shops leading to even higher prices - and eventually higher State taxes when the ends still don't meet......

Sorry - 'Been there, done that' - I know from experience what we 'ordinary travellers' are in for........

[Edited 2007-06-07 09:35:01]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineGemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5651 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 16838 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 10):
Its going to be certified for 0 extra passengers over the 744

The B748 is having an 18' streach and its not carring anymore pax!  scratchchin  In fact, according to Boeing it will carry 51 more pax then a B744 in a typical 3 class config.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineJonathan-l From France, joined Mar 2002, 504 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 16817 times:

All the following are quotes from the press release that you mention (Nav 20):

QUOTE: These works are designed to support continued passenger growth, and to prepare Melbourne to welcome the new generation A380 aircraft

Five of Melbourne Airport’s 23 international carriers have already placed orders for the new aircraft; Qantas, Singapore Airlines, Emirates Airline, Malaysia Airlines and Thai Airways

Work has commenced on a 5,000m2 expansion of our international terminal building, which will increase public seating capacity by 165%. A third level is being constructed above the terminal extension, which will house new “penthouse” airline lounges with terrific views over Mount Macedon and the airfield

A significant airside works program will be required for the airport to accommodate the enormous size of this new aircraft. All works required to facilitate the A380 are fully funded as part of a five-year price agreement reached with our airline partners and introduced on 1 July 2002.

Long term planning has enabled Melbourne Airport to finalise priorities and arrange finance for major aeronautical developments well in advance of their construction.

The airport’s pricing agreement with airlines incorporates a five year capital works program, which includes A380 specific works as well as other apron, runway and terminal development

These gates will have the flexibility to accommodate two A380 or up to four smaller aircraft at any one time.

Melbourne Airport’s main 3.7km north/south runway will be widened by 15 metres (7.5 metres either side) to provide jet blast protection. Runway lighting will be upgraded as part of the project. The project will also involve the upgrade of runway lighting and other airfield services and some concrete replacement on the runway.

L.U. Simon builders have been awarded the contract to expand Melbourne Airport’s international terminal by over 5,000m2

a new third level added to the international terminal building and two dual aerobridges installed to accommodate the double-decker A380 aircraft. UNQUOTE


So in the end:
A380 related: jet blast protection on each side of runway, two dual aerobridges. Maybe before there was also some work on taxiways.
Parallel work: upgrade of runway lighting, airfield services upgrade and some concrete replacement on runway
Growth related: 5000m2 expansion of terminal building, new penthouse airline lounges (breathtaking views!!!), 165% more seating space, new gates.

Not too sure on how it panned out but "The airport’s pricing agreement with airlines incorporates a five year capital works program, which includes A380 specific works as well as other apron, runway and terminal development". So parking charges (that you pay) are not the only source for bringing the A380.

5 airlines that serve MEL have selected the A380. So you will be getting a few flights. Now perhaps you are saying that these carriers have made a mistake and they should have selected smaller aircraft.

So strike out from the above the A380 related work: runway stays the same width, no cool dual aerobridges and the taxiways stayed the way they were (now you have 2 787 instead of 1 A380 so I'll leave in some of the additional gates). You still have the additional 5000m2 to the terminal building, you still have the breathtaking views for the new penthouse (yes penthouse) airline lounges, and more seats because we all know that the regular passenger needs a seat for his bags.

And you still need the improve the runway lighting and replace some concrete on those runways.

Are you saying that MEL, the airlines and organizations like IATA are wrong in the general consensus that pax traffic is growing? I don't know the specifics of the Melbourne area but I doubt that pax traffic is decreasing. Maybe you believe that all this is too much and you are not willing to pay a higher price for a "triple lutz caffe latte" at the airport Starbucks or you don't want to pay an additional $5 to park your car even further than you currently do and more importantly you don't think that the views over Mount Macedon are worth the spike in prices (well maybe those are actually worth it).
But is not all this due to the fact that MEL is attracting more passengers anyway, A380 or not?
My local airport will not have A380 commercial service and I have seen new parking lots, a terminal extension (and it was for regional aircraft!! - Embraer, Fokker, CRJ...), new office buildings, improved gate areas and an improved lounge.

To make this post complete, I have checked the pax figures for MEL over the past years:
2005-06: 21.43 mil
2004-05: 20.78
2003-04: 19.16
2002-03: 16.92
2001-02: 16.48
2000-01: 17.24
1999-00: 15.57

The A380 cannot be held accountable for this nice increasing curve. People like Melbourne and Victoria and your airport is getting more travellers every year. And you'll get more, whatever the aircraft they're arriving and departing on. So get ready for those lounges (with views), that terminal extension and those additional seats. They are there to stay, whether the A380 serves Melbourne ultra-frequently or not.

I enjoy the discussion.

Jonathan


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3409 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 16782 times:

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 12):
The B748 is having an 18' streach and its not carring anymore pax! In fact, according to Boeing it will carry 51 more pax then a B744 in a typical 3 class config.

One might note that I was talking about the max allowed passengers. A number completely theoretical outside of the domestic Japanese flights. So if you want to use a 747 for short haul domestic flights, better pick up your clean low cycle 744 in a hurry since the 748 will stink at it.

So it will be really hard to argue that a 748 needs all kinds of new stuff on the airport side when it turns better than a 777 or A340, has 0 extra allowed passengers, and doesn't change landing gear or engine placement.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 16713 times:

It's all relative to the situation. A 400m grass field with a windsock is better than putting down in the trees.

User currently offlineMotorHussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3203 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 16428 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 7):
"Terminal works are also underway to install two new gates with dual aerobridges that will enable passengers to board and disembark the A380 from both levels of the double-decker aircraft.

Yeah, as I said, only the likes of DXB. Didn't say exclusively DXB, just a minority of airports. So sorry, what's your point? Of the airports that are ready and/or are getting ready for the new uberjumbo, who else, other than Tulla and Dubai, are spending money on two level aerobridges? I'd love it, as a passenger, if more were, but who?

Regards
MH



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 17, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 16372 times:

Gosh, what a tirade, Jonathan-L.  Smile

I fear you're a victim of 'PR-speak' about 'improving' the runway lighting. A moment's thought would have told you that if you are going to add shoulders to a runway the very first thing you have to do is dismantle the runway lighting - and later replace it. There was nothing wrong with the previous runway lighting.

And as for:-

Quoting Jonathan-l (Reply 13):
Maybe you believe that all this is too much and you are not willing to pay a higher price for a "triple lutz caffe latte" at the airport Starbucks or you don't want to pay an additional $5 to park your car even further than you currently do and more importantly you don't think that the views over Mount Macedon are worth the spike in prices (well maybe those are actually worth it).

No, of COURSE I don't like paying higher prices - who does? And Mount Macedon is quite a nice place to live, but the Alps it ain't; I wouldn't dream of paying money to look at it (much prefer my own view of Port Phillip Bay). As for car parking, glad to report that Macquarie already appear to have shot themselves in the foot in that area; the Tulla long-stay car park is less than half-full nowadays, most people (like me) are now using privately-run off-airport parking - you get more courtesy, quicker service, and a reliable minibus service - AND your car is kept safe and under cover - at lower cost.

Please don't tell me what I should be happy to pay for.  Smile I'm personally convinced that the airport is over-reacting to the A380 - that it could have been accommodated quite satisfactorily for a fraction of the money they're spending. And since some of it is MY money, I feel that I have a perfect right to express that opinion.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineJonathan-l From France, joined Mar 2002, 504 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 16166 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 17):
that it could have been accommodated quite satisfactorily for a fraction of the money they're spending

So either they are particularly incompetent or most of the $$$ figures that are quoted alongside "upgrades to accommodate the A380" are actually not all A380 driven. That was the main point of my "tirade"  Smile

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5):
Melbourne looked like getting off lightly early on; the original estimate to become 'A380-ready' was stated to be only $A50M. However, by 2005, the estimate had been quietly raised to $A220M


User currently offlineCygnusChicago From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 16034 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5):
However, because the A380's outer engines overhang a normal runway, there is a risk of dust/grit being thrown up into the intakes during the landing run

Yea, people keep saying that. But then - contrary to the absolute, 100% certain, expert knowledge of a-netters - the Superjumbo landed on a 150 wide runway at ORD. I'm of the opinion we (as in those of us not working in A380 planning for operators that have purchased it, or airports expecting it) will only know what the A380 REALLY needs when it goes in service. The rest is just a lot of pompous hot air from armchair experts.



If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 20, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 15245 times:

Quoting MotorHussy (Reply 4):
When I was a kid, I went to an airshow in Canberra that had a Lockheed C-5A Galaxy on display which flew in with an assortment of helicopters. If a Galaxy can, then surely the uber-Jumbo...

I wouldn't assume that. Galaxy has pretty impressive short field performance, it was designed to it. It is slower, louder, burns more gas than a commercial jet, but it can put down in a lot of shorter and less than perfect locations, that's its mission.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 15):
It's all relative to the situation. A 400m grass field with a windsock is better than putting down in the trees.

A 400 meter grass strip is fine for a cessna.... but for whalejet? haha



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 21, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 15203 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 20):
A 400 meter grass strip is fine for a cessna.... but for whalejet?

Still better than putting down in the trees.


User currently offlineCygnusChicago From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 14965 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 21):
Still better than putting down in the trees.

Better for whom? the trees?



If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
User currently offlineA389 From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2005, 59 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 14366 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5):
Bigger issues arise with taxiways - the A380's 'turning circle' is larger than that of a 747 and therefore quite extensive taxiway works will be required at many airports

The A380, A346 and a B77W turning characteristics are quite similar to the 777 and 340 and these are operating at loads of airports so no doubt that where those acft are operating the 380 can operate as well... with no special requirements.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 17):
A moment's thought would have told you that if you are going to add shoulders to a runway the very first thing you have to do is dismantle the runway lighting

The runway edge lighting has to be no further then 3m from the runway main pavement which is the inner 3m of the shoulders so if you are widening a standard 7.5m shoulder i see no reason why would you need to remove the lighting... also the duct s where the power cables run are generally not far from the lights so i also see no reason to touch the lights if the only thing you want is to widen the shoulder.

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 19):
I'm of the opinion we (as in those of us not working in A380 planning for operators that have purchased it, or airports expecting it) will only know what the A380 REALLY needs when it goes in service.

It's certainly not to expect that the A380 will ever start operating without an in depth knowledge of what it takes to SAFELY operate the aircraft...aviation is an industry where safety is the driven factor!.. will we know everything?? no, never!.. but that is not any different for any new aircraft, new procedure etc... there's always room to improve!

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 10):
Its very very likely that the 748 will NOT see any extra requirements over the 744 other than runway and taxiway separation due to the increased wingspan.

I'd say it is likely it will... it's a 68.5m wingspan and 76.4m long aircraft... so as usually aprons are designed to optimize the space it is likely that the aircraft parking will have an impact even if you can use a 744 bay, that is likely to restrict the size of the aircraft you can park next to it... and that is an impact.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5):
Hardstanding areas may (probably will) need to be strengthened to allow for the extra weight.

The 380 ACN for both flexible and rigid pavement is similar to other exiisting aircraft such as 777-300ER and 340-600... and in some cases it is even lower so it should not be an issue.

Back to the original topic, and as Glacote said, a fully loaded 380 has better landing and takeoff performance then several currently operated wide body aircraft!

A389


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...
KLM - What Does It Stand For? posted Mon Aug 23 2004 16:00:58 by Jonty
WN... What Does It Really Stand For? posted Tue Oct 17 2006 20:46:32 by 747hogg
What Does This Mean For The A380? posted Tue Sep 18 2001 04:01:38 by Jcxp15
UA/US Codeshare... What Does It Really Mean? posted Tue Jun 5 2007 08:19:39 by Mnevans
What Would It Take For An Airline To Change Plans? posted Sun May 13 2007 22:08:58 by Swiftski
PIA Tail Art - What Does It Mean posted Fri Feb 2 2007 04:15:28 by Clickhappy
How Long Does It Take For A Crash To Get Cleaned? posted Mon Jan 15 2007 06:03:40 by TZ757300
Singapore Airlines Waitlisted- What Does It Mean? posted Wed Aug 23 2006 19:17:06 by Crosscountry
What Does It Take To Be Airline Management posted Wed May 24 2006 22:44:28 by PAHS200
What Does It Cost To Certify A New Aircraft? posted Sun Mar 19 2006 02:38:41 by Art
Airline Seating - Y, F, J, W - What Does It Mean? posted Tue Jul 27 2010 12:04:18 by virginblue4
What'll It Take For 77L To Fly LHR-SYD-LHR? posted Thu Mar 11 2010 12:35:54 by EA772LR
With CO Joining Star, Does It Need US? posted Sat May 16 2009 11:18:37 by Falcon84
What Does KN Stand For In This Description... posted Sat Feb 7 2009 14:51:47 by Placekicker
Tail Strike, What Does It Sound Like As Pax? posted Wed Oct 29 2008 11:59:53 by Readytotaxi