Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CO Defers 737 Deliveries  
User currently offlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5402 posts, RR: 7
Posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10323 times:

http://yahoo.reuters.com/news/articl...15_N13412563&type=comktNews&rpc=44

These delivery deferrals seem to confirm my rumor posted a few days ago in the "CLE expansion" thread:

"Scuttlebutt from a fairly decent non-CO source:

CLE expansion was supposed to happen this year but CAL got nervous about softness in system-wide (not just CLE) bookings as well as delays in Chautauqua flying and delayed a year while they decide whether to keep or return some older 737's. Some expansion will definitely happen starting next spring, but the size has not been determined."

While my comment specifically addressed the CLE operation, it obviously affects the whole airline. The 2008 deliveries are probably too close to defer, so 2009 deliveries are the first CO can affect.


I love long German words like 'Freundschaftsbezeigungen'.
60 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9623 posts, RR: 68
Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10305 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Overcapacity is a huge problem in the US Domestic sector right now.

User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5766 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10214 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 1):
Overcapacity is a huge problem in the US Domestic sector right now.

No, it is not.

How many times will we hear that? And what is your source?

Would you like to know that load factors at Continental Airlines are the highest in their entire history? Just read any of their monthly releases. I can't remember the last release that didn't say, "March consolidated load factor was 81.9%... a record for the month of March at Continental Airlines."

The planes are going out full as can be. Airlines (just ask US, or better yet, read the USAToday article on their overbooking policies) are having more trouble with overbooking than ever before, due to the planes being full, and fewer no shows.

Now, yields and pricing power are certainly an issue. But that's a different story.

I am disappointed to hear that Continental is deferring aircraft deliveries, especially at a time when American is advancing theirs. (Do a search, I'm not going to do it for you.) But if this is what management thinks is wisest, then I guess they gotta do it.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20499 posts, RR: 62
Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10144 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 2):
Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 1):
Overcapacity is a huge problem in the US Domestic sector right now.

No, it is not.

The article linked says:

"The fleet adjustments come with U.S. airlines facing slackening demand as the U.S. economy slows, which is putting pressure on air fares."

The planes may still be full, but at lower fares, is what I read from the article, and the trend is expected to continue until the economy strengthens.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10144 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 2):
No, it is not.

How many times will we hear that? And what is your source?

Where have you been? Look at every "legacy" carrier in the US. They have publicly stated their plan is to keep domestic ASM flat or actually decrease. Why????? Because the revenue isn't there. The demand is soft and they have to resort to pricing to attract butts in seats. It's the same old thing, just because the flights are full doesn't mean they're making money.

The proliferation of LCCs in the US and the extremely elastic pricing sensitivity the airlines with pricing just shows that although the "average" person wants to go from point A to B and their only consideration is money. Why add seats to the market when you can't make money on the ones you already have in your inventory. This is exactly how the downturn in 99/00 started off....


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9623 posts, RR: 68
Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10089 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Now, yields and pricing power are certainly an issue. �But that's a different story.>

Uh, not it isn't. It's the same story, told from a different prospective.

Yields are low because there are too many planes. It's called overcapacity  Yeah sure


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8472 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10039 times:

It's interesting that CO thinks the 733 and 735 with winglets is a cheaper jet to fly than a new 73G. Very interesting indeed, because maybe they are right. CO may be keeping the 735s all the way until the plastic 737 comes along.

User currently offlineATLAaron From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 1023 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10002 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 5):
Yields are low because there are too many planes. It's called overcapacity

Well then who is not flying very full? Talk to any business traveler at any airport and they complain about how flights are always so full.


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9623 posts, RR: 68
Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9960 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

The flights are full because prices are low. Prices are low because there are so many seats to fill.

If you cut capacity you squeeze out the bottom end of the market, thus raising fares.

It is pretty basic economic principal, and really has nothing to do with airlines. It happens in all industries.


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16248 posts, RR: 56
Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9935 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 2):
Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 1):
Overcapacity is a huge problem in the US Domestic sector right now.

No, it is not.

How many times will we hear that? And what is your source?

Would you like to know that load factors at Continental Airlines are the highest in their entire history?

High load factors does not mean that there is no overcapacity. Profit does. US airline domestic-market profit is not strong, so it does indeed suggest that soft pricing (to fill the seats) is driving high load factors but not necessarily generating profit. Hence, there is indeed a strong argument that overcapacity exists and that argument will only disappear when profit levels rise to investment grade.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 6):
It's interesting that CO thinks the 733 and 735 with winglets is a cheaper jet to fly than a new 73G. Very interesting indeed, because maybe they are right. CO may be keeping the 735s all the way until the plastic 737 comes along.

As long as the dispatch reliablity of the 733/735 fleet remains good and the higher mx costs (vs. the NG fleet) are lower than the incremental lease costs (or ownership costs) of the new NG's, then yes: it makes sense to keep the 733/735 fleet flying. Moreover, any financial decision that defers capital costs (i.e. new NG purchases) at the cost of managable but higher operating costs (i.e. keeping 737 classics flying) is often a good decision.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5402 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9876 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 6):
It's interesting that CO thinks the 733 and 735 with winglets is a cheaper jet to fly than a new 73G.

I don't think they do. Smizek said at the Merrill Lynch conference today that CO is considering "offshore disposal" of up to 15 735's in the near term, noting that the 735 is CO's least efficient aircraft. He didn't say whether these would be leased or owned aircraft; but CO is one of the most leveraged airlines around, so they might want to shed some mortgage debt - even if that would be relatively more expensive than ending some leases.

The wingleted 733's and 735's would probably be the last to go.



I love long German words like 'Freundschaftsbezeigungen'.
User currently offline777gk From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1641 posts, RR: 18
Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9876 times:

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 4):

Where have you been? Look at every "legacy" carrier in the US. They have publicly stated their plan is to keep domestic ASM flat or actually decrease.

Continental plans to grow domestic capacity a few percentage points (and has been doing so for a few years).

CO usually is ahead of the curve in terms of long-term fleet planning. Apparently management feels the impending economic slowdown will require growth to be curbed slightly. 24 more 737s in 2 years is still strong growth, considering that most will be in the form of 169-seat 737-900ERs, and you can't forget the 787s that will start showing up in 2009.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21503 posts, RR: 60
Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9834 times:

I would imagine that the IAH construction has something to do with this, too?

I wonder about CLE expansion, too, because I fly CO a lot and the flights that aren't full are the ones that route through cleveland.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 3):
"The fleet adjustments come with U.S. airlines facing slackening demand as the U.S. economy slows, which is putting pressure on air fares."

The article is wrong, as the US economy has been steady for quite a while, and the only domestic factor that "slowed" the economy in the first quarter was housing starts. All OTHER aspects were strong, even stronger than expected. So unless CO is in the business of building homes...

Articles are not gospel. They often involve the writer making "cause and effect" statements that he/she didn't research and that have statistically backing, but that sound good.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineThorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9788 times:

Oh, I smell the end of the 737.  Wink

Honestly, I have the feeling that US carriers are focusing more and more on long-haul, a thing where they can make way more money and low-costs are not a competition.


User currently offlineFLYGUY767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9768 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 1):
Overcapacity is a huge problem in the US Domestic sector right now.

Indeed and this has been proven over and over again with more airlines taking away from domestic capacity to add to international. Not to long ago we say airlines likes United using the 747-400, on routes like LAS-ORD, ORD-DEN, DEN-LAX. We say AA using multiple DC-10's on JFK-LAX, LAX-HNL, HNL-DFW, DFW-SJU. We say Delta using multiple 767's, 777's and so forth on routes like SLC-LAX, LAX-CVG, BDL-ATL, DEN-ATL. We saw Continental using multiple DC-10's and 767's on routes like IAH-MCO, IAH-LAX, LAX-EWR.

Those days are done as airlines realize the profit with the widebody aircraft is with the international market. Additionally, airlines have realized that an overcapacity has lead to seats being filled at lower profit margins, in turn effecting the bottom line of the airlines spreadsheet.

The delay in the Continental Airlines 737 additions, makes me wonder if we are going to see those 737 orders turned over to a 777, or 787 order. Only time will tell.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 2):
Would you like to know that load factors at Continental Airlines are the highest in their entire history? Just read any of their monthly releases. I can't remember the last release that didn't say, "March consolidated load factor was 81.9%... a record for the month of March at Continental Airlines."

It has been proven over and over again~

A FULL FLIGHT, A HIGH LOAD FACTOR, DOES NOT EQUATE TO A PROFIT

Yes, I stand behind the belief we have to many flights, at to low of a profit.


-JD


User currently offline777gk From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1641 posts, RR: 18
Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9641 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 12):
I would imagine that the IAH construction has something to do with this, too?

Definitely.

Quoting FLYGUY767 (Reply 14):

The delay in the Continental Airlines 737 additions, makes me wonder if we are going to see those 737 orders turned over to a 777, or 787 order. Only time will tell.

The six 737s will be delivered in 2010.

CO will not be taking on any further 777s.


User currently offlineFUN2FLY From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1035 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9602 times:

CO has suggested that they could expand or contract their fleet in a flexible manner at any time. It's they way they have planned it: +/-25 aircraft per year flexibility. 2008, net increase of 14 737's (16 733/735's out), 18 739er and 12 738's in. In 2009, they have 6 739er and 24 738's on order. Delaying 6 of them for a year is not a big deal folks. Could be for a myriad of reasons: capacity, financing issues, economics or perhaps the buyer of the 735's does not want them until 2010. I think the number everyone should focus on is the NET fleet increase:

Adjusted schedule:
2008 +14 737's (net of disposals)
2009 +24 - (less any disposals)
2010 +6 - (less any disposals)

While that's a lot higher than any legacy carrier, the have the second highest RASM in the industry. Thus, they must feel they can continue to obtain that premium in the industry and/or cannibalize other carriers domestcally. Additionally, they need the expansion to feed the international routes and replace 752's.


User currently offlineBlsbls99 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 345 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9516 times:

So, is it a capacity issue, or is it a price sensative domestic market issue? I realize that the two can affect each other, but if airlines were able to raise pricing, even slightly, and make a better profit, then there would be no "capacity issue".
I am just having a hard time buying into the over capacity issue when domestic load factors for a lot of the major carriers are 80%+. Obviously the demand is there, but not at the right price for some of these carriers to make the requrired profit. Capacity reduction is one way to solve the problem, the other is to raise fares.



319 320 313 722 732 733 735 73G 738 739 742 752 763 772 CRJ D9S ERJ EMB L10 M88 M90 SF3 AT4
User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9445 times:

This will obviously not affect Boeing much, and there are plenty of other operators who would like earlier 737 deliveries.


One Nation Under God
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3590 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9398 times:

Quoting Blsbls99 (Reply 17):
So, is it a capacity issue, or is it a price sensative domestic market issue? I realize that the two can affect each other, but if airlines were able to raise pricing, even slightly, and make a better profit, then there would be no "capacity issue".
I am just having a hard time buying into the over capacity issue when domestic load factors for a lot of the major carriers are 80%+. Obviously the demand is there, but not at the right price for some of these carriers to make the requrired profit. Capacity reduction is one way to solve the problem, the other is to raise fares.

What you have just described above is a classic case of overcapacity. The carriers cannot increase their prices without trashing their load factor.

The carriers are pricing their seats in order to maximize their revenue per flight, which should lead to maximum profits given the low variable cost nature of the airline market.

High load factors combined with low profits means (from an economic point of view) there is an oversupply of seats available.

In economic theory, a few airlines should either shrink or disappear completely, and investment capital should look for more profitable places than airlines to be invested.

In reality.......


User currently offlineSESGDL From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3471 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9298 times:

Low yields do not equal overcapacity, overcapacity is simply offering more capacity than is demanded. The capacity is there, just not at the prices that airlines would like. While they are similar and go hand-in-hand, stating that there's overcapacity just because fares are low is not entirely correct.

Jeremy


User currently offlineAsuflyer05 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2371 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9224 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 8):
The flights are full because prices are low. Prices are low because there are so many seats to fill.

If you cut capacity you squeeze out the bottom end of the market, thus raising fares.

It is pretty basic economic principal, and really has nothing to do with airlines. It happens in all industries.

I don't get it. Can you explain it again. I mean if the flight is full how can they not be making money???  sarcastic 

Quoting SESGDL (Reply 20):
Low yields do not equal overcapacity, overcapacity is simply offering more capacity than is demanded. The capacity is there, just not at the prices that airlines would like. While they are similar and go hand-in-hand, stating that there's overcapacity just because fares are low is not entirely correct.

Continental, Southwest, and US Airways have all publicly said there is too much capacity in markets and it is driving down fares. Thus they are adjusting domestic capacity. United's CEO spoke today saying they are still looking for a merger partner. There hope is by merging they will reduce some of the excess capacity in the market and help drive yields.

While I agree there is more to the issue than just basic supply and demand, it is a simple method of explaining the issue. And judging by the first few reponses to this thread and people's difficulty understanding how high load factors do not equal profit, a certain amount of "dumbing down" is necessary.


User currently offlineAntoniemey From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1555 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 9062 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 19):
The carriers are pricing their seats in order to maximize their revenue per flight, which should lead to maximum profits given the low variable cost nature of the airline market.

Umm... since when is the US Airline Industry "Low Variable Cost" in nature? One of the largest cost factors for an airline (fuel) is not just highly variable, it is at times quite volatile in it's price changes.

Other things vary less, but still vary... Maintenance costs, labor costs, and the like.

And Fuel costs also increase other costs, such as lost baggage delivery costs.



Make something Idiot-proof, and the Universe will make a more inept idiot.
User currently offlineCO777DAL From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 607 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 8263 times:

Something that I noticed over the past few years on CO is that the flights have been full or close to full. Well my last few flights in the past month have been a huge and disturbing surprise. One flight in particular stuck me as odd. This was a 757-300. There were less than 60 people on the plane!!! I couldn’t believe it so I took a video of how empty the plane was.



http://youtube.com/watch?v=f31cJnwupGs

The return flight was on a 737-500 and that plane was also empty. My upcoming flight in about a week is on a 757-300 to a different city and the seat map shows less than 60 seats sold. I’m weary of this flight because on my last flight seats (exit row) which shown as sold on the CO seat maps were not. So in one month time it looks like I will be on two different 757-300 flying to different cities with around 60 people on each flight. This is not good and I find it alarming! Unless CO is carrying some serious cargo, flying a plane that carries 200 people with only 60 or so is going to cost $$$$.



Worked Hard. Flew Right. Farewell, Continental. Thanks for the memories.
User currently offlineDiscoverCSG From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 8041 times:

Quoting CO777DAL (Reply 23):
the seat map shows less than 60 seats sold.

Seat maps do not show seats sold. They show seats not available for selection.

Seats might be unavailable because they're assigned, or because your (lack of) status means you can't select them - this is often the case with bulkhead or exit row seats.

Unless you look at a seat map an hour before depature, it's not going to show you how many tickets have been sold, because many non-geek travelers seat selection for the last minute.


25 Prebennorholm : To put the math really simple: Airline A flies a sector with a full 100 pax plane. They all pay 500 quid. Airline B flies the same sector with a full
26 CLE757 : CO increases 737 order by four aircraft to optimize its flexible fleet plan CO today announced it is fine-tuning its flexible fleet plan as part of it
27 Post contains images CO777DAL :   Ok, so now I’m confused? Is CO expanding and ordering more planes or slowing growth and shrinking as the yahoo article suggest. CO ordering 4 mo
28 Asuflyer05 : I was being sarcastic. I even put the obligatory sarcastic face next to my comment.
29 Cslusarc : BTW, for those who didn't get Prebennorholm's reference to "quid": it is another word used for pounds sterling (GBP). 1. does anyone know of any airli
30 Lemurs : I think it depends on what the message is you think you're hearing. As others have mentioned, CO has a very flexible fleet plan, and they like to twe
31 ThePalauan : This might seem like a far shot but I smell a plan where maybe 2 757s come to GUM to replace the 767-400 flying the GUM-NRT route (making that route
32 Tonytifao : Demand is definetly there. Capacity is not! Airlines can increase fare 5-20% and planes will still be full.
33 Falcon84 : You're joking, right? Our flights have been packed this spring, I can tell you that. There aren't a ton of empty seats in/out of CLE right now, I can
34 AIR757200 : Who really knows what the U.S. economy is really doing? I think all these economic experts out there are simply out to influence the markets; one day
35 Qantas787 : Well I am not so sure about that. It seems to me the prices have increased incrementally and obviously not at the cost of load factor. They only have
36 MrComet : Yes, but look at it another way. The legacies want the large numbers of seats because profit margins are down. There are too many LCCs in the market
37 Wingnut767 : What this article failed to mention is that we are also adding four more firm orders to the delay of the six aircraft. Below statement is from Contine
38 DLPMMM : The term variable costs in business has nothing to do with commodity price fluctuations. The term is from business and finance courses (which I took
39 GoAllegheny : Today's WSJ (Thursday, June 14, page A10) has a story about Southwest's statement that it may slow its growth plans because of disappointing revenue i
40 Slider : You are all forgetting that pricing is IRRATIONAL!! That's the key, irrespective of capacity. On an individual level, carriers are rational. On a mac
41 HPAEAA : hmm... well Total Cost=Variable Cost + Fixed... for each flight I would define Fixed Cost=Aircraft cost, MX cost, Crew Cost, Catering Cost, enplaneme
42 Ikramerica : Airline B was flying a 200 seat plane. Airline A was flying a 100 seat plane. I don't know of a modern 200 seat plane that costs the same per trip as
43 HPAEAA : sorry IKRA, missed that...
44 DLPMMM : While there is a small element of variability, fuel is essentially a fixed cost for airlines. The aircraft will use about the same amount of fuel reg
45 LTBEWR : CO may be just being smart. They see a possible dip in the economic cycles, a delivery schedule that puts a lot more capacity than may not be wise con
46 MasseyBrown : Not by the accounting definition of fixed costs. Fixed costs do not vary with the level of operations; variable costs do. An example of a fixed cost
47 Blsbls99 : But would fuel be a fixed cost per flight, whether a flight carries one person or goes out full? Granted if a flight doesn't operate, the fuel portio
48 Ikramerica : It's a long term observation, not a "this spring" thing. But CLE-LAX frequency has been cut way back, and I've been on CLE-MCO and CLE-TPA where the
49 MasseyBrown : Clipping from Wikipedia: "Fixed costs are expenses whose total does not change in proportion to the activity of a business, within the relevant time
50 CALPSAFltSkeds : I don't think you'll see CO move one or two 752s to Micronesian where they can't rotate the aircraft with the rest of the fleet. I believe the GUM-HN
51 N710PS : I do not think this is a bad thing for CO but I did think when they expanded on their order that they might just be taking a little too big abite for
52 CLE757 : Huh?...We have 4 flights per day and one is a 757-300. I haven't heard they were postponing anything?
53 STT757 : There are still 757-200s doing domestic flights from IAH, the arrival of the 737-900ERs will allow all the 757-200s to move to EWR. As mentioned a han
54 Ikramerica : You used to have more. I've lived here a while, and though you enjoy arguing, you used to have more than 4 (3 on saturday). Right now you have a morn
55 STT757 : I don't think CO has ever had more than four daily nonstops between CLE and LAX, and the 757-300 is the largest aircraft CO has ever deployed on that
56 Falcon84 : Wrong. We've never had more than 4 flights per day to LAX. Trust me on this. I've been with CO 20 years next week. I remember when we started LAX ser
57 ExFATboy : Well, at the risk of disagreeing with Wikipedia, I'd say this is incorrect. A cost can be variable without being marginal - fuel for an airline is a
58 Cle757 : I've worked here 12 yrs and I've never seen more than 4, its a fact!
59 FUN2FLY : Correct, they usually add a SAN flight vs. another LAX flight.
60 PVG : If the government would get out of the way and let the industry consolidate as it should, everyone would be better off.
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...
Upcoming 764 Deliveries For CO? posted Thu Nov 22 2001 18:24:38 by The777Man
SIA Defers A340-500 Deliveries By Nine Months posted Thu Nov 1 2001 15:11:30 by Cx74b
CO 737-500 Engine Fire At IAD posted Wed Oct 31 2001 13:31:05 by Contrails
July Deliveries At CO posted Thu Jul 5 2001 00:00:32 by Iahcsr
Picture Of 737-900 CO posted Sat Jun 2 2001 02:55:50 by 747-600X
Great CO 737-800 Picture! posted Tue May 22 2001 06:07:45 by Copacabana
CO 737-300 W/ Entertainment Systems. posted Thu Mar 1 2001 00:30:56 by David
CO 737-300/500 Upgrades? posted Sun Dec 10 2000 02:33:21 by Deltaflyertoo
CO 737-700's posted Sat Oct 7 2000 05:01:00 by Cba
SAA 737-800 Deliveries posted Wed Sep 6 2000 06:01:16 by Rees