Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Did Emirates Order The A340-500?  
User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 12351 times:

Emirates has NEVER used this aircraft for its capabilites. JFK and SYD are well within the reach of DXB and they are even using it on routes such as ZRH-DXB. It doesn't make sense to me why they ordered the aircraft. Now the 772LR on the other hand is finding itself being used up to its full potential with the DXB-IAH flight and more flights to come. It just seems the A345 is the odd-ball out on their fleet structure. How many do that have in total and what route do they currently operate that they need such an aircraft when the 772LR's will do just fine?

UAL

64 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLurveBus From Philippines, joined Mar 2007, 286 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 12306 times:



Quoting UAL747 (Thread starter):
JFK and SYD are well within the reach of DXB

JFK, perhaps, but SYD? DXB-SYD is a long way to go nonstop if you're going to use a standard Emirates seating configuration. EK likes to cram a lot of seats in, plus cargo. The A340-500 was the perfect plane for them at the time compared to everything else that was available.


User currently offlineRonerone From Jordan, joined Aug 2004, 1653 posts, RR: 53
Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 12305 times:

I am wondering the same thing. Currently, the A345 has no fit in EK's network.

Keep in mind that EK ordered the A345's before the 77L and before the 77W was able to prove its actual performance with the airline.

They currently have 10 A345's which are deployed to PER (previously A343), MEL, SYD, ZRH, KIX, HAM/JFK (will end this summer hence, JFK will no longer see EK's A345's), and LHR got the A345 during last summer, i am not sure about now. That's all i can remember off the back of my head.

I believe that EK will keep them as they need that extra capacity, especially that their re-sale value isnt quite high.

It is too bad that this airplane's lifecycle is coming to an end  Sad

Regards,
Roni



A Stop Away From One-Stop, Is Non-Stop : Airbus A340-500
User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 12283 times:

The reason they use them on a relatively short flight to ZRH is because EK has a very lucrative corporate contract with a pharmaceutical company based there which explicitly demands the A345 iso a 777 because of its superior comfort: better seats, less noise, you name it, but apparently the execs of the company find the A340 the better plane for them and have so much leverage EK brings in the A340-500 especially for them.

User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 12260 times:



Quoting Ronerone (Reply 2):
It is too bad that this airplane's lifecycle is coming to an end

Yeah, I mean, I guess I understand their thinking at the time that there were no other capable aircraft out there, but I don't see why they continue to have them in their fleet. Then again, they are an airline with lots of $$$$$ in their pocket, so I guess it doesn't matter to them. If this were AA or a European carrier, those A345's would be GONE.

But you are right, for an airplane of such a very young age, the time is ending for the A345.

UAL


User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 12246 times:



Quoting Slz396 (Reply 3):
The reason they use them on a relatively short flight to ZRH is because EK has a very lucrative corporate contract with a pharmaceutical company based there which explicitly demands the A345 iso a 777 because of its superior comfort: better seats, less noise, you name it, but apparently the execs of the company find the A340 the better plane for them and have so much leverage EK brings in the A340-500 especially for them.

Yeah, I knew it had something to do with a company(ies) in Switzerland demanding the premium product of the A345 first suites, but still...it's an odd-ball now in the fleet.

UAL


User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25008 posts, RR: 85
Reply 6, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 12234 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting UAL747 (Reply 4):
But you are right, for an airplane of such a very young age, the time is ending for the A345.

That's a pity. I've flown on the Emirates A345 three times, and very much enjoyed the flights.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 12186 times:

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 4):
Then again, they are an airline with lots of $$$$$ in their pocket, so I guess it doesn't matter to them. If this were AA or a European carrier, those A345's would be GONE.

Careful here; you are only a step away from declaring the A345 a fuel guzzler. Just to remind you that although the plane is indeed less efficient than the 77L on many mission profiles and provided the load factor is high, yet it is still one of the more efficient planes out there and you can definitely make good money with it. In this context it is noteworthy to remember there isn't a single A340 parked as they almost immediately find a new operator right away, contrary to many other...

[Edited 2008-01-28 01:36:37]

User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 12151 times:

EK originally ordered it because the 772LR was so expensive. Then fuel prices went even higher and the 772LR was more appealing.

There's no urgent need to get rid of them as the resale value isn't really high, and they're not especially that oddball - EK have plenty of Trents and Airbus widebodies in the fleet.


User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 12141 times:



Quoting Slz396 (Reply 7):
Careful here;

No, was just saying that most modern airlines today are trying to needle down their fleet types to as little as possible. If AA had them laying around and not using them for their intended purpose (Ultra Long Haul) then they would be axed out of the fleet.

So what I'm trying to say is that most airlines' budgets wouldn't allow for 10 aircraft whos mission potential is very precise to be underused, first class suites and all. But, Emirates have a lot of money, so it is less important what is on paper vs. what they have in their fleet.

HOwever, I do see them leaving the fleet as more 77L aircraft come online.

UAL


User currently offlineOHLHD From Finland, joined Dec 2004, 3962 posts, RR: 25
Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 12141 times:



Quoting LurveBus (Reply 1):
The A340-500 was the perfect plane for them at the time compared to everything else that was available.

100% correct. The was no 773ER or even the 772LR available at the time EK bought those aircrafts. Simple as that.

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 4):
Yeah, I mean, I guess I understand their thinking at the time that there were no other capable aircraft out there, but I don't see why they continue to have them in their fleet.

What to do with them? Put them into the desert? EK has not enough aircraft so they will keep them. I also do not see why EK should use it to the max. They are making a lot of money so the A345 can´t be so bad.

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 4):
If this were AA or a European carrier, those A345's would be GONE

Based on what? Your personal opinion?


User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 12071 times:



Quoting UAL747 (Reply 9):
I was just saying that most modern airlines today are trying to needle down their fleet types to as little as possible.

I understand that but but keep in mind the A340-500 has much in common to the A340/A330...
It is not like EK is operating 10 odd MD-11s or anything like that.

If you want something really odd: until a few years, EK was operating a SINGLE A310!

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 8):
They're not especially that oddball - EK have plenty of Trents and Airbus widebodies in the fleet.

correct.

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 9):
Wat I'm trying to say is that most airlines' budgets wouldn't allow for 10 aircraft whos mission potential is very precise to be underused, first class suites and all. But, Emirates have a lot of money, so it is less important what is on paper vs. what they have in their fleet.

Well, just to point out EK is operating the 777 on regional routes of less than an hour too so they are also underusing these planes quite frequently...

And they are not the only one doing this: SQ for instance has 777-200ERs operating only inter-Asian sectors too!
In fact, these planes are so much 'underused' SQ has decided to downgrade them to self-made 777-200As by limiting the MTOW of their fleet. They have now finally made the right decision to phase them out in favour of the much more efficient A330-300s, which they should have ordered right from the beginning really, but SQ got a bit nervous when they ran into troubles with the MD-11 and switched to A340 only to find out the 777 was better suited for long haul, so they decided to ditch their A340 order too in favour of a large number of 777s, whereas the better long term option would have clearly been to convert the A340 order to A330s and order (less) 777 later.

In hindsight, many airline's fleets should look quite different than they actually do...


User currently offlinePlanemanofnz From New Zealand, joined Sep 2005, 1675 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 12047 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

They should use an A345 to launch non stop Auckland flights.

User currently offlineLXA340 From Switzerland, joined Nov 2006, 2122 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 11825 times:



Quoting Slz396 (Reply 3):
The reason they use them on a relatively short flight to ZRH is because EK has a very lucrative corporate contract with a pharmaceutical company based there which explicitly demands the A345 iso a 777 because of its superior comfort:

Maybe the company even tells EK on which flights they "demand" the A345. Then there are day where both flights are operated by A332/A343's and then others where one of the flights is operated with A345's or both all in a random order. Well this would be quite some influence the company has if this is the case. Besdies that when using the A345 EK is very much superior to LX's F and C class product on the A332's


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12393 posts, RR: 46
Reply 14, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 11765 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Slz396 (Reply 11):
If you want something really odd: until a few years, EK was operating a SINGLE A310!

A6-EKL (c/n 667) only left Emirates' fleet in May last year (after joining in March '93), and is now flying with the Qatar Amiri Flight as A7-AFE.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sergio Luiz S bacic



Quoting Slz396 (Reply 11):
Well, just to point out EK is operating the 777 on regional routes of less than an hour too so they are also underusing these planes quite frequently...

I've flown on a 2-hour DXB-DOM flight on one of EK's newest (at the time) 77Ws.

Despite the opinions of some, I don't see the A345 leaving EK's fleet for a long time. I believe the leased A343s and non-ER 772s & 773s will leave before the A345 does. It's still a very capable plane and EK will keep it because they need all the planes they've got and more.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 15, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 11752 times:

The A345 is not a bad plane. I know many on here hate it because it is not a Boeing and not as efficient as the 77L, but she is a class performer and does their SYD and MEL non-stops just fine. For me, the A345 is a much more comfortable and quieter ride than the 77W - and I will go out of my way and pay considerably more to book it over a triple seven of any kind. I cannot be the only one who thinks this, and so maybe EK realise this.

EK have a shortage of planes anyway and need all the modern state of the art metal they can get their hands on. They would be having a major, MAJOR scheduling headache if they got rid of them so why should they? Just because a bunch of A-netters think they should because the 77L is better, doesnt mean they should do so.

In due course I can see UL being given some to do their CMB-LHR and FRA runs - the A343 they use can sometimes be weight restricted so I have heard and the route is very cargo-heavy at times. The A345 will add capacity and allow them to carry an awful lot more freight.



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineRonerone From Jordan, joined Aug 2004, 1653 posts, RR: 53
Reply 16, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 11690 times:



Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 15):
I cannot be the only one who thinks this, and so maybe EK realise this.

 checkmark 

So does Etihad.

The A345 is definitely in a league of its own from a passenger's perspective, although the 777 never fails to please as well!

Regards,
Roni



A Stop Away From One-Stop, Is Non-Stop : Airbus A340-500
User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 17, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 11602 times:



Quoting Ronerone (Reply 16):
So does Etihad.

The A345 is definitely in a league of its own from a passenger's perspective, although the 777 never fails to please as well!

Regards,
Roni

I went on EY's newest A346 last week - absolutely jaw-droppingly stunning. I've been on their A345 as well and have to say they are far, far nicer than the many EK 77Ws ive been on. Or anything else for that matter.



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6869 posts, RR: 63
Reply 18, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 11410 times:

I don't understand the question.

EK bought the A345 purely and simply because it is the most perfectly proportioned airliner there currently is or is ever likely to be.

What other excuses would they need?!  Wink


User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 19, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 11384 times:



Quoting PM (Reply 18):
I don't understand the question.

EK bought the A345 purely and simply because it is the most perfectly proportioned airliner there currently is or is ever likely to be.

What other excuses would they need?!

I have to say, and I suspect I may be preaching to the choir here, but she is also one of the loveliest sounding airliners - those four huge Trents spooling up - magic.



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineGh123 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 11323 times:



Quoting Mariner (Reply 6):
That's a pity. I've flown on the Emirates A345 three times, and very much enjoyed the flights.

I flew Sydney - Dubai in First. I would have gladly stayed on the airplane for another 13-15 hours.

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 19):
I have to say, and I suspect I may be preaching to the choir here, but she is also one of the loveliest sounding airliners - those four huge Trents spooling up - magic.

I couldn't agree with you more!


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6869 posts, RR: 63
Reply 21, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 11323 times:



Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 19):
I have to say, and I suspect I may be preaching to the choir here, but she is also one of the loveliest sounding airliners - those four huge Trents spooling up - magic.

I keep looking for an excuse to fly KIX to DXB. Alternatively, I could fly to my home airport of ZRH. Tell you what: KIX-DXB-ZRH-DXB-KIX! and I'd get FOUR EK A345s.  drool 


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 11236 times:

Four RR trent 560s doesn't quite match four RB211-524H/Ts though.  Wink

User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 11138 times:

Whoa guys, I think you are taking what I'm saying out of proportion....

I'm simply asking why did EK buy the planes when they weren't going to use them to their maximum capabilities? Why not just go for some A340-300's?

I'm not saying the Boeing is better, you are getting that from other people, not me. But what I'm trying to figure out is why this aircraft isn't being used to pioneer new ULTRA longhaul routes, instead opting for regular, "nothing special" long haul routes. The A345 was supposed to be groundbreaking for EK to start Ultra Longhaul flights, but they never did with the A345. However, they ARE with the 77L. ie, DXB-IAH, and probably DXB-LAX/SFO sometime soon.

I'm not arguing that the 777 is better (although the stats on the 77L are better than the A345), but why spend all that money on an arguably more expensive plane with far more capabilities than necessary.

It's like buying a Ferrari and just putting the cruise control on, set a 60 MPH. I mean, the A345 is more expensive (I assume) than the A340-300 right? So why dump all that cash into a fleet of planes that you are not going to fully maximize?

Edit: EK can install those high-end first suites on ANY 777 as well, probably even better and with more room than on the A345. So that really shouldn't be an issue.

UAL

[Edited 2008-01-28 06:40:25]

User currently offlineYOWza From Canada, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 4865 posts, RR: 15
Reply 24, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 11048 times:



Quoting UAL747 (Thread starter):
JFK and SYD are well within the reach of DXB and they are even using it on routes such as ZRH-DXB.



Quoting Slz396 (Reply 3):
The reason they use them on a relatively short flight to ZRH is because EK has a very lucrative corporate contract with a pharmaceutical company based there which explicitly demands the A345 iso a 777 because of its superior comfort: better seats, less noise, you name it, but apparently the execs of the company find the A340 the better plane for them and have so much leverage EK brings in the A340-500 especially for them.

 checkmark 

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 23):
I'm simply asking why did EK buy the planes when they weren't going to use them to their maximum capabilities? Why not just go for some A340-300's?

Though the 343 on paper can make DXB-JFK one must factor in the the heat of DXB (and perhaps JFK in the summer) but mainly in terms of route viability one must consider that the MTOW of the 345 is 365 tonnes compared with 260 tonnes on the 343s. That's a LOT of cargo dollars gone. At the time of its introduction the 345 was the best beast for the job. That is no longer necessarily the case. Pretty simple really.

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 23):
EK can install those high-end first suites on ANY 777 as well, probably even better and with more room than on the A345. So that really shouldn't be an issue.

It's not that simple.

The suites in the 345 are longer than the ones found on the 777 (if my memory serves me) this would make it impossible to fit 18 of them in a 777 without having to reshuffle the rest of the cabin (J and Y). Depending on how many seats the aforementioned pharmaceutical company has locked down reducing the number of F seats may A) violate the contract and B) make other routes that use the 777 un-viable (given how pricey F is). Further to this we know that the 340 is quieter in flight than the 777 this may also be a demand in the contract. We don't know.

Given the explosive rate of growth EK are enjoying they need every bird they can get their hands on, for that reasoning pulling out a whack of 777s for interior refurb when they don't need them is not at all practical.

YOWza



12A whenever possible.
25 Post contains images EA772LR : I guess that only applies to EK fleet, as I doubt SQ's 345 is more comfy than their 77W's . I wish I could take a ride on EK 345. What's the price fo
26 Thorben : Like everyone else they have to earn money. They'd dump them if that was financially favorable.
27 A388 : The A345 was the only ultra longhaul aircraft available at the time. The 77L/77W came along at a later stage. Who knows EK might have gone for the 77
28 UAL747 : Then how does DL's 772ER make the ATL-DXB run daily? That's longer than DXB-JFK....I thought the range of the A343/2 was about the same as the 772ER.
29 A388 : DL operates the route with penalties so it's not used to its full potential. A388
30 Stitch : EK bought it because it can fly those heavier First Class suites and Business Class seats then their A340-300 and 777-200ER planes could. Those seats
31 Post contains links Hodja : FWIW, I recently asked the same question about the 77L... No ULR Routes For 777-200LR? (by Hodja Jul 29 2007 in Civil Aviation) Actually, DXB-IAH (13
32 Ronerone : That is true however, i believe (and correct me if i am wrong) that SQ specifically configured their A345's with this 'lighter' configuration so as t
33 Viscount724 : EK's 345 is much more comfortable in economy class than their 77W's with the usual 8-abreast (2-4-2) seating vs. EK's cramped 10-abreast (3-4-3) on 7
34 Bmacleod : EK don't seem to care much for fleet commonality. Like CX they seem to order Airbus and Boeing in the same size category. I guess they don't seem to c
35 Stitch : EK will fly the Concorde before they fly the 747-8I.
36 Post contains images Mariner : Be still, my heart! I know you jest, but I would love to see that. mariner
37 CHRISBA777ER : No - Dubai has no oil or gas of its own. Its wealth is not hydrocarbon derived. It comes solely foreign investment in trade, real estate and tourism.
38 Post contains images PlaneHunter : The particular First Class Suites are an argument, noise is not. If cabin noise were so crucial, the 777 wouldn't have outsold its competitor. It's t
39 Scbriml : Er, it does. I worked in Dubai for 9 months last year on a project to sell our oil concession back to the Dubai Government! It isn't the fountain of
40 CHRISBA777ER : You know, I think if you could still get parts for her and she had the legs to do SYD/MEL non-stop from DXB they probably would operate them had AF/B
41 CHRISBA777ER : Really? Thats interesting - what field? Have to say I've never heard of that - thats really interesting. Send me a PM if you dont want to name it on
42 Post contains links and images Scbriml : You should be able to work it out from these publicly available sources http://www.ameinfo.com/93260.html http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/200
43 Post contains images Philzh : Now I'm really envious.
44 EA772LR : Well I wasn't talking about economy. I was talking about first class in SQ's 77W vs. EK's 345. I'm not bashing EK's 345. I want to fly on EK 345 from
45 Stitch : I've done both and I prefer SQ F on the 77W, but mainly for the size which makes it nice to spread out. I prefer EK's F on the A345 vs. SQ F on the 7
46 Eka340 : Flew LHR-DXB-NBO with emirates and got a good combination of 330, 777, and A34-=500, have to say that in economy the A340-500 was by far the most comf
47 JMULAH : EK can go to ZHR back an forth with the A345 with less than half the price of fuel hat we pay in Europe. I guess that will answer the questions
48 Chinaeastern : As a matter of fact, EK fares out of Australia in F/J/Y almost always mention which flights out of OZ. on lower fares, you will almost certainly find
49 Post contains images MrBrightSide : While I do have respect for a lot of members of this forum, I find one thing very interesting - how individuals attack a certain airplane based on the
50 Evolv : They could use it on the DXB-YYC route when ever that is started
51 Stitch : I find the 777 to be the most "spacious" plane I have been on. By no means does the A340 feel "cramped", but I do feel more "hemmed in" on her then th
52 Dalavia : Are you sure? I passed through NBO last week and an Emirates A310 was unloading cargo. As they only had (have???) one, I assumed it was A6-EKL
53 PM : In recent times they only had one pax A310. But they have a few (four?) converted A310s which fly as freighters. That'll be what you saw at NBO.
54 EK413 : Are you sure about the range DXB-SYD being able to be carried out non-stop with a full payload of pax and cargo...? Regarding the A345 being deployed
55 Ronerone : But now that some of the 77W's (the ULR configs) are configured with a similar premium configuration as the A345, wouldn't it be a bit more efficient
56 Speedbird128 : Interior passenger allocated space is an airline decision - Not manufacturer. EK want 10 across in Y on the 777, which is definitely not spacious - y
57 Post contains images Ikramerica : it's due to the F suite, not the noise, space in Y, or anything else. Agree, it's a beauty. But I think the 748 will take crown once it flies. It's e
58 Post contains images PM : They'll probably sound horrible too!
59 Post contains links and images Scbriml : What do you base this on? No airline in its right mind is going to fuel a plane for the return leg of a 6-hour flight, even if the fuel at the home b
60 Post contains images Philzh : From what I've read in the "Emirates 2008 Capacity changes" thread ("ZRH - capacity increased to daily B 773ER + 4 weekly A 332 + 3 weekly A 345 effe
61 CRJ900 : If EK pack their SYD-DXB A345 with cargo and pax and fly the route without weight restrictions, I'll bet that is close to the aircraft's max potential
62 EK413 : Yes, maybe your right about the B772LR being more effiecent but by placing the A345 on the DBX-ZRH route it increases the effiecenie of the A345 flee
63 Stitch : I refer to cabin width and height. The tall, arched ceilings and wide cabin of the 777 give me a sense of "spaciousness". I am in First Class most of
64 Pa747sp : [ I think it is more a matter of aircraft scheduling. When EK bought the A345 it was to service a few specific markets. To maintain daily service in t
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...
Why Did BA Order The A320 Family Over The 737NG? posted Sat Aug 18 2007 02:07:23 by BHXDTW
Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300? posted Wed Aug 1 2007 05:50:00 by United Airline
Why Did Airbus Make The A340 A Quad? posted Tue Jun 21 2005 21:11:33 by Beauing
Why Did US Order The A320's, Etc.? posted Sat Oct 6 2001 08:28:19 by YoungDon
Why Did Airbus Shelve The A 330-500? posted Sat Jun 2 2001 20:03:11 by United Airline
Why Didn't CX Get The A340-500? posted Fri Mar 9 2001 23:44:04 by Hkg_clk
Why Is The A340-500/600 So Eagerly Discounted? posted Fri Nov 23 2007 07:02:00 by EBJ1248650
Why Did American Drop The 747? posted Fri Jan 18 2008 04:56:53 by Jetblueguy22
Why Didn't Delta Order The 757-300? posted Wed Nov 21 2007 17:24:35 by 1337Delta764
Why Did NW Buy The 787 posted Tue Sep 25 2007 06:32:19 by DL767captain