Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
WSJ:UA, AA Safety Push As Icing Caused BA Crash  
User currently offlinePNQIAD From India, joined May 2006, 586 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 16137 times:

WSJ is reporting improved safety measures by AA and UA due to the suspicion that ice accumulation in the fuel system caused the recent BA 777 crash at LHR.

United, American Plan Safety Push After Icing Linked to British Crash

Quote:
Prompted by suspected ice accumulation in the fuel system of a British Airways PLC jumbo jet that crash landed near London last month, two major U.S. carriers are stepping up safety initiatives to prevent such problems, according to people familiar with the matter.

The moves come amid growing indications that a buildup of ice crystals or slush simultaneously restricted fuel flow and reduced the thrust of both engines of the Boeing 777 jet moments before the Jan. 17 accident at Heathrow International Airport, these officials said.

UAL Corp.'s United Airlines, and AMR Corp.'s American Airlines are taking precautionary steps to ensure fuel quality and re-evaluate fuel characteristics before investigators release preliminary findings. While it is common for airlines to ramp up safety efforts in the wake of a high-profile crash, they typically wait until the release of such findings or early safety recommendations by regulators or manufacturers.




72 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirPortugal310 From Palau, joined Apr 2004, 3621 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 16052 times:

Better safe than sorry, regardless of that is the reason or not


I sell airplanes and airplane accessories
User currently offlineGerbenYYZ From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 16037 times:



Quoting PNQIAD (Thread starter):
British Airways PLC jumbo jet

Jumbo jet?? Did I miss something?


User currently offlineChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4110 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 15904 times:



Quoting GerbenYYZ (Reply 2):
Jumbo jet?? Did I miss something?

Some people like to say that the only 'Jumbo' was the 747 series (and, now, the A380). But many more people consider any widebody twin-aisle to be a 'Jumbo.'


User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6897 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 15750 times:

Assuming that this does emerge as the cause of the BA accident, does anyone think it will silence those who are claiming that it points to the inherent dangers of ETOPS operations with twins?


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineSeabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5410 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 15508 times:



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 4):
Assuming that this does emerge as the cause of the BA accident, does anyone think it will silence those who are claiming that it points to the inherent dangers of ETOPS operations with twins?

If you read the other thread  banghead , clearly not. They'll find some way to argue that it wouldn't have affected all of the engines.

Quoting GerbenYYZ (Reply 2):
Jumbo jet?? Did I miss something?

The media seems to call anything bigger than about an A330 a "jumbo." I don't know exactly where the threshold is or why...

Quoting PNQIAD (Thread starter):
the suspicion that ice accumulation in the fuel system caused the recent BA 777 crash at LHR.

People are going to notice those excess water warnings in a big way from now on...  eyepopping 


User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6897 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 15461 times:



Quoting Seabosdca (Reply 5):

The media seems to call anything bigger than about an A330 a "jumbo." I don't know exactly where the threshold is or why...

Well, to me a Cessna 206 is a big plane. Can I call anything larger a Jumbo?



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineSeabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5410 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 14936 times:



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 6):
Can I call anything larger a Jumbo?

You can at least call it a Jumbolino...  duck 


User currently offlineSteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9194 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 14696 times:



Quoting GerbenYYZ (Reply 2):
Jumbo jet?? Did I miss something?

Well, I'd call it a mini-jumbo, as it was about the 777 that crashed near LHR a couple of months ago or so. There were about 8 or so threads covering it...

I am sure this would explain why the request for more power to the engines... well... was denied...



Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6897 posts, RR: 46
Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 14602 times:



Quoting Seabosdca (Reply 8):
You can at least call it a Jumbolino...

Works for me. Big grin



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineWAH64D From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 966 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 12941 times:

I don't buy it for a second.

A cold related failure/restriction in the fuel system that caused both engines to lose power but still be capable of running at flight idle? And all this happens after the OAT rises by 45+ deg C over the last 45 minutes of the flight.

Am I the only person here who thinks that if there was going to be a problem with sludging/ice in the fuel, it would have happened when the aircraft was in the coldest phase of its flight, ie: in cruise?

In my opinion, any thickening/icing of the fuel would rapidly have ceased and reversed by the time the aircraft got anywhere near final approach. At this time, the relatively small amount of fuel in the tanks would have been at its most susceptible to changes in outside air temperature. As has been discussed elsewhere, if contaminated fuel was the cause, why did nothing of this nature happen to any other aircraft out of PEK that day?

Again, in my opinion only. There was an underlying mechanical, software or electrical failure on that aircraft. That is not to say that it is common to all B772s.



I AM the No-spotalotacus.
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 12833 times:



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 4):
Assuming that this does emerge as the cause of the BA accident, does anyone think it will silence those who are claiming that it points to the inherent dangers of ETOPS operations with twins?

 rotfl  of course not!


User currently offlineDouwd20 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 131 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 12323 times:



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 4):
Assuming that this does emerge as the cause of the BA accident, does anyone think it will silence those who are claiming that it points to the inherent dangers of ETOPS operations with twins?

It really doesn't matter. The economics are such that whatever problems ETOPS has are not relevant to the costs saved.


User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3213 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 11918 times:



Quoting WAH64D (Reply 10):
In my opinion, any thickening/icing of the fuel would rapidly have ceased and reversed by the time the aircraft got anywhere near final approach.

The issue with supercooled fuel is on ETOPs aircraft is particularly out near the ends of the wingtips. On a Quadjet, (remember that our good old trijets didn't have the range to fly over these areas for the same extended periods of time in winter... when temps are the coldest (ie - no 15 hr winter polar flights in a DC-10) the heat from Engines one and four are going to keep the fuel at slightly higher temperatures at the extremes of the wing. There are oil heat exchangers inside the engine which will reach further into the wing. The increased span of the 777 wing vs say, something like the A310./ Dc-10 means fuel is out there, further away and exposed to more cold. I think this is unlikely to completley block the fuel...but it could very well have restricted fuel filters enough if it all suddenly came loose to reduce fuel flow. This all didn't effect the A330 as badly because its reduced range ment it generally isn't deployed on routes were it would be an issue, and spending less time in the air means less time to get the fuel to the supercooled point.

This is a big unknown... and a Believe is also one of the reasons (aside from Etops) that you only ever see Quads flying antartic routs.. like Australia to South Africa, JNB to Argentina, Argentina to New Zealand etc. If my memory serves me correct I think CO was concerned about this before they started EWR to HKG flights with the 772... and may have installed some kind of electric heating mesh on the wings? (very vague memory here...anybody at CO etc please jump in and enlighten us)


User currently offlineWAH64D From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 966 posts, RR: 13
Reply 14, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 11826 times:



Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 13):

Thanks for the reply. Isn't the B772 fitted with fuel tank heaters though? Many much older aircraft are.



I AM the No-spotalotacus.
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7474 posts, RR: 17
Reply 15, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 11123 times:



Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 3):
Some people like to say that the only 'Jumbo' was the 747 series (and, now, the A380). But many more people consider any widebody twin-aisle to be a 'Jumbo.'

And here, if you can read the name on its nose, is a Jumboliner:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Remi Dallot



User currently offlineBG777300ER From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2005, 260 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 11103 times:



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 4):
Assuming that this does emerge as the cause of the BA accident, does anyone think it will silence those who are claiming that it points to the inherent dangers of ETOPS operations with twins?

uhh.what does that have to do with this accident? ETOPS had nothing to do with it.



Koi mi sra v gashtite?
User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3213 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 11047 times:



Quoting WAH64D (Reply 14):
Thanks for the reply. Isn't the B772 fitted with fuel tank heaters though? Many much older aircraft are.

yes it is... those take heat from the engines via an oil exchange unit. The issue is, the location.... on the quad you have them much further out into the wing tips. On ultra long hauls, those wingtips are subject to extreme cold for much much longer periods.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21571 posts, RR: 55
Reply 18, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 11024 times:



Quoting WAH64D (Reply 14):
Isn't the B772 fitted with fuel tank heaters though? Many much older aircraft are.

All jet aircraft have fuel heaters. I'm not sure where they are, however, so they may not effect the fuel in the outer parts of the wing.

I do think it's a bit strange, however, to be blaming the accident on ice in the fuel. 777s have been flying for a while, and not one has had problems like this due to fuel icing. If the heaters really were ineffective I'd think there would have been more problems.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineWAH64D From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 966 posts, RR: 13
Reply 19, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 10572 times:



Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 17):

yes it is... those take heat from the engines via an oil exchange unit. The issue is, the location.... on the quad you have them much further out into the wing tips. On ultra long hauls, those wingtips are subject to extreme cold for much much longer periods.

Thanks again. I thought the B777 would have this equipment. What I can't get my head around is the notion that some people have regarding the relationship between cruise duration and fuel freezing. I would suggest that with average outside air temperature as a constant, the fuel will be at exactly the same temperature at the end of a 4 hour cruise phase as it will be after a 10 hour cruise phase. It is a physical impossibility for the fuel be at a lower temperature than its surroundings. Its with this in mind that I make the point about cruise duration and why I discount fuel icing as being a possible cause of the incident. There were plenty of Aircraft fuelled from the same source that day and subject to similar cruise temperatures but none of them suffered the same problem.

I still firmly believe that this incident had absolutely nothing to do with the fuel in the tanks.

Quoting Mir (Reply 18):

All jet aircraft have fuel heaters. I'm not sure where they are, however, so they may not effect the fuel in the outer parts of the wing.

I do think it's a bit strange, however, to be blaming the accident on ice in the fuel. 777s have been flying for a while, and not one has had problems like this due to fuel icing. If the heaters really were ineffective I'd think there would have been more problems.

 checkmark  Absolutely sir!



I AM the No-spotalotacus.
User currently offlineBirdbrainz From United States of America, joined May 2005, 458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 10379 times:



Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 13):
The issue with supercooled fuel is on ETOPs aircraft is particularly out near the ends of the wingtips. On a Quadjet, (remember that our good old trijets didn't have the range to fly over these areas for the same extended periods of time in winter... when temps are the coldest (ie - no 15 hr winter polar flights in a DC-10) the heat from Engines one and four are going to keep the fuel at slightly higher temperatures at the extremes of the wing.

747s have plenty of fuel icing issues as well, especially at lower cruise speeds.

I could be completely mistaken, but I'm a little dubious that engines heat the wings. Look at the plumes. If the engine were sitting there in still air, then absolutely, but there's a 550mph breeze in between the wings and the engine. Also, the fuel is closer to the front of the wings. If the fuel further out is more prone to icing, it could have more to do with the shape of the wing and the tank out there.

Can anyone else on here comment whether the engines contribute any heating to the wings?



A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is if the aircraft can be flown again.
User currently offlineJETA1863 From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 50 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 9769 times:



Quoting Mir (Reply 18):
All jet aircraft have fuel heaters.



Not at all. Easiest to remember off the top of my head is the Mitsubishi MU3 / Beechjet (Hawker har har) 400A(XP har har again) which ALWAYS requires FSII that conforms to MIL-I-27686E / MIL-DTL-85470B or "Prist" as most of us know it. Come to think of it I think that all of Mitsubishi's production models require Prist. IIRC the Lear 20 series (LJ23,LJ24,LJ25,LJ28/29) require it, and I believe most LJ35/36's take it as well. Also, I believe the Citation 500/501 and Ultra version of the C560 require it as well. Numerous turboprops require FFSI but that's not the point neyah (here haha).

All of this because these production models don't have fuel heaters.

Not meaning to flame, just my  twocents 



Regardless of the issue at hand, always analyze BOTH sides of a situation and ONLY THEN make an educated decision.
User currently offlineMarkC From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 9745 times:

The fuel heater / oil cooler is mounted right on the engine. The engine oil is totally self contained within the engine and associated systems, and does not have any secondary loops out to a heater in the wing. I have never heard of a fuel heater using oil in the wings. If there is one, it does not use oil direct from the engine.

There is no heat taken off the engines and routed to the wings. Only the cabin. I don't know airplanes, only engines, and there could be something electric. I doubt radiant heat from the engines would amount to anything. The outer nacelle is almost as cold as the outside air.


User currently offlineTornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 9694 times:



Quoting WAH64D (Reply 10):


A cold related failure/restriction in the fuel system that caused both engines to lose power but still be capable of running at flight idle? And all this happens after the OAT rises by 45+ deg C over the last 45 minutes of the flight.

If the ice was limiting the amount of fuel into the engines, they'd be getting enough to run at idle (or maybe a bit above) but couldn't get enough fuel to produce additional thrust. Nothing says the fuel system was 100% clogged, but let's say a 75% clog of slush.

Similar situations could happen with contaminants in your car's fuel system, it has happened to me on an interstate in the mountains once. On flat land or downhill you didn't notice it, but when you pushed down on it climbing a mountain you definitely felt it.


User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2821 posts, RR: 45
Reply 24, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 8868 times:



Quoting Mir (Reply 18):
I do think it's a bit strange, however, to be blaming the accident on ice in the fuel. 777s have been flying for a while, and not one has had problems like this due to fuel icing.

Perhaps it really is a latent failure. Just because it's been flying for a long time doesn't mean there isn't a problem that has only now manifested itself.

All long range aircraft are vulnerable to fuel icing to a degree. I will wait for the final AAIB report before I make any comments.


25 Lufthansa : Firstly it takes a while to get the effects of cold soak. Secondaly the outside air temperature IS NOT constant. the Longer flights fly into polar re
26 Mir : Not a problem, you are correct. When I said "jet aircraft", I meant "jet airliners", but that was obviously the wrong term to use, and even that may
27 DL1011 : Bingo. I keep reading on this site about tank heaters and wonder where that info comes from. I have been nosing around a 777 mtc manual and this is t
28 Flighty : I believe we may hear that PEK was using sub-standard fuel, which had some water mixed in. Just a thought.
29 KELPkid : I think you'll find that careless fuel handling is just as likely to introduce water into fuel. When I was a lineboy, a major part of my job was ensu
30 Mah584jr : This is key in my opinion. 777's are excellent aircraft with no fuel icing issues. I truly believe something was wrong from a more mechanical aspect.
31 727forever : No, you're certainly not the only one but here are a few things to think about. In cruise and at idle thrust (or low power settings) the engines have
32 Tonymctigue : Where do these journalists get their info? You wouldn't mind so much but whoever wrote this article actually mentioned the correct AC model further d
33 Dragon6172 : Disproven by the simple fact that I am drinking a cold soda in a heated room. I believe the WSJ article said they suspect the slush was clogging the
34 Post contains images Max777geek : We call Jumbolino in Italy the Avro Rj.
35 Dragon6172 : Was there another 777 of the same model, taking the exact same route from PEK to LHR, taking off at about the same time, that also had messages about
36 Par13del : If this was a fuel issue, all evidence / indications of that must come from the remains of the BA a/c. 1. No other a/c from the originating airport cr
37 TIALATI : Actually all AVRO's of LX used to be called Jumbolinos as a small analogy to DUMBO the children's character
38 Post contains images WAH64D : Leave it in the room for 6 hours and then see how cold it is. Is it naturally cold or did you get it from the fridge? Far from being disproven, its p
39 Bellerophon : WAH64D You appear to be labouring under some very basic misapprehensions. ...What I can't get my head around is the notion that some people have regar
40 WAH64D : I accept that and I will of course bow to your superior knowledge. I could possibly have worded my opinion in a clearer manner, my point is that it i
41 Max777geek : Don't know in the rest of the world, but in Italy it is called like that because of the 4 engines below the wings like a small 747. So called Jumbo,
42 Bellerophon : WAH64D ...it is not physically possible at any stage in the flight for the fuel to get colder than the coldest part of its surroundings, ie the skin o
43 WAH64D : I would never have disputed this. I didn't explain myself clearly, the above quote should read "it is physically impossible for the fuel to reach a l
44 Flighty : Don't forget 1 thing. If fuel is below -10 C (people are talking -50C), and you pour some water in, THAT WATER WILL COLLECT AT THE BOTTOM AND FREEZE T
45 WAH64D : Don't you think that if any water content in the fuel was going to freeze, it would have done so long before final approach?
46 Dragon6172 : Who says it didn't? Ice in the fuel tanks wont effect the engines, until it leaves the tank.
47 Tdscanuck : Nope. The issue would be the ice getting to the filters...that would happen when the ice came loose, not when it first formed. No. Almost none of the
48 TristarSteve : This message only appears on the Fuel Qty Maintenance pages. These pages are not normally accessed by pilots. They are used by technicians when troub
49 Post contains images Zeke : B, I think they would have been using wing tanks for the majority of the flight after the center was empty, the flight from PEK is not that long, may
50 Max777geek : So many messages, so many times the same question, still unanswered.
51 Post contains images 727forever : More of a question than a smart a$$ answer...So, if your TAT is -23 and your SAT is say -54, which will have a greater impact on the fuel temp inside
52 PhilSquares : Zeke, In a perfect world I would agree. However, the assumption that's being made is the fuel itself was spot on. There has been an ongoing effort to
53 Max777geek : Assuming this was the case, the answer for the power reduction to not less than flight idle to happens for fuel related reason only at few hundreds f
54 PhilSquares : I guess, I don't think it's all the strange. During the descent the power would have been at idle, the normal vectoring into LHR is pretty good and i
55 Flighty : What about the angle of attack at the time where problems occurred? Could that have shifted the icy mess? I am still not picturing how a fuel problem
56 PhilSquares : Reading the AAIB report, it appears as though the one of the crossfeed valves was open, thus there is a possibility one tank could have been feeding
57 Max777geek : That they rolled back to a setting, that's what surprise me. If it was a fuel issue, no setting could have been kept, IMVHO.
58 PhilSquares : I don't get that out of the interim report. The issue was the autothrust kept demanding a certain thrust level and the engines initially responded bu
59 Max777geek : Ok, and why didn't they stagnated to above ground idle or to a complete shutdown ?
60 PhilSquares : First of all, in the air there is no such thing as ground idle. Secondly, why would they flameout? The FADEC/EEC is still commanding a thrust increas
61 Post contains images Zeke : The 777 is a little more advanced, either the minimum fuel temperature or fuel freezing point is entered into the FMC (R3 on PERF INIT). The EICAS me
62 PhilSquares : I am not questioning the crew at all. However, if the fuel had more water or more contaminates in it, then the freezing point is mute. If the crew di
63 Zeke : Still have difficulty believing that, given the number of flights that leave from PEK, and many of them ultra long haul flights, and some of them ope
64 Dragon6172 : I believe the report says there was a reduction in thrust by one engine, followed 8 seconds by the other engine. It does not say what thrust that was
65 Tdscanuck : Normally no. With the crossfeed valve open, yes. And one of the crossfeed valves was open according to AAIB. Tom.
66 Litz : I thought one of the main tenets of ETOPS (and its required redundancies) was that fuel for the engines come from different sources? Precisely to avo
67 Tdscanuck : Nope. ETOPS requires that you be able to segregate the fuel system so that damage on one side doesn't deplete your fuel supply so much that you can't
68 WAH64D : I think he meant that fuel is supplied to either engine from separate tanks. But no, fuel is generally drawn from the centre tank first and then from
69 Max777geek : Which in such a long flight should have been happened quite quickly, isn't it.
70 WAH64D : I think it would be safe to say that the aircraft would have been using fuel from the wing tanks only, for a long time (>4hrs) before landing.
71 Tdscanuck : The longer the flight, the longer you spend on the center tank. You fill the wing tanks full before you add any fuel to the center. Wings only doesn'
72 TristarSteve : Well thats only relative. B777-200ER leaves ARN on wing tanks only most days for EWR, block time about 8 hrs.
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...
Are UA/AA Big Rivals Like VS/BA? posted Thu Feb 7 2002 15:13:23 by Arsenal@LHR
WSJ Article - AA, UA Operations Center On 9/11 posted Tue Oct 16 2001 10:09:05 by LoneStarMike
Have DL/UA/AA Left It A Bit Late? posted Tue Aug 14 2007 14:27:41 by CHRISBA777ER
UA Reservations Shows DFW As 'Fort Worth' posted Thu Apr 19 2007 23:57:27 by SMUDFWflyer
Pilot Disagreement Caused Garuda Crash. posted Sun Apr 1 2007 22:48:04 by BillReid
Hypothetical UA/AA To South Africa Questions posted Sun Mar 4 2007 00:59:37 by PanAm747
What Could Have Caused This Crash? (video) posted Mon Jul 31 2006 18:05:02 by Alberchico
UA's/AA's Future At ORD posted Thu Jul 27 2006 02:34:14 by KDCA
UA/AA Pacific & Atlantic Routes From ORD posted Fri Feb 24 2006 18:23:58 by B764
Why No Late-night JFK-SFO/LAX Flights On UA/AA? posted Fri Feb 17 2006 06:47:30 by RJpieces