Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A346HGW With GTF A Possibility?  
User currently offlineNCB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5041 times:

In my opinion, sticking 4 A320-GTF engines to a A346HGW should make sense.

With 15% fuel efficiency gain over actual engines, it can be a gap-filler between the A350-1000 and the A380, directly competing with the B748i and the B748F.

I'd like to hear what some people think about this possibility.

50 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5027 times:

Ummmm..what?

A340-600 Needs 56,000lbs of thrust per engine to operate x 4 which equals 224,000 pounds of thrust.

The A320 engines only offer 27,000lbs of thrust x 4 which would equal 108,000 pounds of thrust.

UAL


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4675 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5027 times:



Quoting NCB (Thread starter):
sticking 4 A320-GTF engines to a A346HGW

The thrust would be WAAAAY too low.

Quoting NCB (Thread starter):
it can be a gap-filler between the A350-1000 and the A380, directly competing with the B748i and the B748F.

I don't think there is any capacity gap between the A346 and A350-1000.

The A350-1000 is going to kill the A346, actually, this is Airbus' intention. They have no other choice.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineNCB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4714 times:

I don't think thrust rating is a big issue if at all.

I said A320-GTF to clearly differenciate from the first generation GTF that is going to power RJ's like the C-series and the MRJ.

I'm talking economic viability.

Would an A340 with 4 A340-GTF engines(if you like it better like this  Wink ) be viable?


User currently offlineGsosbee From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4702 times:



Quoting NCB (Reply 3):
I don't think thrust rating is a big issue if at all.

Only if you do not want to get off the ground!


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4665 times:



Quoting NCB (Reply 3):
I don't think thrust rating is a big issue if at all.

It's quite essential.

There was once a time during the age of the A350 mk1 where an A345 and A346 were proposed with updated engines that were to be used on the 787 and modifications from the A350 including the nose section. They would have had quite an impressive range, but gave way to the A350 mk II.

At the minute there is no - to my knowledge - GTF in development which would satify the thrust range of the A340NG. Though something could be adapted for the -300 series. Incidently, the aircraft which was originally supposed to use a GTF offered by PW.


User currently offlineNCB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4383 times:

I don't think that making the GTF-engine for an A346 would be of any problems with technology available in the next decade. I think that GTF will become the norm among all aircraft, once its reliability is proven.

Now let's focus on the economic viability.

Can a GTF-powered A346 beat a B748 in efficiency?


User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4350 times:

You are jumping over a TON of issues here. You would need 8 A320 engines to fly an A346 with them, secondly, the A346 is NOT going to be more efficient than the 748i in any way with ANY type of engines. These birds don't even compete with each other! It's not even a proper comparison.

The A340-600 is overweight in some instances, there have been a lot of bugs to work out on them, and they compete against the 777-300ER which has already out proven and out-numbered the A340-600. They are not going to develope new engines for that aircraft or the A345 either. The A340 line is as good as dead at this point. Airbus should have not stuck to the "4 engines for Longhaul" sentiment. The 777 series of aircraft has killed any new A340 hopes.

I still don't get your post either....

UAL


User currently offlineNCB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4144 times:

I think that many don't understand the concept of GTF.

Though a common misunderstanding, it has nothing to do with engine size (apart from efficiency gain potential) or whatever you have in your mind. It is how the fan and the compressors are being powered.

The more turbines stages you have, the greater the loss of thrust in the engine. The numerous turbine stages can be replaced with fewer turbine stages powering a gear system that in turn powers the fan and the compressors, so limiting the loss of having each turbine rotating its associated system 1 to 1 through individual fixed shafts.

As said before, size or thrust is not the issue, as near-future technology will find a solution for almost any problem associated with the gearing mechanism.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now the comparison with the B773ER is valid, but that supposes that you take the A346 as is.


Something similar to the A350MK I for the A330, an A360 sized a bit bigger than the A346 but obviously smaller than the A380, with GTF technology, new technologies like active wing systems and all-titanium fuselage (with rumours that researchers are developing a way to make Titanium consolidation processes easier which would result in titanium becoming more affordable) would make sense, certainly considering that by 2020, Airbus is expected to come up with the A320RS and that the A389 will further increase the gap between the A350XWB and A380 family.

I would not expect Airbus to come up with something like this before Boeing announces a formal B777RS though, and if Boeing don't want to lose too much market share to the A350 in the widebody class, they'll need to make sure to come up with B777RS asap. My bet is on 2010-2011.

I think that such a "A360" program would make sense if launched around 2014 for delivery starting around 2018.

But I don't think GTF and other new technology will be used on twin widebodies before 2023 as both A & B would love to sell as many A350XWB and B777RS as possible without needing to invest further on development.


Point is: Airbus definitely needs to come up with something closing the gap between the A350XWB and the A380, certainly so when considering that by 2015, the expectedly popular version of the A380, the A389 will take to the skies.


User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4083 times:



Quoting NCB (Reply 8):
Airbus definitely needs to come up with something closing the gap between the A350XWB and the A380, certainly so when considering that by 2015, the expectedly popular version of the A380, the A389 will take to the skies.

The problem with that is the A350. They are so heavily invovled with that project right now and it's still on paper. In my opinion, Airbus is behind Boeing, waaay behind in fact. The A350 is basically their answer to the 777, something which Boeing developed in the 1990's and has been selling since 1994. Boeing continues to work on the 777 and the 77LR and 773ER are going to be holding and maintaining that aicraft size for a long time to come. Boeing is developing the 748I, and while it's not sold much yet, it fills the gap between the A346/773ER and the A380. Boeing has a great 787 project, albeit delayed, that will fill the gap between the 757 and the 777 series aircraft as well as the A330 and will compete directly with the A350, again, it's still only on paper. The A340 series is dead as the 777 series offers better range, payload, economics, you name it. I think it's going to be a LOOONG while before the A389 takes to the skies and Boeing will again be in a good position to develop a competing aircraft.

The GTF engines would not give new life to an A340...when you simply can move that class of aircraft with two engines, more economically. In the end, Twin Operations will rule the skies for aircraft that size.

UAL


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 911 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4055 times:

Quoting NCB (Reply 8):
I think that many don't understand the concept of GTF.

NCB, it is obviously you who are playing armchair engineer.

Quoting NCB (Reply 8):
Though a common misunderstanding, it has nothing to do with engine size (apart from efficiency gain potential) or whatever you have in your mind. It is how the fan and the compressors are being powered

The more turbines stages you have, the greater the loss of thrust in the engine. The numerous turbine stages can be replaced with fewer turbine stages powering a gear system that in turn powers the fan and the compressors, so limiting the loss of having each turbine rotating its associated system 1 to 1 through individual fixed shafts.

From previous topics discussing GTF engines, it actually seems like the majority of people engaging in discussions related to this particular engine know exactly how it functions. And FWIW, your description of the GTF concept is hardly spectacular.

Quoting NCB (Reply 8):
As said before, size or thrust is not the issue, as near-future technology will find a solution for almost any problem associated with the gearing mechanism.

I don't think anyone buys this assumption. Do you have any means of backing up this claim? You can't put turbomachinery on a Xerox machine and hit "enlarge 200%" and expect a viable engine.

It has taken over 20 years for Pratt to design a transmission that meets reliability standards for short-haul aircraft so that it can even be considered for commercial application. And there is still no GTF engine formally offered for anything larger than an RJ. An engine in the 50-60 klbf range is just out of the question at the moment.

By the time it is viable (if ever), the A340 will be long, long dead.

Quoting NCB (Reply 8):
Point is: Airbus definitely needs to come up with something closing the gap between the A350XWB and the A380,

No.... they don't. There have been numerous periods of time in which manufactures have had weak products in a certain niche. Sometimes the efforts to inject more life into a dying product just cause more financial woes.

Airbus is probably still in the hole from the A340-500/600. It's not much use to keep digging.

[Edited 2008-05-31 19:09:43]

User currently offlineComeAndGo From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 991 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3869 times:



Quoting UAL747 (Reply 9):
The GTF engines would not give new life to an A340...when you simply can move that class of aircraft with two engines, more economically. In the end, Twin Operations will rule the skies for aircraft that size.

Are you saying the 748i is a twin ? Or are you saying that only B has the technical knowhow to develop a successful quad ?

There's material being developed for electric cars that is a lot lighter than carbon fiber. If all non flight critical parts were made from such material, the weight of any aircraft could be substantially reduced.


User currently offlineAndz From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8413 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3800 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting UAL747 (Reply 7):
You would need 8 A320 engines to fly an A346

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v155/andzz/airbusbautb52nachfolger.jpg



After Monday and Tuesday even the calendar says WTF...
User currently offlineNCB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3798 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 10):
It has taken over 20 years for Pratt to design a transmission that meets reliability standards

True. Now that they've finally made it, I don't think that it will be hard to transfer this technology to bigger engines. The structure of the engines is pretty much the same. The gear part just replaces the shaft and "a turbine stage for each compressor stage".

The problem was in working out a reliable system and PW seems to have got it right.
In the next few years, it'll just be a matter of progressively adapting the technology for bigger aircraft.

There's a big gap between a 250-350 pax aircraft and a 600-700 pax aircraft.
All routes disserved today by B744's, A346 make sense. The B748 is in that gap but does not promise to be a good long-term investment due to the limited evolution in technology and the overall less efficient design due to too big a front drag profile.

The problem is that it's not easy to build a huge twin, so this market needs to have an aircraft that has 4 engines with the efficiency of a twin.

I have the feeling that Boeing will come up with B777RS early in the next decade. They can't just sit down and watch how the A350XWB takes all that market for itself, nor can they just update the B777 as they will receive the same critics as Airbus did when it proposed A350 MK1... they'll have to come up with a new design.

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 9):
They are so heavily invovled with that project right now and it's still on paper. In my opinion, Airbus is behind Boeing, waaay behind in fact. The A350 is basically their answer to the 777, something which Boeing developed in the 1990's and has been selling since 1994.

Well once the XWB-family and the A389 fly, Airbus will need to have something else to keep itself busy. Of course there will be A320RS, but I think that they can handle another project as well. I don't think Airbus is behind Boeing.

One can very well claim the B787 to be the answer to the A330 or even that Boeing doesn't have a competitive, contemporary VLA and that Boeing is lagging behind. Moreover, now Airbus gets ahead in the B787/B777 market with a better and unlike the B787 (which is more bubble than facts), a truly efficient aircraft, the A350. Each manufacturer has its own market analysts and times new products in accordance with needs. Airbus changed the A350 orginal design to XWB because there's been a real demand for a new aircraft in that segment (can't wait for Farnborough) and airlines have welcomed the approach by ordering record numbers of aircraft that will easily surpass the B787 prior to EIS.
Airbus is also likely to accommodate a second line for the XWB if orders keep coming in at this pace which apparently is not possible for the B787.

So much for your American pride.

I do hope to see a B777RS from Boeing and I hope that they'll make it a bit bigger.

[Edited 2008-06-01 00:41:39]

User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7025 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3661 times:



Quoting NCB (Thread starter):
In my opinion, sticking 4 A320-GTF engines to a A346HGW should make sense.

With 15% fuel efficiency gain over actual engines, it can be a gap-filler between the A350-1000 and the A380, directly competing with the B748i and the B748F.

I'd like to hear what some people think about this possibility.

With the A350-1000 on the horizon they don´t put any money on the A340 program. Sadly but the A340 is dead regarding the introduction of new technology.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3543 times:



Quoting NCB (Reply 6):
Can a GTF-powered A346 beat a B748 in efficiency?

That's trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The A346 is a lousy design, in terms of structural efficiency it cannot even cope with a 747-400. Stretching the wing box chordwise wasn't a brilliant idea either. Having four engines versus the competition's two is good for a double-digit penalty in fuel efficiency alone, everything else being (conditionally) equal.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3320 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3524 times:



Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 15):
That's trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The A346 is a lousy design, in terms of structural efficiency it cannot even cope with a 747-400. Stretching the wing box chordwise wasn't a brilliant idea either. Having four engines versus the competition's two is good for a double-digit penalty in fuel efficiency alone, everything else being (conditionally) equal.

Eh, I think the simple fact that its older last gen version is better economicly for almost any mission the A343 is capible of says it all. No need to even compare it to 747s or whatever. Its older "obsolete" brother is plenty capible of pimp slapping the A346.


User currently offlineR2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2497 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3500 times:



Quoting Andz (Reply 12):

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 7):
You would need 8 A320 engines to fly an A346

A sort of B-52NG! Awesome! Let's do it!
 bigthumbsup 


User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 18, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3457 times:



Quoting R2rho (Reply 17):
A sort of B-52NG! Awesome! Let's do it!

Big version: Width: 600 Height: 450 File size: 114kb


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4360 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3365 times:

Nice pictures, guys!

But I agree that Airbus will concentrate all efforts and all money on the A350s for the long range, keeping the A330 in business as long as possible with limited investments.

The absolute maximum I could imagine would be a program to re engine the A343 with GTFs. Due to the late deliveries of the 787, now we hear that the production rate of 10 will be reached with a delay of 27 to 30 months, there are 270 to 300 long range planes missing on the market compared to business plans in 2013. Even if Boeing can ramp up to 2 more, it will take 135 to 150 months, so until 2024-2025 until they catch up. So there is a market for used long range planes all over the next decade. But the A345/6 never were planned as high volume sellers - they were planned to approach the top until the top finally is reached with the A380. They have served this purpose.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29656 posts, RR: 84
Reply 20, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3132 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting NCB (Reply 6):
Now let's focus on the economic viability.

Well if you wish to dismiss the technical aspects, then the answer is quite simple.

It would still be economically un-viable because Boeing would put two GTFs on a 777-300ER and they would burn less fuel then an A340-600 with four just as a 77W with two turbofans burns less fuel then an A346 with four.


User currently offlineNCB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2999 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
It would still be economically un-viable because Boeing would put two GTFs on a 777-300ER and they would burn less fuel then an A340-600 with four just as a 77W with two turbofans burns less fuel then an A346 with four.

Yes, only thing is that they won't do it in the next decade because they can't do it.
As said before, I expect the GTF to evolve progressively, but until it gets the go-ahead to power widebody long-range ETOPS, there will be a very long process that can impossibly be completed before 2020-2025.
therefore, if Boeing announces a B777RS in say 2012 (and they'll have to), they can impossibly incorporate the GTF at that stage.
But quads can do it earlier than 2025 because single engines requires way less redundancy and lower thrust ratings than a twin + they can reach out to the empty market of 350-550 seaters that twins can almost impossibly step into.

Now, with GTF technology, due to their construction, the advantage of twins over quads is significantly reduced, if not almost nulled or even reversed in some cases: Let's not forget that the most important consideration when selecting thrust rating is engine failure at take-off. On a twin EF at tkof, only 50% of power is available, while on a quad it is 75%. This can reduce required thrust rating and overall effiency.
Therefore, Airbus has the possibility to reach out with a quad powering a market that twins can not, giving it the effiency of a twin.

It will also be a unique opportunity to try out active wing technology and other technologies available by 2015 that are not available today and that can later be incorporated into A320RS.

But I see that the Airliners community is not open to innovation and future-thinking, it's just a bunch of conservatists judging what A & B have done wrong so far, instead of looking into the future and what they will do.


User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2915 times:

Am I just stupid here, or does NCB's arguments just not make any sense at all? I don't really even know what he is arguing, well, sort of, but it absolutely sounds ridiculous to me. Can someone enlighten me as to what is trying to be argued here?

UAL


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4675 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2888 times:



Quoting NCB (Reply 21):
But I see that the Airliners community is not open to innovation and future-thinking, it's just a bunch of conservatists judging what A & B have done wrong so far, instead of looking into the future and what they will do.

We have already told you what Airbus will do: They will bring the A350-1000 to the market, which is going to kill the A346.

What's so hard to get?



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineAircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1614 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2831 times:



Quoting Andz (Reply 12):

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 7):
You would need 8 A320 engines to fly an A346

There is something oddly cute in it...


25 NCB : It does make sense, it just doesn't make sense today. Wait till we are 7 years ahead, when A350XWB, A380's, B787's start crowding the skies. Innovati
26 Stitch : Why not just stick the GTFs on the 747-8I? It carries more people and cargo then an A340-600 and would gain similar fuel burn benefits from using GTF
27 DfwRevolution : The A345 was never intended as a high volume seller, owing to its ULH range, but the combine A345/A346 were expected to sell in high numbers. Back in
28 MedAv : Given that no airliner has ever been powered by one, it's doubtful. But even if true, 10 years from now who will want to buy a re-warmed a346? Alas,
29 Lightsaber : I almost cried the day Pratt cancelled the PW8163 project. It was my baby. This engine, rated at 57k for the A340-5/6 was going to be a killer design.
30 Thegeek : Your not stupid. But if you substitute A343 for A346HGW and find a way around the IAE contract problem then his arguments do make sense, but I'm not
31 NCB : So far this is the most interesting comment I have seen. I hadn't considered this option yet and it does sound like a good one. The 748i is in the ri
32 Chrisrad : I thought the A346 was at least somewhat more efficient than a 744? Can anyone provide some numbers on this?
33 Stitch : It carries similar maximum payloads and was supposed to be 15% more fuel efficient, but I don't know if it made that figure or not. Still, carriers l
34 LAXDESI : Applying the numbers you suggest, 12% fuel burn drop and 8,800 lb weight reduction, should yield a range of 7,750 nm for A332. Using a model that I h
35 OldAeroGuy : You mean it would finally have as much range as a 772ER?!
36 XT6Wagon : I'd agree it would be a good idea if the certification cost alone would make it not worth it.
37 Lightsaber : And 77W cargo. Its not all about the people. The 788 is by risk sharing contract, a two engine airframe with GE and RR having the right of first refu
38 LAXDESI : Thanks for clarifying. Yes, if I go by Lightsaber's estimates on GTF sfc and weight reduction.
39 RJ111 : I believe the latest -600HGW model can handle slightly more cargo in terms of weight than the 77W even on the longer routes. As mentioned before this
40 Astuteman : Why? Because they don't agree with you? There is an alternative view... There is NO WAY that the MOST efficient engine is going to be deployed on the
41 Thegeek : This part only makes sense to me if the benefit of the GTF is diminished at cruise. Normally long haul planes get the most benefit from efficiency ga
42 Post contains links Parapente : http://www.mtu.de/en/technologies/cl...PK_Klima_18-07-2007_Martens_en.pdf What surprises me about Rolls dismissing GTF is that it is only the first st
43 Lightsaber : So true. *All* of the other airbus airframes would be easier to make more efficient. Note: Pratt is also locked out of the A380 due to the AE contrac
44 Astuteman : Beat me to it, my friend. My comment was wholly based on technology maturing, and attendant risk. Rgds
45 EBJ1248650 : Kind of reminds me of the first E-3 AWACS configuration which featured 8 J57 engines. That didn't last long and, as I recall, was being discussed bef
46 Thegeek : I guess that makes sense. A bigger gearbox would be more difficult to develop. And a smaller plane could have nearer diversion airfields. I'd like to
47 KPHXFlyer : Isn't scalability a non-linear equation in most engineering applications? Isn't it generally an exponential increase in effort (time & money) as the
48 Lightsaber : Oh... As an engine designer... I kind of like that redundancy! Need we bother discussing the economics. Yep. It can be done, but removing the heat ha
49 XT6Wagon : Also a fleet of narrowbodies has several times the number of frames compared to the long haul widebodies. This means more engines to spread developme
50 Aircellist : Lightsaber, Would a three-spool GTF be interesting?
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...
The Possibility of AC Replacing Airbus With Embraer? posted Fri Oct 6 2006 15:10:16 by GoBlue
Who Will US Airways Try To Merge With Now? posted Sat May 31 2008 07:38:19 by B6fll
Any ATRs With In Flight Entertainment posted Fri May 30 2008 15:31:08 by Orion737
What's With This Flight Path? posted Fri May 30 2008 07:57:50 by Jcf5002
Should Airbus Offer The GTF For The A320s? posted Thu May 29 2008 23:17:21 by Panais
MD11 Who Had The Most Success With It? posted Thu May 29 2008 19:43:22 by Thunder747
Airlines With Similar Y-class Seats? posted Thu May 29 2008 14:59:09 by Vasu
LH With A332 On ADD/KRT This Fall? posted Thu May 29 2008 13:59:31 by Eyeonthesky17
Need Help With Baggage Fees And Codeshares posted Wed May 28 2008 23:47:18 by FlyingNanook
CA Men Charged With Delta 17, Embassy Threats posted Wed May 28 2008 22:15:54 by Flynavy