Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Emirates A380 Diversion To MUC  
User currently offlineHonza From Czech Republic, joined May 2005, 84 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 35336 times:

UAE201 DXB-JFK is dumping fuel over FIR Praha right now and is going to land in Munich.
No more details..

So Munich spotters can get their cameras ready!

106 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineHonza From Czech Republic, joined May 2005, 84 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 35310 times:

..just now at FL200 entering Munich airspace, some 10mins to go

User currently offlineB747forever From Sweden, joined May 2007, 17146 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 35282 times:

Wow, that is interesting. Wonder what the reason is


Work Hard, Fly Right
User currently offlineSeansasLCY From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 903 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 35247 times:

Any ideas whats wrong???

User currently offlineMSYtristar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 35282 times:

Is this confirmed as an A380 or is it a 77W?

User currently offlineB747forever From Sweden, joined May 2007, 17146 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 35281 times:

Will this be the first A380 diversion??


Work Hard, Fly Right
User currently offlineSeansasLCY From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 903 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 35239 times:



Quoting B747forever (Reply 5):
Will this be the first A380 diversion??

SQ first flight to NRT got diverted to NGO so not the 1st diversion


User currently offlineB747forever From Sweden, joined May 2007, 17146 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 35191 times:



Quoting SeansasLCY (Reply 6):
SQ first flight to NRT got diverted to NGO so not the 1st diversion

Okay I see.

If you look on EKs website it says that the flight is scheduled to leave MUC around 14:20.



Work Hard, Fly Right
User currently offlineBeaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 35145 times:

Following a German forum it could be a "Medical" -diversion not for technical reasons..


Please respect animals - don't eat them...
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9229 posts, RR: 76
Reply 9, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 35143 times:



Quoting SeansasLCY (Reply 3):
Any ideas whats wrong???

Statistically, most airliners divert for medical reasons. Given the little information so far, that is what I think it would be.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineSsides From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4059 posts, RR: 21
Reply 10, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 35024 times:



Quoting MSYtristar (Reply 4):
Is this confirmed as an A380 or is it a 77W?

Confirmed -- EK 201 departed DXB this morning bound for JFK at 9:09 am -- a 39-minute delay from the scheduled departure time. Now showing an arrival at MUC at 13:20 local time.

Departure time from MUC scheduled for 14:30 local, with arrival in JFK at 16:56 local.

No word on why the flight is diverting.



"Lose" is not spelled with two o's!!!!
User currently offlineMarcoEDDF From Germany, joined Mar 2007, 4 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 34681 times:

I am surprised, that it has to dump fuel, after what - 4-5 hours of flight.  Wow!

User currently offlineSsides From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4059 posts, RR: 21
Reply 12, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 34642 times:



Quoting MarcoEDDF (Reply 11):
I am surprised, that it has to dump fuel, after what - 4-5 hours of flight.

It was probably pretty loaded with fuel for the 12-hour haul to JFK. All aircraft must weigh a lot less when they land than when they take off, and it was probably well over its max landing weight. Still, not fun to dump fuel when oil is at $120 a barrel!



"Lose" is not spelled with two o's!!!!
User currently offlineFrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3842 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 34571 times:



Quoting MarcoEDDF (Reply 11):
I am surprised, that it has to dump fuel, after what - 4-5 hours of flight

On a similar route and under similar circumstances, I guesstimate that a 744 would have to dump roughly about 15 to 20 tons of fuel at that stage to bring it down to MLW.

An aircraft this size does carry about 3 times the weight of its payload in fuel on a flight like this one...



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 7627 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 34352 times:



Quoting Francoflier (Reply 13):
On a similar route and under similar circumstances, I guesstimate that a 744 would have to dump roughly about 15 to 20 tons of fuel at that stage to bring it down to MLW.

Since this is an Airbus a/c would it not be better to compare it to say a A-340, no other a/c in the skies is as large as the A380, but I'm sure it has more in common with other Airbus a/c than a Boeing, at least for comparison sake.


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4087 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 34226 times:



Quoting Par13del (Reply 14):
Since this is an Airbus a/c would it not be better to compare it to say a A-340, no other a/c in the skies is as large as the A380, but I'm sure it has more in common with other Airbus a/c than a Boeing, at least for comparison sake.

When it comes to VLAs, any comparison is going to be off - but a 744 would be a lot closer than an A340-600 in my guess.


User currently offlineFlyglobal From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 604 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 34142 times:



Quoting Moo (Reply 15):
When it comes to VLAs, any comparison is going to be off - but a 744 would be a lot closer than an A340-600 in my guess.

Right, we have been talking about the fuel probably to be dumped. Then the 747 is best comparison over everything else. It doesn't matter if Airbus or Boeing. It matters the aircraft size and the fuel mass.

regards

flyglobal


User currently offlineFrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3842 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 34050 times:



Quoting Par13del (Reply 14):
Since this is an Airbus a/c would it not be better to compare it to say a A-340

Maybe, but I don't know the A340 very well. In any case, as the size of an aircraft goes up, everything about it increases in a roughly proportional way, especially since all those aircrafts are designed for the same missions, regardless of the manufacturer.

Each new generation will be a few percent 'better' all around that the older one, but still.

Again, using very rough numbers here, a 744 taking off for a 12 hours flight with an average payload will carry about 140 tons of fuel. After about 4 or 5 hours, it'll have burned around 55-60 tons, and would need to dump about 20 to reach its MLW.

Since the A380 is rumored to burn around the same fuel as a 744 for a similar flight (but with a higher payload), the fuel carried and burned at this stage would be similar, give or take 5% or so. If the spread between the MTOW and MLW of the 2 aircrafts is approximately similar, I suspect that the A380 would also have to dump some fuel at the same stage, if maybe a bit less.

I've no idea what the actual figures of the 380 are, but I just wanted to show that it's not surprising at all that an A380 would dump fuel in that given scenario.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineVfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 4060 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 33950 times:

If they cannot land immediately despite having a medical on board, why don't they keep continuing northwestwards and, say, dump fuel en route or over the North Sea (IIRC, there are designsted areas where fule dumping is allowed) and land in LHR or somewhere else in theUK - instead of circling above the Czech Republic to get rid off the fuel? For the pax, it does not make a difference anyway if they cannot land. Or was the fuel dumping/circling only a matter of 10, 20 minutes?

User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 7627 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 33925 times:

Another issue would be the B-747 wings, the old technology in her was designed for speed of flight, she is the fastest cruising pax airliner once up at altitude, so fuel burn would be even higher not just because of the older engines.
Probably can't make a reasonable judgement other than to look at airbus specs for the A-380 and use those, might get a more reasonable figure from the manufacturers number.
Another question, with its mssive wings, does the A380 not have a slower landing speed for her size, would that not help in terms of landing near to max weight, put her down softer?


User currently offlineMUCFLYER From Germany, joined May 2004, 116 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 32406 times:

according our MUC Forum, the medical reason is confirmed and the patient was transferred by helicopter to a clinic in Munich.
You may see any pictures in a little while under
http://www.mucforum.de/showthread.php?t=21247


User currently offlineFrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3842 posts, RR: 11
Reply 21, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 32131 times:



Quoting Par13del (Reply 19):
Another issue would be the B-747 wings, the old technology in her was designed for speed of flight, she is the fastest cruising pax airliner once up at altitude, so fuel burn would be even higher not just because of the older engines.

The difference is huge by the operator's standard, but in absolute, we're always talking a few percent speed/fuel burn per ton of aircraft difference.
I was trying to determine that it's absolutely plausible for it to dump at that stage.

But what the hell, I've gone and looked for the figures.
Still approximating a lot, but here's a bit more details:

Empty weight: 276T (Airbus website) probably more like 285T in EK clothes.
MLW: 386T
MZFW: 361T

Couldn't find the performance figures, but a reasonable extrapolation would be that for a DXB-JFK sector a decent payload would be a good 70T, and it would take off with an approximate 160T of fuel, give or take a truckload of the stuff.

So, taking off at 515T.
5 hours in, it would have burned about 60-65T (approximate 744 fuel burn + 10%)

Worst case, it's still weighing 450T at that time, meaning it would have to dump a little over 60T before it can land.

Even if I've overcooked the fuel figures, they're still bound to dump quite a lot at that stage.
If I follow my own logic, they'd have to dump fuel for a diversion until they're about an hour away from landing at destination.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 19):
Another question, with its mssive wings, does the A380 not have a slower landing speed for her size, would that not help in terms of landing near to max weight, put her down softer?

Well, 386T is a lot. That's a landing weight of 19.3T per main gear wheel. The 744 has a landing weight of 17.8T per main gear wheel (non-ERF pax version).

Of course there are other factors than the wheels and gear that dictate that limitation, braking capacity is the biggest one I presume.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineCODCAIAH From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 177 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 31765 times:

Given how many passengers an A380 carries, I wonder if there medical diversions on this plane will be more frequent as compared with 747s or A340s.


CO/IAH-loyalist happily driven into the arms of WN/HOU
User currently offlineEnginebird From United States of America, joined May 2007, 344 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 31454 times:



Quoting CODCAIAH (Reply 22):
Given how many passengers an A380 carries, I wonder if there medical diversions on this plane will be more frequent as compared with 747s or A340s.

Assuming that the age/gender/etc. makeup of the pax is similar and the load factor is the same as on other type of aircraft, the A380 should statistically have more medical diversions per 1000/10000/1000000 flights than any other commercial airliner flying the same routes, just because of the higher numbers of pax carried.

Check out The Aviation Herald for the high number of medical diversions and expect to see more diversions of the A380 as well.


User currently offlineBeaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 31290 times:



Quoting Vfw614 (Reply 18):
If they cannot land immediately despite having a medical on board, why don't they keep continuing northwestwards and, say, dump fuel en route or over the North Sea (IIRC, there are designsted areas where fule dumping is allowed) and land in LHR or somewhere else in theUK - instead of circling above the Czech Republic to get rid off the fuel? For the pax, it does not make a difference anyway if they cannot land. Or was the fuel dumping/circling only a matter of 10, 20 minutes?

Sounds like a reasonable question - if they circle for 45 minutes or one hour over the Czech republic they could have easlily gone furher West remaining within their flight-path.
FRA ,AMS or CDG would most likely have been in reach..



Please respect animals - don't eat them...
25 Burnsie28 : But when your not paying that $120 a barrel....
26 Moo : Because the emergency may get worse - the passenger may require immediate attention in order to save their life, in which case the pilot may decide t
27 Moo : Same old same old - theres no indication Emirates is getting cheap fuel.
28 DABTH747 : here we go again in every thread no matter what it is about, if its an EK one someone has to mention this... for the millionth time they pay for fuel
29 GCT64 : So, logically, when an A380-900 has been passed on to a charter carrier and is flying long flights crammed with 800-900 pax then diversions are going
30 AirNZ : Sorry, but why are you seemingly so obsessed about the 747 comparison with the A380 in this context?? It's a medical emergency, nothing else and the
31 KU747 : Says who?
32 SeansasLCY : Just because US carriers don't seem to be able to make things work everyone else must be getting some sort of major advantage. "Free fuel to all the
33 Astuteman : MSN001 was LANDED at 600 tonnes within a couple of months of first flight... (I know that doesn't apply to a certified, in-service frame..) Makes you
34 N6168E : And even IF they get their fuel cheaper at DXB, the price to replace the dumped fuel would be the going rate at MUC!
35 Haggis79 : because they can't just dump fuel anywhere they want, at least not over densly populated Europe.... IIRC there are designated areas for that, at leas
36 Vfw614 : Yes, I know (hence my caveat in brackets). However, the North Sea would have been pretty much on the flightpath. But it depends of course how long th
37 Post contains links OPNLguy : Quoting Zeke (Reply 9): Statistically, most airliners divert for medical reasons. Exactly what statistics are those? Got a link? In my experience (as
38 MUCuser : I believe SOP with most airlines is to head for nearest available airport when emergency is apparant. MUC is A380 ready, not many airports in Europe a
39 Scipio : On the other hand, the more people you have on board, the higher the probability that there are medical professionals among them. This may reduce the
40 UAEflyer : and why you are bothered by this childish behaviour and words, you just ignore it, whatever they say, i'm one of those who see the fuel bills of EK.
41 MYT321 : Maybe the number crunchers will find a point where it's actually viable to have a fully qualified medical professional on every VLA/long haul flight.
42 LHR27C : I think Zeke was referring to enroute diversions, as opposed to a diversion at the end of the route due to conditions at the arrival airport.
43 Enginebird : In a 800-900 pax configuration it may actually make economical sense sense to have a doctor onboard and a tiny hospital the size of a first class sui
44 Charles79 : I always feel ashamed whenever a fellow American posts this sort of rubbish. Foreign members, please don't think that all Americans are this ignorant
45 Scipio : Aaaah. That explains why I did not hear any announcement asking whether there was a doctor on board. Pretty sound and effective LH policy, from what
46 DABTH747 : thank u, it feels good to read that there are some ppl who understand and take time to understand
47 Hywel : Maybe Emirates does, but not Saudi Arabian Airlines... I read last week that they buy their fuel at an 85% discount (sorry - can't find the source no
48 Post contains images Hywel : By the way, here's the A380 dumping fuel, picture found on pprune
49 Honza : The flight was not originally planed via Czech Repubilc, it was over Poland when it decided for MUC and set heading southwest. It made stright line d
50 Vfw614 : Interesting. I have seen a picture of the A380 dumping fuel over Poland which was apparently taken near KTW when the airplane was already heading sout
51 Gkirk : The An-225 is bigger. The An-124 is just as large. The A380 cannot use the same airports as a B747.
52 The Coachman : VIE is an EK destination but I'm not entirely sure it is A380 ready.
53 Alessandro : So this is the 2nd visit for the A380 and the first for the -861-series to Munich?
54 Babybus : The pax probably got overcome with excitment over flying the new bird. So I guess we can expect more of that in the future till the novelty wears off.
55 Dano1977 : According to another website...... A 9 year old passenger suffered a seizure, crew contacted Medilink who advised of an imediate diversion to VIE, VIE
56 Jetblueguy22 : How risky is it to dump fuel? I mean one spark in the area around the dump area while opening the valve and the fuel behind u and the fuel in you tank
57 Post contains links Vfw614 : Here is a pic from a local newspaper: http://www.merkur-online.de/_/tools/picview.html?_CMELEM=370732 The article says that police had to be dispatche
58 PlaneInsomniac : You mean CAN?
59 474218 : No risk at all. Because the fuel is dumped at altitude it all dissipates before it ever reaches the ground.
60 Jetblueguy22 : I understand that but I mean fire wise is it risky? Blue
61 Lazybones : The A380 can land at any airport which supports the B747, I think i can land with less runway than a B747. The problem is getting pax on and off effi
62 Flyhigh@tom : Fire risk does exist during a fuel dump, but if you follow the procedures, its safe enough. Operating Procedures usually call for restricted use of V
63 Jetblueguy22 : Oh ok. Thank you very much. Blue
64 JBirdAV8r : Runways aren't the issue generally--it's the taxiways and parking that causes concern. Sure you could get an A380 down at a whole lot of places, but
65 Francoflier : Well, that's impressive... Especially when you know that the commercial MTOW is 560T... How heavy did it take off then?
66 Ssides : Emirates does pay for fuel. I'm not sure if they receive the benefit of the UAE/Dubai subsidy (e.g., motorists pay approxmately $2.40 per gallon for
67 Post contains links Zeke : Runways were the issue (as it was only approved to operate from 60 m wide runways), until the A380 was approved for operation on 45m wide runways ( h
68 HAMAD : thank you for that... i lived in the united states for a little over 10 years, and met a lot of nice people like yourself, while on the other hand i
69 Post contains images Astuteman : 601 tonnes   Seriously, IIRC, for whatever reason (probably just to show they could), they lifted off at 600 tonnes, did a circuit and landed at c.
70 Jfklucky777 : AFAIK, EK's 380 has an emergency tow bar inside hold 5 for any emergency diversions at an airport that might not have a 380 tow bar. I'm not sure if
71 Haan : They had to dump about 20T of fuel and dit a 50T overweight landing. The landing was smooth so no need for overweight inspection.
72 Enginebird : I am not sure paramedics can do the job, as they are -- no offense -- trained to provide qualified first aid, but cannot make many decisions a doctor
73 Sleeperseat : Did anyone spot this beauty yesterday? Any footage so far? I hope that pax made it and was transferred to the hospital real fast.
74 Robffm2 : There is a pretty cool video on youtube about brake/tyre test / overweight landing. Unfortunately I have no idea to what landing weight the given dat
75 AeroplaneFreak : No. SIN-SYD has diverted to MEL (YMML) twice once in May and June I think.
76 Post contains links Enginebird : The youtube video of three EK airbuses (A310F, A330, A380) taking off in a row is pretty impressive, despite the poor image quality. video It is amazi
77 Francoflier : It is pretty cool. The simulated landing speed there was 175 knots. Much faster than a normal landing, and depending on how heavy the aircraft was si
78 Vfw614 : The little girl who fell ill and caused the diversion has apparently died in hospital, according to German media (no official confirmation so far, so
79 Zeke : Pretty sure EK use Medlink for the onboard medical matters, they are an organization based in the USA. They will actually make the assessment for div
80 474218 : How does this compare with the A380 Maximum Takeoff Weight of 560 tonnes?
81 Moo : Not saying Astuteman was at all correct, but this was a test flight with a test airframe (MSN001 is Airbuses main test aircraft for the A380), and as
82 Vfw614 : Emirates indeed has contracted MedAire for its MedLink service since 2006. However, I am inclined to believe that the choice of airport was not prima
83 474218 : Airbus site notesthat the A380's maximum ramp weight 362 tonnes, maximum weight it which it can taxi. Getting another 38 tonnes in the air is highly
84 BuyantUkhaa : I remember reading here that the wing is good up to 625T (as it is supposed to carry also the A389).
85 Post contains links WingedMigrator : It is definitely greater than MTOW See article in Flight International Fernando Alonso, Airbus senior VP of flight testing, is quoted as follows: My
86 Vfw614 : No officially confirmed that the girl died last night in a Munich hospital. US citizen of Pakistani origin. What is a bit tragic is that the girl boar
87 Enginebird : Well, a doctor on board, whether an expert in emergency medicine or not, is probably worth a lot more than an expert on the ground many thousands of
88 Prebennorholm : All new airliner types are always tested at considerably higher weights than what they subsequently are certified for. The overweight landing test is
89 WingedMigrator : That is the maximum weight RTO (Rejected Take-Off) test, and does not involve flight of any kind. It appears that you stick to the overweight landing
90 Prebennorholm : That's correct. The strutural integrity of the plane is tested in other ways, static tests and max vertical speed landing test (I think we have all s
91 Post contains links Vfw614 : Stupid spelling mistake. Just to clarify that I did not want to express in Pidgin english that there is no official information on the girl. I meant
92 413X3 : Why would Emirates pay somebody else to supply fuel? BP does not get any oil from the middle east, so to me that makes no sense. UAE could use unocal
93 Enginebird : It is very sad that neither the doctors on board nor the hospital in MUC could save the nine-year-old girl. The article in German says that the girl w
94 Zeke : That is true, Europe is dotted with airports where an aircraft can divert, it will take about 30 min for an aircraft to descend from cruise altitude,
95 Enginebird : Yes and no. Often the same symptoms can have a myriad of different causes and even a Medlink genius would need more specific diagnostics to provide e
96 Vfw614 : Interesting question is why the cabin crew - according to the media reports - asked around for doctors. Liabilitywise etc. it becomes quite tricky if
97 Francoflier : When a pax becomes suddenly and critically ill inflight, flight attendants will call a for a doctor (if there is one onboard) to assist the patient h
98 777DAD : Not only that,but moral rules also. A very tragic and sad story. May she rest in peace. Jeff
99 777boi : A MD must have valid identification to be able to deal with a sick passenger, plus general rules come into play (i.e: have they had ANYTHING to drink
100 Robffm2 : I don't think so. The final decision what medical wise is done is with the patient, or their legal guardian (e.g. parents).
101 Vfw614 : German media are now making a big fuzz about how the poor girl was treated and how the emergency was handled. One of the issues brought up is that the
102 Francoflier : The patient, or legal guardian, can refuse to have a certain treatment applied, but thet can't tell the crew to apply a certain treatment, to follow
103 777boi : The only reason i say that is because i know any decision made by medlink is covered "legal" wise, thats why a MD on board cannot make any final decis
104 Post contains links Zeke : They are in the doctors kit on EK aircraft, but not all drips are the same, they look clear however they have different fluid contents. This is the s
105 AlexEU : How did you know that? Which flight tracker do you use (for Europe)???
106 Honza : ATC radar at work
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...
Emirates A380 Enroute From LAX To JFK posted Wed Aug 6 2008 09:16:30 by Vulindlela744
Emirates A380 To JFK. Earlier? posted Tue Jul 22 2008 06:52:51 by Piskoto
Emirates A380 To Auckland! posted Wed Jul 9 2008 01:29:49 by LX001
Emirates A380 To JFK posted Sun Mar 16 2008 05:02:33 by Aruba
Who Will Fly An A380 To MUC? posted Fri Apr 20 2007 02:24:45 by MaverickM11
Emirates A380 To Be Delivered In April/Fly In July posted Wed Apr 26 2006 12:00:28 by Singapore_Air
Cathay 885 Diversion To YVR posted Wed Aug 6 2008 19:22:44 by Dlowwa
Emirates A380 Economy...No Press Allowed!? posted Tue Aug 5 2008 16:09:38 by 1KCLAY
DL Diversion To MLB posted Sat Jul 26 2008 18:32:51 by Beefstew25
Emirates A380 Model At Heathrow posted Wed Jul 23 2008 14:46:14 by Xtra1