Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Brazil Considers Opening Up SDU In Rio  
User currently offlineIncitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4014 posts, RR: 13
Posted (5 years 9 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3064 times:

Brazil's regulatory agency is making the case to allow more domestic destinations out of Santos Dumont airport in Rio de Janeiro - in Portuguese only:

http://www.anac.gov.br/arquivos/pdf/...vos_revogacaoDaPortaria187DGAC.pdf

Currently SDU is limited to service to Sao Paulo Congonhas and intra-state flights and the limitations have been in effect since 2005.

The civil aviation regulatory agency - ANAC - claims that the restrictions placed on SDU have not helped Rio's international airport (GIG) get connecting traffic. They claim only 1.12% of travelers boarding international flights in Rio actually connected from a domestic flight. Thus the emphasis of the airport system of the city needs to be on the convenience of the local passenger as opposed to getting more service by attracting more connecting travelers.

Waiting on the wings is David Neeleman's airline, Azul, which hopes to strike a competitive advantage against Gol and TAM by flooding SDU with service.

SDU is obviously convenient to a great number of travelers. But ANAC is in denial when it comes to impact on GIG. It is also pretending SDU and GIG are equally safe by claiming there is no technical reason to restrict the operation of 737s and A320/A319s at SDU. SDU's runway is only 4341 ft long. It is at the edge of the envelope for narrow-bodies while GIG has two 10,000 ft plus runways. SDU has no room for error.


Stop pop up ads
27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11438 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (5 years 9 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2811 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR



Quoting Incitatus (Thread starter):
SDU is obviously convenient to a great number of travelers. But ANAC is in denial when it comes to impact on GIG. It is also pretending SDU and GIG are equally safe by claiming there is no technical reason to restrict the operation of 737s and A320/A319s at SDU. SDU's runway is only 4341 ft long. It is at the edge of the envelope for narrow-bodies while GIG has two 10,000 ft plus runways. SDU has no room for error

Which shows how the agency is doing a kind of a show....SDU should be restricted because of it's runway... ANAC should be the one to control this, but...

Quoting Incitatus (Thread starter):
Waiting on the wings is David Neeleman's airline, Azul, which hopes to strike a competitive advantage against Gol and TAM by flooding SDU with service

...seems that they are trying to give Azul a very competitive advantage by building a hub at SDU.

Quoting Incitatus (Thread starter):
The civil aviation regulatory agency - ANAC - claims that the restrictions placed on SDU have not helped Rio's international airport (GIG) get connecting traffic. They claim only 1.12% of travelers boarding international flights in Rio actually connected from a domestic flight.

Which is far from being true. ANAC neglects the power of other markets than Rio and São Paulo, also a shame.



New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
User currently offlineBaron95 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1335 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (5 years 9 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2757 times:



Quoting Incitatus (Thread starter):
there is no technical reason to restrict the operation of 737s and A320/A319s at SDU.

I'm confused by this statement. Are you saying that 737s and A320/319 planes should not be allowed to use SDU? Or are you saying that there restrictions in place (other than the normal aircraft runway restrictions in the operating certificate of the airlines) that ANAC wants to lift.

I'd appreciate if you could clarify. Clearly, to use SDU, the planes must meet the performance limitation (from the manufacturer) + the performance factors in the air regulations + the ANAC-approved operating certificate. Clearly properly configured 73Gs/A319s/etc can operate safely from SDU to destinations that are only 1-2 hrs away away like CGH, BSB, etc.

Yes, it is a tight runway, but on the other hand, an overran is a simple skip and float in the water, vs the TAM disaster at CGH.

I personally don't think a BSB-SDU flight will be at substantially more risk than a CGH-SDU flight.

Second question: Is this a B737/A319 vs E190 issue? Azul is planning on using Embraers, right? Is that the issue? Trying to get the 737/A319 banned in favor of the E190/195?

Thanks.



Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
User currently offlineLipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11438 posts, RR: 58
Reply 3, posted (5 years 9 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2717 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR



Quoting Baron95 (Reply 2):
Second question: Is this a B737/A319 vs E190 issue? Azul is planning on using Embraers, right? Is that the issue? Trying to get the 737/A319 banned in favor of the E190/195?

Baron, ANAC is trying to allow SDU to handle up to E190 planes for flights longer than SDU-CGH
A kind of rule change in the last minutes... TAM and GOL are not able to deal with this immediately.



New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
User currently offlineIncitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4014 posts, RR: 13
Reply 4, posted (5 years 9 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2593 times:



Quoting Baron95 (Reply 2):
I'm confused by this statement. Are you saying that 737s and A320/319 planes should not be allowed to use SDU?

No I did not say that.

But I think their access should be restricted and that is what I implied. Eventually Rio should look at moving the Sao Paulo shuttle service to GIG. All it takes to make travelers pretty much indifferent is quick rail access to Galeao.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 2):
Yes, it is a tight runway, but on the other hand, an overran is a simple skip and float in the water, vs the TAM disaster at CGH.

Even such a scenario may result in multiple deaths. At 60 mph or more water is not soft. Under stress a pilot could try to abort a landing and then crash.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 2):
I personally don't think a BSB-SDU flight will be at substantially more risk than a CGH-SDU flight.

I agree. My reasoning is that SDU is less safe than GIG, so all SDU-XXX is less safe than GIG-XXX.

Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 1):
Which shows how the agency is doing a kind of a show....

I don't understand what ANAC is trying to do.



Stop pop up ads
User currently offlineLipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11438 posts, RR: 58
Reply 5, posted (5 years 9 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2513 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR



Quoting Incitatus (Reply 4):
I don't understand what ANAC is trying to do.

If you find out, let me know.

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 4):
Even such a scenario may result in multiple deaths. At 60 mph or more water is not soft. Under stress a pilot could try to abort a landing and then crash.

Agree, there's no "safe harbor" at SDU. The most incredible is the Agency designed to provide safeness to the civil aviation, to agree with this.



New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
User currently offlineIncitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4014 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (5 years 9 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2478 times:



Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 1):
Which is far from being true. ANAC neglects the power of other markets than Rio and São Paulo, also a shame.

The document that I provided the link in the original posting (Exposicao de motivos) says only 1.12% passengers boarding international flights come from connecting flights. That would mean that a longhaul departure out of GIG with about 200 passengers has on average two passengers from other cities. That is so off the mark, it's plain ignorant.



Stop pop up ads
User currently offlineLipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11438 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (5 years 9 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2380 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR



Quoting Incitatus (Reply 6):
The document that I provided the link in the original posting (Exposicao de motivos) says only 1.12% passengers boarding international flights come from connecting flights. That would mean that a longhaul departure out of GIG with about 200 passengers has on average two passengers from other cities. That is so off the mark, it's plain ignorant.

Just need to stay in front of a bag claim, GIG or GRU, to see how many bags with "CNF", "BSB", "GYN", "POA", "CWB", "IGU", "SSA", "VIX" and others. As i mentioned, top read that only 1.12% of passengers are connections in any Brazilian Airport is just a confirmation that ANAC doesn't know about Brazilian Civil Aviation.
All times i come back from Brazil i saw a LOT of bags to other airports and even if they are looking for passengers only on tag-on, the numbers shall be even bigger.



New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
User currently offlineIncitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4014 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (5 years 9 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2345 times:



Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 7):
As i mentioned, top read that only 1.12% of passengers are connections in any Brazilian Airport is just a confirmation that ANAC doesn't know about Brazilian Civil Aviation.

I have a friend who looked at travel agency bookings and said the right number is probably in the ballpark of 15%, but that does not include the passengers who connected on separate tickets. So ANAC (actually, Infraero) is off the mark by at least 15 times.

I think SDU has such a big significance.

Look at the other busy airports around the world with short runways:

NY La Guardia LGA 7000 ft
Buenos Aires AEP 6895 ft
Washington DCA 6869 ft
Sao Paulo CGH 6365 ft
Orange Co. SNA 5701 ft
London LCY 4984 ft

I can't think of any other airport besides SDU that handles a few million passengers a year with a runway shorter than 4500 ft. Dutch Harbor in Alaska has a 3900 ft runway but does not have 737 service anymore.

If SDU was closed to commercial service, that might even have a significant impact in the projects of the next generation 737 and Airbus narrow-body. Airbus and Boeing would be able to optimize the aircraft and bump the minimum runway requirement some 500ft.



Stop pop up ads
User currently offlineBaron95 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1335 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (5 years 9 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2205 times:

This is prob a silly question, but, given that it is water on both ends, why can't the runway be extended into the bay? Even 500 ft should allow an extra 1,000 nm of range on a departing 73G.

I know there is an issue of glide path clearance from the bridge and sugar loaf mountain on the ends, but the glide path is no where even close to LCY.

Given all the expansion at SDU lately with the jet bridges and all, it would be a waste to kill the airport for jet service.



Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6762 posts, RR: 32
Reply 10, posted (5 years 9 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2186 times:



Quoting Incitatus (Reply 4):
I don't understand what ANAC is trying to do.

It sounds like what they're trying to do is a bit nationalistic -- to hand the new airline operating locally-made aircraft an extra edge in being able to offer flights to more airports than TAM or Gol from SDU.


User currently offlineLipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11438 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (5 years 9 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2143 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR



Quoting Baron95 (Reply 9):
This is prob a silly question, but, given that it is water on both ends, why can't the runway be extended into the bay? Even 500 ft should allow an extra 1,000 nm of range on a departing 73G

Can't be. Guanabara Bay is protected and it's not possible to increase SDU runway.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 9):
Given all the expansion at SDU lately with the jet bridges and all, it would be a waste to kill the airport for jet service

The shuttle service Rio-SP can continue because it's strong and huge to correct delays due to early morning fog (very usual on winter) or rains.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 10):
It sounds like what they're trying to do is a bit nationalistic -- to hand the new airline operating locally-made aircraft an extra edge in being able to offer flights to more airports than TAM or Gol from SDU.

Good point. Only Azul and Embraer got advantages.



New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
User currently offlineSBGLexpat From Brazil, joined Oct 2007, 64 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 9 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2094 times:

As with most things in Brazil, this shows the lack of long term planning.
First have domestic/regional flights in SDU... then move flights away from SDU to promote GIG; then upgrade SDU terminal when the demand should be moving to GIG and there would be no need of a new terminal (not mentioning the brand new T2 in GIG can handle a lot more pax traffic and is still unfinished - all within a decade or so - where's the planning here?).
Then deny the expansion of transit pax at GIG just recently...
ANAC, Infraero and all state-run things in Brazil have just one thing in common: bend over to the forces of CAPITAL, as opposed to providing long term planning and serving all those that should be number one to them: tax payers...
Azul is doing what it's supposed to do... ANAC is not (nor Infraero).
SDU should remain as it is with just the shuttle service to CGH.
GIG should take more traffic - domestic and international.
Safety? Of course operations in SDU can be as safe as in GIG... safety is a very subjective thing... but how about margins of safety? How slim are the margins in SDU compared to those in GIG? That's what ANAC should be thinking of.
My opinion...
Regards.


User currently offlineIncitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4014 posts, RR: 13
Reply 13, posted (5 years 9 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2008 times:



Quoting SBGLexpat (Reply 12):
Safety? Of course operations in SDU can be as safe as in GIG...

Just because SDU is certified for 737 operation it does not mean it can be as safe as GIG. Both a Chevy Suburban and a Smart car are certified for street usage as passenger vehicles. On every day performance they can do a similar job, but under unusual circumstances the outcome can be very different.



Stop pop up ads
User currently offlineAF086 From France, joined Jan 2007, 1059 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (5 years 9 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1977 times:



Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 11):
Can't be. Guanabara Bay is protected and it's not possible to increase SDU runway.

Also the Sugar Loaf is too close at one side (2nm away from 02R rwy threshold and it's 1326' high) and the Rio-Niteroi bridge and the ferry lines at the other so that cannot be done.

SDU should remain as it is as a regional airport served by smaller aircraft and the shuttle to CGH and that's it. GIG can handle the rest without any problems, Infraero just have to give Galeão the attention it deserves.



Please insert a "smart" joke here.
User currently offlinePU752 From Uruguay, joined Mar 2005, 584 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (5 years 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1908 times:



Quoting Incitatus (Reply 4):
At 60 mph or more water is not soft. Under stress a pilot could try to abort a landing and then crash.

You don't abort a landing when you're on the ground, theres a point when the pilot decides whether to land or not usually at 200ft above ground level (DH for precision approaches which is not SDU case) but just for you to have an idea.

Also if you're worried about aborting a take off and crash into sea, well, the point prior to rotate its known as V1 which is not only a speed its also a distance, pilots never abort a take off after V1, also the V1 as a distance which will grant the pilot if at that point decides to abort take off to brake safely on the ground.

I think SDU is prefectly safe to allow other than CGH flights.


User currently offlineUnited787 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2706 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (5 years 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1909 times:



Quoting Incitatus (Reply 8):
NY La Guardia LGA 7000 ft
Buenos Aires AEP 6895 ft
Washington DCA 6869 ft
Sao Paulo CGH 6365 ft
Orange Co. SNA 5701 ft
London LCY 4984 ft

I can't think of any other airport besides SDU that handles a few million passengers a year with a runway shorter than 4500 ft. Dutch Harbor in Alaska has a 3900 ft runway but does not have 737 service anymore.

For comparison, MDW's runways are longer ranging from 5,141 ft to 6,522 ft (except for that 5th runway which is GA only). Meigs Field was about 3,900 ft.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8964 posts, RR: 39
Reply 17, posted (5 years 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1843 times:



Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 11):

Quoting ScottB (Reply 10):
It sounds like what they're trying to do is a bit nationalistic -- to hand the new airline operating locally-made aircraft an extra edge in being able to offer flights to more airports than TAM or Gol from SDU.

Good point. Only Azul and Embraer got advantages.

Lobbyists at work, anyone?



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineIncitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4014 posts, RR: 13
Reply 18, posted (5 years 9 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1821 times:



Quoting PU752 (Reply 15):
Also if you're worried about aborting a take off and crash into sea, well, the point prior to rotate its known as V1 which is not only a speed its also a distance, pilots never abort a take off after V1, also the V1 as a distance which will grant the pilot if at that point decides to abort take off to brake safely on the ground.

While your explanation is accurate, it does not reflect what may actually happen in a take-off when the pilot decides to abort before V1. For example, a tire may blow and the V1 calculation is out the window. Or pilot error may aggravate another problem that would be of minor consequence in a longer runway.

Quoting PU752 (Reply 15):
I think SDU is prefectly safe to allow other than CGH flights.

First there is no "perfectly safe" airport. Second when it comes to room for error a 4300 ft runway is very different from a 10,000 ft runway.

I am not saying SDU is only safe for CGH flights. I am saying when it comes to safety, flights from GIG are always preferable to flights from SDU.

Also the more flights a tight airport has, the more stress pilots are subjected to. For example, before the last TAM accident at CGH, pilots were under stress not to miss an approach and then have to go to the back to the end of the queue, especially in rainy weather. The more flights SDU has the less safe it is.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 10):
It sounds like what they're trying to do is a bit nationalistic

Here is another possible theory: This is just another shot in the argment between Infraero and Rio state. If GIG's operation goes private, Infraero wants to make sure it fails.



Stop pop up ads
User currently offlineLipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11438 posts, RR: 58
Reply 19, posted (5 years 9 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1773 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR



Quoting SBGLexpat (Reply 12):
of safety? How slim are the margins

Agree with you, except for the fact SDU will never be as safe as GIG. GIG runways are huge (GIG has the largest public runway in Brazil), have some space available before sea and ILS systems.



New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
User currently offlinePU752 From Uruguay, joined Mar 2005, 584 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (5 years 9 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1696 times:



Quoting Incitatus (Reply 18):
While your explanation is accurate, it does not reflect what may actually happen in a take-off when the pilot decides to abort before V1

Well, every situation may be different, depends of the case, but in theory the plane must stop if take off is aborted before V1 no matter runway's lenght .. its all calculated prior taking off.
After V1 airplane should rotate and go, expect a catastrofic failure example missing a wing or something.

Of course all pilots prefer a longer runway, in SDU I bet pilots do feel the pressure to rotate as soon as possible looking the whole time at the airspeed indications.

You're probably right in not making SDU as busy as CGH but I think if the airplane can operate in those runways safely, I don't see a problem.


User currently offlineSBGLexpat From Brazil, joined Oct 2007, 64 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 9 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1636 times:



Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 19):
Agree with you, except for the fact SDU will never be as safe as GIG. GIG runways are huge (GIG has the largest public runway in Brazil), have some space available before sea and ILS systems.

Lipe, longer runways are always preferable and generally safer. But safeguards are put in effect (porous asphalt, crosswind limits, expanded MEL, special flight crew training/qualification/experience, lower/higher limits on replacement items, e.g. tires to name a few) to increase the margins of safety in SDU. They can sometimes make operations as safe as a longer runway. Imagine for instance an inexperienced crew, with an MEL'd airplane, landing on a slippery surface with a strong crosswind on a rainy day... something you will never see happening in SDU. Safety is again very subjective.

I agree GIG runways provide a substantial margin for error, and that SDU should not receive flights other than shuttle service and those of turboprop regionals, which is the focus of the thread.

Best regards.


User currently offlineHardiwv From Brazil, joined Oct 2004, 8780 posts, RR: 49
Reply 22, posted (5 years 9 months 3 days ago) and read 1579 times:



Quoting Incitatus (Thread starter):
SDU is obviously convenient to a great number of travelers. But ANAC is in denial when it comes to impact on GIG



Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 1):
Which shows how the agency is doing a kind of a show....SDU should be restricted because of it's runway... ANAC should be the one to control this, but...

Lipe I fully agree with you, but on grounds to develop GIG and not because of security concerns. ANAC is certainly in denial because it wants to undermine GIG (so that plans to privatise the airport could fade away) and/or because it needs to show why it spent all that money in revamping SDU which now operates not even half of its capacity.

Quoting SBGLexpat (Reply 21):
Lipe, longer runways are always preferable and generally safer. But safeguards are put in effect (porous asphalt, crosswind limits, expanded MEL, special flight crew training/qualification/experience, lower/higher limits on replacement items, e.g. tires to name a few) to increase the margins of safety in SDU.

Agreed.

Rgs,


User currently offlineIncitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4014 posts, RR: 13
Reply 23, posted (5 years 9 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1525 times:



Quoting SBGLexpat (Reply 21):
They can sometimes make operations as safe as a longer runway.

I agree with you and would go as far as saying that in theory the short runway operation can be constrained in a way that is made even safer than on a longer runway. But it is hard to arrive at such conclusion empirically because the events to be counted are rare. The NTSB accident database shows that most accidents on short runways happen in adverse conditions that are deemed not sufficient to stop operation. These adverse conditions also contribute to pilot error. In most of these accidents the short runway was a factor, such as the TACA at Toncontin and the Southwest Airlines at Midway.



Stop pop up ads
User currently offlineLipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11438 posts, RR: 58
Reply 24, posted (5 years 9 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1485 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR



Quoting SBGLexpat (Reply 21):
Lipe, longer runways are always preferable and generally safer. But safeguards are put in effect (porous asphalt, crosswind limits, expanded MEL, special flight crew training/qualification/experience, lower/higher limits on replacement items, e.g. tires to name a few) to increase the margins of safety in SDU. They can sometimes make operations as safe as a longer runway. Imagine for instance an inexperienced crew, with an MEL'd airplane, landing on a slippery surface with a strong crosswind on a rainy day... something you will never see happening in SDU. Safety is again very subjective

Thanks for this explanation (probably you're a pilot) as i'm not so expert on technical info.

Quoting Hardiwv (Reply 22):
Lipe I fully agree with you, but on grounds to develop GIG and not because of security concerns. ANAC is certainly in denial because it wants to undermine GIG (so that plans to privatise the airport could fade away) and/or because it needs to show why it spent all that money in revamping SDU which now operates not even half of its capacity.

Hardi, ANAC is only looking to offer Azul a substantial advantage which also i disagree. Brazil is very famous because of this last-minute and many times change of law. I'm against any kind of advantage created by such measures. If they want to allow SDU to run only E190 (the plane that only Azul is operating right now) it should take the necessary time to allow other players to get the same capability.



New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
25 SBGLexpat : Good point, and that's why I always used "CAN BE" (as safe as, or safer) in my posts. But you're brilliant when it comes to other aspects of commerci
26 Incitatus : ANAC moved the public consultation to Rio on December 30. Why such hurry - to deliver Azul a Christmas present???
27 LipeGIG : Thanks for the kindly words... i'm learning here, day after day. Better to say 2009 gift.
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...
Ntos Woos Kingfisher To Set Up Hub In Madrid posted Wed Apr 23 2008 03:20:59 by Aviationbuff
IB PTY-MAD Traffic Up 33% In 2007 posted Fri Feb 8 2008 10:10:59 by Luisca
Fresno Passenger Counts Up 7.33% In November posted Thu Jan 10 2008 18:57:03 by FATFlyer
India Considers Opening More Int'l Routes posted Sat Aug 4 2007 02:28:50 by Laxintl
ANA Profit Up 22% In 2006 To $290 Million posted Sat Apr 28 2007 04:15:56 by Aaron747
Qatar Airways May Set Up Airline In Pakistan posted Mon Apr 9 2007 18:27:59 by 777way
Tiger Airways Sets Up Subsidiary In Australia posted Mon Mar 19 2007 17:15:55 by GneissGuy
Ethiopian To Set Up Hub In Togo? posted Wed Feb 7 2007 05:05:05 by AF022
Fresno Pax Counts Up 12.4% In Aug 2006 Vs Aug 2005 posted Sat Sep 23 2006 01:00:41 by FATFlyer
Lufthansa To Start-up Airline In India? posted Sun Jul 16 2006 12:15:20 by Johnny