Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Who Are Most Likely To Order The A388R  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2
Posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 8032 times:

When Airbus finally lunch the A389 and A388F, I believe they plan to lunch an ultra long range version of the A380 800 called the A388R. I do not know if there is a market for an ultra long range airliner that is the size of an A380, so I have to wonder, what airline is likely to order an A388R?
Maybe EK could use them for their DXB-LAX route.

56 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 915 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7979 times:



Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
When Airbus finally lunch the A389 and A388F, I believe they plan to lunch an ultra long range version of the A380 800 called the A388R

And a tasty aircraft it will be  Wink


User currently offlineGlareskin From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1295 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7635 times:



Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
what airline is likely to order an A388R?

Indeed EK but also BA and QF (in better shape) come to mind for the kangaroo route. Depends on the eventual range of course.



There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
User currently offlineDraigonair From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 708 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7594 times:

hmm a nice lunch indeed  Smile
Maybe SQ on flights SIN - LAX or SIN - JFK?

Nick



cheers
User currently offlineLHRlocal From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 261 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7573 times:

Yeah, immediatley BA and QF spring to mind if it could do non-stop LHR-SYD or MEL, what about Air New Zealand? direct to LHR?

User currently offlineAustrianZRH From Austria, joined Aug 2007, 1342 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7269 times:



Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 1):
And a tasty aircraft it will be

Don't you think it will be a bit heavy in the tummy?  Smile

Jokes aside, hasn't CX stated they were interested in an A380 with increased range?



WARNING! The post above should be taken with a grain of salt! Furthermore, it may be slightly biased towards A.
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9842 posts, RR: 96
Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7203 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
Maybe EK could use them for their DXB-LAX route.

If I recall correctly, EK have already said that they plan to use their "basic" A380-800's on DXB-LAX (7 250Nm) and DXB-SFO (7 040Nm)..

For what its worth, the "fuel limited" range of the current plane is about 8 800Nm (still-air) at about 80k lb payload, and its "ferry" range is around 9 700Nm (still-air).

EK's, EA's and Airbus's programme of weight reduction and SFC improvements should improve these figures, giving a "fuel limited" range of around 9 000 Nm (still-air) at around 90k lb, and a "ferry" range around 10 000 Nm

As such, I would think that if EK needed more payload on DXB-LAX, then a simple MTOW hike to the current plane would suffice - I don't think this route would justify the additional centre fuel tank of an A380-800R

Rgds


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12444 posts, RR: 100
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7076 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 6):

If I recall correctly, EK have already said that they plan to use their "basic" A380-800's on DXB-LAX (7 250Nm) and DXB-SFO (7 040Nm)..

 checkmark 

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 6):

EK's, EA's and Airbus's programme of weight reduction and SFC improvements should improve these figures, giving a "fuel limited" range of around 9 000 Nm (still-air) at around 90k lb, and a "ferry" range around 10 000 Nm

I think they'll wait for this '2012' version before trying ULH with the A380. Ghad... 9000nm with 90k lbm. What is your current prediction for payload at 8300nm, EK's quoted DXB-LAX required 'still air' range.  spin 

Quoting AustrianZRH (Reply 5):
Jokes aside, hasn't CX stated they were interested in an A380 with increased range?

I've heard nothing about CX wanting A380's. They seem frequency focused. I see QF looking into it for SYD to LHR/JFK. I could also see SQ buying up to 5. But I'm far less enthusiastic about the A388R and I am about the simple range improvements of the A380 and the A389.  hyper 

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 6):
I don't think this route would justify the additional centre fuel tank of an A380-800R

And that is the issue. Too few routes need that extra tank.

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineAustrianZRH From Austria, joined Aug 2007, 1342 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7022 times:



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 7):
Quoting AustrianZRH (Reply 5):
Jokes aside, hasn't CX stated they were interested in an A380 with increased range?

I've heard nothing about CX wanting A380's. They seem frequency focused. I see QF looking into it for SYD to LHR/JFK. I could also see SQ buying up to 5. But I'm far less enthusiastic about the A388R and I am about the simple range improvements of the A380 and the A389.

Maybe I was confusing something then, you have usually the better knowledge  Smile. I just remember there was an airline saying the A380 needs either more range or more pax (i.e., the -900) to be considered with them.

But I do agree that the 388 range will probably increase with time and the A380-900 will be a gorgeous sight, and will also look better than her smaller sister  Smile.



WARNING! The post above should be taken with a grain of salt! Furthermore, it may be slightly biased towards A.
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6970 times:

I agree with Astuteman that improvements in SFC and aerodynamics seem to have obviated the need for a centre tank. If there will ever be a WhaleJet derivative, the mooted A380-900 seems like it has the best chance.

Quoting AustrianZRH (Reply 8):
the A380-900 will be a gorgeous sight, and will also look better than her smaller sister

If built, yes, the proportions should be more visually appealing.


User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2453 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6914 times:



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 7):
I've heard nothing about CX wanting A380's. They seem frequency focused.

By 2013 those B744s will be falling apart and needs to be replaced with something. Those B77Ws carry about 25% fewer passengers per plane so they'll definitely need something larger. I can't see them adding many more frequencies to the existing long hauls trunk routes. 4x daily to LHR, 3x daily to YVR and LAX before the cut, double daily to SFO, 4x daily to SYD, 3x to MEL. Given the time windows of operations it's difficult to add more flights at reasonable times. So you have to go bigger.

Now there's the B748I and the A388 that fit their bill. They do have 10 B748Fs on order but B748Is are not selling so I don't see them ordering an orphan fleet. So the only thing left is the A388. Fine for the European routes as it is but can't get back from LAX so they need the R.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 7):
I see QF looking into it for SYD to LHR/JFK.

I think the world has tried the ULR idea and proved that most ULR routes don't make any economic sense. If you buy an A388 you are mainly paying for its capacity, not the range. It takes fuel to carry fuel and just consider the number of relief crew required on such a big plane.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 7):
I could also see SQ buying up to 5.

For what? They have completely failed on the existing LR routes and they haven't got any marginal routes that the A388 can't make.



A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9842 posts, RR: 96
Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6870 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 7):
What is your current prediction for payload at 8300nm, EK's quoted DXB-LAX required 'still air' range.

For a plane with a 5 tonne lower OEW and 2% better SFC than at EIS? (which I understand to be EK's assumptions)...

Around 120k lb (give or take a few k).
Which I guess equates to a full load of 489 passengers and about 10 tonnes of cargo.

A fair way from a full payload, but you'd have to question how much more cargo an A380-800 with 489 pax on board could carry.

Rgds


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12444 posts, RR: 100
Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6855 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 10):
I think the world has tried the ULR idea and proved that most ULR routes don't make any economic sense.

Most do not make economic sense at today's CASM. Since there are alternatives, it seems difficult if not impossible to boost the CASM. The issue with the A388R is the reduced RASM to fill the seats.

Part of the reason I am not excited about the A388R is that, in my opinion, the ULH routes we've seen have a difficult to impossible job of selling Y seats at a profit. Most ULH customers who are willing to pay the premium for a non-stop will still pay the premium for J or F.

Once EK's major ULH routes are accommodated with the base A388 improvements, I think serious discussion of the A388R will end.

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 10):
By 2013 those B744s will be falling apart and needs to be replaced with something.

Agreed. The choice will be frequency or gauge. To date, CX has been more frequency oriented. 2X 789's can do the job of the A388.

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 10):
They have completely failed on the existing LR routes and they haven't got any marginal routes that the A388 can't make.

Completely failed? I'm not sure about that. But for SQ, the A388 on a few select routes would drive down the CASM enough to justify it. As you quoted me, I think at most they'll buy 5 A388R airframes. Perhaps the standard A388 will do well enough for SIN-LAX.

But since the center tank will be developed for the A388F (assuming it happens), it will be an easy option to offer the A388R.


Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9842 posts, RR: 96
Reply 13, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 6672 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 7):
But I'm far less enthusiastic about the A388R and I am about the simple range improvements of the A380 and the A389.

If I'm right, and the assumed improvements bring the A388's ranges up to:-

c. 6 900Nm - 7 000Nm at 186 000lb (max payload)
c. 8 500Nm - 8 600Nm at 105 000lb (nominal 525 pax)
c. 9 000Nm at 90 000lb (fuel limit)
c 10 000Nm ferry range..

then I would expect a 6m stretch A380-900 (79.4m) at the same MTOW, and with the same powerplant to sport ranges of the order of 1 000 Nm less, such as:- .

c. 5 800Nm at 220 000lb (max payload)
c. 7 500Nm - 7 600Nm at 120 000lb (nominal 600 pax)
c. 8 800Nm at 60 000lb (fuel limit)
c. 9 700Nm ferry range

i.e. better than the 744..
(and with a much better fuel limit range....
- the 744, if I read it's range/payload chart, is fuel volume limited above its nominal pax payload, at a range of around 7 000Nm - 7 100Nm )

If (and I say "if") this/these airframe(s) ever get to sport Trent XWB type powerplants, or god forbid, post Trent-XWB powerplants (like a GTF), surely it will bring into question why Airbus ever engineered so much MTOW growth into the airframe in the first place.

Rgds


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 6634 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 13):
why Airbus ever engineered so much MTOW growth into the airframe in the first place.

Corporate culture. It appears that Boeing may have made the opposite mistake engineering too little MTOW growth potential into the 787's wings.


User currently offlineTayser From Australia, joined Mar 2008, 1123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 6634 times:

just in relation to some earlier posts on possible city pairs:

MEL-LHR 9127nm
SYD-LHR 9188nm
AKL-LHR 9910nm
AKL-JFK 7671nm
SYD-JFK 8646nm
MEL-JFK 9015nm

Auckland-Heathrow would be something else!


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6529 times:



Quoting Tayser (Reply 15):
Auckland-Heathrow would be something else!

AKL-LHR may someday see nonstop service operated by an A350. The interesting thing about the route is that it would be operated eastbound in both directions due to prevailing winds.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5326 posts, RR: 30
Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6515 times:

Has Airbus announced a -800R or a -900? Considering that they are cutting back production rates on all of their planes, it doesn't make much sense, to me, for them to create new models at this time.

I don't think there are very many customers who would only buy a -900 model of the 380. Are the few extra sales worth the billions Airbus would have to invest in the stretch?

Perhaps if it was a cheap enough mod, the 800R might happen but there also don't seem to be a lot of routes that the standard -800 can't handle already...even without the inevitable range/weight improvements.

Unless they were going to achieve a host of new sales, based solely on the -900 or -800R, I can't imagine Airbus going through the effort.



What the...?
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29709 posts, RR: 84
Reply 18, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6455 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 17):
Has Airbus announced a -800R or a -900? Considering that they are cutting back production rates on all of their planes, it doesn't make much sense, to me, for them to create new models at this time.

No. Both models were part of various PR packets and briefings, just as the A350X-900R and A350X-900F were part of the A350XWB's PR packets and briefings, even though Airbus is currently only involved in design work and sales campaigns for the A350X-800, A350X-900 and A350X-1000.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4594 posts, RR: 38
Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6381 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 13):
If (and I say "if") this/these airframe(s) ever get to sport Trent XWB type power plants, or god forbid, post Trent-XWB power plants (like a GTF), surely it will bring into question why Airbus ever engineered so much MTOW growth into the airframe in the first place.

Your numbers make for a very good analysis of the possible A380 developments. Although the crisis hits the airliner world maybe stronger than other areas, I for one hope to see that Trent-XWB engined A380, no matter which version of it. Also the post Trent-XWB A380 is one I would like to see. Well, maybe in 10-15 years?


User currently offlineAerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2634 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6324 times:



Quoting LHRlocal (Reply 4):
what about Air New Zealand? direct to LHR?

While I hesitate to ever give a definitive opinion of an airline's future fleet, I'm fairly certain that the A380, in any form, is off the books at Air NZ for a long time/forever. Even the 748I looks unlikely. The days of VLAs at NZ seem to be numbered, with 7 77Ws replacing 8 744s. Primarily because the LHR route has been fragmented between the HKG and the LAX routings. The Japan market has collapsed and the North American market split to more point2point services, with SFO and Vancouver now being offered, where once it was just LAX.


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12444 posts, RR: 100
Reply 21, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6310 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 11):

A fair way from a full payload, but you'd have to question how much more cargo an A380-800 with 489 pax on board could carry.

I guess that would depend on the baggage fees.  Wink  duck 

Ok, I'm in a punchy mood today... But I get your point. Your numbers suggest a 8500nm with the A388 w/525 pax. This opens up all but a tiny number of routes that would justify an A388. The only exceptions I come up with are already listed by Tayser in post 15. This leaves QF as the sole A388R customer I consider likely.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 13):
then I would expect a 6m stretch A380-900 (79.4m) at the same MTOW, and with the same powerplant to sport ranges of the order of 1 000 Nm less, such as:- .

That would be a very attractive airframe. But as you point out, the Basic Airframe is set up for quite a bit of MTOW qrowth. I would prefer to see Udvar-Hazy's 85m or even an 87m or 89m stretch. The question is, what is the limit to get 7250nm+ with full pax (3 class)? The answer will depend on the engine assumption.  spin 

Quoting Aerokiwi (Reply 20):
The days of VLAs at NZ seem to be numbered

 checkmark  Not every 744 operator should buy a new VLA. NZ is a great candidate of an airline that should fragment (hence the large 789 purchase).  spin  But for airlines with well located hubs... it makes sense for the trunk routes.

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8216 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 6144 times:



Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 17):
I don't think there are very many customers who would only buy a -900 model of the 380. Are the few extra sales worth the billions Airbus would have to invest in the stretch?

Who knows, the 744 sold what, nearly 1,000 copies? Who is to say an A389 would not sell several hundred? The world's major air routes will only grow as the developed world goes from 1 billion to 2 billion or more people, over time. We're talking about the next 30 years here. I see a definite role for the A389, as an economy class battleship. It could reprice (and own) a lot of markets.


User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2453 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days ago) and read 6022 times:



Quoting Tayser (Reply 15):
just in relation to some earlier posts on possible city pairs:

MEL-LHR 9127nm
SYD-LHR 9188nm
AKL-LHR 9910nm
AKL-JFK 7671nm
SYD-JFK 8646nm
MEL-JFK 9015nm

Auckland-Heathrow would be something else!

These are only still air great circle distances.

Add some slightly less than direct routings, 20kt average headwinds all the way you get some very different numbers. I have experienced 100kt+ headwinds and that meant the effective ground speed dropped by 20%. That's the kind of buffer you need.



A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21422 posts, RR: 60
Reply 24, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days ago) and read 6004 times:



Quoting Glareskin (Reply 2):
BA and QF

I doubt both, only one, and likely QF. BA really don't need the range other than to SYD, but QF could use it to many places. For a nonstop SYD-LHR, they would codeshare much as they do now.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
25 Astuteman : They "announced" them as part of the overall programme at launch in 2000. Since then, the only comment I recall was early last year, when Leahy said
26 NCB : Whale eater, behave or I call my friends working for Greenpeace! Though I usually agree with most of your posts, I have a slightly different view on
27 Astuteman : I certainly won't split hairs over the odd percent For what its worth, I assume the following, based on manufacturers comments, .. GE stated at the l
28 DocLightning : It depends. The -R variant may cost so little to develop that it will be worth the ~30 frame market. It's not like it's a major modification. Boeing
29 Stitch : I do agree with you, though the 747-400ER did leverage the 747-400ERF which helped. And while the A380-800F was not by default going to come with a c
30 DfwRevolution : Let's not forget that the A380 is essentially the first Airbus ever where the aircraft was built with such growth in mind. That sort of design philos
31 Zvezda : 30 orders seems very optimistic for an A380-800R. Worse, most A380-800R sales would be cannibalizing other WhaleJet sales.
32 EPA001 : Depending on how well the world economy recovers from the current, very serious crisis, the year 2012 or 2013 seems realistic to me. That leaves also
33 Stitch : An A380-800R may be able to perform a mission an A380-800 can't, so in such cases it might very well win a sale. And if an airline buys an A380-800R
34 Flighty : Yup I agree with your take on this. The whole 787 program had a whiff of "Airbus" about it, by doing technological "paradigm shifts" against the trad
35 Stitch : Well there was said to be some friction between the 787 and 777 programs so that might have played a role in limiting some of the 787's capabilities s
36 Zvezda : How about some plausible missions that an A380-800R could perform that a 2015-era A380-800 could not? Remember, market experience shows that the only
37 NCB : It depends, really. There are enough people willing to pay for ULH tickets, without the premium. The A380 is the most fuel efficient, cost-efficient
38 Zvezda : NCB, the routes you listed are not 15 hours. They are about 20 hours. For flights like those you list, nonstop WhaleJet service would be much more exp
39 Astuteman : Why 20% out of interest? I can understand it will use 15% more fuel. I wouldn't have thought that crew costs would anything like double, as you sugge
40 EBJ1248650 : Cathay Pacific adding an order for the 748i, in addition to Lufthansa's existing order, just "might" be the springboard that would prompt other airli
41 Baroque : Keeping on your unfortunate analogy, that would make it a Killer Whale or Orca, which I thought was against your basic analysis Zvezda. As NCB points
42 Astuteman : Reply 13 calcs were based on today's engines, but improved by 2% (specifically the GP7000 I guess, as EA have announced a programme to deliver said 2
43 Zvezda : That was what SQ found in practice with their ULH operations. A 10 hour flight needs 3 pilots. A 20 hour flight needs at least 5 and probably 6 pilot
44 Astuteman : Did they? I've not seen that published. That said, Europe/Australia trips usually include one sector in the 13-14 hour region They might, or might no
45 Stitch : At times I start to think of the A380-800R as a 777-200LR, offering a huge MTOW/MZFW boost over the base model allowing it to increase fuel load at hi
46 NCB : You would think so. Alright, it burns more fuel because it has to carry more fuel and cruise at a lower altitude, burn more fuel to climb to altitude
47 Stitch : The truth of the matter is you need a lot less fuel for each stage of a one-stop then a non-stop. So the total fuel load for a one-stop is often less
48 Jacobin777 : I have to respectfully disagree on that point. If Boeing made the plane larger than the B789 as their optimized plane then their B788 would have been
49 Astuteman : And in truth those are probably the most valid constraints affecting true ULR flights.... Rgds
50 JoeCanuck : ...from an operator standpoint. The ability of the average human to iron butt an ULH flight in goat class is another.
51 NCB : I agree with you there that it is generally true. Now imagine yourself being Qantas. You can fly Australia West coast but that's where it ends. With
52 Stitch : But that assumes you always have 400+ people and tons of cargo at JFK wanting to fly to SYD and always have 400+ people tons of cargo at SFO wanting t
53 Zvezda : If Boeing produce a new larger wing for the 787, then I can imagine QF buying 10 787-9ERs and fitting them with an all-business class for first/busine
54 Ikramerica : And if the 748i outperforms the spec, as Boeing seems to be indicating at this point (despite being a bit over weight, there are statements that the
55 FlyingClrs727 : But if QANTAS starts flying to DFW, they could offfer service to LGA on a 787. The A380R would have plenty of range to reach DFW with a good payload,
56 Zvezda : Increased operating costs. Normally one has to add to the MEW in order to increase the MTOW. Adding a centre fuel tank would certainly add to the MEW
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...
Is Continental Likely To Order The B777-300ER? posted Sat Nov 15 2003 19:07:30 by American 767
Who's The Next To Order The 777LRF? posted Fri Jun 24 2005 16:07:55 by USAF336TFS
Who Will Be The 1st US Airline To Order The 7e7 posted Mon Jul 12 2004 20:31:31 by Njdevilsin03
Who Is Likely To Buy The Avro Rjx? posted Wed Jan 3 2001 10:42:55 by Alan BC
US Most Likely To Implement $15 First Bag. posted Thu Jun 12 2008 07:23:16 by AA767400
SQ Looks To Order The A350X - Wither The 787-10? posted Wed Dec 20 2006 15:26:45 by Stitch
Who Are Easyjet Trying To Kid posted Tue Oct 4 2005 21:45:14 by Baexecutive
AC Likely To Order 777/787 Again posted Sat Jun 25 2005 12:17:18 by Mauriceb
Northwest Likely To Order 777 Now? posted Fri May 6 2005 22:02:26 by RJpieces
Oman Air To Order The 787 posted Tue Apr 19 2005 01:44:27 by Horus