Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus To Build New Higher Weight A380 Variant  
User currently offlineaviationbuff From India, joined Mar 2008, 1425 posts, RR: 3
Posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 27913 times:

Airbus poised to start building new higher weight A380 variant

As reported by Flight ......

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ilding-new-higher-weight-a380.html

Quote:
Airbus is about to begin production of an upgraded A380-800 with increased operating weights that will offer more range and payload capability when it enters service with launch customer British Airways in 2013.


82 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3592 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 27798 times:

From my understanding, all the new units built from BA deliveries on will have the modifications regardless of customer, but those who don't order the option for the higher weights will be derated on paper, and perhaps on FBW software.

User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 2, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 27638 times:

Thanks, DLPMMM, most interesting.

Don't know about you, but I simply cannot understand this bit:-

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 1):
those who don't order the option for the higher weights will be derated on paper, and perhaps on FBW software.

Sounds as if Airbus are telling their customers either to accept, and pay more for, the bigger versions, or take a financial penalty if they stick to their original orders?

Seems to be a 'funny way to run a railway'?

One suspects, straight away, that (apart from the increasing dominance of the 777 on longhaul routes) the 748 is turning out to be uncomfortably close to the A380 in terms of passenger/miles?



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineFlying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4161 posts, RR: 36
Reply 3, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 27513 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 2):
Sounds as if Airbus are telling their customers either to accept, and pay more for, the bigger versions, or take a financial penalty if they stick to their original orders?

How do you get to the conclusion that customers have to pay more for this modification? There is absolutely no hint in the Flight article in regards to this matter.

Any idea if the "range bonus" can be translated into a payload bonus, i.e."just" 15,170 km range but a 1,x tons higher payload?



Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
User currently offlineAustrianZRH From Austria, joined Aug 2007, 1386 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 27377 times:

What would be interesting to me is how they did it. Flightglobal says

Quote:

To achieve the operating weight increases the airframe structure has been strengthened
...
According to Williams the increases are made possible through reductions in flight loads, which are partly achieved by the optimisation of the fly-by-wire control laws.

So the first sentence quoted tells me that the structure has been changed. The question now is how much MEW was added. Is that just MTOW - MZFW? Don't believe it's that easy.

In the second sentence I would read that it's just a load reduction without any MEW add-on...

Could someone more knowledgeable than me shed some light please? Thanks!



WARNING! The post above should be taken with a grain of salt! Furthermore, it may be slightly biased towards A.
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 27327 times:

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 3):
How do you get to the conclusion that customers have to pay more for this modification?

Depends on how you interpret this information from DLPMMM, Flying-Tiger.

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 1):
but those who don't order the option for the higher weights will be derated on paper, and perhaps on FBW software.

Sounds to me as if Airbus are planning a bigger version and twisting the customers' arms to buy the thing.......

But, of course, as always, either or both of us could be wrong. The A380 is the aviation equivalent of a Shakespeare tragedy - none of us will know the final outcome until the very last scene of the final act....

[Edited 2010-05-18 06:57:36]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineTravelAVNut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1619 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 27274 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 2):

Sounds as if Airbus are telling their customers either to accept, and pay more for, the bigger versions, or take a financial penalty if they stick to their original orders?

Ow no, please...How do you turn a positive news item about the A380 into an Airbus-bashing comment?!

Sounds to me like Airbus will put the modification in all airframes (as that is cheaper to do than only in select frames), when a customer selects the lower weight version it will be derated not only in performance but also price. But that´s my opinion, so please correct me if i´m wrong (but than with facts instead of biased opinions).

From the article:
"To achieve the operating weight increases the airframe structure has been strengthened, which will become standard on aircraft delivered from 2013, although the higher operating weights will be offered as an option. According to Williams the increases are made possible through reductions in flight loads, which are partly achieved by the optimisation of the fly-by-wire control laws."

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 2):
One suspects, straight away, that (apart from the increasing dominance of the 777 on longhaul routes) the 748 is turning out to be uncomfortably close to the A380 in terms of passenger/miles?

And how do you get to that "conclusion"?



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3592 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 27170 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5):
Sounds to me as if Airbus are planning a bigger version and twisting the customers' arms to buy the thing.......

The more I read the quotes, the more it sounds like predominantly a FBW software modification.

Airbus could make the higher load capability a performance enhancement option with new software and charge for it, seeing how the plane is already exceeding the contractual minimums on performance.

This could help the program achieve profitability, as EADS already disclosed that they are losing money on each plane now, and will continue to lose money on each A380 for the next few years.


User currently offlineTravelAVNut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1619 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 26961 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 7):
The more I read the quotes, the more it sounds like predominantly a FBW software modification.

Indeed, and a small structural improvent.




Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 7):
This could help the program achieve profitability, as EADS already disclosed that they are losing money on each plane now, and will continue to lose money on each A380 for the next few years.

I´ve read that a few times here on A.net, also I heard a few counter claims. Do you have a solid source for this? Google is not helping me because it only directs me to A vs. B threads on airliners.net 



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31062 posts, RR: 87
Reply 9, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 26553 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The A380-800 successfully lifted off during her test program at a TOW of 596.5 tons and then landed with a weight of 590t, so the structure is good enough to do that at least once.  

The A380 RTO was 575t with 16 main-wheel braking units, so I would expect this is what drove the decision to put the increase at 573t in the "WV003" model.

It makes perfect sense that all A380s after the initial block-point would be built to the 573t spec just because it makes things easier from a manufacturing and supplier standpoint. So by default, an airline is going to receive an A380 capable of a 573t take-off, but if they don't need or desire that, they can have the airframe paper de-rated to save on acquisition, navigation and airport fees. This has been SOP like forever on every other commercial family, so "what's all the hubub, bub?".  


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3592 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 26455 times:

From WSJ on May 14:


"Airbus is struggling to overcome issues that are hampering the industrial ramp-up of the A380, and have caused costly delivery delays and been a financial drain on the company in recent years.

Speaking to analysts in a conference call, Chief Executive Officer Hans Peter Ring said that provided these issues are eventually resolved and the program gets back on track, "certainly there is some hope that by the end of the planning horizon we will be approaching break even."

He explained that Airbus's normal planning horizon is over five years."

There is no doubt that he means break even on an annual production basis.

If Airbus can make a better product for all it's A380 customers, increase revenue voluntarily from some of the customers and thereby reach profitability for the A380 line sooner, then it sounds like a good idea to me,

[Edited 2010-05-18 08:07:19]

User currently offlinefcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 812 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 26253 times:

Quote of the week from Flight International this week...

'They're making money with it, Tom, unfortunately we aren't'

Airbus chief salesman John Leahy on the returns being made by A380 customers in a superjumbo-sized dig at his boss, Tom Enders, during last weeks media briefing in Broughton.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6692 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 26087 times:

Quoting AustrianZRH (Reply 4):
So the first sentence quoted tells me that the structure has been changed. The question now is how much MEW was added. Is that just MTOW - MZFW? Don't believe it's that easy.

That's what I would like to know, too. But it's possible that the structure change is without penalty, for example you add a tougher bit, in a lighter material.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinebabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 26085 times:

I don't care if they are making money on each A380 frame.

It has set a new standard in long haul travel and raised the bar on passenger comfort. Carrying more people using less fuel is great for the environment too. All long haul airlines should have a few.

Flying on two engines on long haul really doesn't do it for me. It strips the excitement out. I can take a two engine flight to Scotland.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31062 posts, RR: 87
Reply 14, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 26066 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aesma (Reply 19):
That's what I would like to know, too. But it's possible that the structure change is without penalty, for example you add a tougher bit, in a lighter material.

Airbus has been working hard to remove unnecessary weight, so it's possible if they're pulling 2-3 tons out, they could add 2-3 tons of strengthening back in and the net effect on MEW would be "zero".


User currently offlinescouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3395 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 26059 times:

What's not entirely clear is whether this variant includes the reductions in weight that have been talked about on here or if that is for a version C that will come along in another couple of years?

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31062 posts, RR: 87
Reply 16, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 25735 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Apologies for returning to the original thread topic, and not the new one, but ahe article mentioned you could fly 100nm farther at MTOW if you put the four extra tons into fuel, or you could load another 1.5t of payload at MZFW, but I would imagine that would also allow you to add 2.5t of fuel, as well, correct?

User currently offlinetom355uk From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 336 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 25723 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 2):
One suspects, straight away, that (apart from the increasing dominance of the 777 on longhaul routes) the 748 is turning out to be uncomfortably close to the A380 in terms of passenger/miles?

I don't think so. Let's face it, if the 748 was 'uncomfortably close' to the A380 in terms of passenger miles, then surely it would have far more orders from pax airlines than the 25 it has accrued. Secondly, I think you will find the A330 family has a pretty good share of the longhaul market with the 777.

By the way , i'm not A or B leaning, I just wish that this childish bickering would stop!

Boeing = Great airplane manufacturer.
Airbus = Great airplane manufacturer.

Now, can't we all just go to the pub for a beer???  



on Twitter @tombeckett2285
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3592 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 25614 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 35):
Apologies for returning to the original thread topic, and not the new one, but ahe article mentioned you could fly 100nm farther at MTOW if you put the four extra tons into fuel, or you could load another 1.5t of payload at MZFW, but I would imagine that would also allow you to add 2.5t of fuel, as well, correct?

I would imagine that the A380 would be normally fuel volume limited , not fuel weight limited.


User currently offlinePygmalion From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 966 posts, RR: 38
Reply 19, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 25611 times:

Not neccesarily... could be fuel volume limited... i.e. no room to add 2.5T more.

User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5531 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 25575 times:

Good for Airbus. As much of a disaster as the business side of the A380 program has been to date, they have produced a fantastic airplane that is much more mature than any other brand-new type I can think of.

My question is why BA in particular would care about increased MTOW? They do not even have any routes that would stretch the legs of a 569 t A388. Maybe they just happen to have the delivery slots corresponding to the block change.


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 25509 times:

It'll definitely be weight limited at MZFW. So yeah you should be able to add the 2.5t of fuel.

[Edited 2010-05-18 09:45:28]

User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21534 posts, RR: 59
Reply 22, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 25474 times:

When I read the thread title, I was excited that Airbus was launching the A380R. I was disappointed to discover this was news about a less than 1% MTOW increase? In 3 years time? Why is this news exactly? Airframes get marginal MTOW increases all the time...


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12593 posts, RR: 25
Reply 23, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 25431 times:

Quoting TravelAVNut (Reply 6):
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 2):
One suspects, straight away, that (apart from the increasing dominance of the 777 on longhaul routes) the 748 is turning out to be uncomfortably close to the A380 in terms of passenger/miles?

And how do you get to that "conclusion"?

Because the article says:

Quote:

Airbus executives previously disclosed that the weight and performance gain came from a requirement for a couple of customers during sales campaigns against the Boeing 747-8I.


So, besides winning orders from LH and KE, 747-8i is making Airbus commit more money and more human resources to the A380 program.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31062 posts, RR: 87
Reply 24, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 25383 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 39):
My question is why BA in particular would care about increased MTOW? They do not even have any routes that would stretch the legs of a 569 t A388. Maybe they just happen to have the delivery slots corresponding to the block change.

Especially in the low-density configurations they currently use on their existing fleet, which I think would result in a lower OEW.

Then again, perhaps BA is planning to run a much higher-density configuration, perhaps north of 500 seats like AF and LH are, so that extra MZFW and MTOW might come in handy for them...


25 Stitch : But if it is winning them sales campaigns (BA, and now perhaps NH), it's worth the effort, isn't it?
26 Revelation : Yes, it's definitely worth it. Winning BA was a huge plus for Airbus and a huge minus for Boeing. Regardless, it's still kind of interesting at least
27 zeke : This is pretty standard how Airbus does things, new improved aircraft are certified as a new WV (Weight Variant). All aircraft then produced will hav
28 Stitch : If that is what it takes, that is what it takes, I guess. Boeing launched the 767-400ERX not soon after the 767-400ER to try and keep up with the A33
29 frmrCapCadet : The wing twist seems obviously a normal tweaking change. So what part of the wing will 'twist', how do they make it twist, and why is it a benefit?
30 Eagleboy : A poetic comment there my friends..........
31 RJ111 : I think you're reading a little too much into this. A 4t MTOW increase 5 years after EIS could almost be farted out.
32 Post contains images zvezda : It depends a lot on when they are sold, when they are delivered, and the sales price. That said, 600 for break-even is plausible. We all know that th
33 WingedMigrator : Y'all probably mean B's, not M's. M's are in the noise.
34 Stitch : I believe RLI interest is based on EU Central Bank Rates, but I am not sure if it is fixed or variable nor if it is calculated on simple or compound b
35 zvezda : Yes, of course, billions. There is no way that Airbus could end up owing anything like 17 billion euro on the WhaleJet programme at the end of the pe
36 Stitch : Well they did make improvements during the wiring delays and the airframe was designed from the outset to support MTOWs of at least 590t for the A380
37 airproxx : 2t won on the MLW...?? What did they do? They removed a pair of wheels??
38 Post contains images Stitch : One does not remove wheels to support higher weights on the undercarriage. As I noted, an A380-800 successfully touched down at a 590t landing weight
39 Revelation : The article claimed the changes included strengthening the airframe, re-optimizing the FBW software, and a 1.5° increase in wing twist. Based on thi
40 XT6Wagon : reading between the lines, I am thinking that they spent alot of time looking at the numbers and talking to customers. Then they found instead of try
41 RJ111 : I'm literally staggered as to how much you have managed to read into this comment... Airbus executives previously disclosed that the weight and perfo
42 UALWN : Yet another A-net myth that refuses to die a quiet death... So you have been arguing that the 747-8i forced Airbus into making these "huge" changes t
43 Revelation : Seems you need more balance then, IMHO. But the article says the launch customer for the changes are BA. And of course BA was a key campaign for both
44 AirNZ : Can you perhaps explain (with a factual basis and not pure bias opinion) how one 'suspects' anything of the sort? In other words, how one chooses to
45 cosmofly : What remains true is that the 748i gave A380 pressure to improve and now A380, with its real life numbers, is giving 748i tremendous pressure. Now it
46 A342 : It was the originally proposed short-body version of the 748i which pressured the A380 in terms of range (notably, EK was very vocal about this). But
47 RJ111 : Context is one thing but you seem to be wildly speculating and drawing extravagant conclusions based on at best, tentative evidence. The upgrades wer
48 Post contains images airproxx : You got me wrong, I meant they removed wheels to cut some weight... after all, 22 wheels, who will see if the planes misses 2 or not?? Ok it was a ba
49 Centre : And this must be your source of information
50 zeke : [quote=airproxx,reply=60]2t won on the MLW...?? What did they do? They removed a pair of wheels??[/quote It has been well known for a long time that f
51 trent1000 : According to another aviation website with info about the A380 explaining the use of the three full length decks: "Although the lower deck will be res
52 flipdewaf : I have heard but it was only through a conversation sonicannot give a link, that even though the A380 has been a huge investment that because of the w
53 parapente : The A380 is a 40+ year project.No one can possibly know the whole future.What we are seeing is a good aircraft getting better.This will continue over
54 francoflier : That sounds like a really good deal for airlines who purchased the 'original' A380 and will be getting the 'downgraded upgraded' frames. They get an o
55 Post contains images PM : To be fair, many Boeing aficionados [please note the spelling] deny that the 747-8i is intended to compete with the A380. Hell, take off all four and
56 scouseflyer : The only use I can think of for the "third deck" on an A380 is it is rumoured that the VVIP frame (MSN002) will be equipped with some living space on
57 PW100 : I believe the general concencus was that the break even number at program launch was around 250 frames?
58 sebolino : ?? Can you clarify ? Where do you get your numbers from ? AFAIK, Airbus received 3.3 billions Euros, not E17M whatever it means.
59 PM : One has to put the servants somewhere!
60 Post contains images Part147 : Nicely summarised... you forgot one other element though... 6. Posters with a severe case of Confirmation Bias will happily quote one another as a so
61 Burkhard : If I remember well I read about this MTOW increase on a.net about once a week since three or four years, so it is a very surprising one for all of us
62 Kappel : That is indeed correct. The 400 number is nowhere near the original target. That was only mentioned after the delays. Indeed. They are pitted against
63 spantax : This means that in some years time A380-1000 will become the biggest (MTOW, or even in size excluding airships) aircraft ever !!! , or even before if
64 zvezda : Hans Peter Ring doesn't say that there could be break-even in five years. He didn't even say that there could be HOPE of break-even in five years. Al
65 RJ111 : The article clearly states breaking even on the A380 program in the first line. I'm not sure why this is still being debated - It's beyond clear in t
66 Post contains images zeke : Is anyone interested in discussing "Airbus To Build New Higher Weight A380 Variant" ? If they go ahead with this, this will be the 4th WV, the current
67 DLPMMM : He clearly meant the program on an annual basis WRT the impact on financials. Any other interpretation is outlandish. While this will be a new "varia
68 Burkhard : Airbus has all its planning done for an Euro between 1.45$ and 1.5$. At this $ level, we have seen numbers of a break even point at 600 or 800 aircraf
69 UALWN : How can you use the word "tortured", the non-word "ludacris", and then the words "intelligent and dispassionate discussions" in the same paragraph an
70 RJ111 : I am truely lost for words. The first line of the article reads... Airbus could be close to breaking even on its troubled A380 superjumbo program fiv
71 Post contains images Cerecl : Then you clearly did not read my post at 77 and the infomative post 80 by Astuteman. This "tortured interpretation" happens to be shared by a profess
72 Burkhard : Were they done for an exchange rate of 1.45 or 1.22 - this makes a differnece of MANY billions?
73 Stitch : Any idea what the Maximum Ramp Weight will be for "WV004"? I'm guessing 575t? As am I. Unless they go for a high-density configuration (≥500 seats),
74 Baroque : The break even number (if it really exists!!!) must have been dropping by the minute today as the Euro did a swan dive. Tomorrow, who knows!!
75 Burkhard : Look my calculations above: If it was 600-800 at 1.50 it is 200 at 1.22. Airbus will have giant profits this quarter.
76 Post contains images astuteman : For my part, I would beg to differ on both counts. I still maintain that, had the A380 programme not experienced delays and cost overruns, the busine
77 NAV20 : According to the Gellman Report, sebolino, in the case of the A380, all support must be repaid by means of royalties, otherwise it accumulates at com
78 mffoda : Not exactly guys.... You would have to look at every year those costs were booked. You cannot base the overall program costs based on todays lower ex
79 Post contains images frigatebird : Agreed, just as the A330 and 777 have steadily improved during their lifespan. And wasn't the latest IGW variant of the A330 an improvement of a far
80 Baroque : I think we noticed that and speaking for myself in my better moments I do remember previous years. So yes what was done in year X is at cost Y and no
81 WarpSpeed : Currency hedges at higher rates negatively impacted Airbus earnings last quarter, so the full impact of a consistently lower Euro won't be felt until
82 astuteman : Agree. Which is what they did about 7 or 8 years ago, with great effect... Rgds
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...
Airbus To Announce New A380 Customer In Paris posted Mon Jun 13 2005 15:04:06 by Keesje
Boeing To Build New Super Jet To Challenge A380 posted Sun Apr 10 2005 04:47:47 by Btblue
Feds Clear PFN To Build New $330 Million Airport posted Wed Aug 22 2007 20:51:25 by KarlB737
Airbus To Build A320 Completely In Hamburg posted Mon Jan 15 2007 15:53:45 by LHStarAlliance
SIA Says Airbus To Build The 787-9 For Them posted Wed Nov 8 2006 03:10:54 by Jimyvr
AFX: Airbus To Build Additional Model Of A350 posted Mon Aug 28 2006 09:35:21 by SFORunner
Chinese May Ask Airbus To Build Factory In Tianjin posted Sun May 28 2006 15:12:09 by Leelaw
$17 Billion To Build New Airport At San Diego posted Wed Apr 19 2006 19:43:38 by KarlB737
Airbus To Build Planes In China posted Thu Mar 16 2006 18:20:13 by TinkerBelle
Airbus To Announce New A340 Deal Soon posted Thu Mar 9 2006 15:43:00 by Flying-Tiger