Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A350-1000 Any Further Stretch Likely?  
User currently offlineACES320 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 393 posts, RR: 1
Posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 12634 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I know this tread may cause some eyebrows to rise given that the A350 project is in such early stages of its life. Given the fact, however, that the widebody market is the most lucrative for manufacturers and that the A350 is pitched at the larger end of the market it would appear to be obvious that there were some direct competitive offer in the range of the high performer 77W. Yet, checking the Airbus Product Viewer for comparison I can notice that the A350-1000 is not quite there in terms of seat count when compared to the A346. The latter shows a max. pax capacity of 380 passengers (3-classes) whereas the statutory max. seat count for the XWB is 350. The official charts published by Boeing show the 77W as a 365-seater on a 3-class configuration. I know technicaly is possible to elevate this figure if a high density configuration is deployed.

So there is still a segment of the market out there that needs to be attended. This leaves the 2 most likely outcomes
1) A double stretch of the XWB to cover for all the segment the 777W currently serves, but double shrinks and double stretches have historically been not as good performers as designs from scratch e.g A318.
2) A 777W NG although this would be a derivative of what by the end of this decade will be called the 777-Classics I suppose. So again the dilemma faced would be that the technological lead would be further ahead than the current 777 platform could offer as a re-development.

There would be a 3rd but unlikely candidate in the form of an A346NG although I don't see how this could work (a twin may be? Development costs would be to high).

Which of these choices do you think is the most likely way forward in the way of what the needs of the market currently are? Let's have a civilised discussion on this


LHR, BHX, EDI, BKK, USM, CNX, PHU, GRU,PEI, BOG, CTG, CPH, AMS, DOH, DXB, FRA, MAD and always PEI
56 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSwallow From Uganda, joined Jul 2007, 554 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 12585 times:

A further stretch is unlikely because:

1. It would be a strech too far and probably inefficient [see 346, 764]

2. It would encroach on 388 territory. Indeed, some believe that the 3510 will rival the CASM of the 388. And it can be argued that the 77W is one reason 748i sales are anemic.



The grass is greener where you water it
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 2, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 12586 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

keesje firmly believes the A350 will be stretched to a sub-80m A350-1100.

[Edited 2010-07-10 11:57:47]

User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5107 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 12477 times:

Airbus's seat counts for the A350-1000 and A346 are not quite comparable. The floor areas of the two aircraft are actually very similar, and you can expect them to have near-identical numbers of seats in similarly dense configurations.

I would see an A350-1100 as likely only if Airbus finds sufficient extra MTOW or weight savings to eke ~8000 nm out of it.



Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
User currently offlineACES320 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 393 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 12459 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The thing is the A346 is longer and the B77w is wider, in general though, the B77W has bigger capacity. None of the new coming designs covers the 77W fully. The A350-1000 is smaller and the 747-8 too big, and the 77W is too much of a success too dismiss the size of the market. A 787-1000 would not even be near the capacity. At the end of the day the market needs a contraption this size. And the outstanding 77W today will show its age in a matter of years.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
keesje firmly believes the A350 will be stretched to a sub-80m A350-1100

I find it puzzling too. But as I was watchin the world cup finals I started running out of options.   



LHR, BHX, EDI, BKK, USM, CNX, PHU, GRU,PEI, BOG, CTG, CPH, AMS, DOH, DXB, FRA, MAD and always PEI
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 5, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 12414 times:

Quoting ACES320 (Thread starter):
The latter shows a max. pax capacity of 380 passengers (3-classes) whereas the statutory max. seat count for the XWB is 350.

I would expect the A350-10 to offer more 3 class seats than the A346. A346 is 5 feet longer than A350-10(about 2 more Y rows), but loses a lot of seats as it is 8-abreast in Y.

A 20 foot stretch of A350-10 will be around 380 3-class seats, which is about the level at which 10-abreast platform begins to be more efficient than a 9-abreast platform.


User currently offlineACES320 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 393 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 12344 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 5):
which is about the level at which 10-abreast platform begins to be more efficient than a 9-abreast platform.

I grant you that, but then, why Airbus did not aim the A350 baseline at that level of seat density?



LHR, BHX, EDI, BKK, USM, CNX, PHU, GRU,PEI, BOG, CTG, CPH, AMS, DOH, DXB, FRA, MAD and always PEI
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 915 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 12301 times:

Because Airbus is trying to cover the 250-300 seat market as well with the A358/A359. That is a huge, lucrative market as well and can't be yielded to Boeing.10-abreast would not be feasible at 250 seats.... see the 777-100

Edit: I see that you mean seat count and not so much cross section. It is apparently more important for Airbus to get a 787 competitor out of the hanger than a 773ER replacement - which is quite new and has grabbed much of the market for the time being

[Edited 2010-07-10 13:23:34]

User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3322 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 12253 times:

Quoting ACES320 (Reply 6):
I grant you that, but then, why Airbus did not aim the A350 baseline at that level of seat density?

Three reasons.
The A388 couldn't stand to compete with a 10Y A350.
The 777 wasn't thought of as a 10Y plane.
GE can't provide the power required for a even larger A350 which would have made RR the only possible engine choice... and minimal chance that anyone could keep the pricing reasonable.


The first is still true, the second is changing, and the third... Well Airbus and GE can't even agree on the plane sizes GE can power. Still the chance that GE will say yes gives RR plenty of incentive to not play pricing games.


User currently offlineACES320 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 393 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 11941 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 8):
GE can't provide the power required for a even larger A350 which would have made RR the only possible engine choice

It seems they still are the only possible engine. Regardless of consumption I assume that the GE90 can deliver more thrust than a Trent WXB, so that would be a more compelling business case for GE should a double stretch happen



LHR, BHX, EDI, BKK, USM, CNX, PHU, GRU,PEI, BOG, CTG, CPH, AMS, DOH, DXB, FRA, MAD and always PEI
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 10, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 11821 times:

Quoting ACES320 (Thread starter):
So there is still a segment of the market out there that needs to be attended.

I'm not sure what segment is missing...the A350-1000 will go up to 350, only 30 seats less than the A340-600. 30 seats is not a "segment of the market" at that size. If Airbus was happy with the gap between the A340-600 and A380-800 before, I don't see why they'd suddenly see a hole between the A350-1000 and the A380-800.

Tom.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3322 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 11709 times:

Quoting ACES320 (Reply 9):
It seems they still are the only possible engine. Regardless of consumption I assume that the GE90 can deliver more thrust than a Trent WXB, so that would be a more compelling business case for GE should a double stretch happen

The GE90 family is supposedly wrapped up now in an exclusivity contract. For being the only engine offered on the 777LR family GE won't provide it to any other airframer.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3212 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 11645 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think everyone is thinking too near term... look out 15 -25 years... the 380 may not be there... and engine might.. I'd say there was a 50/50 chance

User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 11633 times:

As Airbus seems to develope two sub models of the A350XWB now, a further stretch is very likely.

The first submodel is the A350-800/-900.


The second submodel will be the A350-1000 and most probably the -1100.



I expect an A350-1100 which is around 6 meters longer than the current A350-1000 with an EIS of around 2018.


User currently offline2707200X From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 8052 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 11183 times:

Considering that the A340-600 is a few feet longer and a little narrower than the A350-1000 their might be some room for a modest stretch.


"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
User currently offlineACES320 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 393 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 10324 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
I'm not sure what segment is missing...the A350-1000 will go up to 350, only 30 seats less than the A340-600. 30 seats is not a "segment of the market" at that size

Because 30~40 seats it is the actual incremental difference in the number of seats between the models of the A350 family

A similar gap exists between the B787 family



LHR, BHX, EDI, BKK, USM, CNX, PHU, GRU,PEI, BOG, CTG, CPH, AMS, DOH, DXB, FRA, MAD and always PEI
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15494 posts, RR: 26
Reply 16, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 10176 times:

Quoting ACES320 (Thread starter):
The official charts published by Boeing show the 77W as a 365-seater on a 3-class configuration.

Most 77W configurations do not have that many seats. Even Emirates' three class configuration with ten wide in Y has only 358 seats. So I would have to guess that for practical purposes a 777NG would be somewhere in the 350-380 seat range.

Quoting Swallow (Reply 1):
1. It would be a strech too far and probably inefficient [see 346, 764

Is the 764 really that bad? It wasn't a big seller and is a usual punching bag on Anet, but I've never heard the airlines that purchased it express any displeasure with its performance. It seems to be pretty good at what it does.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 3):
I would see an A350-1100 as likely only if Airbus finds sufficient extra MTOW or weight savings to eke ~8000 nm out of it.

That is probably a fair estimate since a 77W can already get 7900 NM as it is now.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 17, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 8727 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 16):
Is the 764 really that bad?

No. It's actually really good for its design mission...to Boeing's misfortune, however, not that many carriers seem to have a need for aircraft doing that mission. So you can argue that the 764 is "that bad" from a business case, but not a performance case.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 16):
It wasn't a big seller and is a usual punching bag on Anet, but I've never heard the airlines that purchased it express any displeasure with its performance.

Quite the opposite...the airlines that have it love it.

Tom.


User currently offlinecobra27 From Slovenia, joined May 2001, 1003 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 8626 times:

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 14):
Considering that the A340-600 is a few feet longer and a little narrower than the A350-1000 their might be some room for a modest stretch.

my point exactly, you beat me to it

anways 75 orders for 1000 version

Hardly doubt airbus will go for it. who knows. there is plenty of time for A350 to enter service


User currently offlinehawkercamm From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 405 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 8523 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 12):
I think everyone is thinking too near term... look out 15 -25 years... the 380 may not be there... and engine might.. I'd say there was a 50/50 chance

On the other hand the A380 programme might prove to be very successful. In 25 years time it could have got it's 1000 order. There could be a A380-800R+Txwb, A380-800F+Txwb, A380-900+Txwb and a A380-1000+Txwb.
By this time the worlds "long haul" airlines may have consolidation into about 12 global brands with their roots being 2 from NA, 2 from EU, 2 from ME, 4 from ASIA (Indian and Chinese), 1 from SA, and 1 from Africa.
There is likely to be 10 or more megacities with populations >30m people.
There is likely to be 30 or more megacities with populations >20m people.
Who knows there could be 100 megacities with populations >10m people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megacity
I believe the A380 has a very bright future connecting megacities Hub to Hub and Hub to Spoke. Adding in world wide "long haul" consolidation more so.


My thoughts on the subject of a A350-1100.

With reference to the B777 we can see that the 6-wheel truck and B777 wing area is good to 351,500kg MTOW.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777
The A350-1000 has a 6-wheel truck and bigger wing area.
Therefore I think it is safe to assume the MTOW can grow.

It is argued here that the B777 fuselage can be stretched to 80m to yield a B777-400ER
I would argue that the A350-1000 can also be stretch to 80m equally as efficiently as the B777.
I would argue that a CFRP fuselage can compensate for the 10" the A350 gives up in fuselage diameter.

What will be the limiting factor for a A350-1100 will be a new engine and the cost that will entail.

I would also suggest that Airbus will not do a A350-1100 unless there is a competitive reason to do so and today there is not.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9838 posts, RR: 96
Reply 20, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 8275 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Swallow (Reply 1):
Indeed, some believe that the 3510 will rival the CASM of the 388.

In a 10-across configuration it might..... but comparing 16.25" seats to 18.5" seats in Y is a bit unfair, I would have thought.
Even at 11-across on the maindeck, an A380 can still fit 17" seats, leaving the A350-1000 NO hope whatsoever of getting anywhere near either its CASM or its comfort   

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 3):
I would see an A350-1100 as likely only if Airbus finds sufficient extra MTOW or weight savings to eke ~8000 nm out of it.
Quoting hawkercamm (Reply 19):
The A350-1000 has a 6-wheel truck and bigger wing area.
Therefore I think it is safe to assume the MTOW can grow.

   The problem would be installed thrust, of course.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
the A350-1000 will go up to 350, only 30 seats less than the A340-600

In reality, the A350-1000 actually has a bigger cabin than the A340-600, and I'd guess it's 9-across config might well typically mean more seats in the A350...

Quoting hawkercamm (Reply 19):
I would argue that a CFRP fuselage can compensate for the 10" the A350 gives up in fuselage diameter.

Worth recalling perhaps that the A350 has an oval cross-section, so the difference wll be less in the vertical plane.

Rgds


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15494 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 8250 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 17):
So you can argue that the 764 is "that bad" from a business case,

I wouldn't even go that far. Although the 764 sold very few copies, it was probably extremely cheap to develop as well.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinedldtw1962 From United States of America, joined May 2009, 393 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7903 times:

When is the A350 going to be delivered? And has anyone but US ordered this bird? If not who are they and how many did they order? Does anyone have any design pics of what Airbus would like to have the inside of this bird look like? I know
we can't have real pics because this plane is not even made yet. Any help would be great.

Thanks
Chuck


User currently offlinehawkercamm From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 405 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7709 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 20):
Worth recalling perhaps that the A350 has an oval cross-section, so the difference will be less in the vertical plane.

Did not want to complicate with second moment of area. But a valid point.
This A350 is probably more than 10" less deep than a B777.

However the big factor could be that a CFRP fuselage skin (barrel or panel) is not sized by strain/load.
I would guess the skin thicknesses are driven by bearing stress / fastening considerations (countersink), damage tolerance etc.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 24, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 7469 times:

Quoting dldtw1962 (Reply 22):
When is the A350 going to be delivered?

Scheduled for mid-2013. Actual is anybody's guess, but almost certainly not before then.

Quoting dldtw1962 (Reply 22):
And has anyone but US ordered this bird?

Yes. 33 customers as of March 2010:

Quoting dldtw1962 (Reply 22):
If not who are they and how many did they order?
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi...reviews/A350_orders_March10_EN.pdf

Quoting dldtw1962 (Reply 22):
Does anyone have any design pics of what Airbus would like to have the inside of this bird look like?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/XWB_mockup.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/XWB_mockup.png
Plus a ton here:
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&s...&gbv=2&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Quoting hawkercamm (Reply 23):
I would guess the skin thicknesses are driven by bearing stress / fastening considerations (countersink), damage tolerance etc.

Damage tolerance or impact damage are likely to be the most crucial for fuselage skin thickness. Bearing stress/fastener considerations shouldn't be an issue for the majority of the gauge because you use pad-ups to increase thickness in those areas.

Tom.


25 cobra27 : Stretching A380 would be wiser @ this point. Same wing, new engine, just add a few sections, max number of passangers can stay the same for certicatio
26 Post contains images ACES320 : So the problem would be RR being able to design such engine. The GE90 fits the bill in term of the needs, but would not be available for any other pl
27 DfwRevolution : The Ge90-11x is the only engine that can be sold on 777s north of 700,000 MTOW, but GE can sell the engine to whomever they want. I don't think it ha
28 Stitch : Rolls could always dust off the Trent 8115 plans...
29 tdscanuck : The GEnX core (and the Trent XWB core) are pretty heavily based on their predecessor engines...strapping a GE90-sized fan to a GEnX core shouldn't be
30 BMI727 : Not necessarily of GE produces a "GEnx-ized" GE90 for a 777NG.
31 WarpSpeed : With the A350-1000 somewhat undefined, I wonder why Airbus doesn't just extend it by a few frames rather than build a "1100" to compete head-on with
32 Glareskin : There is a perfect filler for the hole. It is called 748. Unfortunately only Korean and Lufthansa ordered so far. So even with an A350-1100 with bett
33 cobra27 : Yes but for certification reasons it rarely happened in the past that they changed engines (of the same thrust rating not the more powerful engines).
34 ACES320 : That is exactly the kind of answer I was expecting to hear Warpspeed. An A350-1000 with the extra frames and the associated avionics/powerplant mix w
35 RJ111 : Well it had an ~18t MTOW increase, longer wings and a landing gear extension. Relatively cheap, but i doubt extremely cheap. It's major problem is it
36 Post contains images keesje : A few months back we had several discussion on this topic, IMO the enlarged wing, LDG and Engine in the A350-1000 specs, as released by airbus this ye
37 Post contains links A342 : And once again, I will voice my opinion that an 80m-stretch of the A350-1000 (or of 773ER for that matter) does not necessarily need an MTOW increase.
38 ACES320 : Gosh, is it only me or that bird on the picture does look even longer than the A346? Even unbalanced compared to the 77W
39 ACES320 : In this case it would not be sacrifice as much as swap models 77W for whatever is out there in the market.
40 EA772LR : I agree. Range isn't the end-all-be-all for a lot of carriers the way it is for EK. Though with higher MTOW, comes the ability to stuff lots of cargo
41 astuteman : It's perhaps worth reiterating that in order to achieve 93k lb thrust, with the same BPR's and PR's as the rest of the family, the Trent XWB 93 will
42 keesje : I think the A350-1000 is a 1000R, that's why the wings, engines and LDG got beefed up, instead of a "simple" stretch.
43 Post contains images EPA001 : Well spoken and documented. I totally agree with your statement. No doubt the plane can grow further. The question is: "when does it need to grow big
44 BoeingVista : The T8115 ran at 110Klbs with a 1990's technology 118inch fan, the TXWB has a modern 120 inch fan and core so designing the powerplant won't be a dea
45 Post contains images EPA001 : Probably not. . The numbers in my post are just there to show that such engines can be build. Be it by GE or RR. And was an answer to a direct questi
46 LAXDESI : A350-1100, with MTOW of 720,000 lb, should need no more than 102K.
47 BoeingVista : Thats basically the number I came up with, 103K, now the TXWB is optimised around 83K so a 24% bump from base or 10% from the 93K produced by increas
48 EA772LR : Well none of the beefing up Airbus did improved range any further, which is not to say anything bad of an already outstanding range of 8,000nm, but I
49 ACES320 : To be entitled to an R or LR credential you should be able to get 9000 -plus easily, considering how far the 77L set the bar. I mean a composite ligh
50 Post contains links ACES320 : According to flight global the latest Airbus update to customer defined the A350-900 as the baseline model. It must make good progress with the finali
51 Post contains images EPA001 : I am not so sure a new wing would be necessary. An possible extended wing might also do the trick, or maybe the wing would only need some reinforceme
52 LAXDESI : Based on below, the A358 is expected to burn about 13% less trip fuel on a 4,000 nm mission than the A332 while carrying 30 more passengers. From the
53 astuteman : Well, the wing is about the same size as that of the 350 tonne 77W/L, and the landing gear is also the same configuration. The engine is the key IMO.
54 EA772LR : I agree. I'm wondering too, if while building down the backlog of A350s, Airbus keeps on eye on Boeing to see if they launch Y3 or a substantial 777
55 LAXDESI : My calculations suggest that A358 would carry about 4 passengers less(in Y) than A333 in a 2 class layout, while burning 13% less trip fuel on a 4,00
56 keesje : I think the question is if Airbus sees a market inbetween its 350 seat A350-1000 and it's 520 seat A380-800. If so, an A350-1100 seems a straight forw
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...
New Airbus A350-1000 Order Air Caraïbes posted Mon Sep 15 2008 01:25:37 by PanAm_DC10
Etihad's Order Includes The A350-1000? posted Tue Jul 22 2008 17:45:53 by TriniA340
B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View posted Fri Nov 30 2007 14:59:12 by Singapore_Air
Any Further Info On The DL Shtl Smoke In Cabin? posted Thu Oct 26 2006 18:23:41 by Cpos
Probability Of A350-1000 Launch? posted Wed Jan 4 2006 13:54:30 by WINGS
Any Info On Likely Cdn Campaign A/c? posted Fri Nov 25 2005 21:23:03 by CayMan
Any Further Talks Of SQ SYD-SFO? posted Sat Sep 25 2004 02:06:38 by TonyBurr
Any Further Word On AA's Proposed ORD-HKG? posted Sat Jun 21 2003 19:38:12 by ConcordeBoy
GE Engine For The A350 - Any News? posted Fri Apr 2 2010 12:12:54 by A342
Any Airline Likely To Pick Up The LHR-SNN Route? posted Sun Aug 12 2007 13:17:55 by Gilesdavies