Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Embraer Possible New 130 Seater  
User currently offlineElbowRoom From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 177 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 10389 times:

Flightblogger's latest piece, post-Farnborough, includes the news (via Wall Street Journal and a Brazilian newspaper) that Embraer may be considering offering a new 130 seat aircraft, to compete with the C Series:

"By all appearances, the big four, Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier and Embraer, are playing a game of chicken, seeing who will blink first and announce their plans for their respective narrowbody products."

"For Embraer, which was mum on its plans for the future, hinted late in the week to Brazilian newspaper Valor Economico that it would make a decision on a clean-sheet 130-seat jet by year's end."

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...nalysis-shadowboxing-at-farnb.html

So what might Embraer's offering look like?
- 5 abreast seating, like the C Series?
- 130 seats at standard density (32" seat pitch), and 145 at high density, so roughly a 38m long aircraft (like CS300, not CS100)?
- what engines? - PW1500G (do Bombardier have any exclusivity?) - CF34 (presumably Embraer would wait for NG34 in 2015, although can it be pushed to high enough thrust, 23000 lbf?) - BR715??? (Rolls Royce 'Advance 2' not ready until 2016-7)

What do you think we'll see?

[Edited 2010-07-25 10:42:57]

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 1, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 10038 times:

Quoting ElbowRoom (Thread starter):
So what might Embraer's offering look like?
- 5 abreast seating, like the C Series?
- 130 seats at standard density (32" seat pitch), and 145 at high density, so roughly a 38m long aircraft (like CS300, not CS100)?

A 4 abreast platform, for equivalent technology, beyond 110 seats will not be competitive against a 5 abreast platform. If it is going to be 5 abreast platform, then Embraer does have the advantage of optimising its 5 abreast design around 130-150 seats(32" inch pitch). Beyond 150 seats, for equivalent technology, a 6 abreast does better than a 5 abreast platform.

Its possible that Embraer is thinking of a simple stretch to its current 4 abreast platform, where it will trade range/payload for more seats.


User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3371 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 10004 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 1):
Its possible that Embraer is thinking of a simple stretch to its current 4 abreast platform, where it will trade range/payload for more seats.

That's why they killed the 195X because a stretch version would have sacrificed too much range which was unacceptable to EMB's customers.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlinejamies80085 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2008, 154 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9969 times:

at the moment, the c-series is looking like a flop. even though it has everything required by the airlines, and what we presume the market will require. if Embraer were to copy the c-series, do you not think it would be wrong to do so, given the current predicament the c-series is in? i can personally see a competitor on the horizon from EMB, however one must look to asia and see aircraft in development there.
given that A and B seem to be leaving the 130 seat segment behind, as all their current aircraft here are downsized from larger aircraft, thus not optimized for this market, i wouldn't be surprised if we were to see EMB team up as has been suggested before with one of the big 2.
looking ahead, if they were to start a new project, it would be on the market in say 2025 at the latest? plus another 15 years onto that and the aircraft will be obsolete at the current rate of technological development, so i wouldn't be surprised if the design they came up with will incorporate easy changes in terms of advances to upgrade in the future, such as designing enough room for a future open rotor upgrade, so there is room to accommodate the new tech, something boeing will no doubt learn from the low level of the 737.

Jamie



Cross my heart and hope to fly, f**k right off into the middle of the sky... that would be my ecstasy
User currently offlineElbowRoom From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 177 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9859 times:

Quoting jamies80085 (Reply 3):
if Embraer were to copy the c-series, do you not think it would be wrong to do so, given the current predicament the c-series is in?

I'm not sure. I can see there's a risk that the market for efficient 5-abreast aircraft (about 130-150 seats as LAXDESI says) could turn out to be a small market...

... but maybe the only reason it is a small market today is because there isn't a very efficient aircraft on offer. The E-jets go up to 120 seats (4 abreast) and have sold well. The 737-800 and A320 are still selling well at 150+ seats. Maybe the problem with the 120-150 seat market is that the best 5-abreast aircraft available is (still) the MD80/MD90/717, and with today's technology both Bombardier and Embraer can do better. Note, I'm speculating here - I don't have the answers.

Quoting jamies80085 (Reply 3):
i can personally see a competitor on the horizon from EMB, however one must look to asia and see aircraft in development there.

I agree about Embraer. About the asian aircraft in development: as far as I can see the only one that is close to the C Series is the COMAC ARJ21, and for some reason the largest one offered is only a 105 seater.

If you include the Sukhoi Superjet, then again it shares roughly the same cabin cross-section as the C Series, but is only currently being offered with up to 103 seats.

Quoting jamies80085 (Reply 3):
given that A and B seem to be leaving the 130 seat segment behind, as all their current aircraft here are downsized from larger aircraft, thus not optimized for this market, i wouldn't be surprised if we were to see EMB team up as has been suggested before with one of the big 2.

Will be interesting to see how this all plays out. I hope Embraer does get involved. I think they have contributed a lot to civil aviation these last 20 years, and would like to see them go further, whether they go alone or with a partner.

ER


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 5, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 9654 times:

Quoting ElbowRoom (Reply 4):
I'm not sure. I can see there's a risk that the market for efficient 5-abreast aircraft (about 130-150 seats as LAXDESI says) could turn out to be a small market...

My calculations suggest that for equivalent technology, the optimal range for 5 abreast is roughly 110-150 seats(single class @32"). The 4 abreast platform can compete well against 5 abreast at the 110 seat mark, and the 6 abreast platform can compete well at 150 seat mark against the 5 abreast platform.

The 5 abreast platform does even better in 2 class configuration. The CS300 in 2 class can be configured to offer almost the same number of seats as a B73G/A319, with much lower fuel burn per seat.

Sukhoi Superjet(5 abreast platform), has chosen to go with a much smaller wing relative to the CS Series, giving it a lower OEW and a likely better fuel burn per seat than the CS100. However, it loses out in range and payload to CS100.

It is interesting to compare the Superjet(5 abreast) to E190-100.
Aircraft............SuperJet..............E191
Seats...................98.....................98
Length..................98...................119 feet
Wingspan.............91.....................94 feet
OEW....................25.....................28 tons
Range..................4,420.................4,448 km

I have not done any fuel burn calculations, but it does seem that the SuperJet should have lower fuel burn per seat than the E191. It weighs nearly 10% less, and therefore with same generation engines, one would expect the Superjet to have around 10% lower fuel burn than the E191. I suspect the actual fuel burn number is even lower as the Superjet has newer generation engine than the E191.

A simple stretch of Superjet to the length of CS100(115 feet) would drop its range to around 3,700 km--still an attractive aircraft for many routes.

[Edited 2010-07-25 14:57:18]

User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 238 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 9424 times:

If there is no market for 130 seats, why not skip it and go head to head with A & B at 6w? It's a much larger market and you are probably more likely to sell at least 500 frames, possibly as much as 1000, size it for 130-180. This would only be 5% of the single aisle market for 20 years, it should be doable.

User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 7, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 9172 times:

Quoting morrisond (Reply 6):
If there is no market for 130 seats, why not skip it and go head to head with A & B at 6w? It's a much larger market and you are probably more likely to sell at least 500 frames, possibly as much as 1000, size it for 130-180. This would only be 5% of the single aisle market for 20 years, it should be doable.

You raise an intersting point.

I think an all new light 6 abreast platform, with a much shorter wingspan than the current B737/A320, optimised for shorter routes should capture a decent fraction of the NB market.

As of now, most 6 abreast new designs are targeting longer range with wingspans comparable to the current 737/320. Sukhoi(5 abreast) seems to be one exception that is going with a smaller wing than its competitor. CSeries has a wing the size of 737/320.


User currently onlineLipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11409 posts, RR: 59
Reply 8, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 9069 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Embraer have a good advantage, the airlines that already order almost 1,000 E-Jets. They probably are talking to Embraer about a little bigger aircraft than the E195.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 1):
Its possible that Embraer is thinking of a simple stretch to its current 4 abreast platform, where it will trade range/payload for more seats.

They mentioned that are looking to 2 alternatives: new engines for the E-Jets as new technologies become available, and/or a new 130-145 seat model, which would be new (and confirms the idea of 5 abreast). At this point, and in order to keep their leadership, they will have to go for it.



New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
User currently offlineElbowRoom From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 177 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8441 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 5):
one would expect the Superjet to have around 10% lower fuel burn than the E191

Is it also a reasonable guess that Embraer can regain the advantage fairly quickly (?) due to...

Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 8):
new engines for the E-Jets as new technologies become available

...i.e. the NG34 in roughly 2015:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...development-of-cf34-successor.html


User currently offlineoykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2688 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 8177 times:

Quoting ElbowRoom (Thread starter):
What do you think we'll see?

If they go for a 5 abreast airplane, I hope they keep as much commonality with the E-jets as possible. The pilots should be able to fly both this new plane as well as the E-jets without training. This would make the business case even better. Perhaps the GE NG34 engine could be offered for this platform?

It makes sense for Embraer to go into this market. Boeing's CEO has said he believes that the 737NG replacement will be a bit larger as that would make the business case for a clean sheet composite plane much better. According to McNerny the benefit of composite only increases as the plane becomes larger. With this reasoning it seems like Boeing are leaving the 100-150 seat segment. But in the same interview McNerny said Boeing would defend the marked from 110 seats and up.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 1):
Beyond 150 seats, for equivalent technology, a 6 abreast does better than a 5 abreast platform.

A bit out of topic, but do you have a seatnumber on when a 7 abreast twin ailse will be more efficient than a 6 abreast?

Quoting jamies80085 (Reply 3):
at the moment, the c-series is looking like a flop. even though it has everything required by the airlines, and what we presume the market will require

It does not seem like it is the plane it self that are keeping orders away, but P&W. According to Qatar they are unwilling to specify the mainenance savings in the contract that they claim in their brochure. If and when P&W does this and Canasa offers Open sky agreement with Qatar, I believe they will buy many Cseries. Probably others as well.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlinemrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 50
Reply 11, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6538 times:

Quoting morrisond (Reply 6):
If there is no market for 130 seats, why not skip it and go head to head with A & B at 6w? It's a much larger market and you are probably more likely to sell at least 500 frames, possibly as much as 1000, size it for 130-180. This would only be 5% of the single aisle market for 20 years, it should be doable.

This is my point of view on the matter. If you dont cover the narrowbody range up to 180 pax you are basically pushing your customer to add a fleet type (since he will have to buy a large narrowbody from someone else or deal with a big capacity gap below the widebodies). That does not make sense to me.

Since the "regional" models (E-jets, SSJ, MRJ) cover the range up to 110 seats pretty well, moving into the narrowbody market means covering the 130-180 seat range and not trying to finesse a gap between your product line and Airbus/Boeing that just isn't there.

Quoting oykie (Reply 10):
A bit out of topic, but do you have a seatnumber on when a 7 abreast twin ailse will be more efficient than a 6 abreast?

Using the fuselage aspect ratio limits from LAXDESI's Reply 5 (assuming 19" seats and 18" aisles), about 230 seats.


User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 903 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 6253 times:

Embraer should go straight into the 150-200 seat market with a clean sheet design for the following reasons.

First: too much competition in the sub 130 seat market (Canadians, Chinese, Russians, Japanese) for a seemingly small market
Second: The 150-200 seat market is so large, that it can support 4 competitors (over the 130-150 seat market)
Third: The investment required to make a 150+ seat plane versus a 130+ seat plane is not that different, and the per unit sales is much higher for the 150+ seat.
Fourth: Embraer can leverage flight crew commonality using its E-Jets going all the way to 200 seats.
Fifth: Boeing and Airbus are not interested in partnerships. Bombardier tried that.



Only the paranoid survive
User currently offline2travel2know2 From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 2545 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 6241 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 2):
That's why they killed the 195X because a stretch version would have sacrificed too much range which was unacceptable to EMB's customers.

Not all EMB customers demand a 5h range for their jets and currently the number of E170-E195 non-stop routes of 3h45m or more aren't quite large.
IMHO, If techonologicaly feasible, Embraer may launch a 2.40m longer E195, as long as they get orders for that type of aircraft, before any possible totally new 130-seater Embraer jet sees the light.

And since Embraer does have a good relation with Chinese aviation, Who wants to guess if Embraer will get into the COMAC ARJ21 project?



I'm not on CM's payroll.
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 14, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 5117 times:

Quoting ElbowRoom (Reply 9):
Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 5):
one would expect the Superjet to have around 10% lower fuel burn than the E191

Is it also a reasonable guess that Embraer can regain the advantage fairly quickly (?) due to...

Superjet's 10% advantage comes from a lower OEW, and one would expect the engines on the Superjet to be comparable to the proposed Embraer replacement engines. I think the Superjet would maintain its advantage over E191.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 15, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4554 times:

Quoting mrocktor (Reply 11):
Quoting oykie (Reply 10):
A bit out of topic, but do you have a seatnumber on when a 7 abreast twin ailse will be more efficient than a 6 abreast?

Using the fuselage aspect ratio limits from LAXDESI's Reply 5 (assuming 19" seats and 18" aisles), about 230 seats.

With a wingspan for the 7 abreast platform at no more than 117 feet and interior cabin width around 15 feet, I would expect the crossover point to be around 250 seats(single class). These are rough numbers, and one day when I have more time I will work up more accurate numbers.


User currently offlineElbowRoom From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 177 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4474 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 14):
Superjet's 10% advantage comes from a lower OEW, and one would expect the engines on the Superjet to be comparable to the proposed Embraer replacement engines. I think the Superjet would maintain its advantage over E191.

What about the aerodynamic disadvantage from having a bigger fuselage cross-section for the same number of seats (3.23m cabin width vs 2.74m)? And since the Superjet's SaM146 engine was certified in June 2010, isn't it likely that a GE engine certified in 2015 will be more advanced, with lower SFC?

Just wondering.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 17, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4424 times:

Quoting ElbowRoom (Reply 16):
What about the aerodynamic disadvantage from having a bigger fuselage cross-section for the same number of seats (3.23m cabin width vs 2.74m)? And since the Superjet's SaM146 engine was certified in June 2010, isn't it likely that a GE engine certified in 2015 will be more advanced, with lower SFC?

Just wondering.

You are indeed correct that there will be aero disadvantage due to bigger fuselage cross-section, and engine SFC should be substantially lower. Your assertion that EMB 191 NG may match the Superjet in fuel burn may turn out to be correct.


User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3371 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4363 times:

Quoting 2travel2know2 (Reply 13):
Not all EMB customers demand a 5h range for their jets

Sure not all but enough of them said we don't want it.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineElbowRoom From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 177 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4346 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 17):
You are indeed correct that there will be aero disadvantage due to bigger fuselage cross-section, and engine SFC should be substantially lower. Your assertion that EMB 191 NG may match the Superjet in fuel burn may turn out to be correct.

Well, I guess we'll see how it turns out. I have no inside info.

I just find it hard to believe that after successfully challenging Bombardier in the 50 seat jet market in the mid-1990s, and then pioneering with the E-jets in the 75-120 seat segment (4 abreast), Embraer would now sit back and let Sukhoi beat them at that game.

I also can't see Embraer being happy about Bombardier taking the 120-150 seat market (5 abreast), which is the last market below the territory marked-out by Boeing and Airbus. And to some extent Boeing and Airbus are in retreat, since as you have suggested in previous posts, a CS300 should be able to match the economics of an A319NEO, whereas today Bombardier and Embraer - and the rest of the world - have nothing to compete in that segment.

On the other hand, with the military KC390 and other projects under development, maybe Embraer will decide to conserve their resources and sit this one out. Douglas/MD/Boeing sold 'only' 2,500 in 41 years. Maybe 5 abreast is just not a 'winning' airliner format.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 20, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4230 times:

Quoting ElbowRoom (Reply 19):
I also can't see Embraer being happy about Bombardier taking the 120-150 seat market (5 abreast), which is the last market below the territory marked-out by Boeing and Airbus. And to some extent Boeing and Airbus are in retreat, since as you have suggested in previous posts, a CS300 should be able to match the economics of an A319NEO,

It may be possible for Embraer to compete against the CS100 with E195NG. An all new 73G/319 should be able to beat the CS300. Cseries, over time, will get squeezed from both ends as it has a very narrow optimal seat range.

I wonder if Embraer should look into a 6 abreast platform optimised for a shorter range, instead of a 5 abreast platform. This way it gets to offer a lighter aircraft that is a lot more efficient than the 737/320 for flights upto 3 hours.


User currently offlineElbowRoom From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 177 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4180 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 20):
I wonder if Embraer should look into a 6 abreast platform optimised for a shorter range, instead of a 5 abreast platform. This way it gets to offer a lighter aircraft that is a lot more efficient than the 737/320 for flights upto 3 hours.

If they are thinking along these lines, that would explain the need to wait until 'year end'.

Wait and see what Boeing comes up with on its 737/757 replacement first. One plane or two...?

Popcorn please!


User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4068 times:

In my opinion Embraer is developing...

nothing...

alone!


They are just increasing the pressure to Airbus or Boeing to decide to drop the market below the A319/73G and cooperate with Embraer instead of.

Embraer itself and alone is a bit too busy right now with development of the KC 390 and upgrades to the E-Jets.


I personally think both Airbus and Boeing could be interested in a cooperation whichs ends in a complete range of aircrafts from 70 seats to more than 400/500 seats.


My guess is Airbus/Embraer and Boeing/Bombardier, but i might be wrong.


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6079 posts, RR: 34
Reply 23, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3864 times:

Quoting ElbowRoom (Thread starter):
"For Embraer, which was mum on its plans for the future, hinted late in the week to Brazilian newspaper Valor Economico that it would make a decision on a clean-sheet 130-seat jet by year's end."

A reminder, when EMB ruled out the 195X that was with the current engines. If (or when) EMB goes ahead with a re-engining and updating of the E-Jets, it will make the 195X feasible.

Quoting jamies80085 (Reply 3):
at the moment, the c-series is looking like a flop.

At the moment... but this is a life and death program for BBD's commercial aircraft division. If the CSeries "flops" then you would see BBD exiting the commercial aircraft field soon after. I do not think that this would be politically acceptable to Quebec or Ottawa... there are too many jobs at stake (politicians included!)

Quoting ElbowRoom (Reply 4):
... but maybe the only reason it is a small market today is because there isn't a very efficient aircraft on offer.

The market is "small" right now for many reasons but it isn't because of a lack of efficient aircraft.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 20):
It may be possible for Embraer to compete against the CS100 with E195NG.

The E190/195 already competes... the NG would make it less of a contest.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 20):
An all new 73G/319 should be able to beat the CS300.

No doubt there.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 20):
Cseries, over time, will get squeezed from both ends as it has a very narrow optimal seat range.

It is already happening.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 20):
I wonder if Embraer should look into a 6 abreast platform optimised for a shorter range, instead of a 5 abreast platform. This way it gets to offer a lighter aircraft that is a lot more efficient than the 737/320 for flights upto 3 hours.

EMB will not have the resources to tackle the freighter, E-Jets' update/upgrade ... and a major clean-sheet program.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently onlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 640 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3811 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 23):
EMB will not have the resources to tackle the freighter, E-Jets' update/upgrade ... and a major clean-sheet program.

...and Legacy 450/500


25 LipeGIG : I agree with the ones that see Embraer as Boeing or Airbus competitor. Now they are in the best situation to do it, and considering a successful desig
26 planemaker : On A.net such musings seem plausible but in reality it just isn't so. EMB will not confront A or B directly. If you look at EMB or BBD's forecasts th
27 mrocktor : On the other hand, this was during regulation and in a time where the dreaded scope clauses basically made the whole 50-150 seat range anathema.
28 sirtoby : The SaM146 have a 1% lower SFC than the CF34-10E on todays E190/195 - at least that was the official goal. A new engine will definitely have a signif
29 Tangowhisky : Yes indeed. They shot themselves in the foot by launching the CRJ900 and CRJ1000 as these two aircraft will never make the kind of sales Embraer are
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...
FCO Possible New Base For Easyjet? posted Sun Oct 12 2008 13:58:31 by Nycfly75
India May Develop New 70 Seater Prop! posted Tue Apr 15 2008 04:46:04 by AirbusA6
Possible New Service: BA PDX-LGW? posted Mon Apr 14 2008 22:46:36 by KPDX
Embraer: Two New Executive Jet Programs posted Mon Mar 31 2008 04:27:03 by Mrocktor
Possible New Intercont. Services To/from BOS posted Wed Mar 19 2008 13:40:22 by CX288
Possible New Southwest Routes posted Wed Jan 23 2008 15:29:55 by Super80DFW
Possible New Base For Ryanair posted Tue Jan 15 2008 17:12:56 by Andrej
Possible New SMF Routes? posted Fri Dec 21 2007 21:38:16 by AeroMaxx
FWA In 2008... Possible New Pax Service? posted Sat Dec 15 2007 12:16:25 by FWAERJ
CO Announces Possible New 787 Routes From IAH posted Fri Dec 14 2007 05:11:11 by Pbb152