Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
B767-400F: Would It Be Popular?  
User currently offlineMadDogJT8D From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 402 posts, RR: 1
Posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 8024 times:

Hi All-

Just wondering if a 767-400F would be popular or even competitive in today's cargo environment. I know there are plenty of 767-300F's out there, but I wonder if an elongated model with a similar cost structure would be desirable to the likes of UPS, FedEx, and other dedicated cargo operators where the 77F might be too big, but the 763F/762F is too small. It would seem to me a pretty decent competitor to the A330F which has recently debuted. What are your thoughts and opinions on this?

44 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31431 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 7761 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I tend to think not.

It would have inferior payload weight/volume and design range to the A330-200F and would probably offer little additional payload weight to a 767-300F and less range.

Boeing never should have launched the 767-400ER program, and creating a freighter would have just made a bad decision worse, IMO.


User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 7691 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
Boeing never should have launched the 767-400ER program, and creating a freighter would have just made a bad decision worse, IMO.

So are you saying that Boeing should have screwed DL and CO, who needed an L-1011 and DC-10 replacement, respectively, and thought that the 772 was too large for that mission?



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31431 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7651 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 2):
So are you saying that Boeing should have screwed DL and CO, who needed an L-1011 and DC-10 replacement, respectively, and thought that the 772 was too large for that mission?

I'm saying Boeing should have offered them 777-200s (not 777-200ERs) at the same price (or even less) as they sold them the 767-400ERs for. Even losing money on each of those 777-200 deliveries would have been less of a financial hit then launching the 767-400ER and putting it into production, considering how few they sold. And another 38 777-200s would have helped the resale value of the other 88 delivered frames.

And I would not be surprised if DL and CO wish those 767-400ERs were 777-200s now...

[Edited 2010-09-29 09:50:38]

User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7609 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
I'm saying Boeing should have offered them 777-200s (not 777-200ERs) at the same price (or even less) as they sold them the 767-400ERs for. Even losing money on each of those 777-200 deliveries would have been less of a financial hit then launching the 767-400ER and putting it into production, considering how few they sold. And another 38 777-200s would have helped the resale value of the other 88 delivered frames.

Do you have any proof that the 764ER was a money loser? It didn't cost Boeing much to develop.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
And I would not be surprised if DL and CO wish those 767-400ERs were 777-200s now...

That is total BS. The 772A actually has LESS range than the 764ER and costs much more to operate. Not to mention, in DL's case, the 772 can only use gates in Concourse E at ATL. While DL has converted their 764ERs to international use, DL still often needs to use gates outside of Concourse E (usually Concourse T but sometimes Concourse A) for international departures, which the 772 cannot use.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlinedlflynhayn From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 441 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7530 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
And I would not be surprised if DL and CO wish those 767-400ERs were 777-200s now

No way both DL/CO love this plane...Plus i really miss flying this plane to Hawaii now that we use it mostly on European routes.


User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7439 times:

Because only 37 767-400s were built and all of them are operated by either DL or CO, none are available on the market for conversion. The cost for creating a freighter conversion program is too high as the costs would be spread over too few airframes, particularly since only a portion of the 37 would likely become available for conversion anytime soon. Shipping depends on paying as little as possible for the aircraft and old 767-300s are plentiful and already available and will become even cheaper when the 787s are delivered.

The 767-400 was a product of an era where airlines tried to have an aircraft for every operating niche, trying to take as much market share as possible right up to the point where yields go underwater. At least for the moment, fleets are simplifying and looking to take yield over market share. Freight companies would not want a 767-400F just because it fits somewhere in between the 772 and 763 for the same reason. The real reason they would use a 767F because it is much cheaper to buy than a 777F. Otherwise most fright companies would prefer to have a mostly 777F fleet as it is far more flexible as a cargo carrier than the 767F.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15838 posts, RR: 27
Reply 7, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 7360 times:

Quoting MadDogJT8D (Thread starter):
Just wondering if a 767-400F would be popular or even competitive in today's cargo environment.

Probably not. Not enough range and it would probably not be able to use all of the available volume anyways. Creating a conversion for a maximum of 37 airframes isn't worthwhile.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
Boeing never should have launched the 767-400ER program,

It's far better than a 777-100 would have been. And furthermore, I've never seen anything from Boeing to indicate that despite the small number sold, the program did not break even. It was a pretty cheap development.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
And I would not be surprised if DL and CO wish those 767-400ERs were 777-200s now...

And carry an extra 75000 lbs they don't need across the Atlantic from EWR and JFK? To put that in perspective, each extra seat in a 777 would cost Delta 2500 lbs and Continental 1500 lbs.(over 1800 lbs with the new configuration)



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31431 posts, RR: 85
Reply 8, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 7269 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 4):
Do you have any proof that the 764ER was a money loser? It didn't cost Boeing much to develop.

That's what they said about the 747-8 program, and Boeing will not make a dime off any delivery for their entire current orderbook.

Boeing has a long history of making special models of existing airframes for their customers, but most of them have been tweaks to an existing airframe (747-400ER, 747-400D, 747SR, the various 707 sub-models). The 767-400ER was a pretty significant overhaul and should reasonably have cost over a billion dollars to develop and market. And they clearly didn't launch the program with the intention of only selling less than 40 units, since they flew it all over the planet to try and sell it and gave serious consideration to spending even more to make it marketable.


Quoting BMI727 (Reply 7):
It's far better than a 777-100 would have been. And furthermore, I've never seen anything from Boeing to indicate that despite the small number sold, the program did not break even. It was a pretty cheap development.

Compared to $10 billion, $1 billion is "cheap", but it's still $1 billion.

And Boeing never, ever, releases total cost figures for their programs, so it's impossible to know with authority how much Boeing spent to deliver each of those frames. But even if it did break even or even turn a profit, it was certainly below what Boeing expected the program to return when they launched it and if they had known it would perform that poorly, I wonder if they would have launched it.


User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 7222 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
And Boeing never, ever, releases total cost figures for their programs, so it's impossible to know with authority how much Boeing spent to deliver each of those frames. But even if it did break even or even turn a profit, it was certainly below what Boeing expected the program to return when they launched it and if they had known it would perform that poorly, I wonder if they would have launched it.

But the fact is that it accomplished its primary mission, which was to provide a suitable replacement for the L-1011 and DC-10 fleets of DL and CO, respectively. Competing against the A332 was only a minor secondary mission. Both DL and CO (especially CO) were strongly considering the A332 as a replacement for their widebody trijets, which at the time was the only aircraft that was sized similar enough to an L-1011 or DC-10.

[Edited 2010-09-29 11:48:26]


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15838 posts, RR: 27
Reply 10, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 7047 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
But even if it did break even or even turn a profit, it was certainly below what Boeing expected the program to return when they launched it and if they had known it would perform that poorly, I wonder if they would have launched it.

Overall, it was a low risk program and overall Boeing had a lot more to gain than to lose. We'll never know how much they gained or lost, but it wasn't much either way.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 7010 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):

I'm saying Boeing should have offered them 777-200s (not 777-200ERs) at the same price (or even less) as they sold them the 767-400ERs for. Even losing money on each of those 777-200 deliveries would have been less of a financial hit then launching the 767-400ER and putting it into production, considering how few they sold. And another 38 777-200s would have helped the resale value of the other 88 delivered frames.

And I would not be surprised if DL and CO wish those 767-400ERs were 777-200s now...

Even if that was true, that doesn't take into account the airlines, who also have to deal with pilot payscales, landing fees (MTOW for a 777 will be a bit higher and thus more expensive), etc. So if it met airlines' needs, and might have kept some orders in your court rather than going to the competitor (Airbus), why wouldn't you serve them for minimal cost? As mentioned above, they surely didn't lose their shirts, and whatever they did lose is worth keeping a customer over. Minimal cost, minimal risk, kept good customers around and from straying to competitors-- seems like a decent deal all around. 777s might be more capable but the 764 fills a niche and does it well.


User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 6924 times:

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 11):

Even if that was true, that doesn't take into account the airlines, who also have to deal with pilot payscales, landing fees (MTOW for a 777 will be a bit higher and thus more expensive), etc. So if it met airlines' needs, and might have kept some orders in your court rather than going to the competitor (Airbus), why wouldn't you serve them for minimal cost? As mentioned above, they surely didn't lose their shirts, and whatever they did lose is worth keeping a customer over. Minimal cost, minimal risk, kept good customers around and from straying to competitors-- seems like a decent deal all around. 777s might be more capable but the 764 fills a niche and does it well.

In fact, DL's initial 777 plans hit a snag to to issues with the DL pilots union unhappy with the proposed payscales that were initally planned for the 777 and 764ER. Two 777s were already delivered and three more were sitting at Everett awaiting delivery, which were eventually mothballed.

On November 1, 1999 the pilots union threatened a strike if DL wouldn't up the wages for those aircraft types. DL eventually converted three unbuilt 777 orders to the 763ER as a stopgap to displace some MD-11s and use them on routes that were previously supposed to be operated by 777s. However, around December there was a serious shortage of international aircraft, and Delta finally gave DALPA what they wanted, and those mothballed 777s were eventually de-mothballed delivered in early 2000.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26005 posts, RR: 22
Reply 13, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 6918 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 2):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
Boeing never should have launched the 767-400ER program, and creating a freighter would have just made a bad decision worse, IMO.

So are you saying that Boeing should have screwed DL and CO, who needed an L-1011 and DC-10 replacement, respectively, and thought that the 772 was too large for that mission?
Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 4):
Do you have any proof that the 764ER was a money loser? It didn't cost Boeing much to develop.

The 764 had a lot of changes, for example a completely new main landing gear. Also a different fuselage structure and larger 777-type windows. It's highly unlikely they recovered the development costs with only 38 built.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer...zine/aero_03/textonly/ps01txt.html


User currently offlinegoldenstate From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 583 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 6883 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 4):
That is total BS. The 772A actually has LESS range than the 764ER and costs much more to operate.

How is it BS. What is your data source.

The 777 A-market has few hundred miles less range at MZFW but the 777 MZFW is about 90,000 lbs greater than the 764. Once you start getting into payload restrictions, you trade payload for range at a faster clip with the 764 than you do with the 777. The 777 has greater range at MTOW.

So yes, the 777 has higher operating costs, but it also has higher revenue generating potential. A choice between the two would probably hinge on acquisition costs, fleet support terms, and revenue potential in intended markets of operation. Those first two variables could be manipulated by Boeing to influence the outcome.


User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6784 times:

Quoting goldenstate (Reply 14):
The 777 A-market has few hundred miles less range at MZFW but the 777 MZFW is about 90,000 lbs greater than the 764. Once you start getting into payload restrictions, you trade payload for range at a faster clip with the 764 than you do with the 777. The 777 has greater range at MTOW.

So yes, the 777 has higher operating costs, but it also has higher revenue generating potential. A choice between the two would probably hinge on acquisition costs, fleet support terms, and revenue potential in intended markets of operation. Those first two variables could be manipulated by Boeing to influence the outcome.

But what would be the point of ordering the 772A over the 772ER? Clearly DL and CO felt the 777 was too large to be an L-1011/DC-10 replacement, and neither DL nor CO have said anything about them being unhappy with the 764ER.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineairportugal310 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3720 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6760 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 15):
But what would be the point of ordering the 772A over the 772ER? Clearly DL and CO felt the 777 was too large to be an L-1011/DC-10 replacement, and neither DL nor CO have said anything about them being unhappy with the 764ER.

Out of curiosity, what did the 777 'replace'?

I ask because both airlines eventually went on to order many 777's, so perhaps it was a stop-gap? I don't know.



I sell airplanes and airplane accessories
User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6732 times:

Quoting airportugal310 (Reply 16):
Out of curiosity, what did the 777 'replace'?

I ask because both airlines eventually went on to order many 777's, so perhaps it was a stop-gap? I don't know.

I'm not sure about CO, however, DL ordered it after dissatisfaction with the MD-11, which DL cancelled all remaining orders in favor of the 777. So you can basically say that the 777 replaced the MD-11 in DL's fleet.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineUnited_fan From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 7545 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6674 times:

I remember reading somewhere that long planes like the 764 and 753 are not structurally robust enough to be freighters.


'Empathy was yesterday...Today, you're wasting my Mother-F'ing time' - Heat.
User currently offlineBasilFawlty From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 1331 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6664 times:

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 6):
Because only 37 767-400s were built and all of them are operated by either DL or CO, none are available on the market for conversion.
38 were built and there is one available on the market:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © David Lednicer




'Every year donkeys and mules kill more people than plane crashes'
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7173 posts, RR: 46
Reply 20, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6572 times:

Since Boeing made the 777F out of the -200 rather than the -300 (and Airbus did the same with the A330F) I suspect that the 764 would have too much volume for its weight carrying capacity. Also, I suspect that the answer to United_fan's question about long planes making poor freighters is yes. As to the wisdom of building the 764, it kept DL and CO from buying A330's; even if they lost money on it that probably made it worthwhile, as it is highly likely that both would have then ordered a lot more than 37, and ordered fewer 777's. If you want loyal customers sometimes you have to go out of your way to give them what they want.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15838 posts, RR: 27
Reply 21, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6545 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 13):
The 764 had a lot of changes, for example a completely new main landing gear.

Many of the internal changes owed a lot to the 777, so even that may not have been too expensive. Looking back on it, I wonder if Boeing might have ended up in something of a no man's land of derivation. Could they possibly have gotten a few more sales if they'd left some of the 777 bits off and maintained more commonality with the other 767s?

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 15):
But what would be the point of ordering the 772A over the 772ER?

Save you about 7,000 lbs of OEW. Of course, ordering the 767-400ER saved them 75,000 lbs.

Continental's 777s weigh 1068 lbs per seat while the 767-400ER weighs 975 lbs per seat. Delta's 777s are 1103 lbs per seat and the 767-400ERs are 931 lbs per seat. Of course, that can only translate into costs if you can fill all of the seats, which is another matter entirely.

Quoting United_fan (Reply 18):
I remember reading somewhere that long planes like the 764 and 753 are not structurally robust enough to be freighters.

I don't think that it is not robust enough necessarily, but there are issues. First, the length could lead to CG issues and more importantly, such planes may run out of weight before running out of volume, so carriers can't use the space anyway.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 20):
Since Boeing made the 777F out of the -200 rather than the -300

And not just the -200 but the -200LR.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinetullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1642 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6293 times:

There is an argument that CO and DL may have been better just sticking with the existing 763ER. It has more range than the 764 and you'd have to question whether the extra seats were actually high earning seats or seats at the lower end of the yield curve. Who knows? They seem happy so may be they had a win at Boeing's expense.

Boeing thought that the 764 would be a quick and easy competitor to the A332. Stitch is right, they marketed it around the world, flying a 764 in a special Global colorscheme to just about every airline who looked like they may need a long range twin smaller than the 777. They were spectacularly unsuccessful with airlines either opting for the more capable A330 or going for growth and taking the 777.



717,721/2,732/3/4/5/7/8/9,742/3/4,752/3,762/3,772,W,310,320/1,332/3,388,DC9,DC10,F28,F100,142,143,E90,CR2,D82/3/4,SF3,AT
User currently offlinebwvilla From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 76 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5781 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 20):
ince Boeing made the 777F out of the -200 rather than the -300 (and Airbus did the same with the A330F) I suspect that the 764 would have too much volume for its weight carrying capacity.

If it was to be offered, it might be of interest to carriers whose cargo is typically relatively low-density - for example, the integrators like UPS, DHL, FedEx.

But given what's been said about the small number of frames that will ever be available, I guess it's unlikely to ever be offered.



lhr-sin-bru-cgn-???
User currently offlineUnited_fan From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 7545 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5345 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 21):
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 20):
Since Boeing made the 777F out of the -200 rather than the -300

And not just the -200 but the -200LR.

True,but FX is going to have 777's converted to freighters from non-LR's.



'Empathy was yesterday...Today, you're wasting my Mother-F'ing time' - Heat.
25 1337Delta764 : Wrong, that was a secondary mission. The fact is that the 764ER accopmlished its primary mission of being a suitable L-1011/DC-10 replacement for DL
26 BrianDromey : Surely competing against the 332 was the primary role, if that's what CO DL were comparing it against. Where Boeing fell down was optimising this air
27 B777LRF : To answer the question from the OP: No, it wouldn't make a decent freighter. The -300ERF is already flawed (lack of volume, lack of lower-deck ULD com
28 AA777223 : This is very interesting to me, especially considering the 764s both use GE engines, but on the 777s DL uses relatively compact RR 800 engines, while
29 BMI727 : I just used a baseline OEW for the aircraft, so the engines don't figure into it. Mostly, CO just puts more seats than DL in the 777 and fewer in the
30 Stitch : I still believe that line of thought is more an attempt to excuse the poor sales of the family. After all, if Boeing only wanted CO and DL to buy it,
31 1337Delta764 : No, it is the absolute truth. Ed Bastian from Delta even said it himself in an Investor Day meeting. I don't think he would lie about this. I am not
32 Stitch : It's clear DL (and CO) wanted the plane and that both were willing to place orders for a combined 37 frames (which was a decent launch order for a ne
33 1337Delta764 : Why would Boeing simply tell DL and CO to order the A332? Boeing is not stupid, they would never tell their loyal customers to buy from their competi
34 yyz717 : Boeing was hoping to land much more than just the 37 764's orders though. Agreed. The 764 suffered the same fate as the 753....launched too late in t
35 SEPilot : I am not so sure. Partnerships are give and take, and when one partner says in effect, "take it or leave it" then the other partner is highly motivat
36 1337Delta764 : [citation needed] I have never heard any such statement from Boeing. This statement is nothing but propaganda from Airbus fanboys.
37 SEPilot : The fact remains that Boeing did fly it around the world showing it off to all the airlines they could talk to. I don't think they did it just to giv
38 1337Delta764 : Yes, Boeing was going after some bonus orders, however, they never expected it to sell by the hundreds.
39 Post contains links Stitch : Because CO and DL wouldn't have done it, IMO, and instead ordered more 767-300ERs. Of course you haven't. Neither Boeing nor Airbus is going to say "
40 deltal1011man : Delta is very happy with its 764s, and has a 772A size aircraft(333) but uses the 764s a lot more(you haven't see Delta park the 764 due to slack in
41 BMI727 : I'd be surprised if the 757-300 didn't make money though. And while we're on the topic, that plane is an economic powerhouse, if you can fill it. Dur
42 goldenstate : Unless there was a very serious issue with the aircraft, I don't think DL or CO would risk complicating their relationships with Boeing by publicly s
43 1337Delta764 : It was in 2007 (shortly before Gerald Grinstein stepped down as CEO) when he made the official announcement to move all 767-400ERs to international r
44 777STL : Indeed. I think some here are missing the point by judging this program on a pure dollars and cents basis. The 764 was basically a loss leader. This
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...
How Hard Would It Be To Set Up Your Own Airline? posted Sun Jun 18 2006 12:15:47 by Samair
Another Airport In NYC: Would It Be International? posted Sat Jan 7 2006 20:26:47 by Dsa
Would it be more beneficial if Northwest filed? posted Wed Aug 31 2005 03:18:00 by Swaluvfa
Alaska Air To HNL? Would It Be Feasible? posted Thu Jul 7 2005 22:21:29 by AlaskaAirMD83
A380-900 Would It Be A Lot Of New Work? posted Wed Jan 19 2005 22:16:38 by A380900
If SAN Moved, What Would It Be Like? posted Tue Apr 6 2004 21:21:29 by PanAm747
If EK Were To Join an Alliance, which would it be? posted Fri Apr 2 2004 20:20:28 by KL808
If You Ran An Airline...What Would It Be? posted Wed Jan 21 2004 20:59:40 by SmithAir747
If you where to design a c/s, what would it be? posted Wed Jan 7 2004 06:05:50 by 7574EVER
Aeroflot NCE-SVO-DEL Rt - How Would It Be? posted Tue Dec 2 2003 17:49:15 by JGPH1A