Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Will AA Ever Have A 100 Seat Plane (again)?  
User currently offlineGlobalCabotage From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 602 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 10881 times:

The F100 filled a need in AA's fleet before it was retired. Now AA does not have a plane between the CR7 with 60+seats and MD80 with 140 seats (soon to me 787 with 160 seats). This is a huge gap and impacts operations, especially at ORD where a 100 seat plane is desperately needed (reduce lower filled MD80s and increase oversolde CR7s). Given this is AA, labor will be an issue. APA flew the F100, but Eagle flies the CR7s.

Will AA ever have a 100 seater? I have not seen this as part of the corner stone strategy.

38 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJBo From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 2316 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 10765 times:

It would not surprise me to someday see the E190/195 in AA's fleet, but not before resolving some labor and scope issues.

Also, I'm fairly certain the E-jets use bonded primer (but could be wrong), so the bare metal livery could be an issue unless AA works something out with Embraer.

I have a feeling we'll see a rebranding prior to 787 rollout, however, since we know that aircraft has no bare metal.



I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.
User currently offlinedavs5032 From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 388 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10630 times:

I'm not necessarily shocked that AA doesn't fly a 100-seater anymore, but it is unbelievable how big the capacity gap is in their fleet. I'm wondering what percentage of their MD80 replacements are going to end up being the 160 seat 738's, and what percent are going to be equal to or less than 140 seats. Seems to me that many of the routes that they use the MD80 on need less capacity than 140 seats, not more.
For this reason, I expected AA to phase out the MD80's with a mixture of 73G's and 738's, but that may still be in the cards.


User currently offlinelaca773 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 4005 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 10341 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

At the time AA disposed of the F100s, they should have thought about some sort of replacement at that time. They have had this gaping hole in their fleet, since then and had other opportunities to add a 100 seat a/c with the TWA merger. They had 717s plus more on order. If Boeing had kept this program alive, this would have been an ideal a/c for them however it is limited on range which AA needs for longer thin routes where customers do not want to fly on a small, cramped CR7.

AA definitely needs something in the near future. At the same time, costs and discontent employees and unions can be a big issue with something as smart as this. I think these a/c will operate mainline vs Eagle. I feel the best a/c to fit their needs at this point and time are the E75 and the E90 &95s.


User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5209 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 10177 times:

A friend of mine is an AA pilot. One of the issues in the contract negotiations is which carrier will fly the new 100-seat jet, AA or Eagle.

Regardless, once a tentative agreement is reached and ratified by the pilots, there will be an order for 100-seat jets.

Now, my friend thought that management was leaning towards the Embrear 190. But if you read the transcript of the conference call with the analysts for the last quarter, AMR CEO Gerard Arpey made a comment about the potential for the Canadair C-Series.

Now, I've read comments to the effect that AMR/Eagle was happier with the Embrear 135/140/145 than with the Canadair CRJ 700. So, the comment from Arpey about the C-Series surprised me.

Either way, a carrier currently owned by AMR will have a 100-seat jet some time in the future.


User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2597 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 9844 times:

AFAIK, AA's scope clause is as follows:

- up to 50 seats: 525 RJ's max
- 50-70 seats: 43 props max, no RJ's allowed (existing Eagle CR7's allowed under a waiver)
- above 70 seats: not allowed

So until they fix that, no chance...


User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22860 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 9230 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 5):
So until they fix that, no chance...

Why not? I realize relations with the Mainline pilots aren't great, but I think this is an area where management and pilots might actually be able to come to an agreement (100 seaters at Mainline - even at not-so-high rates - means much less need for CR7s - at MQ).

Quoting ckfred (Reply 4):
Now, I've read comments to the effect that AMR/Eagle was happier with the Embrear 135/140/145 than with the Canadair CRJ 700. So, the comment from Arpey about the C-Series surprised me.

The ERJs and the 190 and the CRJs and the C-series are quite a bit different, so unless there's a significant difference in manufacturer support (which I doubt), it shouldn't make much difference. MQ is already a signficant operator of both (should be the second largest ERJ operator behind XE and around the 10th-largest CRJ operator).



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineAA767400 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 2353 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8786 times:

As soon as they merge with B6, they'll have their 100 seater.  


"The low fares airline."
User currently offlineripcordd From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1159 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8718 times:

The 100seat plane is the biggest hole in AA and if they had one they could better compete against others....It would be wise for the Mainline Pilots for them to cost effectively fly them. I could see AA with up to 150 / 100 seater planes...There is a huge need for them in ORD and they could use them to expand out of LAX.

User currently offlineTrucker From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 190 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8023 times:

Is it fair to say AA would love to buy a bunch of new airplanes but money constraints prevent them from doing so? So they have to prioritize their purchases. I think right now they view replacing the MD80s with 738s more important than adding 100 seat airplanes.

User currently offlineremymartin11 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 67 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7825 times:

If AA had any sense, they would bring back F100 service LGA-DAL. That all J service was excellent, and they only did it to compete with Legend. It's sad that carriers only upgrade/downgrade service to compete. Heaven forbid they do something for the customer and try to build a business on new service. Once Legend went away, adios AA F100's to DAL. Sad. No wonder the Legacy's are in trouble.

User currently offlineAmerican 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3759 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7774 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

If Fokker had stayed in business and continued making the F100, would AA have added more of those? That is the question. They took the decision to phase out the 100 to cut cost and for fleet simplification, but wasn't it also for lack of available spare parts? IIRC, American had an additional 75 units on option besides the 75 they bought. It is true, however that they would be looking for a replacement by now, if they were still flying the Fokker. They would probably be looking at the C Series.

I remember back in 1994 when the very first issue of Airways appeared, there was an article all about the Fokker 100 and AA pilots used to call it "Spitfire" because of its maneuverability and characteristics in handling the aircraft. I know pilots at AA used to enjoy flying this aircraft.

Ben Soriano



Ben Soriano
User currently offlineCIDflyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 2281 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7776 times:

what was the reasoning behind the F100 retirement? Weere they a little hasty in retiring thoose? Look at how NW(DL) kept and still has the DC9's...maybe AA should have kept the F100s around a little longer and refurbished them??

User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8285 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7739 times:

Quoting GlobalCabotage (Thread starter):
Will AA ever have a 100 seater?

Yes, but it will be in B6 colors  
Quoting GlobalCabotage (Thread starter):
Given this is AA, labor will be an issue.

And that is exactly why it will be in B6 colors.
It will be a lot easier and cheaper for AA to just put their code on the B6 flights.


User currently offlinePSU.DTW.SCE From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 7551 posts, RR: 28
Reply 14, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 7105 times:

Quoting laca773 (Reply 3):
At the time AA disposed of the F100s, they should have thought about some sort of replacement at that time. They have had this gaping hole in their fleet, since then and had other opportunities to add a 100 seat a/c with the TWA merger. They had 717s plus more on order. If Boeing had kept this program alive, this would have been an ideal a/c for them however it is limited on range which AA needs for longer thin routes where customers do not want to fly on a small, cramped CR7

At the time when AA retired the F-100 they were bleeding money. They were in no position to take on another fleet type, nor where there any viable fleet types that could be flown economically (e.g, mainline wages on a 100 seat jet).

Quoting ckfred (Reply 4):
Now, I've read comments to the effect that AMR/Eagle was happier with the Embrear 135/140/145 than with the Canadair CRJ 700. So, the comment from Arpey about the C-Series surprised me.

Whatever comments you have read are purely anedotal, and just A.net rumor-talk. There is no such truth to this statement. AA isn't "unhappy" with their CR7's.

Quoting Trucker (Reply 9):
Is it fair to say AA would love to buy a bunch of new airplanes but money constraints prevent them from doing so? So they have to prioritize their purchases. I think right now they view replacing the MD80s with 738s more important than adding 100 seat airplanes.

Exactly. A 100 seat jet gives them incrementally more capacity on any given flight, but they can easily balance capacity into a market with a combination of ERJ, CR7, MD80/738 flights.

Quoting remymartin11 (Reply 10):
If AA had any sense, they would bring back F100 service LGA-DAL. That all J service was excellent, and they only did it to compete with Legend. It's sad that carriers only upgrade/downgrade service to compete. Heaven forbid they do something for the customer and try to build a business on new service. Once Legend went away, adios AA F100's to DAL. Sad. No wonder the Legacy's are in trouble.

56 seats on the F-100 in all-J is not a sustainable business model. It may have worked back in the late 90's but such would not work now and is certainly not necessary with the service at DFW. The service may have been excellent, but one can easily just buy an F ticket on DFW-LGA today. The economics of all-J service on domestic flights doesn't work today.

Quoting American 767 (Reply 11):
If Fokker had stayed in business and continued making the F100, would AA have added more of those? That is the question. They took the decision to phase out the 100 to cut cost and for fleet simplification, but wasn't it also for lack of available spare parts? IIRC, American had an additional 75 units on option besides the 75 they bought. It is true, however that they would be looking for a replacement by now, if they were still flying the Fokker. They would probably be looking at the C Series.

I remember back in 1994 when the very first issue of Airways appeared, there was an article all about the Fokker 100 and AA pilots used to call it "Spitfire" because of its maneuverability and characteristics in handling the aircraft. I know pilots at AA used to enjoy flying this aircraft.

The F-100s has numerous issues, and AA's network changed, which caused AA to not act on the remaining 75 options.
AA initially ordered the F-100s to use from their RDU & BNA hubs. They were meant to fly North/south routes in the Eastern half of the US. However, by the time AA received all of their initial 75 F-100s they were winding down operations in BNA and RDU and ramping up MIA. The financial hardships on the early-90's also caused AA no longer be interested needing more F-100s. The F-100s found a home in ORD and DFW, but lacked the range to do the longer flights and found themselves on routes like DTW-ORD, DFW-SAT, etc. The F-100 was not ideal on these routes, and it had an expensive CASM, not too much different than the MD-80. Ultimately operating a 90-100 seat aircraft at mainline wages was not economical in the red-ink era of the early 2000s, earlier this decade.

Quoting CIDflyer (Reply 12):
what was the reasoning behind the F100 retirement? Weere they a little hasty in retiring thoose? Look at how NW(DL) kept and still has the DC9's...maybe AA should have kept the F100s around a little longer and refurbished them??

AA wanted to get rid of the F-100s for serveral reasons. Remember the F-100s outlasted the TWA 717s that AA immediately got rid of because of their extremely high lease rates.
- Lack of commonality with other fleet types (parts, tooling, training)
- Lack of manufacturer aftermarket support
- Operational challenges (low max. landing weight made it challenging to use on short routes)
- Quirky electrical system
- High CASM
- Expensive pending airworthiness directive (AD) on the RR Tay engines
- A couple of high-profile main landing gear collapses (AA had one at DFW)

Overall it came down to the fact that AA needed to shed airplanes and fleet types as they shrunk. With the costs and challenges associated with the F-100 fleet versus the excess number of MD-80s, it made sense to dump the F-100s while they could.

Keep in mind that after this year that DL will no longer have a 100 seat aircraft too. The DC-9-30s have been retired, there are 5-6 110 seat -40s around, but they will be gone in the next few weeks. They have the -50s left, but those are a 125 seat aircraft, like the A319. Yes, DL has a ton of 76 seat RJs, but they too do not have anything between 76-125 seats either.


User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3471 posts, RR: 47
Reply 15, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6744 times:

Quoting American 767 (Reply 11):
I remember back in 1994 when the very first issue of Airways appeared, there was an article all about the Fokker 100 and AA pilots used to call it "Spitfire" because of its maneuverability and characteristics in handling the aircraft. I know pilots at AA used to enjoy flying this aircraft.

Nobody I knew called it "Spitfire." It was way UNDERpowered. Kind of like an underpowered sports car. Fun to drive (nice handling) but with no get-up-and-go (slow to accelerate and low maximum speeds).

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 14):
AA initially ordered the F-100s to use from their RDU & BNA hubs. They were meant to fly North/south routes in the Eastern half of the US.

Not quite accurate. Initially ORDERED to fill N/S flying along the WEST coast. When it couldn't meet EE noise slot standards at SNA, the decision was to base it in BNA with ORD & DFW opening later. The F100 was never based in RDU (it was a 727 base). We did SOME flying there, but the primary planes were 727s and MD80s.

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 14):
However, by the time AA received all of their initial 75 F-100s they were winding down operations in BNA and RDU and ramping up MIA.

I think your timing is a little off. I was flying F100 at BNA when the purchase of the ex-EA MIA/South America operations was announced. Within 2 months our (AA F100s) load factors in/out of RDU had dropped to less than 1/2 what they were previously as we watched 727s that used to fly in/out of RDU literally overfly the airport headed to/from MIA. And I wasn't an "early bird" to the F100, but I was there when we closed the BNA F100 base.

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 14):
Overall it came down to the fact that AA needed to shed airplanes and fleet types as they shrunk. With the costs and challenges associated with the F-100 fleet versus the excess number of MD-80s, it made sense to dump the F-100s while they could.

While I disagree with the accuracy of your listing, the generic statement above is correct. The F100 never found a "home" with AA simply because its original markets [N/S hub flying] disappeared within the AA system. N/S west coast (SJC "hub") was never going to be a success (according to AA's own west coast marketing experts) and was eventually closed with the F100 having never operated west of the Rocky Mountains. BNA & RDU were closed (for different reasons) removing the only hubs with any focus on a N/S orientation. Bottom line: F100 was cost INeffective in the AA system.



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 42
Reply 16, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6730 times:

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 14):
The F-100s has numerous issues

Like what ?

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 14):
- Lack of manufacturer aftermarket support

They are still supported and always were, by the manufacturer.

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 14):
- Quirky electrical system

It still works fine.

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 14):
- High CASM

Makes me wonder why those same frames are still flying even with very tiny operators.

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 14):
- Expensive pending airworthiness directive (AD) on the RR Tay engines

Todays operators don't seem to have the same problems.

To me it all sounds like a good item for the Mythbusters  



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2597 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6580 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 6):
Why not? I realize relations with the Mainline pilots aren't great, but I think this is an area where management and pilots might actually be able to come to an agreement (100 seaters at Mainline - even at not-so-high rates - means much less need for CR7s - at MQ).

Well, the whole point would be to have MQ fly 100-seat a/c - flying them with mainline wages is not competitive, I doubt AA would go for that just to fill a size gap. Therefore, what I meant is that adding a 100-seater would be conditioned to negotiating a more liberal scope clause.


User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5209 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6384 times:

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 14):
Whatever comments you have read are purely anedotal, and just A.net rumor-talk. There is no such truth to this statement. AA isn't "unhappy" with their CR7's.

I didn't say that AMR/Eagle was unhappy with the CR7. I said that AMR/Eagle was happier with the Embrears than the Canadairs. That's why some people I know at AA were surprised with Arpey's comment about the C-Series during the conference call with the analysts.

The talk had been that AA was leaning towards the Embrear 190. Partly because of the very high satisfacation with the Embrear fleet. Partly because Arpey seems adverse to being a launch customer for a new aircraft, as evidence by AA waiting so long to order the 787.


User currently offlinetxkf2010 From Bermuda, joined Nov 2005, 208 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5134 times:

With the way things are now, you'd think they'd be able to pick some 717s again at much lower rates, or buy them. But I don't what the scope of availability is on 717s these days either. I just really like the 717 and want to see them continue to fly.


...Rastafari Stands Alone...
User currently offlineJBo From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 2316 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 5079 times:

Quoting txkf2010 (Reply 19):
With the way things are now, you'd think they'd be able to pick some 717s again at much lower rates, or buy them. But I don't what the scope of availability is on 717s these days either. I just really like the 717 and want to see them continue to fly.

They could potentially lease the former Midwest/Mexicana 717s, but I've heard rumors that MX may come back to life.

There's also no knowing what may ultimately happen to FL's 717s once the WN merger is complete.



I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.
User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22860 posts, RR: 20
Reply 21, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 5064 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 17):
Well, the whole point would be to have MQ fly 100-seat a/c - flying them with mainline wages is not competitive,

What are "mainline wages" and how do those compare to "Eagle wages?" Seems like there's no good way to compare the two given that Eagle flies nothing larger than a CR7 and Mainline flies nothing smaller than an S80.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineWeb From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 427 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 5058 times:

Didn't AMR order more CR7s fairly recently? I seem to remember something like 25 more coming in over the next few years. If so, was this just a relief measure to give some margin to the current maxed-out CR7 fleet, or was this more of a stopgap measure until a 100-seater comes into the fleet?


Next flight: GRR-ORD-PDX-SEA-ORD-GRR
User currently offlineDualQual From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 763 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 5024 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 17):
Well, the whole point would be to have MQ fly 100-seat a/c - flying them with mainline wages is not competitive, I doubt AA would go for that just to fill a size gap. Therefore, what I meant is that adding a 100-seater would be conditioned to negotiating a more liberal scope clause.

So where do you draw the line? Next management will be saying that it is uncompetitive to operate the A380 at mainline wages? If the whole business plan revolves around starvation wages to work then the business plan has failed. Maybe the next step is to start looking at more cost effective management. SWA has the highest paid labor in the industry yet they find ways to make money every quarter.

It is a waste of my time to argue specifics over wage rates on this forum but I don't think anybody that takes the responsibility to take your life into their hands needs to worry about putting healthy food on the table and being able to live in a safe neighborhood.

One more question, how much of your ticket do you really think is going to cover the cost of the labor on the airplane?

[Edited 2010-11-26 07:53:42]

User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22860 posts, RR: 20
Reply 24, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4946 times:

Quoting DualQual (Reply 23):
So where do you draw the line?

The line should have been drawn as "mainline pilots fly jets," but ALPA (and APA) pretty well mucked that up 15 years ago.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
25 Tan Flyr : A couple of other things , based on what I read on another thread a day or 2 ago...AA is now only retiring ONE MD-80 to every 3 or so 738's arriving f
26 Post contains images AAR90 : Try twenty years ago for APA. American Eagle pilots USED to be APA members, but APA "leadership" pretty much screwed them over after using their vote
27 yyz717 : AA could order a small fleet of 73G's and continue to order the 738 and CR7. Collectively this could replace the M80 fleet without adding another type
28 DualQual : I'll take you one further and suggest that all flying done under a company's logo should be done by pilots hired and trained by said company.
29 r2rho : I'd say drawing the line at 100 seats is reasonable. AA's current scope clause is far too restrictive. A380's no, but A320's... in Europe, IB and AF
30 PC12Fan : Why not consider the F100NG?
31 Cubsrule : I can't argue with that, but to me, your line and mine are the only two sensible ones. Anything else is simply arbitrary.
32 JBo : And they would solve that problem by having the regional carriers start flying under their own brand name but with the same codesharing and ticketing
33 DCA-ROCguy : AA and 100-seaters...a top 100-or-so Airliners.net chestnut. Unions would no doubt love to get that item, or at least "mainline pilots fly jets." That
34 dtw757 : Deliveries started in June and the total additional aircraft will be 22. Currently 13 of the 22 aircraft have been delivered.
35 dsuairptman : I agree AA needs something in the 100-125 seat range. As said already labor will be a huge hurdle to clear and IMO Apery is using this as leverage in
36 American 767 : American won't order the 736, it is not even a doubt: they WON'T. They are already hesitating on taking the 73G in addition to the 738 because of the
37 Cubsrule : I don't see the 73G. The trip costs are too close to the 738, which is why they haven't been real popular among legacies in the past 10 years or so.
38 ckfred : Your analysis is good, but here are two points to consider. With a jet of 100 seats or less, AA could operate a plane with 2 F/As, saving on labor. A
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...
Will AA Ever Consider A Premium Economy Section? posted Tue Sep 22 2009 13:45:41 by FCO110
Will AA Ever Fly To CLE? posted Sun Aug 9 2009 19:28:21 by TrijetFan1
Will D7 Ever Have Low Cost Competition? posted Thu Jan 29 2009 00:05:53 by Ben175
Will AA Ever Return To ALB posted Sat Jan 3 2009 06:08:40 by AirMatt
Will AA Ever Serve Amsterdam posted Tue Nov 4 2008 21:38:05 by LONGisland89
Will AA Ever Fly DFW-China? posted Sat Oct 20 2007 13:26:07 by LAXdude1023
Will AA Ever Come Back To FSD? posted Mon Aug 27 2007 05:07:41 by Airbusaddict
Will Varig Ever Operate 777 Or Larger A/c Again? posted Fri Jul 6 2007 00:37:03 by JAM747
Will AA Ever Bring Back STL-CUN/SJU posted Sun Mar 18 2007 21:53:49 by CIDflyer
Will HAL Ever Fly Their Very Own Again? posted Mon Jun 20 2005 00:11:53 by FlyHI777