Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
QR's Al Baker: Interesting Comments On New NBs  
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12322 posts, RR: 35
Posted (3 years 1 month 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 11631 times:

Flight Global has a very interesting article with Ali Al Baker of QR, discussing the airline's future narrowbody options and indeed, future NB projects generally:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ew-boeing-to-a320neo-al-baker.html

A few very interesting points arise:

1) QR would prefer an all-new Boeing NB to the A320 NEO
2) Comparison of the A320 NEO to the "pre-XWB" A350.
3) Airbus wanted the NEO to be C-series killer, but the Bombardier narrowbody is "a killer of an airplane" on flights up to 3.5h, with "far superior" seat mile costs to the Neo"
4) Narrowbodies a hard sell on anything longer than that, says AAB, giving examples of flight to VIE.

All in all a very interesting article, pointing very definitely to a QR order in the near future (Paris?).

AAB does a bit of "self-gloss", crediting QR for making the A350XWB "a very fine airplane", but he did have an impact on Airbus's decision, clearly. With this in mind, Airbus will no doubt be interested in his comments, if not very concerned.

AAB may not be the most popular person in the industry, but his airline is clearly influential and his words will be listened to; I'm sure he echoes ideas and views which many of us hold; basically, the underlying message is "stop messing about with warmed over designs of existing models and give us something new".

42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6727 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 month 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 11519 times:

Well we have to see how much dust Boeing kicks up with its 737 option, unlike the previous 787/A350 scenario, the upgrade has been announced and offered first.
If Boeing offers a competing upgrade the NEO will continue with little or no fuss, if a new build is offered, the new jet syndrome and bean counters will have at it, and based on the prevailing winds, Airbus may have to offer its new build sooner rather than later. I grant it as a given that if Boeing announces a new build Airbus will have to do the same, question is when.
In this day and age of modern computers, the time to bring a new design to market is longer so the NEO could very well be up for sale while a new design is in the works.

   RLI is now deemed legal by the WTO so Airbus is limited to doing the NEO and a new build only by desire and not finances, let's see how Boeing does getting RLI from the US government.


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21415 posts, RR: 60
Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 month 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 11262 times:

I think this points out something that Boeing might be realizing but Airbus has yet to realize...

The future for a large aircraft manufacturer is to provide "hub to point" aircraft in a midsize with regional range. We talk about the growth of Asia and the Mid-East hubs, but the A380 isn't the answer for all of those routes.

The reason the A330 is selling so well is that it IS the current answer for these kind of routes, but it's a bit large for some. If it's true that the ME carriers don't want NB aircraft for these routes (due to volume, customer preference, etc.) then a modern 757/763 replacement would sell hundreds of examples to these carriers alone. They are also suitable for large city to small city routes in China, transcon USA, Hawaii flights (from Asia and USA), TATL, etc.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinebehramjee From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 4716 posts, RR: 44
Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 month 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 11048 times:

That is why QR ordered many B 788s because they are smaller than the A 332s and can fit in approximately 30-35 less pax than their current A 332s in a 2 class configuration. The B 788 will be the main aircraft used by QR in the short term for their new and currently flown EU routes that are being operated with A 332s presently.

User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29675 posts, RR: 84
Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 month 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 10645 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kaitak (Thread starter):
QR would prefer an all-new Boeing NB to the A320 NEO

And to think I was just joking in that other (now deleted) thread about Ali Al Baker's comments on the A320neo that they would be a launch customer for the 797. :P


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 month 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 10400 times:

Quoting kaitak (Thread starter):
Airbus wanted the NEO to be C-series killer, but the Bombardier narrowbody is "a killer of an airplane" on flights up to 3.5h, with "far superior" seat mile costs to the Neo"

I don't have a direct comparison to 319NEO, but here's what my model suggests for a 1,500 nm trip, comparing the CS300ER to B73G.
CS300 Versus B737-700 Updated Analysis (by LAXDESI Apr 1 2009 in Tech Ops)#menu27

for a 1,500 nm mission:
.......CS300ER.... B737-700
OEW ....78,200.... 83,000
MSP .....37,500 ....38,700 (Max. Structural Payload)
Fuel Wt..16,684 ....21,690 (with reserve)
TOW.....132,384. .143,390
Fuel Burn. 2,246.......2,920(in gallons)
GTM.........0.017.....0.020 (Gallon ton mile)
CS300ER is 15% more efficient on a gallon ton mile basis..

Quoting behramjee (Reply 3):
That is why QR ordered many B 788s because they are smaller than the A 332s and can fit in approximately 30-35 less pax than their current A 332s in a 2 class configuration.

B788 is only 1m shorter than A332, and has a wider fuselage. I don't see how it loses 30-35 seats to A332 even with B788 in 8-abreast Y layout.


User currently offlineqfa787380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 month 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 10331 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 5):
B788 is only 1m shorter than A332, and has a wider fuselage. I don't see how it loses 30-35 seats to A332 even with B788 in 8-abreast Y layout.

Agreed, I thought that was a very strange statement.


User currently onlineQatarA340 From Qatar, joined May 2006, 1729 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 month 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 10065 times:

Quoting behramjee (Reply 3):
That is why QR ordered many B 788s because they are smaller than the A 332s and can fit in approximately 30-35 less pax than their current A 332s in a 2 class configuration. The B 788 will be the main aircraft used by QR in the short term for their new and currently flown EU routes that are being operated with A 332s presently.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
And to think I was just joking in that other (now deleted) thread about Ali Al Baker's comments on the A320neo that they would be a launch customer for the 797. :P
Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 5):
B788 is only 1m shorter than A332, and has a wider fuselage. I don't see how it loses 30-35 seats to A332 even with B788 in 8-abreast Y layout.

Isnt 9 abreast the "standard" configuration now for Y in 788?

I do not think Al-Baker should make that statement. I think the NEOs are excellent aircraft and they should order at least 10 for European and longer routes.



لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله
User currently offlineB735 From Estonia, joined Oct 2010, 63 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 month 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 9499 times:

It seems to me like the typical AAB hot air, telling Airbus that their A320NEO are not suitable etc, but in the end he'll probably end up buying it anyway...

Sometimes I can't help thinking that perhaps AAB and MOL of Ryanair went to the same school...   


User currently offlinepylon101 From Russia, joined Feb 2008, 1392 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 1 month 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 9341 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
And to think I was just joking in that other (now deleted) thread about Ali Al Baker's comments on the A320neo that they would be a launch customer for the 797. :P

I have a looong posting about my experience of a 5 hour flight DME-DOH on the thread started by Stitch.
But moderators deleted the thread for some reason.


User currently offlineburkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4360 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 month 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 9185 times:

To clarify the numbers:

Cabin Length is
B787-800 42.29m
B787-900 48.39m

A330-200 45.0m
A330-300 50.35

So. 788 cabin length is 2.7 m = 3 rows below A332 cabin length, and 789 is in the middle between A332 and A333. This is often represented wrong here.

788 can seat as many passengers as the 332 if you compare 9 abreast versus 8 abreast.


User currently offlineChiad From Norway, joined May 2006, 1079 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 month 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 9167 times:

I really hope that Airbus keeps going with the NEO and don't loose their focus like they did with the initial A350.
My opinion is that if Airbus had kept to the initial A350 it would have been flying since 2010, with better economics that the first batches of B787.
If the B787 actually EIS in July this year
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...s-july-for-787-first-delivery.html
then I assume up to 100 A350 could have been in service by then.
But with the recent A330 orders one could just imagine what the initial A350 could have produced.

With the A350 in service Airbus could now have gone for what will now be the XWB.
Airbus should stay with the NEO and launch the "A360" in 2016/2017

Let Boeing launch the B797, and hopefully the B737NEO, with delays to 2025.
Remember ... Boeing have to sort out the B787, B748, and presumably a B777 upgrade.


User currently offlineburkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4360 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 month 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 9068 times:

Quoting Chiad (Reply 11):
With the A350 in service Airbus could now have gone for what will now be the XWB.
Airbus should stay with the NEO and launch the "A360" in 2016/2017

Looking how well the A330-200 and A330-300 sell now, and production sold out for years, I doubt the A330-500 would have created still more deliveries for years to come. At least the A333 still has many years to sell even without reengine.

I agree A has to go forward with the A320 NEO as it is planned now. This will sell well at a good margin between 2016 and 202x. Then they still can replace the A320 wing box, wing and body structure by a carbon one, and or use larger panels to reduce weight.

If the A360 should be targeted against the 797 or again be half an aircraft size bigger (762 to A332 size) or smaller remains to be determined in four years.


User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3341 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 1 month 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 9033 times:

Al Baker:

"In my frank opinion, Airbus is making the same mistake with the Neo as with the old A350," he says, referring to the previous A350 - a re-engined version of the A330 - as "an old lady dressed up in new clothes".

Not true IMO. The A350 Mk1 was a low development cost, re-engined A330 but attracted little interest in terms of orders. The A320NEO is a low development cost, re-engined A320 but has attracted orders/commitments for several hundred in less than 3 months with several hundred more orders predicted in the next 3 months.

I'm sure that Al Baker would like Airbus to spend $10-15 billion on an all new A320 replacement. It would be a better aircraft than a ca $2 billion A320NEO but the technology to make it far, far better than the A320NEO is not there at the moment. There is no business case for Airbus to do as Al Baker would like them to do.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12060 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (3 years 1 month 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 7918 times:

If Airbus had gone ahead with the A-350 Mk. 1 (essentially an A-330NEO), what would have been the effect on sales of the "A-332/3-Classic"?

The Mk.1 design was not as popular as some here think now, nor was it very innovative. Yes, it was 'ordered' by US, but I doubt US really has a choice as it was Airbus that bailed them out of bankruptcy (the US 'order' was also 'transferred' to the A-350-Mk.2, Mk.3, Mk.4, Mk.5,and Mk.6-the current "XWB").

Had the Mk.1, or any other A-350 version except the XWB, entered airline service, it would have been killed off by the current versions of the B-777s.

As far as the A-320NEO goes, some here seemed to have forgotten that AAB is one of the guys who will write the check to pay for it. AAB seems to either playing a game with Airbus to get a mush better discount to place an A-32X-NEO order, or he truely wants the SA)">CS-100/-300 and B-797 combination for his NB fleet. Some other ME airlines may very well follow his lead on their next NB orders. That has to scare the hell out of John Leahy and Airbus.

I think airlines like QR, and possibly SA)">DL, will start the order ball rolling on the C-Series this year if the economics are even close to what AAB says they are, the C-Series is the best NB airplane for missions up to 3.5 hours in lenght. Most SA)">NA airline missions for NBs ( as well as those in the EU, SA, Asia, ME, and Africa) fit into the 3.5 hour flight time, or less. With fuel prices having massive fluxuations like they have over the past 3 years, that is becoming an important consideration in airplane purchases. IIRC, there are some 30 SA)">CS-100s and 60 SA)">CS-300s currently on order, including some 30 for LH and 40 for Republic Holdings.


User currently offlineburkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4360 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (3 years 1 month 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7871 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
Had the Mk.1, or any other A-350 version except the XWB, entered airline service, it would have been killed off by the current versions of the B-777s.

I see the current A330s replacing 777s on many missions, so a reengined A330-500 would not do worse than old engines A333 do.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12414 posts, RR: 100
Reply 16, posted (3 years 1 month 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7201 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

From the OP link:
"Qatar Airways is closing on a deal to take CSeries after coming close to resolving long-running issues with engine supplier Pratt & Whitney over maintenance cost guarantees."

I can only hope! Bombardier needs this order. There is absolutely zero reason for QR to rush to complete this order (short of a killer deal). I'm a huge fan of the Cseries. I've pointed out before how difficult it is to launch a new type (in particular for anyone but Boeing or Airbus).

I hope to see quite a few C-series orders at this year's Paris air show.

Quoting kaitak (Thread starter):
Airbus wanted the NEO to be C-series killer, but the Bombardier narrowbody is "a killer of an airplane" on flights up to 3.5h, with "far superior" seat mile costs to the Neo"

 
Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 5):
Fuel Burn. 2,246.......2,920(in gallons)

At over $3/gallon, that is (roughtly) $2k more in expenses per flight just on fuel. And the C-series should have excellent maintenance ecoomics. (QR held out for guarantees, which is all part of negotiations.)

Quoting art (Reply 13):
Not true IMO. The A350 Mk1 was a low development cost, re-engined A330 but attracted little interest in terms of orders. The A320NEO is a low development cost, re-engined A320 but has attracted orders/commitments for several hundred in less than 3 months with several hundred more orders predicted in the next 3 months.

Good points. The A320 family also is a better candidate for a re-engine. I'm not going to break an NDA, but we'll just say airbus has been looking into a re-engine since 1998.    For the A321 a circa 2000 GTF was an economics game changer. Now with a far more advanced GTF... In particular, wide chord blades are reducing the low turbine to 3 rows of blades! A nice weight savings versus the concepts I worked on. (Weight savingsis very important in NB short haul.)

Quoting art (Reply 13):
There is no business case for Airbus to do as Al Baker would like them to do.

Not yet. Disclaimer, I'm in aerospace R&D, so I'd like to see that $10B spent.     

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlinegoenkar From Canada, joined Mar 2011, 5 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 1 month 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6543 times:

Does anyone know which narrow body Emirates will go for to feed into and out of it's hub in DXB?

User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (3 years 1 month 3 days ago) and read 6492 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 2):
I think this points out something that Boeing might be realizing but Airbus has yet to realize...

The future for a large aircraft manufacturer is to provide "hub to point" aircraft in a midsize with regional range. We talk about the growth of Asia and the Mid-East hubs, but the A380 isn't the answer for all of those routes.

Sorry, but what exactly is 'realised' by Boeing but yet Airbus are 'obviously' unaware of as pertaining to the thread......which relates to Al Baker's opinion on new Narrowbodies? Can you thus perhaps explain why you are bringing the A380 to bear claiming that it isn't the answer to "all of those routes"? What routes exactly and, indeed, who claimed it did in order for you come out against it? Who exactly are "we" and I would assume both Boeing and Airbus know their business very well so I'm curious as to 'who' is advising what their future needs to be. Personally, I think they have done very well up until now!


User currently offlinevoltage From United States of America, joined May 2007, 109 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (3 years 1 month 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 5700 times:

Quoting goenkar (Reply 17):
Does anyone know which narrow body Emirates will go for to feed into and out of it's hub in DXB?

77W   


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29675 posts, RR: 84
Reply 20, posted (3 years 1 month 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 5648 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting goenkar (Reply 17):
Does anyone know which narrow body Emirates will go for to feed into and out of it's hub in DXB?

Narrowbody aircraft do not appear to be in EK's strategic direction. And while not a formal part of the Emirates Group, FZ (flydubai) is also owned by Ahmed bin Saeed Al Maktoum (Chairman of EK) so they could always tie-up via alliance or codeshare.

[Edited 2011-03-16 14:44:44]

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12414 posts, RR: 100
Reply 21, posted (3 years 1 month 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5254 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting voltage (Reply 19):
Does anyone know which narrow body Emirates will go for to feed into and out of it's hub in DXB?

77W

  

Quoting burkhard (Reply 12):
If the A360

That is an unfortunate numbering designation that should be skipped. Perhaps it is time for A8x0?

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlinesofianec From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 235 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (3 years 1 month 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5188 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 21):
That is an unfortunate numbering designation that should be skipped. Perhaps it is time for A8x0?

Why unfortunate? I find Anderson Cooper really hot  

---



A350WARP
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21415 posts, RR: 60
Reply 23, posted (3 years 1 month 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4913 times:

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 18):
Sorry, but what exactly is 'realised' by Boeing but yet Airbus are 'obviously' unaware of as pertaining to the thread......which relates to Al Baker's opinion on new Narrowbodies? Can you thus perhaps explain why you are bringing the A380 to bear claiming that it isn't the answer to "all of those routes"? What routes exactly and, indeed, who claimed it did in order for you come out against it? Who exactly are "we" and I would assume both Boeing and Airbus know their business very well so I'm curious as to 'who' is advising what their future needs to be. Personally, I think they have done very well up until now!

I wish there was an "ignore" button on this forum like on facebook so I wouldn't have to deal with you singling me out all the time.

As for what Boeing has realized (it has a z in it), I'm going on the belief that the 797 will not be a single aisle aircraft.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12414 posts, RR: 100
Reply 24, posted (3 years 1 month 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4814 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sofianec (Reply 22):
Why unfortunate?

In the industry, a jet numbered '360' implies a plane that is always having to turn around and return to the gate for maintenance issues. For example, when the E190 was having software issues (with the parking break, IIRC), it was being referred to as the E360.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 2):
If it's true that the ME carriers don't want NB aircraft for these routes (due to volume, customer preference, etc.) then a modern 757/763 replacement would sell hundreds of examples to these carriers alone. They are also suitable for large city to small city routes in China, transcon USA, Hawaii flights (from Asia and USA), TATL, etc.

On the 'twin-isle' small jet, I wonder how much the market is being driven by the cargo hold? Utilizing modern structures to minimize the fuselage width for 2*LD3.   

I'm not big on the idea that any region is stuck on a particular configuration. It wasn't long ago that a.net believe the ME carriers would all go with the A340 due to their customer preferences for 4 engines. (Ok, EK, QR, and EY all did buy the A345 or A346... initially). So whatever frame Boeing comes up with will have to be economically competitive for a mature aviation market. (Online, buying whatever is a direct but cheap flight.)

Twin isle for volume and freight... Ok, I can dig that concept. But for customer preference, that will change based on the fare.   We're not talking low windows or some other ungodly torture.   

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
25 XaraB : Just to split some hairs; a 360 is a full circle, a 180 would be a more "appropriate" nickname for a plane having to turn back every now and then. Th
26 odwyerpw : Thanks for the moment of levity guys. Priceless. Back to new narrowbodies....It seems a primary means of achieving favorable CASM is going to be upsi
27 Stitch : It also would serve as a way for Boeing (and Airbus, should they follow) to position their products differently than the new entrants like the C919 a
28 TVNWZ : It may go back to the gate, but once it is fixed it goes to the destignation. Thus 360-degrees.
29 Post contains images lightsaber : Exactly. The plane leaves the gate and returns to the gate. It is just an *old* industry joke. I had way too much fun with this. New technologies hav
30 pylon101 : On longer sectors, customers are resistent to flying on single-aisle aircraft, something Al Baker says the airline has learned from operating A320s to
31 FWAERJ : Continental has flown 752s across the Atlantic from EWR for over a decade. And CO has a full BusinessFirst product, along with AVOD in J and Y, on th
32 vfw614 : This may or may not be true, but I do not see the point you - and AAB - are making, Boeing is not developing a widebody 120-150 seater. Apparently 12
33 pylon101 : 15 years ago I felt happy on IL-62M SVO-SNN-IAD flights. Things have changed. I wouldn't fly 757-200 on TATL route - in Y - even for a half of price.
34 Post contains images astuteman : I've had absolutely no issues whatsoever sitting in a CO 757 for 7 hours+ on a reasonably regular basis... Especially at the front Rgds
35 Post contains images XaraB : Ah, I see what you did there, thinking actual movement rather than lines between origin and destination! My mind is way too theoretical
36 JoeCanuck : I used to regularly fly OS 738's from DXB-VIE...almost 6 hour flights. Even without AVOD, the seats were very comfortable and the service was excellen
37 vfw614 : The point simply is - on very thin long-haul routes it will always be a narrowbody or no service at all. We will never see a wide-body with much less
38 Post contains links thediplomat : Excessive Regional demands. I recall an article last year about huge resistance for the relly comfortable Embraers in Bahrain and GF have had huge pr
39 astuteman : I think you might have hit the point here.... Up to now it appears to me that Gulf carriers have owned a preponderance of widebodys, and narrowbodys
40 Post contains images lightsaber : Eventually bow to economics. Lightsaber
41 Post contains images PITingres : A 17 to 18 inch seat is the same size whether it's surrounded by a 737 or an A380. I much MUCH preferred my recent 757 Y experience CDG-PIT over the
42 thediplomat : The fact that Qatar uses A320's to VIE and is struggling with them shows how delicate his business model is. This isnt the fault of the aircraft. OS
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...
Comments On New Pan Am? posted Sun Oct 3 1999 04:12:59 by Davidd0
Al Baker: QR Profitable, IPO 2012 posted Sun Dec 19 2010 05:30:03 by KFlyer
Al-Baker: QR LLC Could Be Ready Within 90 Days! posted Thu May 7 2009 06:44:55 by QatarA340
Any Comments On The New DL Route? JFK-BOM posted Fri Dec 8 2006 09:16:17 by B773ER
Al Baker: QR Is Ordering Not 20, But 40 777-300ERs posted Tue Oct 10 2006 03:10:42 by N328KF
Al-Baker: QR To Delay A380 Delivery posted Wed Jul 21 2004 19:56:07 by ConcordeBoy
More Comments On NWA New Livery posted Mon May 12 2003 17:15:52 by TranStar
Your Comments On PIAs New Livery posted Tue Aug 29 2000 09:58:18 by Airmale
KLM CEO Comments On KLM Brand + Alitalia?! posted Sat Jan 8 2011 10:45:54 by super80
AA Suspends Reservations On New LAX-PVG Route? posted Sun Dec 19 2010 09:37:04 by DL747400
Comments On New Pan Am? posted Sun Oct 3 1999 04:12:59 by Davidd0
Al Baker: QR Profitable, IPO 2012 posted Sun Dec 19 2010 05:30:03 by KFlyer
Al-Baker: QR LLC Could Be Ready Within 90 Days! posted Thu May 7 2009 06:44:55 by QatarA340
Any Comments On The New DL Route? JFK-BOM posted Fri Dec 8 2006 09:16:17 by B773ER
Al Baker: QR Is Ordering Not 20, But 40 777-300ERs posted Tue Oct 10 2006 03:10:42 by N328KF
Al-Baker: QR To Delay A380 Delivery posted Wed Jul 21 2004 19:56:07 by ConcordeBoy
More Comments On NWA New Livery posted Mon May 12 2003 17:15:52 by TranStar
Your Comments On PIAs New Livery posted Tue Aug 29 2000 09:58:18 by Airmale
Two Interesting Articles On MIA Today posted Mon Apr 16 2012 06:12:21 by N62NA
Virgin To Spend £100m On New Upper Class Cabins posted Mon Feb 6 2012 03:26:41 by irishbean