Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AA Dom Flights Launched In 2010: Loads And Changes  
User currently offlinerealsim From Spain, joined Apr 2010, 663 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3980 times:

Hi all,

If I have not forgotten any, in 2010 AA launched 37 new domestic routes: 8 from DFW, 15 from ORD, 5 from MIA, 1 from LAX, 3 from LGA and 5 from JFK. Now that all the domestic traffic data for year 2010 has been released, I have compiled the loads the new routes had during the months they were operated last year. As loads don't indicate if a flight is profitable or not, I have also compared the frequency/capacity when the route was launched, and the capacity that the route will have this July (2011). Like this, we can have an overview of whether the route has been a success or not (for now).

Of the 37 routes, 20 have the same capacity as when they were launched and 8 have more capacity or frequency, what means that 3 out of 4 routes have seemingly worked for now. 7 have seen capacity reductions and 2 have been discontinued.

Routes with the same capacity:

DFW - AVL, CSG, FAY
JFK - ORF
LAX - RNO
LGA - ATL, CLT, MSP
MIA - BHM, CLE, PNS
ORD - ANC, ABE, FAR, HNL, JAX, MDT, MHK, PNS, TRI

Routes with more capacity:

DFW - FSD, RAP
JFK - CMH, CVG, FLL, IND
ORD - DAY, LEX

Routes with less capacity:

DFW - AGS, CYS
MIA - GNV
ORD - AVP, CRW, FSD, RAP

Routes discontinued:

DFW - MYR
MIA - TUL

Note: The frequencies for this July are weekday frequencies, as some flights are reduced on Saturdays. The loads are ONLY until DEC2010 and have been calculated automatically. If someone wants me to post the monthly data for any particular route, just ask it.

Here is the detailed data:

Started in APR10:

DFW-AVL-DFW (79,45% LF): 1x ERD (Seasonal) -> =
DFW-FSD-DFW (78,94% LF): 1x ER4 -> 2x ER4
DFW-MYR-DFW (65,76% LF): 1x ERD (Seasonal) -> Discontinued
DFW-RAP-DFW (81,73% LF): 1x ER4 -> 2x ER4
JFK-CMH-JFK (69,85% LF) : 1x ERD -> 1x ER4 + 1x CR7
MIA-BHM-MIA (63,06% LF): 2x ER4 -> =
MIA-PNS-MIA (79,11% LF): 2x ER4 -> =
ORD-CRW-ORD (60,83% LF) -> 2x ER4 -> 2x ERD
ORD-DAY-ORD (72,02% LF): 3x ER4 -> 5x ER4
ORD-FAR-ORD (56,46% LF): 3x ER4 -> =
ORD-FSD-ORD (53,19% LF): 3x ER4 -> 2x ERD + 1x ER4
ORD-HNL-ORD (89,01% LF): 1x 763 -> =
ORD-JAX-ORD (78,3% LF): 3x ER4 -> =
ORD-LEX-ORD (64,49% LF): 1x ERD + 1x ER4 -> 2x ERD + 1x ERD
ORD-MDT-ORD (81,16% LF): 3x ER4 -> =
ORD-RAP-ORD (68,3% LF) : 2x ER4 (Seasonal) -> 1x ER4 (Seasonal)

Started in MAY10:

ORD-ANC-ORD (74,81% LF): 1x 752 (Seasonal) -> =

Started in JUN10:

DFW-AGS-DFW (76,76% LF): 2x ER4 -> 2x ERD
DFW-FAY-DFW (79,23% LF): 2x ERD -> =
LAX-RNO-LAX (72,25% LF): 3x ERD -> =
MIA-TUL-MIA (57,76% LF): 2w 738 -> Discontinued
ORD-ABE-ORD (76,91% LF): 3x ER4 -> =
ORD-AVP-ORD (78,99% LF): 1x ERD + 1x ER4 -> 2x ERD
ORD-PNS-ORD (69,53% LF): 2w ER4 -> =

Started in JUL10:

DFW-CSG-DFW (56,45% LF): 2x ERD -> =
DFW-CYS-DFW (57,34% LF): 2x ERD -> 1x ERD
LGA-ATL-LGA (64,55% LF): 5x CR7 (+2x in NOV) -> 7x CR7
ORD-TRI-ORD (58,36% LF): 2x ERD -> =

Started in AUG10:

LGA-CLT-LGA (56,88% LF): 3x CR7 (+2x CR7 later) -> 5x CR7

Started in OCT10:

LGA-MSP-LGA (59,94% LF): 4x CR7 -> =
MIA-GNV-MIA (53,49% LF): 2x AT7 -> 2x ER4 (1x ER4 JUN-AUG)

Started in NOV10:

JFK-CVG-JFK (49,39% LF): 1x ER4 -> 2x ER4
JFK-FLL-JFK (69,6% LF): 2x S80 -> 2x 738
JFK-IND-JFK (86,16% LF): 1x ER4 -> 2x ER4
JFK-ORF-JFK (75,1% LF): 1x ER4 -> =
MIA-CLE-MIA (76,58% LF): 2x ER4 -> =
ORD-MHK-ORD (62,17% LF): 1x ER4 -> =

33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSESGDL From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3489 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3956 times:

Interesting how low many of the JFK/LGA loads are. It'd be interesting to compare the stats to those of CO, DL, and B6, all of whom have been battling it out for NYC-based passengers. Obviously, no carrier wants to bite, but load factors in the 50-60s on regional equipment are almost always unprofitable on routes with any type of competition. AA must be bleeding on routes like JFK-CVG and LGA-CLT/MSP/ATL, where the competition is operating mainline equipment with a larger base on one end and with much better frequencies.

Jeremy


User currently offlineKcrwflyer From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3847 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3692 times:

Quoting realsim (Thread starter):
ORD-CRW-ORD (60,83% LF) -> 2x ER4 -> 2x ERD

AA never flew the ER4 to CRW. It appeared in an advanced schedule but was changed to the ERD well before the route ever flew.


User currently offlineAVLAirlineFreq From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 1082 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3588 times:

Nice work. Thanks for doing it.

One thing I don't understand, though--AA wasn't already flying ORD-JAX? That just seems inconceivable.

[Edited 2011-03-16 13:26:06]

User currently offlineTOMMY767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6932 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3588 times:

Quoting realsim (Thread starter):

Started in AUG10:

LGA-CLT-LGA (56,88% LF): 3x CR7 (+2x CR7 later) -> 5x CR7

Started in OCT10:

LGA-MSP-LGA (59,94% LF): 4x CR7 -> =

Not great loads at all. Why would AA be increasing capacity in these markets??



"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11972 posts, RR: 62
Reply 5, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3341 times:

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 4):
Not great loads at all. Why would AA be increasing capacity in these markets??

These markets were always going to be a lift - that was readily apparent from announcement.

Frankly, I'm actually kind of surprised that they have even been able to sustain those loads - I thought they would have been worse. Obviously, the factor we don't know is the fares. AA does have a history of generating better-than-average fares in some markets in and out of New York, so it is not inconceivable that these new routes could still be marginally profitable.

But, either way, I still think that these markets are definitely heading for frequency readjustment. I just cannot see MSP supporting more than - at most - 3 daily CR7s, Charlotte more than 4, or Atlanta more than 5.


User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7808 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3204 times:

I knew the DFW-South Dakota flights were doing very well. I think a DFW-FAR flight would be a real winner too, but I dont know if their ER4's have the range to do it without restriction.

From what I gather, the Eagle flights from DFW to the Midwest do extremely well, but the flights started from DFW to the South do mediocre.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineFlyAA757 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1014 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3165 times:

It is beyond me whyAA doesn't move one of the afternoon ATL-LGA flights to JFK in order to feed the evening Atlantic bank. This would provide reasonable competition to DL in several tatl markets out of atlanta that are only currently DL, US, or UA...

User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11972 posts, RR: 62
Reply 8, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3131 times:

Quoting FlyAA757 (Reply 7):
It is beyond me whyAA doesn't move one of the afternoon ATL-LGA flights to JFK in order to feed the evening Atlantic bank.

Honestly, I think they would be wasting their time.

The limited amount of connections AA would be able to attract to/from Europe would only be lower-yielding traffic they would be able to pry away from Delta's enormous schedule of nonstop flights. In a market where one single airline is so massively dominant, there's no point in even bothering.

They're better off not splitting up their operation at LaGuardia, which is definitely the preferred and more attractive airport for local passengers, and it is in the local market - where AA has a strong presence in New York and a not-totally-insignificant presence in Atlanta - where AA has any shot of making this market work.


User currently offlineabrelosojos From Venezuela, joined May 2005, 5129 posts, RR: 55
Reply 9, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2943 times:

Quoting SESGDL (Reply 1):
but load factors in the 50-60s on regional equipment are almost always unprofitable on routes with any type of competition.

= Why is that? From a network carrier perspective, perhaps those RJ flights generate significant network contribution for it to still stay? For example, a ALB-JFK-LHR only needs say two full/semi-full JCL pax to make ALB-JFK worthwhile.

Saludos,
A.



Live, and let live.
User currently offlineFlyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 2003 posts, RR: 21
Reply 10, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2826 times:

Quoting SESGDL (Reply 1):
Interesting how low many of the JFK/LGA loads are.

Though they may be low, one shouldn't be so quick to surmise that they're unprofitable. Most of the JFK flights exist to feed into AA's TATL bank so, depending on what type of contracts AA might hold in these markets, they could very well be higher yielding and profitable.


User currently offlineSESGDL From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3489 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2790 times:

Quoting Flyguy89 (Reply 10):
Though they may be low, one shouldn't be so quick to surmise that they're unprofitable. Most of the JFK flights exist to feed into AA's TATL bank so, depending on what type of contracts AA might hold in these markets, they could very well be higher yielding and profitable.

Indeed they could. Unfortunately, with today's oil prices as high as they are and only likely to get higher, it's not inconceivable to understand why airlines are trying to dump 50-seaters. The economics just don't work out well, the cost of flying a plane with just 50 seats and roughly the same fuel costs as mainline jets is rarely justified by the price of tickets. On a route like LGA-MSP, which is head-to-head with DL, who has 7 daily flights on mainline equipment, AA having $240 roundtrip fares (and lower fares often being available) on regional jets on a flight that's roughly 1,000 miles practically screams unprofitable. Add in load factors below 60% and I would bet a significant amount of money that AA's losing money on a number of these routes. As an overall contribution to its network, and its FF base in NYC, however, AA may have to keep routes like this flying. The same can be said of other airlines using regional equipment on competitive routes as well. NYC is a great example of this, I've noticed both DL and AA having a number of low-load flights from LGA and JFK (although yields are typically higher for business routes like LGA-CLT than they are on ORD-AVP), but both are unwilling to cede the market to each other (or UA/CO and B6).

Jeremy


User currently offlineAirport From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2764 times:

Out of curiousity, has anyone seen how the new BOI-LAX nonstops on Eagle are doing? I'd be surprised if they were doing well, I have hardly seen any advertising or anything at all. If I weren't on top of the news here on a.net, I would've never known about it. I'm hoping for the best though, I really want to see this route work for them.

Cheers!
Anthony/Airport


User currently offlinen312rc From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 2683 posts, RR: 16
Reply 13, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2718 times:

When I worked at Eagle in 2008/2009 in JAX we flew to:

MIA (all ATR)
STL (American Connection)
DFW (AA S80)
ORD (MQ ERJ)
RDU (MQ ERJ)

Throughout my year there we lost 1x DFW, all of the RDU (after ExpressJet's branded ops at JAX imploded), and all of the ORD (during which UA brought back Airbuses, fired DGS, and made the station mainline again). Leaving us with just a handful of flights to MIA, 3x daily to DFW, and 2x daily to STL. Right before I left they finally got their heads in order and announced renewed ORD flying, increased DFW, and cut STL completely.

Also, just as a note.. When the renewed ORD flying was announced, it was to be all CR7. Turned out to be one WEEKLY CR7 on Sunday, all the rest ER4. It since has remained all ER4 (3 times a day).

[Edited 2011-03-16 20:52:38]


N/A
User currently offlineFlyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 2003 posts, RR: 21
Reply 14, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2676 times:

Quoting SESGDL (Reply 11):
Indeed they could. Unfortunately, with today's oil prices as high as they are and only likely to get higher, it's not inconceivable to understand why airlines are trying to dump 50-seaters.

Agreed and, barring the possibly that the price of oil would continue to remain this high indefinitely, I would say that the CR7 would be the optimal aircraft for the JFK and LGA routes given the premium nature and decent length of many of the routes.


User currently onlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2234 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2672 times:

Anybody else read this flight as DOM?? I was going to say, wait! I know they've been flying there for at least two years!!! I myself have taken it seven times!lol

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 4):
Not great loads at all. Why would AA be increasing capacity in these markets??

To possibly get a foothold in the growing Bank City to Bank City traffic? Or to beat Delta to the punch in corporate traffic when/if the LGA slot swap ever occurs?


User currently offlineKcrwflyer From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3847 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2649 times:

Quoting SESGDL (Reply 11):
NYC is a great example of this, I've noticed both DL and AA having a number of low-load flights from LGA and JFK (although yields are typically higher for business routes like LGA-CLT than they are on ORD-AVP), but both are unwilling to cede the market to each other (or UA/CO and B6).

Small and less competitive markets can often bear very high yields. I can understand AA trying to grow their NYC marketshare, but they're in no financial position to get in an unprofitable marketshare battle with anyone.


User currently offlineKLASM83 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 633 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2638 times:

Quoting realsim (Thread starter):
ORD-FAR-ORD (56,46% LF): 3x ER4 -> =

[Fargo accent]I bet the yields are great on that route, don't cha know.[/Fargo accent]

It is a smaller market for AA, but hopefully Microsoft and some of the UAS stuff happening in the state will further help bolster the route.



Don't you want to hang out and waste your life with us?
User currently offlineSJUSXM From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 294 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2623 times:

Quoting Airport (Reply 12):
Out of curiousity, has anyone seen how the new BOI-LAX nonstops on Eagle are doing? I'd be surprised if they were doing well, I have hardly seen any advertising or anything at all. If I weren't on top of the news here on a.net, I would've never known about it. I'm hoping for the best though, I really want to see this route work for them.

They don't start until the 5th of April, along with the other new Eagle routes from LAX



AT7, ER3, ER4, ER5, CR7, E70, E75, F100, M82, M83, 722, 732, 738, 752, 762, 763, AB6, 320, 321, 772, 77W
User currently offlineAVLAirlineFreq From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 1082 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2462 times:

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 6):
From what I gather, the Eagle flights from DFW to the Midwest do extremely well, but the flights started from DFW to the South do mediocre.

I guess it depends on how you define mediocre. (And you may have access to data other than what's presented here in this thread.) AGS, FAY and AVL all had load factors over 76%, comparable to the Midwestern routes out of DFW. The now-defunct MYR was in the 60-70% range, although a poster in another thread claimed this was at least in part due to weight restrictions because of so many golf club bags on the route (a popular activity in MYR, and not out of the question given the length of the route). CSG is definitely mediocre, which doesn't surprise me given its proximity to ATL.

Of course, all of this is based just upon looking at the load factors in the original post, and makes no assumptions about yields.

[Edited 2011-03-17 05:34:18]

User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3626 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2440 times:

When I worked for Eagle, we flew LGA-CVG 4 times a day.

Non-rev express . . . Flights were always wide open. But AMR had a corporate contract with someone, so they stayed for a bit.

I imagine JFK-CVG (hub to hub on DL) is even worse for AA. Connecting int'l pax aside, this route has to bleed $$.


User currently offlineTOMMY767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6932 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 2379 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 5):
Frankly, I'm actually kind of surprised that they have even been able to sustain those loads - I thought they would have been worse. Obviously, the factor we don't know is the fares. AA does have a history of generating better-than-average fares in some markets in and out of New York, so it is not inconceivable that these new routes could still be marginally profitable.

Everyone predicted this (more or less.) It's AA's half assed attempt to get back into the LGA markets they abandonded in 2008 except now with CR7s instead of S80s. MSP was a failure with the S80, ATL was rumored to be marginally profitable but AA scrapped it anyway. 53% load factors is not healthy by any means but AA will probably keep the routes around until the oil prices spike this summer and then drop the routes again.

IMHO, these CR7s should be based in MIA and do MIA-BUF/ALB/SYR/PVD/RIC/CMH/CLE etc...

Quoting luckyone (Reply 15):
To possibly get a foothold in the growing Bank City to Bank City traffic? Or to beat Delta to the punch in corporate traffic when/if the LGA slot swap ever occurs?

I doubt they are going to beat out DL with multiple daily 757s to ATL or US with many airbii to CLT.



"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
User currently offlineWA707atMSP From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2264 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2309 times:

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 21):
Quoting commavia (Reply 5):
Frankly, I'm actually kind of surprised that they have even been able to sustain those loads - I thought they would have been worse. Obviously, the factor we don't know is the fares. AA does have a history of generating better-than-average fares in some markets in and out of New York, so it is not inconceivable that these new routes could still be marginally profitable.

Everyone predicted this (more or less.) It's AA's half assed attempt to get back into the LGA markets they abandonded in 2008 except now with CR7s instead of S80s. MSP was a failure with the S80, ATL was rumored to be marginally profitable but AA scrapped it anyway. 53% load factors is not healthy by any means but AA will probably keep the routes around until the oil prices spike this summer and then drop the routes again.

I personally think these routes will stay around for a while. AA, DL, and UA / CO are all battling for corporate contracts in New York City. Many people who work on Wall Street or in the advertising and fashion industries need to fly to MSP, ATL, and CLT. If AA does not fly nonstop from LGA to these cities, they will take DL or UA / CO, and AA will risk losing their business to DL or UA / CO on flights from New York City to LAX, LHR, NRT, and other AA strength markets.



Seaholm Maples are #1!
User currently offlineTOMMY767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6932 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2267 times:

Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 22):
personally think these routes will stay around for a while. AA, DL, and UA / CO are all battling for corporate contracts in New York City.

AA was already at risk for losing those corporate contracts when they dropped the routes back in 2007-2008. When that occured it's likely that DL reached out to as many companies as they could to scoop up clients that AA ditched. Honestly, if you are a company based in NYC doing business in MSP or ATL why would you choose AA over DL? DL has a much stronger regional network out of LGA (ditto JFK) and many short hual cities including RDU, IND, DTW, BOS etc have a first class cabin on the regionals which AA just doesn''t have on the ERJs. Yes AA has first on the CR7s but it's not as competitive as the schedules that DL flies having a mix of CR7s, CR9s, E175s and in certain cases 738, 319, 320, and 757 (thinking DTW, MSP, ATL) to core business markets.

UA/CO is likely appealing to corporate contracts in NJ. They are probably not affecting AA or DL in any way because they are not competing for contracts out of LGA. A large majority of manhattan based travelers choose LGA/JFK instead of backtracking to EWR.



"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
User currently offlineFSDan From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 757 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2224 times:

Quoting realsim (Thread starter):
Routes with more capacity:

DFW - FSD, RAP

Glad to see that the DFW-South Dakota routes are doing well! At FSD, we need the DFW flights to get pretty much anywhere in the South or Latin America since DL discontinued their ATL flight.

Quoting realsim (Thread starter):
ORD-FSD-ORD (53,19% LF)

Looks like they're having some trouble stealing passengers from UA on this one. But maybe UA's loads aren't great either. I don't have that data.



SEA SFO SJC LAX ONT SAN DEN IAH DFW OMA FSD MSP MSN MKE ORD DTW CVG MEM JAN BHM RSW ATL CLT BWI PHL LGA JFK MEX LIM KEF
25 Shawn Patrick : I'd wager to say that AA has far more O&D passengers on LGA routes that directly compete with the other major airlines, for example on LGA to ATL/
26 jcavinato : SESGDL mentions competition operating mainline equipment. I travel a lot, and I am loyal to one of the majors (because they are good). But, if that co
27 Cubsrule : That's great - until the ER4 takes a 10 or 15 pax weight restriction, which happens a fair amount in to JAX (less so out of JAX). I got a bunch of AA
28 Airport : Whoops! Thanks for pointing that out, for some reason when I read the title for a brief second I thought it was still 2010, and that the new route wo
29 mah4546 : AA very quickly grabbed good marketshare in all three markets and commanded a fare premium already over US Airways on CLT-LGA. O&D marketshare, O
30 ScottB : It might, but probably not as profitable as $500 LGA-ATL-JAN-ATL-LGA or LGA-ATL-MOB-ATL-LGA itineraries would be.
31 realsim : They are better than AA's, but at least on ORD-FAR there's not a huge difference in terms of loads: UA ORD-FAR-ORD (63,34% LF) UA ORD-FSD-ORD (72,00%
32 SESGDL : How is that impressive? They added seats that numbered about 1/4th of the seats that DL offers on MSP-LGA, so their share of traffic in the market ha
33 slcdeltarumd11 : I really wish that AA would try COS-LAX service eagle service. UA rakes it in on this route allegiant less than daily to LGB has helped but i think th
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...
AA Fleet Renewal In 2010 posted Thu Jan 6 2011 15:35:24 by realsim
North Vietnam Flights In The 1960s And 1970s posted Fri Jul 30 2010 06:33:32 by rolypolyman
AA Expands MIA Flights For Winter 2010 posted Sun Jun 27 2010 07:48:49 by DFWEagle
Active Widebody Fleet Of UA/CO Vs DL Vs AA In 2010 posted Sat Apr 24 2010 12:58:51 by CV880
TK To Start DAC And SGN In 2010 posted Wed Dec 16 2009 18:34:44 by TK787
Domestic Flights In Bolivia, Peru And Argentina posted Wed Oct 18 2006 17:02:10 by Pe@rson
AA ORD-DEL Flights Loaded In System posted Tue Jul 26 2005 03:30:14 by Skyguy
AS Flights 5 And 6. . . Changes posted Fri Apr 9 2004 00:06:42 by Worldperks
Who Launched The MD-11 And In What Year? posted Sun Oct 26 2003 04:09:59 by QANTASBOY
New Flights Launched Between NCL And Durban,SA! posted Mon Aug 11 2003 13:39:51 by GKirk