Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
767NG Or Not  
User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 12893 times:

http://airinsight.com/?p=1323

AirInsight analyst thinks it is a good idea.

We know KC46A will have 787 cockpit. We know winglets get about 5-6% fuel saving. We know the GEnx-2B is flying. We know LCCs can squeeze in 2-4-2 layout. We know the 787-3 is dead.

How much money and how long will it take to get a 767NG out? It can have 787 cockpit and cabin commonality. It will be a cheap to develop and fast time-to-market 2x3x2 semi-new light twin.

79 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMX757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 628 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 12841 times:

Boeing created a 767NG. It's called the 767-400, which failed miserably. That failure, with rising fuel prices, caused Boeing to create the 787.


Is it broke...? Yeah I'll fix it.
User currently offlinenws2002 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 887 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 12648 times:

Boeing will not offer a 767NG for the same reason they killed the 717. They already have an aircraft to fit the role, its called the 787.

User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4431 posts, RR: 19
Reply 3, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 12634 times:

Not going to happen. However I could see the new Tanker being re-engined eventually (like the KC135R) with advanced versions of the Genx.


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30852 posts, RR: 86
Reply 4, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 12606 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I am of the opinion that it will never see the light of day, except maybe as a freighter ( the 767-200LRF).

If Boeing offers it as a passenger model, I would not be surprised if all it wouldl do is canabalize sales of the 787-8 and Boeing, IMO, needs to push every one of those they can out the door to recover the money they have already sunk into that program.

[Edited 2011-04-13 20:14:34]

User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6468 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 12581 times:

Quoting MX757 (Reply 1):
Boeing created a 767NG. It's called the 767-400, which failed miserably. That failure, with rising fuel prices, caused Boeing to create the 787.

It looks like you have been brainwashed by Airbus fans. The primary mission of the 764ER was to suit the widebody trijet replacement needs of DL and CO.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12414 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 12515 times:

Quoting cosmofly (Thread starter):
AirInsight analyst thinks it is a good idea.

Yep, a blogger said so, so it must be a good idea - NOT!

Boeing said the 787 would be a 20% gain over the 767. Even if they don't 'xactly hit that number, it'll certainly be a lot better than the 767. And it won't have the difficult-to-sell (some would say uneconomic) cross section of the 767.

Hey, if Boeing could have gotten away with a 767NEO they would have, but of course, that wasn't the thing to do.

And right now, the thing to do is to not confuse customers with a new 767, but to get all that investment in the 787 to start paying some dividends.

Cheers!



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 12477 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
I would not be surprised if all it wouldl do is canabalize sales of the 787-8

Boeing can technically limit the 767NG to a very efficient 5000nm product. It will therefore be for 757 to sub A332 market segment where Airbus has no equals. 787 is more for A33x to sub 77W market segment.

With such, Boeing has much lower risks and may not need (or can afford much more delay to) a new light twin and can focus on 737 re-engine until revolutionary aero and engines are ready.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9580 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 12419 times:

The question is not if there is demand for such a model.. The question is: is there demand that would be captured at Boeing only if they developed a 767NG and also if the demand is high enough to justify the expense of the project? If airlines will settle for the heavier narrowbodies or accept the characteristics of the 787 for the mission that a 767NG would take, then the 767NG is pointless.

No manufacturer is currently offering a light twin perfect for transatlantic routes. Is this a huge gap that is waiting to be filled or a gap that is adequately covered elsewhere?

If we look at history, airplanes are always replaced by either larger, smaller, shorter range or longer range airplanes. There are never airplanes developed that replace previous generations with equal range and capacity. In all honesty, threads about 757NGs and 767NGs keep coming up, and my opinion is that requirements have changed over the past 30 years and while there certainly is demand at the range and capacity levels of the 757 and 767, developments with other models have partially replaced the 757s and 767s. The 757 market got eroded when the 737NG came about and had enough range at lower operating costs to make operators favor it. The 767 market got eroded when the 777 came about and hurt the top end since it had great operating efficiency and lower CASM. An airplane in the middle of the 757/767 range and capacity does not exist. The real question is if there is enough demand that cannot be covered elsewhere to make spending the capital worthwhile.

[Edited 2011-04-13 21:11:38]


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7062 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 12384 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 5):
It looks like you have been brainwashed by Airbus fans. The primary mission of the 764ER was to suit the widebody trijet replacement needs of DL and CO.

Sorry but that is just naive thinking. Boeing would not have developed the 767-400 just to please two customers.

They had send it on a world tour and tried to sell it to a lot more airlines than CO and DL. I remember they presented it LH as a A300 replacement.

Boeing is a company which main goal is to make money therefore they have to sell as much airplanes as possible. The 767-400 for god sake did not cost too much so they did not loose too much money developing it.

But back on the original topic ? Why would want Boeing a 767NG ? They have the 787 and want to sell it to as much airlines as possible ? A 767NG would not make any business sense at all. Maybe only as a freighter but the developing cost wouldn´t not justify the few extra sales.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineJayinKitsap From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 769 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 12321 times:

I think a 767 update is in the cards, but it will be very minor. Items developed for a military program cannot go back commerical, but commercial can go military. I expect there will be the new cockpit with the 787 displays, some other improvements, the updated PW engines, some freighter alts, etc. This would allow for standardization that all 767's beginning with the first tankers will have these updates.

No GeNX, no new wing, no $5B upgrade, just enough that the tankers and any commerical planes made will basically be the same.


User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6468 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 12292 times:

Quoting columba (Reply 9):
Sorry but that is just naive thinking. Boeing would not have developed the 767-400 just to please two customers.

So, basically you are saying that it would have been wiser for Boeing to screw two customers, forcing them to go to Airbus. DL and CO wanted an aircraft with near-identical capacity to the L-1011 and DC-10, with no leeway or exceptions.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineSASMD82 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 740 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 12257 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting columba (Reply 9):

Don't forget KQ had a couple of 764 on order before they swtiched to the 772


User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2732 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 12186 times:

Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 12):
Don't forget KQ had a couple of 764 on order before they swtiched to the 772

KQ ordered the 767-400ERX with Engine Alliance engines or RR Trent 600. It would have a higher take off weight than the regular 767-400ER and more range. KQ switched when Boeing cancelled the program. At the time this was the NG767 that along with the unlaunched 767-300LRX. The program did not get much interest from airlines at the time. IMO the NG767 was launched to late, and the 757NG never came.


As JayinKitsap says the commercial 767 will probably be offered with the same updates as the freighter.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30852 posts, RR: 86
Reply 14, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 12123 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting columba (Reply 9):
Sorry but that is just naive thinking. Boeing would not have developed the 767-400 just to please two customers.

While it is true that Boeing expected to sell the 767-400ER to more customers beyond DL and CO, Boeing has a history of devloping special models of their familes for customers. The various domestic versions of the 747 for JL and NH and all the different 707 variants created for QF, BN, BA and LH come to mind.

So if CO and DL were ready and willing to order the A330-200, I believe Boeing would have given them the 767-400ER, anyway.


User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 12063 times:

Quoting columba (Reply 9):
Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 5):
It looks like you have been brainwashed by Airbus fans. The primary mission of the 764ER was to suit the widebody trijet replacement needs of DL and CO.

Sorry but that is just naive thinking. Boeing would not have developed the 767-400 just to please two customers.

They had send it on a world tour and tried to sell it to a lot more airlines than CO and DL. I remember they presented it LH as a A300 replacement.


Exactly right.

Our company got several presentations on that tour as well, but...

...we did not see the real advantage of the B764ER.

It was the same technology as the A310 and B762/763 in our fleets AND it could not ops europe-caribian with full paxload.

But to come back to the topic:

I could see a shortened B764 with GEnx engines from the B748 with improved systems, lightened structure as a real good mediumhaul airplane. The speed needs to be increased a bit as well.

An optimized B767 for mediumhauls would have a real benefit against the A330 or B787 on these routes.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19492 posts, RR: 58
Reply 16, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 12002 times:

Quoting columba (Reply 9):

Sorry but that is just naive thinking. Boeing would not have developed the 767-400 just to please two customers.

And yet... that's precisely what they did.

Oh, sure, they tried to offer it to anyone who flies airplanes. But by the time they had a go-ahead on the project, nobody other than CO and DL had ordered it.


User currently offlinespeedygonzales From Norway, joined Sep 2007, 727 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 11937 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 11):
So, basically you are saying that it would have been wiser for Boeing to screw two customers, forcing them to go to Airbus.

No, they should have given them good deals for 763 and/or 772 instead.



Las Malvinas son Argentinas
User currently offlinepylon101 From Russia, joined Feb 2008, 1502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 11823 times:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 15):
it could not ops europe-caribian with full paxload.

Something is wrong here.
Boeing 764ER flies Atlanta-Moscow with full paxload.
It hardly can be any further than EU-Caribbean routes.


User currently offlinembj2000 From Germany, joined Dec 2005, 426 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 11793 times:

Quoting speedygonzales (Reply 17):
Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 11):
So, basically you are saying that it would have been wiser for Boeing to screw two customers, forcing them to go to Airbus.

No, they should have given them good deals for 763 and/or 772 instead.

  

Exactly! It's like saying afterwards, Airbus developed the A340-600 just to please Lufthansa and Virgin... This discussion comes up over and over again...



Like most of life's problems, this one can be solved with bending -- Bender Unit 22
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2012 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 11775 times:

The 763 is significantly smaller than the 787, especially if the 787 has the squashed 9Y configuration! I guess the problem is that the efficiency of the 787 reduces a lot of the cost savings unless you start heavily updating the 767, which then costs money.

There definitely is a gap in the market for an updated 767, I'm just not sure how many incremental sales Boeing would get to make it worthwhile



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 11715 times:

Quoting pylon101 (Reply 18):
Something is wrong here.
Boeing 764ER flies Atlanta-Moscow with full paxload.
It hardly can be any further than EU-Caribbean routes.

Yes, your assumption about the number of pax...  

We are a charter company and would, for sure, operate the B764ER with more pax than the smaller A310s and B762s/763s.

IIRC we were looking at around 330-340 seats.

So basically a payload of 32-33tons plus cargo...Impossible for the offered B764ER.

Just remember that Boeing did not get a single order after that world tour.


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12460 posts, RR: 46
Reply 22, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 11578 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 16):
But by the time they had a go-ahead on the project, nobody other than CO and DL had ordered it.

Sorry, Doc, you have that backwards. Boeing offered the 764 for sale in January 1997 and it was ordered by DL in March and CO in June of the same year.

DL originally ordered 21 with 25 options (later expanded to 40), but never exercised any of those options.
CO originally ordered 26 but only took delivery of 16.
GECAS ordered 2 but never took them.
ILFC ordered 5 but never took them.

DL's 21 along with CO's 16 and one built as a VIP, remain the sum total of 767-400ERs built.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6468 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 11461 times:

Quoting speedygonzales (Reply 17):
No, they should have given them good deals for 763 and/or 772 instead.

DL and CO wanted an aircraft that would be a near-perfect replacement for their L-1011s and DC-10s in terms of size, with no leeway or exceptions. If Boeing had done what you describe, DL and CO for sure would have ordered the A332 instead.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlinejetblast From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 1231 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 11250 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 23):
DL and CO wanted an aircraft that would be a near-perfect replacement for their L-1011s and DC-10s in terms of size, with no leeway or exceptions. If Boeing had done what you describe, DL and CO for sure would have ordered the A332 instead.

I strongly doubt Boeing would put all the manpower, time, and effort into developing an airplane for two (2) airlines (or three if you count KQ back when they ordered them). What would have happened if just one of those companies decided to go with the Airbus offering instead? Do you really think Boeing would take the risk of losing out that badly?

I understand you will fight to the death for the 764 no matter whether or not your argument is right, so I will leave it there for now. I would prefer to think Boeing would be more level-headed...



Speedbird Concorde One
25 speedygonzales : BTW, I searched threads from when Boeing was actively promoting the 764 a while ago. I couldn't find a single mention of this in those threads.
26 1337Delta764 : Actually, DL CFO Ed Bastian said himself in an Investor Day video that the 764ER was designed for them. I highly doubt he would lie about this. I am
27 jetblast : You are correct, the 767-432 was in fact designed for Delta; just as the 757-222 was designed for United, and the 777-223 was designed for American.
28 1337Delta764 : DL and CO were viewed by Boeing as very important customers, thus Boeing did what they can to prevent DL and CO from ordering A330s. The 763ER and 77
29 Jetset7E7 : Aren't you just quoting the customer code? 22 - United 23 - American 24 - Continental 32 - Delta So your right yes, 767-432 is for Delta, but it does
30 jetblast : Yes, I am. 1337delta764 stated that the 764s delivered to DL were designed for DL, and in fact they were - just as the aircraft delivered to CO were
31 Jetset7E7 : OK sorry I think I've got what you mean, you mean the specific aircraft, not the whole production of the type? Mark
32 Post contains links LAXDESI : The statement below is from the following thread where I explored the possibility of an all new 767. B767 Replacement Economic Analysis (by LAXDESI A
33 AirbusA6 : Incidentally, after the NW merger. DL ended up operating A330s after all! Is there any word from insiders about how they feel about their ex NW A330s
34 jetblast : Correct. To the best of my knowledge, DL absolutely loves the A330. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
35 CHRISBA777ER : Of course they do. The only person who thinks otherwise is the 764ER fanboy above who created the myth that the 764ER has high CASM just so he could
36 seabosdca : Since you wrote that, it seems to have become clear that Boeing itself is exploring such an aircraft. There may be a new 2-3-2 aircraft for shorter r
37 cosmofly : The numbers you presented may even be more attractive now since reality has changed a bit since. Boeing needs to build the KC46A so the 767 will be u
38 1337Delta764 : And DL also loves the 764ER. Ever since DL bought the 764ER, I have yet to hear any negative statements from DL about it. Ed Bastian confirmed it in
39 bueb0g : I would put my money on not. Due to lack of demand and the fact that Boeing doesn't need to - the 767 line is being kept open by the KC-X, they don't
40 cosmofly : It is about making money. If there is ROI and the opportunity cost is justified, why not?
41 Post contains links msp747 : Honestly, I think DL loves both aircraft. The 764 has proven to be a great aircraft, especially for their LHR flights, even in former NW hubs like MS
42 jetblast : You completely disregarded the post that I quoted. For your convenience I will post it again - So Bastian said the 764 was built expressly for DL and
43 bueb0g : As I said, the demand isn't great enough. Had they not won the KC-X I believe a 767NG could possibly have been on the cards, even if the ROI wouldn't
44 1337Delta764 : Unfortunately, since it was from an Investor Day presentation a few years back, I don't know of any way to retrieve it. But I can guarantee that he s
45 Post contains links SSPhoenix : Just as a side note, ATW reports that - judged from images released AND a Boeing Statement (apparantly) - the 767Tanker is now seen without winglets.
46 Stitch : Who is to say they did not, and the airlines refused either offer? A 767-300ER is going to seat less people than a DC-10 / L-1011 and a 777-200ER is
47 ACdreamliner : the Dreamliner is a 767NG. Just with a different name. It could just as easily been the Boeing 767-700/800/900. Was their ever a feeling attached to a
48 Post contains images 1337Delta764 : Boeing in fact originally strongly wanted DL and CO to order more 777s to replace their L-1011 and DC-10 fleets. The fact is, the 764ER wasn't develo
49 gigneil : The A330's role in the DL fleet today is very very different than what they intended to order the 767-400ER for.... they really wanted a domestic plan
50 1337Delta764 : Still, DL does not regret ordering the 764ER for any reason at all. The 764ER does a fine job on the routes that it serves, where the additional capa
51 Post contains images seabosdca : They have nothing in common. The 787 and the 767 do not share a single part. The 787 is a 9-abreast 2x LD3 aircraft; the 767 is a 7-abreast 2x LD2 ai
52 Post contains images jwenting : I thought they developed it because a.net kids wanted something new to photograph. Doh
53 woodsboy : Like many here I don't see any demand for a 767NG. They did it once already and only built 38 of them, the 767-400. If there had been a demand for any
54 seabosdca : I think this is overly pessimistic. The two 764 operators both adore the aircraft. It's just like the MD-90 in a way: it has stellar economics on rou
55 Post contains images ACdreamliner : I know that. I am talking purely from a marketing stand point. It wasnt called 'newairplane.com' for nothing That is exactly what I'm on about!? That
56 CHRISBA777ER : Am i the only one who is getting really bored of 1337's constant 764ER thing. Dude - change the record. You (and DL) REALLY like the 767-400ER. We kn
57 Post contains links cosmofly : Jon thinks it is unlikely. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...he-a320neo-strategy-and-the-7.html
58 Post contains images brindabella : The B market-study previously shown on a-net showed a significant "bubble" right in the mission-space that we are discussing for the 767NG (250 seats
59 Viscount724 : And a completely new main landing gear. I highly doubt Boeing recovered their 764 development costs with only 38 built.
60 Stitch : We'll never know since Boeing never releases that information to the public. But let us not forget that those airlines will be buying ancillaries and
61 328JET : I doubt it as well as FX is interested in ordering new A332Fs and is also looking for converted A333Fs. I would not rule out the B763F for FX.
62 woodsboy : Since apparently the only advantage the 767-400ERF has over the Airbus in price....would this really motivate FX to choose it over the Airbus which ap
63 328JET : No, i could see FX go like this: 752 763 A332 333 B77F
64 KGRB : I agree with you except that I don't see FX getting 763s. Their A300s, IIRC, are pretty new and won't need replacing for a long while. They'll probab
65 Burkhard : Five billion $ and four years. It is a much more complex process than the A320NEO.
66 Post contains links OyKIE : Talking about the future of the 767 and your quoted site, Boeing added the 767 the the newairplane site after they won the tanker contest. So if you
67 MileHighOffice : Wonder why the US Government wanted to buy an old airframe model. Why did they not look at the 777LRF (or LRT)? Proven design but latest iteration of
68 cosmofly : Why does it take $5B to hang a GEnx on? Care to educate us about the details of the $5B and 4 years?
69 KGRB : How so? The A320NEO includes many changes/upgrades other than the new engines. I don't see how a simple re-engine of the 767 would be any more comple
70 Stitch : Because it still works? And it's about four decades newer than their current airframe model (the 707)? Far too large in both capability and physical
71 MileHighOffice : I don't think you will find anyone claiming that "all" comment. But the Airbus making it through the beltway process was not going to happen. Period.
72 Post contains images Stitch : Then why the heck did they choose the "French air frame" in 2008?!!!!!! Are you honestly arguing - with a straight face, no less - that the USAF chos
73 Post contains links OyKIE : Our friend Flightblogger has a theory on why he believes Boeing will not do a 767NG: From his article: then he concludes that: Read everything here: h
74 Burkhard : The GEnx is about 3000lb more than the CF6 - so they need a substantial rebuild of the wing and maybe wing box, with none of those parts certified in
75 cosmofly : Since we are talking about a medium range airframe, there is no need to fly a 767NG 7000nm. Boeing can limit the wing tank and allow 3000lb less fuel
76 Post contains images Stitch : How much would a Trent 600 or EA GP7100 have weighed compared to the CF6? Boeing felt they could get those two engines certified to hang off the 767-
77 328JET : I just compared the technical specifications of the CF 6-80 and the RR Trent 500 - from the A340NG. THAT could be a low investment for a more fuel-eff
78 Post contains links MileHighOffice : Thought that was due to the Boeing scandal? They selected the 767 in the end, right? http://www.airlinereporter.com/2011/...ses-the-boeing-767-as-nex
79 Post contains images brindabella : Me too. As I previously speculated, an existing engine-type upgraded. No (or minimal) issues in: * certification * wing and/or wingbox strengthening
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...
SAN Mainline Or Not On DL/NW posted Fri Sep 25 2009 04:23:32 by Bobnwa
Air Marshal Or Not? Unusual Passenger Behaviour posted Sun Sep 13 2009 13:56:22 by Fbgdavidson
Is CO Doing ANC-IAH Nonstop Year Round... Or Not? posted Tue Jul 7 2009 15:40:39 by AA737-823
Long-Term Aircraft Assignment: Chance Or Not? posted Tue Dec 23 2008 22:07:32 by Lincoln
ANC Crew Layover Or Not For Cargo Carrier? posted Sat Oct 18 2008 22:41:03 by AznCSA4QF744ER
SAA A320 Order Cancelled, Or Not? posted Mon Sep 8 2008 18:02:26 by SAA201
L-1011 - Is There A Door Or Not (w/Photo) posted Sat Aug 16 2008 12:09:13 by Jorge1812
Hainan: A340-600 Or Not? posted Wed Jul 23 2008 07:38:33 by Flying Belgian
To Furlough Or Not, That Is The Question. posted Fri Jun 20 2008 23:41:36 by FXramper
Old Quick Ref OAGs: Complete Or Not? posted Tue May 27 2008 10:35:55 by TIMZ