Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Which Was More Challenging: A380 Or 787?  
User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2986 posts, RR: 13
Posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 10848 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

While both NEW aircraft faced bold engineering challenges, both with embarrassing boo boo's and clearly late... To me (novice) both aircraft broke major new ground (in very different ways) which of the two was a greater engineering challenge? From my novice POV it seems like the 787 attempted to do more (please don't flame me- I'm here to learn) with composite materials, baking the fuselage, totally new wing and engines vs building something so big and getting a million parts to fit and maintain it's aerodynamics. I am personally awed by both! (I just miss the shark fin Boeing dangled in front of us as if it was going to be the Batplane!)


The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
60 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 10838 times:

Quick answer and maybe the only one not powered by burning hydrocarbons, both were advances (well more accurately one already is and the other will be when it arrives) and it barely matters. Or expressed another way, most of the comparisons will be between oranges and apples. So it barely matters.

Both very impressive.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7665 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 10801 times:

Perhaps you should shelve this thread for another few months until the 787 actually goes into service to at least compare apples to apples rather than apples to bloosoms on the tree?

We are all excited for the 787 getting close, lets wait until she actually gets there to review the program against the A380.


User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2986 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 10712 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I agree we need to see both flying for a few years but if I look back now a 777 and an A330 seem technologically closer to each other, the A380 and a 787 seem like they have such different mission specs it will always be apples and oranges? No?


The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 10318 times:

Quoting VC10er (Reply 3):
the A380 and a 787 seem like they have such different mission specs it will always be apples and oranges? No?

That would indeed be very true, and thus brings the question of why try to compare them at all and really all is going to result is fanboyism with all the inaccurate 'facts' under the sun!


User currently offlineindolikaa From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 161 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 10176 times:

A380.

The engineering required to make this whale economically feasible in the emerging world economy trumps whatever advancements the 787 will bring to the table. Airlines have made a four-engine, million-pound behemoth viable in a depressed economy where fuel costs have soared. That is impressive.

Flame away, comrades.



Vote for Pedro
User currently offlineIslandRob From US Virgin Islands, joined Apr 2011, 172 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 10110 times:

Both aircraft are very impressive, but I believe history will conclude that the 787 represented the bigger leap in aviation technology.


If you wrote me off I'd understand it, Because I've been on some other planet, So come pick me up... I've landed
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4963 posts, RR: 40
Reply 7, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 10073 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting IslandRob (Reply 6):
but I believe history will conclude that the 787 represented the bigger leap in aviation technology.

I beg to differ. My expectation is that history will see both these planes as the next step in airliner design, just as the A350-XWB will be the next step following the A380 and B787. Both have so many firsts, and they are targeting different markets. Real comparisons are therefore extremely difficult.

But do not make the mistake in evaluating these two extremely exciting and amazing airliners. The B787 has always been marketed as a technological revolution where the A380 is merely seen as just being big. That it holds at least as many firsts as the B787 does is always downplayed, at least here on A-net imho.   And it is just a technological marvel as the B787.  .

For the rest I hope this thread will not result in lots of flame-baiting since usually (and sad enough) A vs B threads turn out that way.  .


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31420 posts, RR: 85
Reply 8, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 10004 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Baroque (Reply 1):
So it barely matters.

Agreed.

I believe history will look back on both programs with impressive respect.


User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2986 posts, RR: 13
Reply 9, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 9957 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 4):

Only because that while mission specs are very different, I did wonder if one or the represented a greater leap forward technologically ...or...as pointed out as equally great a leap but in different ways. I'd throw in the latest submarine too if I knew of a new submarine model... Just a lust to learn about man's achievements.

It's only that both Airbus and Boeing each have something different and new- I couldn't care less which manufacturer had the edge. Also, pretend it was Boeing that had the tech edge now-- those titles are fleeting and it's healthy competition for Airbus to kick Boeing's butt... Or vice versa! In the end mankind wins! I just hope to live long enough to fly in space!! I'm 49!! What are my odds (outside Virgin's space novelty)

Here is one question: I assume both the A380 AND 787 are more technologically advanced than Concorde? Or not?



The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 10, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 9795 times:

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
To me (novice) both aircraft broke major new ground (in very different ways) which of the two was a greater engineering challenge?

It depends which branch of engineering you're talking about. In terms of challenge, from an aerodynamics point of view, they're basically on par. In terms of structure the 787 is the bigger challenge, in terms of manufacturing it's the A380, in terms of most systems other than electrical it's the A380, in terms of electrical systems it's the 787, etc. To just slap "engineering challenge" on programs of this scale is painting with a too-wide brush.

Quoting indolikaa (Reply 5):

A380.

The engineering required to make this whale economically feasible in the emerging world economy trumps whatever advancements the 787 will bring to the table.

Making the A380 economically feasible is a triumph, but it's not particularly an engineering challenge. The CASM of the A380 is essentially unbeatable by size alone...piling all the latest technologies and efficiencies on top of that is icing on the cake.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 9):
Here is one question: I assume both the A380 AND 787 are more technologically advanced than Concorde? Or not?

Yes.

Tom.


User currently offlineCapEd388 From United States of America, joined Feb 2011, 233 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 9794 times:

I agree with previous comments that both aircraft were challenging to build and they broke new ground. In my POV I think that the 787 was more challenging to design and build. Boeing is experimenting with new materials, new technologies and new designs that have not been used before neither by Boeing nor Airbus. The 787 is the pioneer for all future Boeing aircraft. All aircraft (at Boeing at least) that follow the 787 will embody the composite materials, the new tinting windows, the new LED lighting etc. I think thats why it has taken long, because they are experimenting with brand new materials and technologies that havent been seen before.

The A380, on the other hand, which is huge and a great aircraft (in my POV) was not really using any new, never-been-used before materials or technologies. They basically used the same technologies and materials and applied it to a huge double decker aircraft.

Again both aircraft are great and were challenging in their own way, but I do think that the 787 was a bit more difficult to design, develop and build.

CapEd



388 346 77W 787
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31420 posts, RR: 85
Reply 12, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 9342 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CapEd388 (Reply 11):
The A380, on the other hand, which is huge and a great aircraft (in my POV) was not really using any new, never-been-used before materials or technologies.

I'd debate that.

The A380 uses composites for a significant amount of it's structure. By percentage, it's second only to the 787/A350 and by weight, it's probably more than the 787/A350. It also is using significantly higher hydraulic pressures. And while it doesn't offer the cabin humidity of the 787, it does offer similar pressurization levels (around the equivalent of 8000 ft ASL, I believe).

It is very much a technological step-change in commercial aerospace.

[Edited 2011-06-04 19:28:10]

User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 13, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 9110 times:

Bigger challenge how? What defines 'big'? To give an answer that is not based on emotions, you'd have to specify a little further here. Right now it's sort of a ''what is harder to fix, breakfast or supper'' type of question.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
It depends which branch of engineering you're talking about. In terms of challenge, from an aerodynamics point of view, they're basically on par. In terms of structure the 787 is the bigger challenge, in terms of manufacturing it's the A380, in terms of most systems other than electrical it's the A380, in terms of electrical systems it's the 787, etc. To just slap "engineering challenge" on programs of this scale is painting with a too-wide brush.

  



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 14, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks ago) and read 8642 times:

Quoting CapEd388 (Reply 11):
The A380, on the other hand, which is huge and a great aircraft (in my POV) was not really using any new, never-been-used before materials or technologies.

First airliner (I think) with: GLARE, full AFDX, dual hydraulic + EHAs, 5000psi hydraulics, and brake-to-vacate.

Tom.


User currently offlinecaptnemo From Canada, joined Jun 2011, 1 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 8287 times:

i think its clearly b787.......... i tend to think that a380 is another VLA. B747 did the same more than 40 years ago..... but the b787 is simply game changing ...... use of composite material , cabin lighting , cockpit avionics (HUDs), the most fuel efficient engines (in fact unique design with those chevrons) and also its a computer aircraft(with better telemetry ground support)...............

User currently offlinea380900 From France, joined Dec 2003, 1118 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 7834 times:

Well clearly Boeing had a lot on its plate for the 787. The problem is: "To what extent did Boeing shoot itself in the foot with its engineering choices?". Building a plane is not about engineering prowess for the sake of it. It's optimizing difficulty to achieve a competitive edge. If for instance the 787 is a lot less light than expected because of structural issues, one will wonder to what extent cfrp was the right choice. I don't think Boeing should get extra points for making its life pointlessly extra difficult. It would be the same as saying: "Airbus did wonders because they made the plane using CATIA4 and CATIA5". It did make it more challenging from an engineering standpoint but it was just a stupid choice that brought no upside for the final product. Composite barrels may turn out that way. Or they could pave the way for generations of aircraft to come and then even if they're not beneficial directly for the 787 could end up being beneficial for Boeing by giving them an edge that will be costly to match for Airbus. Same thing for all electric systems etc... We'll know for sure when we see the perf or the 787 and the choices Boeing makes for the new 737.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
It depends which branch of engineering you're talking about. In terms of challenge, from an aerodynamics point of view, they're basically on par. In terms of structure the 787 is the bigger challenge, in terms of manufacturing it's the A380, in terms of most systems other than electrical it's the A380, in terms of electrical systems it's the 787, etc. To just slap "engineering challenge" on programs of this scale is painting with a too-wide brush.

I generally agree except for the aerodynamics challenge. The A380 wins this one hands down as it's the first double decker configuration. Hence the Gull wing etc... the 787 is the regular tube with wing. The A380 is something new from an aerodynamic standpoint. Not as groundbreaking as a flying wing for instance but still, it departs from the ultra classical configs. The 787 does not. One just has to look at all the configurations Airbus considered before settling down for the A3XX to see there was a challenge (and a risk) there.


User currently offlinejimbobjoe From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 661 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 7690 times:

One thing that makes this question more difficult to evaluate is that the aircraft were launched at different times. The A380 in 2000, the 787 in 2003.

That might not sound like much, but it means that Boeing, as they figured out what the 787 would be, could look at three extra years of technology and innovation that Airbus didn't have for the A380. If the A380 had been launched in 2003 rather than 2000, it probably would have been a more advanced aircraft.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10243 posts, RR: 97
Reply 18, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 7657 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
And while it doesn't offer the cabin humidity of the 787

Er, it does, actually.   

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
It depends which branch of engineering you're talking about. In terms of challenge, from an aerodynamics point of view, they're basically on par. In terms of structure the 787 is the bigger challenge, in terms of manufacturing it's the A380, in terms of most systems other than electrical it's the A380, in terms of electrical systems it's the 787, etc. To just slap "engineering challenge" on programs of this scale is painting with a too-wide brush.

Absolutely agree, Tom.

As an example, with one deck stuck on top of the other, I'd feel pretty comfortable in saying that the A380 represents a greater integration challenge, particulaly in the physical sense.
OK, physical integration may not be a "technology" as such, but on a product like this, it will consume absolutely huge quantities of resources, and is absolutely critical to the success or failure of the programme.

(By the way, the Ecoliner concept thrown around a while back completely ignored the physical integration challenges of a double-decker, but that's a different story)

On the subject of challenges, physical integration is ultimately where the A380 programme fell over. And whilst still on the subject of challenges. physical integration difficulties can affect a programme to the end of its days (something I'm experiencing first-hand every day).
I have a view that the legacy of the integration challenge is why Airbus are struggling so much to up the delivery rate on the A380, and why the "bottleneck" appears to be Hamburg, not Toulouse.

There are of course many other "non-technical" challenges, such as the supply chain model which caused the 787 to go astray so spectacularly too.

There will be more.

We should be careful not to fixate solely on "CFRP", or "brake-to-vacate" , say, as a measure of the level of challenge posed by these programmes. As Tom says "To just slap "engineering challenge" on programs of this scale is painting with a too-wide brush"

Rgds


User currently offlinewarren747sp From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1172 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 6504 times:

The 787 by a mile with new material and technoloby. All the A380 is a copy of the B747 with double decking technology!


747SP
User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 6360 times:

Quoting IslandRob (Reply 6):
787 represented the bigger leap in aviation technology.

What bigger leap in aviation technology are you seeing that as?

Quoting VC10er (Reply 9):
Here is one question: I assume both the A380 AND 787 are more technologically advanced than Concorde? Or not?

No, in my opinion definitely not

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
Yes.

Why is that, or how exactlyin that respect are you defining techology as a driver? If you are defining techology as the latest stateof-the-art entiities (like iPods and iPads) then perhaps.......but as the application of technologies/innovations, definitely not.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4963 posts, RR: 40
Reply 21, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 6226 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting warren747sp (Reply 19):
The 787 by a mile with new material and technoloby. All the A380 is a copy of the B747 with double decking technology!

And this is based on????  . Could you back this up a little?

BTW, did you read what the respected previous posters have written? Reactions like these contribute nothing to threads like these.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 22, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5738 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 7):
The B787 has always been marketed as a technological revolution where the A380 is merely seen as just being big. That it holds at least as many firsts as the B787 does is always downplayed, at least here on A-net imho.

Agreed and also with the comments of Stitch and Tdsc. One problem the 787 will have is that in five years, it will have at least one as (or more) advanced competitor whereas it seems unlikely anyone is going to build a super whale. And the poster who thinks the whale is an elephant on steroids is making a bit of a mistake - IMHO of course.

So in five years time, the 787 will have direct competitors - setting aside that just at present the 788 seems to be having a problem in shaking aside the A330 from yapping at its heels - whereas the 388 will have moved on essentially without a same or later generation competitor. Some would like to hope that the 748i will "do a 330" to the 380, but that seems unlikely. If it were going to happen, it would have happened a few years ago you would think. And most likely, the 388 will be judged - Quixotically - by the 389!!   


User currently offlineBabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5693 times:

My vote goes with the A380.

It's a complete giant that no other company in the world would dare to make, when most airlines are running out of cash. It has been bold in its concept, marketing and performance.

I see the 787 as an evolution. It's a safe bet for airlines. Few seats, two engines. Seen it all before.


User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5549 times:

Quoting captnemo (Reply 15):
i think its clearly b787.......... i tend to think that a380 is another VLA. B747 did the same more than 40 years ago..... but the b787 is simply game changing ...... use of composite material , cabin lighting , cockpit avionics (HUDs), the most fuel efficient engines (in fact unique design with those chevrons) and also its a computer aircraft(with better telemetry ground support)...............

The use of composite material did not result in the expected weight savings...
(Also the B787 has a composite pressure shield from EADS)

HUDs - were not introduced with the B787...
The most fuel efficient engines - which missed their targets and are still above target 3 years later...
Chevrons were used on CRJs and E-Jets before...


I think both A380 and B787 were no game changer.
One was bigger than older airplanes, one is using newer technologies in some areas.


In my opinion, the only real game changer in civil aviation is the introduction of the GTF engine.
This is a complete new engine concept for the most important market.

But the airframes from all producers are evolutions and no revolutions in my eyes.


25 Post contains images Baroque : True, unless of course you happen to be flying really old fashioned planes, er like a BAC146 perhaps???? Oh you mean GTFs that really provide an adva
26 Post contains images EPA001 : That is what I have been advocating as well for quite some time. As impressive as they are, both the A380 and the B787 are the next steps in the evol
27 328JET : I know that there were gears before, but now a GTF engine enters the most important market and is already planned on several airplanes with more to f
28 AirNZ : Well, that's most interesting as seeing as it has never yet been flying in any commercial service, what game has it simply changed?? What has 'change
29 Post contains images astuteman : ???? I could just as easily say the 787 is "just another medium sized twin". It would be about as relevant. You knew the answer all the time. You wai
30 notaxonrotax : By posting the most sarcastic words ever on A.net, and rightfully so by the way; you are now on my R.U list. Oh yes, and you seem to know your stuff
31 tdscanuck : Err...747 was a double-decker from an aerodynamics point of view. Aerodynamics is a phenomenally slow field to advance (probably the slowest of all a
32 328JET : Yes, an old concept which was never successful until now. All engines until now are not optimized when it comes to the Fan-LPT speeds, which signific
33 Revelation : And while painting with that broad brush, one can say that 'makeover' programs like 737NG, 747-8, A340NG, A320NEO, etc are big engineering challenges
34 AirNZ : I never claimed otherwise, so tell me....what technologies are on the 787 that are brand new, relate to it only and are found nowhere else? My referr
35 goblin211 : I can't think of any ways to compare them other than obvious physical features. I'd really like to see both in action to compare.
36 jad0761 : Both Airbus and Boeing borrowed the technologies from each other and other companies/applications (Boeing with their experience in building an upper d
37 Viscount724 : Agreed. Apart from the double deck cabin, is there any technology on the A380 that isn't used in much the same form on other Airbus aircraft? And 3.5
38 VC10er : I take issue with the selection of the word "slap" I found your parsing out the different parts of each aircraft that are breakthrough or advanced he
39 tdscanuck : There are over 11,000 TFE731's out there... Do you mean "nowhere else" as in "no other aircraft", or do you literally mean "nowhere else"? Because, a
40 Burkhard : The struggles both aircraft had had nothing to do with the technological challenge. Both projects, when started, marked the leading edge technology th
41 Post contains images Baroque : And thank heaven for that small mercy which is probably the main thing keeping the combustible gases at a manageable level for this thread - so far.
42 Burkhard : Vacuum is the best isolator I know. To me neither the B787 nor the A380 are the biggest engineering miracles in aviation, nor will the A350 be. In th
43 flipdewaf : What new materials were used on the 787 that were not used on the A380? Depends what you count as a step change really. I'd argue that the A380 had a
44 Baroque : Agree but the fights over the 787 v 350 will be bigger than Ben Hur.
45 474218 : While a few of the 787's have been the result new technology the major problems encountered with both the 787 and the A380 have been simple manufactu
46 Post contains images flyingAY : If that is the only requirement for a game changing plane, I think we can call A320NEO game changing as well? How much is the CASM advantage of 787 w
47 Post contains images N14AZ : At the time of the first flight of the A 380 there was an interview with one of EADS' CEOs in which he clearly stated that he considers the A 350 as t
48 AirNZ : I meant EXACTLY what you meant when you tried to tell me that there was no technology used on Concorde which wasn't used somewhere else. Why is it th
49 328JET : Yes, but it is not feasable for bigger airplanes as it has a radial compressor. The GTF is, AFAIK, the first engine in bigger numbers which combines
50 Ken777 : For me the "challenge" has been getting past the FUBARs & SNAFUs that both programs incurred. Airbus has some real misery with mixed computer syst
51 Post contains images Part147 : You know what - I laughed out loud at that! The A380 for me too, but that's because it's the only one flying as a civil airliner at the moment. She's
52 AirNZ : Superb post Part147! What was in my mind trying to point out, but you've done it so much better than me......as I've been trying to say, as great an
53 328JET : Are you sure the Boeing 787 or A350 are more ecomical per pax or per ton payload? I doubt that... The A388 is still the king in economics, probably l
54 flyorski : It is because of quotes like this that I tend to avoid a.net. Some of the posters show such extreme ignorance or fanboyism irregardless of any and al
55 Post contains images Baroque : He must have been comparing it to the new 2 seater Prius I suppose.
56 tdscanuck : I'm not sure that's true, provided we include actually building the thing as part of the "technological challenge." Good point...I didn't think it wo
57 flyingAY : It's debatable if 787 offers a step change in cost. How much cheaper it will really be in the end? If it's 10-20% percent cheaper than the latest ite
58 Baroque : Assuming the measure of cost is CASM, you presumably think the A380 is the answer as it clearly outdoes anything available for example last year. The
59 tdscanuck : "The answer" in terms of cost, yes. But CASM drop with increasing size is an inherent feature of aircraft so, in the context of the OP, it's not much
60 RIX : No idea which one was more challenging, not knowing the inner sides of either projects as both manufacturers see it, therefore the only true argument
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...
Which Cockpit More Modern, 777 Or A330 & Why? posted Tue Nov 11 2003 17:08:42 by KEESJE
Which Was Better? - Air Canada Or Canadian? posted Wed Apr 19 2000 21:23:17 by Samurai 777
Which Order More Important LOT 787 Or EK A350? posted Sun May 8 2005 17:20:38 by CX747
Which US Carrier Likely To Order B-787 Or A-350 posted Sat Nov 7 2009 08:25:02 by HNL-Jack
A380 And 787 Delays - Which Dept Is To Blame? posted Fri Dec 19 2008 09:20:38 by AirbusA6
Which Airline Is Going To Get The Rollout A380&787 posted Mon Sep 17 2007 21:03:45 by TrijetFan1
Who "buys" The A380 Or The 787? posted Fri Apr 7 2006 14:39:32 by MBJ2000
Which Is More Tourist Friendly - DME Or SVO? posted Wed May 4 2005 17:46:57 by Clrd4t8koff
A380 Or More 744's For NWA? posted Fri Sep 12 2003 03:01:08 by NWAA330
A380 Or B20XX - Which Would You Fly? posted Sun Apr 8 2001 12:35:44 by LON-CHI