Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SAS: New Aircraft For Longhaul?  
User currently offlinecopenhagenboy From Denmark, joined Sep 2001, 597 posts, RR: 1
Posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 13552 times:

According to takeoff.dk, decision of new longhaul aircrafts will be made this summer.
Sorry almost googletranslate  :

SAS will decide this year about new long-scheduled aircrafts
Written by Henrik Baumgarten on 01/06 2011 at 07:33

Airbus 350 or Boeing 787 is the future long-scheduled flights of SAS - the Board will made the decision this summer.

At the corporate seminar in June the SAS Group management will decide about the future aircraft for long haul routes. It shall be published after the summer.

It was told by Simon Pauck Hansen, VP Partners & Intercontinental Network, SAS, at Tuesday's seminar on low-cost carriers organized by Travelboker at Hilton Copenhagen Airport. He conceded that more long-scheduled flights will lower the unit costs.

SAS now has 11 Airbus 330 and Airbus 340'ere to its long routes.

35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30546 posts, RR: 84
Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 13557 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting copenhagenboy (Thread starter):
Airbus 350 or Boeing 787 is the future long-scheduled flights of SAS - the Board will made the decision this summer.

My money is on the A350 for a number of reasons:

  • 1) They already have familiarity with Airbus long-haul airliners and a trained pilot pool

  • 2) The A350 can perform all of SK's missions

  • 3) I expect the LH Group will choose the A350 and SK will want to have the same fleet to make integration easier


User currently offlinecopenhagenboy From Denmark, joined Sep 2001, 597 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 13493 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
The A350 can perform all of SK's missions

Yes but will it not be to big on some routes?
I think it was a big mistake to quit all the 767 when they got the 330 and 340.


User currently offlinedeltamartin From Sweden, joined Dec 2010, 1061 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 13272 times:

I hope and believe that they will order the A350-800, i think it will be a great aircraft for SK's current longhaul missions.
I must say though that 787 will probably work for SK quite well aswell.


User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 13226 times:

My guess is that SK will order either the B789 or the A358.

It really could be both.


User currently offlineSASDC8 From Norway, joined Mar 2006, 712 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 13141 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting deltamartin (Reply 3):
hope and believe that they will order the A350-800, i think it will be a great aircraft for SK's current longhaul missions.

I second that. The 358 would be perfect for SK, do to it's cargo capabilities.

If one on the other hand should be pessimistic, they will not order long haul jets and cancel their long haul routes all together. But I for one sure hope and believe that they will not do that.



2-3-2 is NOT a premium configuration
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30546 posts, RR: 84
Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 13069 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SASDC8 (Reply 5):
I second that. The 358 would be perfect for SK, do to it's cargo capabilities.

The A350-800 is okay as a cargo carrier as it does offer 2 more LD3 spaces than the A330-200.

If they wanted to go for maximum comfort and maximum cargo, a 787-9 in 2+2+2 in Business and 2+4+2 in Economy would offer one more row of Business Class or two more rows of Economy than the A330-200 and 10 additional LD3 positions.


User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 13042 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
If they wanted to go for maximum comfort and maximum cargo, a 787-9 in 2+2+2 in Business and 2+4+2 in Economy would offer one more row of Business Class or two more rows of Economy than the A330-200 and 10 additional LD3 positions.

2-4-2 in eco?

Stitch, didn´t we just discuss about that in another thread...?


 


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30546 posts, RR: 84
Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 13001 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 328JET (Reply 7):
2-4-2 in eco?

Stitch, didn´t we just discuss about that in another thread...?

To my knowledge, SK uses 2+4+2 in Economy on their A330-200s and A340-300s. And I did specifically note maximum passenger comfort - 2+4+2 in a 787 or A350 will be more comfortable than 3+3+3 in either plane.

If SK wants to significantly boost passenger capacity, they need to go to 3+3+3 in either plane to fit an extra seat per row.

But if they're comfortable with the number of seats they currently offer, the A350-800 can seat the same number of rows as the A330-200 and the 787-9 can offer an extra row or two of Business, Premium Economy or Economy class.

Compared to an A330-300, he A350-800 would require the removal of a couple rows of Business, Premium or Economy classes. But the 787-9 should be able to fit the same number of rows (they both have ~50m cabin lengths).

In terms of LD3 positions, the A330-200 has 26, the A350-800 has 28, the A330-300 has 32 and the 787-9 has 36. So if cargo volume is important to SK, a 787-9 can fit more stuff than the A330-200, A330-300 and A350-800.


User currently offlineSAS A340 From Sweden, joined Jul 2000, 775 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 12689 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
To my knowledge, SK uses 2+4+2 in Economy on their A330-200s

SAS do not have any 332   only 333. 2+4+2 are corect on the other hand.



It's not what u do,it's how u do it!
User currently offlinegoblin211 From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 1209 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 12675 times:

I would say the 350 would be best but can we rule out the 748? How would hat fair for SK's major routes?


From the airport with love
User currently offlineB747forever From Sweden, joined May 2007, 17051 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 12554 times:

Quoting goblin211 (Reply 10):
would say the 350 would be best but can we rule out the 748? How would hat fair for SK's major routes?

The 748!? That has to be a typo.



Work Hard, Fly Right
User currently offlinecalibansa333 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 208 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 12232 times:

I bet they'll definitely order the a350 for commonality purposes. It would be a good fit for them. But...

Quoting 328JET (Reply 4):
It really could be both.

I wouldn't be surprised to see some 787's either.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30546 posts, RR: 84
Reply 13, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 12148 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SAS A340 (Reply 9):
SAS do not have any 332    only 333.

So as a replacement for the A330-300 and A340-300, the A350-800 would be a good choice if SK is seeing drops in passenger and cargo traffic. If they're seeing stronger growth in passenger than cargo, the A350-900 would be the better choice. If they're seeing stronger growth in cargo than passenger, the 787-9 would be the better choice.


User currently offlineQFA787380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 11363 times:

Except that the 358 is an overweight shrink of the 359 and is a compromised plane. It won't sell well and many 358s will be converted to 359s. 788/789 would be a way better and more versatile choice for them. If it's Airbus it should be 359 IMO, but that's verging on too big for SK. I would stay well away from the 358. Of course that's all my opinion but I fully think I will be vindicated here.

User currently offlineCXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 3032 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10512 times:

This is what I would rather see, but I doubt it happening.

SK gets the 788, the smallest of the newer planes. And rather go for frequency. Keep the CPH routes, but open up ARN and OSL routes to a number of the same destinations.

-CXfirst



From Norway, live in Australia
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 16, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 10184 times:

Quoting QFA787380 (Reply 14):

Except that the 358 is an overweight shrink of the 359 and is a compromised plane. It won't sell well and many 358s will be converted to 359s. 788/789 would be a way better and more versatile choice for them. If it's Airbus it should be 359 IMO, but that's verging on too big for SK. I would stay well away from the 358. Of course that's all my opinion but I fully think I will be vindicated here.

Those were my thoughts exactly. If SAS will open more long haul routes from airports other than CPH and ARN, they will deprive themselves of some traffic feed and cargo will be ever more crucial to their operations.

SAS have a penchant for mixed fleets and while I'll be the first to admit to my lack of technical knowledge, I'm not sure there's enough commonality between A330/A343 and A350 for it to be a deciding factor. Besides, SAS has swung over from Boeing to Airbus long haul before. They could now very well just swing back.

I agree A350s would be a logical and probably more prudent choice. But since they're probably going for more airplanes rather than larger ones (spread network, rather than focus it), cargo is of big importance to them and they've been facing sad load factors.. I think that it will make them opt for the 787.

Probably not the wisest choice. Long haul has long been SAS' problem child. It accounts for about 14% of their sales, yet is responsible for nearly 50% of their losses. I say, drop the long haul flying entirely already and focus on your partnership with LH, or, cook a new soup. Don't expect the sh*t you have to taste any better because you stir it up..

SAS' longhaul marketing needs a complete overhaul. There's much they could do. But they don't. Yet expect revolutionary changes. SAS will open up a few more loss making routes ex OSL and possibly add 1 or 2 at CPH and ARN. Maybe some nice low yield markets like MIA or BKK. And the 787's (or A350) will do just that. Replace their A330/A350 on existing, loss making routes. They'll mitigate the loss, but they won't change the course.

I could see them go for 4-5x 788 and 6-8x 789. They'd be better off with a 15+5 A359 order, but they'd be better off with many things they don't seem to consider. Like being innovative. Recognizing market potentials. Or investing in the future. Or rationalizing their operations. SAS, as a three 'island' airline faces most difficult challenges for sure. But with every challenge, comes great potential. And looking at Norwegian's success and the markets they've missed out on and thus conceded to the competition, they seem to have mastered the art of making nothing out of something  Smile

[Edited 2011-06-04 21:50:48]


..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlinewindshear From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 2330 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 9073 times:

Why no 777?

But smaller is safer for SAS! A plane that will make it easier for SAS to choose new destinations, they are being choked by the amount of reasonably good transfer airports here in Europe.

Best of luck

Boaz.



"If you believe breaking is possible, believe in fixing also"-Rebbe Nachman
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2717 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 9073 times:

Quoting copenhagenboy (Thread starter):
At the corporate seminar in June the SAS Group management will decide about the future aircraft for long haul routes. It shall be published after the summer.

Interesting article. Thank you for posting the news here. I while ago SAS stated that the leases would come of in 2013. I hope SAS can extend their leases or has done so already. Changing in 2013 severely limits their options.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
My money is on the A350 for a number of reasons:

I can add more reasons why you money is well placed. SAS has stated that they will purchase A320 to replace their MD-80 airplanes in CPH. SAS could probably work out a better deal all together if they bought some long haul planes at the same time.

Quoting copenhagenboy (Reply 2):
I think it was a big mistake to quit all the 767 when they got the 330 and 340.

The A330/A340 combo was too much of a plane for SAS. A A332/A333 combo would probably have made more sense. I know some routes takes advantage of the A340 capabilities, but not enough routes for SAS to need 7 of them. To misuse an A330-200 would probably made more sense overall.

Quoting something (Reply 16):
Those were my thoughts exactly. If SAS will open more long haul routes from airports other than CPH and ARN, they will deprive themselves of some traffic feed and cargo will be ever more crucial to their operations.

SAS already has a large number of contracted trucks between the three Scandinavian hubs. OSL-CPH-ARN. It is actually cheaper to truck them between the cities at night. Between OSL and CPH it take 6 hours by car. Probably 7 with a truck. If SAS decides to up-size long haul capacity from all three airports, would it be a good choice to start flying one rotation of long haul planes to rotate cargo?

Quoting something (Reply 16):
Probably not the wisest choice. Long haul has long been SAS' problem child.

   such a shame  SAS used to be the pioneering airline when it came to longhaul routes. A lifetime ago for sure, but they used to be among the best.

IMO SAS would need more than 11 airplanes to make longhaul work. Norwegian says 15 longhaul planes is the smallest amount to make money. SAS used to have 12 767. Although they in total ordered and accepted for delivey 16 767 in total. 14 767-300ER and 2 767-200ER.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineNavigator From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 1172 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 8900 times:

Quoting something (Reply 16):
SAS have a penchant for mixed fleets and while I'll be the first to admit to my lack of technical knowledge, I'm not sure there's enough commonality between A330/A343 and A350 for it to be a deciding factor. Besides, SAS has swung over from Boeing to Airbus long haul before. They could now very well just swing back.

I think either the Boeing 787 or the A350 would be just fine for SAS in the route net they are serving right now. I for one doubt SAS will be able to expand the route net much further on intercontinental routes with the intense competition from for instance Finnair so close to its market. SAS focuses too much on CPH to be able to do that. SAS should be happy if they manage to maintain the routes they have I think.

So I vote for Boeing 787 or Airbus A350



747-400/747-200/L1011/DC-10/DC-9/DC-8/MD-80/MD90/A340/A330/A300/A310/A321/A320/A319/767/757/737/727/HS-121/CV990/CV440/S
User currently offlineFlyingsottsman From Australia, joined Oct 2010, 519 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 8062 times:

Quoting B747forever (Reply 11):
The 748!? That has to be a typo.

It might be, the 748i will not see work with SK they got rid of there 747s because they were to big for SK so no we wont see a 747i with SK. I reacon it will be the A350 SK have been a big user of Airbus they even got rid of their 763's and went A330 and A340 for their long hauls so I guess we will see the A350 join the A330s.

1. How far away is the A350?
2. How long will SK keep their A340s for?


User currently offlineSemaex From Germany, joined Nov 2009, 823 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7603 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
If they're seeing stronger growth in passenger than cargo, the A350-900 would be the better choice. If they're seeing stronger growth in cargo than passenger, the 787-9 would be the better choice.

Nailed it.

Quoting something (Reply 16):
I say, drop the long haul flying entirely already and focus on your partnership with LH, or, cook a new soup.

Not likely that the Skandinavian governments will opt out of this somewhat prestigeous thing being a long-haul carrier, but:

Quoting windshear (Reply 17):
they are being choked by the amount of reasonably good transfer airports here in Europe.

This is where their real deficit lies, and there is nothing they can do about it.

So yes, I agree. Downsizing in order to become profitable, shrink yourself healthy.



// You know you're an aviation enthusiast when you look at your neighbour's cars and think about fleet commonality.
User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7057 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7042 times:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 4):
It really could be both.

Being that this is SAS we are talking about  

According to another thread SAS is also looking at the A320NEO maybe we will see a big order announced in Le Bourget.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 23, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5944 times:

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 18):
SAS could probably work out a better deal all together if they bought some long haul planes at the same time.

I believe in the opposite. It sounds a bit theatrical but Boeing's life hangs on the thin thread that is the Boeing 787. They need every customer they can get. If Airbus on the other hand is already signing a deal for 60+ NEOs with them, they've already come out of the deal as a winner. If SAS were to include a healthy number of the (yet) slow seller A388 though, things would look very different.

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 18):
  such a shame  SAS used to be the pioneering airline when it came to longhaul routes. A lifetime ago for sure, but they used to be among the best.

And this is where things started to go wrong. They rested too comfortably on their success. And you know what they.. ''you stop improving, you stop being good''. Do that for a while and welcome SAS of 2011.

Which is exactly why I agree with you on..

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 18):
IMO SAS would need more than 11 airplanes to make longhaul work.

and tend to disagree with..

Quoting Semaex (Reply 21):
Downsizing in order to become profitable, shrink yourself healthy.

If SAS were to shrink even further, they'd lose all of their remaining customers with the exception of some vacationists.

There's a reason SAS is doing so bad on their long haul operations, and it's not the lack of demand. It's their product quality or rather the lack thereof. SAS these days reminds me a lot of the US health care program. They're trying to sell a really crappy product for a super high price.

SAS have a number of problems to address, but there's nothing they couldn't change if they really tried. First of all, cut your high wages and go back to quality service. Bring your cabins above industry standards. Stand out. Promote CPH as a congestion free transit hub and specialize in a certain market.

SAS must grow their long haul network and establish themselves as a quality airline and CPH as a transit hub of choice. The market is definitely there, and they can generate business by lowering their fares and increasing their quality standards.

Which is why I ''suggested'' an order of 15+5 A359. Simplify your fleet. Keep your focus at CPH and attack the strongest long haul markets ex ARN and OSL.

A few markets I could easily see work out for them, especially if they manage to feed more transit passengers through CPH (which, given their extensive European network should really be a breeze):

- GRU or EZE -> while a detour from most European places, the market is huge and competition is weak (LH's ancient 744, KL/AF 10 abreast 777, Aerolinas Argentinas -> lol, etc.)

- PEK -> growing market, high average fares, CPH on the flight path from most European cities

- HKG -> still booming, but maybe specializing would make sense and CAN would be a better choice

- SIN -> SQ already flies that route, but on their old 772s

- BKK -> CPH-BKK-HKT-BKK-CPH should work, maybe in a Y and Y+ heavy configured bird

- NRT -> same as for PEK. Will be hard to against LH/AF A388, and the quality of Japanese carriers but quality is nothing that couldn't be matched and fares are so high, they coul easily be undercut

- NYC -> it shouldn't be much of a problem to excel in quality over US airlines..

- ORD -> see above

- MIA -> Go to MIA from CPH only, instate perfectly timed feeder flights from nearby places without non-stop MIA connections (OSL, ARN, HAM, BRE, HAJ, etc.). Use same configuration as for BKK

- YYZ -> take over AC's existing service. In exchange, feed all your Canada and SEA passenger onto them. Maybe even let them have the California passengers. NYC and ORD are strong enough markets to hold their own.

- DEL/BOM -> big markets in and of itself, connect them to the North America banks and banks to the UK

And find another 3-4 markets that are currently underserved. MEX, MNL, maybe something in Vietnam..

I think this should be the only way to go for SAS. Become a long haul carrier, with superior service, easy connections and low/er fares. But if they lack the ambition to establish themselves in that market, and don't want to focus on it, drop it altogether. The European long haul market is brutal. Find your own niche, excel over others (quality, service, perks, price), make use of your potential (CPH's facilities, geographical location, highly educated population) and acquire renown. This ''we do a little here and a little there'' mentality isn't going to get you anywhere but in deep deficit hole.

Big changes lie ahead and big efforts will be required. And if they're not willing to go to such lengths - which they'd be in their perfect right to- focus on partnerships with your Star Alliance partners. There's not really a middle way here. Not in Scandinavia, nor anywhere else in Europe.

[Edited 2011-06-05 07:51:50]


..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlineNavigator From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 1172 posts, RR: 14
Reply 24, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5809 times:

Quoting something (Reply 23):
There's a reason SAS is doing so bad on their long haul operations, and it's not the lack of demand. It's their product quality or rather the lack thereof. SAS these days reminds me a lot of the US health care program. They're trying to sell a really crappy product for a super high price.

To be honest I do not think you know much about the SAS product as it is now when you say this. They do have quality service way above most other european airlines still. It is just that they are unable to operate profitably. They also do not serve enough of their home market with nonstop longhal routes leaving the field open for Finnair for instance.

SAS intensive longhaul flying in the old days rested on monopoly and lack of quality competition. SAS is still good it is just that other carriers all over the world are equally good but producing the product with a lower price.

If SAS would start catering for the need of nonstop intercontinental services out of Oslo and Stockholm and be able to serve those markets with the right cost level while maintaining their excellent service there is a future.



747-400/747-200/L1011/DC-10/DC-9/DC-8/MD-80/MD90/A340/A330/A300/A310/A321/A320/A319/767/757/737/727/HS-121/CV990/CV440/S
25 something : Well, one of their problems are taxes. I can hardly think of another nation with higher taxes than Denmark and Sweden. But that doesn't have to be di
26 Post contains links okobjorn : Thanks to "something" for suggestions to new destinations. Here (http://www.cph.dk/CPH/UK/B2B/Airlines/Top 25 - Route opportunities.htm) you can see t
27 billreid : Agree totally. SAS cant use the 777 because of size, wouldn't the A350 create the same problem? LH will allow and support niche flying from Scandinav
28 Post contains images something : How informative, thanks a lot They'll do nothing. And I frankly underestimated the potential to California. But then again, California will be hard t
29 Stitch : The A350-900's cabin is about 1.5m longer than the A330-300 / A340-300. So SK could fit an additional row of Economy Extra. Assuming they went 2+4+2
30 328JET : I think IF Lufthansa will take-over SK we will see a B787-9 fleet. I believe Lufthansa will order the B787-9 for their smaller companies like SN, BM,
31 Post contains images something : Thanks for providing these numbers! And size, to a certain extent, should not be the problem for SAS. They're making losses right now on aircraft tha
32 Post contains images OyKIE : I do not believe any order will come for free to Airbus. They will need to fight just like Boeing. Just to clarify. SAS did make money on their Inter
33 LN-KGL : I wouldn't say that about CPH - the charges are rather steep there. To illustrate here is an example: Airbus A320-211 MTOW = 78 tonnes Number of pass
34 bjorn14 : I personally would choose the 332 for their IC flying. Does Airbus have a HGW variant for this model? It has the range for every market they would wan
35 Asiaflyer : That can happen only after LH take SK over, if they ever do, and I do not think it is imminent. Until that day, SK will do what they believe is best
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...
RE: New Aircraft For Porter posted Mon Jan 21 2008 14:38:58 by AAMD11
New Aircraft For Porter? posted Thu Nov 29 2007 11:03:13 by YYZatcboy
New Aircraft For Commutair? posted Mon Mar 12 2007 17:51:25 by SmAlbany
New Aircraft For Thomsonfly posted Mon Aug 14 2006 19:48:17 by Aidoair
New Aircraft For Avianca? posted Thu Jul 7 2005 21:30:27 by Colinatl
New Aircraft For UK Royal Flight? posted Sun Apr 3 2005 22:35:16 by FlyCaledonian
IB: New Aircraft For IB In 2004 posted Thu May 6 2004 10:09:08 by Dme
New Aircraft For Scottish Airlines posted Wed Apr 7 2004 14:25:20 by CKT789
New Aircraft For SSV posted Fri Oct 18 2002 16:36:48 by Rootsgirl
New Aircraft For Latin American Airlines? posted Fri Aug 30 2002 08:06:03 by 717fan