Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus Assembly Lines - Narrow Body  
User currently offlinecol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2092 posts, RR: 22
Posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 10902 times:

With the success of the neo and plans to make 60 units per month, the present assembly plants in France, Germany and China will be maxed out at around 45-46 from memory.

The options I guess would be to expand any of the existing three plants or open a 4th plant elsewhere. Talk has been said of USA plant, which was originally planned for the tankers. The problem with the USA is that Airbus are still deemed to be the bad competition to Boeing who are highly regarded by the Government etc. This is a pity, as getting Airbus to assemble in USA would be a major coup for, and may actually help Boeing. Other than Alabama the support could be zip.

Another option would be to assemble in UK, a country with the know how to carry out assembly easily. There must be a number of sites capable of assembling 320's very easily.

Spreading the assembly plants seems like a smart idea, unions, holiday, competition between the sites = less exposure to negative production affects.

Any thoughts?

53 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinescouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3371 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 10889 times:

Had always assumed that this would be at the tanker plant in the US but uk assembly sounds like a plan the government would be very keen to help out and airbus already had several plants where it could be located.

User currently offlinestevenmeyer2005 From Spain, joined Jan 2010, 27 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 10863 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Opening up new plants or expanding older plants would definitely be a great benefit to Airbus, however in my eyes I see a problem with part deliveries from their suppliers. The suppliers are already under pressure to keep up with the units being assembled right now.

Another factor would be that Airbus has 5 belugas right now, if they expand a plant or open a new plant I would assume that they would need a couple more belugas to transport parts since the 5 belugas now are being used daily already to transport parts between Spain, France, UK and Germany. Keep in mind that the belugas now do not only transfer A32X parts.


stevenmeyer2005



Steven Meyer
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8840 posts, RR: 75
Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 10756 times:

Quoting col (Thread starter):

The options I guess would be to expand any of the existing three plants or open a 4th plant elsewhere. Talk has been said of USA plant, which was originally planned for the tankers.

I think that is still a good idea. At the moment, a lot of the components for Airbus aircraft come from the USA by surface, Airbus could add to their sealift capability to take assemblies from the USA one way, and in the other direct take A320 fuselages and wings in the other direction.

Quoting col (Thread starter):

Another option would be to assemble in UK, a country with the know how to carry out assembly easily. There must be a number of sites capable of assembling 320's very easily.

With the closure of a number of UK DoD bases in recent times, a number of them have fairly good sea access, it has all the ingredients of making another assembly line, sea access for parts in, and an airfield to launch the completed airframes.

Quoting col (Thread starter):

Spreading the assembly plants seems like a smart idea, unions, holiday, competition between the sites = less exposure to negative production affects.

I would not rule out something in DXB either, it would be the sort if industry they would try like to attract, good sea and air access, lots of open space. They do not allow unions, and an attractive tax base.

Quoting stevenmeyer2005 (Reply 2):
Opening up new plants or expanding older plants would definitely be a great benefit to Airbus, however in my eyes I see a problem with part deliveries from their suppliers. The suppliers are already under pressure to keep up with the units being assembled right now.

The FAL in China is all done by ship, I would think any further development would include more surface transport.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinebreiz From France, joined Mar 2005, 1914 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 10730 times:

As all you know, Airbus vented recently, by alleged mistake, the thoughts around a Super-Beluga in the guise of a modified A330.
I do not believe that a company of Airbus' stature would make such an innocent "mistake".
I see it as a tool to negotiate further assembly plants development. Either towards the European countries (you see we have the capability to fly parts to Mobile), or to boost the shelved Mobile solution.
Alternatively, I am just dreaming.


User currently offlinestevenmeyer2005 From Spain, joined Jan 2010, 27 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 10697 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting breiz (Reply 4):
As all you know, Airbus vented recently, by alleged mistake, the thoughts around a Super-Beluga in the guise of a modified A330.

The only benefit of an A330 beluga is that it would be longer because the A330 fuselage is based upon the A300 fuselage. Well of course the added weight it could carry and range. A development of this aircraft would take years and Airbus has its hands full with the A32X neos and A350s.



Steven Meyer
User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1548 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 10664 times:

re above.I am not so sure.We are not talking about tomorrow those orders and timescales are alrasdy tied up.If the 3 existing assembly plants cannot be expanded then they may well need a fourth and where better than the US - even if I am a Brit.2011 may be the year of the NEO but 2012? Don't bet on it they have only just got started - why do you think Boeing wanted to build "new"?

User currently offlinebreiz From France, joined Mar 2005, 1914 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 10657 times:

Quoting stevenmeyer2005 (Reply 5):
A development of this aircraft would take years and Airbus has its hands full with the A32X neos and A350s.


The development may not be that long. As pointed-out earlier by others, the communality between the A300 and the A330 would make structural modifications straightforward. Systems are another issue.
But I agreed of course that Airbus has already plenty to deal with.


User currently offlineCentre From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 488 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 10504 times:

Quoting stevenmeyer2005 (Reply 5):
e only benefit of an A330 beluga is that it would be longer because the A330 fuselage is based upon the A300 fuselage. Well of course the added weight it could carry and range. A development of this aircraft would take years and Airbus has its hands full with the A32X neos and A350s.

There might be no need for more Belugas or further developments to it:

According to Airbus Power8 plan, back in 2007:
http://www.atlantic-times.com/archive_detail.php?recordID=797

Quote:
The new A350 will be assembled in Toulouse and will also get its interior outfitting at the main Airbus site. This is a significant change to the previous practice where aircraft are flown to Hamburg empty for interior outfitting. To make the change more acceptable for the German side within Airbus, Hamburg will add a third final assembly line for the A320 narrow-body family.

Toulouse will keep its A320 line but it will be capped at 14 aircraft per month. Everything beyond 14 will be built in Hamburg. Gallois of course says that this is a commitment given by his predecessor Philippe Camus when the A380 was launched six years ago.

So, there is a high possibility of a 3rd FAL in Hamburg, for a total of 5 FAL between Hamburg, Toulouse, and China.

That's quite sufficient if suppliers can support it.



I have cut 4 times, and it's still short.
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1561 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 10308 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting scouseflyer (Reply 1):
Had always assumed that this would be at the tanker plant in the US but uk assembly sounds like a plan the government would be very keen to help out and airbus already had several plants where it could be located.

MME sounds like a good place to have a FAL to me      

Fred


User currently offlinecol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2092 posts, RR: 22
Reply 10, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 10185 times:

I am actually talking about a plant being available from 2016/2017.

Quoting zeke (Reply 3):
would not rule out something in DXB either, it would be the sort if industry they would try like to attract, good sea and air access, lots of open space. They do not allow unions, and an attractive tax base.

That would be better served as an A380 Assembly plant, then they could just roll them down the street.

Quoting breiz (Reply 4):
you see we have the capability to fly parts to Mobile

My concern with Mobile is that Airbus got shafted by the US Government on a couple of ocassions now. They certainly showed their feelings to an Airbus plant versus helping Boeing. Other than Alabama, there was not really any support from any other State. They do not look upon the plant as creating jobs for American's, but taking jobs from WA. It drove me crazy, when you look at the reality of getting another manufacturer to assemble their planes in US. We could have made Tankers for every Air Force on the planet, plus maybe 330 PAX and 350's.


User currently offlineHiJazzey From Saudi Arabia, joined Sep 2005, 863 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 9974 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 3):
I would not rule out something in DXB either, it would be the sort if industry they would try like to attract, good sea and air access, lots of open space. They do not allow unions, and an attractive tax base.

AUH more likely than DXB (although still unlikely).
If I remember correctly EADS signed a deal with Mubadala a couple of years ago.


User currently offlinerobffm2 From Germany, joined Dec 2006, 1113 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 9925 times:

What about Brazil?
Weren't Bombardier and Airbus already working together in the past?


User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 13, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 9213 times:

Quoting Centre (Reply 8):
Quote:
The new A350 will be assembled in Toulouse and will also get its interior outfitting at the main Airbus site. This is a significant change to the previous practice where aircraft are flown to Hamburg empty for interior outfitting. To make the change more acceptable for the German side within Airbus, Hamburg will add a third final assembly line for the A320 narrow-body family.

Toulouse will keep its A320 line but it will be capped at 14 aircraft per month. Everything beyond 14 will be built in Hamburg. Gallois of course says that this is a commitment given by his predecessor Philippe Camus when the A380 was launched six years ago.

So, there is a high possibility of a 3rd FAL in Hamburg, for a total of 5 FAL between Hamburg, Toulouse, and China.

You are a very attentive observer. There will be no other additional plant in the foreseeable future.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6971 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 8746 times:

Quoting col (Thread starter):
The problem with the USA is that Airbus are still deemed to be the bad competition to Boeing who are highly regarded by the Government etc.

The US government purchases hugh numbers of military items from foreign suppliers from a/c to missiles, to vehicles.

Quoting col (Reply 10):
My concern with Mobile is that Airbus got shafted by the US Government on a couple of ocassions now. They certainly showed their feelings to an Airbus plant versus helping Boeing.

Presently US Airways is listed as the largest single Airbus a/c operator in the world with around 232 a/c, that is a single carrier, when you add in UA, DL, B6, F9 and others the USA as a country is probably largest operator of Airbus a/c, and that has been accomplished without interference from Boeing, a FAL in the USA or any assistance by the US Government.
AA has now placed an order and the US government was nowhere to be seen or heard on anything related to the order, so why do you believe that the free market in the US as it relates to Airbus is somehow preventing them from penetrating a market which they presently have a large share or that they need a FAL to maintain their position or solicit orders?


User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2552 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 8693 times:

Quoting something (Reply 13):
There will be no other additional plant in the foreseeable future.

There is no immediate need for a new FAL The ramp up will take time. But I do see a need for it in a few years, if they go to rate 60. Which means they'll have to start thinking about sites soon.

TSN, while small, was built inspired on the XFW site, and has room for expansion. I could see that site growing and taking over some of the Asian market (and not just Chinese) in the mid-term. I don't think Airbus had a long-term goal of just 4 aircraft per month in mind when they set up shop there.

BFM is a major candidate, IMO. Airbus has long wanted to establish a larger presence in the US, it didn't work out with the tankers, so why not give it a try with the NEO?

Also, there is SVQ. It would be an unexpected move, but the A400M is assembled there, it is already integrated into the Airbus logistics network, and it wouldn't be too hard to build an A320 FAL there.

Quoting zeke (Reply 3):
The FAL in China is all done by ship, I would think any further development would include more surface transport.

Correct, and the A380 is also done by ship. Ship transport seems to be the future trend within Airbus, as much as we all love the Beluga. It is not a coincidence that a lot of their sites are at or near port facilities. I wouldn't rule out the A330-Beluga some day, but the bulk will be done by ship, IMO. That should help to narrow down the choices  


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6971 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 8542 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 15):
Airbus has long wanted to establish a larger presence in the US, it didn't work out with the tankers, so why not give it a try with the NEO?

If they really wanted a FAL in the US they did not and do not need the tanker or the NEO product to do so, the number of customers and a/c deployed in the US are large enough to justify a FAL on just replacements, Airbus is no different than the Japanese or Korean auto companies, if they want to build a FAL, the states would step up with property, tax breaks and incentives to get the job done. None of the foreign factories presently in the US was set up with the aid of the Federal government, the states in the US have taxing power on their own.
Take the A321NEO for example, the extra range and payload are mostly beneficial to the US transcon market than anywhere else in the world, the A321-100 was and is still fine for most other markets. The numbers of 757 for which the A321NEO is the best replacement is in the US, Europe and most other countries abandoned the 757 as they did not need the extra oomph.
The improved efficiency of the A321NEO is welcomed by all but if you do not need the extra range and payload its just more excess. The additional delay to the A321NEO was to provide additional range / payload, now if that is primarily targeted to the US market is it large enough to justify a FAL and what would be the benefit to Airbus? If they are moving to the Euro how much hedging in US Dollars do they need?


User currently offlineInsideMan From Vatican City, joined Aug 2011, 213 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 8051 times:

as mentioned somewhere above, the long term strategy is to have long range in TLS and narrow body in HAM. Exception is the A380. As per current plans the A30X will be built exclusively in HAM, which is why I think if we will see a new FAL, it will be in HAM.

User currently offlinepwdalmech From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 17 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6600 times:

I could see Airbus setting up an A320 FAL in Mobile, Alabama after they win another large order from a large US airline. I also see them moving the A330 FAL line to Mobile once the A350 goes into production.


Pure Power
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8840 posts, RR: 75
Reply 19, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6499 times:

Quoting pwdalmech (Reply 18):
I could see Airbus setting up an A320 FAL in Mobile, Alabama after they win another large order from a large US airline. I also see them moving the A330 FAL line to Mobile once the A350 goes into production.

I had similar thoughts, it took an order of around 150 frames to get the FAL in China built. I think they have enough orders from the US, and if you look at all potential order from North and South America, I think there is more than enough demand to justify opening up the production line.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 20, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6397 times:

Quoting pwdalmech (Reply 18):
I could see Airbus setting up an A320 FAL in Mobile, Alabama after they win another large order from a large US airline.
Quoting zeke (Reply 19):
I think there is more than enough demand to justify opening up the production line.

I'm not sure the China example is really relevant to opening an assembly line in the US. The US carriers don't care where the plane is built (they're been ordering planes built in Canada, Brazil, and Europe for decades).

China's government is heavily involved in the aircraft purchasing process so I can see how they'd bargain a FAL into the order, but that just isn't how the US carriers would work. Given that it only takes ~6 hours to move the plane from Europe to the US there's nothing about a big US order that should spur Airbus to put a FAL in the US.

Airbus should put it where it makes business sense...that includes orders you might win (and orders you might lose), proxmity to existing resources and engineering, integration into the production system, etc., etc. If the 787 has taught anybody anything, it's that distributing your production system to widely is not conducive to high production rates.

Tom.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8840 posts, RR: 75
Reply 21, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5976 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 20):
Given that it only takes ~6 hours to move the plane from Europe to the US there's nothing about a big US order that should spur Airbus to put a FAL in the US.

Apart from putting more of the production costs in USD rather than EUR and the ability to use surface transport efficiently in both directions, and the ability to continue production through the Christmas period where things normally shut down in Europe.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineInsideMan From Vatican City, joined Aug 2011, 213 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5930 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 21):
Apart from putting more of the production costs in USD rather than EUR and the ability to use surface transport efficiently in both directions, and the ability to continue production through the Christmas period where things normally shut down in Europe.

labour is less than 10% of the actual production cost, therefore it makes sense to buy parts in $$$ but not soooo much to pay wages in $$$, at least if you can offset that by saving somewhere else, e.g. transportation...


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9097 posts, RR: 29
Reply 23, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5700 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 3):
The FAL in China is all done by ship, I would think any further development would include more surface transport.
Quoting zeke (Reply 21):
Apart from putting more of the production costs in USD rather than EUR and the ability to use surface transport efficiently in both directions

Parts for the Chinese assembly line are ferried by barge from Finkenwerder/ to the container port in Hamburg whch is just a few kilometer upstream where they are loaded on regular container ships. A380 sections that move between XFW and TLS are transported by ship and the two plants on the Loire estuary and XFW would be the natural places for further extension.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6971 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5573 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 21):
Apart from putting more of the production costs in USD rather than EUR and the ability to use surface transport efficiently in both directions, and the ability to continue production through the Christmas period where things normally shut down in Europe.

Which then flies in the face of the latest rumours that Airbus is considering switching from the USD to the EURO for their a/c pricing and sales. As you have always mentioned, a number of Airbus parts are already sourced from the USA, putting more in the US when a switch is being contemplated would seem weird, as for increasing production in the US, let's remember the bashing the American people recently got during their debt debate, I would think Airbus shareholders and supporters would think twice unless they were only blowing smoke.
As for the Christmas period, the entire company was / is built around those European practices, it has certainely not hurt Airbus in getting to where they are today so if it ain't broke, why fix it, would it not be better to attempt to change the European culture and have Europeans take less days off like the Americans, or is that something that cannot attempt.


25 Post contains links airbazar : The typical American voter doesn't know and doesn't even dream of this. The typical American passengers and voter doesn't know and probably doesn't e
26 par13del : Unfortunately, there are some folks who seem to think Americans care, perception and reality. I would say because you don't need it, other countries
27 r2rho : Indeed, it would give them more room to play with production rates - depending on the exchange rate, they could shift assembly between US and EU to p
28 PanHAM : At least we have culture in Europe, one could answer. Now, it is not only the Europeans, we have, from Chinese New Year over Muslim, Jewish and Chris
29 airbazar : I'm pretty sure that winning the Air Force contract was dependent on building the tanker in the US. I never said they don't care. I said they don't k
30 InsideMan : I don't expect the A30X to arrive before 2030 earliest. Noone said "one" FAL, since Airbus currently has 4. Therefore I expect at least 3 in HAM in f
31 par13del : I believe Airbus offered that to get a strong local base of support, don't recall reading such a demand in the RFP. And Airbus made noise about the U
32 realsim : My personal opinion is that if a new FAL is built, it should be built in the UK or in Spain, as both countries are part of Airbus and don't have any
33 Post contains images col : We don't have an assembly line in Mobile because the Airbus tanker was never going to win. The whole tanker debacle was a waste of taxpayers (myself i
34 Baroque : I don't dispute your comment, but which industry is that? It is not that way in mine. I just checked my "in" file and we received samples originating
35 PanHAM : I exaggerated a bit on purpose. If things have to be done they will be done I myself flew donw under between Christmas and New Years a couple of year
36 Post contains links and images blueshamu330s : ...one obvious site springs to mind....and only 40 miles from Broughton.... Save Woodford!!! Rgds[Edited 2011-08-22 01:09:30]
37 jlb : Does anyone have pictures of the sub assemblies loaded on containerships for the China assembly line?
38 Post contains images Baroque : Well the company that sent me that work, also sent some last month, and in Sept the person concerned will be in Porto. But will they be on holiday, n
39 PanHAM : yes, but one has to support the Brits for their special kind of humour which was at it:s best again recently in "Straight & Level" where they rep
40 r2rho : I threw out SVQ as an "exotic" option since it is often forgotten. Truth is, Spain has no true political power within EADS, so SVQ doesn't stand the
41 scouseflyer : Maybe I'm just hoping because I'm from the UK and in my lifetime have witnessed the death of nearly all heavy industry and manufacturing: Cars - Aust
42 PanHAM : Isn't it rather a condition set by politics? These conditions - a participation of the local industry of the buying country - are normal procedure in
43 Post contains images MCO2BRS : I would love to see an FAL at FZO, but we all know there is no chance of that happening
44 Post contains images airbazar : Of course it wasn't written in the RFP. That would probably violate all sorts of WTO rules But for such a politically high profile deal, does it real
45 r2rho : As a matter of fact, the 3rd XFW FAL line delivered its first aircraft last week. Currently XFW produces 21 per month, to be ramped up to 25 with the
46 Post contains links and images Centre : Thanks for the follow up This is part of the planned 42 planes per month by late 2012. http://atwonline.com/eco-aviation/ne...ction-rate-42-month-lat
47 InsideMan : I have no doubt Airbus could be up for it, but the bigger question is the suppliers, especially as many key suppliers deliver to both A and B and thu
48 n1786b : The WTO does not have any authority over contracts dealing with "national security" aka defense contracts. The only issue is the supply chain.
49 Centre : 42/month is already set for next year, I believe the number is true for both A & B? Can't the suppliers be ready for 60 in 6-8 years from now?
50 Baroque : Probably particularly the engines. It might be a help for Airbus if they continue to have customers specifying the IAE engines as they do have capaci
51 r2rho : Which makes me wonder, what is the max capacity TLS can reach without the cap? That would give us an idea of how much potential ramp-up capability Ai
52 Post contains links and images Centre : I don't have solid numbers,I think it's about 17 per month, and will be scaled back to 14 once the third FAL is at full production (probably they alr
53 r2rho : Thanks for that list, That makes, so far (july 2011): 2539 deliverd by TLS 2214 delivered by XFW 64 delivered by TSN That's a quick and dirty excel c
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...
Qantas And The Airbus Narrow Body posted Sat Feb 22 2003 06:41:38 by Paulianer
Delta CEO On Narrow Body Fleet posted Tue Sep 21 2010 06:40:20 by keesje
GLG: Boeing Narrow Body To Slide To 25% Markt Shae posted Wed Sep 1 2010 21:17:46 by cosmofly
Upcoming Major Narrow Body Orders posted Fri Jun 18 2010 20:29:21 by CFBFrame
Twin-Aisled Narrow Body?! posted Sun May 30 2010 21:55:35 by nitepilot79
Australia To UK With Narrow Body? posted Wed Nov 12 2008 14:58:16 by F27friend
Which Is Quieter? A Wide Body Or Narrow Body. posted Fri Jan 4 2008 20:29:42 by Aruba
Airports With No Narrow Body Service. posted Tue Jul 24 2007 22:33:54 by AA787823
Largest Narrow Body posted Mon Jul 23 2007 07:12:19 by Ssflyboy25
Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario posted Fri Jul 13 2007 16:23:07 by Keesje