Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A340 Low-cost Freighter Planned  
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10645 posts, RR: 9
Posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 20664 times:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...heme-seeks-launch-customer-370156/

With later-built A340s probably facing a shortened life as passenger planes the A340-300 would make a nice and affordable freighter, especially with this idea of loading it through the lower freight doors and elevators, avoiding cutting in an expensive large door in the upper deck. I´ve always thought why a A340F didnt come up earlier as it makes a more capable plane as the A330. I think a few dozen could be converted, making nice-price MD-11F replacements for smaller operators with limited funds.

78 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30558 posts, RR: 84
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 20550 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It's an interesting idea, but not sure how practical it will be limited to belly hold dimensioned pallets and ULDs.

User currently offlinecargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1259 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 20494 times:

Another article on this potential program.

[Edited 2012-03-30 10:47:44]

User currently offlineHPRamper From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4036 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 20038 times:

I'm trying really hard to think of a carrier who would use this. The system of smaller ULDs lends itself to integrator service, but the big integrators aren't buying.

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12885 posts, RR: 100
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 19946 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

How are freighter lease rates doing right now? (Any link is appreciated.) IMHO, there is a short window for this conversion. Once 787s and A350s delieries ramp up, I see used 763ER, A333 (iniital build), and 772 values dropping enough to close off interst in A340 based freighters.

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 3):
I'm trying really hard to think of a carrier who would use this. The system of smaller ULDs lends itself to integrator service, but the big integrators aren't buying.

Who is buying? FedEx will replace the DC-10s and later the MD-11s, but who would buy A340 freighters? It would be a tough resale and thus tough financing.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineSASMD82 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 726 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 19947 times:

As an Airbus fan: why replacing old MD-11s/DC-10s/A300s/A310s with old A340s?

I doubt that this will be as successful as - for instance - the convertion of the MD-11 pax into freighters.


User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 616 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 19477 times:

I personally think this wouldn't work for FX. I do see them retiring the DC10's & MD-11's but not with old 340's. This might with work smaller carriers who need the need the lift now and can disregard the age of the frame. That and people who people who still believe in "4 engines 4 the long haul"   

As far as the freight elevators go, what success have they had in the past. Im sure they'll be using motorized rollers as well.


User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2898 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 19473 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 4):

How are freighter lease rates doing right now? (Any link is appreciated.) IMHO, there is a short window for this conversion. Once 787s and A350s delieries ramp up, I see used 763ER, A333 (iniital build), and 772 values dropping enough to close off interst in A340 based freighters.

Freighters are in a bit of a turnover mode right now.

747 classics are pretty much being retired rapidly (-100s and -300s are pretty much gone, and the -200s have been declining with Kalitta and Evergreen as primary users- and airframes don't tend to find a new life after they're done with them. There are quite a few -400s for conversion, however there are a lot of operators (ANA, ANZ, JAL, Lufthansa, Air France) that are sending their retired airframes direct to the scrappers.

A300s:Freight carriers are retiring a lot of early models this year (A300B4s), with them being replaced by -600 conversions

A310s: Fedex is parking their older models and many in passenger use will not be candidates for conversion

I actually think that the 787 and A350 delays will excaberate the issue, with good 767s and A330s getting several more years of heavy use, along with thousands of additional hours and cycles piled on them. It'll cause a crunch on the low end of the market and may make a freighter with a low payload like this (only 60t?) attractive if at a good pricce. After all it's basically half a 747/777f.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineFlaps From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1258 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 18548 times:

While I see some merit in the use of the A340 as a freighter, I wouldn't have any interest in this option., Smaller containers mean more handling moves, longer turnaround times and more labor. It also limits the ability to carry large high yield items. By restricting the aircraft to cargo that fits through the lower door you are limiting the aircraft's capacity in an even more restrictive manner than strengthening the floors and adding the large door. You are reducing it's revenue capacity by a greater degree than a conventional conversion. I have a lot of experience with the ABX/Airborne system of small containers through the passenger door. While the lower deck containers of the A340 have more capacity than Airborne's "laundry bins" they are even harder to load and unload due to their low height.

User currently offlinebehramjee From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 4749 posts, RR: 43
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 18385 times:

Few interesting observations I have from this article:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...heme-seeks-launch-customer-370156/

A343 can be bought for $15M only? If so that is really cheap!!!

A343F can only carry approx 60-65 tons of cargo? If that is the case, it will not do well as I think it needs to be able to carry 80-82 tons at least. The flying range of 9260KM is good though realistically speaking it will be able to 8000KM max!


User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3736 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 18183 times:

It's an interesting concept. The main appeal of that design is the cost.
No major structural changes apart from the lifts, rollers and removal of unnecessary systems...
I doubt they'll even remove that many systems since they mention that a conversion back to passenger would still be possible.
Add to that bargain priced airframes...

Certification will be a walk in the park.

I'm still curious to know who would be interested in a freighter with the payload size limitation. They do mention that they wouldn't need interest from the legacy freight carriers to make it work. The inital design and certification cost is so low that they would need few conversions to break even.

If it keeps A340s in the air, bring it on!

I wonder how much sense it would make on an A340-500...



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30558 posts, RR: 84
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 17744 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 4):
How are freighter lease rates doing right now?

For January 2012, monthly dry lease rate averages for the major types are:

A300F4s: $80-115,000
A3006Fs: $170-470,000
A313Fs: $95-145,000
A332Fs: $775-900,000

744F: $370-925,000
748F: $1,700,000-1,900,000
763F: $285-460,000
777F: $900-$1,550,000

DC1030F: $50-90,000
MD11F: $210-410,000

Quoting behramjee (Reply 9):
A343F can only carry approx 60-65 tons of cargo?


Airbus Freighter Conversion Vice-President of Marketing and Sales Michael Fuers gave a projected payload of 70t for an A340-300P2F back in 2007. Bedek Aviation did not give a figure for their proposed A340-300P2F conversion they were working on around the same time.

[Edited 2012-03-30 13:29:40]

User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6824 posts, RR: 46
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 16548 times:

I am inclined to be skeptical; I think that the inconvenience of loading through the lower deck will far outweigh the money saved by not installing a large door on the main deck. And there probably are not enough A340's available for conversion to justify the cost of developing an upper deck cargo door. While the low acquisition cost is attractive, once converted it has to compete, and I think it will be at a substantial disadvantage.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinevaus77w From Australia, joined Aug 2011, 143 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 16076 times:

Could we see LH Cargo interested in this as a alternative to the 777F (not that it's as efficient or capable but the low cost and vast experience of maintaining this model are advantages)?

User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 616 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 15061 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 12):

That is what I'm thinking as well. Trying to get around the conversion of a main loading door really defeats the purpose of a freighter. The more time its on the ground it cost the carrier $$. Simple as that. Aside you have the labor and also the fuel expense. Are there a freighter twin engine that compares spec wise to this proposed A340 freighter specs??

Quoting vaus77w (Reply 13):
http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engine...-11f-fleet-predicts-no-growth-2012

"Lufthansa Cargo (LHC) is considering replacing its fleet of 18 BoeingMD-11Fs and will decide by 2014 which aircraft to go with, LHC chairman and CEO Karl-Ulrich Garnadt told ATW in Seoul, South Korea.

“We know we have to order more [Boeing] 777Fs and there is no other option,” Garnadt said. LHC finalized an order for five 777 freighters valued at $1.35 billion last spring"

Im guessing this might help.


User currently onlineNWAROOSTER From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1064 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 14997 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This conversion would limit it's cargo interchangeability only with other freighters as belly cargo as it would leave a large void on the main deck.   

User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 14974 times:

There's really no such thing as an old A340. And they are very fuel efficient frames.

They're wholesale fleeting with 757s that are much older.

NS


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 14701 times:

Quoting na (Thread starter):
I´ve always thought why a A340F didnt come up earlier as it makes a more capable plane as the A330. I think a few dozen could be converted, making nice-price MD-11F replacements for smaller operators with limited funds.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 4):
Once 787s and A350s delieries ramp up, I see used 763ER, A333 (iniital build), and 772 values dropping enough to close off interst in A340 based freighters.
Quoting rotating14 (Reply 6):
As far as the freight elevators go, what success have they had in the past. Im sure they'll be using motorized rollers as well.

I just don't see the A-340LCF as a practical or desirable freighter. Those two elevators are going to add weight, lots of it, which reduces payload. It would be far cheaper in design and install a side cargo door, they could use the designed door of the A-330F. A cargo door would also weigh a lot less than two elevators designed to lift heavy pallets. The elevator floors and rails would have to be strong enough to support cargo loads during 'high' G (typically 1.5 to 2 Gs).

The payload will be in the 60 ton area because of the elevator modifications. So, what yopu end up with is a 4 engined new build B-767-300ERF, which carries 59 tons at transcontenential range. That is all before you get to the fact the A-340F would be a gas guzzeler. The freight companies cannot make money with a gas hog, and takes almost twice as long to load/unload, compared to other new build freighters of converted freighters.


User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6385 posts, RR: 54
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 14154 times:

The A340 is not an obvious candidate for Freighter conversion.

A good freighter has a high landing weight, a high zero fuel weight, and a modest range. Cargo companies do their best to avoid spending fuel on transporting fuel. They rather take a fuel stop en route. Unlike passengers, cargo never complains about fuel stops.

The A340 was designed to be the opposite - a long range passenger plane with modest payload capability.

With 30% less payload capability than an MD-11F I think it is a non-starter.

The range would be roughly double compared to MD-11F with full payload. But what does that matter when the MD-11F hauls so much more cargo the same distance with one fuel stop?

But if they should ever be taken up by a cargo company, then why not send them to Dresden and have them properly configured with a cargo door as they do with old A300 and A310? The fuselage structure is the same - only somewhat longer - so little R&D would be involved.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently onlinebohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2670 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 13957 times:

I can just see one of those elevators going inop and causing some of the upper deck cargo to be stranded on the plane. Talk about a nightmare.

User currently offlinetsnamm From United States of America, joined May 2005, 628 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 13696 times:

How much cheaper would the installation of these internal "elevators" be than a proper main deck door modification? There would have to be an opening as large as a PMC pallet cut in the main deck floor in order to accommodate the "elevator". Besides, you waste all the space of the main deck by limiting the height of the pallets to the 64 in lower deck height.....I can't see this being of any use to anyone...any of the integrators use 10ft structural units on the main deck currently (AMA etc.), which would be too big for this type of conversion, and any heavy lift cargo operators would want to build pallets to 120 inches, or need to utilize a 20 ft pallet for oversize freight, let alone the height...I don't know who exactly this type of conversion even if its cheaper; is supposed to appeal to. It would be limited in application, and use an aircraft type (the A340) that would be better served with a proper full freighter conversion to maximize its potential, and minimize its shortcomings, as compared to other types its competing with on the freighter conversion market...

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30558 posts, RR: 84
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 13441 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I believe the cost savings come more from not needing to reinforce the main deck since it appears floor loadings for pallets and ULDs would be the same as for belly cargo.

I can see why they started with the 777, since I've seen claims that the main deck needs to be replaced due to the CFRP floor beams not being load-rated to take "heavy" cargo (the 777F uses Al floor beams) and that conversion cost runs in the scores of millions.


User currently offlineairliner777 From United States of America, joined May 2000, 493 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 12877 times:

Quoting behramjee (Reply 9):

Few interesting observations I have from this article:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...heme-seeks-launch-customer-370156/

A343 can be bought for $15M only? If so that is really cheap!!!

A343F can only carry approx 60-65 tons of cargo? If that is the case, it will not do well as I think it needs to be able to carry 80-82 tons at least. The flying range of 9260KM is good though realistically speaking it will be able to 8000KM max!

What is the Tampa Cargo tail doing at that Flightglobal website picture? Maybe the "launch customer" they are looking for?

Fly safe!
Airliner777


User currently onlineliftsifter From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 300 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 12449 times:

I see RJ as a perfect candidate. Their A310 freighters are aging and their 787s are coming in 2014, that leaves the A342's. They look like perfect candidates.

I think this is really geared towards those using A300/310 freighters.



A300 A310 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A342 A343 A346 A380 B738 B744 B763 B772 B77W B787 Q400 E190
User currently offlineaeroflop From New Zealand, joined Mar 2012, 39 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 10758 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
Those two elevators are going to add weight, lots of it

Yeah those a340s really don't need anymore weight. Seeing them take off is really an intense experience. I recall somebody joking that the a340 only takes off because of the natural curvatures of the earth.  


25 Thunderball : We had a presentation on this concept late last year; don't write it off Guys. It's not for everyone, but it may have real merit. And no, the lifts do
26 dennys : Many thanks na from Germany , not to mension that the original A340 programm included in A340F , so why not ? Instead of scrapping them . Good news !
27 KC135TopBoom : It may not be quite the savings in conversion costs you think it would be, Stitch. Several of the floor beams (longitutenial and lateral) will need t
28 Thunderball : INCORRECT. See my post. The designers are emphatic that the elevators do not add significant incremental weight. They were questioned for an hour on
29 nicoeddf : hm, we are talking here A340-300 series - weight was never exactly their problem. Really - no that is funny. Never heard that one before...
30 breiz : That was a Lufthansa's captain about the performance of the early A342s. The technical reason behind the joke is: DLH could have climbed out faster,
31 trent1000 : About the A340: Do you mean that the A340 is as capable as an A330 or that the A340 is a more capable plane than an A330? If it's the latter, on what
32 Post contains images DocLightning : NOOOOOoooooooooooooo!!! Signed, -Aviation enthusiasts all over the place
33 ltbewr : The reality is that DC-8's are pretty much ended their freighter life. There are still some locations where a 747 is too much and a 2-engined too shor
34 Spacepope : In that case, maybe someone would be able to take MSN 003, which never made it to Iran. Only 60,000 hours. Could get 10 years of service with the time
35 Coronado : Very few air freight pallets weigh much more than 600 lbs now days, as they tend to carry high value, non dense electronic type products. I just shipp
36 Burkhard : The A340 gives a unique quality as passenger aircraft - it has the lowest noise level of all aircraft. Therefore I see a continued demand until they r
37 Polot : Most passengers don't know or care that the A340 is quieter than the competition, it is not a driving force for A340 purchases or why airlines would
38 kanban : While I think this is an interesting out of the box concept, I'm having trouble finding an application in terms of manufactured goods. These could wor
39 KC135TopBoom : Do you mean this post with no link to what the engineers actually said? Yeap it is so fuel efficent it is breaking all the sales records.....OH WAIT.
40 Post contains links Devilfish : Might as well try this tack iso the A340..... http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-767-2c-as-civil-freighter-370214/ Quote: "The US Air Force's KC-
41 Stitch : A civillian freighter version of the 767-2C would appeal to the USAF by reducing risk. It would also appeal to Boeing by reducing costs (the additiona
42 Viscount724 : Isn't the A380 at least as quiet, if not quieter?
43 dennys : It's an interesting concept. If it keeps A340s in the air, bring it on! I wonder how much sense it would make on an A340-500... Yes . As now TG JJ ne
44 Burkhard : Sure it is, but isn't the alternative. Fact is many passemgers from France pay more for a ticket with LH 340 via FRA than AF 77W direct, and far lowe
45 Stitch : IMO, the A340-500 would be about the worst platform out there to turn into a converted freighter due to the very high OEW. Their future is VIP birds
46 HPRamper : FX is already rolling out the LD2 for the 763 lower deck so that would not be a concern regarding the 762. That said...it ain't gonna happen. The nic
47 trex8 : Couple of points, if the worlds largest carrier DL can survive on belly freight and got rid of their freighters I doubt not being able to handle main
48 tsnamm : You are missing the point...what you are describing is NON freighter cargo lift...if you are going to utilize the main deck in a cargo configuration
49 Post contains images lightsaber : The more I read the in-depth posts, the more I wonder how these conversions would survive in a world of 777F, 763F (both new build and BCF), I believe
50 HPRamper : FX empty pallets themselves with no freight are already at least a couple hundred pounds. I don't think I've ever seen a 600-lb loaded pallet. Utiliz
51 gigneil : It wins handily on the first two. Dude, of COURSE it will. The A340-300's heft is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than an A330's. I know its extremely difficult
52 Tristarsteve : We only carry LD3 on our passenger B767s. We carry baggage and cargo in LD3s. We have a large cargo door on the fwd hold and carry full size pallets
53 KC135TopBoom : The A-340's heft has little to nothing to do with this if you are not going to install a real cargo floor, like the A-330F has. Unless they plan on d
54 Thunderball : I have asked the guys who are putting this program together to respond in more detail, but I'll try to hold the fort until the cavalry arrive. No one
55 Post contains images Stitch : That is true. Flight International estimates 90 tons for an A340-500P2F. However, it's still carrying a significant amount of structural weight which
56 KC135TopBoom : Your numbers do not convice me the proposed A-343F would carry more than about 60 tonnes (certainly not the 68.5 tonnes you say here), just slightly
57 Thunderball : Your 59 tonne MSP B767-300F is news to Boeing, my friend. The bochure I have (dated Jan 09) gives an MSP of 57.26 tonnes, or 126,250 lbs - and that i
58 Stitch : Thunderball, where are they thinking this type of freighter would find it's strongest use? And with widebodies like the 787-9, A350-900, A350-1000 and
59 tozbek : What about cost of an 4 engine on A340?
60 mcg : Seems to me that the ultimate success of this project is largely a function of the cost of the A340's. If they are cheap enough, this project might wo
61 KC135TopBoom : Thunderball, which freight carriers do you see interested in the A-343F? I dounbt it would be UPS or FedEx, or any of the other "big guys", like Atlas
62 XT6Wagon : I'd bet that the price at which a A340 makes sense as a freighter is way too close to the price at which its a money maker to part it out. Possibly e
63 trex8 : Anyone with a340s already in their fleet with a big cargo business! LH, CI
64 Post contains images zkojq : Interesting, I think that an this aircraft could do rather well amongst smaller operators. The key factor to keep in mind is unit price. Newbuild A330
65 KC135TopBoom : But those carriers would also be interested in B-763BCFs, B-757BCFs, and the new A-330P2F program. The two Boeings already have STCs for the conversi
66 gigneil : That's just not true. The A340-300 is VERY efficient. But at the time, the carriers wanted a bit more on the range side for the 777 class aircraft, a
67 tsnamm : You use LD3's on a 767 only instead of DPE's? Why on earth would your airline do that? It's a tremendous waste of space tp use that was designed for
68 Stitch : Tristarsteve noted the planes often hit MZFW and therefore can't fill the belly with revenue cargo. As such, LD3s are sufficient to load what they are
69 KC135TopBoom : Hmmm, then explain why the various B-777 models effectively killed off the A-343/5/6. The A-345/6 are improvements to the A-342/3.
70 Ferroviarius : Good afternoon, 1) I do not know whether this has been discussed before: Could the 34[2-3]'s CFM engines be replaced with P&W's geared turbo fans?
71 Stitch : That would be rather karmic as the A340 was originally designed to accept GTFs (the aborted PW8000 project). Anything is possible, but Airbus Militar
72 Ferroviarius : That would be interesting to see the 34?s finally being what they had been thought to be a long time ago...
73 tsnamm : causes nothing but trouble with mismatched ULD's being utilized, and all sorts of problems with shortages around their system when LD3 capable aircra
74 Stitch : I can't speak for his airline's cargo operations, but using LD3s on the 767 instead of LD2s would make interlining with other widebody types in their
75 tsnamm : No major airline with multiple gauges operates that way at all...767 equipment is always segregated from use on 777/A330/747 and LD3 and LD11 are not
76 zkojq : Long-term I would agree, but in the short term: -Boeing 757BCFs could work for transcontinental routes, but they won't be able to cross the Atlantic
77 Post contains images lightsaber : Too expensive. The current GTFs also compromise fuel efficiency for high cycle lives. It would be cheaper to just buy Pratt powered A330s. Nitpick, t
78 Post contains links and images NWengr : The below link is a good example of this. 1/ Start of the video shows the urgency in getting the cargo loaded. 2/ 55 sec mark demonstrates efficient
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...
IB Set Announce New Low Cost Airline posted Fri Sep 30 2011 16:45:49 by GSTBA
REDjet - New Low Cost Carry In Caribbean posted Mon Oct 18 2010 10:19:58 by wahdadli
Why No Mobile Boarding Cards On Low Cost? posted Mon Sep 20 2010 06:54:21 by downtown273
Why So Little Low-cost Flying In Japan (revisited) posted Sun Sep 5 2010 04:29:28 by sankaps
The Business Model Of A Low Cost Airline! posted Mon Jul 26 2010 04:47:26 by Speedbird741
New Low Cost Pier At CPH To Be A Disaster? posted Wed Mar 31 2010 05:31:01 by SKAirbus
The Low Cost Holiday Hopper posted Mon Mar 1 2010 05:17:44 by BeakerLTN
Low Cost Carriers And The Recession posted Sun Dec 13 2009 05:48:48 by Elevate
Low Cost Alliance--would It Work? posted Tue Nov 3 2009 09:30:11 by Seatback
The Low Cost Carrier Terminal (LCCT) posted Mon Jul 27 2009 13:24:19 by ThegreatRDU
Low Cost Carriers And The Recession posted Sun Dec 13 2009 05:48:48 by Elevate
Low Cost Alliance--would It Work? posted Tue Nov 3 2009 09:30:11 by Seatback