Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Mitsubishi 100-seat MRJ By 2017-2018  
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9071 times:

MRJ-100X, which I expect to be about 6,000-8,000 lbs. lighter than E-190 but with much less range, should turn out to be a fine competitor to E-190(E190-NEO).
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...18-to-deliver-100-seat-mrj-372207/

Quote:
Mitsubishi Aircraft Corp. today revealed the 100-seat and third member of its regional jet family should enter service in five or six years. On 25 April, the Japanese airframer postponed entry into service of the 90-seat Mitsubishi Regional Jet (MRJ) to the third quarter of 2015.

Previously, Mitsubishi identified the target market for the MRJ 100X as European airlines with looser scope restrictions in pilot labour contracts. In March 2011, then-International Lease Finance Corp chief executive Steven Udvar-Hazy also told an industry audience that Mitsubishi should commit to developing a 100-seater.

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1335 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 8995 times:

Is it kinda of odd to announce a 3rd version without a launch customer?

And 3 versions for 70 orders (50 of those are from a single customer - Trans States)?


Another thread ( MRJ Delayed By Over 1 Year (by r2rho Apr 25 2012 in Civil Aviation) ) talked about the delay to MRJ 90.


User currently offlineN202PA From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1551 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 8927 times:

Could the MRJ-70 be cancelled in favor of the new 100-seat version? Can't find any orders for the 70-seat one.

User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 8741 times:

Quoting N202PA (Reply 2):
Could the MRJ-70 be cancelled in favor of the new 100-seat version? Can't find any orders for the 70-seat one.

You are right. Why not develop the MRJ-100 first?

I am surprised though that Mitsubishi has decided to go for just a 10-seat difference between MRJ-90 and MRJ-100. Perhaps the actual difference is closer to 15 seats with MRJ-90 at 92 seats and MRJ-100(10 foot stretch) at 106 seats.

The 100 seat market is going to be extremely competitive with E-190, CRJ-1000, and SSJ-100. The MRJ-100 may end up as the lightest of the bunch, and with the most fuel efficient engine.


User currently offlinepanais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 446 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 8695 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
MRJ-100X, which I expect to be about 6,000-8,000 lbs. lighter than E-190 but with much less range, should turn out to be a fine competitor to E-190(E190-NEO).

What if Embraer stretches the E-175 to the E-190 fuselage length? This will prove to be a much formidable competitor to the MRJ-100 especially if the E-Jets get a new engine.


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 8657 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 3):
The 100 seat market is going to be extremely competitive with E-190, CRJ-1000, and SSJ-100. The MRJ-100 may end up as the lightest of the bunch, and with the most fuel efficient engine.

Of course things could go south geopolitically but... with the time frame still 5-6 years out the oil markets could potentially shift and start to drop significantly.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineclickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9601 posts, RR: 69
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 8509 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Quoting panais (Reply 4):
What if Embraer stretches the E-175 to the E-190 fuselage length?

Are you proposing a stretch 175 with the current 175 wing? Would that work?


User currently offlineGiancavia From Vatican City, joined Feb 2010, 1303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 8242 times:

Any new plane to look at in the sky that isnt another boring Airbus/Boeing I give a thumbs up too.

User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2004 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 8141 times:

Quoting Giancavia (Reply 7):
Any new plane to look at in the sky that isnt another boring Airbus/Boeing I give a thumbs up too.

Instead we'll have RJs that all look the same  
(and yes I know there are differences, but the E jets, C series, Superjet and MRJ visually all follow the standard twin engines under the wing look of the 737, A320 etc)



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2497 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 8064 times:

Good idea as that is where is the market is heading, but comes too late to the game. By 2017-18 EMB will be able to have a reengined E19x out. The MRJ still looks good if on spec, but EMB is a well established manufacturer while Mitsubishi is a complete newcomer that has to prove itself. Airlines may choose to wait for the Ejet NEO and see how they fare against each other, rather than committing to the MRJ100 early. And the MRJ90 will have to arrive "on time" (after the 1.5 year delay) and prove itself as a good aircraft if Mitsubishi wants to stand chance with the -100.

Quoting N202PA (Reply 2):
Could the MRJ-70 be cancelled in favor of the new 100-seat version? Can't find any orders for the 70-seat one.

I agree. The market is clearly shifting towards 90/100 seats wherever scope clauses allow it, look at the E170 orders. M should postpone the -70 indefinitely and put all efforts into the -100 as soon as the -90 is finished.


User currently offlineGiancavia From Vatican City, joined Feb 2010, 1303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 7892 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 8):
Instead we'll have RJs that all look the same
(and yes I know there are differences, but the E jets, C series, Superjet and MRJ visually all follow the standard twin engines under the wing look of the 737, A320 etc)

Eh atleast they have different shapes, I guess I was more targeting the A319/320/B737 with my dig. When your home airport is Luton and the main players are Easyjet, Ryanair and Wizz you beg for a little mish mash to break the generic scenery.


User currently offlineWisdom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 7734 times:

I'm following the program very closely, I even offered to join their sales department in Amsterdam, but I was turned down like 100 times already. A man's gotta keep trying  .

This is what I think:

-The MR70 is a waste of time and resources.
But, since it's already developped, it could be offered as an effective business jet platform at some point in the program.

-The MR90 and MR100 are, at least on paper, excellent platforms.

The biggest issues for the MRJ program are not the product itself but everything around it:

-The aircraft are being offered at too high prices compared to their competitors from Brazil, Russia and China. The strong Yen and high labour costs play a big role in this. However, they have a lot to improve in their sales pitches, there are 200 ways to make expensive aircraft interesting. One example is that Japanese banks would be drooling to offer lease contracts with a 4% yearly return, while the industry norm is much higher.
-They decided to rely on Boeing for after-sales support, which is a move that I and many airlines will fail to understand.
-Their marketing department is a bit stuck in the 1990's. The cheap-looking simulations aren't helping.
-The cabin product is less than convincing. The Oriental touches in the galley and the seat design may look attractive to Japanese airlines but European airlines won't be convinced.
-The supplier structure build-up is a unique opportunity to offer customers something other manufacturers scarcely offer. You often hear on airliners.net how aircraft manufacturers make a lot of money by selling aircraft parts. Airbus has been doing this more and more, focussing on the more expensive parts, but the other aircraft manufacturers are way behind on this.

Buying straight from the supplier/subcontractor represents a disadvantage for both airlines and manufacturers, as exclusive parts suppliers tend to ask airlines any price they want. If you look at what they charge for simple fasterners, I'm convinced that Mitsubishi should control the entire parts supply chain, top to bottom.

For the MRJ program, it is a unique opportunity to center all the parts logistics through them and to make it the sole supplier for all the parts of the aircraft it sells, new and overhauled. This not only offers guarranteed revenue for Mitsubishi, it also offers a parts maximum price-guarrantee to the customer airline, making maintenance costs much more predictable and the whole procurement process much smoother.

While they're at it, why not offer as the first aircraft manufacturer in the world, a MRO structure where they can offer maintenance, aircraft and parts overhaul services, with a large facility in Japan and smaller facilities spread over the world? What better than to have the manufacturer itself lead complex structural repairs, carry-out end-of-lease inspections, send a regional field team to do complex troubleshooting or overhaul parts?
That would form an excellent foundation for after-sales support.

Smaller operators will appreciate this a lot and I for one think that the MRJ sales in Europe should be focussed on second tier operators. Smaller operators tend to accept higher prices but require closer assistance and support, a combination that will suit well with the MRJ.
The big ones such as AF, LH, AZ, BA, IB, Flybe already ordered aircraft in numbers significant enough that there isn't much left for the MRJ to grab. Some Fokkers here, some BAe's there, but most of these airline groups already operate either CRJ's or E-Jets. The MRJ needs to have a look at the other operators.

I also think that Mitsubishi should unveil a business jet variant and start marketing it.
Those extra sales will be highly needed.

If they can manage to solve all the above, mark these words, they can virtually drive Embraer out of business by the early 2020's, just as Embraer has virtually done with Bombardier.

[Edited 2012-05-23 08:22:28]

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12442 posts, RR: 100
Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 7714 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm surprised this wasn't offered earlier.

Quoting ADent (Reply 1):
Is it kinda of odd to announce a 3rd version without a launch customer?

   Perhaps this is to drum up interest? But the time frame is a long way away for an unknown airframer.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 3):
You are right. Why not develop the MRJ-100 first?

Stretches have risk. By 'debugging' the lighter/shorter airframe, the kinks are worked out where they have less of a usability issue.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 11):
-The MR70 is a waste of time and resources.
But, since it's already developped, it could be offered as an effective business jet platform at some point in the program.

Agreed on both points. I enjoyed your post overall.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 11):
One example is that Japanese banks would be drooling to offer lease contracts with a 4% yearly return, while the industry norm is much higher.

A good point and that would offset the high sales price.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 11):
they can virtually drive Embraer out of business by the early 2020's, just as Embraer has virtually done with Bombardier.

The issue is the planned 2018 re-engined E-jet.

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlinepanais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 446 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 7673 times:

Quoting clickhappy (Reply 6):
Are you proposing a stretch 175 with the current 175 wing?

Yes.

Quoting clickhappy (Reply 6):
Would that work?

Do not know. Most likely not. Will need a 16,000-18,000 lbs thrust on the E-175 wings. Probably use the PW1215G/1217G, same engine as the MRJ, even if it is similar in diameter to the E-190 engine.

While speculating, Embraer might build a family of 90-120 seater planes with similar engines but optimised for different missions. So you might have a 90 seater optimised for long range build around the E-190 and another 90 seater optimised for shorter range build around the E-175, each with a different engine from the same manufacturer.


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 14, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5852 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 12):
The issue is the planned 2018 re-engined E-jet.

This was just published in Aviation Daily:

Quote:
Meanwhile, GE Aviation also is ready for regional jet manufacturers to make a decision on next generation aircraft and is in “active discussions” with Embraer. The engine maker, which says it could develop a new RJ powerplant in 48 months, expects a 15-20% lower fuel burn when compared to its CF34-10E5 and CF34-8C5 engines thanks to improvements in both propulsive and thermal efficiency.

The thrust can be pushed to about 23,000 pounds, says Paxson, noting that one Embraer redesign for its E-Jets (that has since been scaled down) needed as much as 24,000 to 25,000 pounds of thrust, which would require an engine like CFM International’s LEAP engine (which is developed by GE and Snecma).



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12442 posts, RR: 100
Reply 15, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5459 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting planemaker (Reply 14):
This was just published in Aviation Daily:

I find that interesting. 4 years to develop the powerplant and then another 6 to 9 months to certify the powerplant on the airframe makes a 2018 feasible (even 2017, but less likely).

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 603 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4578 times:

Maybe it's just me, but i'm really not impressed by MRJ numbers.

First, the 92 seats config claimed by MHI is with 29" pitch, the industry standard for RJ is 31". The real seating capacity of the MRJ90 will not exceed 86 seats, which is the same than the CRJ900 and E175.

http://www.mrj-japan.com/images/92y_l.gif

Secondly, with an MTOW of 39 600 kg and a range of (only) 900 nm for the MRJ90STD, it's not the big deal. Compared to that, the CRJ900STD can fly 1350 nm (MTOW 36 500 kg) and the E175STD can fly 1800 nm (MTOW 37 500 kg). To have the same range of the CRJ900, you must compare with the MRJ90ER (MTOW 40 995 kg) and for the E175 you must compare with the MRJ90LR (MTOW 42 800 kg)

http://www.mrj-japan.com/images/characteristicsm90_l.gif

Thirdly, MHI will have to standardize its manufacturing process:
http://airinsight.com/2012/05/02/mitsubishis-mrj-delay-explained/

Such behavior is unforgivable for an aircraft manufacturer, this is not like making shoes.


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4421 times:

Quoting queb (Reply 16):
First, the 92 seats config claimed by MHI is with 29" pitch, the industry standard for RJ is 31". The real seating capacity of the MRJ90 will not exceed 86 seats, which is the same than the CRJ900 and E175.

I think that pitch as a measurement of comfort is slipping as a yardstick because of advances in seat design. There have been posts about LH maintaining "knee" distance while reducing ptich. I can't find the thread with a search but there was an article in the WSJ about it.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2004 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4222 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 17):
Quoting queb (Reply 16):
First, the 92 seats config claimed by MHI is with 29" pitch, the industry standard for RJ is 31". The real seating capacity of the MRJ90 will not exceed 86 seats, which is the same than the CRJ900 and E175.


I think that pitch as a measurement of comfort is slipping as a yardstick because of advances in seat design. There have been posts about LH maintaining "knee" distance while reducing ptich. I can't find the thread with a search but there was an article in the WSJ about it.

But seat design isn't unique to one plane, anyone can fit the new slimmer seats.

It's difficult to not see the MRJ as a political prestige project, as it's really hard to see what they can bring to the table that their more experienced rivals can't, and Japan is an expensive country to manufacture in now. It may be uplifting to see your plane take off, but the bread and butter work of supplying major sections to Boeing is a much better business model...



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlinesirtoby From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 351 posts, RR: 22
Reply 19, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days ago) and read 4103 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 12):
The issue is the planned 2018 re-engined E-jet.

Indeed. If the reengines EJets are coming with the same engine (PW1X17G) and the CSeries engine (PW1X23G) or an engine with an equivalent SFC like one based on the GE Passport Core, the MRJ will have a hard time.
The MRJ70 has to bear the large wing designed for the MRJ90 (and is also good for the MRJ100). Thus OEW of the MRJ70 is higher than that of the E175, with lower capacity.
The MRJ90 has also lower capacity than the E190 - it is lighter though, but the E190EV will have much more range. This range is rarely needed and the MRJ100 would be a very good true regional aircraft - optimised for 1000nm and below.


User currently offlineWisdom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3985 times:

Quoting queb (Reply 16):
Maybe it's just me, but i'm really not impressed by MRJ numbers.

First, the 92 seats config claimed by MHI is with 29" pitch, the industry standard for RJ is 31". The real seating capacity of the MRJ90 will not exceed 86 seats, which is the same than the CRJ900 and E175.



Secondly, with an MTOW of 39 600 kg and a range of (only) 900 nm for the MRJ90STD, it's not the big deal. Compared to that, the CRJ900STD can fly 1350 nm (MTOW 36 500 kg) and the E175STD can fly 1800 nm (MTOW 37 500 kg). To have the same range of the CRJ900, you must compare with the MRJ90ER (MTOW 40 995 kg) and for the E175 you must compare with the MRJ90LR (MTOW 42 800 kg)



Thirdly, MHI will have to standardize its manufacturing process:
http://airinsight.com/2012/05/02/mitsubishis-mrj-delay-explained/

Such behavior is unforgivable for an aircraft manufacturer, this is not like making shoes.

The seat count of the MRJ90 indeed suggests a direct comparison with the E175.
Most airlines will end up ordering a MRJ90 with a higher gross weight such as the ER/LR.
While the standard version looks like a marketing misstep, the probable reason for its existence is to be ble to offer the option of a paper derate, should an operator decide to do so.

The range capabilities are good and more than sufficient to operate the kind of routes that make sense with RJ's.

MHI projects that MR90 will have an overall 20-25% fuel burn advantage compared to the CRJ900, E175.
This is achievable and I'm enclined to think that they will achieve it.
-The engines, we all know the story. 15% effiency gain.
-The airframe will be 5-10% more efficient than the Ejets, which is where the MRJ will have an advantage over a Ejet NEO. This is achieved by lower profile drag, an advantage of putting the cargo compartment behind the cabin instead of below.
The longer fuselage that results from this also allows the MRJ to have a smaller tailfin and horizontal stabiliser, as these surfaces will have to exert less force to achieve the same torque effect, reducing drag.
-The wing will contribute another x% to the efficiency formula. The wing will achieve a higher L/D ratio thanks to an increased aspect ratio, with the greater wingspan's drag compensated for by a thinner wing.
The wingspan is longer than the wingspan of the B737 Classic and if you consider the level of expertise of MHI in this arena, I'm enclined to think that they have put everything they could to achieve the best result.

I think that the MRJ could achieve a 30% fuel efficiency gain over existing CRJ900/E175 models if everything plays out as planned. Compared to a CRJ NEO and Ejet NEO's, this advantage could still be significant enough, at around 10%.


About production processes being different from the documentation, I don't know the content of the differences.
But it's not unusual to find such differences in the manufacturing process that get discovered way after deliveries start.

The MRJ is as good as it gets, all MAC have to do now is to sell it.
I have seen their methods at Le Bourget, where they rented a big dark chalet, one that looked so cold, it wasn't very inviting. That has to change if they want to attract the people's attention on their product, they have to hire locals who know the market (can you see me waving??  ), stop being so boring serious and start behaving like real salesmen who would show that they would go farther than any competitors to satisfy their customers.


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 21, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3867 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 18):
But seat design isn't unique to one plane, anyone can fit the new slimmer seats.

That is correct but the point being made is that the criticism leveled against the MRJ due to the smaller pitch is not reflective of the effective comfort which is on par with the seats/pitch offered on the other OEM's. Of course the other OEM's can use the slim seats in their configuration but they don't as yet. BTW, the MRJ slim seats are of their own design.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 22, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3620 times:

Mitsubishi Aircraft Corp. confident about revised MRJ program schedule.
http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engine...t-about-revised-mrj-program-schedu

Quote:
Mitsubishi Aircraft Corp. (MITAC) said it is confident the issues that forced it to delay the first flight of the MRJ (ATW Daily News, April 26), originally slated for the current quarter, are being resolved and will enable it to stick to a new schedule that calls for first flight to occur in the fourth quarter of 2013.

He said MITAC has made sure MRJ suppliers are now in compliance with the proper procedures and has worked out how to overcome the documentation shortfall. “We are very confident in the new schedule and we do not want to repeat a change in schedule,” Fukuhara added.

MITAC has 65 firm orders for the MRJ from three customers. It has started to build the first flight test aircraft, and plans to have five flight test aircraft in the MRJ testing program. “Our minimum target on [total lifetime] MRJ sales is 1,000 aircraft,” Fukuhara said. “We are very confident we can sell more than 1,000 worldwide.”


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...
Will AA Ever Have A 100 Seat Plane (again)? posted Wed Nov 24 2010 17:07:29 by GlobalCabotage
India Studies 100 Seat Aircraft posted Fri May 7 2010 11:02:46 by LAXDESI
India Studies 100 Seat Aircraft posted Fri May 7 2010 11:02:46 by LAXDESI
China And The 100 Seat Market? posted Sun Jan 28 2007 19:57:49 by Kaitak
China And The 100 Seat Market? posted Sun Jan 28 2007 19:57:49 by Kaitak
NWA, AC, And The 70-100 Seat Aircraft Issue posted Mon Feb 6 2006 01:58:46 by TR1
NWA, AC, And The 70-100 Seat Aircraft Issue posted Mon Feb 6 2006 01:58:46 by TR1
Ryanair: Availability Of Free Seat Offer By Route posted Tue Sep 20 2005 15:41:10 by Pe@rson
Ryanair: Availability Of Free Seat Offer By Route posted Tue Sep 20 2005 15:41:10 by Pe@rson
Prioritizing Seat Assignments By FF Status posted Sat Jul 23 2005 22:54:42 by GoAllegheny
Prioritizing Seat Assignments By FF Status posted Sat Jul 23 2005 22:54:42 by GoAllegheny
US, AA Given A 100 Percent Rating By The HRC posted Tue Jul 19 2005 08:48:09 by SonOfACaptain
US, AA Given A 100 Percent Rating By The HRC posted Tue Jul 19 2005 08:48:09 by SonOfACaptain
A380: 100 New Orders By Year End posted Wed Apr 27 2005 23:49:05 by Gaut
A380: 100 New Orders By Year End posted Wed Apr 27 2005 23:49:05 by Gaut
Bombardier Too Late In The 100+ Seat Market? posted Sun Mar 7 2004 20:40:17 by PVD757
Bombardier Too Late In The 100+ Seat Market? posted Sun Mar 7 2004 20:40:17 by PVD757
100 Seat Or Less Market (A And B) posted Sat Feb 21 2004 20:23:37 by FlyABR
100 Seat Or Less Market (A And B) posted Sat Feb 21 2004 20:23:37 by FlyABR
NWA, AC, And The 70-100 Seat Aircraft Issue posted Mon Feb 6 2006 01:58:46 by TR1
Ryanair: Availability Of Free Seat Offer By Route posted Tue Sep 20 2005 15:41:10 by Pe@rson
Prioritizing Seat Assignments By FF Status posted Sat Jul 23 2005 22:54:42 by GoAllegheny
US, AA Given A 100 Percent Rating By The HRC posted Tue Jul 19 2005 08:48:09 by SonOfACaptain
A380: 100 New Orders By Year End posted Wed Apr 27 2005 23:49:05 by Gaut
Bombardier Too Late In The 100+ Seat Market? posted Sun Mar 7 2004 20:40:17 by PVD757
100 Seat Or Less Market (A And B) posted Sat Feb 21 2004 20:23:37 by FlyABR