Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A380 Cracks - 30,000 Labor Hours?  
User currently offlineclickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9601 posts, RR: 69
Posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 18561 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

An Airbus spokesman told AFP that the repairs "would take weeks" but declined to confirm the eight-week timeframe, equivalent to 30,000 hours labour, reported by FlightGlobal.

http://news.yahoo.com/airbus-says-a3...crack-repairs-weeks-192753742.html

Who pays?

77 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 18568 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting clickhappy (Thread starter):
Who pays?

It would have to be Airbus, would it not?

They specced the material and they assembled the parts in a way that stressed the material.


User currently offlineSKY1 From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 879 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 18383 times:

Quoting clickhappy (Thread starter):
Who pays?
Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
It would have to be Airbus, would it not?

Interesting remark:

Quoting news.yahoo.com:
Airbus has said it will cover the cost of the repairs but will not pay any compensation for lost revenue during the work

I dunno why   but I think is the right time to take my resumé in the Airbus' legal affaires departament.

Many A380 customers could take Airbus into court as I don't think airlines will be satisfied only for covering repair cost



Time flies! Enjoy life!
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 18191 times:

Quoting SKY1 (Reply 2):
Many A380 customers could take Airbus into court as I don't think airlines will be satisfied only for covering repair cost

They wouldn't get very far, I think. Aircraft warranties are very well contracted and codified and they've been like this for decades. No customer is surprised by this position. If the legal precedent comes down that OEM's are liable for lost revenue during repair, customers will suddenly find their airframes are considerably more expensive.

Tom.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6729 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 18185 times:

Quoting SKY1 (Reply 2):
Interesting remark:

Why, the OEM is responsible for the finished product that is sold to the airlines, you don't really expect an airline to sue one of Airbus siub-contractors for sub-standard work which created the wing crack issue?


User currently offlineSKY1 From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 879 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 18137 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 3):
They wouldn't get very far, I think

It's much better for both getting a friendly agreement than go to face a suit, but for sure airlines are not going to be conformed and happy for the very first Airbus offer.



Time flies! Enjoy life!
User currently offlineConfuscius From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 3825 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 18041 times:

Quoting SKY1 (Reply 2):

Airbus is very lucky not to have Air India as an A380 customer.



Ain't I a stinker?
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12421 posts, RR: 100
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 17993 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 3):
They wouldn't get very far, I think. Aircraft warranties are very well contracted and codified and they've been like this for decades. No customer is surprised by this position. If the legal precedent comes down that OEM's are liable for lost revenue during repair, customers will suddenly find their airframes are considerably more expensive.

   The same is true with 787 delays. Boeing has only so much liability. Same with Airbus and the cracks.

If the airframers were truly liable for everything, air travel would be far too expensive.

Lightsaber

Late edit:
Wow... adding effectively the time of 3 C-checks is very significant. And the A380's C-checks are not 2 or 3 day jobs a la the 717.  duck 

[Edited 2012-06-10 16:28:43]


I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineSKY1 From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 879 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 17891 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 7):
The same is true with 787 delays.

I disagree, it's not the same at all ...mechanical issues are way different to any delay in delivery.

It's more similar with the QF A380 engines issue. Dunno what happened in the end with it, but it's more serious any mechanical matter than delays which is pretty common these days on this business.

But I agree it wouldn't get very far, as try and reach a friendly settlement is the most usual. But my point is I don't think so airlines will do nothing and say "amen" to Airbus.



Time flies! Enjoy life!
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12883 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 17664 times:

Maybe the '30,000' worker hours includes the work needed and done since the event occurred, the prep engineering and during the repair as I suspect this is not in the mx databases/books/manual to figure out how to repair, supervisory and management time, testing and research, financial work, dealing with suppliers/subcontractors and their time as well, and leaving fudging room for the for sure unexpected problems that will come up. Such a calculation may be for internal and external accounting purposes, or trying to milk the insurance company for as much as possible to pay for the repairs.

User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 17615 times:

German law follows the notion of ''Vertragsfreiheit'' (''freedom of contracts''), which means that you can write into a contract whatever clauses you wish if both signatories to the contract agree on it. Provided, it's all within the realm of legality. It is reasonable to assume that the purchasing contract between Airbus and their customers indemnifies Airbus of liability claims to the degree agreed on.

If that weren't the case, §434 BGB ff. apply. Following §437 BGB, the customer would be free to rescind the contract (ie, give the plane back) and claim indemnity (''Schadensersatz statt der Leistung'') or they could keep the plane and sue Airbus for the damages incurred due the 'defect as to quality' (''Schadensersatz neben der Leistung''). In legal terms this means: Airbus didn't deliver a free-of-defects article according to §433 Abs. 1 S. 2. BBGB, so the customer can invoke §280 Absatz 1 BGB.

Furthermore, there is §284 BGB, ''Ersatz vergeblicher Aufwendungen''. Instead of invoking §280 Absatz 1 BGB the vendee can alternatively invoke $284 BGB. This would allow the vendee to sue the vendor for the expenses he would have had, had he been delivered a flawless product (ie, if Emirates has to pay A380 crew they can't deploy, they could sue Airbus for their salaries etc.).

Legally speaking, the vendee's recourse is abundant. If any of Airbus' customers have signed a contract that specifically indemnifies Airbus of such claims, it's their own fault they're now getting nothing.

The customer enjoys a much cozier protection than the provider by the law. If a customer opts out of these legal protections, it's usually in exchange for some other form of gain. In simpler terms, if EK can't shake their forgone revenue out of Airbus, it's because they chose not to when signing the purchasing contract. If EK did in fact relinquish these legal protections, they won't have done so without receiving something in return. Nobody could see this coming and their gamble didn't quite work out. You win some, you lose some. It's a business, it's a strategy. Nobody is pissed at anyone but themselves here.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlinejetfuel From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2195 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 17511 times:

This is turning into a major disaster for the A380. Its costing the airlines who have them millions


Where's the passion gone out of the airline industry? The smell of jetfuel and the romance of taking a flight....
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3212 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 17449 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

While not saying so, I would bet that behind the scenes Airbus is sweetening some future sales prices as indirect compensation.. In some cases Boeing has compensated for repair and inspection man-hours, but never lost revenue.

User currently offlinePHXA340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 833 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 17365 times:

A bump , albeit, timely one, into the long successful life of the A380. Any engineer will tell you as technology evolves ... it creates new unforeseen issues, this is one of them. Like the 787 , an issue was identified ... and fixed. This isn't exactly the doomsday scenario some make it out to be.

User currently offlinefrmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1690 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 17273 times:

What does that come to - 15-20 worker years per plane, some $1.5 million. Not that welcome but not all that much against the current list price of a new plane.


Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 16984 times:

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 14):
What does that come to - 15-20 worker years per plane, some $1.5 million

Unless of course they're getting a major tax break. Faulty designs are quite the job creators after all..



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 16740 times:

Someone who knows the exact numbers can refine this, but here are some rough calculations based on what Airbus has told us.

>>>Airbus has set aside around $250M to cover the cost of A380 wing rib repairs.

>>>They have also told us there are 71 aircraft affected.

$250M into 71 aircraft = $3.5M per aircraft. If you allocate $500K for parts (a total guess on my part), that leaves $3M for labor. At $90 per hour for labor (typical fully burdened rate for US or Europe), that would work out to about 33,000 labor hours.

Whether 30,000 labor hours is close to the mark or not is hard to tell. It seems like a lot, but the math points that direction. What's definitely not on the mark are the people claiming this activity will take a couple days and will fit into a normally scheduled maintenance check. Don't kid yourselves; this is a major modification with an effort similar in scale to a D-check.

[Edited 2012-06-10 21:53:29]

User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 680 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 16680 times:

Never mind the cost or hours.

If there are 20 people working on one aircraft and they work 40 hours per week, 30 000 hours translates to 37 weeks or about 9 months!

Maybe I am off in the number of hours per week a bit, or perhaps even more than 20 people can fit around an aircraft.

But still. I hope I did some math error, because this would mean that each aircraft is down for a significant amount of time!!!


User currently offlineWisdom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 16569 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 16):
Whoever came up with the 30,000 labor hours is probably pretty close to the mark. What's not on the mark are the people on a.net claiming this activity will take a couple days and will fit into a normally scheduled maintenance check. Don't kid yourselves; this is a major modification with an effort similar in scale to a D-check.

It will have to fit into the schedule of a heavier C-check to avoid major disruptions. The heavy C-checks are due after 72 months, unfortunately this isn't due for another 2 years for the earliest A380's.
30.000 man-hours is already quite something comparable to a complete lighter C-check for something the size of an A380.

Fortunately for them, the location of the ribs are quite easily accessible compared to narrowbodies and RJ's.

I think that Airbus would be better off doing the repairs themselves by establishing a dedicated team who goes around doing only that. That way they have control on costs by paying them directly and also would develop a fixed process that would ultimately save up to 30% on wasted materials and engineering resources. This would also ensure that the repairs are made to standards, and would take out the element of corner-cutting, (I like to call it on-paper maintenance) as practiced at maintenance facilities worldwide, which could lead to brand image risk for Airbus if something happens down the line.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 16444 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CM (Reply 16):
>>>They have also told us there are 71 aircraft affected.

So Airbus have confirmed the entire fleet is affected?

News reports keep saying "some" planes, so I've been confused to exactly how many airframes are affected.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18704 posts, RR: 58
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 16399 times:

Quoting something (Reply 10):
Furthermore, there is §284 BGB, ''Ersatz vergeblicher Aufwendungen''. Instead of invoking §280 Absatz 1 BGB the vendee can alternatively invoke $284 BGB. This would allow the vendee to sue the vendor for the expenses he would have had, had he been delivered a flawless product (ie, if Emirates has to pay A380 crew they can't deploy, they could sue Airbus for their salaries etc.).

I was going to suggest that an operator could sue A for --at least-- irrecoverable operating costs lost (lease, crew, any licensing fees) during the repairs.

Quoting something (Reply 10):
Legally speaking, the vendee's recourse is abundant. If any of Airbus' customers have signed a contract that specifically indemnifies Airbus of such claims, it's their own fault they're now getting nothing.

And I am inclined to agree here. I would be stunned if any airline signed such a contract, especially given that all current operators signed their contracts before the first A380 flew.


User currently offlineWisdom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 16393 times:

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 17):
If there are 20 people working on one aircraft and they work 40 hours per week, 30 000 hours translates to 37 weeks or about 9 months!

Maybe I am off in the number of hours per week a bit, or perhaps even more than 20 people can fit around an aircraft.

But still. I hope I did some math error, because this would mean that each aircraft is down for a significant amount of time!!!

It works a bit differently.
Of those 30.000 hours, consider at least 5000 hours, but up to 10.000 as done outside the perimeter of the aircraft.
This is time spent by maintenance planners, engineers and logistics/store, during and before the maintenance tasks.

The remaining 20.000 hours involve actual work and would likely be split over 2 or 3 shifts, depending on how much on-wing work can be done simultaneously, which will be the pacing item.
If 4 guys can work simultaneously in each wing respectively, you have 8 workers working on-wing.
In the meanwhile, other workers outside the aircraft will be cutting metal parts and assisting the men inside the wings at a ratio of 2 or 3 to 1.

Considering that and 3 x 9 hour shifts as the overlaps will be counted in the 30.000 hours, the repairs can be done in as little as 5-6 weeks, a bit longer than a regular C-check.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18704 posts, RR: 58
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 16384 times:

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 21):
Of those 30.000 hours, consider at least 5000 hours, but up to 10.000 as done outside the perimeter of the aircraft.
This is time spent by maintenance planners, engineers and logistics/store, during and before the maintenance tasks.

Per frame? Wouldn't a lot of this work get redundant very quickly?


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 16349 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
So Airbus have confirmed the entire fleet is affected?

Airbus originally said 67 were affected, but revised that to 71 the following day:

http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engine...pairs-cost-airbus-105-million-0313

Also, if I am reading this correctly...

http://news.yahoo.com/eads-hit-airbu...cks-charge-064210233--finance.html

...Airbus originally took a €105M ($134M) charge in 2011 for the wing cracks, but followed that up with an additional €158M ($200M) in 1Q 2012. That makes a total of $334M, which is considerably more than I was thinking when I did my math above. Either the parts cost a ton more than I estimated, or there is even more labor involved in the modification than we're estimating. It's also possible there are some other costs reflected in that $334M that I am unaware of. Whatever the case, this is a really costly issue.


User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2012 posts, RR: 14
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 15798 times:

According following Flight Global article :

- Separate repair will cost 8 weeks down time.
- Repairs can also be done during HMV, costing a "few" extra days
- Largest customer Emirates has no additional repair capability (during HMV) and will do an " all in one " repair by Airbus .
- Later built A380's featuring the recently-introduced revised wing design incorporating more twist and a lighter structure will require an earlier and different wing modification.

See : http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...eight-week-repair-downtime-372813/



Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
25 Wisdom : This is what I'm saying, if Airbus builds a dedicated team and process, unlike having each airline do it themselves separately, the man-hour resource
26 Post contains images sweair : Luckily they don't have either Qatar or AI as a customer.. Just ask Boeing how to do the re work
27 cmf : All planes manufactured are affected as they need to have parts replaced. Some planes have developed the cracks. The rest of them are expected to dev
28 travelhound : I'd assume the conditions of the contract would cover who is responsible for what on the planes already delivered. For the planes still assembly or t
29 faro : I believe that it boils down to how one defines normal repair work. If such work can reasonably be expected to be required in operating an aircraft, t
30 teme82 : Would it be feasible just to replace the wing itself??? If I'm not mistaken the issue is caused how the wing is handled when it's made in the factory?
31 something : Legally, this is a very interesting point. If the vendee knows about the defect of an article, Airbus is no longer accountable for its repairs. Such
32 aztrainer : As a compensation could Airbus offer the airlines to complete a C-Check while the 380 is out of service? It seems as if this would be beneficial to th
33 B777LRF : Feasible? No - the cost of 142 new wings alone far outweigh the cost required to repair them. Besides, producing 142 wings for replacement will mean
34 Post contains images N14AZ : This is the correct answer: Airbus information policy was really confusing: at the beginning of the year they were talking of some airframes and by t
35 PanAm1971 : Everyone is fixated on the legal and buisiness aspects of this latest wing cracks issue. While this is understandable, it's vital that we-the aviation
36 cmf : There are two different problems. They first was "easy". It is the second that is creating all the expensive difficulty.
37 Post contains links flightsimer : Airbus themselves said they expected up to 120 A380s to be in fleet before 2014 when the permanent fix comes according to this flight global article.
38 UA735WL : This is an issue, but not a program killing disaster if dealt with properly. The reason that people are worked up over it is that anyone in the aircr
39 flightsimer : Did we ever get any more information on the type 3 cracks found in one plane? I cant remember if it was EK, Singapore or QF who had the frame... I jus
40 glideslope : Let's hope there is not a 3rd.
41 United727 : Alright, after reading this, may I ask if a continued problems exists with this issue OR get more serious then already divulged (if this is not the ca
42 Stitch : Absolutely, unequivocally - no.
43 Post contains images UALWN : Yeah, a problem that will cost about $300 million to fix will sink a company with annual income of about $50 billion....
44 GRIVely : Totally separate from the engineering and customer service considerations mentioned above this is turning into a PR nightmare. I was at Dulles Airport
45 Post contains images sweair : Why would this end EADS? They can always rob us taxpayers inside EU if they need Airbus would survive even if the A380 would fail as a program. Crack
46 Post contains images cmf : It is being solved. ASAP on the other hand isn't important in this case. They are developing slow enough that there is time to fix it slowly. Income
47 UALWN : If a company cannot withstand an unforeseen circumstance that impacts its bottom line at the level of -0.6% of its income, then it is already in big
48 TaromA380 : How can Airbus hope to attract new A380 customers if they don't compensate current customers for aircraft manufacturer flaws ? It's already the second
49 sweair : Maybe no customer has asked for compensation?
50 Wisdom : EADS doesn't even have 50 billion in revenues. Income is around 1% of that. The cost of the repairs, 200 some millions, is half of EADS yearly profit
51 Flaps : There is no upside for Airbus in this case but I think the fact that the issue is occurring on the A380 as opposed to say the A330 is significant. The
52 cmf : I was involved in a company where our target margin was 1%. An expense equaling 0.6% would have given us a lot of problems. doesn't even have 50 bill
53 tdscanuck : Airbus determined, very early on, that this wasn't a safety issue. If the foot cracks completely through (i.e. the rib detaches) the wing should stil
54 Post contains links UALWN : Uh? You can find the EADS 2011 results here: http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/inve...ements-and-Presentations/2012.html Revenue (or income) in 2011 wa
55 poLot : You do realize that EAD's margin was only a little over 3%? Better than 1%, but a perfect indication of how low margin this industry is.
56 astuteman : It's caused by the choice of material, and design of the component... And E10Bn of spare cash on hand I wouldn't get fixated over 1 year's net earnin
57 zeke : For most ADs, the operator pays. Airbus in this case may provide the parts for free in the warranty period, it is under no obligation to pay for the
58 abba : Why do you think that launch customers gets so deep discounts?????
59 Post contains images 747classic : This is not correct. After the certification date(s) of the 747-8 (F and I) only one (minor) AD is issued : 74-08-09 R3
60 UALWN : It was 3.6%, but is this the target? I find a 1% target, well, not particularly over-ambitious...
61 par13del : Well flip side is they made their 1%, what would you say about someone who made 3% based on a projection of ??????????
62 tdscanuck : Most AD's aren't covered under warranty. The question of who pays is a warranty question, not an AD vs. SB question. This is very likely covered unde
63 Post contains images astuteman : Both of the major OEM's are potentially double digit margin businesses, and both have demonstrated such in the past. Both of them are emerging from q
64 N14AZ : That's true. However, on a German aviation forum someone obviously working for Airbus stated that part of the works to be done in 2013 will be removi
65 Post contains images cmf : Why? I left that company more than 10 years ago but it was for very different reasons. Nothing to do with 1% margin or that the business model was ba
66 Post contains links Baschiiii : According to German magazin Wirtschaftswoche ("Business Week") Lufthansa Technik will offer to do the repairs in less time and supposedly Emirates wil
67 UALWN : I'm not sure what you mean here, but what I meant was that a business predicated on a 1% margin looks strange. I guess the risk must be very low. But
68 Post contains images EPA001 : Too bad the article does not mention how much faster LH Technik thinks they will be able to speed up the repair process. It would be good news for th
69 Post contains images astuteman : A business predicated on a 1% margin has no place in this thread, or on this forum, for that matter Can we move on, please?
70 sweair : Lufthansa Technik being the sole EU based repair shop for the 787? The will certainly get some serious business if all of those 800+ 787s get delivere
71 UALWN : I didn't it bring it up...
72 astuteman : I know, my friend. I know. Sorry if it looked like I was singling you out. Apologies. Stand by my comment for those that did, though... Rgds
73 Post contains images sweair : Anyway a crack jet would have many pleased customers
74 TaromA380 : The A380 program doesn't have the backlog of B787 or A350, not to mention narrowbodies backlog. They need, badly, new customers. When you need custom
75 U2380 : Do they really need customers that badly though? Personally, I would argue that they don't Until they pick up the rate of production (which doesn't l
76 Post contains images astuteman : Orders have pretty much matched deliveries for the last 3 years running............ Rgds
77 Post contains images lightsaber : That sums it up. I'm more concerned about the plane's out of service time. The entire trend in maintenance has been to reduce the out of service days
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...
Early Arrival: Baby Born At 30,000 Feet posted Fri Dec 4 2009 12:46:50 by DUALRATED
QF A380 Passengers Stranded For 26 Hours In SYD? posted Mon Oct 12 2009 23:19:17 by Springbok747
New Years' At 30,000 Feet? posted Wed Oct 8 2008 19:28:33 by Soxfan
Near Mid-Air Collision 30,000' Over Iowa posted Fri Jan 19 2007 05:28:53 by Airfinair
Gaming At 30,000 Feet posted Thu Mar 23 2006 01:15:21 by Aio86
Penthouses At 30,000 Feet- Private Heavies Article posted Sat Oct 22 2005 03:48:36 by Jet-lagged
30,000 AF Baggage Still Delayed In CDG! posted Sat Oct 8 2005 13:45:16 by Hardiwv
NWA To Outsource 30,000 Jobs? confirmed or not? posted Wed Sep 28 2005 02:57:34 by Legacytravel
US Airways: Envoy Class Worth Extra 30,000 Miles? posted Sat Mar 5 2005 19:33:45 by PanAm330
Man Tries To Open Door On 747 @ 30,000 Ft. posted Fri Dec 17 2004 23:15:31 by Katanapilot