Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Was The A340 A Flop?  
User currently offline76794p From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 348 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2380 times:

I have been thinking about this recently. Was the A340 an overall success? It seems that the only model that has done well is the -600. The -500 didn't terribly well and the -300, in my mind did okay. But as an over all project is it a success or a failure? Is there and was there ever a demand for a long-haul single deck quad engine aircraft?


Pat


There's always money IN the banana stand.
81 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15489 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2464 times:

Quoting 76794p (Thread starter):
Was The A340 A Flop?

No.

Overall, Airbus made a bet and lost. But they didn't get completely crunched and they hedged against it in such a way that it didn't hurt them.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineFlyingAY From Finland, joined Jun 2007, 697 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2450 times:

Quoting 76794p (Thread starter):
I have been thinking about this recently. Was the A340 an overall success? It seems that the only model that has done well is the -600. The -500 didn't terribly well and the -300, in my mind did okay.

Considering that they delivered 218 A340-300s and 97 A340-600s, what makes you say that -600 did well and -300 only "okay"? Keep in mind that Airbus was much more established manufacturer at a time when -600 was launched, when compared to A340-300.


User currently offlineTWA772LR From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 1161 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2447 times:

Quoting 76794p (Thread starter):
Is there and was there ever a demand for a long-haul single deck quad engine aircraft?

707 and DC8 for starters  

But seriously, the A340 was good when it came out when ETOPS wasn't as good as it is nowadays. And is still good for long routes from hot and high airports like JNB. Also the routes from South America to Australia, and Australia to Africa where the routes aren't ETOPS rated. But the day will come when ETOPS will be virtually limitless and those routes will go to the 777/787/A350 etc... The A340 has done it's work. If it had come out a couple of years earlier, there would be a lot more today.

PS, it's a shame SU did'nt order any A345's or A346's, those will look almost as good as a TWA 772LR!      

[Edited 2012-11-13 23:00:45]

[Edited 2012-11-13 23:20:27]


Я говорю по-русский. :)
User currently offline76794p From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 348 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2413 times:

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 3):
. If it had come out a couple of years earlier, there would be a lot more today.

How so?



There's always money IN the banana stand.
User currently offlineTWA772LR From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 1161 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2418 times:

Quoting 76794p (Reply 4):
How so?

IMO, it would've done better because ETOPS was in its infancy, and also would've had "that" much more orders than the 777, which came out later. If the A340 did come that much earlier, I think CO and NW wouldn't have cancelled their orders.

This is all my opinion and thoughts on what would've happened. I am no expert on Airbus or the A340.



Я говорю по-русский. :)
User currently offlineSIA747Megatop From Singapore, joined Apr 2012, 248 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2430 times:

It's no wonder airlines are phasing A340's out of their fleets so rapidly, back when SQ ordered the A340-500 in 1999 oil was less than $25. When the said aircrafts were delivered in 2004 oil was still less than $50.


Would you like fries with that? I didn't think so.
User currently offlineavion660 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 212 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2418 times:

Despite being quite old, some of these points may still be relevant  Time To Call The A340 A Failure? (by MrComet Sep 15 2005 in Civil Aviation)

User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 701 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2415 times:

Not a failure, but not as good as they had hoped either. The program created a twin and four engine plane using mostly common parts. The A330 has been a huge success, so it turned out a lot better than expected in that sense. The idea of creating the four and twin using the same base paid off.

User currently offlineTWA772LR From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 1161 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2419 times:

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 8):
The idea of creating the four and twin using the same base paid off.

It was smart of Airbus to do that, but honestly, I have no idea why. Why would you design two nearly identical planes, and have them do nearly identical missions? Is it the whole ETOPS thing?



Я говорю по-русский. :)
User currently offlinestrfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 792 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2429 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

No it Wasn't. Airbus thought he A340 was going to replace te 747-200's and -300's But ! They Kept it all European and installed the CFM-56 which was probably all they HAD at the time.. Rolls was busy building Engines for the 747-400, the 757- 767, and the 777 series and either they didn't ASK them or didn't consider them. But it was plain to see that the A340 -200 and -300's were underpowered. Especially after a UAL 777 climbed out of Singapore 1hr AFTER an A340,
En Route Climbed OVER said A340 and Landed 1hr Ahead of said A340 at LHR. Where upon
SQ dumped their order for the A340, BOEING took 3 in Trade For 777's and Airbus refused to support anybody who bought those airplanes FROM Boeing, (they later relented) To me that was pretty much the End of the A340 as a major Program. But! They DID get busy building the A330 into a fine ETOPS platform which they had NOT originally intended it to BE.


User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1834 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2421 times:

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 9):
Why would you design two nearly identical planes, and have them do nearly identical missions? Is it the whole ETOPS thing?

A330 was initially medium-haul twin. A340 was the long-haul quad. Together, they were meant to complement each other.

Had the original PW SuperFan worked, Airbus would have sold many more A340.

A330 became long-haul aircraft through the course of time. Initially, its range oscillated around 7000km, with all improvements it grew to nearly 11000km for -300 variant, giving it the performace it has now. Hence, no need for A340 any more.

Enter A350XWB...



All Hail Mighty Triple Seven, The MURDERER of the so-called "Queen"!!!!
User currently offlineLutfi From China, joined Sep 2000, 759 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2419 times:

When the A330/A340 was on the drawing board, really big engines weren't around. IF the B777 engines had been available, then the A340 likely wouldn't exist (AB would have built something very similar to a B777)

So, for ULH, they went with 4 x GTF. The GTF failed, and they did a late swap to 4 x CFM.

The A330/340 was always seen as a family, and as a family, it certainly didn't fail.

Note that the MD11 split the difference (3 engines) and didn't do so well


User currently offlineTWA772LR From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 1161 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2410 times:

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 11):
A330 was initially medium-haul twin. A340 was the long-haul quad. Together, they were meant to complement each other.

Thanks! Always good to learn something new.  
Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 11):
PW SuperFan

?



Я говорю по-русский. :)
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 6944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2410 times:

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 5):
IMO, it would've done better because ETOPS was in its infancy, and also would've had "that" much more orders than the 777, which came out later. If the A340 did come that much earlier, I think CO and NW wouldn't have cancelled their orders.

Bingo. ETOPS, the 77L, and 77W, along with the r&d going into the A350 can arguably be said as the nails into the coffin for the A340 program. We can say this can also be said about the MD11, but I may be straying off a bit



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8643 posts, RR: 75
Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2410 times:

Quoting 76794p (Thread starter):
I have been thinking about this recently. Was the A340 an overall success?

As far as Airbus is concerned, I think they consider it successful. People need to remember that OEMs actually derive more of their income from ongoing maintenance and support than what the do from selling aircraft.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 10):
They Kept it all European and installed the CFM-56 which was probably all they HAD at the time..

The launch engine for the A340 was the P&W superfan, P&W were unable to deliver on the engine, the CFM56 was a backup choice, It was not what the aircraft was initially designed with.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 10):
Especially after a UAL 777 climbed out of Singapore 1hr AFTER an A340,
En Route Climbed OVER said A340 and Landed 1hr Ahead of said A340 at LHR.

For any aircraft to beat an A340 over a SIN-LHR flight by 2 hours would need to cruise supersonically. The maths does not lie. Yet another a.net myth busted.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 10):
BOEING took 3 in Trade For 777's and Airbus refused to support anybody who bought those airplanes FROM Boeing, (they later relented) To me that was pretty much the End of the A340 as a major Program

Boeing actually took something like 17 A340s and a bunch of A310s from SQ. SQ made it a condition of the 777 order that they take all of the Airbus widebodies, which included all of the A340s. The ex-SQ A340s were supported by Airbus, I flew a number of those aircraft for the best part of 10 years after they left SQ, I think the majority of the others ended up in EK and Gulf Air. Yet another a.net myth busted.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinesteman From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 1320 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2411 times:

I don´t think the A340 has been a failure.
One must consider that it was Airbus first truly long haul model,
the first 4 engined model and part of a bigger family that produced 7 different models
with 2 and 4 engines spanning a wide range of applications.
It also gave Airbus the necessary experience to design the A380.
Few years after entry into service of the original -200 and -300, things started to change
with the improvements in ETOPS technology.
Hence the huge success enjoyed by the B777 and A330 while the A340 started ist´s
slow decline.
Nevertheless it is still in widespread use today with many first tiers operators around
the world. Passengers love its quietness.

The SuperFan, as far as I remember, was a PW project which should have provided
the power for the A340. But it got cancelled when the A340 was on an advanced
design stage.
Airbus had to resort to what was available in the same class and CFMI realized the -5 version
of its popular CFM56.
Is the A340 underpowered? Many believe so. I think it does its job well.

The -500 and -600 came out probably too late and could not really compete against
Boeing´s excellent 777-300ER.
But they are still very modern and extremely elegant airplanes.
We´ll miss the 4 holers when all airliners will be 2 engined.


User currently offlinebtblue From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 578 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2405 times:

I don't see the A340 as a flop but more of a disappointment. Had it arrived a few years earlier (for all versions) then it would likely have garnered more success.

Saying that, we have the A330 which is an almost identical derivative but with two engines and it's still going strong seeing regular updates. So as a programme and lessons learned and implemented, I guess overall it is a success in that respect. Plus we have the birth of the A350XWB which in terms of orders, implies it will be successful too.



146/2/3 737/2/3/4/5/7/8/9 A320 1/2/18/19/21 DC9/40/50 DC10/30 A300/6 A330/2/3 A340/3/6 A380 757/2/3 747/4 767/3/4 787 77
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2401 times:

Airbus seem to miss timing of its products in the market, they often seem to miss the big turns and changes. The A340 is a dud IMO, they should have done the A330+ A 777 competitor instead of the A380 back in 2000. The over hyped growth of the credit economy lured Airbus to go for it.

Now they will be late to the big twin party and the A380 is not a big seller, its just too big.

The only families I really think is good is the 320 and 330.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8643 posts, RR: 75
Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2402 times:

Quoting steman (Reply 16):

The SuperFan, as far as I remember, was a PW project which should have provided the power for the A340. But it got cancelled when the A340 was on an advanced design stage.

It is somewhat similar to the GTF they are working on today. It was the V2500 core with a geared fan, they promised Airbus an engine with 30,000+ lb thrust with a TSFC that was 15-20% lower than the V2500. if they had produced that engine, even by todays standards it would be very efficient.

Airbus had no idea that P&W could not deliver on the engine until they went to P&Ws headquarters in Connecticut to sign the deal in 1987, only to be told P&W had cancelled the engine, they offered the PW2000 instead. Airbus had already had order for the Superfan powered A340s at that stage from Northwest and Lufthansa.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineScipio From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 815 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 2410 times:

As a family, the A330/A340 is currently the best-selling widebody family of all times (with 1,617 orders), ahead of the B747 (1,529 orders), the B777 (1,380 orders), and the B767 (1,105 orders).

I think that, for many reasons, the A340 was an essential part of this undeniable success.


User currently offlineanstar From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 5080 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 2409 times:

Quoting 76794p (Thread starter):
It seems that the only model that has done well is the -600. The -500 didn't terribly well and the -300, in my mind did okay.

And yet we have VS getting rid of 600's and keeping older 300's.


User currently offlineAF185 From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2012, 241 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 2407 times:

Quoting Scipio (Reply 20):
As a family, the A330/A340 is currently the best-selling widebody family of all times (with 1,617 orders), ahead of the B747 (1,529 orders), the B777 (1,380 orders), and the B767 (1,105 orders).

I think that, for many reasons, the A340 was an essential part of this undeniable success.

I agree. If you think about it, many airlines have operated an A330/A340 combo (LH, EK, AF, CX, MU, CI, SQ, QR..to name a few), and having the A340 in the fleet most probably convinced some airlines to expand their A330 fleet later on.


User currently offlineslinky09 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2009, 791 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 2398 times:

Quoting anstar (Reply 21):
And yet we have VS getting rid of 600's and keeping older 300's.

Which is more to do with lease terms and overall TCO than one being 'better' than the other.


User currently offlinebrightcedars From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 1286 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 2402 times:

I don't think you can consider the A330/A340 programme as a whole a failure, by a wide margin.

It put Airbus' foot in the door at many airlines at a time when there was a choice between Boeing and... Boeing after McDonnell Douglas failed to deliver on its promises regarding the MD-11.

And yes, Boeing responded with a fantastic product in the form of the 777.

Still it gave Airbus experience in a new market they hadn't explored before: long haul. Something that gave them the skills to develop the A380 program and now the A350.

I don't see anything more exciting in commercial aviation until Comac produce their own long-haul tube or better, someone leaps into the future or aviation (supersonic jumbos or better).



I want the European Union flag on airliners.net!
25 pvjin : Are you sure? To me that sounds total rubbish unless there were some very significant differences in winds between altitudes.
26 Bongodog1964 : It was launched in to a market place where airlines had a choice of two suppliers for long haul widebodies, today the airlines till have a choice of t
27 zeke : SIN-LHR is around 6020 nm along the airways, and would take around 12.5 hrs in an A340, for a 777 to do it in 10.5 hrs, it need to TAS at 573 kts, wh
28 FlyCaledonian : The A330 could be seen as TriStar 1, DC-10-10 (and even 747-100) replacement, whilst the A340 was a Tristar 500, DC-10-30 and DC-10-40, and a 747-200
29 g500 : Boeing hit the jackpot with the 777 series.... Compared to the 777 one might see the A340 as a failure.. But I don't think it was.
30 flyingalex : As others have said, it would be too simple a view to look at the number of A340s flying today and declare the programme a failure. The A340 provided
31 rheinwaldner : The A340 played an incredible role in opening new markets Airbus. It was mandatory to become a manufacturer, that offered a full product range. Keep i
32 chieft : Boeings moves to get ETOPS extended part by part by the authoroties was a clever strategic masterpiece and lead finally to the fact, that the A340s we
33 na : The A340, one of the most elegant airliners ever, wasnt a flop at all. When it came out, it smashed the MD-11, its only serious opponent, only to be o
34 faro : Certainly it was not helped by the demise of the Super Fan. To my mind it's a success if it has broken even on i) joint A330/A340 development costs a
35 LAXintl : As others eluded to, Airbus killed the A340 with one of its own models. I well recall sitting in briefings to airlines in the 1990s, an Airbus would p
36 flyingalex : Exactly. With the A340, Airbus achieved what it set out to achieve - to build a longhaul widebody aircraft that was better than the widebodies that r
37 AirbusA6 : The A340-300 was definitely NOT a flop, as it was effectively an A330-300ER, but with 4 engines instead of 2, but sharing virtually everything else, i
38 OzGlobal : Is the better question, wasn't the A340/A330 family a great success, spanning as it has different ETOPS eras and eveolving range and performance...? I
39 jfk777 : The A340 gets a bum rap for poor sales, its like the Airbus 747SP. But what did the SP and A340 have in common ? They were part of much bigger success
40 Ferroviarius : One possibly should mention that RR already DID have the TRENT 8104 when Boeing was looking for engines for the 77W/L. RR suggested to develop that 8
41 sweair : The market is saturated with freighters and old frames, it would not be worth the cost, the A340 program is history and dead anyway.
42 rfields5421 : It is very easy today to dismiss the impact of ETOPS upon aircraft design and usage. The idea of Trans-Pacific flights in a twin, Trans-Atlantic flig
43 StickShaker : The original 330/340 family as launched in the late 80's comprised the 342, 343 and 333. All R&D costs were for the "family" rather than any indi
44 Ferroviarius : Yes, Sweair, but these old frames will have to be recycled within some years and then re-engined 34?s might become acceptable MD10 or MD11 replacemen
45 EagleBoy : You seem to be missing the point mentioned by several posters. The A340 was a complement to the A330. At the time of design an 'A330+' was not an opt
46 sweair : Re engine is not that straight forward, it would involve certification and big investments, who would foot that bill?!
47 ecbomberman : I think that when you look at the A340, one must consider it together with the A330. I think that Airbus was revolutionary in terms thinking (when one
48 AM744 : I think this can't be understated. The A340 at the very least, made Airbus a legitimate contender in the large airplane market.
49 strfyr51 : unfortunately? That was NOT the case, The PW JT9D-7G/R/Q, the CF6-50 and 80 series,the RB211-524 and 535's and any Number of Russian Built engines we
50 PM : What I would have said about the A340 as a commercial proposition has already been said (and well) above so I won't add to it. It was no flop. But I m
51 b741 : Not from a spotter's point of view. The first time I saw one from a distance I thought OMG a 707!!
52 YULWinterSkies : The MD11 was quite a flop, from a commercial and technological point of view. The A340 overall sold reasonably well, put the MD11 out of the market in
53 FI642 : True, but it's found quite the market as a freighter and converted to a freighter. FedEx and UPS make a lot of money utilising the MD11. It's still o
54 KochamLOT : Who knows if it was a flop for Airbus or not but I would say for Passengers it definitley was refreshing. Many people who are scared of flying like fl
55 PHX787 : Don't forget that the GE-90, weight differences, and the 77L fuselage shape pretty much gives it a huge advantage there. Don't wanna be the guy who t
56 Jalap : If I remember correctly, pre 1995 the 342 and 343 were the good sellers while the 333 wasn't doing very well. I think it was the 332 that really got t
57 ukoverlander : Considering that the A330/A340 models are essentially derivatives of a single platform does it even make sense to question/analyze whether the A340 is
58 9VSIO : The what?!
59 CF-CPI : Ironically, SQ had dumped the MD-11 in favor of these A340s, in a purchase that was widely seen as the death knell for the MD-11 market, such was the
60 zeke : That has nothing to do with the comment that I was referring to.... UAL does not have the 77L, and no 777 can cruise at Mach 1, the myth is busted. W
61 starrymarkb : A330 and A340 are common Type Rating - going from the A320 to the A330/340 needs a conversion course but only a short one (5 days IIRC) due to the hi
62 Post contains images airbazar : It sold 300 frames, despite ETOPS, and it's part of the same family as the A330. If that's a flop, it's one happy flop
63 XT6Wagon : The A343 was quite good for its day. The A342 had its uses even with its fairly horrible operating economics. Certainly better for most airlines than
64 Post contains links mham001 : 2 hours may be a myth but lets look at where that began. Your numbers assume the A340 was cruising at rated speed. Airbus themselves, when they threa
65 zeke : No, the A330 and A340 are not a common type rating, the A330 and A350 are being proposed to be. One can CCQ (cross crew qualification) from any of th
66 OldAeroGuy : Which A340's and which 777's are you refering to? The initial climb and ICAC relationships between the A343 and the 772ER are not the same as the rel
67 Burkhard : No. The A340 was the aircraft that made Airbus a producer of long range aircraft, was mandatory to enhance their market share of 50%+ - the A340 was o
68 Boeing777300 : On the subject of nervous passengers preferring a four engine plane to fly in, I remember a programme on BBC TV a few years ago about British Airways,
69 zeke : Both, the A343 will be able to reach a high initial cruise altitude over the 772ER, 744, and 77W at max weight. The Boeings when heave are typically
70 AAMDanny : The A340 paved the way for the A330, they share the same fuselage as well as many other systems, the main difference is ones a quad and the others a t
71 jfk777 : Really > I thought it part of teh A320 family, its big cousin. NOT, I don't need to be lectured on what the relationship beween the A330 and 340,
72 ZaphodB : Every 77W flight I've taken had to level off at FL290. The last A widebody I can recall doing that was the 306R. And those who love to complain about
73 76794p : Thanks so much everybody! Very insightful about the program.
74 cosyr : Given that the Hull was derived from the A300 and shared with the A330, the development costs were lower than say a 787 and split between a couple typ
75 strfyr51 : well the result of SQ's dumping the A340 for the B777 was Boeing Took them in on a trade and probably made $0.00 on selling the used airplanes, What's
76 rheinwaldner : Well in that light the SP and the A340 seem not that much comparable...
77 pvjin : During flight from London to Singapore that A340 must have been under radar coverage at that time, why would people panic instead of contacting other
78 zeke : Did you ask yourself if United ever actually operated the SIN-LHR route ? let alone with a 777 ? Boeing made money on the sale of the A340s, I flew s
79 flyingalex : They didn't. And BA didn't start flying 777s between Singapore and London until long after SQ dumped their A343s. I'm going to say what you're thinki
80 Boeing777300 : As far as I recall, no airline has regularly flown an A340-300 from SIN-LHR, certainly not Singapore Airlines, upto the A380 service it was always 747
81 dennys : For me the A340 is still flying , and that makes me happy . I feel quite safer on a fine looking quad than on a twin , specially on overseas routes su
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...
Was The 767-400 A Flop? posted Sat Nov 30 2002 17:18:08 by JBLUA320
Was The Concorde Jetway-compatible? posted Fri Aug 3 2012 22:40:37 by spiritair97
Was The 787 World Tour A Success? posted Tue Jun 19 2012 22:50:54 by redrooster3
LCY, What Was The First Flight? posted Sat Apr 28 2012 12:06:44 by speedmarque
The Legacy Of The A340 posted Mon Feb 6 2012 02:31:59 by Irishpower
Status Of The A340, VP-CCC posted Sun Jan 29 2012 18:17:27 by g38
When The 727 Was The Backbone Of The Fleets posted Fri Jan 20 2012 10:18:16 by American 767
What Was The 787 Doing In SRQ? posted Sun Jan 15 2012 11:45:48 by Oceanic
Randy Tinseth Takes A Dig At The A340 posted Mon Nov 28 2011 15:01:11 by NYC777
How Close Was The Qantas A-380 To Crashing? posted Tue Oct 4 2011 12:57:21 by washingtonian