Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A380 Overperforms Says Tim Clark Of EK  
User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 32842 times:

“I kind of looked at the A380 as a late, overweight aircraft,” he says. “But when she flew, she was faster, more fuel-efficient and more aerodynamical and still is.” Clark points out that “the faster you fly [the A380], the more fuel-efficient she gets; when you fly at [Mach] 0.86 she is better than at 0.83.”

Also, Emirates has observed a very low degradation factor: The first aircraft delivered in 2008 would normally perform around 2.5-3% less efficiently than in the beginning, but according to Clark the degradation has been only around 1%.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/awx_11_21_2012_p0-519980.xml

Seems remarkable that the the aircraft burns less fuel at mach 0.86 than at mach 0.83. How does that come about? Any engineers able to offer an explanation?

Airbus appears to have come up with an aircraft that exceeds expectations. I guess that is rather useful to Airbus where an airline is debating the proportion of big twins/A380's it wants in its fleet mix. I guess it also means that in the absence of an all new VLA appearing within 15 years, Airbus can look forward to a large number of orders for delivery in the 2020's as existing customers turn over their fleets.

83 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEagleBoy From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1836 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 32737 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Interesting info on the lower level of degradation in the fleet.
The future of secondhand market for A380 has been debated a few times on A.Net. EK have 90 on order, the assumption being that the last 25-33% are to replace the first 25-33%. A lower level of degradation may slow the need to replace and/or maintain the used value of the airframe.


User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3766 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 32708 times:

Quoting art (Thread starter):
How does that come about?

The extra fuel flow required to go faster is lower is compensated by the shorter flight time.

I didn't think the A380 would be 'comfortable' .86 cruiser. I imagined it more in the .84~.85 range.

The 744 is also very comfortable at .86. Some operators apparently didn't even bother with cost index or FMC econ cruise and just flew around at.86 everywhere. It just likes it there.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlinenighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 5157 posts, RR: 33
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 32664 times:

Quoting art (Thread starter):
Seems remarkable that the the aircraft burns less fuel at mach 0.86 than at mach 0.83. How does that come about? Any engineers able to offer an explanation?

Don't forget if you fly at 0.86 you get there faster. I'm guessing the extra fuel used to fly at 0.86 is more than offset by the shorter flight time and therefore less overall fuel use.



That'll teach you
User currently offlineJU068 From Vanuatu, joined Aug 2009, 2640 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 32559 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

What about the other operators? Have any of them been this impressed by this bird?

User currently offlinebrightcedars From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 1289 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 32433 times:

Actually one should do the math to see if it isn't most efficient to fly at a certain speed when the plane is heavily loaded with fuel soon after take off and more slowly when it's lighter and cruising later in flight.


I want the European Union flag on airliners.net!
User currently offlineswallow From Uganda, joined Jul 2007, 555 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 32437 times:

Classic TC ....putting the screws on Airbus by negotiating in the press. As he has done before, he casts doubt on the product, hoping to get better pricing on future orders. At least he has the temerity to admit he was wrong regarding the 388. Didn't stop him ordering stacks of them.

I think his main target is the 3510. I highly doubt that Airbus would have changed its specs without consulting EK, one of her main customers. Tellingly, JL does not publicly contradict TC's claim that he was not consulted.

Since the 359 is becoming to small for his needs, I think TC is looking to convert some 359 orders to the 3510



The grass is greener where you water it
User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 32280 times:

Quoting swallow (Reply 6):
As he has done before, he casts doubt on the product, hoping to get better pricing on future orders.

Claiming overperformance doesn't sound like he's casting doubt on the product. If anything, Airbus could say that if he likes it so much he should be willing to pay more on future orders.



Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1574 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 32271 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting art (Thread starter):
Seems remarkable that the the aircraft burns less fuel at mach 0.86 than at mach 0.83. How does that come about? Any engineers able to offer an explanation?

It may well burn more fuel (have more drag) at M0.86 but if the fuel flow required to fly ~0.36% faster is less than 0.36% then you will travel further on the same fuel.

This seems like good news for the whale but Tim Clark always seems to have a reason up his sleeve for saying things.

Fred


User currently offlineswallow From Uganda, joined Jul 2007, 555 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 32124 times:

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 7):
Claiming overperformance doesn't sound like he's casting doubt on the product.

Per the linked article, he is doubting the 35J not the 388

Emirates Airline President Tim Clark says the carrier’s current order for the Airbus A350-1000 is “in limbo at the moment,” but he is not ready to step back from it .

The aircraft is “overweight and late,” Clark tells Aviation Week. “Let’s just see what she is like when she flies,” he adds. “At the moment there are issues.”


Notice he remains committed to the order, and actually thinks the 350 will do well

we got a pleasant surprise with the A380, maybe we also get a pleasant surprise with the A350-900 and -1000,” Clark says.



The grass is greener where you water it
User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 32067 times:

Quoting brightcedars (Reply 5):
Actually one should do the math to see if it isn't most efficient to fly at a certain speed when the plane is heavily loaded with fuel soon after take off and more slowly when it's lighter and cruising later in flight.

Forgot that: the faster you fly, the faster you have less weight to push throught the air (because you are burning fuel faster).

I see narrowbodies tend to have m 0.8 as their advertised cruise speed. Can they also be flown faster without increasing fuel burn from A to B or is this a phenomenon seen only in (some?) long range aircraft? I don't understand why the advertised cruise speed would be less than the speed.that burnt the least fuel between origin and destination. Lower engine maintenance cost? Some other factors?


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7229 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 31903 times:

No mention of the effect on the engines, I guess it may be too early to judge the effect.
Derate takeoffs and lower cruise speeds was not only about fuel but also about preserving the time on the wing for a/c enhines which is also a huge cost and take a/c out of service for a day or so, never mind the capital cost of a replacement engine.

Good news all around for the A380.


User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4833 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 31798 times:

Quoting art (Reply 11):
I see narrowbodies tend to have m 0.8 as their advertised cruise speed.

This is because they spend a much greater proportion of their lives taking off, climb, descent and landing with much less cruise time than wide-bodies.



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineHiJazzey From Saudi Arabia, joined Sep 2005, 870 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 31290 times:

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 13):
This is because they spend a much greater proportion of their lives taking off, climb, descent and landing with much less cruise time than wide-bodies.

True, although they're flying longer these days. The newer generation NBs like the NEOs and Max's should probably be optimised for longer stage lengths


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13134 posts, RR: 100
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 31137 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I would love to know how the A388 CASM is versus expectation. Lower fuel burn is great, but how is the maintenance (other than the wing cracks)?

Quoting par13del (Reply 12):
Good news all around for the A380.

That is is. Now if only the production rate could speed up.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineworldrider From Switzerland, joined Nov 2007, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 31071 times:

Soo EK has 50 A359 and 20 A350-100 on the order book.. counting the total of 388s "soon delivered" that makes
the astonishing number of 160 A widebodies! hmm no B787s? ?

its very likely some of the 359s will be converted the bigger variant (to become the ultimate 777 replacement) aka CX..
nice 380 publicity    i enjoy flying them.


User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2411 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 31072 times:

Quoting art (Thread starter):
Also, Emirates has observed a very low degradation factor: The first aircraft delivered in 2008 would normally perform around 2.5-3% less efficiently than in the beginning, but according to Clark the degradation has been only around 1%.

How does that happen? Does the A/C put on weight over the years, do the wings and fuselage deform into a less aerodynamic state, like the wrinkles on heavily used B-52, for example?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank J. Mirande



Or is it the engine wearing out?


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4833 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 30891 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 17):

How does that happen? Does the A/C put on weight over the years, do the wings and fuselage deform into a less aerodynamic state, like the wrinkles on heavily used B-52, for example?

Parasitic Drag (Friction drag), every time an aircraft flies through some rough weather at the right temp etc those little ice crystals dent, scratch, chip away at the aircraft. Screws etc are replaced but don't always give 100% the same fit as a brand new aircraft. Yes they gain weight from bits and pieces and the engines do become less efficient over time.
Some bad turbulence or hard landings can also cause some minor forms of deformation which also add up.



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlinejustloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1057 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 30764 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 17):
How does that happen? Does the A/C put on weight over the years, do the wings and fuselage deform into a less aerodynamic state, like the wrinkles on heavily used B-52, for example?

It may be the GE engines that maintain durability. Clark has mentioned similar characteristics about the EK 77W, that they are resistant to degrading.


User currently offlineGCT64 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 1398 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 30359 times:

Quoting EagleBoy (Reply 1):
Interesting info on the lower level of degradation in the fleet.
The future of secondhand market for A380 has been debated a few times on A.Net.

Remember that EK probably has more incentive than anyone else in the world in promoting the value of secondhand A380s and that includes both current and future, owned and leased aircraft as this will feed into the lease rates / finance deals they can negotiate.



Flown in: A30B,A306,A310,A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A346,A388,BA11,BU31,B190, B461,B462,(..51 types..),VC10,WESX
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13134 posts, RR: 100
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 30318 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 16):
How does that happen? Does the A/C put on weight over the years, do the wings and fuselage deform into a less aerodynamic state, like the wrinkles on heavily used B-52, for example?

Aircraft put on a tremendous amount of weight (tons) per year. One reason the carpets are replaced is even with wear they gain weight (yes, yuck). Another thing is patches to fix damage.

I'm a bit surprised at the baseline number. That is higher than I've heard as the rule of thumb, but perhaps Clark knows more than I.  
Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 16):
Or is it the engine wearing out?

Engines degrade with time. On widebodies in long haul service, that often sets the overhaul interval.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineimiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 30226 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 12):
Derate takeoffs and lower cruise speeds was not only about fuel but also about preserving the time on the wing for a/c enhines

Derate takeoffs and cruise speeds are independent of each other. A higher cruise speed will have negligible engine EGT deterioration.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 17):
Or is it the engine wearing out?

That's correct.

Over time (or over Flight Hours:Flight cycles in the aviation context), an engine will undergo Exhaust Gas Turbine (EGT) deterioration. Consequently, the engine will suffer from higher fuel burn. When you factor in DXB's sandy locale and high ambient temperatures, you can see why operations in such an environment are torture for the engines.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 15):
but how is the maintenance (other than the wing cracks)?

That is what I would like to know too.

A few years ago, the GE90-110/5 in EK service on the 77L/W had an EGT deterioration of around 9degC per 1000 flight cycles versus an engine brochure figure of 10degC/1000FCs - a surprising difference given the multiple regional sectors the 77Ws are used on.

It would be interesting to see how the GP7200 compares.

{edited-sorry for confusion)

[Edited 2012-11-22 04:57:05]

User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12476 posts, RR: 37
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 30146 times:

Quoting swallow (Reply 6):
Classic TC ....putting the screws on Airbus by negotiating in the press. As he has done before, he casts doubt on the product, hoping to get better pricing on future orders. At least he has the temerity to admit he was wrong regarding the 388. Didn't stop him ordering stacks of them.

I think his main target is the 3510. I highly doubt that Airbus would have changed its specs without consulting EK, one of her main customers. Tellingly, JL does not publicly contradict TC's claim that he was not consulted.

Since the 359 is becoming to small for his needs, I think TC is looking to convert some 359 orders to the 3510

Sure is typical of him; Airbus, while being pleased at his A380 comments, must also be pretty incandescent about his A350 comments (although I really can't blame TC if he was not consulted!).

However, one thought flashed through my mind (it happens at least once a week): could this also be a message to Boeing as well: "the only thing that's keeping the A350 on our books is your failure to launch the 777X". Just a thought ...


User currently offlinePIEAvantiP180 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 30098 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 17):
How does that happen? Does the A/C put on weight over the years, do the wings and fuselage deform into a less aerodynamic state, like the wrinkles on heavily used B-52, for example?

The aircraft does put on weight over the years due to many different factors. If you have skin repairs due to ramp rash is just one example. I can't give you a definite answer if the fuselage and the wings deform but with the previous example the plane will loose aerodynamic performance with skin repairs and adding different antennas for Fifi, GPS, and satellite dishes for entertainment. As for wrinkles in the skin, its a normal occurrence. If you can stand on top of a plane when its sitting on the ground you will see ripples in the skin from one rib to another, once the plane is in the sky and its pressurised it will smooth out.


User currently offlineAmericanAirFan From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 408 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 29939 times:

It's great to hear the A380 out perform its' promise. Maybe this will lead to more carriers in the future trying to place the A380 in their fleet.


"American 1881 Cleared For Takeoff One Seven Left"
25 AmericanAirFan : Funny you say that. The picture you posted has the following remark: "and the conspicuous skin wrinkles, which are often mis-identified as evidence o
26 Post contains links and images flyingturtle : Thanks for the answers, and especially for the yucky one! Well, I looked for an example image - a fuselage with wrinkles... I could have pulled up E-
27 Post contains images astuteman : Funny, isn't it. But the article is about the A350-1000 being "in limbo", and yet the type that looks most threatened by his comments is the A350-900
28 Post contains links and images EPA001 : That would indeed be very interesting to know. Yes it is. Makes you wonder which versions of the A380 EK will get in 2013? . http://www.flightglobal.
29 Post contains images EPA001 : It is indeed. And the part of A-nets expectations that can now lo longer be upheld, well I guess these people have to adjust their opinions and expec
30 Post contains images AmericanAirFan : Awesome. Thanks for the correction. I don't know why I thought the whole frame was composite.
31 sunrisevalley : Not quibling but Piano-X has an OEW of 299t. for what is termed a "uae" version. Is it possible that the DOW on these frames is nearer 306t ? The OEW
32 swallow : In the rarefied atmosphere that is EK management, the 787 is considered too small. TC already considers the 359 to be marginal! That said, TC has pub
33 KC135TopBoom : I just don't see where cruising at .86M as opposed to .83M will save fuel. On a mission from DXB to LAX you save about 30 minutes flying time. For an
34 squared : "The first aircraft delivered in 2008 would normally perform around 2.5-3% less efficiently than in the beginning, but according to Clark the degrada
35 MattH : Please read the description of the photo - those wrinkles aren't from wear........
36 art : Interesting to hear. Thanks.
37 Stitch : If the A350-900 is now "marginal" for EK, it would explain why the airline has expressed interest in the 777-8X as it is longer and wider than the A35
38 art : I remember EK ordering A350-10. Unless my memory fails me, Clark said something like if Airbus was late he would take their legs off at the kneecaps.
39 Post contains images flyingturtle : ...and as I have written in #26..... David
40 sunrisevalley : PIANO-X says that a 569t MTOW/285tOEW version , 60t payload, 7000nm sector burns 188.268t of fuel at M.83 and at M.86, 192.531t
41 Stitch : If Boeing pushed, I expect 2018-2019.
42 Post contains images astuteman : EK operates 27 of them. They should know If you actually read the article, he states 1% since EIS, which is a different thing altogether. And certain
43 TVNWZ : When you are buying, the product sucks. When you own them for awhile and have to eventually sell them, the product is great! Classic buy low. Sell hig
44 autothrust : The upper shells/skins are GLARE not aluminium. However anyone has some info about the Wagner Tensions Field?
45 brilondon : It is the same with your car. Your engine has a maximum efficiency at a certain speed, so the aircraft is more efficient at .86 vs. .83. It also depen
46 flyingturtle : At least some migratory birds use two "most" efficient airspeeds. One that gives them the least energy expenditure per hour flown, and one that yields
47 N14AZ : This is actually not new - Airbus or EK (don't remember who it was) reported about this effect some years ago.
48 Alnicocunife : Could be similar to the DC-10. When flying .082 or less the tail dropped causing more drag. Flying faster allowed the tail to flight higher (aircraft
49 art : Interesting to know but did Douglas give the cruise speed as mach 0.82 whereas the aircraft would burn less fuel cruising from A to B at a higher mac
50 Post contains links swallow : I found this explanation on another website. Hope it makes sense. The A380 was designed to have an economical cruise speed, and a high speed cruise.
51 Post contains images art : Thanks. I think I may be starting to understand.
52 Stitch : So the fuel savings from the wing twist comes from allowing a slower cruise speed, which reduces engine thrust and SFC?
53 Revelation : Might be why Boeing is finding it worthwhile to clean up the tail cone on the 737. I imagine the name came from the company that planned to fly two A
54 MauriceB : Maybe the fact that it performs better at a higher mach. number comes from the fact that the faster a plane is able to fly, the less induced drag it c
55 art : "Cattle class" sounds disparaging to me. I know the term is used but one should not forget that 50 years ago air travel was very, very expensive in E
56 tommytoyz : The SR-71 burned less fuel per mile traveled the faster it flew. Going Mach 3.5 was more economical than flying at Mach 3.2. Why? Beats me. No idea. B
57 Post contains links tdscanuck : ASM production goes up more (due to higher speed) than CASM (due to higher fuel burn). Typically not. Design cruise speed was selected *way* back in
58 Post contains links and images musang : In the mid '80s AirLanka was using one of Royal Jordanian's TriStar 500s. It became apparent during an overhaul that there was (I'm sure any figure b
59 Post contains images flyingturtle : For a thorough discussion of the topic at hand, please refer to my posting #39. David
60 zeke : That is part of it, with the newer aircraft they have transonic wings and have rather flat drag polars, M0.83 would be closer to maximum endurance fo
61 maxter : For goodness sake, can't we just accept that this aircraft may just be all TC and many others say it is rather that somehow cast doubt as to it's act
62 autothrust : I haven't said it doesn't have any aluminium. I was just pointing out the upper shells not being normal aluminium so less prone to Wagner Tension Fie
63 PlaneInsomniac : Well, yeah, remember that this is about the A380. According to some poeple: If somebody who really should know what he's talking about says the plane
64 Post contains links and images flyingturtle : Keep clicking through, there will be some diagrams about the Wagner tension field: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/74843498...S-OF-DIAGONAL-TENSION-FIELD-
65 N14AZ : Given the fact that I was lousy in Physics I also would appreciate if somebody could explain the link between the wing twist and the speed. So if Air
66 Post contains images lightsaber : My prior employer purchased a used 747 for ground based testing. When it took too long to prepare the aircraft, they weighed the trash cans of scappe
67 Post contains images swallow : Me too My layman understanding is that wing twist decreases induced drag at cruise. Adding twist makes the wing more efficient. I suppose it follows
68 2175301 : At least for most of the companies operating them. Have a great day,
69 Stitch : Which is essentially what I meant, I just worded it poorly.
70 Post contains images autothrust : Sorry for confusing Thanks for the Links.
71 tdscanuck : This seems to have been a trend since the mid 90's for both OEM's. I think that better CFD tools (they're really really good for high speed aerodynam
72 flyingturtle : How are E-2 Hawkeyes and B-52 built, if they form these wrinkles? I'm looking for "stringers B-52", but can't find anything... David
73 tdscanuck : The wrinkles don't form until you load the structure. They're build with normal skins and techniques. The difference between this and more convention
74 autothrust : Thanks for the explanation. Wouldn't you see wrinkles in a 787?
75 flyingturtle : Thank you, your answer is really helping me to understand. I was looking for a picture of a "skinned" B-52 or E-2, and I was wondering if the stringe
76 tdscanuck : You shouldn't. As far as I know, the 787 doesn't have any intermediate diagonal tension design in the composite. It's all shear-resistant. Also, when
77 Post contains links and images ferpe : Tom has answered that in a brief way, here a bit more on why the A380 can be more efficient when flown at 0.86 instead of 0.83: In general the drag o
78 astuteman : They did. During flutter testing, they were expecting to have to dive at a 6 degree angle to achieve M0.96, but only required a 4 degree angle. I hav
79 Post contains links kaitak : Emirates pushing for A389? http://www.arabianbusiness.com/emira...-for-up-800-passengers-480685.html Although the -900 isn't specifically mentioned, a
80 Zkpilot : Me thinks part of the reason why QF deferred its last 8 A380 deliveries to the end of the decade was to get the A389...
81 scbriml : IMHO, Airbus would be insane to launch the -900 for EIS before EK has taken delivery of nearly all their A388s.
82 art : It's been debated but the big issue for Airbus may be that airlines ordering A389 would have ordered A388 anyway.
83 Stitch : There will be no real need for Airbus to launch an A380-900 until a smaller plane equals or beats it's CASM and I don't expect that to be possible unt
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...
EK's Tim Clark On A380: "We Need That Aircraft" posted Tue Nov 7 2006 23:15:42 by PlaneHunter
Tim Clark On A380 Cracks posted Fri Mar 9 2012 15:53:16 by KAL7478
Anyy Pics Or Links Of EK A380 To LHR? posted Tue Dec 2 2008 10:37:21 by Victor009
Clark: Denies EK Will Cancel Some A380 Orders posted Fri Oct 13 2006 09:04:24 by Leelaw
Status Of EK A343s And Other 'old Types'? posted Thu Nov 8 2012 21:40:12 by lightsaber
Video Of EK 380 First Class posted Thu Aug 30 2012 20:00:30 by SPQR
SQ A380 To HKG/SFO Instead Of FRA/JFK posted Tue Jul 24 2012 04:24:19 by LH422
Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000 posted Mon Jul 9 2012 12:29:25 by redrooster3
Virgin America's "Tim Clark Express" posted Tue Jan 17 2012 10:26:35 by sq_ek_freak
What Is The Delivery Rate Of EK 77Ws? posted Sun Jan 8 2012 10:50:34 by DFWHeavy