Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
236-Seat High-Density A321NEO Launched  
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2497 posts, RR: 1
Posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 22271 times:

As previously rumored, and now confirmed:

http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/new...of-a321neo-with-new-cabin-options/

The current 220 seat limit is raised by the addition of an overwing exit and the SpaceFlex aft galley. EIS in 2017.

I assume this will only be achieved with slim seats and LCC-style 28-29" pitch. This is likely aimed at European holiday carriers currently using 757's such as Thomson, and other similar operations.
Note that this is not a stretch as misunderstood in previous discussions, but a new high-density config.

Previous rumor thread for reference purposes:
Airbus Considers 235 Seat A321 NEO (by lostsound Dec 14 2012 in Civil Aviation)

53 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 580 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 22125 times:

Thank you r2ho

So the A321NEO will be in a class of its own ? the 737MAX9 has 21 less seats in high density (10% less)

- High density short haul / charter will be interested
- Legacies 2 class low density will be happy with the deactived door2 opportunity... with should also raise the 2 class seat count
It's no small upgrade in my opinion

However that leaves a widening gap between the A320 and A321 in high density configuration (and a nice sweet spot for the 737-MAX8 : Z wall / optmised toilets ...)


User currently offlineBthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 493 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 22024 times:

Quoting r2rho (Thread starter):
This is likely aimed at European holiday carriers currently using 757's such as Thomson, and other similar operations.

Quite a good market there, clearly some serious effort gone into attracting these customers.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 1):
However that leaves a widening gap between the A320 and A321 in high density configuration (and a nice sweet spot for the 737-MAX8 : Z wall / optmised toilets ...)

good point, although maybe with the economics of A321neo, a bigger aircraft with more flexibility might be favoured by some operators.


User currently offlinecv990coronado From South Africa, joined Nov 2007, 315 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day ago) and read 21744 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Good news for Airbus. Will they issue free shoe horns to get everyone in their seats ?. I will give this one a miss, thank you. Where possible I never turn right it can get very dark, crowded and uncomfortable.


SSC-707B727 737-741234SP757/762/3/772/WA300/10/319/2/1-342/3/6-880-DAM-VC10 TRD 111 Ju52-DC8/9/10/11-YS11-748-VCV DH4B L
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12419 posts, RR: 100
Reply 4, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day ago) and read 21391 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting r2rho (Thread starter):
The current 220 seat limit is raised by the addition of an overwing exit and the SpaceFlex aft galley. EIS in 2017.

Will the extra overwing exit be standard on the A321NEO? I suspect it will boost resale value more than it costs in maintenance...

Quoting Bthebest (Reply 2):
Quite a good market there, clearly some serious effort gone into attracting these customers.

Have any ordered the NEO? IIRC Thomson, but anyone else?

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 1):
However that leaves a widening gap between the A320 and A321 in high density configuration (and a nice sweet spot for the 737-MAX8 : Z wall / optmised toilets ...)

Size doesn't matter, it is cost per flight and there isn't that much of a difference between the -8MAX and A321NEO's cost per flight. So fly the extra seats and when they pay for themselves, enjoy!

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 1):
- Legacies 2 class low density will be happy with the deactived door2 opportunity... with should also raise the 2 class seat count

I missed that detail, thank you. It does present better economics for 2-class opperators with moderate pitch Y.

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (1 year 3 months 23 hours ago) and read 21057 times:

My guess is the range will take a big hit for the new A-321CATTLECAR. Is it going to have the same MTOW as the A-321NEO? If it does, that means it must carry LESS fuel, another hit to its range.

User currently offlineneutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 427 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 3 months 23 hours ago) and read 21003 times:

I seriously doubt most of the enthusiasts on this site will ever want to be shoved into this thing. No thanks, Airbus, you can keep the flying sardine can.

One can only imagine how uncomfortable this aircraft will be.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):

My guess is the range will take a big hit for the new A-321CATTLECAR. Is it going to have the same MTOW as the A-321NEO? If it does, that means it must carry LESS fuel, another hit to its range.

Something's gotta give.


User currently offlinespeedygonzales From Norway, joined Sep 2007, 706 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 3 months 23 hours ago) and read 20976 times:

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 1):
- Legacies 2 class low density will be happy with the deactived door2 opportunity... with should also raise the 2 class seat count

Does anyone know what the exit limit will be in this config? It should be greater than 189, since it has larger door capacity than a 737-800, unless there is limitations due to the distance between door 1 and the overwing exit.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 4):
Will the extra overwing exit be standard on the A321NEO? I suspect it will boost resale value more than it costs in maintenance...

I will probably be popular as it adds flexibility. With the overwing exit you can have up to 236 seats with all exits activated, 220 with overwing deactivated and 189-200 somewhere (I'm guessing) with door 2 deactivated. Without it you are stuck with one exit config.



Las Malvinas son Argentinas
User currently offlinePacific From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2000, 1050 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 3 months 23 hours ago) and read 20922 times:

Funny how the aircraft is getting the flak, instead of the airline who chooses the actual configuration. Good on Airbus, hope air travel remains affordable as a result in this age of rising costs.

Anyone remember how an extra exit on the 737-900ER led to highly valuable sales to Lion Air? May Airbus have the same fortune.


User currently onlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4760 posts, RR: 43
Reply 9, posted (1 year 3 months 23 hours ago) and read 20871 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
Is it going to have the same MTOW as the A-321NEO? If it does, that means it must carry LESS fuel, another hit to its range.

As noted in another A321 thread, the biggest range restriction is not what the aircraft can lift, but what the aircraft can carry. With its small efficient wings, fuel capacity is limited, even with the main centre tank.

Basic fuel tankage is 18,605 Kgs, which can be increased to 23,302 Kgs with two ACTs.

So with our present A321s, it is possible to load full fuel, and carry full passengers and still be 8000 Kgs below MTOW. Now our A321s carry 174 passengers, if you added another 6448 Kgs for the additional 62 passengers and baggage, you would still be roughly 1500 Kgs below MTOW.

The A321neo would be very similar, but with the added range of the more efficient engines and sharklets.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12035 posts, RR: 47
Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 months 23 hours ago) and read 20870 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
My guess is the range will take a big hit for the new A-321CATTLECAR. Is it going to have the same MTOW as the A-321NEO? If it does, that means it must carry LESS fuel, another hit to its range.

I suspect the airlines that will buy it fully understand the concept of a payload/range curve.   

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 6):
One can only imagine how uncomfortable this aircraft will be.

No more uncomfortable than any "pack 'em in" airline flying today.

If, as I suspect, neither of you actually read the PR, the modifications present the airlines with a much more flexible cabin in both 2-class and all economy configurations. But hey, why miss an Airbus-bashing opportunity?



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlineAviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 580 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 months 23 hours ago) and read 20799 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):

Hello

High density "real life" A321CEO should be able to fill more than 90% of wing and center tank with a 22.4 t payload (236 PAX)
NEO should be the same (or better in case of MTOw increase)
We can assume 2300-2500 Nm in the real life (and I think I take conservative estimates)

Is it that bad ?


User currently offlineneutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 427 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 3 months 23 hours ago) and read 20774 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 10):
No more uncomfortable than any "pack 'em in" airline flying today.

If, as I suspect, neither of you actually read the PR, the modifications present the airlines with a much more flexible cabin in both 2-class and all economy configurations. But hey, why miss an Airbus-bashing opportunity?

Errmm..no. How about taking a breath, and have a seat before you reflexively defend "anything that remotely appears to bash Airbus"?

And, unfortunately, I did read the release, and I read the original configuration on AW&ST a couple of months ago. And I don't care what airplane manufacturer builds a sardine can; Boeing or Airbus, I will avoid any airline that uses that high-density, utterly uncomfortable configuration. So don't make an ass our yourself jumping to conclusions. Last I checked, this was a thread on the A321; I didn't see any thread or mention of some ridiculous high-density 737 sardine can.

But please, continue to imagine this as an Airbus bashing thread when it wasn't in the first place.

.


User currently offlineflyglobal From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 558 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (1 year 3 months 23 hours ago) and read 20719 times:

The aditional emergency exits are also necessary to opt for the A321 /236 planes also for a lower density configuration with alarger premium class in the front and still enough Y pax behind.

In this case the over wing exits are used and the front side emergency exits can be closed and used for premium class cabins accoring to airbus.

Regards
Flyglobal

[Edited 2013-01-17 08:01:14]

User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 607 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 months 22 hours ago) and read 20620 times:

This is not only a high density solution.

For low density, high J, configurations, the new over wing exits allow the door 2 exits just forward of the wing to be deactivated, for more seats to be fitted.

Quote: "In conjunction with the additional over-wing exit door, a second new option is available whereby the forward exit is de-activated. This creates a seamless, undivided forward cabin allowing additional seats and even more flexibility in multi-class seat arrangements. This option will be of particular use in longer range markets where high comfort standards are needed in Premium class."

As a result, the 321neo will address both 757 replacement markets - short haul "cattle class" leisure with 236 seats, and long haul low density including J seats.


User currently offlineAviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 580 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (1 year 3 months 22 hours ago) and read 20551 times:

Quoting Pacific (Reply 8):
Anyone remember how an extra exit on the 737-900ER led to highly valuable sales to Lion Air? May Airbus have the same fortune.

Yes I think it's almost the same move (spaceflex, new exists), just missing the MTOW increase, unless you consider that going NEO is almost the same

So airbus almost launched an A321NEO-ER !

Waiting for the MTOW increase now (for PAS maybe ?)

Quoting longhauler (Reply 9):
As noted in another A321 thread, the biggest range restriction is not what the aircraft can lift, but what the aircraft can carry. With its small efficient wings, fuel capacity is limited, even with the main centre tank.

Basic fuel tankage is 18,605 Kgs, which can be increased to 23,302 Kgs with two ACTs.

So with our present A321s, it is possible to load full fuel, and carry full passengers and still be 8000 Kgs below MTOW. Now our A321s carry 174 passengers, if you added another 6448 Kgs for the additional 62 passengers and baggage, you would still be roughly 1500 Kgs below MTOW.

The A321neo would be very similar, but with the added range of the more efficient engines and sharklets.

Might not forget the weight of the seat also...
Your A321 seems lighter than the one I found on the net (THY and RJ )


User currently offlinePhen From Ireland, joined Oct 2007, 315 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 months 22 hours ago) and read 20476 times:

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 14):
For low density, high J, configurations, the new over wing exits allow the door 2 exits just forward of the wing to be deactivated, for more seats to be fitted.

I assume this means that the fuselage is fabricated with no door at all in the Door 2 position and with regular cabin windows instead, or is the door frame simply plugged with a fixed fuselage panel?


User currently onlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4760 posts, RR: 43
Reply 17, posted (1 year 3 months 22 hours ago) and read 20386 times:

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 15):
Might not forget the weight of the seat also...
Your A321 seems lighter than the one I found on the net (THY and RJ )

I think it would be a tough one to forecast. I was only using our present aircraft, and our present weights, for a rough guideline.

As you note, there are a lot of other factors to consider, among them being the 62 additional seats. But also, we would be removing the 20 heavy J class seats, with their powered controls, etc. Also, the forward galley on our A321s is huge ... able to serve 20 J passengers an elaborate J service, twice. I keep thinking of all the china, crystal, linen and silverware that would be unnecessary and not carried.

But until you work the numbers, as I am sure Airbus and potential Customers have, you wouldn't know for sure.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3341 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 3 months 22 hours ago) and read 20378 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
My guess is the range will take a big hit for the new A-321CATTLECAR. Is it going to have the same MTOW as the A-321NEO? If it does, that means it must carry LESS fuel, another hit to its range.

There are masses of short range holiday routes in Europe so range is not an issue for many carriers.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (1 year 3 months 22 hours ago) and read 20327 times:

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 11):
We can assume 2300-2500 Nm in the real life (and I think I take conservative estimates)

Is it that bad ?

Depends on where the airplane needs to fly. For US TRANSCON, it is bad. For shorter routes in the EU, it works perfectly. I can see this being an airplane custom built for FR.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2792 posts, RR: 59
Reply 20, posted (1 year 3 months 22 hours ago) and read 20159 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
My guess is the range will take a big hit for the new A-321CATTLECAR. Is it going to have the same MTOW as the A-321NEO? If it does, that means it must carry LESS fuel, another hit to its range.

A realistic DOW for a 230 seat A321neo is around 53t, that includes weight for neo mods, extra seats etc. Add catering and 230 pax which brings you some 24t, now you are at 77t. MTOW is 93.5t so you have some 16.5t fuel, at 2.6t average fuel consumption the endurance will be 6.3 hours, that is including your reserves.

Now I don't want to sit in a SA more then 5 hours and I don't think others would at 230 seats below 30'' pitch. Most holiday destinations would be found within that endurance me thinks.

[Edited 2013-01-17 09:05:23]


Non French in France
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6103 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (1 year 3 months 21 hours ago) and read 20008 times:

Quoting Pacific (Reply 8):
Anyone remember how an extra exit on the 737-900ER led to highly valuable sales to Lion Air? May Airbus have the same fortune.

Airbus did it before when they added an overwing exit to the A319 for Easyjet, who dumped the 737 for it in return.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently onlineMACDADDY From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 168 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 3 months 21 hours ago) and read 20007 times:

It seems many people on here are not familiar with the "old 757's in Euro-Charter Airlines. The basic config on a B757 was 235Y, and latterly 229Y. People like Jet2 and Thomson could be interested in such a plane, flying at 28" pitch, full loads from the North of Europe to The Med. However that model is outdated and being fast replaced / overtaken by LCCs. So it remins to be seen if anyone "bites" in this market.

MAC



www.plane-sight-images.photoshelter.com
User currently offlinewingnutmn From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 632 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 3 months 21 hours ago) and read 19728 times:

I know that everyone keeps saying Euro charter airlines, but this sounds like a perfect airplane for Spirit too. It doesn't need the range, but the capacity. This A321Neo is perfect for FLL to anywhere in the Carrabbean. It also could fly from FLL to most cities in their system. Trans-cons may not happen, but how many of those flights do they currently fly? I would not be shocked to see an announcement that NK is a launch for this new varriant of the A321.

Wingnut



Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing! It's a bonus if you can fly the plane again!!
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12419 posts, RR: 100
Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 months 18 hours ago) and read 18750 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting scbriml (Reply 10):
the modifications present the airlines with a much more flexible cabin in both 2-class and all economy configurations.

That is the most exciting detail. The flexibility as noted by:

Quoting speedygonzales (Reply 7):
I will probably be popular as it adds flexibility. With the overwing exit you can have up to 236 seats with all exits activated, 220 with overwing deactivated and 189-200 somewhere (I'm guessing) with door 2 deactivated. Without it you are stuck with one exit config.

Thank you for the explination.

Quoting Pacific (Reply 8):
Anyone remember how an extra exit on the 737-900ER led to highly valuable sales to Lion Air? May Airbus have the same fortune.

   This will sell planes.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 10):
I suspect the airlines that will buy it fully understand the concept of a payload/range curve.

Na, we armchair CEOs no better.

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 12):
And I don't care what airplane manufacturer builds a sardine can; Boeing or Airbus, I will avoid any airline that uses that high-density, utterly uncomfortable configuration.

Then you are not a customer of the charter airlines. Every mature market will eventually break down into at least 5-identifiable sub-markets. For airlines, we have charter/first class, business class, Y+, coach (with legroom), and ULCC coach and then variations with and without luggage. This change means that a standard 2-class A321 will have a better layout and then a charter/ULCC configuration is an option. Why not celebrate Airbus selling more planes instead of bashing how you don't like the market?

Are you against the 757 because so many are used by charters? Or the infamous 8-across narrow pitch 767s?
Boeing 767 - Charter Configuration (by CTFLYER May 8 2001 in Civil Aviation)

Every can use seatguru, so there shouldn't be any surprises.

Quoting wingnutmn (Reply 23):
but this sounds like a perfect airplane for Spirit too.

   I think B6 will benefit from the flexibility too.

Quoting Phen (Reply 16):
or is the door frame simply plugged with a fixed fuselage panel?

There are standard door plugs with an interior panel to hide the door opening from the passengers (so they don't try to use it in an emergency).

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
25 Post contains images astuteman : Very little. As others have said, the A321 is predominantly fuel volume limited The 215 seat arrangement on the 737-900ER is 28" pitch. *shrug* But t
26 Burkhard : I always wondered why Airbus did not try this. This 236 A321 will be the same density as 186 seater B737-800 or 180 seater A320. If you fly in such pl
27 Post contains images EPA001 : Don't let facts spoil an incorrect statement here on A-net. . It is, only if it is really ridiculous.
28 airboe : Now I don't want to sit in a SA more then 5 hours and I don't think others would at 230 seats below 30'' pitch. Most holiday destinations would be fo
29 neutronstar73 : Reading comprehension is REALLY HARD HERE. Ahem: from my post above: "And I don't care what airplane manufacturer builds a sardine can; Boeing or Air
30 Boeing74741R : Don't forget Thomas Cook and Monarch, the former with a decent size 757 fleet (including aircraft from the days of Flying Colours!) and the latter wi
31 Post contains images Planemaker :
32 voodoo : Would they then be starting to think of resurrecting a bogie main gear along the lines of the original A320s delivered to Indian Airlines way back wh
33 Wingtips56 : I don't see airlines ordering these based on resale value. It should be totally based on their own operational expectation. So I don't envision an ai
34 airbazar : And I have a feeling that pretty soon you won't have much of a choice above 30 inches in short haul flying as more and more airlines deploy more Y+ s
35 Post contains images lightsaber : But then again, said arguments are fun. I prefer ludicrous. Then why worry? They're already there and have a market. Airbus has made an offering that
36 mariner : Oh, I'm such a whore about airlines and aircraft - I'll fly anyone. And have flown some quite unusual ones. LOL. I'll fly on these, see what they're
37 faro : Very interesting; to what extent would the 236-seat A321NEO impair the 737MAX9's business model? Would it be flagrant or subtle? Advantage with LCC/c
38 parapente : Re Above. Then why worry? They're already there and have a market. Airbus has made an offering that improves comfort for 2-class airlines but allowing
39 SKAirbus : Gosh you're all acting like this will be the only A321 config available! The standard A321 NEO will still be available .. this is just a variant!
40 AAMDanny : I would be interested to see the seat map/cabin config and see the location and sizes of galleys, lavs and other cabin fixtures Having worked on 220Y
41 Post contains images CRJ900 : Agree! A full-size aft galley can be cramped enough on the A32x and B737 when 2-3 FAs are setting up their carts. With a lav back there too and peopl
42 airbazar : Bingo. Most people buy tickets based on price not seat pitch. That's why I think that in the near future all short haul flying will be 30" or less. L
43 brons2 : Good on Airbus for having the flexibility to build this variant. Should make good sales in the EU holiday market. I have to join in with those who say
44 EuroWings : The UK charters have been moving towards the LCC business model anyway. Jet2 was actually founded as a traditional 'Euro-LCC' (albeit one with older
45 Post contains images Planemaker : For reference, here are a few existing layouts... AC SWISS BA Thomson
46 Viscount724 : With the current lightweight, thin-back seats, 28" is comparable in terms of effective passenger space to 30" with older seats. 18" seat pitch is not
47 Post contains images r2rho : Thanks, I missed that on my initial post. They are therefore addressing both the high-density charter market as well as the premium-heavy, giving mor
48 Post contains links and images lightsaber : Your attitude is very healthy! However, for flights of more than 3 hours, I start to become picky. That sounds like a perfect mission for a high dens
49 astuteman : Unless these seats are restricted to the 737-900ER only, it wouldn't seem to me to alter the comparison with the A321.... Rgds
50 Aviaponcho : At 236 PAX it is not fuel volume limited I think ... if you can still put 1 or 2 ACT underbelly
51 Post contains links lucce : Here's a photo of the spaceflex galley. Doesn't look too user friendly http://fly-news.es/aviones/aviones-c...el-a321neo/attachment/spaceflex01/ http
52 CRJ900 : Hey, they have been very creative here, makes it look like the aft section of a widebody. And TAM and LAN have ordered it alredy?
53 airbazar : Oops, good catch. I meant to say 28" althought I can't find official confirmation. SeatGuru has is at 32". There's no way it's 32". Or maybe the pitc
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...
Where Does AF Send It's High Density 77W? posted Fri Aug 20 2010 00:43:10 by 76er
Japanese People Prefer High-Density , Over Freq.? posted Tue Jan 26 2010 17:19:39 by Shaq
High Density Seating Configuration On The A380 posted Fri Oct 12 2007 18:24:07 by John
Low Density BA 763 On High Density Routes posted Wed Dec 27 2006 17:18:34 by Spetouss
Embraer Offers High-density E-jets posted Thu Jul 20 2006 01:04:51 by PPVRA
High Density A380's Would They Suit Hawaiian? posted Sat Dec 17 2005 02:52:45 by RichardJF
High Density 747s: Who Flies Them, How Many Seats? posted Mon Jul 18 2005 02:46:35 by Targowski
Why Not More 744's/High Density Aircraft In US? posted Fri Oct 15 2004 22:16:22 by Ual747
Q On High-density Layout Of 762s. posted Tue Jul 3 2001 06:16:17 by FlagshipAZ
Will There Be A High Density A346? posted Thu May 3 2001 23:15:38 by AA767400