Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Needs To Sell More 747  
User currently offlineolle From Sweden, joined Feb 2007, 280 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 20829 times:

Flight global tells that Boeing has slots for production of 747-8 the next yeats and might need to decrease production.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...med-747-8-production-slots-382245/

From article;

A "number" of unsold production slots for 747-8 Freighters and Intercontinental passenger models must be filled after this year to keep production on track at a rate of two aircraft per month, Boeing says in the annual filing.

"If we are unable to obtain orders for multiple Freighter aircraft in 2013 consistent with our near-term production plans, we may be required to take actions including reducing the number of airplanes produced and/or building airplanes for which we have not received firm orders," Boeing says.

73 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineolle From Sweden, joined Feb 2007, 280 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 20846 times:

Is this a reaction of the 777-9x presentations? This will be a plane very close to 747-8i

User currently offlineBureaucromancer From Canada, joined Feb 2010, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 20809 times:

More like the end of the spike in sales associated with the 8, and the return of the fundemental issue that there is only so much demand for VLAs and even less demand for 50 year old airframes. Ramping down production really seems like a sensible move to me, I can't really imagine that many of the customers who would seriously consider the 747 at this point are going to be terribly upset by a low delivery rate.

User currently offlineLutfi From China, joined Sep 2000, 771 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 20478 times:

Plus cargo market is weak at the moment, no follow on orders for -8F's

User currently offlineairlinebuilder From Philippines, joined Nov 2012, 182 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 20479 times:

ergo, Boeing needs to materialize the their rendition of a twin engined double decker, that would kill all competition.

User currently offlineFlying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4161 posts, RR: 36
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 20396 times:

Quoting Lutfi (Reply 3):
Plus cargo market is weak at the moment, no follow on orders for -8F's

Probably one of the main issues. Would actually expect that some carriers are more interested to get out of their orders than to add new ones...



Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
User currently offlinechiad From Norway, joined May 2006, 1146 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 19734 times:

Quoting airlinebuilder (Reply 4):
ergo, Boeing needs to materialize the their rendition of a twin engined double decker, that would kill all competition.

First GE needs to offer an engine rated at 150,000 lb.
 


User currently offlinebongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3544 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 19441 times:

At what point does Boeing sit down and decide that all the resources and space devoted to this project could be better utilised elsewhere ?
Perhaps not at a little below 2 per month, but if demand for the 747-8 continues to be weak, plus demand for 737's 777's & 787's continues to be strong, and production slips to 15 or so a year, all that factory space might find a more profitable use.
The 767 was kept running at a very low production rate, but in all likelihood only as they were hoping for the USAF tanker contract. I'm sure that if the contract hadn't gone to Boeing the 767 lines closure would have been announced within days.


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10677 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 19341 times:

Quoting bongodog1964 (Reply 7):
At what point does Boeing sit down and decide that all the resources and space devoted to this project could be better utilised elsewhere ?
Perhaps not at a little below 2 per month, but if demand for the 747-8 continues to be weak, plus demand for 737's 777's & 787's continues to be strong, and production slips to 15 or so a year, all that factory space might find a more profitable use.
The 767 was kept running at a very low production rate, but in all likelihood only as they were hoping for the USAF tanker contract. I'm sure that if the contract hadn't gone to Boeing the 767 lines closure would have been announced within days.

The 748F is unique and will remain the most capable freighter for a long, long time from now, without competition. Even if the market is rather small, its there and will remain there. That alone already makes sense to keep the line open. I am only sad about the 748I, which from a passenger standpoint is a much superior aircraft than the 77W which is selling good still. I´d wish Boeing would further develop the 748 and drop the hideous 777-9X instead, but I am Don Quixote here obviously.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12417 posts, RR: 25
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 19203 times:

Quoting Bureaucromancer (Reply 2):
More like the end of the spike in sales associated with the 8, and the return of the fundemental issue that there is only so much demand for VLAs and even less demand for 50 year old airframes.

Come now, stop that 50 year old nonsense. We don't talk about 30 year old A320s, do we?

Quoting airlinebuilder (Reply 4):
Boeing needs to materialize the their rendition of a twin engined double decker, that would kill all competition.

That would kill Boeing long before it'd kill Airbus. Note that Boeing even approached Airbus about partnering on a VLA before the A380 days and still could not find a way to move forward.

Boeing has a quite nice strategy for the 788/9/1, 777W/X, 748 to cover replacement of 767s, A330s, A340s, older 777s and 744s. The 748 is somewhat letting the side down, but I'm sure Boeing will wait till the 777X is firmly established before any possible decision to spin the line down or shut it down totally. As above there's gaps in the line next year, and if nothing else materializes they'll just slow it down to a crawl. Clearly if nothing else they want to have it in place to build the expected 3 ship fleet replacement of the VC-25s.

One could argue B's widebody strategy is a tad better than A's. The 788 is the best positioned to capture 767 replacement, the 789/1 are ideal A332 and A333 replacements, the 772 is covered by 781 and 777-8X should the market want it, and 777-9X hits the gap between current 77W and A380 quite nicely with two less engines to worry about. The A358 is not drawing that much interest and the A351 is trying to compete with various 777 models with a stretch of a stretch, and then there is that big gap till you get to the A380.

Now, all Boeing needs to do is execute the plan!



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineRichard28 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 1610 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 19137 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 9):
777-9X hits the gap between current 77W and A380 quite nicely
Quoting Revelation (Reply 9):
to compete with various 777 models with a stretch of a stretch

wrong way around?

isnt the 777-9X a stretch of a stretch?

and I thought the A351 is only a single stretch?


User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 18874 times:

Quoting bongodog1964 (Reply 7):
At what point does Boeing sit down and decide that all the resources and space devoted to this project could be better utilised elsewhere ?
Perhaps not at a little below 2 per month, but if demand for the 747-8 continues to be weak, plus demand for 737's 777's & 787's continues to be strong, and production slips to 15 or so a year, all that factory space might find a more profitable use.

Production of the 747 was below 20 per annum for the last 6 or 7 years of production. I suppose production at that level was profitable so perhaps ramping 748 production down to less than 20 per annum would be acceptable to Boeing.

It seems to me that one way to increase 2014 uptake might be for Boeing to offer special finance terms to customers prepared to take delivery in 2014. That might be cheaper than building white tails.


User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2431 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 18719 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 9):
even less demand for 50 year old airframes.
Come now, stop that 50 year old nonsense. We don't talk about 30 year old A320s, do we?

   Exactly!!

Yes, the current platform originated from the first design but the 747-8F and 747-8i is the farthest thing from a 50 year old design!

Let's put this type of comparison to rest folks, shall we?   



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12417 posts, RR: 25
Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 18506 times:

Quoting Richard28 (Reply 10):
isnt the 777-9X a stretch of a stretch?
Quoting Richard28 (Reply 10):
and I thought the A351 is only a single stretch?

I see your points, but it seems that the 777W is doing enough replacing, including providing an all-new wing, to avoid the "stretch too far" problem, whereas some of the grumbling from A351 customers could indicate that it might not avoid the problem.

Personally the 781 is more likely to suffer from the StF problem because they aren't doing anything much more than stretching it, but it seems the customer base is OK with that, which might not be the case for the A351.

It doesn't change my assertion that B will be in a tad better position for the widebody market once all the currently discussed programs happen. Of course it seems A will be in a good position for a substantial new project around the end of the decade whilst B has itself committed to the 777X, so A has the next move.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinePanAm1971 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 17466 times:

I just flew on a KLM 747-400M. It was my first 747 flight is some years. I can't tell you how much I love the 747 as a passenger. I really do hope the 748I gets more orders. And failing that-I hope LH puts a 748I on the JFK route. I'll fly them. What a fantastic aircraft.

User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1340 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 17230 times:

It seems to me that the 747-8 could still pick up a few more orders in the future from Asian airlines who want a new-build replacement for their 747-400s, there are a whole bunch of -400 freighters and converted freighters that will at some point get old. A bigger rebound in the economy and airline market will probably have to happen first though.

Has delivery availability ever been a major factor in an order? I've seen it tossed around in here but I'm skeptical about it ever actually changing anyone's mind, else I'd wonder about that with respect to 747 production rates.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9584 posts, RR: 52
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 17100 times:

The 747 is the only option for the high capacity freighter market. The 777 freighter is also a good option, but for airlines wanting heavy lift and large volume, there is only one option. The problem Boeing has is that there have been a large number of airlines dumping 747-400s on the freighter market. SQ has sold over 40 low cycle 747-400s in the last 10 years. About 2/3rds are now freighters, so that is a large supply of airplanes that are competing with the 747-8.

Eventually the 747-400 will continue to age and the supply will drop and Boeing is hoping that enough customers go to new build 747-8s. I see the 747-8 limping along on freighter sales for a while since if you look at the market the airplane is the only long term prospect until a 777 BCF program starts, which would be a large loss in capacity.

Everyone wants to see blockbuster deals for the 747-8, especially passenger orders since we have become accustom to that with the 787, A350, 737MAX and A320NEO, but I don’t see those coming any time soon. The 747-8 likely will limp along like the 767, A340, 717 and MD-11 did.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30858 posts, RR: 86
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 17031 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 15):
Has delivery availability ever been a major factor in an order?

Not at this level of the market.


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4395 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 16428 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 15):
Has delivery availability ever been a major factor in an order?

In case of the A330 I'm sure. The A380 is not so unavailable that it could ensure the 748I, nor is the 777. I doubt, unfortunately, that the 748I will reach the number of sales of the A340-600.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30858 posts, RR: 86
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 15991 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 16):
The 747 is the only option for the high capacity freighter market. The 777 freighter is also a good option, but for airlines wanting heavy lift and large volume, there is only one option. The problem Boeing has is that there have been a large number of airlines dumping 747-400s on the freighter market. SQ has sold over 40 low cycle 747-400s in the last 10 years. About 2/3rds are now freighters, so that is a large supply of airplanes that are competing with the 747-8.

Ironically, with cargo volume so low, it appears having the most efficient platform to haul what you can get is very important. So we're seeing dedicated and converted 747-400 family freighters being sent to the desert or leased to smaller operators in favor of new 777 and 747-8 freighters.

The 777 freighter has effectively knifed the 747-400 converted freighter in the kidneys. It will lift 90% of the volume and 95% of the weight with significantly better fuel burn and lower maintenance costs. And even with it's performance miss, the 747-8F offers class-leading economics and as Boeing continues to engineer out weight and GE improves SFC those economics will only get better. I expect the desire for these better frames is one of the reasons why Boeing is having issues filling 2013 slots - customers are deferring until later production tranches.


User currently onlinebrilondon From Canada, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 4194 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days ago) and read 15339 times:

Quoting Bureaucromancer (Reply 2):

More like the end of the spike in sales associated with the 8, and the return of the fundemental issue that there is only so much demand for VLAs and even less demand for 50 year old airframes. Ramping down production really seems like a sensible move to me, I can't really imagine that many of the customers who would seriously consider the 747 at this point are going to be terribly upset by a low delivery rate.

I don't these aircraft frames are 50 years old. Yes, the 747 has been around that long, a testament to the longevity of the design, but I believe that the 748i is quite a few years younger.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlinebongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3544 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 14633 times:

Quoting na (Reply 8):
The 748F is unique and will remain the most capable freighter for a long, long time from now, without competition. Even if the market is rather small, its there and will remain there. That alone already makes sense to keep the line open

Whilst the demand (even if very small) is definitely there, the big question is, at what point does it cease to make economic sense to Boeing, either due to it not being profitable, or because they can use the tied up assets more profitably elsewhere.
A comparison might be the 757, even now it still has a small market segment where it is the only viable airframe (Transatlantic single aisle) but the market wasn't large enough to warrant Boeing keeping the line open.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12981 posts, RR: 100
Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 14028 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
The 777 freighter has effectively knifed the 747-400 converted freighter in the kidneys.

It has, ironically, also knifed the low end of the 748F market that doesn't quite need the lift at range (e.g., FedEx and I suspect one day UPS).

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
I expect the desire for these better frames is one of the reasons why Boeing is having issues filling 2013 slots - customers are deferring until later production tranches.

I personally hope that is the reason. The difference in performance is impressive.

Quoting Lutfi (Reply 3):

Plus cargo market is weak at the moment,

That is killing the 748. Until production accelerates, the plane isn't very profitable and thus low discounts... But with the improvements, it will do bettr.

Quoting bongodog1964 (Reply 7):
all that factory space might find a more profitable use.

Unless the line rate increases, I agree. It all depends on the 748 improvements. If the cargo market recovers, I expect both versions of the 748 to do well. If the cargo market continues to be weak, not enough freight companies will have the cash flow to switch to the 748F (even though there is a business case).

Quoting na (Reply 8):
The 748F is unique and will remain the most capable freighter for a long, long time from now, without competition. Even if the market is rather small, its there and will remain there. That alone already makes sense to keep the line open.

Unique isn't enough. Airframe production costs drop significantly with volume. I think the 748 will recover, but it does not have a long window to 'find its sales legs.'

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 16):

The 747 is the only option for the high capacity freighter market.

But there are plenty of 744s that could be converted. Worse case, Airbus would have an A380F market.   

Just because a plane fills a niche doesn't mean that niche should be filled. My current employer just abandoned a market they own. Why? The profits were very low and the product line was occupying factory floor space that could be converted in a day to a new product line that earns 5X to 7X the profit. I think the 748 will do well, but Boeing is probably close to closing the line unless orders start filling the pipeline.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineNWAROOSTER From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1081 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 13857 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

You can't buy a new build 747 like Northwest Airlines did in 1970 for about 21.5 million dollars anymore.
I know the dollar bought more then, but I think prices have increased exponentially since.   


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1817 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 13748 times:

Except the A380F is a big dud, it basically sucks as a freighter, its a passenger plane.

25 blueflyer : The article quoted by the OP mentions that Boeing needs additional freighter orders to keep the current production pace. My question is, why not passe
26 Post contains images Stitch : It may be that Boeing's suppliers are currently geared to produce freighter shipsets so that is what Boeing is ready to assemble in those slots. Also
27 Revelation : Interestingly enough, I just read that the RR's entry in the 777X engine market is hitting limitations due to transportability. The article says its
28 bongodog1964 : I don't think an order for two VC25 replacements will make a lot of difference to a decision whether to continue or not. On the matter of a VC25 repl
29 Viscount724 : With inflation, $21.5 million in 1970 is equivalent to about $127 million today. Current list price of a 747-8 is about $351 million, but of course n
30 KC135TopBoom : But the B-744BCF is really just a bigger B-777F, and not fit for outsized or very heavy cargo like the B-748F is. Of course the B-748 also more capab
31 garpd : Someone always has to try and use the "XX year old airframe" card. That's old hat and simply irrelevant. Yes, the basic design is 50 years old, but t
32 Viscount724 : And even if the first 747-100 was still flying it would be 44 years old, not 50. First flight 44 years ago last week, February 9, 1969.
33 SCAT15F : What? How is that possible? If it can't fit through the nose of a 747 then how could it fit through the side door on a 777F? That must be a mistake.
34 cornutt : Boeing never, ever builds white tails. They might offer to buy back some other aircraft in order to encourage some orders to take earlier slots. But
35 Spacepope : Long cargo.
36 blueflyer : I remember reading an article a few years ago mentioning how it was critical for every model of the 737NG to share a number of commonalities with ear
37 sweair : They couldn´t make the 748 too good, that would have killed the 777-X. That is my theory. CFRP wings, Al-Li skin etc They could have gone further on
38 Post contains links columba : http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/awx_12_20_2012_p0-531065.xml The article is a few months old now but I am very confident that we will see
39 747classic : The 747-8 is produced at the moment in 3 basic variants : - 747-8I/airline version, built according basic number* block R8001 and further - 747-8I /BB
40 CXB77L : That would be suicide for Boeing. The 777-9X will have more cargo volume than the 747-8 and similar payload-range performance, while using less fuel
41 PC12Fan : Yes, but I have to believe that even the 777-9FX would not have the same performance capabilities of the 748-F. If that were the case, Boeing could h
42 Stitch : The side door of both the 747 and 777 freighter is larger than the nose door of the 747 freighter. 747F Side Door Dimensions: 3.05m high x 3.40m wide
43 SCAT15F : I never would have guessed... Well, you learn something new every day! I think the best Boeing could do now to save the 748i is to do a "simple stret
44 by738 : Hope the end for 747 is not near !
45 bongodog1964 : If it fits in an A124 it will definitely fit in both the Dreamlifter and Beluga.
46 Post contains images Stitch : The Dreamlifter is not certified to carry anything but 787 parts so that would not be an option.
47 bongodog1964 : Whats a turbofan if its not part of a plane ? If Boeing needed larger diameter engines to be flown, I'm sure that certification wouldn't be a problem
48 Stitch : It's been stated in this forum that the TCDS for the Dreamlifter is explicit in noting it's only able to carry 787 shipsets including the fuselage se
49 XT6Wagon : also no need to prove fire containment and a host of other things that separate 787 specific parts hauling vs general cargo. The FAA can be sure that
50 KC135TopBoom : I believe the B-747LCF has a fire surpression system. It is still required by the FAA
51 Stitch : That area is unpressurized, so not sure how well a fire could take hold at cruise altitude.
52 rwessel : While the -8 is about the same length as the proposed -500X, the -500X and -600X had much larger wings than the -8, both in span (to about 77m) and a
53 scbriml : Boeing really had no choice - the 748i, as built, could not be certified to today's standards.
54 astuteman : Seriously? Boeing's '90's forays into the "future 747" market don't appear to have been that well received (which is part of the argument used agains
55 sweair : They could have gone the whole hog doing a 777-X style update, I am sure you know it was possible? Now the reason they went with a less advanced upda
56 CXB77L : How on earth could that have happened when the 777X wasn't even around as a concept when the 747-8 was launched?
57 Post contains links Revelation : Actually USAF is asking for three ships, with EIS of 2017 for the first. Given how profitable those frames will be, both at initial sale and over the
58 zeke : Variations of the 777 have been around for years, before the 747-8. Likewise longer variation for the 747 go back to the 1970s. The 747-8 does not re
59 sweair : The 77W was the big seller when the 748i was launched, now how do you update a product that it wont take sales from your golden egg? Maybe by keeping
60 Stitch : They planned that with the 747-500X and 747-600X at a projected cost of $12 billion. Add a decade of inflation to that figure and there was no way Bo
61 cmf : How profitable will they be? It is my understanding the current two frames generated substantial losses to Boeing.
62 Revelation : The 747-8 is different enough from the 777W to be in its own market space. It has ~50 more seats (depending on how you set it up) and has some pretty
63 sweair : A super critical cfrp wing could have worked on the 748? More lift for the somewhat low thrust.
64 B777LRF : If you need to lift 100 tons of "fluff" and keep it up for 10 hours, there is no better tool than a 777F. Hence the reason DHL, FedEx and TNT love th
65 PW100 : Good thing they did not go for the maximum buck standard then! Given the 787 experience, how delayed would such a maximum standard have been? Just to
66 Post contains links speedygonzales : For comparison, the planned cargo door dimentions for A380F was 432cm wide * 254cm high on the main deck and 380cm wide * 218cm high on the upper dec
67 art : As long as the 748 line remains open, Boeing can slot in 748-i frames when required, can't they? The reported problem is lack of freighter orders to
68 Post contains images lightsaber : That simplifies the cert. But one still has to fight a fire on approach. Serious question, are the cargo loads limited to reduce the needs of the fir
69 anfromme : Funny - I started a thread with the same starter ladt Thursday and it got deleted because the warning was already discussed in the 747 production thre
70 RussianJet : Wow, the 748 is not selling as well as expected?? Who knew!
71 Post contains images neutrino : You mean fluffers? That crossed my mind too.
72 Post contains images Revelation : Yep, and the 787 battery needs fixing too!
73 Post contains images astuteman : tickled me, this did
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...
Delta Wants To Sell More Than Just Flights posted Wed Dec 14 2011 14:03:37 by catiii
Jetblue To Sell More A/c? posted Tue Jan 8 2008 06:03:17 by Lowecur
ANA Orders 4 More 777-300ER, Sell 3 More 747-400 posted Tue Mar 6 2007 07:29:54 by Jimyvr
Roughly How Many 748s Does Boeing Expect To Sell? posted Fri Mar 10 2006 00:49:31 by AviationAddict
Airbus Needs To Sell Around 500 posted Fri Apr 29 2005 02:33:00 by Jet-lagged
Boeing Plans To Sell $35-bn Planes To India posted Tue Apr 12 2005 23:53:05 by KhenleyDIA
ATA To Sell More Than 30 Of Its 737-800s posted Wed Aug 25 2004 12:19:24 by 7LBAC111
Rumor - UAL To Sell Off 747-400's posted Sat Jan 25 2003 19:43:10 by Bmacleod
Boeing Trying To Sell 767s To US Military posted Tue Nov 13 2001 13:38:01 by Republic
Atlas And Cargolux To Buy More 747-400F's? posted Tue Sep 19 2000 02:36:12 by Boeing747-400