Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Will QF Go All A380 @ LAX?  
User currently offlineJoePatroni707 From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 493 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7643 times:

I seem to remember some time ago that QF had plans to go all A380 at LAX, have not heard anything more. Seems to me that running 2xA380 LAXSYD and 1X LAXBNE A380 and 1x LAXMEL A380 is a bit over kill, also if they did what would become of LAXJFK?

I know that later this year QF will move its LAXBNE flight from T4 back to TBIT to consolodate its operations.

40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinemesaflyguy From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 3062 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7638 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Personally, I think if this happens LAX-JFK will remain, just as an a380. It might be cheaper to run it with a 380 making less money, than to have the aircraft sitting at LAX for 14-5 hours.


\________(---)________/ :) World's most beautiful aircraft: 757-200, MD-88/90, E-190, A321
User currently offlinesydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3018 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 7469 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Thread starter):
I seem to remember some time ago that QF had plans to go all A380 at LAX, have not heard anything more

There are no plans for this to happen. QF doesn't have any more A380's coming into the fleet for a number of years, their remaining 8 were deferred, and the 12 they currently have are fully utilised on SYD-DXB-LHR, MEL-DXB-LHR, MEL-LAX, SYD-LAX and SYD-HKG. So you'll be seeing QF 744's at LAX for many years to come.


User currently offlineJoePatroni707 From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 493 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 7469 times:

Too bad one cannot fly on the LAXJFKLAX leg   That would be an awesome A380 trip!

User currently onlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5638 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 7408 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Thread starter):
I seem to remember some time ago that QF had plans to go all A380 at LAX, have not heard anything more.

I don't believe there was ever a plan to go all A380 at LAX. There were, AFAIK no public statements to that effect.

It is unlikely that AKL-LAX & BNE-LAX were ever planned to be A380. AKL-LAX has since been discontinued, of course, leaving only BNE-LAX & the second daily SYD-LAX with the B744.
With the B744ERs scheduled to around for the rest of the decade I think the second daily SYD-LAX flight will remain B744ER until around 2020 (this is of course the flight extended to JFK).
As for BNE-LAX, who knows? But it won't likely happen until QF get more A380s which is not until the 2016/2018 time frame. It is more likely that you will see B789s operating into LAX before then.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4906 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7344 times:

There never have been any plans for ALL US of A flights to be up graded to an A380...

The next delivery of the deferred A380 have been scheduled for 2016 which I believe will enable QF to operate SYD-DFW-SYD without the need of the BNE tech stop... The current frames are capable but not in their current configuration considering QF don't offer F/C to DFW...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offline777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3619 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 7163 times:

Quoting mesaflyguy (Reply 1):
It might be cheaper to run it with a 380 making less money, than to have the aircraft sitting at LAX for 14-5 hours.

It's cheaper to have it sitting on the ground if it's losing money in the air on the JFK tag. Considering that in recent history, the route has fluctuated between the A330 and the 744 - I'd venture to guess that the 380 is probably too much lift for this route. Anecdotally, I've heard the route is buoyed by cargo as the pax loads are typically rather low.

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Thread starter):
Seems to me that running 2xA380 LAXSYD and 1X LAXBNE A380 and 1x LAXMEL A380 is a bit over kill, also if they did what would become of LAXJFK?

I could see 107/108 go 380 at some point in the distant future, but not 175/176(BNE).



PHX based
User currently offlinesydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3018 posts, RR: 20
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7043 times:

Quoting gemuser (Reply 4):
As for BNE-LAX, who knows? But it won't likely happen until QF get more A380s which is not until the 2016/2018 time frame. It is more likely that you will see B789s operating into LAX before then.

I'd say you will see BNE-LAX, SIN and HKG all go to 787 as soon as QF has enough of them in the fleet.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5452 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7011 times:

Quoting 777STL (Reply 6):
175/176(BNE).

You mean QF15/16

Quoting sydscott (Reply 7):
I'd say you will see BNE-LAX

The other two definitely, but QF15/16 has been completely full every time I've been on it. While going back to daily will partially make up for the lost capacity, I think that this will remain a 747 route.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3360 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6849 times:

Quoting mesaflyguy (Reply 1):
Personally, I think if this happens LAX-JFK will remain, just as an a380. It might be cheaper to run it with a 380 making less money, than to have the aircraft sitting at LAX for 14-5 hours.

Does QF still operate LAX-AKL??

IIRC the LAX-JFK route has been operated with a 332 that comes in from AKL so that is an option.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinesydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3018 posts, RR: 20
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6753 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 9):
Does QF still operate LAX-AKL??

No. It was dropped last year.


User currently offlineamerican 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3761 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6715 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 3):
oo bad one cannot fly on the LAXJFKLAX leg That would be an awesome A380 trip

Even if they were flying the A380 from LAX to JFK you wouldn't be able to do that unless your trip originates or terminates in Australia. Because QF doesn't have traffic rights inside the United States. I don't think you can buy a Qantas ticket just to fly between JFK and LAX.

QF still flies the 744 to JFK, I saw one not long ago.

Ben Soriano



Ben Soriano
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5452 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6710 times:

Quoting american 767 (Reply 11):
QF still flies the 744 to JFK, I saw one not long ago.

Yep, when they dropped AKL-LAX the JFK tag reverted back to a 744



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2968 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6627 times:

I doubt it will ever happen.

I think we're likely to see existing 744 services to LAX cut back to 789s in favour of a greater focus at DFW, which appears to be going berserk. The 787 will also make SFO a strong possibility again, and would give JQ the range to reach the mainland as well (YVR? LAX at peak times to add Y capacity?).

That said, the focus would then turn to where else QF would use the aircraft. Using 789s to LAX from SYD/BNE would free up 4 aircraft to use elsewhere. Perhaps to DXB/Europe?


User currently offlineweb500sjc From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 736 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 6507 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting american 767 (Reply 11):

You can always buy a ticket from JFK to SYD and forget to get on the flight to Sydney...although I imagine that would be a waste of money.



Boiler Up!
User currently offlinemesaflyguy From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 3062 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 6363 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting american 767 (Reply 11):

Yes, that is what he said.

Also, while the 744 is a beautiful sight to see every day from my back yard, there was just soomething about seeing an Aussie a330 flying over into JFK.



\________(---)________/ :) World's most beautiful aircraft: 757-200, MD-88/90, E-190, A321
User currently offlinecedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8093 posts, RR: 54
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6254 times:

Any chance DFW will go A380?


fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlinesydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3018 posts, RR: 20
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6173 times:

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 16):
Any chance DFW will go A380?

In 2016, probably. Until then with no new A380's coming into the fleet, no.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4906 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6112 times:

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 16):
Any chance DFW will go A380?
Quoting EK413 (Reply 5):
The next delivery of the deferred A380 have been scheduled for 2016 which I believe will enable QF to operate SYD-DFW-SYD without the need of the BNE tech stop... The current frames are capable but not in their current configuration considering QF don't offer F/C to DFW...
EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2968 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6083 times:

Quoting sydscott (Reply 17):

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 16):
Any chance DFW will go A380?

In 2016, probably. Until then with no new A380's coming into the fleet, no.

It would be possible with the existing fleet, but it would mean dropping SYD-HKG back to 744s, which seems unlikely.

Alan Joyce has spoken about sending 789s to DFW on numerous occasions in the past, but they aren't due to start arriving till 2016 either. I guess we'll have to wait till then and see what they decide to do.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4906 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 6058 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 19):
Alan Joyce has spoken about sending 789s to DFW on numerous occasions in the past, but they aren't due to start arriving till 2016 either. I guess we'll have to wait till then and see what they decide to do.

He fully the issues which grounded the B787 are resolved otherwise QF is going to be in an extremely difficult position with the aged B763's... QF really gambled taking on 2 x NEW aircraft (A380 & B787)...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineSKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1709 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4644 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 20):
QF really gambled taking on 2 x NEW aircraft (A380 & B787)...

BA are in a worse position... They are receiving both new aircraft around the same time and are the launch customer for the HGW version of the A380.



Next Flights: LHR-OSL (319-BA), OSL-LHR (319-BA), LHR-IAH (744-BA), MSY-LGA (319-DL), JFK-LHR (744-BA)
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2968 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4236 times:

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 21):
BA are in a worse position... They are receiving both new aircraft around the same time and are the launch customer for the HGW version of the A380.

I disagree. The late arrival of these aircraft hasn't sent BA into meltdown like it has QF, and they have enjoyed a far more flexibile position in covering the gap (ie lots of 77Es, the ability to slip a few 77Ws into the fleet without major training/handling costs, a younger 767 fleet etc).

The A380 will be an easy and smooth transition for BA. The 787 is a far more critical lynchpin in QF's future than BA's, and will have massive ongoing impacts if they don't start arriving this year.


User currently offline777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3619 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3636 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 8):
You mean QF15/16

Sure, whatever. It used to be 175/176 the last time I flew it.



PHX based
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4906 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2763 times:

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 21):
Quoting EK413 (Reply 20):
QF really gambled taking on 2 x NEW aircraft (A380 & B787)...

BA are in a worse position... They are receiving both new aircraft around the same time and are the launch customer for the HGW version of the A380.

Not really as qf002 quoted...

BA have the flexibility within their fleet to introduce B777's as a gap filler with minimal training required while at QF it would mean introducing a totally new type to the fleet...

I just hope the B787 troubles are resolved as I can't imagine what plan B is at QF with another delay of EIS...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25165 posts, RR: 48
Reply 25, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2890 times:

Considering the JFK flight rarely goes out with over 200 folks, even the 744 is overkill.

The A330 was the right plane, but with the loss of the AKL route, the feeder was dropped.

To me we likely could see QF drop JFK entirely and send folks on their JV partner AA before we see a mega A380 run LAX-JFK even emptier imo.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineA36001 From Australia, joined Sep 2012, 173 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2825 times:

Those 747 tags to JFK are full of cargo no?, so with minimal passenger revenue, the cargo revenue makes up for it. The impression I have got over the years from reading here is that passenger revenue is just icing on the cake. Plus it puts hours on the books for the crew, lessens parking charges at LAX, and provides brand awareness to NYC for QF and Australia.  

User currently offlinetravelhound From Australia, joined May 2008, 933 posts, RR: 12
Reply 27, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2903 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 25):

EK send one of their A380 flights (Dubai - Brisbane) from Brisbane to Auckland often half empty. In the early days the flight was lucky to be 25% full. The logic behind the flight is even though the flight might be marginal / loss making, the extra passengers (from New Zealand) who then take the Brisbane - Dubai leg make the economics of the flight work.

It might be a similar case for QF.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5452 posts, RR: 5
Reply 28, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2877 times:

Quoting travelhound (Reply 27):
EK send one of their A380 flights (Dubai - Brisbane) from Brisbane to Auckland often half empty

DXB-BNE-AKL is a 77W not A380, but you are right about half empty A380s from SYD and MEL to AKL.

Anecdotally, and from what people have said on here before, BNE-AKL seems to generate better loads for EK than SYD or MEL



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4906 posts, RR: 4
Reply 29, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2873 times:

Quoting travelhound (Reply 27):
EK send one of their A380 flights (Dubai - Brisbane) from Brisbane to Auckland often half empty. In the early days the flight was lucky to be 25% full. The logic behind the flight is even though the flight might be marginal / loss making, the extra passengers (from New Zealand) who then take the Brisbane - Dubai leg make the economics of the flight work.

You must be referring to SYD-AKL-SYD which is an A380... EK haven't introduced the A380 on the BNE leg & I doubt we'll see it for a while considering SYD will go double daily A380 come 2nd of June...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25165 posts, RR: 48
Reply 30, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2881 times:

Quoting A36001 (Reply 26):
Those 747 tags to JFK are full of cargo no?, so with minimal passenger revenue, the cargo revenue makes up for it.

No not at all. I pulled up the cargo numbers in a thread last year. The LAX-JFK-LAX turns are not heavy with cargo.

QF carriers the bulk of the JFK cargo on its 747 freighter services.

Quoting A36001 (Reply 26):
lessens parking charges at LAX,

QF parks for free. They have hangar bay at LAX.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineA36001 From Australia, joined Sep 2012, 173 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2865 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 30):

O well I learnt something today.... haha thanks  


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25165 posts, RR: 48
Reply 32, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2857 times:

Quoting A36001 (Reply 31):
O well I learnt something today.... haha thanks

Yes in 2006 they got into the maintenance business here and got a hangar. They can house 2 744s or a single A380 at a time inside and about 3-4 more on the ramp outside.

Apparently this was first maintenance base outside of Australia.

QF Opens LAX Mx Line @ AA/TW Hangar (by Aaway Feb 1 2006 in Civil Aviation)

=



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4906 posts, RR: 4
Reply 33, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2847 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 32):

Yes in 2006 they got into the maintenance business here and got a hangar. They can house 2 744s or a single A380 at a time inside and about 3-4 more on the ramp outside.

Apparently this was first maintenance base outside of Australia.

I'm curious as to how cost effective this has been from a maintenance perspective...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineWSTAKL From New Zealand, joined Jun 2011, 138 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2799 times:

What would the chances be of OF ever reinstating the AKL-LAX route? I always preferred OF over NZ when heading up to the States (mainly due to price) I wonder with the QF/EK deal we may see something happen regarding the rebirth of this route.

User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2723 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 5):
The next delivery of the deferred A380 have been scheduled for 2016 which I believe will enable QF to operate SYD-DFW-SYD without the need of the BNE tech stop... The current frames are capable but not in their current configuration considering QF don't offer F/C to DFW...

Are you sure? I struggle to believe that an A380 would make more money for QF on SYD-HKG than on SYD-DFW-SYD if the latter would be unrestricted for passengers year round. The only conclusion I can draw is that must hit restrictions sometimes.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 8):
The other two definitely, but QF15/16 has been completely full every time I've been on it. While going back to daily will partially make up for the lost capacity, I think that this will remain a 747 route.

I expect that what we will see is some flights operated by 747s and others by 787s, as capacity demands. The 747s would ultimately be replaced by A380s when the former is retired. Growth could see A380s sooner though, particularly if they can regain their monopoly on the route.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 30):
The LAX-JFK-LAX turns are not heavy with cargo.

How full are they regarding cargo? Particularly on the westbound leg.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4906 posts, RR: 4
Reply 36, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2661 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 35):
Are you sure? I struggle to believe that an A380 would make more money for QF on SYD-HKG than on SYD-DFW-SYD if the latter would be unrestricted for passengers year round. The only conclusion I can draw is that must hit restrictions sometimes.

I'll do some digging around, from memory there was an article hinting the DFW service will receive A380 equipment once the 3 class frames arrive... Today's A380 is capable just not in their current configuration offering...

I've done digging...

Qantas says it will continue to fly Boeing 747s on the Sydney-Texas route and may even introduce the Airbus A380 as demand grows, rather than switch to the smaller but long-range and more fuel efficient Dreamliner when the first of the next-gen jetliners arrives in 2015-2016.

http://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-consi...a380-for-dallas-fort-worth-service

EK413

[Edited 2013-03-01 17:39:47]


Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently onlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5638 posts, RR: 6
Reply 37, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2562 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 35):
Are you sure? I struggle to believe that an A380 would make more money for QF on SYD-HKG than on SYD-DFW-SYD if the latter would be unrestricted for passengers year round

The reason for the A380 on SYD-HKG is First class yields or so I've been told many times.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2515 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 36):
I've done digging...

The A380s they are referring to are 573t MTOW versions but the first 12 A380s they received are 560t MTOW versions I think. Open to correction on that, but I'm sure the 13th and 14th A380s which were to fly to DFW are more capable aircraft than all previous A380 deliveries QF have received.

Quoting gemuser (Reply 37):
The reason for the A380 on SYD-HKG is First class yields or so I've been told many times.

Interesting. The revenue would have to be fantastic to compensate for restrictions, which actually require more flights on SYD-LAX by 747s to carry the same number of people network-wide.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25165 posts, RR: 48
Reply 39, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2433 times:

Here are the load factors and average cargo tons per DOT reporting released so far for 2012.

I only did the Westbound leg, but time permitting at later stage can do the Eastbound if anyone cares.

JFK-LAX
Month - Pax LF - Avg Cargo LBS
Jan - 54.6% - 6605
Feb - 51.3% - 11785
Mar - 52.1% - 10116
Apr - 68.3% - 9163
May - 52.5% - 8763
Jun - 63.5% - 8778
Jul - 73.5% - 6538
Aug - 55.2% - 10284
(note switch from A332 back to 744 was made in May12).

Btw here is a comment attributed to Alan Joyce about JFK...

"One downside is that, by cutting capacity into Los Angeles, the Los Angeles – New York tag loses about 15% of its feed. Joyce stated that the Los Angeles – New York tag was marginal, so how does reducing its feed by 15% whilst concurrently putting on more capacity (LAX-JFK moves to a B747) add up?"

Also apparently back 2010 QF said there was insufficient feed via LAX even for the A330 operation to JFK.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2194 times:

Cool, thanks for the figures. With an OEW of around 184t and MZFW around 250t and 18t of pax+bags, that revenue cargo is well short of maxed out.

The pax loads then aren't as tragic on LAX-JFK as some have suggested. Seems a loss leader of course.


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...
Will AA Go All 738 (and A 777) On MIA-LAX? posted Mon Oct 19 2009 18:55:18 by N62NA
Will AN Go All Airbus? posted Fri Feb 1 2002 02:19:08 by Flyinghighboy
Will QF 93/4 MEL-LAX) Be An A380 By December 2008? posted Fri Jan 25 2008 19:03:23 by QantasHeavy
Will QF's HKG-LHR/BKK-LHR/AKL-LAX Ever Return? posted Tue Apr 10 2012 02:50:33 by United Airline
Will QF's Soon-to-go Routes Be Back Again One Day? posted Sat Oct 8 2011 10:49:22 by United Airline
Will AF Go A380 On HKG-CDG? posted Mon Sep 5 2011 21:01:21 by United Airline
Will QF Make A Wunala Dreaming A380? posted Fri Aug 13 2010 12:18:39 by will777
When Will QF Operate A380 SYD-BKK-LHR? posted Sat Mar 6 2010 16:48:56 by EK413
Will QF/SQ/BA/LH Go For More A380s? posted Wed Feb 24 2010 20:02:28 by United Airline
QF A380 LAX, Flt 6021 posted Mon Feb 16 2009 17:22:36 by QANTAS747-438