Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No Tatl From Stansted?  
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3411 posts, RR: 2
Posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9313 times:

As probably rhe 3rd largest airport in London why no TATL service at STN? I know AA attempted it some time ago but is the eastside catchment area that bad or is FR holding things up? Thoughts?


"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16857 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9262 times:

CO also briefly operated EWR-STN, with a daily 757. If a connection were to be reestablished between STN and the US it would most likely be via a LCC carrier.


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineLX138 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2009, 396 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9206 times:

A number of things:

- The UK long haul carriers have no or little service from STN
- The US carriers would prefer to fly to a hub airport that also offers connections (STN has minimal)
- LHR has traditionally served better the areas where people are then travelling onwards within the UK and vice versa.

Not aware of FR having anything to do with it apart from their holding of a large slot pool at the airport.



StarWorld Team - The ultimate airline alliance
User currently offlineLondonCity From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2008, 1481 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 9057 times:

Also Eos tried STN-NYC but failed. Also note that STN faces competition from BA's all J class flight ex-LCY to JFK. LCY must nearer to London's business zones than is STN.

User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7396 posts, RR: 17
Reply 4, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 8868 times:

How far is STN from the London Center of population and the center of the tourist destinations?


次は、渋谷、渋谷。出口は、右側です。電車とホームの間は広く開いておりますので、足元に注意下さい。
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7694 posts, RR: 21
Reply 5, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 8803 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bjorn14 (Thread starter):
As probably rhe 3rd largest airport in London

What does 'probably' mean here? There's nowhere even close to beating it to third place.

Quoting bjorn14 (Thread starter):
why no TATL service at STN?

Because it's a LCC fortress. Until such time as someone creates a decent TATL low-cost model, it's going to stay as it is.

Quoting bjorn14 (Thread starter):
I know AA attempted it some time ago

The last time they operated the route it was a blatantly cynical ploy to kill Eos and Maxjet - and it worked. As soon as they were gone, AA pulled out quicker than greased weasel.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 4):
How far is STN from the London Center of population and the center of the tourist destinations?

Not particularly. One of people's favourite criticisms of STN is to suggest that it's unreasonably far from London and so on, but against many major international airports around the world it compares quite well for distance from the city it serves. If you take the train, you can get to the centre of London in under 40 minutes.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7396 posts, RR: 17
Reply 6, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 8741 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 5):
Not particularly. One of people's favourite criticisms of STN is to suggest that it's unreasonably far from London and so on, but against many major international airports around the world it compares quite well for distance from the city it serves. If you take the train, you can get to the centre of London in under 40 minutes.

That's better than the 90 it takes from NRT to Shinjuku



次は、渋谷、渋谷。出口は、右側です。電車とホームの間は広く開いておりますので、足元に注意下さい。
User currently offlinerutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 2981 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 8641 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 4):
How far is STN from the London Center of population and the center of the tourist destinations?

Its about 35 miles from the city and 15 miles from the suburbs.

It located North East of the city and has a direct motorway link right up to the base of the Canary Wharf business district and a direct heavy rail service to Liverpool Street Station right at the edge of the square mile.

This airport and Gatwick are actually better connected to the business districts than Heathrow its a conundrum !


User currently offlinetrent900 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 528 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 8606 times:

AT the moment there's no sign of any TATL flights or even long haul for that matter.

Terminal improvements will be completed by the end of 2015 so hopefully we should see some movement with regards
to new airlines and routes during the second half of 2014 into 2015. The MAG Stansted website has a few bits of info.

http://www.stanstedairport.com/about-us/airport-improvements

D.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7694 posts, RR: 21
Reply 9, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 8451 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 6):
That's better than the 90 it takes from NRT to Shinjuku

Exactly, and there are numerous other such examples. It still doesn't stop people making foolish comments about it being 'far away' with monotonous regularity though.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7461 posts, RR: 17
Reply 10, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8261 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 4):
How far is STN from the London Center of population and the center of the tourist destinations?

By road from Charing Cross these are the airport distances:

LCY: 9 miles
LHR: 15 miles
LGW: 28 miles
LTN: 35 miles
STN: 38 miles

Charing Cross is the point from which distances are measured for enumeration on road signs reading "London x miles" throughout the UK. It is a short walkn from Trafalgar Square, is east of Westminster and Buckingham Palace, south of the West End and East of St Pauls and the City financial district..


User currently offlinetravelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3494 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8105 times:

I could imagine that STN would be a good option for the pharma/tech community for people going to/coming from the Cambridge area.

I know when I worked for a big biotech company, I had to fly to LHR and rent a car and drive to Cambridge, which was kind of a pain. I passed STN on the way and thought it would be a good option. I guess there's not enough of that traffic to make it sustainable, however.


User currently offlineYYZYYT From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 948 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7884 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 4):
How far is STN from the London Center of population and the center of the tourist destinations?

Zoom used to fly there from YYZ (and possibly elsewhere in Canada). I enjoyed the smaller airport, and didn't mind the extra drive into London; not sure that I would have been as happy if I had taken the train (I seem to recall that the train option was less than ideal).

I would consider it again, if offered....


User currently offlinesonomaflyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1762 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7861 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

There are many of us who would LOVE a STN option from the states. Unfortunately, the airlines are hyperfocused on using "main" i.e. hub airports to maximize connection options for onward flying passengers which in turn raises the traffic on those flights.

Flights to STN would be point-to-point and likely low(er) yielding. Given the yield challenges, costs of fuel and other factors, TATL airlines are very reluctant to venture out beyond LHR.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7694 posts, RR: 21
Reply 14, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7813 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting YYZYYT (Reply 12):
not sure that I would have been as happy if I had taken the train (I seem to recall that the train option was less than ideal).

The train station is right under the terminal and takes just shy of 40 mins on the fastest services to get to London Liverpool Street. They are very regular and while not cheap, they're certainly cheaper than similar services in many other countries. What exactly is supposed to be so bad about it?



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineSTNspotter From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2012, 14 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7626 times:

Quoting LX138 (Reply 2):
The US carriers would prefer to fly to a hub airport that also offers connections (STN has minimal)

STN has lots of connections to niche destinations all over Europe via FR. Many of which don't even have any other form of international services. However, I think this would mean that only a LCC would be successful in attracting this kind of connecting traffic and we all know how long haul low cost travel has fared in the past (probably why FR is yet to even attempt such a thing).


User currently offlinecanyonblue17 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6744 times:

I remember flying STN to DUB roundtrip on Ryanair in 1994. STN was a ghost town back then. I remember wondering how such a convenient and modern airport in such a huge city had so little service. The train ride I took to get there from London was a piece of cake. Lines were non-existent and the facility was spotless. Even then it was obvious the airport could easily accommodate TATL service. With all the debate over expanding LHR, there must be a way to spend less money and inconvenience less people, by further developing flight availability at STN instead. Just my 2 cents.

User currently offlineWJ From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 345 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 6383 times:

I used to fly to STN frequently when it was available, EOS then AA. Other than having an East London destination need, the best thing about the TATL service into STN, is that the visitor passport control was always empty, as all other customers were UK/EU. It was always a breeze. You compare that to trying to get through LHR T-4 or T1/2/3 immigration in the middle of the morning... ugh... makes me tear up.


146,727,732,733,734,735,73G,738,739,742,743,744,752,753,762,763,764,772,300,310,319,320,321,330,343,DC9,D10,MD11,M80,E17
User currently offlinehaggisman From Canada, joined Feb 2010, 71 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5939 times:

Quoting WJ (Reply 17):
I used to fly to STN frequently when it was available, EOS then AA. Other than having an East London destination need, the best thing about the TATL service into STN, is that the visitor passport control was always empty, as all other customers were UK/EU. It was always a breeze. You compare that to trying to get through LHR T-4 or T1/2/3 immigration in the middle of the morning... ugh... makes me tear up.

I flew on Nationair from there to Toronto in the early 90's - very quiet airport. But getting there is a royal pain in the butt



e pluribus Scotsman
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3229 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5676 times:

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 13):

Flights to STN would be point-to-point and likely low(er) yielding. Given the yield challenges, costs of fuel and other factors, TATL airlines are very reluctant to venture out beyond LHR.

Big Airways wants to serve XYZ-LON, they have the choice of LHR, LGW or STN.
Taking the same equipment type and factoring in costs at each airport, a higher yield is usually generated in the order LHR, LGW, STN. Hence if Big Airways can access the London market via LHR, it's a no brainer. It does not matter how many people would "prefer" a STN option, in this particular market there is no compelling reason to choose STN over LHR, as they both serve the London market wth any cost saving at STN cancelled out by much lower yields.

Quoting canyonblue17 (Reply 16):
With all the debate over expanding LHR, there must be a way to spend less money and inconvenience less people, by further developing flight availability at STN

That's the Mirabel argument, build it and they will (not) come. Airlines are businesses who have to follow the money, one bad year can kill any business.


User currently offlineplanesavvy From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 65 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3976 times:

The irony being that, if LCCs allowed feed, Stansted would be a fantastic airport for connections to European cities with the massive destination list.

User currently onlinevhtje From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2009, 371 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3916 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting travelin man (Reply 11):
I could imagine that STN would be a good option for the pharma/tech community for people going to/coming from the Cambridge area.

I know when I worked for a big biotech company, I had to fly to LHR and rent a car and drive to Cambridge, which was kind of a pain. I passed STN on the way and thought it would be a good option. I guess there's not enough of that traffic to make it sustainable, however.

You'd think that, yes, but there is significant resistance locally to any plans to expand Stansted. There is a reason why there are no exits on the long stretch of the M11 from Bishop's Stortford (i.e. Stansted airport) all the way to the A11 exit at Great Chesterford - all the people living amongst the gently rolling hills in those pretty Suffolk/Essex border villages agitated against it.

That same political will - and political connectivity - will stymie further growth at Stansted.


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4197 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3627 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 19):

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 13):

Flights to STN would be point-to-point and likely low(er) yielding. Given the yield challenges, costs of fuel and other factors, TATL airlines are very reluctant to venture out beyond LHR.

Big Airways wants to serve XYZ-LON, they have the choice of LHR, LGW or STN.
Taking the same equipment type and factoring in costs at each airport, a higher yield is usually generated in the order LHR, LGW, STN. Hence if Big Airways can access the London market via LHR, it's a no brainer. It does not matter how many people would "prefer" a STN option, in this particular market there is no compelling reason to choose STN over LHR, as they both serve the London market wth any cost saving at STN cancelled out by much lower yields.

Quoting canyonblue17 (Reply 16):
With all the debate over expanding LHR, there must be a way to spend less money and inconvenience less people, by further developing flight availability at STN

That's the Mirabel argument, build it and they will (not) come. Airlines are businesses who have to follow the money, one bad year can kill any business.

This is the crux of any argument against airports being developed along side the main airport for the city. YMX could have been the main gateway to Canada as it was very well planned out but politics and lack of a major highway killed YMX. In Canada rail connections just are not what they could be due to lack of a market to draw from and if the planned road and rail connections to YMX were ever to have been built then you could have had a great airport. STN has the same problem but to a lesser extent, they have a major motorway connections but the rail connections are poor and thus you have a LCC airport but not a major draw for people who don't live in the UK. You arrive there and then what?



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3229 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3204 times:

Quoting planesavvy (Reply 20):
The irony being that, if LCCs allowed feed, Stansted would be a fantastic airport for connections to European cities with the massive destination list.

That would mean a legacy codesharing with Ryanair or easyJet, something against both business models. No existing legacy long haul carrier really does this? I mean I don't fly to the US on United to connect with Southwest on a code share, the Southwest bit is an added cost, which I am happy to do on occasion. US legacies already have existing connections, better ones with lounge access and premium facilites in branded new terminals.

As of next summer at LHR :
AC STAR T2
UA STAR T2
DL Skyteam T4
DL VS T3
BA T3 T5

They all have feed on exising alliance partners, they would be adding nothing and losing a lot by adding STN. Be interesting to see if DY manage to do something loco with short / long haul at Gatters though.


User currently offlineLX138 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2009, 396 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3056 times:

Quoting STNspotter (Reply 15):
STN has lots of connections to niche destinations all over Europe via FR. Many of which don't even have any other form of international services. However, I think this would mean that only a LCC would be successful in attracting this kind of connecting traffic and we all know how long haul low cost travel has fared in the past (probably why FR is yet to even attempt such a thing).

Yes but the full service long haul network carriers will not be able to interline with most of the LCC's as they do not participate in that form of business model (and the associated costs). And that is key. STN is neither a 'hub' airport either way.

Quoting canyonblue17 (Reply 16):
I remember flying STN to DUB roundtrip on Ryanair in 1994. STN was a ghost town back then. I remember wondering how such a convenient and modern airport in such a huge city had so little service. The train ride I took to get there from London was a piece of cake. Lines were non-existent and the facility was spotless.

Sadly times have changed. Peak periods at STN and the line for immigration has been nothing short of inhumane sometimes. It all kicked off a year ago when the Prime Minister even had to intervene. Getting through security on outbound can also be a painful experience.



StarWorld Team - The ultimate airline alliance
User currently offlineYYZYYT From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 948 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3129 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 14):
The train station is right under the terminal and takes just shy of 40 mins on the fastest services to get to London Liverpool Street. They are very regular and while not cheap, they're certainly cheaper than similar services in many other countries. What exactly is supposed to be so bad about it?

Hi... thanks, I recall now - to answer your question, the issue was that Liverpool Station (where the railway link ends) was further away from central London and out hotel (certainly further than the other airport expresses Victoria/Paddington).

That's not to say the link is not good in general / for other people, it just didn't work for us on that trip.


User currently offlinecanyonblue17 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3093 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 19):
That's the Mirabel argument, build it and they will (not) come. Airlines are businesses who have to follow the money, one bad year can kill any business.



All I am suggesting is that if you took the amount of money (a massive amount) it would cost to build a new airport or expand LHR and used it instead to improve access to Stansted (train/highway) and provide airline incentives to provide more European connections, wouldn't that potentially be a better option?


User currently offlineLondonCity From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2008, 1481 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3070 times:

Quoting YYZYYT (Reply 25):
the issue was that Liverpool Station (where the railway link ends) was further away from central London and out hotel (certainly further than the other airport expresses Victoria/Paddington).

The experienced traveller would take the Stansted Express to Tottenham Hale and then switch to the Victoria (London Underground) line. The Victoria line runs straight into and through the heart of London.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25117 posts, RR: 22
Reply 28, posted (9 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2546 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 22):
YMX could have been the main gateway to Canada as it was very well planned out but politics and lack of a major highway killed YMX.

Transportation links from Montreal to YMX aren't what killed Mirabel (and Montreal) as a major gateway to Canada. What did that was only moving international flights from YUL to YMX. How could Mirabel ever have been a major gateway to Canada when there were no flights to other points in Canada? No airport in the world has ever been a major gateway to the country when passengers were forced to change airports to continue to their final destination.


User currently offline2travel2know2 From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 2602 posts, RR: 1
Reply 29, posted (9 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2421 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 1):
If a connection were to be reestablished between STN and the US it would most likely be via a LCC carrier.

Or flown as an stop en-route to the States by an airline from a country which has 5th freedom rights between the U.K. and U.S.A.

Quoting planesavvy (Reply 20):
The irony being that, if LCCs allowed feed, Stansted would be a fantastic airport for connections to European cities with the massive destination list.

Even allowing passengers to check-in after immigration before or at baggage claim for continuing flights would attract more passengers.



I'm not on CM's payroll.
User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2168 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (9 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2404 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 28):
Transportation links from Montreal to YMX aren't what killed Mirabel (and Montreal) as a major gateway to Canada. What did that was only moving international flights from YUL to YMX. How could Mirabel ever have been a major gateway to Canada when there were no flights to other points in Canada? No airport in the world has ever been a major gateway to the country when passengers were forced to change airports to continue to their final destination.

Narita has managed. That is changing yes, but that was status quo for about thirty years.


User currently offlineStTim From UK - England, joined Aug 2013, 730 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (9 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2397 times:

Terrible place to get to if you live to the west. Also as stated no connecting services available as it is dominated by Ryanair whose business model doesn't support that approach.

Finally the car parks are miles away from the terminal. Longest transfer time of any aiprort I have used.


User currently offlinerutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 2981 posts, RR: 7
Reply 32, posted (9 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2371 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting luckyone (Reply 30):
Narita has managed. That is changing yes, but that was status quo for about thirty years.

Narita has an extensive range of connecting domestic flights !


User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3229 posts, RR: 1
Reply 33, posted (9 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2191 times:

Quoting canyonblue17 (Reply 26):
and provide airline incentives to provide more European connections, wouldn't that potentially be a better option?

They tried to incentivise massively when the new terminal opened in the early 90s, it didn't work.
No legacy carrier wants to use STN now, many have tried including AA, CFE, LH, SK etc

Only the locos can make it pay.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25117 posts, RR: 22
Reply 34, posted (9 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 2156 times:

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 32):
Quoting luckyone (Reply 30):Narita has managed. That is changing yes, but that was status quo for about thirty years.Narita has an extensive range of connecting domestic flights !

NRT has always had domestic services, at least to the major cities. YMX didn't.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26415 posts, RR: 75
Reply 35, posted (9 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 1878 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 5):
Not particularly. One of people's favourite criticisms of STN is to suggest that it's unreasonably far from London and so on, but against many major international airports around the world it compares quite well for distance from the city it serves. If you take the train, you can get to the centre of London in under 40 minutes.

The problem with the train is that it leaves you at Liverpool Street, where your choices are the overcrowded Central Line or the not always useful for business cut-and-cover lines.

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 7):
This airport and Gatwick are actually better connected to the business districts than Heathrow its a conundrum !

But are they really?

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 9):
Exactly, and there are numerous other such examples. It still doesn't stop people making foolish comments about it being 'far away' with monotonous regularity though.

Compared to LHR, LCY and LGW, its still farther. Even LTN is closer, and the road connections are better if you are taking a minicab.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 14):
The train station is right under the terminal and takes just shy of 40 mins on the fastest services to get to London Liverpool Street. They are very regular and while not cheap, they're certainly cheaper than similar services in many other countries. What exactly is supposed to be so bad about it?

They aren't cheap - and that is a big part of it. The Tube is a huge advantage for LHR. While its not ultra-fast, its cheap and will get you more central than a train to one of the termini.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
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...
Why No Transatlantic From CLE? posted Sat Aug 7 2010 11:19:51 by EGPH
Why No Connection From The Middle East To HKT/PEN? posted Tue Mar 9 2010 08:25:30 by gabrielchew
Why No Nonstop From USA-Tirana posted Wed Jul 9 2008 13:49:35 by A340Crew
Why No Orders From Airbus posted Thu Feb 21 2008 16:28:18 by Victor009
WHY NO Flights From PWM To Canada? posted Tue Mar 20 2007 02:54:48 by RoyalAtlantis
Why No Info From Pilots Anymore? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 06:48:27 by Aaden
Why No Carriers From The Persian Gulf To AMS? posted Fri Jun 3 2005 11:38:15 by Aviationfreak
Why No News From Boeing? posted Fri Feb 4 2005 18:41:59 by SNATH
Why No RJ From A Or B? posted Thu Jan 29 2004 20:55:15 by FlyPIJets
Why No Service From Hong Kong To Hawaii? posted Wed Feb 7 2001 06:33:41 by Hkgspotter1