Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SSJ100 To Get FAA Airworthiness Certificate  
User currently onlineWayfarer515 From Honduras, joined Dec 2013, 209 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9033 times:

An interesting link ( in Russian only,sorry) where UAC President Mikhail Pogosyan announces the SSJ100 will soon be granted its airworthiness certificate by the FAA. Probably, the most interesting part is that Mr. Pogosyan mentions there have been several US airlines who have expressed interest in the SSJ100.

http://www.vedomosti.ru/companies/ne...blizhajshee-vremya-mozhet-poluchit


It would be quite interesting to know which carriers could be interested in it. I recently read another article from an airline strategist that mentioned how the SSJ100 would be a very interesting airplane for an LCC/ULCC operation, due to its low acquisition cost, ample cabin room, cargo bins/cargo bay, and low fuel consumption.

IIRC UTAIR's SSJ100LR will come in a single class arrangement of up to 103Y pax. with 29" pitch. Interjet's SSJ100 single class configuration is for 93Y with a 34" pitch. Armavia had a 98Y with 32" pitch configuration. Interjet seems to be performing quite well with its LCC-like operation with the SSJ100 (IAJ is a hybrid with some Southwest-esque features), so it doesn't seem you have to turn it into a tuna can with a 29" pitch to make it profitable.

51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6346 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (5 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 9020 times:

IIRC, the one issue that holds back FAA certification of the SSJ100 is that the engines don't meet the US FAR fan blade containment requirements in a fan blade failure case...wonder how they plan to address this one    Other than that, they are in pretty good shape as the aircraft holds a European type certificate.


Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 695 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (5 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8250 times:

bump.

If true, this puts more heat on the CSeries. But they're clearly feeling it regardless.


User currently offlinetyler81190 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 676 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8208 times:

Quoting Wayfarer515 (Thread starter):
It would be quite interesting to know which carriers could be interested in it.

As a joke, Ill throw ZK out there... now that the laughing is out of the way, I would more seriously suggest possibly NK, or maybe even F9. Though if you throw in a F cabin and bring it below scope clauses, perhaps some regional operators would buy. Or perhaps a larger airline? But I have no speculation on what company would best suit the SSJ.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 1):
IIRC, the one issue that holds back FAA certification of the SSJ100 is that the engines don't meet the US FAR fan blade containment requirements in a fan blade failure case...wonder how they plan to address this one    Other than that, they are in pretty good shape as the aircraft holds a European type certificate.

I would assume a simple engine cowl re-design would solve this, assuming there isn't a major weight change for this. )also probably a costly change for FAA certification) Though it could be that the newer build SSJs have already solved the issue and we just don't know about it yet.

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 2):
If true, this puts more heat on the CSeries. But they're clearly feeling it regardless.

If BBD feels anymore heat they might as well re-locate their offices to Mercury. I wish the c-series program the best, but there have been so many delays and issues with the program with no firm interest in it.


User currently offlinethenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2384 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (5 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7988 times:

The SSJ and the CSeries do not compete against each other. They cover two different market segments.

If anything, Embraer should be worried, as the SSJ competes directly with the E170/190.

Quoting tyler81190 (Reply 3):
with no firm interest in it.

That's not entirely BBD's fault. Boeing and airbus screwed up with the 787 and the A380, and so airlines are playing it safe with the Cseries just in case. The orders will come once initial deliveries commence next year.

BBD is doing good, considering the Cseries is a clean sheet FBW design and a first under wing engined aircraft for BBD. Delays are to be expected. Still nothing compared to the delays of the A380 and 787!

Thenoflyzone

[Edited 2014-02-25 22:16:50]


us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6123 posts, RR: 34
Reply 5, posted (5 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 7895 times:

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 4):
The SSJ and the CSeries do not compete against each other. They cover two different market segments.

The SSJ100 and the CS100 do compete against each other as they are both considered in the 100-seat market. People have this misguided notion that if aircraft don't have the exact same seating configuration that they do not compete.

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 4):
BBD is doing good

Based on...

- The very poor order book?

- Multiple last minute delays?

- The very slow pace of test flights?

- The lack of credibility?

- The firing of the CSeries chief salesman?

- The lay off of 1,700 aerospace workers?



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently onlineWayfarer515 From Honduras, joined Dec 2013, 209 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7829 times:

I´ll try not to turn this into a BBD vrs Sukhoi thread, as my intended OP was to highlight the fact that UAC announced that they should be getting their FAA certificate soon.

That said, if we had to compare the CS100 vrs the SSJ100 programs, I'd say Sukhoi has done a much better job, especially if you consider the excellent reliability record the SSJ100 has shown if we take out Aeroflot, which we can say has a very shady business going on with its SSJ100´s.

If BBD manages to get a similar reliability to the SSJ100 then the delays will be worthwhile, if they delay it ala Boeing 787 only to turn out a cucumber, then they are going to get in very deep you know what.

Back on topic, I am pretty sure Powerjet International was already undergoing tests to comply with the FAA´s blade containment requirement. That said though, the SAM-146 has been undergoing with this and a weight reduction program for quite a while now, so its probably not linked with any potential orders from a US carrier.

I'd think a 103 seat SSJ100 for airlines such as NK would be perfect for some of their thin routes during low season such as SAP.

Regarding the price, I am pretty sure you can get a SSJ100 for the same list price as an E70, so it is a very good bargain for the amount of seats or extra room you can get.

Let's wait and see what happens.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7693 posts, RR: 21
Reply 7, posted (5 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7763 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Let's hope it happens. I'd love to see a bit of a roll for the SSJ, following the positive InterJet assessment and so on. I know the frame is still apparently having some maturation issues such as flap problems, not to mention the fan blade containment factor required for certification, as mentioned earlier by another here. I still genuinely think this plane is going to do certainly a lot more business than looked likely at one stage, and possibly - with a good bit of luck - even end up doing reasonably well overall, particularly given the generally challenging circumstances of the project (particularly the mere fact it's of Russian-led production/origin) .


✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineaviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 611 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (5 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7710 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 1):

Airplane and Engine has EASA certification (the same as airbus birds indeed)
I guess FAA certification is only paperworks. Is it?


User currently offlinesturmovik From India, joined May 2007, 509 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7560 times:

Quoting Wayfarer515 (Reply 6):
especially if you consider the excellent reliability record the SSJ100 has shown if we take out Aeroflot, which we can say has a very shady business going on with its SSJ100´s.

Could you elaborate on the shady business a bit more? If you think it'll derail the thread, you could PM me.

Off topic, is there any further news from Morocco on the SSJ trials?



'What's it doing now?'
User currently offlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 655 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (5 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7490 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 5):
- The lay off of 1,700 aerospace workers?

Just to clarify, about these 1,700 layoffs:

- 600 are from Learjet Wichita facility (Lear 70/75 decreasing production and Lear85 slower ramp-up)
- Between 300 and 400 from IT department (mainly in Mtl)
- Between 100 and 200 from Toronto (DHC) facility (Lear 70/75 and Q400 decreasing production)
- The remaining are mostly temporary contract workers in Montreal laid off due to slowing production on the CL605 and production ramp-up slower than expected (because of delays) on the CSeries.
- Among these 1700, an undisclosed number can apply on available jobs on other programs if they are qualified.


User currently offlinethenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2384 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (5 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7306 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 5):
- The very poor order book?

So did the B737 back in the sixties, but yes, you are right, we all know how that turned out to be a flop.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 5):
- Multiple last minute delays?

- The very slow pace of test flights?

Details that need to be tweaked. It's normal. What do you want. It'll all be forgotten once the plane is delivered next year.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 5):
- The lack of credibility?

says who?

Quoting planemaker (Reply 5):
- The firing of the CSeries chief salesman?

About time, he was doing a shity job ! The entire marketing team should be fired !

Quoting planemaker (Reply 5):
The lay off of 1,700 aerospace workers?

Typical knee jerk reaction by management. You see it everywhere ! In BBD's case, it has more to do with cash flow problems than anything else. They'll all be back within a year or two.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 5):
they are both considered in the 100-seat market

Since when is a plane that can carry 108 to 160 passengers considered to be a 100 seater?

The lightest Cseries is 10 tonnes heavier than the heaviest SSJ, can carry almost 3 tonnes more payload, and fly 1000 km further. That's direct competition alright.

Now do the same with the E-190/5. Tell me which once is more of a direct competition.

Thenoflyzone

[Edited 2014-02-26 07:08:10]


us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 695 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (5 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7284 times:

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 11):

Since when is a plane that can carry 108 to 160 passengers considered to be a 100 seater?

The lightest Cseries is 10 tonnes heavier than the heaviest SSJ, can carry almost 3 tonnes more payload, and fly 1000 km further. That's direct competition alright.

Now do the same with the E-190/5. Tell me which once is more of a direct competition.

I actually thought they were closer peers than that. And yes, sorry to make things more of a BBD discussion... I just wanted this thread to continue. More in the OP's line, why *would* US airlines want the SSJ. For missions with 90 seats? So it's definitely for regionals?


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6123 posts, RR: 34
Reply 13, posted (5 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7147 times:

Quoting queb (Reply 10):
Just to clarify, about these 1,700 layoffs:

  

Bombardier laying off 1,700 aerospace workers, mostly in Montreal area

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 11):
So did the B737 back in the sixties, but yes, you are right, we all know how that turned out to be a flop.

Honestly, there is absolutely no parallel between the 737's history and the CSeries nor, more importantly, between Boeing and BBD.

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 11):
Details that need to be tweaked. It's normal. What do you want. It'll all be forgotten once the plane is delivered next year.

BBD said the delay was to the second half of 2015. With the pace of the program it could easily slip into 2016. There is even the possibility that the A320NEO could EIS before the CS100.

BTW, it isn't "normal" when BBD "bragged" in the lead up to the missed original first flight date at the end of 2012 that they had ensured that they wouldn't have any delays.

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 11):
says who?

There isn't an industry periodical or financial newspaper that says otherwise.

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 11):
Typical knee jerk reaction by management. You see it everywhere ! In BBD's case, it has more to do with cash flow problems than anything else. They'll all be back within a year or two.

It is permanent...

Quote:
MONTREAL - Bombardier is permanently laying off 1,700 employees in its aerospace division
Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 11):
Since when is a plane that can carry 108 to 160 passengers considered to be a 100 seater?

If you look at Bombardier's own marketing material it states that the CSeries family (CS100 & CS300) is in the 100 to 149 seat market category. The CS100 which is being discussed obviously doesn't carry 108 to 160 pax as you imply.

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 11):
The lightest Cseries is 10 tonnes heavier than the heaviest SSJ, can carry almost 3 tonnes more payload, and fly 1000 km further. That's direct competition alright.

As stated previously, no two aircraft have the same seat configuration. Airlines will look at all aircraft in a seat segment and will decide which one is best for their network based on several factors - seat configuration is just one single factor. For example, JetBlue founder David Neeleman flew up to Mirabel to check out the CRJ900 before ultimately choosing the E190.

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 12):
sorry to make things more of a BBD discussion.

Getting back to the SSJ... if the Russians can spend $50-billion just to "win" hockey gold at home (Ovechkin's pre-Olympic joke that backfired!) what's a billion to get FAA certification?  



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6346 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (5 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6976 times:

Quoting aviaponcho (Reply 8):


Airplane and Engine has EASA certification (the same as airbus birds indeed)
I guess FAA certification is only paperworks. Is it?

Yes, but I believe the EASA and FAA differ on at least the fan blade containment requirements...

I'm sure that the FAA will take the EASA's word on tests already performed, but require any tests that aren't part of the EASA's certification regimen. I'm not feeling like pouring through FAR Part 25 and the EASA equivalent regulations to find out what those might be 



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineaviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 611 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (5 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6886 times:

http://avia.superforum.fr/t1023-sam146-powerjet#17515

For sure Sam146 has passed Fan Blade of

An148/158 engine (D436) is russian certified and has not passed fan blade off.

Tell me if i'm wrong ?


User currently offlinemuwarriors From United States of America, joined May 2005, 291 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (5 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6780 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 13):

What's funny is the article you link to backs up his numbers exactly. The article states 1100 jobs were to be from Canada (1700-600 in Witchita = 1100). The article further states 80% of the Canadian jobs are to be from Montreal (1100-200 from Toronto = 900. 900/1100=81.8%). The article also says some of these folks will be recalled, when conditions warrant. So yeah, you sorta proved him right.

I'm not commenting on the rest of you're opinion, but a little more than a knee-jerk anti-BBD reaction may occasionally be helpful.


User currently offlinearyonoco From Australia, joined May 2012, 183 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6652 times:

Why don't we setup a dedicated thread about BBD and C Series business case since it looks like that's greatly wanted? First the C Series flight testing thread was hijacked for this and now this SSJ thread. I have no objections to discussions about where BBD job cuts are going to fall, but it really is OT here.

User currently onlineWayfarer515 From Honduras, joined Dec 2013, 209 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6425 times:

Quoting aryonoco (Reply 17):
Why don't we setup a dedicated thread about BBD and C Series business case since it looks like that's greatly wanted?

Couldn't agree more, lets keep the talk here about the SSJ100 FAA certification or at least the SSJ100

Quoting sturmovik (Reply 9):
Could you elaborate on the shady business a bit more? If you think it'll derail the thread, you could PM me.

Off topic, is there any further news from Morocco on the SSJ trials?

Ok, I have talked about this extensively in other SSJ100 threads, but to make it short I'll say the following: When AFL agreed to buy the SSJ100, supposedly due to big pressure from Mr Putin, AFL required a penalty clause in which SCAC would pay compensation to AFL every time an SSJ100 went tech., three years later and guess what. The average utilization rate of the SSJ100 in AFL is just about 5 hrs. per day, with about half of the currently available ten airframes being grounded all the time. Compare that to Interjet, Sky Aviation, Yakutia, SSJ100 fleets and you see a big gap, especially when IAJ announces their SSJ100 fly nearly 10hrs per day, all airframes being used simultaneously and dispatch reliability well above 99%. So that's why now everyone is wondering if AFL is intentionally grounding their SSJ100 fleet.

About the RAM and SSJ100, it seems this one will go to BBD and their CRJ1000NG, since there is a big component factory in Morocco producing parts for guess who, BBD CRJ1000NG. It would be very stupid of them not to go with BBD.


User currently offlinesturmovik From India, joined May 2007, 509 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (5 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6412 times:

Quoting Wayfarer515 (Reply 18):

Thanks a lot for that info!  



'What's it doing now?'
User currently offlinelollomz From Italy, joined Sep 2005, 256 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6327 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Any idea about the US Airlines who have expressed interest in the SSJ-100???

User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2740 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (5 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 6277 times:

We know that 4O is currently flying the SSJ100 on its Mexico routes.

With this, I'm assuming that 4O will not be allowed to fly any routes with the SSJ100 into the U.S. until the SSJ100 gets certified by the FAA, that would be correct, yes?

Also, is 4O currently only permitted to fly these inside of Mexico, since so far we know that the government of Mexico has certified this plane. Have any other countries, such as in Central America, or in the Caribbean, where 4O would physically be able to route the SSJ100, of approved this plane.... e.g. could 4O tomorrow put this on its MEX-GUA route, do we know if Guatemala has certified this plane, or what other countries have certified? Although I would assume that probably Cuba has certified this plane, but could the SSJ100 be substituted on the 1100 mile MEX-HAV route tomorrow, does it have the range for this?

Or will the SSJ100 remain inside of Mexico's boarders for a while?

 


User currently offlineAquila3 From Italy, joined Nov 2010, 251 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (5 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 6229 times:

I think most of the countries you have named would be just fine with the EASA certification. It is not like the SSJ100 was certified in the Soviet Union. Or not that it comes from a place whre they have no clue and are entering the aerospace industry just now, like a few other that just come OTOH.

BTW I am not sure that even to fly to the USA for an airline with Mexico (or EU, for what matters) certificate a FAA approval is necessary. I believe the EASA would suffice, but I will stand corrected if not.

Then, about the (welcomed, in my opinion) modifications in order to get the blade-off containment, if they would cost one billion, as it was said by someone that seems well informed, then they might just go for a re-engine with a more modern unit. That would make the SSJ a killer. But I believe this is not the scope of the project as it was intended at the beginning, at least. The SSJ I believe was done from such airlines and such countries that need a viable, reliable,modern product taking care of the budget. In such countries sometimes the cost of the fuel is less a burden than here. For the ones tha want the top-notch of the technology and the efficiency there will be (very soon I hope) the CS100.



chi vola vale chi vale vola chi non vola è un vile
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4680 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (5 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6182 times:

Quoting point2point (Reply 21):
With this, I'm assuming that 4O will not be allowed to fly any routes with the SSJ100 into the U.S. until the SSJ100 gets certified by the FAA, that would be correct, yes?

No. Not having FAA certification only means you can't register it in the USA, but flying there (or anywhere else for that matter) is perfectly fine. Most Soviet/Russian aircraft don't have a FAA certification, yet operate commercial services to the USA.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6123 posts, RR: 34
Reply 24, posted (5 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6055 times:

For those interested in a closer peek, a 360 dynamic tour (with zoom) of the cockpit and cabin is available half way down the page at the "Cabin" section on the SuperJet International website.
.
http://www.superjetinternational.com/wp-content/uploads/cabin_main.jpg
.
http://www.scac.ru/en/wp-content/uploads/cockpit_cut-2-rendered-3_en.jpg
.
http://www.scac.ru/en/wp-content/uploads/cabin_main.jpg



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
25 bjorn14 : Will this be the first Russian craft to get FAA certification? BTW, I can't see any US carrier configuring it for 103 pax . 1 more FA for just 3 seats
26 Post contains images point2point : Thanks for the info.... and I've wondered the process of such here...... and I learned something new today. Let's keep our fingers crossed now so tha
27 mhkansan : G4 has 156-seat A319s. I have no idea why they thought that was a good idea.
28 Post contains images argonaught : I thought that (uncle) SAM-146 is a rather new design, developed by Snecma specifically for the SSJ100? The cabin is very impressive, by the way. I a
29 Post contains links A342 : No, there are some already: Ilyushin IL-96T and IL-103 as well as the Beriev Be-103. The first is a freighter derivative of the IL-96 with PW2000 eng
30 Post contains links and images planemaker : Some details... (though they should train the pit crews to load the luggage better!) . . . Yes, that is the Pininfarina interior.
31 Post contains links Wayfarer515 : So IAJ's CEO Jose Luis Garza has confirmed today that the FAA has granted IAJ the certificate to operate the SSJ100 to USA. Only link I could find is
32 TheRedBAron : I bet they will use it in MEX-SAT... almost 100% sure. TRB
33 a300 : True. Aeroflot flew into IL-62s into JFK for many years during the Cold War and IL-96s into LAX immediately after the fall of Soviet Union.
34 rwessel : For a few years in the 90s, IL-76s were a regular sight in the cargo area at ORD.
35 r2rho : Glad this thread is now back on track. As has been mentioned, FAA certification is not needed to operate into the US. Which means that if they're aimi
36 Wayfarer515 : If the cruise fuel consumption is anything to go by, I've seen SSJ100's doing 1400 kg/h, dunno for sure what is the CF-34 in the E190 capable of but
37 DTWPurserBoy : I think the current politial tension between the US and Russia will preclude any immediate sales and the aircraft may well be part of any embargo that
38 argonaught : A bit off-topic: I'd predict that the mainland Ukraine will eventually join EU, which will likely bring an end to Antonov as an (independent) manufac
39 Post contains links Wayfarer515 : In the meantime, IAJ gets its 6th SSJ100, and their numbers continue to look impressive: From the article: The five SSJ100s in service with Interjet a
40 kmot : What is the list price of the SSJ100?
41 nws2002 : All of G4's aircraft use 4 flight attendants except the 757. I read somewhere that their load factors exceed 90%, so I imagine those 6 seats are ofte
42 argonaught : I think it's $35m apiece, but there are different versions (Basic, LR, Full, Light). For some reason, the figure of $24m has stuck in my mind as the
43 Wayfarer515 : Supposedly the "actual" selling price for the B(for Basic) version is around 24-25M USD give or take, that's about 4 to 6 million lower than the "act
44 Wayfarer515 : The D.O.T. has extended the following flight certificates to IAJ, wonder if any of these will be covered with the SSJ-100: Ciudad de México-San Anton
45 Wayfarer515 : Speaking of certifications, it seems the SSJ100 has been doing supplemental certifications at Karlovy Vary, supposedly they are testing the latest sof
46 AM744 : Wow. Can it make JFK from MEX? Doesn't look like it, but I don't know.
47 AR385 : I thought I heard they were planning to used them on medium density routes from MTY, to compete with AM connect which is making a lot of mony doing t
48 TheRedBAron : Its possible MTY used as a hub for other USA cities, with feeding traffic from MEX ... TRB
49 AR385 : Boy I hope so. I´d love to go on a Saturday joyride on the that Superjet!
50 Wayfarer515 : Yeah, that seems to be the next part of the strategy with IAJ's superjets. I think Monterrey and Hermosillo were mentioned as secondary hubs for the
51 Post contains links Wayfarer515 : Speaking of IAJ, today's press release from SJI shows zero cancellations and dispatch reliability of 98.95% from the SSJ100 IAJ fleet in its first six
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...
Royal Air Maroc To Get Its First SSJ100? posted Tue Mar 4 2014 19:14:58 by Wayfarer515
FAA Overhaul: Pilots To Get More Rest. posted Fri Sep 10 2010 06:15:33 by fxramper
UA - CO Announce Path To Single FAA Certificate posted Wed Sep 1 2010 16:42:33 by LAXintl
FAA: Crowded Skies To Get More Crowded posted Fri Mar 16 2007 16:40:52 by MaverickM11
FAA Says LGA To Get New Tower posted Fri Sep 29 2006 14:27:57 by Jumbojet
DL - TVC To Get 5 Mainline Flights/day posted Wed Feb 19 2014 21:25:43 by PSU.DTW.SCE
TransAsia Slated To Get US$20-million Settlement posted Mon Dec 9 2013 19:13:28 by BreninTW
Rwandair To Get First B787, (ln17) (unofficial) posted Wed Nov 27 2013 23:45:16 by migair54
Easa To Follow FAA On PED posted Wed Nov 13 2013 12:58:10 by bioyuki
South Africa To Get New Low-Cost Airline posted Tue Aug 27 2013 23:39:56 by SA7700