Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
TheLunchbox
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2018 4:31 pm

Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

Sun Apr 05, 2020 1:06 pm

Incredible pics of the KLM.
 
B747forever
Posts: 13848
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 9:50 pm

Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

Sun Apr 05, 2020 1:53 pm

Currently on AA1228 (MIA-LAX) operated by a 77W. A grand total of 21pax onboard. Came in on AA1314 LAX-MIA a couple of days ago, also operated by a 77W with a load of about 32pax. Heading home and after a bunch of flights the last 2 weeks I am finally on my last flight for the coming weeks. Will be good to not roaming around the country during these trying times.
Work Hard, Fly Right
 
ArtV
Posts: 148
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 2:29 pm

Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

Sun Apr 05, 2020 2:41 pm

Is this what all flying will revert to in the near term - all domestic arrivals into HCMC (SGN) are mow being tested for Corona Virus? Now, there are very few domestic flights permitted at present in Vietnam, but this could become a necessity across the globe to stamp out the virus from being carried across countries in the short term....

https://tuoitrenews.vn/news/society/202 ... 53872.html
 
User avatar
Plane Holland
Posts: 468
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:27 pm

Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

Sun Apr 05, 2020 2:49 pm

qf789 wrote:
Plane Holland wrote:
KL828 on its return flight from Australia / Sydney to The Netherlands. 20 years later.

https://imgur.com/HppQi3M


A couple of photos of KLM departing SYD today

Image

Image

https://twitter.com/aussiepomm/status/1 ... 94721?s=20


Nice, some nice photos of the arrival too on that twitter account
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3577
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

Sun Apr 05, 2020 3:06 pm

xjetflyer2001 wrote:
In the Covid-19 Reference thread, it was posted that Thailand is no longer allowing inbound passenger flights and only cargo flights now allowed, but the article stated that the ban began on Saturday Morning and was lasting until Monday Night? so only 3 days? that seems odd, I'm guessing there will be a likely extension to that or the news article miss understood the ban time frame.

Also not sure if its the airport or just United Airlines, but just announced that EWR will be reduced to 15 daily flights and LGA down to 2 daily flights for 3 weeks starting tomorrow April 5th


Given how NJ and NY have been hard hit, I'm surprised that the LGA operation hasn't been suspended completely, with EWR handling only cargo, using the B789 and B78X fleet, once or twice daily, to other US hubs (excluding IAD), FRA, LHR, and TLV. Basically, besides those TATL ops, just SFO, LAX, DEN, IAH, and ORD.
 
VRHNM
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 2:02 pm

Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

Sun Apr 05, 2020 3:32 pm

UA has been operating some 77Ws into Hong Kong under UA2xxx flight numbers in the past two days. Does anybody know what these were for? Did they carry revenue passengers or ...?
At least 1 flight was bound for LAX. Unsure about the others.
 
Stickpusher
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 6:54 pm

Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

Sun Apr 05, 2020 4:13 pm

ArtV wrote:
Is this what all flying will revert to in the near term - all domestic arrivals into HCMC (SGN) are mow being tested for Corona Virus? Now, there are very few domestic flights permitted at present in Vietnam, but this could become a necessity across the globe to stamp out the virus from being carried across countries in the short term....

https://tuoitrenews.vn/news/society/202 ... 53872.html


Hopefully. When there are people making a case for unfettered access at times such as these, what they're really doing is making a case for extending the emergency. It's our connectedness that adds to the spectrum of threats that this completely new virus presents. I made a post the other day about this (presumably removed, possibly too factual for a few tender "souls" :o ) and why it isn't the same even as SARS. As a person married to someone in the UK's NHS, someone who's desperately trying to claw back doomed Covid-19 victims in a dedicated ITU, and losing several each week, it is utterly apparent to me why we should be closing all the loopholes that contagion finds though all our porous systems. C19 is especially virulent, it really isn't "business as usual".

When we have some countries far more responsive to the threat than others then international travel really needs this kind of check, the fact that Vietnam is enacting this domestically is an interesting development, since that really has to come with corresponding constraints on ground and sea journeys to be effective.

If the numbers of cases are accurately detected (and reported) then Vietnam is evidently and very smartly moving on the problem before it balloons the way it has in some European countries, and especially in the US. The more cases are allowed to develop the harder the problem becomes to contain. The European Union is usually very good about implementing the "precautionary principle", but there are obviously lessons to be learned from Vietnam, even in Europe, about timely and strong intervention. It's all about containment. Left unchecked, by people isolating themselves and their families - or governments mandating stay-at-home orders, the virus would halve our chances of responding every two days by doubling the number of hosts it is active in.

When the people to crew a particular flight come together from their respective families and then return to them, that in itself creates a significant vector for contagion.

This article provides some good info on the virus and the threat it represents.
 
dcajet
Posts: 4684
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 9:31 am

Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

Sun Apr 05, 2020 6:00 pm

dcajet wrote:
ojjunior wrote:

Also an unusual AC 77W service to EZE:

AC7052 from Toronto to Buenos Aires https://fr24.com/ACA7052/24518925


Repatriation flight for Canadians in Argentina. Over the past few days AC has operated similar flights to BOG & LIM




AC2017 leaving EZE for YYZ a few hours ago:

Image

https://twitter.com/CanadaArgentina/sta ... 8322757632
Keep calm and wash your hands.
 
Mortyman
Posts: 5856
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

Sun Apr 05, 2020 6:30 pm

Video of parked SAS, Norwegian and other airlines parked at Copenhagen airport:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gl08upuEyY


this is just sad to watch ...
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7071
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

Sun Apr 05, 2020 6:46 pm

Airbus, apart from greatly helping in the efforts to stop COVID-19, is also reaping a lot of goodwill and huge PR mileage for its aircraft line..... :goodvibes: .....

https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transp ... 50.article


Image
https://d3lcr32v2pp4l1.cloudfront.net/P ... 637175.jpg


Clever thinking by their marketing department presumably. :spin:
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
marcogr12
Posts: 430
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2018 2:36 pm

Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:23 pm

B747forever wrote:
Currently on AA1228 (MIA-LAX) operated by a 77W. A grand total of 21pax onboard. Came in on AA1314 LAX-MIA a couple of days ago, also operated by a 77W with a load of about 32pax. Heading home and after a bunch of flights the last 2 weeks I am finally on my last flight for the coming weeks. Will be good to not roaming around the country during these trying times.


Why would they deploy such a huge aircraft when bookings have gone spiralling downwards,instead of using sth. smaller of the CRJ series?
Flying is breathing..no planes no life..
 
32andBelow
Posts: 4965
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:36 pm

marcogr12 wrote:
B747forever wrote:
Currently on AA1228 (MIA-LAX) operated by a 77W. A grand total of 21pax onboard. Came in on AA1314 LAX-MIA a couple of days ago, also operated by a 77W with a load of about 32pax. Heading home and after a bunch of flights the last 2 weeks I am finally on my last flight for the coming weeks. Will be good to not roaming around the country during these trying times.


Why would they deploy such a huge aircraft when bookings have gone spiralling downwards,instead of using sth. smaller of the CRJ series?

Maybe cargo?
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 1297
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

Sun Apr 05, 2020 10:03 pm

marcogr12 wrote:
B747forever wrote:
Currently on AA1228 (MIA-LAX) operated by a 77W. A grand total of 21pax onboard. Came in on AA1314 LAX-MIA a couple of days ago, also operated by a 77W with a load of about 32pax. Heading home and after a bunch of flights the last 2 weeks I am finally on my last flight for the coming weeks. Will be good to not roaming around the country during these trying times.


Why would they deploy such a huge aircraft when bookings have gone spiralling downwards,instead of using sth. smaller of the CRJ series?


LAX-MIA is not exactly CRJ territory, but well within A320/B737 range.
Social distancing perhaps, mandated by the States they are operating to/from?

If they put people too close together, they might get sued if a pax gets infected, so they're trying to avoid that?

Or fuel tankering as fuel supplier at destination may be asking advance payment for fuel due to unpaid bills?
 
32andBelow
Posts: 4965
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

Sun Apr 05, 2020 10:08 pm

Waterbomber2 wrote:
marcogr12 wrote:
B747forever wrote:
Currently on AA1228 (MIA-LAX) operated by a 77W. A grand total of 21pax onboard. Came in on AA1314 LAX-MIA a couple of days ago, also operated by a 77W with a load of about 32pax. Heading home and after a bunch of flights the last 2 weeks I am finally on my last flight for the coming weeks. Will be good to not roaming around the country during these trying times.


Why would they deploy such a huge aircraft when bookings have gone spiralling downwards,instead of using sth. smaller of the CRJ series?


LAX-MIA is not exactly CRJ territory, but well within A320/B737 range.
Social distancing perhaps, mandated by the States they are operating to/from?

If they put people too close together, they might get sued if a pax gets infected, so they're trying to avoid that?

Or fuel tankering as fuel supplier at destination may be asking advance payment for fuel due to unpaid bills?
30 passengers on a b737 means every passenger gets their own 6 across row
 
User avatar
Antaras
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:18 am

Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

Mon Apr 06, 2020 12:28 am

ArtV wrote:
Is this what all flying will revert to in the near term - all domestic arrivals into HCMC (SGN) are mow being tested for Corona Virus? Now, there are very few domestic flights permitted at present in Vietnam, but this could become a necessity across the globe to stamp out the virus from being carried across countries in the short term....

https://tuoitrenews.vn/news/society/202 ... 53872.html


Besides that, every VN flight going to SGN (from HAN and DAD) now will be limited on the number of pax: no more than 180 pax on the A359 and 787 (-9 or -10, idk), and 120 pax on A321.

I agree with the Vietnamese gov to test everyone going to SGN. It will be a disaster if the virus is widely spreaded in HCMC.
Edit signature
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 255 character limit.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5203
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

Mon Apr 06, 2020 1:25 am

Looks like AA will be down to 13 flights a day out of NYC from Apr 7 to May 6. Ouch. So now it's just DL and B6 still operating non-hub flights from NYC.
 
dampfnudel
Posts: 588
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:42 am

Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

Mon Apr 06, 2020 3:16 am

Mortyman wrote:
Video of parked SAS, Norwegian and other airlines parked at Copenhagen airport:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gl08upuEyY


this is just sad to watch ...

Thanks for the video. I remember leaving CPH in 2014 after spending a few days with my Danish relatives. It was just a typical busy weekday morning there as my mom and I took a short hop to AMS to catch a connecting flight to JFK. Big difference now.
A313 332 343 B703 712 722 732 73G 738 739 741 742 744 752 762 76E 764 772 AT5 CR9 D10 DHH DHT F27 GRM L10 M83 TU5
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 1297
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

Mon Apr 06, 2020 3:26 am

32andBelow wrote:
Waterbomber2 wrote:
marcogr12 wrote:

Why would they deploy such a huge aircraft when bookings have gone spiralling downwards,instead of using sth. smaller of the CRJ series?


LAX-MIA is not exactly CRJ territory, but well within A320/B737 range.
Social distancing perhaps, mandated by the States they are operating to/from?

If they put people too close together, they might get sued if a pax gets infected, so they're trying to avoid that?

Or fuel tankering as fuel supplier at destination may be asking advance payment for fuel due to unpaid bills?


30 passengers on a b737 means every passenger gets their own 6 across row


Is it enough though? Some states are asking for 6 feet of distance so it's barely achievable even if you stagger pax left and right of each row as distance between rows is 60 inches.

Here are some simulations to look at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-ERndfbj8E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atSblYpbHQo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8A5g9_y2HA
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 1297
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

Mon Apr 06, 2020 3:31 am

German Air Force A400M patient "medevac".

https://youtu.be/80Sz7sQbHsI
 
User avatar
chepos
Posts: 7273
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2000 9:40 am

Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

Mon Apr 06, 2020 3:35 am

Waterbomber2 wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
Waterbomber2 wrote:

LAX-MIA is not exactly CRJ territory, but well within A320/B737 range.
Social distancing perhaps, mandated by the States they are operating to/from?

If they put people too close together, they might get sued if a pax gets infected, so they're trying to avoid that?

Or fuel tankering as fuel supplier at destination may be asking advance payment for fuel due to unpaid bills?


30 passengers on a b737 means every passenger gets their own 6 across row


Is it enough though? Some states are asking for 6 feet of distance so it's barely achievable even if you stagger pax left and right of each row as distance between rows is 60 inches.

Here are some simulations to look at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-ERndfbj8E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atSblYpbHQo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8A5g9_y2HA

They are not sending a 77W between MIA and LAX because of social distancing. Many reasons as to why they send that equipment on the route, among some the flight was most probably full in the cargo hold.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fly the Flag!!!!
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 24617
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

Mon Apr 06, 2020 3:51 am

VRHNM wrote:
UA has been operating some 77Ws into Hong Kong under UA2xxx flight numbers in the past two days. Does anybody know what these were for? Did they carry revenue passengers or ...?
At least 1 flight was bound for LAX. Unsure about the others.


All cargo.

UA has been running near daily LAX-HKG-LAX cargo for about 2 weeks now.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
Dominion301
Posts: 2809
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:48 pm

Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

Mon Apr 06, 2020 4:02 am

This article gives a good idea about the global magnitude and how airlines that normally carry tens of thousands of pax daily are now carrying hundreds or dozens: https://ca.reuters.com/article/business ... AKBN21K3KL

In Europe, budget carrier Ryanair Holdings PLC (RYA.I) said on Friday it expected to carry minimal if any traffic in April and May due to widespread government flight bans and restrictions. It is operating fewer than 20 daily flights, which is 99% less than usual...

...Hong Kong’s Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd (0293.HK) said on Friday it would further cut passenger capacity after carrying just 582 passengers one day this week, a load factor of 18.3%, compared to 100,000 customers on a normal day.

Air New Zealand carried just 165 passengers on its 89 flights on Thursday, underpinning its decision to make further cuts to its schedule while the country is in lockdown due to the virus, Chief Revenue Officer Cam Wallace said on Twitter.

Southwest Airlines Co (LUV.N) said it intended to apply for U.S. government aid to help it ride out the sharp drop in travel demand.


This is then reflected on the airports side, where 50 million pax airports like YYZ are now handling 5,000 pax a day (https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canad ... -1.4881999), while 5 million pax airports like YOW are handling 250-800 pax a day. Last Wednesday, YOW reported a mere 120 pax boarding 12 departing flights that day vs 7,000 enplanements and 110 departures on a typical Wednesday in April (https://ottawacitizen.com/business/with ... 2b3b17b5b/).
 
Stickpusher
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 6:54 pm

Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:12 am

Antaras wrote:
I agree with the Vietnamese gov to test everyone going to SGN. It will be a disaster if the virus is widely spreaded in HCMC.


There are certainly some cities where it'd be very difficult to contain things, HCMC, S African townships, Gaza, any number of favelas and indeed anywhere people are forced to live in close proximity. Vietnam is also promising to act on "wet markets" (as is China in light of how this all came about). The nature of this virus means that it'll be a couple of weeks before the benefits of the measures start to cut in, hence the need for a rapid and thorough response at the very moment "things don't look so bad" in crises like these.

Last week my wife's ITU lost two patients to C19. This week it's one or two per day. I shudder to think of that rolled out on the scale of HCMC or any other large urban area where things can get logarithmic rather quickly.

@Devilfish - presumably the Airbus test fleet are comparatively easy to clear of equipment and offer a large open load area too? I know the Beluga is also redeployed.

+++

In other news, Al Jazeera reports today

"06:25 GMT - Norwegian Air's March traffic tumbles 60 percent

Norwegian Air's passenger volume fell by 60 percent year-on-year in March as the company gradually grounded its fleet amid global efforts to halt the spread of the novel coronavirus.

The company has said it will cancel 85 percent of its flights in the time ahead and furlough 90% of staff while seeking financial aid from Norway's government."

I wonder how sympathetic a hearing they'll get for state aid? Is this the moment when corporate karma comes back?
 
Travelboff
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2020 3:59 pm

Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

Mon Apr 06, 2020 3:25 pm

Aegean Airlines are operating an A320-200 to Almaty, as a refuelling stop for onward travel to the Far East. https://www.flightradar24.com/AEE4984/24537087
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 1062
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

Mon Apr 06, 2020 3:48 pm

marcogr12 wrote:
B747forever wrote:
Currently on AA1228 (MIA-LAX) operated by a 77W. A grand total of 21pax onboard. Came in on AA1314 LAX-MIA a couple of days ago, also operated by a 77W with a load of about 32pax. Heading home and after a bunch of flights the last 2 weeks I am finally on my last flight for the coming weeks. Will be good to not roaming around the country during these trying times.


Why would they deploy such a huge aircraft when bookings have gone spiralling downwards,instead of using sth. smaller of the CRJ series?


Because it would run out of gas.......
 
FlyingElvii
Posts: 880
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

Mon Apr 06, 2020 3:57 pm

marcogr12 wrote:
B747forever wrote:
Currently on AA1228 (MIA-LAX) operated by a 77W. A grand total of 21pax onboard. Came in on AA1314 LAX-MIA a couple of days ago, also operated by a 77W with a load of about 32pax. Heading home and after a bunch of flights the last 2 weeks I am finally on my last flight for the coming weeks. Will be good to not roaming around the country during these trying times.


Why would they deploy such a huge aircraft when bookings have gone spiralling downwards,instead of using sth. smaller of the CRJ series?

To keep the pilot pool going. I am sure there are maint. Reasons as well.
 
Ishrion
Posts: 2838
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:17 am

Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

Mon Apr 06, 2020 5:05 pm

U.S. and Canada to announce shutdown of airspace for passenger flights, which excludes cargo, government, private, etc.

https://mobile.twitter.com/breakingavne ... 8102736900

Any validity to this?
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

Mon Apr 06, 2020 5:13 pm

With the massive drawdown of flights in the States, it sounds like loads of 10 to 30 passengers are pretty typical. Wouldn't the EMB-145 be the ideal aircraft to operate? Block out the one middle seat, she'll carry 34 passengers. She must have the lowest direct operating costs of any jet (fuel burn, landing fees and one flight attendant). The extended range aircraft have some pretty long legs and she sips gas. Only downside would be cargo but you could certainly carry mail with just 34 passengers.. Would it be scope clauses that are keeping the EMB from assuming this role right now?

Actually this might make a good business plan for a new airline today. There's a bunch of them available for probably next to nothing. Lot's of flight crews who would probably work today for a lot less than the did 2 months ago. No legacy costs (pensions, medical, office buildings, computer systems and retirees). Fuel is dirt cheap. Market each seat as First Class with no one next to you. Come up with a new frequent flier plan idea - Southwest used to hand out a fifth of whiskey on those first flights.

In previous downturns, new entrants go creamed. Maybe this time it would be different. 34 passengers is just about what those first DC-3's carried.
Last edited by MohawkWeekend on Mon Apr 06, 2020 5:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    300 319 320 321 707 717 720 727 72S 737 73S 734 735 73G 738 739 747 757 762 ARJ B11 C212 CRJ CR2 CR7 CR9 CV5 D8S DC9 D9S D94 D95 D10 DH8 DTO EMB EM2 E135 E145 E190 FH7 F28 F100 FTRIMTR HRN L10 L15 M80 M90 SF3 SWM YS11
     
    YULobserver
    Posts: 16
    Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:20 pm

    Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

    Mon Apr 06, 2020 5:17 pm

    Ishrion wrote:
    U.S. and Canada to announce shutdown of airspace for passenger flights, which excludes cargo, government, private, etc.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/breakingavne ... 8102736900

    Any validity to this?



    Not sure. Always suspicious when first to report is fliegerwrong. I have asked same question in another thread, no response yet.
     
    32andBelow
    Posts: 4965
    Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

    Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

    Mon Apr 06, 2020 5:50 pm

    Ishrion wrote:
    U.S. and Canada to announce shutdown of airspace for passenger flights, which excludes cargo, government, private, etc.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/breakingavne ... 8102736900

    Any validity to this?

    And make it so doctors and people that need to travel can’t? No way.
     
    32andBelow
    Posts: 4965
    Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

    Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

    Mon Apr 06, 2020 5:51 pm

    MohawkWeekend wrote:
    With the massive drawdown of flights in the States, it sounds like loads of 10 to 30 passengers are pretty typical. Wouldn't the EMB-145 be the ideal aircraft to operate? Block out the one middle seat, she'll carry 34 passengers. She must have the lowest direct operating costs of any jet (fuel burn, landing fees and one flight attendant). The extended range aircraft have some pretty long legs and she sips gas. Only downside would be cargo but you could certainly carry mail with just 34 passengers.. Would it be scope clauses that are keeping the EMB from assuming this role right now?

    Actually this might make a good business plan for a new airline today. There's a bunch of them available for probably next to nothing. Lot's of flight crews who would probably work today for a lot less than the did 2 months ago. No legacy costs (pensions, medical, office buildings, computer systems and retirees). Fuel is dirt cheap. Market each seat as First Class with no one next to you. Come up with a new frequent flier plan idea - Southwest used to hand out a fifth of whiskey on those first flights.

    In previous downturns, new entrants go creamed. Maybe this time it would be different. 34 passengers is just about what those first DC-3's carried.

    I think it would cost more for airlines to completely change their fleets for a couple months. Who is going to fly these?
     
    MohawkWeekend
    Posts: 254
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

    Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

    Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:11 pm

    For the first scenario - the existing partner airlines. The second scenario would be a new airline who could pick up an operating certificate from some one else. (Compass just shut down no?).

    Breeze Airlines was going to start a new airline with A220's. The only concern was where were they going to get flight crews. That's not a problem any more. You could have a hiring fair next week, call some leasing companies and grab some airplanes and be ready to go for way less. Start you own Union or don't have one. Offer them stock options like People Express did - those first employees made a bunch of money if they sold their shares. Heck even Ultimate could do it if they got an investor behind them.
      300 319 320 321 707 717 720 727 72S 737 73S 734 735 73G 738 739 747 757 762 ARJ B11 C212 CRJ CR2 CR7 CR9 CV5 D8S DC9 D9S D94 D95 D10 DH8 DTO EMB EM2 E135 E145 E190 FH7 F28 F100 FTRIMTR HRN L10 L15 M80 M90 SF3 SWM YS11
       
      32andBelow
      Posts: 4965
      Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

      Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

      Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:31 pm

      MohawkWeekend wrote:
      For the first scenario - the existing partner airlines. The second scenario would be a new airline who could pick up an operating certificate from some one else. (Compass just shut down no?).

      Breeze Airlines was going to start a new airline with A220's. The only concern was where were they going to get flight crews. That's not a problem any more. You could have a hiring fair next week, call some leasing companies and grab some airplanes and be ready to go for way less. Start you own Union or don't have one. Offer them stock options like People Express did - those first employees made a bunch of money if they sold their shares. Heck even Ultimate could do it if they got an investor behind them.

      By the time you got a new airline started this thing is going to be over. Also the faa has all their staff working from home so who is going to certify your new airline?
       
      alasizon
      Posts: 2598
      Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:57 pm

      Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

      Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:48 pm

      MohawkWeekend wrote:
      With the massive drawdown of flights in the States, it sounds like loads of 10 to 30 passengers are pretty typical. Wouldn't the EMB-145 be the ideal aircraft to operate? Block out the one middle seat, she'll carry 34 passengers. She must have the lowest direct operating costs of any jet (fuel burn, landing fees and one flight attendant). The extended range aircraft have some pretty long legs and she sips gas. Only downside would be cargo but you could certainly carry mail with just 34 passengers.. Would it be scope clauses that are keeping the EMB from assuming this role right now?

      Actually this might make a good business plan for a new airline today. There's a bunch of them available for probably next to nothing. Lot's of flight crews who would probably work today for a lot less than the did 2 months ago. No legacy costs (pensions, medical, office buildings, computer systems and retirees). Fuel is dirt cheap. Market each seat as First Class with no one next to you. Come up with a new frequent flier plan idea - Southwest used to hand out a fifth of whiskey on those first flights.

      In previous downturns, new entrants go creamed. Maybe this time it would be different. 34 passengers is just about what those first DC-3's carried.


      Running a E145 does you no good when you need to fly LAX-MIA, that E145 will run out of fuel before it gets there. As far as carrying mail goes, there is more than just cargo hold room that goes into carrying mail; USPS has to background check all the employees and you need to be a certified carrier. None of the regionals as far as I know are qualified to carry mail.

      Scope clauses don't keep the E145 from being operated at Mainline, but rather the problem is that Mainline pilots aren't qualified on them, introducing a new fleet type takes time, financially it would be more expensive to add another fleet type right now (you don't suddenly stop paying for your other aircraft), and operating E145s might work for a month or two, but then what, everyone goes back to their old fleet types that they are no longer current on?
      Airport (noun) - A construction site which airplanes tend to frequent
       
      MohawkWeekend
      Posts: 254
      Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

      Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

      Mon Apr 06, 2020 7:16 pm

      History sometimes repeats itself. Most new carriers fail but this time might be different if the virus last longer.

      For example there were several airlines that came out of the 1979 Oil embargo - IIRC Reno, Western Pacific, Midway, People Express, ValuJet. There were plenty of investors around to pick up unemployed flight crews, aircraft and gates. Heck Midway and People Express salvaged 2 airports that had been written off - Midway and Newark. Eastern scrapped airplanes to keep them out of new entrants hands.

      Doesn't matter the industry - if a new entrant can come in with lower costs, strong capitalization and enough luck they might make it. Remember all those new CBA's the majors just signed that dramatically raised wages. This was to make up for the damaged the last time the industry had a wave of bankruptcies. In 1980, the deserts were full of jets waiting for new owners. They are again. I just think that the E-145 might be the plane to operate if this lasts for months.

      It's all conjecture on my part. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
        300 319 320 321 707 717 720 727 72S 737 73S 734 735 73G 738 739 747 757 762 ARJ B11 C212 CRJ CR2 CR7 CR9 CV5 D8S DC9 D9S D94 D95 D10 DH8 DTO EMB EM2 E135 E145 E190 FH7 F28 F100 FTRIMTR HRN L10 L15 M80 M90 SF3 SWM YS11
         
        User avatar
        aemoreira1981
        Posts: 3577
        Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

        Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

        Mon Apr 06, 2020 7:34 pm

        NYC area capacity draw-downs (since Airlineroute published several posts just for that) for the current week:

        UA: Only these routes will operate
        From EWR: ORD (19 weekly), DEN (2 daily), FLL (8 weekly), IAH (20 weekly), LAX (15 weekly), MCO (9 weekly), SFO (10 weekly), TPA (6 weekly), IAD (9 weekly), and 1 daily each on FRA, LHR, and TLV
        From LGA: ORD (2 daily)
        https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... c-flights/ (That TLV flight could probably get by on just cargo in the belly.)

        Starting the week of April 12, these will be added for UA (once daily unless otherwise noted), tentatively and subject to change, once daily unless otherwise indicated.

        From EWR to: ALB, ATL, BGR, BOS (2 daily), CHS, CLT, ORD (5 daily), CVG, CLE, CMH, DFW, DEN (3 daily), DTW, FLL, RSW, GSO, GSP, IAH (4 daily), IND, JAX, EYW, LAX (20 weekly), SDF, MEM, MIA, MYR, BNA, MCO, PIT, PMW, PQI, RDU, RIC, ROC, SFO (2 daily), SRQ, SAV, STL, TPA, IAD (2 daily), DCA (3 daily), PBI.
        From LGA to: ORD (4 daily), DEN (2 daily), IAH (3 daily), IAD

        DL: Only these routes will operate, once daily, unless otherwise noted (effective April 12)
        From JFK to: ATL (33 weekly), BGR (relocated from LGA), BOS (20 weekly), BUF, DTW (3 daily), FLL, LAX, MIA, MSP (w2daily), MCO, ROC, SLC, SFO, SEA, SYR, TPA
        From LGA to: ATL (33 weekly), BOS (13 weekly), DTW (27 weekly), MSP (21 weekly), DCA (6 weekly)
        From SWF to: DTW
        From EWR to: ATL (3 daily), DTW and MSP (2 daily each)
        https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... f-05apr20/

        AA: Only these routes will operate (effective April 12):
        From JFK to: BOS (1 weekly), CLT (3 daily), LAX (5 weekly), MIA (19 weekly), PHX (18 weekly), SAT (1 daily), SFO (4 weekly)
        From LGA to: ATL: (8 weekly), BOS (12 weekly), CLT (34 weekly), CHO (13 weekly), ORD (11 weekly), CMH (22 weekly), DFW (26 weekly), DAB (1 weekly), RSW (1 weekly), MEM (1 daily), MIA (29 weekly), BNA (6 weekly), MCO (2 weekly), PHL (2 daily), PHX (1 weekly, unchanged), PIT (9 weekly), PWM (1 daily), RDU (9 weekly), STL (5 weekly), DCA (11 weekly), PBI (1 weekly)
        From EWR to: CLT (26 weekly), ORD (13 weekly), DFW (13 weekly), MIA (11 weekly)
        From SWF to: PHL (1 daily)
        https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... f-05apr20/

        AS: Only these routes will operate, once daily to/from JFK and EWR each, unless otherwise indicated, effective April 12:
        LAX, SAN (EWR only), SFO, SEA
        Being suspended after April 11: SJC (EWR only), PDX
        https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... f-05apr20/

        B6: Only these routes will operate, effective April 12:
        From JFK: BOS (24 weekly), BUF, FLL LAX, and MCO (2 daily each), BTV, SFO, and SMF (4 weekly each), CHS, JAX, LAS, MSY, ONT, SAV, SEA, SLC, and TPA (3 weekly each), FLL (2 daily), PBI, ROC, RSW, and SYR (1 daily each), BTV and IAH (4 weekly each), LGB (2 weekly), ABQ and LGB (2 weekly each)
        From LGA to: BOS and PBI (April 12 only on each), MCO (1 daily)
        From SWF to MCO (3 weekly)
        From EWR to: TPA (3 weekly), PBI (4 weekly), FLL and RSW (1 daily each)
        https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... f-05apr20/

        F9: Only these routes will operate, 3 times weekly from LGA and EWR, unless otherwise indicated, effective April 5:
        MIA (2 weekly from LGA), MCO
        https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... f-05apr20/

        NK: Suspended until at least May 2
        https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... f-05apr20/
         
        marcogr12
        Posts: 430
        Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2018 2:36 pm

        Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

        Mon Apr 06, 2020 7:56 pm

        CriticalPoint wrote:
        marcogr12 wrote:
        B747forever wrote:
        Currently on AA1228 (MIA-LAX) operated by a 77W. A grand total of 21pax onboard. Came in on AA1314 LAX-MIA a couple of days ago, also operated by a 77W with a load of about 32pax. Heading home and after a bunch of flights the last 2 weeks I am finally on my last flight for the coming weeks. Will be good to not roaming around the country during these trying times.


        Why would they deploy such a huge aircraft when bookings have gone spiralling downwards,instead of using sth. smaller of the CRJ series?


        Because it would run out of gas.......


        Indeed..but still a 737 or A320 could fly the route...unless the reason is cargo
        Flying is breathing..no planes no life..
         
        fessor
        Posts: 165
        Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:26 pm

        Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

        Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:41 pm

        jeffrey0032j wrote:
        An interesting article on SQ's fleet choice for remaining flights during this outbreak:

        Singapore Airlines To Rely On Boeing Aircraft During Coronavirus Downturn


        And then still they fly 7 A350s to CPH cargo only

        The Voice for the 777s could be first class seats or Because those planes Will leave flere soon.
         
        tphuang
        Posts: 5203
        Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

        Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

        Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:54 pm

        https://thepointsguy.com/news/us-airlin ... ronavirus/
        interesting stuff here on the estimated cash burn forecast by Raymond James
        Raymond James’ “Cash Burn Forecast”

        SkyWest: 11.8 months of implied cash on hand*
        Allegiant: 10.6 months
        Southwest: 9.4 months
        Spirit: 8.8 months
        JetBlue: 8.7 months
        Alaska: 6.6 months
        Mesa: 6.3 months
        Delta: 6.2 months
        United: 5.7 months
        American: 4.8 months
        looks dire for AA, but not much better for UA/DL.
        This does not include money from CARES. Which I assume add about 3 months.
         
        mga707
        Posts: 303
        Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:52 am

        Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

        Tue Apr 07, 2020 12:12 am

        MohawkWeekend wrote:
        History sometimes repeats itself. Most new carriers fail but this time might be different if the virus last longer.

        For example there were several airlines that came out of the 1979 Oil embargo - IIRC Reno, Western Pacific, Midway, People Express, ValuJet.


        Of those five, only Midway (1979) and PeopleExpress (1981) started anytime near the '79 oil price rise. The other three all started in the 90s: Reno Air in 1992, Valujet in 1993, and Western Pacific in 1995.
         
        User avatar
        Antaras
        Posts: 818
        Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:18 am

        Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

        Tue Apr 07, 2020 1:15 am

        Vietnam Airlines needs needs 12 trillion VND (more than $511mil) for survival.
        As now the Vietnamese gov' is also running out of cash, the question is will VN's main investors, especially ANA, save VN?
        https://gocnhin.com.vn/8652/tien-xa-nhat-ban-co-cuu-duoc-vietnam-airlines-dang-khat-von.html
        Edit signature
        This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 255 character limit.
         
        sonicruiser
        Posts: 921
        Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:18 am

        How much worse is COVID-19 than 9/11 for the airline industry?

        Tue Apr 07, 2020 2:58 am

        At this point, it is pretty well established that COVID-19 is worse than 9/11 for the airlines. But how much worse will it be and in what ways?
        شما می توانید مردم را تحریم کنید ، اما نمی توانید سبک تحریم را اعمال کنید

        You can sanction people, but you can't sanction style
         
        TTailedTiger
        Posts: 2519
        Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

        Re: How much worse is COVID-19 than 9/11 for the airline industry?

        Tue Apr 07, 2020 3:17 am

        I guess we will have to wait and see. At least they won't have to make any modifications like new cockpit doors or design new procedures like after 9/11. And they won't have to retire fleets in mass like the 727, 732, DC-10, L-1011, 742.
         
        Tuan
        Posts: 9
        Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:45 am

        Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

        Tue Apr 07, 2020 3:20 am

        Antaras wrote:
        Vietnam Airlines needs needs 12 trillion VND (more than $511mil) for survival.
        As now the Vietnamese gov' is also running out of cash, the question is will VN's main investors, especially ANA, save VN?
        https://gocnhin.com.vn/8652/tien-xa-nhat-ban-co-cuu-duoc-vietnam-airlines-dang-khat-von.html

        Nah. Vietnamese Gov't has cash. $500M is a lot, but not that of a problem for the Gov't.
        The problem is there is no existing mechanism for this. HVN is a public traded company, 86% held by the Gov't. That makes things complicated. The Government of Vietnam, contrary to popular belief, is bound by the law.
         
        User avatar
        chepos
        Posts: 7273
        Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2000 9:40 am

        Re: How much worse is COVID-19 than 9/11 for the airline industry?

        Tue Apr 07, 2020 3:21 am

        TTailedTiger wrote:
        I guess we will have to wait and see. At least they won't have to make any modifications like new cockpit doors or design new procedures like after 9/11. And they won't have to retire fleets in mass like the 727, 732, DC-10, L-1011, 742.

        A bit premature to say airlines won’t have to retire fleets en masse. 9/11 occurred one day and the ghost of it lingered for years. This is lingering worldwide for who knows how long? Hard to guess what the effects will be.


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
        Fly the Flag!!!!
         
        TTailedTiger
        Posts: 2519
        Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

        Re: How much worse is COVID-19 than 9/11 for the airline industry?

        Tue Apr 07, 2020 3:23 am

        chepos wrote:
        TTailedTiger wrote:
        I guess we will have to wait and see. At least they won't have to make any modifications like new cockpit doors or design new procedures like after 9/11. And they won't have to retire fleets in mass like the 727, 732, DC-10, L-1011, 742.

        A bit premature to say airlines won’t have to retire fleets en masse. 9/11 occurred one day and the ghost of it lingered for years. This is lingering worldwide for who knows how long? Hard to guess what the effects will be.


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


        There aren't massive fleets of old aircraft right now. Every major US airline had a ton of 727's to dump in a hurry after 9/11.
         
        TW870
        Posts: 1227
        Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:01 am

        Re: How much worse is COVID-19 than 9/11 for the airline industry?

        Tue Apr 07, 2020 3:48 am

        I was on the front lines at United during 9/11 and am no longer in the industry. But this has to be much, much worse due to the global scale of the crisis. 9/11 and SARS were basically one period, which did cause vast disruption across the globe. But even so, nothing suppressed demand to this extreme in all markets at once. 9/11 really hit U.S.-Europe/South Asia/Middle East due to the vase political destabilization of the attack itself and then of the US-Afghanistan/Iraq wars. SARS shocked all Asia markets but recovered quite quickly. Now basically every market on earth is shuttered all at once with no clear plan for a full reopening until a vaccine is approved. I flew my first trip as an FA 5 days after 9/11. There clearly had been a crisis, but my SFO-JFK 767 was full, and we operated basically normally. Today, 2 weeks after lockdown where I am, any flight with north of a 10% load factor is doing great. For those who do fly, you can't even do a regular service because it is too many touch points. Carriers thus can't even do what they normally do to win back passengers.
         
        User avatar
        VirginFlyer
        Posts: 5571
        Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

        Re: How much worse is COVID-19 than 9/11 for the airline industry?

        Tue Apr 07, 2020 4:08 am

        sonicruiser wrote:
        At this point, it is pretty well established that COVID-19 is worse than 9/11 for the airlines. But how much worse will it be and in what ways?


        It's probably too early to say for sure because the situation is still unfolding. Data from IATA is probably a good indication though. Here is what they said in their 31 March briefing:

        The situation of the airline industry remains grave. As you know, we have been working from a scenario of severe travel restrictions lasting for three months. That will cut industry revenues by $252 billion in 2020 compared to 2019.

        Now Brian has worked through the impact of that scenario on the bottom line. That is a $39 billion net loss in the second quarter. We also see the industry burning through $61 billion in cash in the second quarter—a precipitous fall for cash balances.

        https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/speec ... -03-31-01/

        Here's what I have been able to find on IATA's website for some previous crises:

        Global Financial Crisis
        The International Air Transport Association (IATA) today announced a revised global financial forecast predicting airline losses totaling US$11 billion in 2009. This is US$2 billion worse than the previously projected US$9 billion loss due to rising fuel prices and exceptionally weak yields. Industry revenues for the year are expected to fall by US$80 billion (15%) to US$455 billion compared with 2008 levels.

        IATA also revised its loss estimates for 2008 from a loss of US$10.4 billion to a loss of US$16.8 billion. This revision reflects restatements and clarification of the accounting treatment of very large revaluations to goodwill and fuel hedges. IATA industry profit figures strip-out such extra-ordinary items which are not realized in cash terms.

        “The bottom line of this crisis - with combined 2008-9 losses at US$27.8 billion - is larger than the impact of 9/11,” said Giovanni Bisignani, IATA’s Director General and CEO. Industry losses for 2001-2002 were US$24.3 billion. “This is not a short-term shock. US$80 billion will disappear from the industry’s top line. That 15% of lost revenue will take years to recover.

        https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/pr/2009-09-15-01/

        The key point is that it has taken a long time for the industry to recover from the GFC, and this has had a big impact on
        activity and revenues. All told, we estimate that 5.8% fewer RPKs and 8.9% fewer FTKs were flown in the years
        following the GFC than would have been the case had they continued their pre-crisis trends. This is equivalent to 2.9
        trillion fewer RPKs and 180 billion fewer FTKs. At current yields, this equates to around US$280 billion in lost revenue
        for the industry over the past decade

        https://www.iata.org/en/iata-repository ... -revenues/

        September 11 2001
        By comparison, the previous revenue decline, after the events of 11 September 2001, saw industry revenues fall by US$23 billion over the period of 2000 to 2002 (approximately 7.0%)

        https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/pr/2009-03-24-01/

        Using this research to estimate what lower travel demand and air fares implies for airlines revenues on US
        domestic markets suggests they have been permanently reduced by over $10 billion a year;

        https://www.iata.org/en/iata-repository ... 01-attack/

        Some key takeaways
        • In between 2000 and 2002 there was a US$23 billion loss of revenue, in the wake of September 11 and the weakening economic environment. By comparison the current situation is looking at a revenue loss of approximately 10 times that, in one third of the time span.
        • IATA's analysis in 2006 suggested an annual suppression of revenue by US$10 billion as a result of the effects of September 11. Assuming that continued unchanged, the cumulative impact of that in the nearly 2 decades since is less than the revenue impact forecast for 2020.
        • The revenue loss in 2009 was forecast as US$80 billion (sorry I haven't been able to find a retrospective figure though I am sure it is out there). So that was roughly one third of what is currently being forecast for 2020.
        • The cumulative effect of lost revenues in the decade since the Global Financial Crisis was US$280 billion, or pretty much in the order of the expected revenue loss of 2020

        V/F
        It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh
         
        EWRFlyer
        Posts: 6
        Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2020 4:02 am

        Can IAG Survive without breaking up

        Tue Apr 07, 2020 4:30 am

        Considering that IAG is such a vast group with approx 550 aircraft, can they survive as they currently are?
        Will they let one part fail and let another survive
        BA are in a better position than Iberia, so could BA let Iberia fail and then let BA take over
        Interesting times with interesting questions
        Please discuss fairly without getting into A vs B
         
        myki
        Posts: 212
        Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 6:43 am

        Re: Coronavirus Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - April 2020

        Tue Apr 07, 2020 4:39 am

        From this update by LATAM: https://www.latam.com/en_us/press-room/ ... -in-April/

        "temporarily suspending flights to Rapa Nui..."

        When was the last time that IPC had no passenger air service? Looks like whoever is there is stuck there. My guess is cargo flights will still run though.

        Who is online

        Popular Searches On Airliners.net

        Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

        Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

        Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

        Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

        Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

        Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

        Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

        Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

        Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

        Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

        Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

        Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

        Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

        Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

        Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos