WN "Major Announcement" Tuesday...

venuscat2 · Sun Feb 20, 2005 10:46 am

Sorry Alex...I obviously hadn't read the thread thorougly (I used the find tool for "Independence" but since you used "Indy," I didn't come across it.) Again, I apologize.

atrude777 · Sun Feb 20, 2005 11:09 am

Quoting Venuscat2 (reply 100):
Sorry Alex...I obviously hadn't read the thread thorougly (I used the find tool for "Independence" but since you used "Indy," I didn't come across it.) Again, I apologize.

Not a problem, i was thinking it pretty far stretched but to see someone else share the same thought does it make it just likely heh? lol, anyway no hard feelings, and I guess we will just have to see. it would be totally funny if we were both right and WN announced buying Indy Air haha!

Alex

LV · Sun Feb 20, 2005 11:17 am

Actually, the more I think about the idea that it is something the employees need to know before the public....I'm leaning towards assigned seating.

wjcandee · Sun Feb 20, 2005 11:26 am

"Pissed off about the Wright Amendment, Southwest announces it will move its corporate headquarters from Dallas to Chicago. And no, I don't think this would really happen."

ACTUALLY... Southwest did something less dramatic a decade ago. Pissed off about the Wright Amendment, they moved the registration location of their a/c for tax purposes from Dallas to Houston. They said, "Hey, Dallas is our headquarters, but due to the Wright Amendment, we have more flights in HOUSTON than we do here, and Dallas will continue to be less important to us because we can't expand from here because you people are idiots." Actually, they didn't say the part about idiots, but they did say the rest. There was a HUGE broohaha in the Dallas papers about it, and all sorts of threats/ass-kissing of Southwest. I *think* they moved it back subsequently. But it made a point.

==Bill

PVD757 · Sun Feb 20, 2005 11:40 am

I've also heard that assigned seating is a good possibility for this rumored announcement...I seriously doubt it will be a new aircraft, international ops, or a merger/acquisiition. This is WN after all, the kings of sticking to the game plan and keeping it simple.

leelaw · Sun Feb 20, 2005 11:56 am

Quoting Wjcandee (reply 103):
ACTUALLY... Southwest did something less dramatic a decade ago. Pissed off about the Wright Amendment, they moved the registration location of their a/c for tax purposes from Dallas to Houston.

Interesting. Is there a personal property or other tax in Texas where registration location makes a difference to municipalities?

DC10GUY · Sun Feb 20, 2005 12:47 pm

Out of all the BS spread here, I like the buying Alaska rumor best. Fedex is looking for 737's maybe Southwest is selling its fleet of -300's to Fedex.

7H4Guy · Sun Feb 20, 2005 1:08 pm

Well this is my first post here so be easy on me Smile/happy/getting dizzy

For this to be a "Major announcement" of the size that "You'll remember where you were when you heard it" it has to be more than a new city, IFE, or even assigned seating. It has to something that would be out of character for Southwest. I am betting on either the purchase of Chicago Express, flights to the Caribbean or perhaps a deal with Boeing for the 787 based replacement for their beloved 737's. The -300's will be ready to retire when the 737X will be ready to fly. Just my 2 cents.

swadispatcher · Sun Feb 20, 2005 1:25 pm

It could very well be something related to the TZ codeshare out of MDW.. we are supposed to add new destinations and connnection cities in May..

2H4 · Sun Feb 20, 2005 1:36 pm

Quoting 7H4Guy (reply 107):
For this to be a "Major announcement" of the size that "You'll remember where you were when you heard it" it has to be more than a new city, IFE, or even assigned seating.

If that statement was directed toward the public or even the aviation community in general, I would have to agree. If, on the other hand, it was directed toward WN employees, it could very well be something as "minor" as a new city, IFE, or assigned seating.

Welcome to the forums, by the way...and might I add, excellent choice in usernames!

2H4

SWAFA30 · Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:19 pm

Quoting 2H4 (reply 109):
If, on the other hand, it was directed toward WN employees, it could very well be something as "minor" as a new city, IFE, or assigned seating.

I've been an SWA employee for nearly a decade. Since I started, we have announced service to...

JAN
ISP
PVD
BDL
MHT
ALB
BUF
ORF
RDU
JAX
PBI
PHL
PIT

I can't for the life of me remember..."where I was when I heard" that any of the above would be coming online. For most WN employees, new market announcements are interesting maybe even exciting but hardly much more than that. It's more noteworthy when a year passes and we don't announce a new city or two. Unless the new city is Paris, France...it'll take more than a new destination to truly shock most SWA employees.

I'm leaning towards either a full blown TZ merger/acquistion or a major product upgrade along the lines of jetBlue style IFE and assigned seating.

lincoln · Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:37 pm

Quoting 2H4 (reply 109):

If that statement was directed toward the public or even the aviation community in general, I would have to agree. If, on the other hand, it was directed toward WN employees, it could very well be something as "minor" as a new city, IFE, or assigned seating.

Heck... I don't think the public would pay attention to a new city or IFE, but I think a fiar percentage of the flying public would remember where they were if it were seat assignments. I know non-enthusiast fliers who will not fly WN because they don't like cattlecall seating and would fly Southwest in a heartbeat if they could get assigned seats.

Though from what I understand, the statement was made in during an internal function, so it could be just about anything culture wise in addition to business practice wise.

I think if WN ever started (a) assigning seats (b) international routes or (c) participating in industry interline agreements it would signal both a major shift for WN as well as for the industry at large. Seat assignments, specifically, could sign the end for many of the weaker players compeating with WN.

Lincoln
[I won't fly WN after my first try, but I have a huge respect for what they've done in/for/to the industry]

DfwRevolution · Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:52 pm

Quoting SWAFA30 (reply 110):
I'm leaning towards either a full blown TZ merger/acquistion or a major product upgrade along the lines of jetBlue style IFE and assigned seating.

If WN does IFE, it will not be on B6 terms. The B6 PTV/Direct-TV adds hundreds of pounds to each aircraft, increases maintenance, and increases down-time. WN will avoid that like the plauge.

Any fleet-wide IFE system will cost no less than $250 million... with that kind of money WN could entice some firms to hussle next-generation IFE along. Think wireless (which the FAA has now approved), there's a few hundred pounds gone.

I personally lean toward an expanded TZ codeshare... They were hoping to begin European service prior to Ch.11, maybe WN will "encourage" them to bring this to the front burner.

txagkuwait · Sun Feb 20, 2005 3:24 pm

If not Chicago Express and a full-blown commuter partner deal, then I think I would lean towards a relocation of corporate headquarters to Chicago.

The ungrateful city of Dallas would be left with no airline's headuqarters. American? Sorry, American is in Fort Worth.

Dallas really ought to be catering to Southwest Airlines Co. Southwest has treated them very well, paid a lot in taxes, and kept the Love Field area from turning in to urban blight. Airport closures often lead to entire portions of cities looking like they are badly in need of urban renewal. Think southeast Houston before Southwest returned to Hobby. Even then it took a while for that part of town to start experiencing any positive economic benefits.

If Dallas continues to take Southwest's presence for granted, maybe it is time to pull up stakes and move the company headquarters to someplace more appreciative. You treat your corporate citizens like dirt, pretty soon Amon Carter would be proven right: Fort Worth is where the west begins and dallas is where the east peters out.

ntspelich · Sun Feb 20, 2005 3:24 pm

I have heard the same thing, that it's an announcement that you'll remember where you were when you heard it. However, I didn't heard that it'd be at the MTTF @ MDW, out at BWI we've only heard that that it'll be in the next ten days. That was on last Wednesday. I guess that now we're down to the next six days. Got to love all of the speculation going on around the system right now. I went down to MCO yesterday and both the crew there and back, every non-rev on the planes and the folks I ran into at MCO were all interested in hearing what we had heard up north compared to what they were getting down there. I guess only time will tell.

NTS

Silver1SWA · Sun Feb 20, 2005 3:52 pm

Here's the tune being sung at SJC:

-New aircraft type
-assigned seating/IFE
-international city(s)
-Hawaii
-Something new in the form of employee benefits
-Something to do with stock options
-Herb retiring
-For the first time in company history, they will be laying people off
-offering early retirement
-Nothing at all...just a rumor
-Going to turn out to be a weak announcement, not owning up to the hype

...to name a few.

This really is getting out of hand and bizarre. I'm beginning to worry more than be excited. Who said it was going to be good news anyway?

GentFromAlaska · Sun Feb 20, 2005 3:52 pm

[quote=Swacle,reply=0]Rumor has it that WN will be making a major announcement at the Message to the Field on Tuesday in Chicago. "You'll Remember where you were when you heard it" is what we are hearing around here. Anyone have any other info or heard anything about this?

A friend at SEATAC tells me they want to leave the airport and move OPS over to Boeing field.

ntspelich · Sun Feb 20, 2005 4:08 pm

Silver -
I guarantee you that it's not Hawaii, Gary said that himself in OAK last week. And remember your WN history, we did lay people off once in '71 to make payroll for that week/month. Then, the next week they were re-called. I do think that it'll be something relatively big though, afterall it seems that all of us all over the system have been hearing things. Yes, you could same that rumors travel with the FAs/pilots, but not to this extent.

NTS

P.S. I was talking to Wimberly out in OAK last week and he told me that we're ditching all of the 737s and replacing them with just 10 380's, zone boarded based on destination. Everyone to MDW up front, since it's the first stop, OMA behind them for the second stop and so on. We're taking point-to-point to a new level!

Well, I better put a caveat in there so someone doesn't think that this could ever happen -That Was A Joke People. A bad attempt at one, yet an attempt.

[Edited 2005-02-20 08:12:20]

[Edited 2005-02-20 08:18:10]

Silver1SWA · Sun Feb 20, 2005 4:18 pm

Whoa you were at the message in OAK too??

Dang...first Dallas, now OAK...haha.

Anyway, that list was of things said by fellow employees at SJC. I know Hawaii is out of the question. Did you happen to also catch what he said about the ATA codeshare? Yeah, I'd say based on that message any form of ATA acquisition is OUT OF THE QUESTION . In fact I think he stressed that more than the Hawaii issue.

Now...lets see if anyone reads what I just said this time around.

[Edited 2005-02-20 08:20:56]

FedEx · Sun Feb 20, 2005 4:28 pm

I agree with the "Herb retiring" crowd myself.

BTW DC-10GUY, We were told last week that FedEx has scrapped the 737 idea.

N200WN · Sun Feb 20, 2005 4:39 pm

Well from all of the posts on here I can tell you for sure what it's not going to be:

- No new A/C type
- No assigned seats
- No international or Hawaii operations
- No new city
- No layoffs
- No buyouts or mergers
- No COS...not even being looked at. In Herb's own words "there's a reason all those gates are empty."
- And more importantly...No new announcement! This rumor seems to come around every few years or so but this time it's out of control.

But, it's always fun to speculate.

ntspelich · Sun Feb 20, 2005 4:40 pm

Yeah, I was the one oddball from BWI who jumped up when Colleen was seeing who all was there.

N200WN · Sun Feb 20, 2005 5:01 pm

What's the big deal about assigned seating? Heck the Customers aren't even asking for it in big numbers. On all of Southwest's -300's and -700's there are 92 window and aisle seats out of 137...that's 67 percent of the seats. Which happens to be close to the system wide load factor. So I would think that most people are getting satisfactory seating. With aircraft of this size and an average stage length of under 800 miles I just don't think it's an issue for the majority of people. Besides, on any airline, a full flight is a full flight...someone is going to be in those middle seats at the back of the plane...assigned seats or not. There is nothing better than walking on a plane and deciding for yourself where you want to sit...and also being able to change seats at an enroute stop without worrying about taking someone's "assigned" seat.

brons2 · Sun Feb 20, 2005 5:59 pm

I hope they keep open seating.

The big announcement then? WN will convert all 290 73G options, but it still won't be enough. WN will announce a buy of the A319 since Boeing will not be able to satisfy all their aircraft needs for a huge upcoming expansion.

7H4Guy · Mon Feb 21, 2005 1:06 am

Quoting 2H4 (reply 109):
Welcome to the forums, by the way...and might I add, excellent choice in usernames!

2H4

Thanks for the welcome. Your ID is rather nice its self - too bad they have retired all the 200's. My last flight on a 200 was with US from BWI-BOS and back. Quite full both ways, but that was 5 years ago. Come on Tuesday and lets find out the truth. But with the code share with ATA working out so well, so far, and Chicago Express up for sale, and all those new gates at MDW I see Southwest wanting to keep A feeder running into MDW to help keep the planes full.

7Seas · Mon Feb 21, 2005 2:17 am

Some interesting things put forth here, some plausible, some not.

I have to go with SWA buying and investing in the Chicago Connection. That's why the announcement will be in Chicago. With the build up of Chicago, this would provide feed from some good smaller markets. I also see an aircraft upgrade for them. EMB-170's(or some used YAK-40's). This operation could see growth in other areas of the country such as a feed to PHL/BWI.

Also, the city pairs that someone mentioned earlier will be announced.
MDW-BUF
MDW-MSY
MDW-ONT
MDW-TUL etc.

The assigned seating/IFE thing might have some merit.

However, if anyone sees a podium set up in the MDW terminal that day with a lot of cameras and lights around it and the Boeing CEO there with Gary Kelly then you can be sure it's the 787 announcement.

2H4 · Mon Feb 21, 2005 2:38 am

Quoting TxAgKuwait (reply 113):
If Dallas continues to take Southwest's presence for granted, maybe it is time to pull up stakes and move the company headquarters to someplace more appreciative.

I agree 100%, but Chicago (ie: Dick Daley) isn't exactly known for being appreciative of anything remotely related to aviation.

2H4

wjcandee · Mon Feb 21, 2005 3:06 am

Ntspelich: You reference something regarding the ATA codeshare. What's up with that? Going well, not going well, what? I HAD heard that there are more pax being connected than expected. Is that not the case?

Also, it occurred to me that the announcement may have something to do with Southwest's place in the industry. I remember that it was a big deal when their growth made them into a "major". Is there any chance that there is some statistical milestone that could be being surpassed? Most pax carried or most domestic pax-miles travelled, or most landings and takeoffs or 100% flight completion or X00,000th employee or domestic partnership benefits or something along those lines? I'll bet it's none of what I mentioned, but the employees will know better than I what the potential milestones are?

All the best,

Bill

planespotting · Mon Feb 21, 2005 3:15 am

If they are announcing it and making it sound like a big deal, don't you think that it is going to be positive? Southwest would definitely not be like "Be sure you're there to hear that we're laying off people for the first time since 1973!" or something otherwise ultra-negative to their company and their stockholders. If they are just announcing it to the employees, couldn't it be something more employee related....like something about profitsharing or stock or vacation time or a bonus or something like that. Im sure every employee would remember where they were if G Kelly told all of MDW-8PB and co that each and every employee with at least 5 years at southwest would be getting a $2000 tax free bonus or something like that. Right? that would be pretty sweet.

ntspelich · Mon Feb 21, 2005 3:16 am

Wjcandee

Ntspelich: You reference something regarding the ATA codeshare. What's up with that? Going well, not going well, what? I HAD heard that there are more pax being connected than expected. Is that not the case?

Well, I'm not down at HQ and obviously don't have all of the info on it, but from what I've heard is that the c/s is going well. Gary seemed happy with it when I went to a message to the field a a week or so ago. I believe that they initial numbers that we were aiming for was around 100 c/s bookings/day. OPNLguy may know a bit more details on that since he's down where all the action is. Personally, I know that we're getting a fair bit of c/s traffic to/from BWI. I think that last night I off/loaded 10 or 12 TZ c/s bags and I only worked 2 MDW flights, 1 inbound and one outbound.

The important thing to remember is that we do have an opt-out clause in the agreement if their service levels dramatically fall or what not. I'm not entirely sure on the legal language of it, but I do know that there's a provision for it.

NTS

greenguy01 · Mon Feb 21, 2005 3:32 am

Ok here's another one....

Southwest announces that it is going to totally ignore the Wright Amendment and is going to start new non-stop service out of DAL.

Maybe?

sprxUSA · Mon Feb 21, 2005 6:20 am

We're going to yank out 66 seats on the -500s and start nonstops from DAL to: OAK, MDW, LAS, LAX, BWI, and MCO.

DAYflyer · Mon Feb 21, 2005 6:30 am

I'm willing to bet it will be a new city that nobody thought of...like DAY or ROC or something weird like that.

OPNLguy · Mon Feb 21, 2005 6:34 am

>>>We're going to yank out 66 seats on the -500s and start nonstops from DAL to: OAK, MDW, LAS, LAX, BWI, and MCO.

Yeah! Fill-up the bins with freight and mail! When the service proves so popular, and folks can't get subsequent reservations because of the artificially low 56-seat limit, let them know why, and maybe -they'll- write letters supporting WA appeal...

jpetekyxmd80 · Mon Feb 21, 2005 6:44 am

Quoting DAYflyer (reply 132):
I'm willing to bet it will be a new city that nobody thought of...like DAY or ROC or something weird like that.

Oh yeah!! Everyones gonna remember the time WN announced service to Dayton! Come on..

justloveplanes · Mon Feb 21, 2005 7:07 am

If it's new aircraft, It might be for the Next NG737 based on 7E7 technology. SW is far and away the most critical 737 customer and pioneer of the current LCC business model that is sweeping the world.

If it happens, WN is going to get the world's next great plane, built exactly their way to keep themselves at the forefront of the LCC business model. The move would give Boeing the technical lead in all market sectors except the larger than B747, ie. the A380. It's safe for Boeing because there will be a slew of me-too'ers world wide that will buy the plane on faith just to tag along on WN's business savvy and operations processes. The plane's success is guaranteed.

Something like this fits both Boeing and Southwest perfectly, both continuing their lead in market fragmentation and point to point service.

Or the rumor might be noting at all............DRAT!

res · Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:05 am

JFK guys...... JFK Big grin

imagine that

lincoln · Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:27 am

Quoting N200WN (reply 122):
What's the big deal about assigned seating? Heck the Customers aren't even asking for it in big numbers

I think current customers aren't asking for assigned seating in large numbers b/c they are already flying the airline and know what to expect. My mom flies WN almost exclusively (fares and routes) and dislikes the airline simply for lack of assigned seating. She knows though that to get non stop service from A to B she has to fly WN and skip assigned seating. She deals with this and doesn't complain -- it's part of choosing WN.

You don't hear from the Perspective customers that are skipping WN (including most of my coworkers) for lack of assigned seating because the majority of them know that WN doesn't do assigned seating and won't bother complaining about it.

I think the only people front-line CSRs do hear complaints about are new filers who have never heard about Southwest/seating and didn't realize this was part of the deal and those who bought their cheap ticket knowing they wouldn't get an assigned seat but like complaining about it anyways.

As I said earlier in this thread, if WN were to move to assigned seating it would be a huge change for the industry and many people who no longer have a reason for avoiding the airline. I think that move would drive at least one, if not more, of the other carries into extinction.

Lincoln

lowecur · Mon Feb 21, 2005 11:12 am

This was just posted on the Flightinfo.com board. If it's true, it smells of anti-trust problems with todays high oil prices and weak airlines.

Exxon-Mobile to buy SWA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rumor has it new hire training at SWA is slowing down pending an announcment by Exxon-Mobile to make an offer to buy SWA. $80 a share for the preferred stock. SWA would be in the neighborhood of $1-$2.5 billion a year in profits. This is assuming scheduled service as it exists now with fuel being lowered to approx 45 cents per gallon of Jet A. (exxon-mobile cost of production)

All existing SWA management would stay in tack and it would result in $10-$15 billion cash infusion to fuel growth and expansion globally with SWA service. Common stock is predicted to trade in the $35-$45 range if this in announced. (lots of early retirements)

Interesting rumor.

2H4 · Mon Feb 21, 2005 11:17 am

Quoting Lowecur (reply 138):
it would result in $10-$15 billion cash infusion to fuel growth and expansion globally with SWA service.

Globally.....oh, the possibilities....

2H4

OPNLguy · Mon Feb 21, 2005 11:24 am

>>>All existing SWA management would stay in tack

If Exxon-Mobil (no "e") offers $80 a share, I think there would be so many retirements that hardly any employee group would be "intact." Yes, they'd be replaced by new-hires at entry-level wages, but the loss of all that operational experience wouldn't leave it being the same company....

2H4 · Mon Feb 21, 2005 11:31 am

Good point, OPNL. I remember WN folks saying they'd retire the second the stock hits $25/share. At $80, all that would remain are little clouds of dust, like the Roadrunner left when it shot away from the Coyote.

2H4

2H4 · Mon Feb 21, 2005 11:47 am

OPNLguy, shown here plotting his early retirement

2H4

lowecur · Mon Feb 21, 2005 12:00 pm

It's probably a spoof, but the $80 per share is preferred stock only and I don't believe most of that belongs to employees. In any case, at $35-45 trading range on the rest of the stock, it would still send alot of employees to the happy land of retirement. It would also make the payroll alot younger. I just think it has too may anti-trust problems to be true.

planespotting · Mon Feb 21, 2005 12:16 pm

In the 80's, Herb Kelleher threatened that if anyone ever tried to buy out southwest, he would implement a scorched earth policy and what would be left wouldn't be worth owning.

think that policy would still be in place?

lincoln · Mon Feb 21, 2005 12:24 pm

Quoting Lowecur (reply 143):
I just think it has too may anti-trust problems to be true.

Ditto. It seems to me (though I can't come up with a specific example so I could be wrong) that by vertically integrating in this manner there would be huge issues with Exxon-Mobil selling fuel to their subsidiary WN at less than market cost.

Real world example: The unregulated data services divisions of regulated telephone companies must purchase their services from the telephone company at the same rate as any other company providing the same services would be charged. Thus, Verizon, for example can't charge Verizon Online $3.00 a month for DSL (because that's the true cost) and then charge Earthlink $20 a month for the same resources. Verizon Online would then have an unfair advantage when pricing the service to the end users. [To make a profit Verizon Online could charge any amount greater than $3 and Earthlink could charge no less than $20]

Also there may be some negative consequence from other carriers choosing not to purchase Exxon-Mobil product when given the choice. I know this is a large part of the reason why Pepsi divested Tricor Foods several years ago (or whatever they're called -- the brand owners for KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut) -- other restaurants didn't want to feed their competition money.

Lincoln

N200WN · Mon Feb 21, 2005 12:52 pm

it would still send alot of employees to the happy land of retirement. It would also make the payroll alot younger

You're right about that...I know of several employees just waiting for $25/share to bail out. In a senior station like SAT it would really make a difference not only in payroll but also the amount of overtime needed to cover the 5 weeks of vacation per year for the senior guys.

OPNLguy · Mon Feb 21, 2005 12:59 pm

>>>OPNLguy, shown here plotting his early retirement

I can -ASSURE- you that if the stock hit $80 a share, I'd have a lot happier facial expression tha good ol' Monty burns...... Big grin

txagkuwait · Mon Feb 21, 2005 2:13 pm

You know, if you went back about 20 months on here I think you would find a post where I suggested that Southwest Airlines Co keep the -200s, and reduce the seating capacity to 56, and let 'er rip from Love Field.

Yes, you could do it with -500s.

Heck, you might even be able to get some Embraer 170s, configure them with 56 seats, and go to town with a seat mile cost that isnt too onerous.

I don't like the idea of a mixed fleet. But I do like the idea of rubbing CrAAndall's nose it.

Bob Crandall was a brilliant airline guy. He was just a little too smart for his own good. And I've seldom hears him described as a nice guy.

I recall the good old days of the two tier fare structure and no advance purchase nonsense. Just go up and buy a ticket and go and the price you paid was determined by whether the flight was M-F before 7 pm or at some other time.

SuperSAAver fares changed all that. Southwest had to resort to the $19 FunFare. Alas.

Crandall may no longer be at AAmerican but let's face it, AAmerican is still CrAAndall's airline.

Sort of like Braniff was Harding Lawrence's airline, Continental was Bob Six's airline then Lorenzo's airline then Bethune's airline. USAirways is Wolf's airline.

And the revisionist historians will argue this point with me until the end of time but the company with the ugly 737s is still very much Lamar's airline.

I know I'm rambling - I've been painting all day and getting a house ready to put on the market. Anyone need a 4/2.5/2 with heated pool and 17' ceilings in west El paso for the low 200s?

OpnlGuy.....can't they transfer you out here to sun city? You'd love it.

Back to the topic at hand. 737-500s with 56 seats nonstop MDW-DAL. That's why the news conference is in Chicago.

OPNLguy · Mon Feb 21, 2005 2:22 pm

>>>OpnlGuy.....can't they transfer you out here to sun city? You'd love it.

We've already got one guy in the office who commutes to Ruidoso, so I guess ELP is a theoretical possibility... Big grin

The -500s are a better sell, given that they're quieter, and are HUD-equipped...

Sign me up....

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net