vinniewinnie
Posts: 712
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 4:23 am

Are A And B Forgetting LH Needs Of Small Airlines?

Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:03 am

There are many airlines based in small countries which would like to expand and serve new far away destinations from their home base. Unfortunately all planes available on the market are too big for their needs. Even those planned for the future such as A350 or 787 have too much capacity. Even though they were specifically designed to provide an smaller alternative to big jumbo jets!

Look at SNBA for example: it wants a long-haul plane which could carry 220 in a 2 class configuration. This plane should also ideally be able to carry quit a bit of cargo. No aircraft matching these requirements exists. None is planned as well! I'm personally sure plenty of other airlines would want such a plane as well!

What are your thoughts?

PS: No A vs B war please...  Smile
 
bill142
Posts: 7864
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:50 pm

RE: Are A And B Forgetting LH Needs Of Small Airlines?

Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:11 am

Quoting VinnieWinnie (Thread starter):
Look at SNBA for example: it wants a long-haul plane which could carry 220 in a 2 class configuration. This plane should also ideally be able to carry quit a bit of cargo. No aircraft matching these requirements exists. None is planned as well! I'm personally sure plenty of other airlines would want such a plane as well!

How many other airlines what an aircraft like this? Why would either Airbus of Boeing go out and spend billions of dollars on a new aircraft for which there is no market, simply to please one airline which isn't going to order in large numbers.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Are A And B Forgetting LH Needs Of Small Airlines?

Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:17 am

I would imagine a 787-700 (or 78G if you like) is feasible, with a OEW some where around that of the 787-300 and MTOW somewhere south of the 787-8. Might look like a big flying wing if they use the wing with raked wingtips.

I think that Boeing would charge an arm and a leg for it because while the fuselage would be shorter, most of the systems would be the same and cost about the same to manufacture.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Are A And B Forgetting LH Needs Of Small Airlines?

Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:25 am

How many planes would be sold in such a configuration - answer that and you answer why theres no current offering for that market.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26307
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Are A And B Forgetting LH Needs Of Small Airlines?

Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:28 am

Quoting VinnieWinnie (Thread starter):
There are many airlines based in small countries which would like to expand and serve new far away destinations from their home base. Unfortunately all planes available on the market are too big for their needs (220 pax and cargo). No aircraft matching these requirements exists. None is planned as well! I'm personally sure plenty of other airlines would want such a plane as well!

The 767-200ER is available. It will carry 224 folks in two classes up to 6,600nm and will carry 2900 cubic feet of cargo in the hold.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 2):
I would imagine a 787-700 (or 78G if you like) is feasible, with a OEW some where around that of the 787-300 and MTOW somewhere south of the 787-8. Might look like a big flying wing if they use the wing with raked wingtips.

The 787-3 has the same fuel tankage of the 787-8, it just lacks the structure to physically support it.  Smile So Boeing could beef up the structure a bit to allow greater range with a smaller payload.
 
mbj2000
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:15 am

RE: Are A And B Forgetting LH Needs Of Small Airlines?

Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:33 am

Well, what about the A310?
Like most of life's problems, this one can be solved with bending -- Bender Unit 22
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Are A And B Forgetting LH Needs Of Small Airlines?

Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:54 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
The 787-3 has the same fuel tankage of the 787-8, it just lacks the structure to physically support it. So Boeing could beef up the structure a bit to allow greater range with a smaller payload.

Simply restricting payload on the 787-3 to support 220 passengers in two class would bring range to over 4000nm. Shortening the fuselage by 6m would reduce the weight by something like 5t, and bring range to around 5000nm with the same MTOW. If they aimed for a MTOW about 17t higher than that of the 787-3, they would get somewhere around 7000nm.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
Johnny
Posts: 812
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:38 am

RE: Are A And B Forgetting LH Needs Of Small Airlines?

Sun Apr 30, 2006 2:09 pm

Exactly what i think. There is no replacement for airplanes like the A310-300,B767-200ER and -300ER on longhaul flights.

Both A350-800 and B787-8 are much bigger.

I suggested some weeks ago here at a.net a B787-8 with a reduced fuselage diameter would be a good idea to fill the gap, but nobody agreed... 
A shrink is no good idea...


Johnny  

[Edited 2006-04-30 07:36:49]
 
cloudyapple
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:01 am

RE: Are A And B Forgetting LH Needs Of Small Airlines?

Sun Apr 30, 2006 2:34 pm

Quoting VinnieWinnie (Thread starter):
220 in a 2 class configuration. This plane should also ideally be able to carry quit a bit of cargo

A B744 Combi springs to mind.
A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9731
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: Are A And B Forgetting LH Needs Of Small Airlines?

Sun Apr 30, 2006 2:51 pm

The days of the "flag" carriers, where each country needed an airline, come what may and forget about the losses, are long time gone. Some countries do not know that yet but the will learn the lesson PDQ.

Countries which have arrived in the real world are Romania and Greece will follow soon, cutting long distance flights. Look at Belgium,even Scandianvia with a strong economic base has cut the long distance pattern of SAS dramatically over the years. The future will be 3 big carriers in Europe with a couple of niche carriers mostly under their umbrellas and with what money will African states be able to compete agains Etihad and Emirates siphoning long distance traffic from their countries?

Like in any other industry, production will concentrate on large and economically operated units. There is no market for such a plane.
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
 
sn26567
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 12:16 am

RE: Are A And B Forgetting LH Needs Of Small Airlines?

Sun Apr 30, 2006 4:12 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
The 767-200ER is available. It will carry 224 folks in two classes up to 6,600nm and will carry 2900 cubic feet of cargo in the hold.

That way too little cargo space for the African flights of SN!
ex-Sabena #26567
 
saturn5
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:49 pm

RE: Are A And B Forgetting LH Needs Of Small Airlines?

Sun Apr 30, 2006 4:17 pm

Quoting VinnieWinnie (Thread starter):
Look at SNBA for example: it wants a long-haul plane which could carry 220 in a 2 class configuration

What are you talking about? There are airplanes like that on the market.
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: Are A And B Forgetting LH Needs Of Small Airlines?

Sun Apr 30, 2006 4:36 pm

Quoting Bill142 (Reply 1):
Why would either Airbus of Boeing go out and spend billions of dollars on a new aircraft for which there is no market,

I would say you are wrong because technically there is a market for anything -- but, it is within a business' right to decide if a venture is worth their wild (i.e. will they do more than just break-even with current avail technology and resources). Never say 'there is no market' or ask 'where's the market?', its already there. The real question, "can you afford to give the customer what they want?"

737RS may include a derivative that may become the tiny-tim version of 787-10...  Smile It's only a matter of time. If the 787-cheerleaders here insist the future of aviation is in fragmentation, then they would be hypocrites to not accept that 787 will be fragmented as well. That smaller aircraft will take over certain routes in the future where 787 will reign supereme for decades.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14868
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Are A And B Forgetting LH Needs Of Small Airlines?

Sun Apr 30, 2006 4:37 pm

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 8):
A B744 Combi springs to mind.

Exactly. Since the combi is no longer allowed, this limited capacity but high cargo ability jet is no more.

The answer, of course, is for the airline in question to just fly cargo jets and not worry about flying pax to far flung destinations. Let the pax connect to a larger partner.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
columba
Posts: 5230
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: Are A And B Forgetting LH Needs Of Small Airlines?

Sun Apr 30, 2006 4:47 pm

What about A319LR and 737-700ER ? I guess they are not very economical to operate for small airlines.
Like the CEO of AB said he is earning more money when the plane is having 3 or 4 different flights per day as one long flight a day and therefore has no interest in becoming a long haul operator.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
vinniewinnie
Posts: 712
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 4:23 am

RE: Are A And B Forgetting LH Needs Of Small Airlines?

Sun Apr 30, 2006 5:39 pm

Quoting Bill142 (Reply 1):
Why would either Airbus of Boeing go out and spend billions of dollars on a new aircraft for which there is no market



Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 3):
How many planes would be sold in such a configuration

Allow me both to disagree. I think there is a marker! Look at Austrian Swiss SAS Malev SAS Finair... All are rather small carriers, which would like to expand or have tried, but failed because they just couldn't turn a profit with the material they used. SNBA specifically would like to serve more African destinations: Though there is a demand it wouldn't make sense to use existing planes!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
The 767-200ER is available



Quoting Mbj2000 (Reply 5):
Well, what about the A310

Aren't both a bit old and the later not in production anymore? Anyway all the carriers I named above would need a very efficient aircraft! Not saying that those aren't but simply saying that on the tight margins they are operating they really need something new!

Thanks for all the replies guys!  Smile
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26307
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Are A And B Forgetting LH Needs Of Small Airlines?

Mon May 01, 2006 2:00 am

Quoting Sn26567 (Reply 10):
That way too little cargo space for the African flights of SN!

Well if cargo is more important then passengers, they should acquire freighters, as well. Then they can fly both.

Or, as suggested by Cloudyapple, buy a combi widebody. The new regulations will restrict flexability (since you have to have dedicated, seperate passenger and cargo sections), but it would allow one plane to perform both roles.

Quoting VinnieWinnie (Reply 15):
Aren't both a bit old and the later not in production anymore? Anyway all the carriers I named above would need a very efficient aircraft! Not saying that those aren't but simply saying that on the tight margins they are operating they really need something new!

The 767-200ER is still being built. Saw one at Paine Field the other day (I believe being configured as a KC-767 for the Italian Air Force). And yes, it's an older design but if it gets the job done. Modern engines are a bit more efficient then the first series offered back in the 1980s, so while fuel burn will be more then with something like GEnx or Trent 1000s, it's not going to be as bad as it once was.

Plus you can get some good deals on existing frames, re-engine them, and the money you save over a new frame will pay for the additional fuel and maintenance quite handsomely, I imagine.

[Edited 2006-04-30 19:07:24]
 
DeltaWings
Posts: 1257
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 4:06 am

RE: Are A And B Forgetting LH Needs Of Small Airlines?

Mon May 01, 2006 4:13 am

Quoting Johnny (Reply 7):
Exactly what i think. There is no replacement for airplanes like the A310-300,B767-200ER and -300ER on longhaul flights.

Both A350-800 and B787-8 are much bigger.

The direct 763 replacement is the 788.


But I agree, Boeing and espaecially Airbus have abandonned the 762/A310 market. Airbus is not interested in replaceing the A310.
However, I think Boeing should definetly shrink the 787. This would replace the 762 and therefor cover the gap between the 789ER and 788.
Homer: Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9252
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Are A And B Forgetting LH Needs Of Small Airlines?

Mon May 01, 2006 8:00 am

Quoting Johnny (Reply 7):
I suggested some weeks ago here at a.net a B787-8 with a reduced fuselage diameter would be a good idea to fill the gap, but nobody agreed...

Because it isn't  Wink

The B787-8 is an incredibly well optimized aircraft, shrinking the aircraft's capacity makes little sense. It would likely be far more economical to opperate a slightly large aircraft that bother with an inefficent shrink variant with virtually no market appeal.

The jury is still out on if the -3 potential outside of the two Japanese carriers...

Quoting DeltaWings (Reply 17):
However, I think Boeing should definetly shrink the 787. This would replace the 762 and therefor cover the gap between the 789ER and 788.

Boeing selected the capacity of the -8 and -9 after extensive years of market anaylsis. If there was a market for a long-haul aircraft smaller than the 788, perhaps they would have built it? As it stands, the 763ER was the most popular 767 variant, and most replacement and growth will center on this and larger capacity units.

The talk is taking the B787 upward in seats (B787-10X) not down in seats.

Quoting Columba (Reply 14):
What about A319LR and 737-700ER ? I guess they are not very economical to operate for small airlines.

They make tremendous sense for small airlines.

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 8):
A B744 Combi springs to mind.

It's difficult to certify new combi aircraft due to safety features to isolate any risk between the cargo and passengers on the same deck.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 3):
How many planes would be sold in such a configuration - answer that and you answer why theres no current offering for that market.

 checkmark 
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Are A And B Forgetting LH Needs Of Small Airlines?

Mon May 01, 2006 8:12 am

It's easy to design an airliner with little capacity and great range. The problem is keeping CASM down. How much range do you want? My guess is the Airbus NSR and the B737RS may include variants with about 5000nm of range. That would further fragment the transatlantic market and, to a degree, the transpacific market. We would see a lot more flights from KIX, NGO, and ICN to YVR, SEA, PDX, and perhaps SJC.
 
airbazar
Posts: 9566
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: Are A And B Forgetting LH Needs Of Small Airlines?

Mon May 01, 2006 9:06 am

I think a 180-200 seat airplane capable for flying 6K miles plus in a 2 class configuration without restrictions would sell like hot cakes. Imagine a 757NG which such characterists, would open up far more routes than the 787. We could probably see the number of non-stop city pairs served between the US and Europe to double. The currect 757 is way too restrictive to operate between the US and Europe. In addition, I suspect a bunch of small to medium sice carriers would be able to operate flights betwen Europe and Asia and Africa.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Airbus is working on such aircraft. There have been rumblings of a next gen A320 family. I suspect the next gen A321 will be be the true replacement to the B757.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Are A And B Forgetting LH Needs Of Small Airlines?

Mon May 01, 2006 9:13 am

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 20):
I think a 180-200 seat airplane capable for flying 6K miles plus in a 2 class configuration without restrictions would sell like hot cakes.

Depends on CASM.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6488
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Are A And B Forgetting LH Needs Of Small Airlines?

Mon May 01, 2006 9:59 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 18):
Quoting Columba (Reply 14):
What about A319LR and 737-700ER ? I guess they are not very economical to operate for small airlines.

They make tremendous sense for small airlines.

Do we have information on how ANA is using their two recently announced 737 long rangers and how they're faring so far?
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9252
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Are A And B Forgetting LH Needs Of Small Airlines?

Mon May 01, 2006 10:40 am

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 22):
Do we have information on how ANA is using their two recently announced 737 long rangers and how they're faring so far?

I assume (a bit obviously) that they will be used on long-thin routes. They haven't been delivered yet... so they haven't faired at all.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6488
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Are A And B Forgetting LH Needs Of Small Airli

Mon May 01, 2006 4:41 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 23):
They haven't been delivered yet... so they haven't faired at all.

Ahh.....somehow I suspected that. Thank you. But if Boeing could perhaps update the 767ER by using new engines and other minor improvements they could trickle down from the 787 design to have better CASM, can't they do it inexpensively relative to a clean sheet design? They could do it while the 767 line is still open and waiting for the tanker result, and offer the same accomodation they had given ANA for possibly more airframes if more than one carrier request it. Or, the carrier(s) could try ANA's version.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: Are A And B Forgetting LH Needs Of Small Airlines?

Mon May 01, 2006 5:21 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 18):
If there was a market for a long-haul aircraft smaller than the 788, perhaps they would have built it?

That's not how it works:

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 12):
it is within a business' right to decide if a venture is worth their wild (i.e. will they do more than just break-even with current avail technology and resources).
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
Johnny
Posts: 812
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:38 am

RE: Are A And B Forgetting LH Needs Of Small Airlines?

Mon May 01, 2006 7:05 pm

B767 small airplane = high cost/seat
B787 bigger airplane = lower cost/seat
Could that be one reason for the size of the B787?

I would really like to see a comparison of the B767 and B787 with the same Paxnumber and the same Distance. (same flight)

Any figures?

Johnny  Smile
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Are A And B Forgetting LH Needs Of Small Airlines?

Mon May 01, 2006 7:10 pm

Quoting Johnny (Reply 26):
B767 small airplane = high cost/seat
B787 bigger airplane = lower cost/seat
Could that be one reason for the size of the B787?

The 787-8 (with 8Y economy) is sized to be a one to one replacement for the 763. The range, cargo capability and operating economics are better of course.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
columba
Posts: 5230
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: Are A And B Forgetting LH Needs Of Small Airlines?

Mon May 01, 2006 7:15 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 18):
What about A319LR and 737-700ER ? I guess they are not very economical to operate for small airlines.

They make tremendous sense for small airlines.

If so, why are only so few airlines operating them ? A319LRs and 737-700ERs are mostly in service with bigger airlines such as Qatar, Air France or ANA.
No smaller airline is using them for their long haul flights. If a smaller airline is starting to offer long distance flights they rather go for used 767, 757 or A310s than the long range versions of the 737 or A319.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
Johnny
Posts: 812
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:38 am

RE: Are A And B Forgetting LH Needs Of Small Airlines?

Mon May 01, 2006 7:21 pm

@Atmx2000

NO, the B787-8 has the capacity of the B767-400ER.

Johnny Smile
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: Are A And B Forgetting LH Needs Of Small Airlines?

Mon May 01, 2006 8:06 pm

The 78G (if you will) to a 788 would be the A342 to an A343, or the A318 to the A319. Slightly longer range and lower costs, considerably lower revenue potential. All in all, I doubt it would appeal, even to smaller airlines who'd rather flog the extra seats of the 788 at low prices, or take advantage of the increased cargo space. And think of a 78G's resale value.

If Airbus ever did make the quietly talked about 'A300NG' - they'd be in a position to produce a shortened A310 version, with longer range. But i doubt that strongly.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Are A And B Forgetting LH Needs Of Small Airlines?

Mon May 01, 2006 8:21 pm

Quoting Johnny (Reply 29):
NO, the B787-8 has the capacity of the B767-400ER.

The 787-8 has a capacity of 210-250 passengers in 3 classes depending on the seating mix and whether it has 8 abreast or 9 abreast economy seating. However the original number quoted was 224 pax in 3 classes with 8Y, which is just a little bit more than the 218 Boeing quotes for the 763ER.

Quoting Columba (Reply 28):
If so, why are only so few airlines operating them ? A319LRs and 737-700ERs are mostly in service with bigger airlines such as Qatar, Air France or ANA.

No one operates a 737-700ER as they have not entered service.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Are A And B Forgetting LH Needs Of Small Airlines?

Mon May 01, 2006 8:29 pm

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 30):
The 78G (if you will) to a 788 would be the A342 to an A343, or the A318 to the A319. Slightly longer range and lower costs, considerably lower revenue potential. All in all, I doubt it would appeal, even to smaller airlines who'd rather flog the extra seats of the 788 at low prices, or take advantage of the increased cargo space. And think of a 78G's resale value.

I don't think there is any guarantee of longer range. Boeing can lower MTOW to lower OEW. The problem is that Boeing would rather sell a 788 or larger aircraft, so it probably isn't going to discount a 78G or 782 by much.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
columba
Posts: 5230
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: Are A And B Forgetting LH Needs Of Small Airlines?

Mon May 01, 2006 8:46 pm

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 31):
No one operates a 737-700ER as they have not entered service.

Okay, thought the golden 737 of ANA was already a "ER" version. My fault, but anyway it does not really change the point I was trying to make, since no smaller airline has ordered the 737-700ER so far to start long haul service with a 737.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
vinniewinnie
Posts: 712
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 4:23 am

RE: Are A And B Forgetting LH Needs Of Small Airlines?

Mon May 01, 2006 9:33 pm

Thanks for all comments made! Very interesting I found!  Smile

Though the debate seems to move to long-range medium sized aircrafts (737-700 ER and A319LR), that wouldn't allow airlines I named above to take a lot of cargo with them. Since Cargo can nicely balance out PAX revenues if the later doesn't prove as successful as originally planned, there is still a problem!

And say Boeing decided to build a reduced sized 787 which would only marginally be less expensive, What would be the benefits for airlines in terms of costs? Lower amounts of pursers needed, small savings on fuel? Would it be worth it for airlines, instead of say having 25% of empty seats because of a lack of demand each time?

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