Nwa Parking A-320s

AMFAproud · Sun May 06, 2007 11:32 pm

NWA is parking A320s that have only 25000 cycles because of this AD 98-22-05 ; fatigue cracks in lower surface panel of the center wing box. I guess they just don't have the talent to fix them anymore. This is the website:

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...a!OpenDocument&ExpandSection=-2,-3

cdgdtw · Sun May 06, 2007 11:35 pm

You mean you can't fix something like this by deferring it and slapping a red INOPERATIVE sticker over the problem??

Hmm...those replacements are really working out well.

nitrohelper · Sun May 06, 2007 11:54 pm

How many total cycles are allowed on an A320, a 15 year old 737, or DC-9 -50 ?
Could some stored -9s be ready for service again ?

N801NW · Mon May 07, 2007 12:13 am

What tail #'s? I tried airwaysmag.com and airfleets.net and could not find any stored NW A320's that hadn't been lease rejected.

jetjack74 · Mon May 07, 2007 12:30 am

Quoting AMFAproud (Thread starter):
NWA is parking A320s that have only 25000 cycles because of this AD 98-22-05

25,000 cycles is kind of alot for a narrowbody is kind of alot don't you think? What was the total time on the airframe?

Quoting AMFAproud (Thread starter):
I guess they just don't have the talent to fix them anymore. This is the website:

Either that, or the cost of fixing them isn't worth when the mainline capacity is drawn down. NWA isn't the only carrier retiring 1st generation A320's, Cypress Airways retired some of theirs. Anyhow, aren't the major structural repairs farmed out 3rd party contractors?

exFATboy · Mon May 07, 2007 12:54 am

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 4):
Either that, or the cost of fixing them isn't worth when the mainline capacity is drawn down.

I'd imagine someone in NW's accounting department has done a study of 1st-gen A320 repair versus DC-9 fuel consumption, and the numbers favour the DC-9.

isitsafenow · Mon May 07, 2007 1:08 am

Quoting Nitrohelper (Reply 2):
a 15 year old 737, or DC-9 -50 ?

Thats a young model 50. Try 1970's vintage for the 50's.
safe airplane

DfwRevolution · Mon May 07, 2007 1:16 am

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 4):
25,000 cycles is kind of alot for a narrowbody is kind of alot don't you think?

Not really. The 737 service-life is 75,000 cycles, which can be extended with intensive maintenance checks and overhauls.

wingnut767 · Mon May 07, 2007 1:19 am

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 4):
Anyhow, aren't the major structural repairs farmed out 3rd party contractors?

At a airline like NW who destroyed the MX department, yes it needs to farmed out. But AA, CAL and UAl can do most structural AD's inhouse.

apodino · Mon May 07, 2007 1:39 am

I would take this with a grain of salt. Look at the original posters handle. Sounds like a bitter AMFA mechanic trying to stir the pot against NW to me. But I could be wrong.

Woosie · Mon May 07, 2007 4:16 am

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 4):
Quoting AMFAproud (Thread starter):
NWA is parking A320s that have only 25000 cycles because of this AD 98-22-05

25,000 cycles is kind of alot for a narrowbody is kind of alot don't you think? What was the total time on the airframe?

No 25K cycles ins't alot if the airplane is running approx 1 - 1.5 hr cycles; actually, that's quite new.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 4):
Quoting AMFAproud (Thread starter):
I guess they just don't have the talent to fix them anymore. This is the website:

Either that, or the cost of fixing them isn't worth when the mainline capacity is drawn down. NWA isn't the only carrier retiring 1st generation A320's, Cypress Airways retired some of theirs. Anyhow, aren't the major structural repairs farmed out 3rd party contractors?

The cost to repair may very well be more than the residual value of the airplane. For example, if the repair consists of replanking the lower wing box, it's VERY expensive!!

Cost of ownership is what decides what airplane flies and what airplane sits.

Cubsrule · Mon May 07, 2007 4:17 am

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 10):
Another excuse to keep the DC9's flying even longer.

They're more comfortable, no?

I don't see why this is news. Some of NW's 320s aren't exactly spring chickens (they have 4 of the first 50 built, which date to 1989). Airbus narrowbodies aren't built for the cycles that DC-9s and 737s are. That's not a judgment at all. It was a business decision by Airbus. But given that, we shouldn't be surprised to see that many of the oldest A320s have reached the end of their useful lives. At least 4 of the first 50 320s have already been scrapped, and several more may be headed that way.

In case anyone is interested, the scrapped 320s are MSN 11 (G-BUSD), MSN 25 (TS-INJ), MSN 27 (UR-UFB), and MSN 28 (5B-DAT).

jetjack74 · Mon May 07, 2007 4:20 am

Quoting Apodino (Reply 9):
I would take this with a grain of salt.

Well, from my 10 years at NWA, I've observed that most aircraft we operate, begin and end their lives here. So this really in retrospect, is nothing new. The A320's being scrapped are close to 20 years old.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 7):
The 737 service-life is 75,000 cycles, which can be extended with intensive maintenance checks and overhauls.

Well, the question is, is it econimically worth it to keep an aircraft going until it times out. Many late model 707's were scrapped with only 30,000 hrs plus our on the airframe, but were ground and sold to be parted out for spares due to econimic factors. Many US Airways 737-300/400's are well into the process of being scrapped after being retired. So maybe US Airways mechs aren't quite up to the task

Quoting Apodino (Reply 9):
Sounds like a bitter AMFA mechanic trying to stir the pot against NW to me. But I could be wrong.

I don't blame them. They were led down that road by an inept leadership in their union. NWA drew the line in the sand and they crossed it. They had the mechanics believing that NWA might operate a few weeks or months before inevitably having to shut down. Wel they were wrong. I would rather have our old mechanics back, but hopes for that is gone. It's tragic when good employees lose their jobs in that way, but life goes on.

graphic · Mon May 07, 2007 4:57 am

Quoting Cdgdtw (Reply 1):
You mean you can't fix something like this by deferring it and slapping a red INOPERATIVE sticker over the problem??

Pretty sure you can't defer an AD...

skoker · Mon May 07, 2007 5:13 am

Since when can a fallen off wing still meet the MEL? Inop? Wha?!?

AA737-823 · Mon May 07, 2007 5:32 am

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 13):
I've observed that most aircraft we operate, begin and end their lives here

Yet I believe NONE of your "world's largest DC-9 fleet" were purchased by NWA ever. The DC-10s were all second-hand, except for the -40s.

Anyhow, I digress.

Parking A320s after only 25,000 cycles? That's ludacrous. It's a shame, anyhow. Granted, I'd like nothing more than to see every A320 in the NW fleet replaced with new-build MD-90-30's, but that's a pipe dream and I know it.

nitrohelper · Mon May 07, 2007 6:02 am

Quoting Isitsafenow (Reply 6):

Thats a young model 50. Try 1970's vintage for the 50's.

Thanks for the info ,
now any idea how many cycles are permitted on DC-9s, (any vintage), & 320s?

jetjack74 · Mon May 07, 2007 6:04 am

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 17):
Yet I believe NONE of your "world's largest DC-9 fleet" were purchased by NWA ever. The DC-10s were all second-hand, except for the -40s.

They were acquired through mergers(some were 2nd hand) buth they they were new when our ancestors bought them. Bonanza, Air West, North Central, Southern, it's same thing. They're in our lineage, flown by some of the same pilots and flight attendants. The point is, we operate most of our aircraft until they're of little value to anyone else. Our aircraft are testimony to that. So relax, smoke cigarette if you have to before you have coronary.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 17):
Parking A320s after only 25,000 cycles?

Well, BA's 1st generation A320's were most likely lower time airframes then our, and they didn't waste very much time scrapping some of those. It's all about economics. These A320's are obviously worth more in parts than they are as a whole aircraft. Airbus is probably happy to see scrapped A320's because thatone less aircraft they have to compete with for sales. Happens all the time.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 17):
It's a shame, anyhow. Granted, I'd like nothing more than to see every A320 in the NW fleet replaced with new-build MD-90-30's, but that's a pipe dream and I know it.

Like I said, smoke something

isitsafenow · Mon May 07, 2007 6:25 am

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 16):
Yet I believe NONE of your "world's largest DC-9 fleet" were purchased by NWA ever

Well, you need to insert the word new after the word purchased . NW did buy lots of DC 9's after the Republic merger. ...all used of course. At least 25 from Eastern after they shut down(along with 7 or 8 727's) and 26 Alitalia model 30's.
There were others but these are the biggie buys.
safe

MCOflyer · Mon May 07, 2007 6:30 am

NW is doing whats right for them. I agree with what Jetjack74 has said. At least NW is making money by selling the salvageable parts.

MCOflyer

BEG2IAH · Mon May 07, 2007 7:40 am

Guys,

You might want to check Table 3 on the following web page:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...a26d6862571570057fa02?OpenDocument

Interesting numbers...

BEG2IAH

ha763 · Mon May 07, 2007 7:44 am

Quoting Nitrohelper (Reply 17):
now any idea how many cycles are permitted on DC-9s, (any vintage),

IIRC, 100,000 cycles. A HA's highest cycle DC-9-50 had 95,132 cycles when it was retired in 2002 after 26 years of flying at HA.

SEPilot · Mon May 07, 2007 8:01 am

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 10):
Another excuse to keep the DC9's flying even longer.

Hey, the NW DC-9's have been declared by God and the Continental Congress to be immune from such mundane factors as fatigue. Big grin

777law · Mon May 07, 2007 8:51 am

Quoting Apodino (Reply 9):
I would take this with a grain of salt. Look at the original posters handle. Sounds like a bitter AMFA mechanic trying to stir the pot against NW to me.

I agree. Even though I'm not terribly fond of NW or it's habit of using aircraft other mainline airlines retired decades ago, this post sounds like there could be some ulterior motives at work. Definitely worth taking with a grain of salt.

falstaff · Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 am

A lot of people knock on the DC-9s as being old. But you don't see them falling out of the sky... There have been some ground accidents recently, but some of those were not the fault of the aircraft. I know in a couple of recent accidents the DC-9 was parked.

I fly on NW's DC-9s as much as I can and will do so until they are gone.

If A320s are being removed from service and scrapped ahead of the DC-9s that just goes to show what a great airplane a DC-9 is. I know DC-9s are being withdrawn too, but some of those DC-9s have 20 plus years on the A320s

ERJ170 · Mon May 07, 2007 9:17 am

Could some 739s be in the future for NW? Or do they still have some deliveries of A320s/A319 on hold?

lightsaber · Mon May 07, 2007 9:27 am

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 4):
Either that, or the cost of fixing them isn't worth when the mainline capacity is drawn down. NWA isn't the only carrier retiring 1st generation A320's, Cypress Airways retired some of theirs. Anyhow, aren't the major structural repairs farmed out 3rd party contractors?

Its all going to be cost to worth. However, 25,000 cycles is nothing versus the 48,000 cycle lives... so its the expense not the benefit that is keeping it from being done. (assuming these aren't parked due to waiting for the MX vendor to have free line space).

That inspection/repair sounds very non-trivial. I doubt NW would have ever done it in house. Ghad... It is definitely one to see if its worth doing or not!

Quoting ExFATboy (Reply 5):

I'd imagine someone in NW's accounting department has done a study of 1st-gen A320 repair versus DC-9 fuel consumption, and the numbers favour the DC-9.

Anything else would be blasphemy. Wink

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 7):
Not really. The 737 service-life is 75,000 cycles, which can be extended with intensive maintenance checks and overhauls.

Yea... but beyound 75,000 requires rebuilding a rather expensive joint... Some airlines are doing it, many are not. Then again, 75,000 cycles is a heck of a lot anyway! bigthumbsup

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 23):

Hey, the NW DC-9's have been declared by God and the Continental Congress to be immune from such mundane factors as fatigue.

Or the fact they were built with 0.008" thicker sheet metal than anyone else would have built a plane under similar stress... they are over built. That costs fuel. But it will keep them in NW's fleet for a long time more! bigthumbsup

Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 21):
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...a26d6862571570057fa02?OpenDocument

Very interesting! Thanks for the link, its bookmarked. Ok, am I the only one amused that a DC-9 is allowed 100,000 cycles while an A320 is at 48,000? Yea... both can be extended by extended maintenance... but that is amazing. Smile

Although the Bombardier at 20,000 seems... low. Is that the CRJ (I'm unsure and thus asking)? CL-44D4 isn't exactly intuitive to me... And where are the Embraers in the table?

Lightsaber

aamr · Mon May 07, 2007 9:31 am

I may be missing something, but where did the first docket mention NWA or anything about parking a/c? It seems like a generic airworthiness amendment. We haven't heard anything internally about this.

Quoting Apodino (Reply 9):

Leaning this way as well confused

VC10DC10 · Mon May 07, 2007 9:31 am

This really gives weight to the old Northwest joke, that when the last A320 is parked in the desert, a DC-9 will deadhead out to pick up the flight crew... Smile

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 26):

Could some 739s be in the future for NW? Or do they still have some deliveries of A320s/A319 on hold?

I believe there are 2 or 4 A320 orders slated for the 2008/2009 timeframe... but I could be wrong. It was once told to me by a NW maintenance manager that one important reason NW didn't buy the 737 when they ended up signing for A320s was that the "second generation" of 737 (-300, -400, and -500) were slightly slower than the other fleet types (727, DC-9, 757, and A320) and thus not ideal for NW's hub and spoke operation. So now that the current generation of 737 is actually slightly faster than the A320, it might be a possibility -- although obviously there are WAY more factors involved than just airspeed.

One thing, I think, is sure: it won't be "some" of anything, it will be a lot of something. NW might well be waiting for the next-generation 737 replacement (Y1, I think) and whatever Airbus is concocting to compete.

SEPilot · Mon May 07, 2007 9:33 am

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 27):
Or the fact they were built with 0.008" thicker sheet metal than anyone else would have built a plane under similar stress... they are over built. That costs fuel. But it will keep them in NW's fleet for a long time more!

Don't reduce it to logical reasons; keeping it a matter of faith is so much more fun! candle

beau222 · Mon May 07, 2007 10:27 am

What ecactly is a "in flight cycle"?

Cubsrule · Mon May 07, 2007 10:39 am

Quoting Beau222 (Reply 31):
What ecactly is a "in flight cycle"?

Not too hard. One takeoff + one landing=one cycle. Or (barring something unfortunate) one flight=one cycle.

mli717fan · Mon May 07, 2007 10:42 am

Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 21):
You might want to check Table 3 on the following web page:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...a26d6862571570057fa02?OpenDocument

Interesting numbers...

That table is very interesting... Some key notes:

DC9: 100k
MD80: 50K
MD90: 60K
B717: 60K

So I take it the newer DC9 relatives are less overbuilt?

Also,
A330: 40k
A340: 20k
I thought those two were part of the same family, if that is the case, why are their life spans so different?

mli717fan · Mon May 07, 2007 10:50 am

I'd bet if you look at some of those old DC9s... and somehow calculated how much revenue they've generated for all of the airlines they've serviced, they are some of the most profitable birds in history.

stirling · Mon May 07, 2007 11:36 am

Quoting Mli717fan (Reply 33):
I thought those two were part of the same family, if that is the case, why are their life spans so different?

The A340 is intended for longer range flights than the A330...which equals less take off and landings per day, so they engineered it accordingly, their assumption being 20,000 versus 40,000 cycles in the end would work out to be about the same Time on the frame.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 12):
Airbus narrowbodies aren't built for the cycles that DC-9s and 737s are. That's not a judgment at all. It was a business decision by Airbus.

Which is the point here.

The Europeans, in breaking the US Monopoly on airliners had to sacrafice something, they chose longevity to be able to offer a lower cost of acquisition.
Not a slam on Airbus, hundreds of consumer products are made in such a way every day. This should not be misconstrued to mean Airbus builds an inferior product, not at all, they just last as long as other aircraft out there.

But let's face it, western Europe is not exactly the cheapest place to make 'stuff', so in able to pay a living wage, they were forced into building what has become essentially a disposable airliner.

milesrich · Mon May 07, 2007 12:30 pm

This news is not surprising. While a Boeing isn't as stout as a Douglas, European aircraft have a history of wearing out before their time. People used to joke on this forum that when NW flew their A-320's to the boneyard, they would fly back to MSP or DTW on a DC-9. That isn't too far from the truth. An Airbus is similar to a Lockheed. I wonder if the French and German Governments will bail them out, like the USA did with Lockheed. How in the world does the Wing Box on a modern airplane wear out after only 20,000 cycles? Could Jet Blue, USAir, and United be the next carriers to have issues with the structural integrity of the A-320 series. I wonder how many cycles an A-380 will last? This is good news for Boeing and their workers.

Cubsrule · Mon May 07, 2007 12:37 pm

Quoting Milesrich (Reply 36):
Could Jet Blue, USAir, and United be the next carriers to have issues with the structural integrity of the A-320 series.

UA's 320s are at least 6 years younger than these birds (and the 319s are younger still), and probably fly longer average stage lengths due to UA's route structure. US (West) does have some fairly old 320s which may well have these issues soon as well. B6 isn't close.

zeke · Mon May 07, 2007 12:46 pm

Quoting Mli717fan (Reply 33):

A330: 40k
A340: 20k
I thought those two were part of the same family, if that is the case, why are their life spans so different?

340 pressure controllers send the cabin up to a higher diff for long haul flights, it has a lower cabin altitude than the 330.

I think average trip on the 340 for is something like 12 hrs, and 330 7 hrs.

12x20,000 or 7x40,000, so its likely the life cycle flight hours is up around 250-300k mark depending on the stress induced.

I don't think what is happening here is that uncommon, I remember last year a 10 yr old 777 was scrapped for parts.

TrijetsRMissed · Mon May 07, 2007 1:01 pm

If NW does indeed park a portion of the older A320 fleet in the desert, will scheduled A320 flights start switching to DC-9 on the timetable? I will be flying MEM-ORD in June and although this route is flown by DC-9 70% of the time, I got stuck with an A320.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 16):
I'd like nothing more than to see every A320 in the NW fleet replaced with new-build MD-90-30's, but that's a pipe dream and I know it.

That would have been nice, and the first generation A320's are inferior to the MD-90-30ER. There are rumors that DL may be adding some additional MD-90's to its fleet. crossfingers

SkydrolBoy · Mon May 07, 2007 1:07 pm

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 27):
75,000 cycles is a heck of a lot anyway!

Theres a few Convair 580's still flying around that have over 145,000 cycles. Kelowna Flightcraft has one C-GKFQ operating on the west coast of Canada, and DHL has one over in Europe, Not sure of the reggy.

MD-90 · Mon May 07, 2007 1:21 pm

Quoting Milesrich (Reply 36):
European aircraft have a history of wearing out before their time.

This is a silly statement...in short, no, they don't "wear out before their time."

Quoting Milesrich (Reply 36):
How in the world does the Wing Box on a modern airplane wear out after only 20,000 cycles?

Boy, I bet you don't want to know that some modern light aircraft are limited to only 12,000 hours total.

MD-90 · Mon May 07, 2007 1:24 pm

Quoting Milesrich (Reply 36):
While a Boeing isn't as stout as a Douglas, European aircraft have a history of wearing out before their time.

One other thing (from the link BEG2IAH so kindly provided):

20,000 cycles - Boeing 744
20,000 cycles - MD-11
20,000 cycles - A340

I'm starting to see a trend...

iwok · Mon May 07, 2007 1:34 pm

Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 21):
Guys,

You might want to check Table 3 on the following web page:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...a26d6862571570057fa02?OpenDocument

Interesting numbers...

BEG2IAH

Very interesting indeed. It looks as though the Boeing models are built for 1.5-2x more cycles than the Airbus counterparts, which must give some clue into the pricing strategy. Its wierd that Airbus had to go with a cheaper construction to break into the market; the complete opposite of the strategy in cars.

The DC-9 in incredible!

Quoting Mli717fan (Reply 33):
Also,
A330: 40k
A340: 20k
I thought those two were part of the same family, if that is the case, why are their life spans so different?

Interesting indeed... We keep hearing how they are the same plane Wink

iwok

TrijetsRMissed · Mon May 07, 2007 1:42 pm

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 42):
20,000 cycles - Boeing 744
20,000 cycles - MD-11
20,000 cycles - A340

To add, some of the newly acquired TZ DC-10's from NW are approaching 30,000 cycles. Looks like the old DC series jets can not be matched in durability.

UnknownUser · Mon May 07, 2007 1:52 pm

I suppose it comes down to 'you get what you pay for.'

futurecaptain · Mon May 07, 2007 2:09 pm

Interesting tables there.

Is it perhaps possible that Douglas built it's planes so well that it drove them out of business because airlines didn't have to replace the airframe as often?

Perhaps Airbus is taking a different stand and going for cheap, "throw away", planes hoping airlines will come back to them for replacements.

Boeing has taken a middle road.

Like a toaster, if it lasted forever I would never need to buy a new one and the people making them would eventually go out of business when everyone that needed the product had it. So, of course, it breaks 1 month after the warranty expires. Smile

*Disclaimer* I realize there were many factors at play in the demise of Douglas Aircraft, and this probably was the least of them. I'm just thinking out loud here.

sstsomeday · Mon May 07, 2007 3:32 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 12):
Airbus narrowbodies aren't built for the cycles that DC-9s and 737s are. That's not a judgment at all. It was a business decision by Airbus. But given that, we shouldn't be surprised to see that many of the oldest A320s have reached the end of their useful lives.

Quoting Falstaff (Reply 25):
If A320s are being removed from service and scrapped ahead of the DC-9s that just goes to show what a great airplane a DC-9 is. I know DC-9s are being withdrawn too, but some of those DC-9s have 20 plus years on the A320s

I had no idea that the 320's were not built to have the same lifespan as their closest competitor, the 737. This is very interesting to me.

Is the 320 necessarily a lot cheaper, therefore, than a 737, because it doesn't last as long, and because, one would assume, it would have a lower resale value in that case?

What are the merits of the 320 that make it so popular, if it is expected to do only 25K cycles with the 737 doing 75k? The two seem to be both selling equally well. Is the 320 cheaper to operate? Does the durability of the 737 add weight?

Is it the nature of contemporary A/C (Boeing or Airbus) that they are not meant to last as long as before, because technology evolves so much more quickly now than 30 years ago, and A/C would outlive their desirability because they would be still serviceable, yet technologically obsolete?

(edited for content and spelling... it's late)

[Edited 2007-05-07 08:36:27]

[Edited 2007-05-07 08:37:59]

[Edited 2007-05-07 08:41:27]

andessmf · Mon May 07, 2007 3:45 pm

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 46):
Douglas built it's planes so well

Douglas built some DAMN good planes. Long after the competition has turned to soda cans, Douglas airplanes are still flying.

You can still see DC-3s around, the DC-8 has been used for decades longer than the 707, DC-9s are still good, etc.

As some ol' timers say: ''They don't built them like that anymore!"

kc135topboom · Mon May 07, 2007 3:56 pm

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 47):
What are the merits of the 320 that make it so popular, if it is expected to do only 25K cycles with the 737 doing 75k? The two seem to be both selling equally well. Is the 320 cheaper to operate? Does the durability of the 737 add weight?

Narrow body aircraft build up cycles a lot faster than most wide bodies, because they usually fly shorter flights.

The cycle limit for the A-320 series is 48,000 cycles, which still does not compare with the B-737NG. My guess is the 25,000cycle limit for completing the AD is because most A-320 series have not reached that mark yet.

acjflyer · Mon May 07, 2007 5:42 pm

Speaking of old planes still in service...

Funny story - This past week my best friend flew US/HP from PHX-ONT on a 737-300. He sat in row 3 (bulkhead) and upon looking down and seeing that the armrest had an ashtray, that has since been welded shut, he commented to me that he felt lucky to be flying on a plane that people like Clark Gable and Elvis may have flown on in it's early days.

The best part is that he knows nothing about aviation and he was serious in his remarks. He is fascinated that the old plane could stay together during flight.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net