Why Are Airlines Dumping 717s Prematurely?

1337Delta764 · Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:55 am

It seems that in recent years, many airlines are dumping their 717s. With Southwest planning to get rid of the AirTran 717s, it seems that the 717 has a bleak future in airline service.

While not quite as efficient as the Embraer 190/195 and CRJ-1000, the fuel burn on the 717 isn't that bad. The 717 is cheaper to operate than an A318 or 736. It seems that the 717 is now facing the same fate as the MD-11 did with commerical airlines, where they are being retired prematurely. Why are airlines retiring them prematurely?

MillwallSean · Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:33 am

Most airlines that have used them have found them less profitable than their alternatives.
Thats why Bangkok air, Aerbal, Olympic etc disposed of them.

Volotea the airline that apparently some says will take on ex mexicana and midway 717:s hasn't started flying yet. But their aim is to be 50% cheaper than competitors. They will be based at Barcelona but have its first plane based at Venice Italy. they state they will focus on Italy, Spain and France as its main markets.
I don't think we shall assume they will be successful enough to take that many 717:s just yet. they have a mountain to climb.
But if they manage to become 50% cheaper than Ryanair ah wow then they sure will have low costs and be unbeatable.
They have raised 50 m euros for this start up mainly from private equity.

SK didn't find the plane attractive but their minuscule leasing costs and support from Boeing still made it worthwhile for them to take those planes rather than going for a more preferred option such as the Airbus, Boeing, Embraer or Bombardier. Don't expect them to last that long at Blue1 though.

717 a fine airplane but unfortunately its an oddball and to costly for most airlines to operate. I'm sure that it can be used on mining routes in Australia (not on Qantas but on a small niche player providing contract flights in Aussie, used to be called national these days i don't know what their name is) and intra island on Hawaiian. But where else can they go and be leased too?

I think its safe to say that Boeing hasn't exactly lined up a list of customers for these planes despite them being extremely cheap to lease. Id say we will see more parted out as Airtran returns theirs.

woodsboy · Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:50 am

I expect that the 717 will not be parked in mass for many years, its likely that a few operators will continue to build their fleets and achieve economies of scale. Its likely that it will follow a similar path that the MD-90s has, the fleet was small and airlines that had them only had a handful and we know that very small sub-fleets rarely make economic sense. But if you have a bunch of them and are able to buy them for next to nothing they become very attractive due to low acquisition cost and the fact that they are actually quite efficient even when measured against current offerings from B& A as well as the regional jets. If you can fill a 717 with pax you also have a lot more space for freight than on an E-Jet or CRJ not to mention that they are a hell of a lot more comfortable than the RJs.

In the years to come someone will be building a fleet of 717s, snapping them up as the come off leases, mark my words!

AA737-823 · Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:52 am

It'd be great if AA finally chose to replace their F100-sized fleet vacancy with these 717s at attractive rates; the only reason they turned loose of them at the time was UNattractive lease rates, which had been the best that TWA could manage, with their very poor FICO score!

Revelation · Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:34 pm

I thought it was also posted here recently that Turkmenistan just parked a few frames.

I also thought I read here that the engines are needing overhauls sooner than planned, leading to higher costs than planned.

flyorski · Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:45 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 6):
I thought it was also posted here recently that Turkmenistan just parked a few frames.

I also thought I read here that the engines are needing overhauls sooner than planned, leading to higher costs than planned.

I read the same things. I also heard from an AirTran mechanic that the engines on the 717 have frequent leaks and are expensive to maintain. Also because so few of them have been built it is not worth it to find a long-term solution to the engine maintenance problems. This has resulted in the 717 having higher fixed mx costs compared to some competing aircraft while also having a higher fuel burn. Not the ideal position for an aircraft. I would not be surprised if even more 717s continue to be parked in both the near term and long term. WN is making the smart move in getting rid of the 717s.

akelley728 · Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:24 pm

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 2):
717 a fine airplane but unfortunately its an oddball and to costly for most airlines to operate. I'm sure that it can be used on mining routes in Australia (not on Qantas but on a small niche player providing contract flights in Aussie, used to be called national these days i don't know what their name is)

The Fokker F100 already fills that role quite nicely, thank you.

http://www.fokker.com/Fokker-Portal-...ker-aircraft-in-first-half-of-2011

"Australia is becoming a real stronghold for Fokker jets as more Fokker 100s have moved to incumbent operators Alliance Airlines and Skywest Airlines. Meanwhile, Network Aviation, which was purchased by Qantas early 2011 is adding Fokker 100s to its current fleet. The total fleet of 33 Fokker 70s and Fokker 100s in Australia will likely approach 40 by yearend. Many of these aircraft are supporting the booming mining industry in Australia’s interior. "

Revelation · Tue Feb 21, 2012 7:38 pm

Quoting akelley728 (Reply 8):
Australia is becoming a real stronghold for Fokker jets

Yes, there sure are a lot of Fokkers in Australia.

Elsewhere too.

mal787 · Tue Feb 21, 2012 7:46 pm

I am sitting in the QF lounge in Darwin and can see 3 outside ready to roll . not a dying bread here

Mal 787

roseflyer · Tue Feb 21, 2012 7:55 pm

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Thread starter):
Why are airlines retiring them prematurely?

Maintenance is one big reason. The spares parts inventory is small for the 717. The parts supply chain is gone, so spares costs are through the roof and sometimes challenging to get.

Another reason is that leasing companies don't want to touch them. Leasing companies hate small fleet types such as the 717, 757-300, A318, etc. They don't want to own them so they won't work with the airlines which drives up financing costs. Some here think being an oddball drives down financing costs, but in reality oddball fleets drive up financing costs. The financiers charge higher rates for the airplanes since they value the airplanes less and the equity in the airplane is less. Some people think that 717s were a steal and Boeing was selling them for deep discounts, when the opposite was true. Boeing was willing to take lower margins, but the financing and leasing companies took that all away by charging far more, which made the airplane unattractive.

Quoting flyorski (Reply 7):

I read the same things. I also heard from an AirTran mechanic that the engines on the 717 have frequent leaks and are expensive to maintain

I believe AirTran has a power by the hour contract on their engines. Therefore AirTran does not pay for maintenance costs since it is in the contract. Of all airlines in the country, AirTran has about the lowest percentage of in-house maintenance.

I don't doubt that they can be a maintenance head ache, especially when compared to one of the most reliable engines in the world which the mechanic is likely comparing it to (the CFM56). The BR700 engines are mostly used on business jets, so their use on the high cycle 717 is a much different operating environment.

[Edited 2012-02-21 11:57:16]

ytz · Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:12 pm

Give it a few years. Small fleet size, higher fuel burn, etc. These will all be replaced by CSeries or E-Jets, or upgauged into 73G/A319 territory.

Revelation · Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:23 pm

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 11):
I believe AirTran has a power by the hour contract on their engines. Therefore AirTran does not pay for maintenance costs since it is in the contract. Of all airlines in the country, AirTran has about the lowest percentage of in-house maintenance.

How would such contracts deal with the costs due to unanticipated withdrawal from service due to minor things like leaks and/or major things like needing overhaul more frequently than planned? If this is happening (and I don't have any facts, I'm just going by statements I've read here), it must be costing AirTran more than anticipated due to cancelled or delayed flights.

roseflyer · Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:32 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 13):
it must be costing AirTran more than anticipated due to cancelled or delayed flights.

Engines are actually fairly low on the list of causing aircraft delays. It likely accounts for some, but engines are almost never in the top 10 list of systems that cause delays and cancellations.

My personal opinion is that the poster talked to a mechanic commenting on how much worse the BR700 is than the CFM56. This is likely true, but from my experience working in reliability, engine maintenance in a power by the hour contract is a low contributor to delays. AirTran can call Rolls Royce to fix the engine or replace it when there are significant leaks, cracks, etc found.

Contracts typically involve the engine service provider to ensure a certain dispatch reliability. If it is below a certain rate, there is compensation involved. For example Rolls Royce may guarantee 99.8% dispatch reliability and if it falls below that, they pay for it.

andyinpit · Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:17 pm

I can tell you from an ATC perspective, they are some of the worst performing aircraft out there. Won't speed up and climb rates rivaling a light twin in the summer time. I don't know if it's the operator and their climb profiles or something, but you really have to keep an eye on them to make sure they meet altitude restrictions and such.

0newair0 · Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:30 pm

Quoting andyinpit (Reply 15):
Won't speed up and climb rates rivaling a light twin in the summer time.

This could, like you said, be more of an operator caused issue rather than an actual performance issue. AirTran, I believe (I haven't checked the stats in awhile), still has the lowest CASM in the US. AirTran's fuel consumption management could be a key factor to both of those.

seabosdca · Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:42 pm

Quoting andyinpit (Reply 15):
I can tell you from an ATC perspective, they are some of the worst performing aircraft out there. Won't speed up and climb rates rivaling a light twin in the summer time. I don't know if it's the operator and their climb profiles or something, but you really have to keep an eye on them to make sure they meet altitude restrictions and such.

Probably operator-specific. The 717 has more than enough engine and wing for very good performance.

Edit: It just occurred to me that FL also has historically used a crazy-low thrust rating on their 73Gs (20k is coming to mind). Further support from the idea that they are pinching every drop of fuel.

I suppose that will come to an end now that "Let's climb to 41,000 feet in 15 minutes" WN is running the show.

[Edited 2012-02-21 16:12:45]

Gemuser · Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:09 am

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 2):
I'm sure that it can be used on mining routes in Australia (not on Qantas but on a small niche player providing contract flights in Aussie, used to be called national these days i don't know what their name is)

OK, lets sort out this somewhat confused statement.
Most (all?) B717s in Australia are owned/leased by Qantas. Most (all?) are leased/sub-leased to Cobhams (sp?) Aviation (used to be NJS - National Jet Systems) who operate them under the QF brand name of QantasLink on both scheduled services and mining company charters on behalf of QF. They also operate some mining company charters on their own behalf. On QFLink services they operate all over Australia, although not a lot in the south east.

I really have seen no indication that QF/Cobhams are thinking of retiring them any time soon.

Gemuser

TZTriStar500 · Wed Feb 22, 2012 3:15 am

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Thread starter):
Why are airlines retiring them prematurely?

But they really are not. The only aircraft that have had recent difficulty finding new homes where the 25 ex-YX aircraft and in my opinion it was mainly because of their low density 99/104 seat capacity. Most of these are finally going to Volotea, but in a 125 pax configuration. The other 5 to HA and QF. These weren't technically retired prematurely, but their operators (YX and MX Click) went out of business.

Other than the recent Turkmenistan withdraws, there are no 717s on the market and WN/FL will not start returning them until 2017 as leases run out.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 11):
The spares parts inventory is small for the 717. The parts supply chain is gone, so spares costs are through the roof and sometimes challenging to get.

While the fleet size is 156, the aircraft does use much from the DC-9/MD-80/MD-90. There is some difficulty getting some items like interior furnishings, but the aircraft was built pretty generic internally with little variation and Fischer Advance Composites still supports it along with Boeing. I do agree that one may start to see some aircraft parted out because of this, but it shouldn't be any more of a challenge to operate than a fleet of lower total production orphan MD-90s.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 11):
Boeing was willing to take lower margins, but the financing and leasing companies took that all away by charging far more, which made the airplane unattractive.

Can you explain this? Its my understanding that Boeing Capital is the lessor on at least 2/3 of the 717 fleet so why would they do such a thing?

Quoting gemuser (Reply 18):
I really have seen no indication that QF/Cobhams are thinking of retiring them any time soon.

True as they are actually adding two of the ex-YX aircraft.

sxf24 · Wed Feb 22, 2012 3:48 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 13):
How would such contracts deal with the costs due to unanticipated withdrawal from service due to minor things like leaks and/or major things like needing overhaul more frequently than planned? If this is happening (and I don't have any facts, I'm just going by statements I've read here), it must be costing AirTran more than anticipated due to cancelled or delayed flights.

Power by the hour contracts cover all of those events. The benefit of PBH arrangements is that they largely fix maintenance costs.

MillwallSean · Wed Feb 22, 2012 3:59 am

Quoting TZTriStar500 (Reply 19):
But they really are not. The only aircraft that have had recent difficulty finding new homes where the 25 ex-YX aircraft and in my opinion it was mainly because of their low density 99/104 seat capacity. Most of these are finally going to Volotea, but in a 125 pax configuration. The other 5 to HA and QF. These weren't technically retired prematurely, but their operators (YX and MX Click) went out of business.

Other than the recent Turkmenistan withdraws, there are no 717s on the market and WN/FL will not start returning them until 2017 as leases run out.

Bangkok Air, Turkmenistan, Aerbal and Olympic comes to mind as airtlines that have returned the aircraft.
Blue1 took them from AerBal for a reason with SK ownership etc...

Again Qantas doesnt operate any 717.
There are regionals operating for Qantas that uses 717.
Alot of them see the airline as good for the mining routes and regional Qantas routes. The routes comes with guaranteed earnings and sees zero competition.

Volotea so far has 50million euros raised, they can not by any means take on 25 717:s.
They also have a businessmodel stating they should udnercut Ryanair etc with 50% and theor focus markets are Spain, Italy and France. Looks suicidal if you ask me...
The reason Volotea signed for the 717 is simply because there were no other takers and they were thus the cheapest metal they could get. Id be extremely surprised if Volotea manages to acquire ten of them before they suspend flights.

I like the 717 its a great plane as a passenger I used to love flying it with Bangkok Air. But the plane isnt economical at all today with oilprices being high and only 130 or so in exsistance.
Airtran has what 85 of them, second highest owner is parked aircraft 20+ then comes Hawaiian with close to 20.

XT6Wagon · Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:08 am

They are not that young.
They are short haul that rack up the cycles in a hurry.
They are not being dumped prematurely, in an industry where planning what you are doing 5 years from now is todays work, and 10years from now is what you do the next day... 717's don't have a "long term" future. But you can say the same for MD80, 737classics, etc.

Certainly the small fleet and unavaliblity of new builds is making its service life shorter than many of the aircraft in its class. Just look at just how short some MD-90's lives were thanks to its tiny fleet.

TZTriStar500 · Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:32 am

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 21):
Bangkok Air, Turkmenistan, Aerbal and Olympic comes to mind as airtlines that have returned the aircraft.
Blue1 took them from AerBal for a reason with SK ownership etc...

Aebal and later Quantum along with Olympic went out of business so the 717 was collateral damage there.

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 21):
Again Qantas doesnt operate any 717.
There are regionals operating for Qantas that uses 717.
Alot of them see the airline as good for the mining routes and regional Qantas routes. The routes comes with guaranteed earnings and sees zero competition.

Ok, but Cobham still chooses to operate them and is adding two more.

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 21):
Volotea so far has 50million euros raised, they can not by any means take on 25 717:s.
They also have a businessmodel stating they should udnercut Ryanair etc with 50% and theor focus markets are Spain, Italy and France. Looks suicidal if you ask me...
The reason Volotea signed for the 717 is simply because there were no other takers and they were thus the cheapest metal they could get. Id be extremely surprised if Volotea manages to acquire ten of them before they suspend flights.

How do you know how much has been raised? I don't think they've made that completely public and CCMP Capital is largely involved. While I agree the chances of a start-up being successful in these days is extreme, there are some industry heavyweights (Vueling founders, Carlos Muñoz and Lázaro Ros and Greg Brenneman from CCMP) behind Volotea that are not stupid by any means. They have signed for 20 of the aircraft, but plan to take them slowly over two years. We'll see if they take all 20. Though you may be correct about them being cheap, there are also some in Volotea that were previously with AeBal and Quantum so already familiar with and know this aircraft.

FX1816 · Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:59 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 22):
They are not that young.

Really, the first deliveries were in 1999 or so and the last ones delivered were done so in 2006 so I would hardly say they are not that young.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 22):
They are short haul that rack up the cycles in a hurry.

Yes and as the DC95's with DAL show, Douglas planes are built to last. Besides the 25 ex YX and MXA Click 717s have actually spent quite a bit of time, in two different stints, at VCV.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 22):
Just look at just how short some MD-90's lives were thanks to its tiny fleet.

Not that many and besides DAL is scooping up just about all of them that are left.

FX1816

RayChuang · Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:16 am

I wonder has Japan Transocean Air (the Okinawa-based subsidiary of JL) and ANA Wings (a subsidiary of NH) has considered snapping up the 717-200 for shorter flights among the Japan's home islands and to and from the various islands of the Ryukyu Islands chain....

Gemuser · Wed Feb 22, 2012 8:54 am

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 21):
Again Qantas doesnt operate any 717.
There are regionals operating for Qantas that uses 717.

That Qantas own/hold the head lease on and supply to the regionals

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 21):
The routes comes with guaranteed earnings and sees zero competition.

For the contractors, yes but NOT for QF who bear the risk. If the B717 was not the best choice available they would get something else.

Quoting TZTriStar500 (Reply 23):

Ok, but Cobham still chooses to operate them and is adding two more.

Qantas is adding two to Cobhams.

Can't be too bad a plane, for their needs, if they keep adding to the fleet.

Gemuser

XT6Wagon · Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:20 am

Quoting FX1816 (Reply 24):
Really, the first deliveries were in 1999 or so and the last ones delivered were done so in 2006 so I would hardly say they are not that young.

and we are talking about 2017 being the first date WN is planning on kicking one to the curb. With this small of a fleet in the world and the heavy cycles they see.... You're not going to see too many 30+ year old 717's around. When WN talks about the 717 having no long term future, just how long term do you think they could economicly use the 717 past 2017? Its not like a 737 or A320 where everyone and thier dog sells parts. Its not like you can mix in long flights to balance hours and cycles on your 717. Its not like you can grow your fleet at will to match your needs.

Yet, I'm betting the 717 lease rate in 2017 will be rock bottom, so unless scrapping them for spares is greatly needed, someone should be plenty willing to finish off thier last few years in service.

Revelation · Wed Feb 22, 2012 2:03 pm

Quoting TZTriStar500 (Reply 19):
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 11):
Boeing was willing to take lower margins, but the financing and leasing companies took that all away by charging far more, which made the airplane unattractive.

Can you explain this? Its my understanding that Boeing Capital is the lessor on at least 2/3 of the 717 fleet so why would they do such a thing?

I think the context of Boeing above was meant to mean Boeing as OEM/sellor, not as lessor. The fact that Boeing had to become lessor for so many of the a/c shows that the lessor community at large was not willing to support the 717.

Quoting sxf24 (Reply 20):
Power by the hour contracts cover all of those events. The benefit of PBH arrangements is that they largely fix maintenance costs.

Agreed. As above, it was said they also guarantee a minimum service level. So, are the faults people listed such as leaks and more-frequent overhauls in danger of dragging the service level down to the point where the PBH service level guarantees (and thus payments to the airlines) kick in?

TZTriStar500 · Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:28 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 25):
and we are talking about 2017 being the first date WN is planning on kicking one to the curb. With this small of a fleet in the world and the heavy cycles they see.... You're not going to see too many 30+ year old 717's around. When WN talks about the 717 having no long term future, just how long term do you think they could economicly use the 717 past 2017? Its not like a 737 or A320 where everyone and thier dog sells parts. Its not like you can mix in long flights to balance hours and cycles on your 717. Its not like you can grow your fleet at will to match your needs.

Yet, I'm betting the 717 lease rate in 2017 will be rock bottom, so unless scrapping them for spares is greatly needed, someone should be plenty willing to finish off thier last few years in service.

Your analysis isn't entirely correct. The 717 is not a totally new model and thus completely orphaned. It borrows much from the DC-9/MD-80/MD-90. It also has no more heavy cycle usage than a DC-9-30 did nor can handle. In 2017, the oldest will be less than 20 years old. If anything kills this aircraft it will be its size and resulting high CASM. It really needs a high density layout now to be competitive. We'll see how long she lasts.

HNLPointShoot · Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:19 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 25):
Yet, I'm betting the 717 lease rate in 2017 will be rock bottom, so unless scrapping them for spares is greatly needed, someone should be plenty willing to finish off thier last few years in service.

I get the feeling HA will be wanting some nice low-cycle (relatively speaking) 717s for their 6 cycle/day interisland routes.

JQflightie · Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:38 am

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 1):

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 19):

QF own the 717's, they have been operated in Australia since 1999/2000 with ex Impulse Airlines, then QF bought Impulse out, aquiring all 717's, there were 5 or 7 with more being added, these 717's were immediately re-painted into QantasLink livery and operated up and down the east coast of Australia. These 717's were then in May 2005 these 717's were transfered over to JQ to start up low-cost ops across Australia. The 717's got replaced by A320 aircrafts on a 1 by 1 basis. The Aircraft were stored all around australia for a bit, before Qantas aquired more and transfered their operations to National Jet - Opperating on behalf of QantasLink from PER, DRW and CNS. These replaced the Airlink BAe 146's .
Qantas own these Aircraft and have added more over time, and recently purchased 2 more to expand 717 opperations from BNE.

Gemuser · Thu Feb 23, 2012 7:22 am

Quoting JQflightie (Reply 29):
QF own the 717's

Actually that is very unlikely, they control them yes, but they are owned by financial institutions:

From the ARCA, 20 Feb 2012;
VH-NXK - VH-NXQ serial numbers 55092-55097 registration holder: Shire Aviation Australia Pty Ltd

VH-NXG S/N 55057, VH-NXI S/N 55054, VH-NXH S/N 55055 registration holder: ANZ Banking Group

VH-NXD S/N 55062 registration holder Allco Leasing MSN 55062 Pty Ltd
VH-NXE S/N 55063 registration holder Allco Leasing MSN 55063 Pty Ltd

The registered operator of all the above aircraft is National Jet Systems of Adelaide. Apparently the AOC/COA has not been changed to Cobhams.

This is a similar arrangement to the RR powered B767-336s operated by Qantas, except QF is shown as the registered operator.

Gemuser

Why Are Airlines Dumping 717s Prematurely?

Why Are Airlines Dumping 717s Prematurely?

RE: Why Are Airlines Dumping 717s Prematurely?

RE: Why Are Airlines Dumping 717s Prematurely?

RE: Why Are Airlines Dumping 717s Prematurely?

RE: Why Are Airlines Dumping 717s Prematurely?

RE: Why Are Airlines Dumping 717s Prematurely?

RE: Why Are Airlines Dumping 717s Prematurely?

RE: Why Are Airlines Dumping 717s Prematurely?

RE: Why Are Airlines Dumping 717s Prematurely?

RE: Why Are Airlines Dumping 717s Prematurely?

RE: Why Are Airlines Dumping 717s Prematurely?

RE: Why Are Airlines Dumping 717s Prematurely?

RE: Why Are Airlines Dumping 717s Prematurely?

RE: Why Are Airlines Dumping 717s Prematurely?

RE: Why Are Airlines Dumping 717s Prematurely?

RE: Why Are Airlines Dumping 717s Prematurely?

RE: Why Are Airlines Dumping 717s Prematurely?

RE: Why Are Airlines Dumping 717s Prematurely?

RE: Why Are Airlines Dumping 717s Prematurely?

RE: Why Are Airlines Dumping 717s Prematurely?

RE: Why Are Airlines Dumping 717s Prematurely?

RE: Why Are Airlines Dumping 717s Prematurely?

RE: Why Are Airlines Dumping 717s Prematurely?

RE: Why Are Airlines Dumping 717s Prematurely?

RE: Why Are Airlines Dumping 717s Prematurely?

RE: Why Are Airlines Dumping 717s Prematurely?

RE: Why Are Airlines Dumping 717s Prematurely?

RE: Why Are Airlines Dumping 717s Prematurely?

RE: Why Are Airlines Dumping 717s Prematurely?

RE: Why Are Airlines Dumping 717s Prematurely?

RE: Why Are Airlines Dumping 717s Prematurely?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net