Icelandair's Fleet

flybynight · Tue Jun 09, 2015 9:08 pm

1 - do they actually have one 753?
2 - I believe the average fleet is close to 20 years old, which is not a big deal for all of their long haul flights, but at the same time they must be thinking of fleet renewal
3 - Are they still getting one 787?
4 - Seems like the 787 would be a good plane for them. More efficient compared with the 757, yet not that much larger. In fact, even if their yields didn't go up. the efficiency of the 787 seems like it would offset the difference
5 - Or are they looking at the new generation of 737 MAX or A320 NEO's?
6 - I like their niche and it is a perfect way to break-up a flight to Europe. I see a lot of potential with Icelandaire but are they too much of a lonewolf?
7 - How about AS and Icelandaire code-share (again).

winterlight · Tue Jun 09, 2015 9:10 pm

Yes, one B753 and some MAX 8s on order. Not sure about the 787.

Cipango · Tue Jun 09, 2015 9:18 pm

They also have 763's on the way in 2016.

They ordered 787's in 2005 but they don't seem to be on their order books still... According to wikipedia they ordered 2 in 2005 and 2 more in 2006. They then transferred 3 to Norwegian. So that leaves 1 787 that Wikipedia hasn't accounted for, being the reliable source that Wikipedia is...

Also just a small pernickety thing, it's Icelandair, not Icelandaire.

eaa3 · Tue Jun 09, 2015 10:34 pm

A321LR!

Nothing more needs to be said.

mjoelnir · Tue Jun 09, 2015 11:06 pm

Quoting flybynight (Thread starter):
1 - do they actually have one 753?
2 - I believe the average fleet is close to 20 years old, which is not a big deal for all of their long haul flights, but at the same time they must be thinking of fleet renewal
3 - Are they still getting one 787?
4 - Seems like the 787 would be a good plane for them. More efficient compared with the 757, yet not that much larger. In fact, even if their yields didn't go up. the efficiency of the 787 seems like it would offset the difference
5 - Or are they looking at the new generation of 737 MAX or A320 NEO's?
6 - I like their niche and it is a perfect way to break-up a flight to Europe. I see a lot of potential with Icelandaire but are they too much of a lonewolf?
7 - How about AS and Icelandaire code-share (again).

1 - Yes
2 - 20 years exactly
3 - One 787-8 on order
4 - The 787 is quite a bit larger
5 - 16 737MAX on order
6 - Why?
7 - Only interlining as it is

Btblue · Tue Jun 09, 2015 11:39 pm

They have 26 757s currently in service. On being a 753, the rest 752 with 2 of these being freighters.

9 Max-8 and 7 Max-9 are on order together with 2 763s.

I wonder if they were one of the 30 airlines Boeing have discussed the MOM aircraft with.

[Edited 2015-06-09 16:40:04]

mjoelnir · Wed Jun 10, 2015 12:25 am

Quoting btblue (Reply 5):
I wonder if they were one of the 30 airlines Boeing have discussed the MOM aircraft with.

I am pretty sure about that. A 757 sized frame with a bit more range would be fitting to their route system.

I do not believe FI going for the A321LR. FI has been a Boeing only airline for quite a while.

TWA772LR · Wed Jun 10, 2015 1:02 am

6 replies to an FI thread and still no fish jokes.

eaa3 · Wed Jun 10, 2015 1:05 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 6):
I do not believe FI going for the A321LR. FI has been a Boeing only airline for quite a while.

Being stubborn is a really stupid business reason!

I actually think they're smarter than that. It will depend on what's best for their operation. And the A321LR is clearly a much better fit than the B737-9 that can't make it to North America with anything approaching a full load. It couldn't take off from KEF.

Although, I think we'll see more from Airbus in the form of a larger A321 (A322) with larger wings and longer range. I think that wing will also be put on the A321, giving it more fuel capacity and therefore range. If (when) that happens Icelandair will have no choice at all if Boeing doesn't respond. It would be a question of life or death.

[Edited 2015-06-09 18:08:38]

mjoelnir · Wed Jun 10, 2015 6:10 am

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 8):
I actually think they're smarter than that. It will depend on what's best for their operation. And the A321LR is clearly a much better fit than the B737-9 that can't make it to North America with anything approaching a full load. It couldn't take off from KEF.

Both runways are 10,000 feet. KEF is a sea level and never hot. So there are no problems with the runway with whatever frame FI will use.
I do not expect the 737MAX to be used, but to Europe and east coast of North America.
Fi will keep the 757 for quite a few years to come.
Apart from that, the A320LR has no volume left for freight after passenger and luggage.

AndyEastMids · Wed Jun 10, 2015 7:33 am

I chatted to the Icelandair's CEO, commercial and engineering a few weeks ago...

Some of the 757s will go at least one more major check cycle, maybe longer... Eight years for some of them before the next heavy check, then some years flying after that... So will operate some 757s on the longer routes for plenty of years... Most are fairly low cycles as they have long stops in some North American cities to fit the hub at KEF... All have updated flight decks, almost all have VOD IFE and Wifi... Dispatch reliability is above the global 757 fleet average... Cabins will be updated to match the 737MAX as much as possible... ex-MON 757s acquired as long-term parts donors...

737MAX9 mainly for Europe and 737MAX8 for near USA... Frequency will increase on some routes as capacity per flight goes down

767-300 for high density routes like LHR starting early 2016... Not for new destinations outside the payload range capability of the 757

787s were for Icelandair's leasing company... No plans for the 787 in the main fleet at present

Video interview with the CEO from May here... http://www.airteamimages.com/videos.php?id=119&kv

[Edited 2015-06-10 01:08:43]

mjoelnir · Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:53 am

Quoting AndyEastMids (Reply 10):
737MAX9 mainly for Europe and 737MAX8 for near USA... Frequency will increase on some routes as capacity per flight goes down

Some of the 737MAX could end up in the Icelandair wet leasing operation.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 9):
767-300 for high density routes like LHR starting early 2016... Not for new destinations outside the payload range capability of the 757

I heard it different. The high density routes with slot shortage would be only LHR and JFK, but one 767 could do that, doing it for the main bank.
Even the 757-300, with a capacity for about 220 passengers, is today not used daily on LHR and would be still in the fleet as the youngest 757 at Icelandair when the 767 comes in the spring of next year.

The 767 will also be used for additional belly freight, up to 14 t, on the way from Iceland mainly fresh fish. Most of the fresh fish to the UK goes in cooled containers by ship to Immingham, takes about 3 days, so that cargo capacity would not be used a lot to LHR.
JFK is seeing about five times a week a cargo 757 from Icelandair, but every passenger 757 to JFK moves usually 4t of belly freight too.

Icelandair is thinking about, but has as it is not yet decided, if airports needing longer range, like LAX, SFO, DFW or IAH, will be added to the route system when the 767 is added to the fleet. One consideration will be the investment cost of having a 767 standing around on an airport in the USA for the bigger part of a day to hit the main bank on the flight to KEF. The possibility of moving 14 t of belly freight to some airport will play a role in the route planning.

by738 · Wed Jun 10, 2015 11:00 am

The fish jokes werent funny the first time...
I doubt the 787 will ever see FI colours

mjoelnir · Wed Jun 10, 2015 11:19 am

Quoting by738 (Reply 12):
The fish jokes werent funny the first time...
I doubt the 787 will ever see FI colours

The point is that fish is not a joke for Iceland. It is 40% of our export directly and perhaps additional 8% fishing and fish processing related equipment. Fresh fish is a high value freight, about 30.000 t of fish products a year leave KEF by air.

UsAir737 · Wed Jun 10, 2015 11:30 am

Wow 1 788. How many fish can you fit on a 788 anyway?

mjoelnir · Wed Jun 10, 2015 11:39 am

Quoting UsAir737 (Reply 14):
Wow 1 788. How many fish can you fit on a 788 anyway?

I could agree with that it is likely that Icelandair is buying a 787, but I also agree that it as likely that they will use it for their wet leasing operation.

And you should know that one does not fly smelly stuff like fish on a new 787, but only on old 757 and 767.

AndyEastMids · Wed Jun 10, 2015 12:49 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 15):
I could agree with that it is likely that Icelandair is buying a 787, but I also agree that it as likely that they will use it for their wet leasing operation.

There's a big difference between Icelandair and Icelandair Group... 787s aren't part of Icelandair's plans at the moment...

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 11):
I heard it different.

I'm only telling you what the Icelandair CEO said when we did the video a month ago...

eaa3 · Wed Jun 10, 2015 12:56 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 9):
Both runways are 10,000 feet. KEF is a sea level and never hot. So there are no problems with the runway with whatever frame FI will use.
I do not expect the 737MAX to be used, but to Europe and east coast of North America.

I don't think you've done your research here. A B737-900ER needs over 11,000 feet to take off fully loaded on a cold day. The B737-9 is heavier but with the same thrust. Basic physics tells us that it will need more runway. Then of course it has to return to Iceland. Imagine that the a 30 degree celcius day in Boston. The B737-9 would be a nightmare in that situation.

Even with reasonably long runways at KEF and cold days the B737-9 would still be a nightmare.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 9):
Fi will keep the 757 for quite a few years to come.
Apart from that, the A321LR has no volume left for freight after passenger and luggage.

It's got more volume than the B737-9. That's what we're talking about here. This comment about freight is what started the whole fish thing. You hijacked an entire thread about the A321LR to talk about that. Please stop being stubborn about this point. We get it.

hkcanadaexpat · Wed Jun 10, 2015 12:57 pm

Rumours are the 788 is going to be delivered in 2018 and leased to Air Niugini.
A

ams747757 · Wed Jun 10, 2015 1:02 pm

This is why I love FI... they want to keep flying 757s because it really is a perfect aircraft for them right now. MAX and even NEO's just won't quite cut it, although the A321NEO may eventually end up with them if Boeing doesn't produce a true 757 replacement (lets leave that discussion for the weekly/daily/hourly No 757 Replacement???? threads).

787 is too much Aircraft for them I think, unless they ever needed it for its range, which with only European and North American destinations making up the current route network, isn't the case right now.

767s make a lot of sense, as they allow for greater payload, more pax and more range/possible expansion, plus the commonality with the current 757s makes sense for a smaller airline like FI.

The MAX's on order might work well for expansion and/or greater frequency on some of the Europe routes, but don't make sense for the North America ops, but it sounds like the 75's are hanging around for at least another decade or more.

FI has been adding 757s as other airlines have been retiring them. I'm not sure, but I'd guess that some of those recent birds they acquired from AA were due for heavy checks, which FI did and has given them some extended life as a result.

AndyEastMids · Wed Jun 10, 2015 1:13 pm

Quoting ams747757 (Reply 19):
I'd guess that some of those recent birds they acquired from AA were due for heavy checks, which FI did

The ex-AA aircraft have had repaint, scheduled maintenance checks, minor corrosion work where needed, flight deck upgrades (new glass cockpit displays), cabin refit, IFE/VOD and Wifi

lesfalls · Wed Jun 10, 2015 1:13 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 13):

Didn't FI sell their 787 delivery slot to DY and DY is taking delivery of it now.

mjoelnir · Wed Jun 10, 2015 3:11 pm

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 17):
It's got more volume than the B737-9. That's what we're talking about here. This comment about freight is what started the whole fish thing. You hijacked an entire thread about the A321LR to talk about that. Please stop being stubborn about this point. We get it.

The moment there is talk about the A380, than somebody mentions that she does not take a lot of freight compared to a 777-300ER.Or the 777-200LR takes more belly freight over a longer distance

But when the talk is about replacing the 757 in the fleet of some airline it seems forbidden to talk about freight.
And the reason is simple that non of the "replacements" are as capable frames

Between two major airports you will always find another flight able to take the freight or even a dedicated freighter once in a while or even every day. But on the routes were it is perhaps the only flight that day, the situation looks different.
So to the outlying airports, out of the main traffic, freight goes into the belly of a narrow body, especially time sensitive freight. And if somebody wants to take that as a joke, I can only say that he just has no idea about operating smaller airlines.

Just to make it completely clear for once and for all. FREIGHT MATTERS ESPECIALLY ON THIN ROUTES.

Btblue · Wed Jun 10, 2015 3:13 pm

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 8):
Being stubborn is a really stupid business reason!

I actually think they're smarter than that. It will depend on what's best for their operation. And the A321LR is clearly a much better fit than the B737-9 that can't make it to North America with anything approaching a full load. It couldn't take off from KEF.

Although, I think we'll see more from Airbus in the form of a larger A321 (A322) with larger wings and longer range. I think that wing will also be put on the A321, giving it more fuel capacity and therefore range. If (when) that happens Icelandair will have no choice at all if Boeing doesn't respond. It would be a question of life or death.

[Edited 2015-06-09 18:08:38]

Maybe, just maybe, the 739-Max is just a slot holding for something better

DualQual · Wed Jun 10, 2015 4:08 pm

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 17):

How did you arrive at a 737-900ER needing 11000 feet of runway fully loaded on a cold day?

sassiciai · Wed Jun 10, 2015 4:19 pm

Quoting DualQual (Reply 24):
How did you arrive at a 737-900ER needing 11000 feet of runway fully loaded on a cold day?

Obviously something fishy about that claim!

Quoting by738 (Reply 12):
The fish jokes werent funny the first time...

Hey, maybe you're right! I found them more funny the second time!

Lighten up, here's a perfectly correct, funny little affectionate story attached to FI, why be a party pooper about that! Long may the fish, er, live or slither on FI flights, to the pleasure of the consumer at the other end!

AndyEastMids · Wed Jun 10, 2015 4:20 pm

Quoting btblue (Reply 23):

Maybe, just maybe, the 739-Max is just a slot holding for something better

The 16 737-MAX were ordered by Icelandair Group, which includes Icelandair (airline) and Loftleidir Icelandic (ACMI and charter specialist)

Having had that talk with the CEO (see previous) I have little doubt that some if not all of the aeroplanes will end up with Icelandair - the airline is already starting to prepare for them and has announced the seat configuration. The MAX9s will be useful into Europe where their capacity is close to that of the 757. I have little doubt that the 757s will continue on for a good number of years, not least because they can work some markets the 737 won't be able to reach. I also believe that the 787 is genuinely not on the radar at the moment.

As for the rest - well, Airbus has presented on the A321NEOer but of course any interest in the type would be kept very much internal until (if) a decision was made and details were put into the public domain!

flybynight · Wed Jun 10, 2015 4:31 pm

Quoting AndyEastMids (Reply 20):
The ex-AA aircraft have had repaint, scheduled maintenance checks, minor corrosion work where needed, flight deck upgrades (new glass cockpit displays), cabin refit, IFE/VOD and Wifi

I'm curious, how long does that take on the average?

flybynight · Wed Jun 10, 2015 4:38 pm

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 17):
I don't think you've done your research here. A B737-900ER needs over 11,000 feet to take off fully loaded on a cold day. The B737-9 is heavier but with the same thrust. Basic physics tells us that it will need more runway. Then of course it has to return to Iceland. Imagine that the a 30 degree celcius day in Boston. The B737-9 would be a nightmare in that situation.

I don't think 11,000 feet is correct. I certainly could be wrong, but I would have it put it around 7,000 feet. Not even an A380 needs 11,000 feet to takeoff.

kelvin933 · Wed Jun 10, 2015 5:37 pm

Quoting DualQual (Reply 24):
How did you arrive at a 737-900ER needing 11000 feet of runway fully loaded on a cold day?

Probably the fact that a 737-900ER at MTOW needs a 11.400 feet runway, the primary reason being
the truly mind boggling lack of braking ability of the toy like braking system when the crew needs a
late abort of the takeoff.

eaa3 · Wed Jun 10, 2015 5:59 pm

Quoting DualQual (Reply 24):
How did you arrive at a 737-900ER needing 11000 feet of runway fully loaded on a cold day?

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 25):
Obviously something fishy about that claim!

Quoting flybynight (Reply 28):
I don't think 11,000 feet is correct. I certainly could be wrong, but I would have it put it around 7,000 feet. Not even an A380 needs 11,000 feet to takeoff.

Have a look at this link. This is the field performance chart for the B737-900ER. On a standard temperature day the B737-900ER will need almost exactly 10,000 feet to take-off assuming that it’s from sea level. So the B737-900ER is just barely able to take-off from KEF on a cold day. On a warmer day, perhaps in Boston or something, it can’t. Keep in mind that the MTOW of the B737-900ER is 187,700 pounds(85 tons).

Now the B737-9 MAX will have be 7,000 pounds heavier or around 194,700 pounds (88 tons). Given that the engines are not going to be any more powerful, you will need well over 10,000 feet to take-off fully loaded on a B737-9MAX. Probably around 11,000 feet. And keep in mind that this is under the best possible scenario of a cold day from sea level.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yqcr5t7gv1qt4a1/photo%20jun%2010%2C%2012%2034%2005.jpg

I’m not just saying this randomly. The B737-9MAX will be challenged out of KEF and extremely challenged out of North American airports on hotter days.

[Edited 2015-06-10 11:00:52]

gkirk · Wed Jun 10, 2015 6:14 pm

A 739ER at MTOW on a standard 20c day requires 9200ft roughly to take off. A standard 739 needs 8200ft. A 752 at MTOW in the same circumstances requires approx 7700ft.

mffoda · Wed Jun 10, 2015 6:18 pm

Here's something from Boeing's MAX brochure...

"While the 737 MAX has its most improved performance in cruise, which will
improve the payload range capability by a percentage, the 737 MAX may have
slightly better performance in regards to field length limited takeoff and landing
charts. Using the existing 737NG charts will be a conservative estimate.

Please refer to the following link to access the 737 Airplane Characteristics for
Airport Planning (ACAP), Section 3.0 Airplane Performance, for 737-
700/800/900ER performance:"

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/com.../airports/acaps/737MAXbrochure.pdf

ec99 · Wed Jun 10, 2015 6:42 pm

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 30):
I’m not just saying this randomly. The B737-9MAX will be challenged out of KEF and extremely challenged out of North American airports on hotter days.

These numbers seem basically correct. However, do you know how severe the weight restrictions actually are. Alaska Airlines flies BOS to SEA on a 737-900ER. This flight is slightly longer than BOS-REK and going westbound faces the same headwind as REK-BOS. If Alaska Airlines can do BOS-SEA on a 739, I dont see why FI couldn't do it to BOS-REK.

This is somewhat semantics as being able to fly the 739 into only one north American city obviously does not make the plane much more useful. I am just curious how the weight restrictions work and whether Alaska is pushing the envelope on their BOS-SEA route.

DualQual · Wed Jun 10, 2015 6:51 pm

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 30):

What is the flap setting? What is the bleed setting? I'm pretty sure a 737-900ER can take off at or near MTOGW on less than 11000 feet. Especially on a cold day.

hilram · Wed Jun 10, 2015 6:53 pm

Quoting AndyEastMids (Reply 10):
737MAX9 mainly for Europe and 737MAX8 for near USA... Frequency will increase on some routes as capacity per flight goes down

On Boeing website it only lists 12 737 Max 8 & 9 with 12 options. Does anybody know the breakdown between the first 12? How many 8's and how many 9's ?

flybynight · Wed Jun 10, 2015 7:10 pm

Where are the 763's coming from?

eaa3 · Wed Jun 10, 2015 7:16 pm

Quoting EC99 (Reply 33):
These numbers seem basically correct. However, do you know how severe the weight restrictions actually are. Alaska Airlines flies BOS to SEA on a 737-900ER. This flight is slightly longer than BOS-REK and going westbound faces the same headwind as REK-BOS. If Alaska Airlines can do BOS-SEA on a 739, I dont see why FI couldn't do it to BOS-REK.

It's not a question of range but rather take-off field performance. Are you sure there are no weight restrictions? On a 90 degree day in Boston, which only has 10,000 foot runways, I would imagine that it would really really struggle. Also, flying to Iceland requires more fuel to reach alternatives.

I would imagine that you would have to take maybe 3-5000 pounds out of the payload, be it passengers, cargo or luggage. I'm not 100% sure how much payload a B737-900/9 carries though.

Anyway, I doubt the Alaskan flights go out at MTOW.

DualQual · Wed Jun 10, 2015 7:33 pm

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 37):

Again, what flap setting and bleed setting are you assuming? The airlines use sophisticated performance software that run through a multitude of calculations at differing settings to come up with a good mix. What might be a struggle at flaps 1 is better at flaps 15. Flaps 5 or 10 is a common setting. You can also go bleeds off and get more weight.

eaa3 · Wed Jun 10, 2015 7:35 pm

Quoting DualQual (Reply 38):
Again, what flap setting and bleed setting are you assuming? The airlines use sophisticated performance software that run through a multitude of calculations at differing settings to come up with a good mix. What might be a struggle at flaps 1 is better at flaps 15. Flaps 5 or 10 is a common setting. You can also go bleeds off and get more weight.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm only using the Boeing publication for airport planning.

DualQual · Wed Jun 10, 2015 7:43 pm

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 39):

The point I'm making is that 900ER at MTOG on a cold KEF day does not need 11K to get airborne. Based on my experience it can be done in less. Now, add in terrain, depressurization escape routes (if needed, and if flying over Greenland, they are) , drift down requirements, etc. yes, there may be some weight restrictions. An engine out climb gradient can also pose a problem but most operators have escape routing off of challenging runways to allow for more weight. Certain runways at BOS (27/33L) come to mind. There's a lot that goes into performance planning that you're not getting out of whatever document you're looking at.

Sooner787 · Wed Jun 10, 2015 7:59 pm

Quoting flybynight (Reply 36):
Where are the 763's coming from?

AA is retiring 9 this year, perhaps FI could get deal on those

mjoelnir · Wed Jun 10, 2015 9:08 pm

Quoting flybynight (Reply 36):
Where are the 763's coming from?

Icelandairgroup owns two 767-300ER as it is. They are on wet lease, one to El Al and one to Air Niugini.

Revelation · Wed Jun 10, 2015 9:49 pm

Quoting UsAir737 (Reply 14):
Wow 1 788. How many fish can you fit on a 788 anyway?

Others surely disagree, but I thank you for the obligatory FI fish joke.

Tradition must be maintained.

prebennorholm · Wed Jun 10, 2015 11:54 pm

Quoting hilram (Reply 35):
On Boeing website it only lists 12 737 Max 8 & 9 with 12 options. Does anybody know the breakdown between the first 12? How many 8's and how many 9's ?

13 February 2013 FI ordered 12 737 MAX, plus 12 purchase rights.

On 6 December same year 4 purchase right were converted to orders. At the same time the subtype breaksown was announced as 9 MAX-8 and 7 MAX-9. Delivery in the 2018 - 2021 time frame.

Why don't we just stop all this talk about how the MAX-9 will struggle reaching North America? FI will of course not use it on North America routes. They won't use their least capable plane type on their most demanding routes.

The MAX-9 just happens to be the perfect plane for a lot of the much shorter and many more routes to Continental Europe and UK.

757 and 767 will not go out of fashion world wide for many years to come, and FI (like DL) has never been afraid of operating well aged planes. Their planes are normally much "better" aged than the wine they serve onboard.

Their final replacement of 757 and 767 has likely not been invented yet.

flybynight · Tue Jun 23, 2015 9:18 pm

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 44):
Their final replacement of 757 and 767 has likely not been invented yet.

If I was a betting man, I'd say the 787. Nothing else seems to really fit

AWACSooner · Tue Jun 23, 2015 9:48 pm

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 8):
Being stubborn is a really stupid business reason!

WN and FR beg to differ

DDR · Tue Jun 23, 2015 9:49 pm

A bit off topic, but they have a pretty cool website. Their food choices are interesting and they provide a lot of amenities for a low fare airline. I hope they continue to grow.

mjoelnir · Tue Jun 23, 2015 10:27 pm

The two last 757-223 bought from AA are now both in use as TF-ISY and TF-ISZ. That brings the pax 757 Icelandair is using to 24, 23 -200 and 1 -300. 2 of the -200 are leased.

chrisnh · Wed Jun 24, 2015 12:22 am

Just an interesting sidebar. Several years ago when Icelandair was doing Caribbean charters from Boston they would have a couple-day pause between inbound to Boston and outbound back to the Caribbean. I guess either was no room to park their 757 or the rates were to high at Logan. Whatever the reason, they brought TF-FIN up here to MHT where it was parked in a very accessible spot for photos ( which I got). So for purely sentimental reasons, I like to keep track of TF-FIN occasionally.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net