avi8tir
Topic Author
Posts: 397
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 2:34 pm

Why Build The A380NG So Soon?

Wed Jul 22, 2015 6:51 pm

Has there ever been an aircraft to have an NG version on the table so soon after entering service? It's only been in service for 10 years. That has to be a record. Is it THAT inefficient?
*Long live the Widget*
 
2175301
Posts: 1576
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Why Build The A380NG So Soon?

Wed Jul 22, 2015 6:53 pm

There are only discussions of an upgrade. Airbus HAS NOT committed to such and upgrade.


Have a great day,
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

Why Build The A380NG So Soon?

Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:00 pm

The best numbers we have are from SQ who operate the 77W and the A380 and CASM of the A380 is about 19% better than the 77W. (They published the savings going from 9x Paris and 10x Zurich on 77W ro 7x A380 each).

But with 779 this will shrink to a small few percent value, so there is a need to regain that advantage after 2020. That is the reason to speculate offically over the A380NEO for an EIS in 5 to 10 years, so 15-20 years after the CEO, which is the normal mid life overhaul.

I'm sure the 788 will get new engines before 2028-2032 - there is a lot of improvements in the engines, far more than in the frames themselves.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

Why Build The A380NG So Soon?

Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:03 pm

The 77W/77L/77F -longer range model family entered service in 2004 and the 77X was launched in November 2013.

If the A380neo is launched next year than the timeline will be similar (2007-2016).

Program lives are becoming shorter and production rates are increasing.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26508
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Why Build The A380NG So Soon?

Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:08 pm

Quoting avi8tir (Thread starter):
Has there ever been an aircraft to have an NG version on the table so soon after entering service? It's only been in service for 10 years. That has to be a record. Is it THAT inefficient?

The A380-800 is quite efficient. A new engine option would just make it that much more efficient.

Think of it like the 737NG and A320 - both airframes are very efficient and dominate the narrowbody market between them. Airbus nor Boeing needed to offer new engines to continue to sell them, but doing so has made them even more popular and generated thousands of additional sales.
 
Sooner787
Posts: 2610
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:44 am

Why Build The A380NG So Soon?

Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:36 pm

Wasn't the 747-200 launched less than 5 years after the -100 entered service?
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 812
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

Why Build The A380NG So Soon?

Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:58 pm

Quoting avi8tir (Thread starter):
Has there ever been an aircraft to have an NG version on the table so soon after entering service? It's only been in service for 10 years.

The 777-200 entered service in June 1995.
The 777-300ER entered service April 2004. Thats 9 years 10 months later.
The A380-800 entered service in October 2007.
The earliest an A380NEO will enter service is 2020. The latest 2025. Thats 13 - 18 years later.

Quoting avi8tir (Thread starter):
That has to be a record. Is it THAT inefficient?

Seemingly not.
Down with that sort of thing!
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6558
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Why Build The A380NG So Soon?

Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:04 pm

Quoting Sooner787 (Reply 5):
Wasn't the 747-200 launched less than 5 years after the -100 entered service?

It wasn't a new generation, just a weight variant. Think of it as a 747-100ER.
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2207
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

Why Build The A380NG So Soon?

Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:13 pm

Quoting avi8tir (Thread starter):
Has there ever been an aircraft to have an NG version on the table so soon after entering service?

As others have replied already, yes there has, quite a few in fact.

And I tortugamon and Stitch have fully covered the rest:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 3):
Program lives are becoming shorter
Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
The A380-800 is quite efficient. A new engine option would just make it that much more efficient.

  

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
doing so has made them even more popular and generated thousands of additional sales.

Let's hope it has the same effect for the A380  
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26508
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Why Build The A380NG So Soon?

Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:16 pm

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 7):
(The 747-200) wasn't a new generation, just a weight variant. Think of it as a 747-100ER.

It also had two new engine options - the GE CF6 and RR RB211.
 
ThReaTeN
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 10:52 pm

Why Build The A380NG So Soon?

Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:17 pm

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 6):
The 777-200 entered service in June 1995.
The 777-300ER entered service April 2004. Thats 9 years 10 months later.

But the 77W wasn't an improved version of the 772 - it was the C market stretch while the 777-200 was the A market baseline model. As far as I know, both were planned at least from before the launch of the 777 program. A more apt comparison would be the 77W and the 779. Their respective EIS years are likely to be ~16 years apart, so your point still kind of stands.
 
Asiaflyer
Posts: 873
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:50 am

Why Build The A380NG So Soon?

Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:26 pm

The A380neo will probably be a stretch of current A380 as well, just like 77W..
SQ,MI,MH,CX,KA,CA,CZ,MU,KE,OZ,QF,NZ,FD,JQ,3K,5J,IT,AI,IC,QR,SK,LF,KL,AF,LH,LX,OS,SR,BA,SN,FR,WF,1I,5T,VZ,VX,AC,NW,UA,US,
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3928
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Why Build The A380NG So Soon?

Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:32 pm

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 6):
The 777-200 entered service in June 1995.
The 777-300ER entered service April 2004. Thats 9 years 10 months later

The 77W/77L/77F -longer range model family entered service in 2004 and the 77X will enter service 2019 That's 15 years.

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 6):
The A380-800 entered service in October 2007.
The earliest an A380NEO will enter service is 2020. The latest 2025. Thats 13 - 18 years later
Quoting avi8tir (Thread starter):
Has there ever been an aircraft to have an NG version on the table so soon after entering service? It's only been in service for 10 years. That has to be a record. Is it THAT inefficient?

On average, the 777 need a NG/NEO/re-make every 12.5 years. How inefficient it must be!

Of course the 777 family is not inefficient at all (for the OEM), so the only thing we learn here is that this metric's usefulness is doubtful at best, or utterly useless at worst.

Rgds,
PW100

[Edited 2015-07-22 13:38:45]
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3928
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Why Build The A380NG So Soon?

Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:45 pm

Quoting ThReaTeN (Reply 10):
But the 77W wasn't an improved version of the 772

The original 772 basically stopped selling once the NG became available in decent numbers. It's an interesting discussion which of the following is more true . . . :
1) Boeing hurt the 772 themselves by introducing the NG version(s), perhaps somewhat prematurely;
2) Boeing read the market and competition perfectly, and where ready in time with an improved version before the original model's sales and production slowed down, preventing a gap in production (A330/A330NEO, 77W/77X?).
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

Why Build The A380NG So Soon?

Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:57 pm

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 11):
The A380neo will probably be a stretch of current A380 as well, just like 77W..

Actually the 77W is the same length as the 773. Not a stretch of the original 777 (meaning 772, 77E, 773 family).

Quoting ThReaTeN (Reply 10):
As far as I know, both were planned at least from before the launch of the 777 program

I do not think the 77W was planned before the 777 launch.

Quoting PW100 (Reply 13):
The original 772 basically stopped selling once the NG became available in decent numbers. It's an interesting discussion which of the following is more true . . . :
1) Boeing hurt the 772 themselves by introducing the NG version(s), perhaps somewhat prematurely;
2) Boeing read the market and competition perfectly, and where ready in time with an improved version before the original model's sales and production slowed down, preventing a gap in production (A330/A330NEO, 77W/77X?).

If we are talking about the 772 vs the 77E then I would say that its (3)Boeing introduced the 772 so that UA and other airlines could get started operating the type until the engine OEMs finalized their contribution to the 77E.

If you are talking about the 77E no longer selling after the longer range variants (77W, 77L, 77F) were introduced I would say certainly #1 is involved as anyone that needed the range would prefer the larger variant relegating the 77E to 'also ran' but I think the A330 advantage and growth was on the wall as well and by that time the 787 was a real concept and could impact that space as well.

tortugamon
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8926
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Why Build The A380NG So Soon?

Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:01 pm

The 747-100 entered service in 1969, two years later, in 1971, it was replaced by the 747-200, nine years later, in 1980, that was replaced by the 747-300 and again 9 years later, in 1989, the 747-300 was replaced by the 747-400. The fourth version was than the most successful and produced for a while being replaced in 2011 after 22 years.
And that excludes some special versions.

So it will be very difficult to beat the record of fast replacement of version put up by the 747.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26508
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Why Build The A380NG So Soon?

Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:24 pm

Quoting ThReaTeN (Reply 10):
But the 77W wasn't an improved version of the 772 - it was the C market stretch while the 777-200 was the A market baseline model. As far as I know, both were planned at least from before the launch of the 777 program.

The 777-200ER and 777-300ER were the B-Market versions of the 777-200 and 777-300 (which were A-Market planes). The 777-200LR was the C-Market model (after the 777-100X concept was withdrawn).

The 777-200LR and 777-300ER started development in the late 1990s as the 777-200X and 777-300X.
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 812
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

Why Build The A380NG So Soon?

Wed Jul 22, 2015 11:01 pm

Quoting ThReaTeN (Reply 10):
A more apt comparison would be the 77W and the 779.

Not really. The 77L/W/F were a significant recapitalization of the 777 line quite comparable to what is likely in the A380. In fact, probably more effort on the Airframers part.
Down with that sort of thing!
 
ThReaTeN
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 10:52 pm

Why Build The A380NG So Soon?

Wed Jul 22, 2015 11:10 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
The 777-200ER and 777-300ER were the B-Market versions of the 777-200 and 777-300 (which were A-Market planes). The 777-200LR was the C-Market model (after the 777-100X concept was withdrawn).

Not a big issue, but I recall from late-90's literature (actually a particular book simply called "Boeing 777" or something to that effect, but I don't remember the author or publisher) that the upcoming 77W was referred to as C market, analogous to the 777-200LR. Wikipedia also refers to the 777-300ER as the "C market version": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777#777-300ER

[Edited 2015-07-22 16:12:04]

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 17):
Not really. The 77L/W/F were a significant recapitalization of the 777 line quite comparable to what is likely in the A380. In fact, probably more effort on the Airframers part.

You could perhaps see it that way, but implying that the 777NG was an attempt to breathe new life into the 777 program in a similar way to a potential A380neo, when in fact at that time - during the late 90's - the 777-200ER was still in its ramp-up phase and attracting tons of new orders, is quite a stretch (no pun intended). The two situations are not similar at all.

[Edited 2015-07-22 16:15:14]

[Edited 2015-07-22 16:15:48]

[Edited 2015-07-22 16:16:35]
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26508
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Why Build The A380NG So Soon?

Thu Jul 23, 2015 12:17 am

Quoting ThReaTeN (Reply 18):
Not a big issue, but I recall from late-90's literature (actually a particular book simply called "Boeing 777" or something to that effect, but I don't remember the author or publisher) that the upcoming 77W was referred to as C market, analogous to the 777-200LR.

Boeing themselves define the C-Market as 8,000 nautical miles (14,815 km) and greater which is just outside the 777-300ER's brochure range, but that is passengers and bags only, perfect flying conditions, etc. so it's not representative of the "real-world" performance of the plane.

The 777-200LR, on the other hand, can easily do that with a solid payload.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2272
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Why Build The A380NG So Soon?

Thu Jul 23, 2015 9:38 am

If you consider the 737-300 entered the market in the early 80s, and the -400 and -500 in the mid to late 80s, the 737 NG already appeared in 1997. That's just 10-15 years after the Classics. The A380neo will most likely have an EIS 2020-2025 which would be 15-20 years after the original.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Why Build The A380NG So Soon?

Thu Jul 23, 2015 9:46 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 3):
The 77W/77L/77F -longer range model family entered service in 2004 and the 77X was launched in November 2013.

Comparing the EIS of the current model with the launch date of the new model feels a bit irrelevant. Either compare both announcement dates, or both EIS dates with each other.

> 77W announcement: 2000
> 77X announcement: 2013

> 77W EIS: 2004
> 77X EIS: 2020

That's 13 to 16 years, certainly not 9 years.

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 6):
The earliest an A380NEO will enter service is 2020. The latest 2025. Thats 13 - 18 years later.

This.

[Edited 2015-07-23 02:47:21]
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2910
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Why Build The A380NG So Soon?

Thu Jul 23, 2015 10:03 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 21):
Comparing the EIS of the current model with the launch date of the new model feels a bit irrelevant. Either compare both announcement dates, or both EIS dates with each other.

Right. Launch dates are probably better because that's when the broad scope of the tech level is set. EIS allows for program delays unrelated to the basic design to fudge the comparison. If Airbus launches a NEO in 2016, that'll be 16 years after CEO launch.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

Why Build The A380NG So Soon?

Thu Jul 23, 2015 10:13 am

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 11):
The A380neo will probably be a stretch of current A380 as well, just like 77W..

I am not so sure. They might also go for two different lengths. To better suit the needs of potential customers. That is speculation on my part of course but I would not be surprised if that turned out to be part of the A380-neo program.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Why Build The A380NG So Soon?

Thu Jul 23, 2015 10:27 am

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 23):
They might also go for two different lengths.

That depends of the length of the stretch.

Having an A380-800 and A380-900 might make sense, similar like an A350-900 and A350-1000 makes sense. Having an A380-800 and A380-850 in your portfolio would not make sense, Airbus would then better replace the A380-800 with the A380-850 and introduce an A380-950 at a later point.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

Why Build The A380NG So Soon?

Thu Jul 23, 2015 11:02 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 24):
Having an A380-800 and A380-850 in your portfolio would not make sense, Airbus would then better replace the A380-800 with the A380-850 and introduce an A380-950 at a later point.

That could also be the outcome of the feasibility studies Airbus is conducting right now. I must say I never considered an A380-950 though.  
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 812
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

Why Build The A380NG So Soon?

Thu Jul 23, 2015 11:48 am

Quoting ThReaTeN (Reply 18):
You could perhaps see it that way, but implying that the 777NG was an attempt to breathe new life into the 777 program in a similar way to a potential A380neo, when in fact at that time - during the late 90's - the 777-200ER was still in its ramp-up phase and attracting tons of new orders, is quite a stretch (no pun intended). The two situations are not similar at all.

I don't know. The first gen 777's were delivered in these numbers after 2004:
20 / 24 / 20 / 3 / 4 / 3 / 0 / 3 / 4
So they couldn't have left it much longer. And the GE90-115B has substantial architectural changes viz a viz it's predecessor, it would be hard not to argue it isn't a re-engine. So I maintain that the 777NG program is a good parallel for the A380NEO. And it amazes me how it get's such a free ride on here - the program went massively over budget, delivered 3 variants and was still in need of a refresh only 9 years in. Of course it's also testament to the value of ignoring sunk costs and evaluating future expenditure on its own merits.
Down with that sort of thing!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21903
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Why Build The A380NG So Soon?

Thu Jul 23, 2015 1:37 pm

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 26):
The first gen 777's were delivered in these numbers after 2004:
20 / 24 / 20 / 3 / 4 / 3 / 0 / 3 / 4
So they couldn't have left it much longer.

Of course we have no idea what the numbers would have been if there was no 2nd or 3rd gen 777s.

Inconvenient truth, no?

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 26):
And it amazes me how it get's such a free ride on here - the program went massively over budget, delivered 3 variants and was still in need of a refresh only 9 years in.

Amazes, eh?

The 'A market / B market / C market' variants were known about about right from the start. If you read up on it, the only reason it took 9 years to go from A to C was the early 2000s recession. So it really wasn't about need, it was about a plan to capture the various market segments. It's perfectly consistent with the previous generation aircraft like 747 and DC-10 which rolled out with a shorter range initial model and quickly moved on to more capable variants.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26508
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Why Build The A380NG So Soon?

Thu Jul 23, 2015 1:42 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 27):
Of course we have no idea what the numbers would have been if there was no 2nd or 3rd gen 777s.

Inconvenient truth, no?

Actually I think we do, considering the 777-200A and 777-300A were effectively done by 2000 and as Airbus increased the operating weights of the A330-300, that limited the appeal - and sales - of the 777-200ER.

So if Boeing had not launched the Longer Range 777 family, I believe that today the 777 order book would be around 600 frames as opposed to 1900.
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 812
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

Why Build The A380NG So Soon?

Thu Jul 23, 2015 2:16 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 27):
The 'A market / B market / C market' variants were known about about right from the start.

And Y1 and Y3 were planned from the start too.
And the A380F, -800R and -900 were planned from the start too (you could add the -700 to that, or the A3XX-50).

It doesn't alter the likelihood that in spite of delivering 3 variants in 2 lengths, the 777 line would have shut by 2008. Without the investment for the subsequent versions of course. Don't get me wrong, the long range versions have clearly been a roaring success, and the incremental investment by both GE and Boeing must have paid off many times over, but I still think the example is pertinent to the thread starter.

And I think it's useful to be reminded that the industrialization fiasco of the mid 2000's prevented Airbus from fleshing out the A380 lineup. It's easy to say that the A380 has been a poor seller - I'd argue the -800 has actually sold darn well, given it's the family equivalent of the 777-200, which sold 88. We know the -F would have added relatively few sales, but can only speculate what impact the -900 would have had on the market. Would it have got ahead of the yield curve, or would the additional capacity have made it even more niche? Different discussion, obviously.
Down with that sort of thing!
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

Why Build The A380NG So Soon?

Thu Jul 23, 2015 2:47 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 21):
Comparing the EIS of the current model with the launch date of the new model feels a bit irrelevant. Either compare both announcement dates, or both EIS dates with each other.

Well we don't know either the launch date or the EIS of the new model so its kinda hard to compare it. I compared it to the data that we did have. Also if you re-read to OP with my additions in brackets [EIS] [LAUNCH]....

Quoting avi8tir (Thread starter):
Has there ever been an aircraft to have an NG version on the table [LAUNCH] so soon after entering service [EIS]?

....You will see that I quite literally addressed his question. How soon after a version has entered service has the OEM launched its replacement? Anyway, thank you for your addition as it is relevant but I was being more literal in my answer.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 23):
I am not so sure. They might also go for two different lengths. To better suit the needs of potential customers. That is speculation on my part of course but I would not be surprised if that turned out to be part of the A380-neo program.

I would be astonished if Airbus spends the money to certify two different models as I don't see how an additional offering would end up with any incremental sales to pay for those additional R&D and certification costs.

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 26):
The first gen 777's were delivered in these numbers after 2004:
20 / 24 / 20 / 3 / 4 / 3 / 0 / 3 / 4
So they couldn't have left it much longer.

Certainly the 200ER/300 would have sold better if the 300ER/200LR were not available. And its not likely Boeing would have given up on the 300 if they didn't launch the longer range family. Just like the A330 improved with time so would have the -300. It certainly wouldn't have been as successful as the 77W without GE's commitment to the -115B but some fuse strengthening, stronger gear and a wingtip from Boeing isn't exactly a $5B investment or anything. Its not like they would have just given up just like I don't expect Airbus to give up on the A380.

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 26):
And it amazes me how it get's such a free ride on here

It certainly had a rough start but when its the best selling widebody aircraft ever it has earned some respect. And its not like the A330, certainly ridiculously successful in its own right, hasn't undergone significant investments over the last 20 years since it entered service so I don't think the situation is that unique.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21903
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Why Build The A380NG So Soon?

Thu Jul 23, 2015 3:02 pm

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 29):
It doesn't alter the likelihood that in spite of delivering 3 variants in 2 lengths, the 777 line would have shut by 2008.

Yes, if they only ever produced the A models, then the line would have shut down by 2008 because there was only so much demand for A market 777s. But everyone involved knew there would be B and C models. Customers such as UA bought A models in the 90s to start retiring their oldest DC-10s being used on relatively shorter routes knowing there'd be 777-200IGW (ER) to replace later DC-10s with longer ranges. Customers also knew exactly what is being implied, that Boeing would lose its shirts on the 777 investment if they only ever addressed the A market.

IMHO a better analogy is where everyone involved 'knew' there would be a A350-1000 because Airbus needed to address the 77W replacement market. Sure there was some risk in investing in A350-900 if you really needed A350-1000 to complete your fleet plan but it sure was a risk worth taking. It's an incremental step into well charted territory.

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 29):
We know the -F would have added relatively few sales, but can only speculate what impact the -900 would have had on the market. Would it have got ahead of the yield curve, or would the additional capacity have made it even more niche? Different discussion, obviously.

The difference to A380-900 is that A380-800 was already much bigger than 744 and going that extra step to -900 clearly was walking off the end of the chart. Terms we now see a lot such as "capacity risk" and "yield dilution" might be new here but fleet planners certainly have understood them for decades now.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own

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