[HN Gopher] Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the Califo...
___________________________________________________________________
Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert
Author : williamsmj
Score : 118 points
Date : 2023-04-19 19:10 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.smh.com.au)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.smh.com.au)
| et-al wrote:
| I'm pretty sure the Mojave storage field is where it is because
| of its proximity to Edwards AFB and Bakersfield, but climate and
| land cost-wise, would there be a milder, yet dry, location to
| store aircraft outdoors in the States?
| aaron695 wrote:
| [dead]
| [deleted]
| tonywastaken wrote:
| Lufthansa is bringing A380s back as well
| 0xDEF wrote:
| Probably the cheapest way to fill the highly busy Germany-
| Thailand air routes during the German summer vacation weeks.
| WalterBright wrote:
| > striving to meet their emissions-reduction goal of carbon
| neutrality by 2050. This is part of the reason Qantas has
| invested heavily in kick-starting Australia's sustainable
| aviation fuel industry.
|
| This is one of the most destructive frauds otherwise intelligent
| people are suckered into. It's based on the idiotic notion that a
| C atom from a biofuel results in "green" CO2 emissions.
|
| The CO2 emitted is exactly the same, and in the same amounts.
|
| Biofuels are destructive in that they cost double, and if done in
| mass quantity will require an enormous amount of agricultural
| land to produce.
| progman32 wrote:
| The idea being that producing the biofuel took carbon from the
| atmosphere (in particular algae crops [1]), vs releasing co2
| that had been sitting harmlessly underground prior to being
| burned. Does producing biofuel not pull carbon away from the
| atmosphere? Am I misunderstanding your point?
|
| [1] https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/bio-
| aviati...
| neonate wrote:
| https://archive.ph/Y2lHm
| hristov wrote:
| I like the a380 because it treats the lowly economy passenger
| (i.e., me) the best of all the large planes. It has the most
| headroom (even though it has two stories) so the cabin feels more
| airy and less cramped. So this is good news.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| I love the A380 but the 787 is pretty cozy on the headroom too.
| Seems very dependent on the selection of baggage bins the
| airline makes.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| It's a magnificent plane. It's very unfortunate that they
| launched the "shortened" version. The design and engineering was
| done for longer fuselage, so it actually has extra structure (and
| extra weight!) and larger wings than necessary. And it launched
| just before engines got a lot more efficient. The upside for
| passengers is that it's still the smoothest flying experience,
| even in turbulence.
|
| Boeing's 747 was incredibly profitable at the time, so it cross-
| subsidized other aircraft like the 737 (which competed with the
| A320). Launching the A380 countered that effect, and it made all
| segments more competitive.
|
| It's unfortunate that the largest aircraft are going out at the
| time when demand for flying is higher than ever. On the upside,
| the A350 has many of the A380's technologies, and is a great
| competitor to the 777 series (and is also a very good competitor
| to the 787 series!)
| bastian wrote:
| A great video can be found here:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TSQdISWlkI
| bobthepanda wrote:
| The 747 also had incredible product market fit, if only
| accidentally. They were all designed to be freight compatible,
| because the 747 was meant to be a stopgap before supersonics
| dominated the skies. Most 747s have happy second lives as
| freight workhorses.
|
| The A380 is too heavy to get off the ground with freight packed
| to the gills.
| rconti wrote:
| Source for the "they launched the shortened version"? I've
| never heard that before. Interesting.
| S201 wrote:
| It's not so much as there is a "longer version" designed and
| sitting around, but more that the wings were built with a
| potential future, longer fuselage variant in mind. This is
| more evident if you look at a top-down view of it and note
| that the wing-to-fuselage ratio is higher than that of other
| planes, similar to how the 747-SP looks much shorter in
| length than its wings should be designed for. There's more
| details on the Wikipedia page for it: https://en.wikipedia.or
| g/wiki/Airbus_A380#Variants_proposed_...
| rob74 wrote:
| Or, to quote the Wikipedia article directly:
|
| > _The A380 's wings are sized for a maximum takeoff weight
| (MTOW) over 650 tonnes to accommodate these [larger] future
| versions, albeit with some internal strengthening required
| on the A380F freighter. The optimal wingspan for this
| weight is about 90 m (300 ft), but airport restrictions
| have limited it to less than 80 m (260 ft), thereby
| lowering the aspect ratio to 7.8 which reduces fuel
| efficiency by about 10% and increases operating costs a few
| percent, given that fuel costs constitute about 50% of the
| cost of long-haul aeroplane operation._
| InTheArena wrote:
| The A380 was Airbus trying to out-American the Americans, by
| being the biggest plane, and by betting big on mega-hubs like
| Dubai, Heathrow, and LAX. There was a great paper that argued
| that Airbus could only do so because the risk of the decision
| was mitigated by government launch aid. Airbus's view of the
| market was wrong, and instead, we have the rise of more city
| pairs. Not small cities certainly - but right now, the three
| busiest airports in the world are ATL, DFW and DEN. None of
| which was ever a target market for the A380. Airbus walked away
| from what made them successful to go after the "we are the
| biggest" crown...
| hinata08 wrote:
| I wonder about statistics for hub vs pairs
|
| Airlines line Turkish seem to do well, with their shinny new
| super hub in Istanbul.
|
| There can only be so much pair to pair flight, so we will
| always have some hub airlines.
|
| I took Nice to Manila last year. Friends of mines flew from
| random town in France to Abu Dhabi, through Istanbul. On my
| flight to Istanbul, I talked to passengers going to a random
| town in Egypt for diving & friends holiday.
|
| And I also saw students (or at least young ppl) going to
| Japan on my flight. A stopover probably made the flight more
| fuel economic, hence cheaper, which is great for a lot of
| flyers.
|
| I was also glad to stop midflight to wait at the warm water
| fountain with Chinese ppl (who were wondering why a gringo
| was having a warm glass of water), to stretch my legs, and to
| change and everything. More than 10 hours of a single flight
| is unbearable.
|
| I have no doubt that city pairs flights are hotter atm, and
| you will always have flights between your home city and
| trendy destinations like the famous Montreal or the infamous
| USA from now on.
|
| But for all of these reasons and more, I don't believe hub
| airlines are doomed.
| majormajor wrote:
| I don't know about Denver but ATL and DFW have been extremely
| busy airports for at least a couple of decades, so I'm not
| sure why it wouldn't have been taken into account.
|
| And if neither of those airports is a "mega hub" than I don't
| think LAX is either. They have the gate count, the passenger
| count, and the Delta/American hubs.
| version_five wrote:
| I'm not convinced that those airports being busiest is
| relevant here. Presumably most of the volume is domestic
| traffic, which was never going to be the A380s wheelhouse
| anyway.
|
| Or maybe that's what you mean, and that Airbus has lost
| domestic US carrier sales by focusing on the A380? But
| they've presumably won long haul international sales-
| Emirates, Singpaore, etc
| noahtallen wrote:
| > Airbus walked away from what made them successful to go
| after the "we are the biggest" crown...
|
| But they have direct competitors for these types of routes
| too. A350, A321-XLR, the various neo planes. All of which are
| as good as Boeing's options! (And even some which Boeing
| doesn't have, like the A220.) As an outsider, it seems like
| Airbus is in a fantastic spot, at least until Boeing starts
| shipping the 777X and working on a new single-aisle plane.
| InTheArena wrote:
| The A380 decision was two decades ago now. The A350 was a
| result of Boeing wiping out the A340 and the first
| iteration of the A350. Airbus is in a good potion now that
| they did in fact go back to what made them successful. Mid
| range single deck two engine airframes.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > which Boeing doesn't have, like the A220
|
| What's hilarious is Boeing they almost killed the project.
|
| Airbus was able to snag it for next to nothing, while
| Canadians were supposedly "hard at work" negotiating for
| NAFTA.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| >Boeing's 747 was incredibly profitable at the time, so it
| cross-subsidized other aircraft like the 737 (which competed
| with the A320). Launching the A380 countered that effect, and
| it made all segments more competitive.
|
| It all comes down to fuel prices. Lamenting for the age of the
| 747 is the same as missing those boat size finned Cadillacs. It
| was another era. The ETOPS ratings of modern engines and fuel
| efficiency of high bypass designs means we will never see a
| four engined passenger liner ever again.
|
| The A380 itself was outdated by the time it flew its first
| passengers, as the 787 was in its final stages of testing at
| the time. They will live on as cargo planes for outsized loads,
| and possibly long haul first class configurations, but the
| economics are simply not there for mainline passenger use.
| buildsjets wrote:
| "They will live on as cargo planes for outsized loads"
|
| For outsized loads, you need an articulated nose or tail,
| like a cargo 747, a C-17, C5, A400M, AN124, etc. It is
| generally economically unfeasible to modify an aircraft to
| add this kind of feature, although it has been done on a
| limited basis for specific missions, for example the Boeing
| 747 Large Cargo Freighter with an articulated tail, or the
| super guppies, or Airbus Beluga. Note that those
| modifications were all purpose built for a specific task, not
| general purpose cargo aircraft.
|
| The A380 does not have a side cargo door, reinforced
| floorbeams, or a cabin fire extinguisher system, so currently
| it cannot even take on palletized freight, much less outsized
| loads. It is not uncommon for aftermarket companies to modify
| retired passenger aircraft to add reinforced floorbeams, a
| side cargo door, etc, so this could happen, if some company
| decides that it is a profitable mod. IAI is doing this with
| older 777s right now. https://aviationweek.com/mro/aircraft-
| propulsion/iai-open-bo...
| ggm wrote:
| The 380 will not be a significant player in freight for a
| very long time. It can't operate the same services a 747
| freight unit can, door loading efficiencies. The drivers
| cabin is up top in a 747 so you have clear run into the main
| loading bay. the 380 can't do that because the bus driver
| sits in a half-level in front of both upper and lower floors
| so there's only side-door loading.
|
| Yes. We all saw 380's loaded to the gunnels with PPE during
| covid. No, that doesn't mean they are all going to wind up
| doing freight. What I read suggests it will carry less, or
| only very close to a 747 in most cases.
|
| It's working fine in long haul passenger roles and will
| continue to work well for state funded airlines like
| Singapore and Emirates as well as ANZ and Qantas and China
| Southern (they've pulled out now). BA and other European
| carriers are a bit half-pregnant on it. Singapore and
| Emirates alone probably have 1/2 of the entire fleet
| worldwide. QANTAS has 10, maybe options on 2 more. Its fleet
| looks to be moving all airbus with the recent purchases,
| Jetstar run the 787.
|
| At one point Emirates flew their mostly empty 380s from
| Brisbane to Auckland to park: it was cheaper considering all
| the economics, and the opportunistic passenger load you can
| pick up there, than parking in Brisbane. I am sure it wasn't
| literally "parking fees" but I flew that segment a few times
| and it was less than 20% load both ways.
|
| The lack of US market isn't impacting it's viability in other
| segments. Shutting down the line was a mistake in my opinion,
| but I'm not an economist. That said, the other lines (350,
| &c) are running fine.
|
| The a350 is a better craft than the b777 for passengers.
| Engine noise and seat economics. I've done 7+ international
| (AU to USA and Europe) flights a year for the last 20 years
| and so as a passenger I think I can compare aircraft
| experience. I am told in engine burn its better too but the
| differences here would go to TCO and I can't comment, I don't
| run an airline. If you have to do the operations research on
| buy new, lease new, buy old, lease old, outsource, insource,
| end-of-life retained value, flight profiles, load, its all
| complicated.
|
| It's too easy to claim "this aircraft is better" when you're
| an armchair planner.
|
| All major aircraft are state subsidised in development no
| matter how hard Boeing or Airbus try to mask it.
| tinglymintyfrsh wrote:
| It is. They're just difficult because their wingspan is too
| damn big to fit in most airports. If they had retractable
| folding legs like us sardine passengers in economy class,
| they'd fit like a champ.
| WalterBright wrote:
| Seattle built a new terminal to accommodate the big jets for
| $1 billion. After completion, they discovered the jets won't
| fit.
|
| https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-
| aerospace/sea-t...
| aziaziazi wrote:
| > demand for flying is higher than ever
|
| Is it ? Trafic is close to prependemic but still below.
|
| > The industry is now just about 15% below 2019 levels of
| demand [0]
|
| [0]https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/2023-releases/2023-04-04-0
| ...
| badcppdev wrote:
| You can tell demand is high because ticket prices are very
| high.
|
| Airlines have opted and are opting to fly fewer planes with
| higher ticket prices. It's a price over volume optimisation
| that seems to be in fashion in many industry segments. [0]
|
| I will note that some airlines have been affected very badly
| by issues with rebuilding staffing in ancillary services like
| luggage and airport security. That uncertainty I think leads
| to them being less ambitious with growth.
|
| 0 - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-09/transc
| rip...
| aziaziazi wrote:
| The causes you propose may be true but don't respond to
| "higher than never". I'll add to your note the not-totaly-
| solved risk of petroleum not being infinite and while the
| industry is not freaking out, it has started to questioning
| itself.
|
| I can buy "prices are very hight" but how would you measure
| that ? Also did you took inflation into account in your
| estimation ? Flight "recovery" is largely due to Asian
| market booming, so prices may go up in the US while
| decreasing in the biggest market share.
| nerdbert wrote:
| Ticket prices are high because demand in the front of the
| plane is low. Economy class tickets have to go up a lot to
| make up for empty first and business seats.
| majormajor wrote:
| I'm seeing higher coach prices on some routes that I know
| well than I could get (domestic) first class for in
| 2019... so that makes up for a LOT of empty first class
| seats...
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| Emirates, the largest owner of A380s, is asking for a bigger
| one https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/emirates-boss-tim-
| clark-o...
|
| Apparently the slot limitations at major city airports are
| becoming a harder constraint to work with, especially as a
| larger swatch of Asia gain the ability to travel long haul.
|
| Losing the A380 in 15-20 years is going to make flying between
| big city pairs more expensive.
| wahern wrote:
| None of the engine manufacturers are interested. That's what
| killed the A380--Rolls Royce pulled out of a re-engine deal
| that would've brought A380 engines into the 21st century.
| "Green" concept showcases notwithstanding, all the engine
| manufactures seem to have decided to cut back on investment
| and coast for awhile. Something will need to change to spur
| competition in the engine space, and then we might see
| hungrier competitors. But the shelving of the A380 supply
| chain means there'll still be a steep hill to an A380
| derivative.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| The latest and greatest engines are not that far from the
| theoretical thermodynamic efficiency limit. So future
| designs are running into the hard part of the asymptote.
|
| I doubt airlines are actually interested in committing tens
| of billions of capital, today, to get a dozen % improvement
| in fuel efficiency a decade from now.
|
| And why would a private investor take such a huge risk
| without guarantees of making it back several fold?
|
| So it doesn't happen.
| coredog64 wrote:
| I'd be interested in a source for that. The 737 is an
| unqualified success. IIRC, at the turn of the century, one out
| of every three commercial flights was undertaken on a 737. (At
| around the same time, another third would have been DC-9 and
| derivatives)
|
| The 737 wasn't particularly expensive to design or build. It
| shares a 41 section with the 707 and 727 for example.
| rob74 wrote:
| Let's not get too carried away, shall we? At least the 346
| people that died in the two 737-MAX crashes would probably
| question your "unqualified success" statement. But yes, no
| one can deny that the 737 has been a cash cow for Boeing (for
| far too long, some would say).
| reisse wrote:
| 737 MAX MCAS issue pale in comparison to 737 classic rudder
| issues (two crashes confirmed because of the issue, three
| crashes suspected, and a few more cases where pilots were
| able to overcome the plane). Yet it happened in the era
| without social networks and Internet news, so few people
| remember about it.
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| >Yet it happened in the era without social networks and
| Internet news, so few people remember about it.
|
| And the public's opinion of the air travel industry was
| different so hand wringing over it wasn't so fashionable.
| ThePowerOfFuet wrote:
| The 737 Max has almost nothing to do with the 737. Don't
| conflate the two.
| buildsjets wrote:
| The 737 MAX is certified on the same type certificate as
| the 737 NG, 737 Classic, and 737 Jurassic. Structurally
| and systematically, they are nearly identical. The only
| major changes are new flight deck instrumentation, new
| engines and engine installation, new wingtips, and a re-
| lofted tailcone.
| JustLurking2022 wrote:
| And those engines played a significant role in the
| problems.
| rob74 wrote:
| Do pilots need a different type rating to fly the 737
| Max? No? Then it's a bit strange to say that it has
| nothing to do with the 737...
| SgtBastard wrote:
| IANAP, but a lot of the root cause analysis around the
| 737 max crashes was that they _were_ sufficiently
| different and so should have required re-certification of
| pilots before being allowed to fly them. Due to the costs
| involved, Boeing made the ultimately fatal mistake of
| minimising these changes to airlines so that pilots
| _didnt_ know what they were flying (insofar as some of
| the subsystems).
| tinglymintyfrsh wrote:
| To be fair, the 737 NG fiasco that preceded it isn't well
| known and it's unknowable how many excess deaths it caused
| or will cause because there are planes flying around with
| substandard structural components.
|
| https://christinenegroni.com/boeing-workers-warn-
| of-737-ng-s...
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| The original 737s by Boeing were all-American masterpieces
| that had pretty great safety records considering the sheer
| number of miles flown and delivered airframes.
|
| The 737-MAX, courtesy of Post McDonnel Douglas-Boeing
| merger [0], with code written by offshored 9$/h Indian
| coders was a complete disaster.
|
| [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/how-
| boeing...
| InTheArena wrote:
| The 737 and 707 are the exemplar for airplanes. MCDs
| reverse takeover of Boeing has been a disaster / but safety
| wise even with the 737 Max debacle the 737 is the lane that
| took the jet age from only the elites to everyone.
| InTheArena wrote:
| This was a bad misreading of Boeing's financial state - which I
| think John Leahy eventually fessed up to. The 737 never needed
| any subsidizing. It is, to this day the most popular delivered
| jet plan (although the 320 now has more orders). If you count
| by airframe, the 707 + 737 family still dominates. JL simply
| never could understand why the A320 wasn't beating the 737 and
| placed the blame for the A320 not selling better than the 737
| on mythical subsidies that Boeing was supposedly providing. The
| real reason was Airlines stuck with the 737 instead of the A320
| because the price was competitive, they had trained pilots,
| staff, and mechanics, and some people didn't want fly-by-wire
| and CFRP.
|
| The 777 had already passed the 747 as the main breadwinner well
| before the A380 took to the sky. Boeing had tried to launch two
| different 747 stretches and both failed. Airbus with government
| aid decided to launch the A380, even though there was
| significant evidence that the A340 was getting crushed against
| the 777.
| Reason077 wrote:
| Of course the A340 got crushed against the 777: it was a
| fairly inefficient quad jet in an era that nobody wanted quad
| jets anymore due to the relaxation of ETOPS rules. The twin
| A330, however, sold very well and still sells well today
| (A330neo), as does the larger A350.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| The A340 was badly timed. ETOPS restrictions were loosened,
| making the 777 the better product for the vast majority of
| routes.
|
| The A340-500 in particular had great range and was used on
| the longest nonstop routes for some time, but it was replaced
| by the A380, 777-200LR, 787-9, and the A350-900.
| devoutsalsa wrote:
| Quad/Tri jets made great sense when twin engine planes were
| limited by ETOPS regulations. [1] A 3+ engine jet could fly
| routes that twin engine planes could not, which meant the 3+
| engine lower fuel economy wasn't a big deal. When twin engine
| jets could fly across the large bodies of water on routes
| previously served by quad/tri jets, the superior fuel economy
| of twin engine planes became a competitive advantage. 747s,
| a340s, and similar planes simply couldn't compete in routes
| efficiently served by twin engine planes. The a380 is a great
| plane for an airline like Emirates which primarily serves
| Dubai because there is a lot of tourism demand for long haul
| travel on a jet w/ huge passenger capacity. If you can keep
| an a380 full, it's a great plane.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| >If you can keep an a380 full, it's a great plane.
|
| This goes for just about every largest of its kind piece of
| commercial cargo moving equipment.
| raulgalera wrote:
| i totally agree re: the smoothest flying experience. the
| takeoff is so long and smooth you almost don't realize that
| you're up in the air. it was sad to learn that airlines were
| trying to get rid of it.
| llsf wrote:
| The landing surprised me too. Super soft compared to smaller
| planes.
|
| I once landed in Johannesburg on a A380 Air France from Paris
| and the airport was in thick fog. You could not even tell we
| touched the ground. The captain made the announcement after
| landing that it was his very first time letting the plane
| land in itself... you could tell the excitement in his voice
| :)
| Scoundreller wrote:
| > the takeoff is so long and smooth
|
| Is this another way of saying slow to accelerate?
| rootusrootus wrote:
| The A380 is pretty smooth, but I found that the way it cruises
| is not great for me. It tends to surge and glide in a way that
| prevents me from actually falling asleep, more so than on other
| smaller planes like a 787. While the 787 might not be as silky
| smooth taking off and landing, I prefer it for the long term
| comfort that matters for most of the flight.
| acchow wrote:
| Is this how pilots are taught to operate it? Or how the
| engines automatically operate when the pilot is throttling
| "smoothly".
| ak217 wrote:
| The pilot is not flying the plane at cruise, the autopilot
| is.
|
| The autopilot can definitely have an effect on how smooth
| the flying feels, depending on how autothrottle and
| altitude hold control loops are implemented.
| Andys wrote:
| Oh, I thought it was just me! All the Airbus planes have
| horrible autopilots that gradually rise and fall, in a barely
| noticeable way. I found myself feeling irritated and wished
| the source code was opensource so I could have a look at it.
| benjaminwootton wrote:
| I can feel that glide too. You are flying along, then feel a
| slight gliding fall, then a wobble. You always feel any
| turbulence during the glides too.
|
| Sorry for the highly technical terms but I agree it is unique
| to the A380.
|
| Apart from this they comfortable to travel and sleep on.
| beavis000 wrote:
| What are "glides"?
| joncrane wrote:
| The flying equivalent to a car coasting.
| eternalban wrote:
| I think it's the slight (unexpected and short duration)
| change in altitude. That sensation of ground falling
| under your feet, with a slight sense of suspension. As if
| the craft is _sliding_ down. (Glide as in gliding down a
| slope.)
| herpderperator wrote:
| I just got back from a road trip where I visited this boneyard
| (among other things) in the Mojave Desert.[0][1][2] The
| airport/planes are all fenced in, but you can still go up to the
| fence and see them up close. Pretty wild to see so many planes in
| one place.
|
| [0]
| https://www.dropbox.com/s/wjkmpacv7yvpur5/PXL_20230411_00382...
|
| [1]
| https://www.dropbox.com/s/2pgdlmn7z9ej0rc/PXL_20230411_00433...
|
| [2]
| https://www.dropbox.com/s/f65qu80wlcb5wma/PXL_20230411_21410...
| hencq wrote:
| I had read about it as a kid and knew it existed, so it was a
| delight when I drove by it a few years ago on my way to Mount
| Whitney. "Hey, I know about this place!"
| empressplay wrote:
| Having escaped Australia during the middle of the pandemic, I'd
| like to correct this article: Australia's only long-haul carrier
| during the pandemic was United.
|
| Thanks United for getting me out of Australia!
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Qantas was operating repatriation flights back to Australia
| during the pandemic on behalf of DFAT.
| anthonyshort wrote:
| I believe it was saying that Qantas was the only Australian-
| owned airline operating long haul flights during the pandemic.
| delsarto wrote:
| They also make good tankers when your refuelers strike
| https://australianaviation.com.au/2023/03/qantas-uses-a380-f...
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Note: Qantas resumed A380 flights in January 2022 after shelving
| them due to the pandemic.
|
| I guess this article is about them _finishing_ bringing back the
| last A380s
|
| https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/qantas-returns-flagship-...
| wunderland wrote:
| This is pretty clear from the article:
|
| " Qantas stored 12 of its A380s in Victorville. There are now
| seven servicing the airline's London, Los Angeles and Hong Kong
| routes, with another three expected to return next year
| following the completion of an extensive maintenance check and
| cabin reconfiguration process. The remaining two jumbos were
| left in Victorville to be broken up into parts."
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-19 23:00 UTC)