Fly4hire
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2005
- Posts
- 861
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Heard from a friend that the latest discussion Re: DC9's is that RA wants to pull 25 back out of the desert and add back into the mix (~93 total vs 68) while parking up to 70 more RJ's. Anyone else hear this?
Agreed that more NB's are better, but from a numbers standpoint, buying a more efficient jet is the answer.Heard from a friend that the latest discussion Re: DC9's is that RA wants to pull 25 back out of the desert and add back into the mix (~93 total vs 68) while parking up to 70 more RJ's. Anyone else hear this?
More real NB's and less RJ's are always better....
In China with the AD's all written in Chinese. Needless to say there are probably some issues that need to be worked out.
Look for that answer to come out after DCC.
If true, that would be very odd. The Civil Aviation Administration of China has bilateral airworthiness agreements with our FAA, which establishes the State where the licensing manufacturer is located establishes in coordination with the FAA and CAAC the basis and conditions for ongoing maintenance of the aircraft's certification.In China with the AD's all written in Chinese. Needless to say there are probably some issues that need to be worked out.
Look for that answer to come out after DCC.
Heard from a friend that the latest discussion Re: DC9's is that RA wants to pull 25 back out of the desert and add back into the mix (~93 total vs 68) while parking up to 70 more RJ's. Anyone else hear this?
More real NB's and less RJ's are always better....
Heard from a friend that the latest discussion Re: DC9's is that RA wants to pull 25 back out of the desert and add back into the mix (~93 total vs 68) while parking up to 70 more RJ's. Anyone else hear this?
More real NB's and less RJ's are always better....