Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Northwest....why No 767?  
User currently offlineAirxLiban From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4511 posts, RR: 53
Posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5279 times:

Northwest Airlines does not operate any Boeing 767s.

Why?

I know they have their beloved DC-10s...

But United and American both operated the DC-10 next to the 767, and Delta the L-1011 alongside the 767.

Continental they've only recently jumped on the 767 bandwagon...but what was the deal with Northwest? They have 757s! Did they ever consider the 767?

Did they just not need that sort of aircraft for their route structure back in those days?

Any thoughts...

Air Liban


PARIS, FRANCE...THE BEIRUT OF EUROPE.
35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineIndustrialPate From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5248 times:

NW doesn't operate the 767 because they don't have any in their fleet.

User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 2, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5197 times:

Patent... did you work that out all by yourself ?

Jeremy
Ps. what happened to your IM today,...


User currently offlinePaddy From Taiwan, joined Jul 2003, 390 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5193 times:

Haha, what IndustrialPate said. Big grin And they don't have any in their fleet because they have the A330 series in their fleet. I would imagine they considered the 767 back in the 80's but they placed a big order for Airbus instead, including the A332 and A333.

User currently offlineAirxLiban From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4511 posts, RR: 53
Reply 4, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5171 times:

obviously not right now since they have the A330, but back in the day i was just curious as to why they didn't make an order. i was thinking it was something to do with their lack of low density routes to europe.


PARIS, FRANCE...THE BEIRUT OF EUROPE.
User currently offlineMikey711MN From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1397 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5129 times:

I thought they did make an order for 330s and 340s--the North American launch customer, right?--back in the day, but they fell on hard times due to the economy, a takeover attempt that ate up a lot of funds (this might be the 2am in me talkin'...!), etc.

While I'm certainly no expert on NWA storied history, I'm sure others can chime in with more specific info. But I'm quite certain that orders were initially placed and subsequently cancelled, meaning that the 767 was considered even back then.



I plan on living forever. So far, so good...
User currently offlineIsitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 23
Reply 6, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4967 times:

I know NW better then I know my wife and kids(im not kidding), and they never ordered the 7-6. They did order 24 A340's in the early 90's but xcled them a few years later.
I wondered why no 7-6's myself so I sent an E mail to MSP G.O. about 5 years ago asking the same Q.
My response was " the aircraft doesnt fit our fleet requirements". That quote came from straight from NW. Hope that answers the lead question here.
safe



If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4912 times:

I'm not to sure why NW never ordered the 767 along with the other majors when the 76 was introduced. My guess is they just didn't need an aircraft of that size/capabilities. Yes, they indeed had orders for the A330/340 several years ago. I love Boeing aircraft, but I was genuinely excited to see the A330/340 in livery at the time. Not the latest redition. I thought they were going to be very sharp.

But as far as the 767 goes, my opinion is... not a clue.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently offlineRedtailmsp From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 206 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4713 times:

NWA never interested in the 767 because of lack of cargo capacity - inability to carry ld-3 containers I think. Also, in the '80's and early '90's, NWA never really contemplated ETOPS operations.

User currently offlineVSGirl From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4608 times:

I would agree with Redtailmsp. With the DC10's they operate the Boeing 767 series 200 and 300 would not have enough cargo and passenger capacity.

With the Boeing 767 series 400, they have made more room in the cabin, but from what I have heard she is not a very good cargo carrier (compared to the DC10).

Kimberly.


User currently offlineDynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1863 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4510 times:

One important factor that no one has mentioned. In the late 70s and early 80s, NW was primarily a trans-Pacific operation with a non-mainstream domestic hub (MSP). So, the 767 was probably too small for the trans-Pacific flights, and too big for the domestic MSP hub. Because of NW's Pacific presence, NW had developed a strong cargo operation. As stated above, the inability of the 767 to carry LD-3s would be another strike against the 767.

User currently offlineRedtailmsp From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 206 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4425 times:

Thats true about NWA being primarily transpacific in the 70's and early 80's - and all international flying was done by 747-100s and -200s too. The DC10-40 was bought for domestic operation and was not intended for international or Hawiian operations - and in good old NWA fashion, they were bought with lower operating weight and performance packages. Consequently, when they decided to operate the DC10 to Europe and Hawii, they were severely performance limited - often freight was left behind. When they opted for the secondhand DC10-30's, this gave them superior payload abilities - we could carry full payloads on all routes previously operated by the -40, as well as opening up new markets such as SEA-AMS. This effectively gave them a far cheaper and more capable aircraft than the 767 as well as having all the technical expertise and crews for the DC10. All-in-all, a very smart decision by NWA.

User currently offlineIndustrialPate From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4265 times:

The DC10-40 was bought for domestic operation and was not intended for international or Hawiian operations...

uhh... the DC10-40 were operating ORD-NRT within months of their delivery. When they were purchased (and initially delivered), NW did not have a domestic network, other than one to feed their Pacific operations. The problem with the DC10-40 was always reliability with the JT9D-20 engines...

- - -

But yes, as always Dynkrisolo has it right... NW did not originally purchase the B767 because it was too small for their operations (and their DC10-40 were only about 10-years-old at that point). Instead, they opted to purchase the A330/A340. Obviously the order was cancelled+deferred but in the 1990s NW choose not to go with the B767 because it did not meet their freighter needs.


User currently offlineMEA321 From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 389 posts, RR: 16
Reply 13, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4144 times:

It would seem more feasible if NW ordered the 767 before they decided to order the A330-300. They already were operating the 757 which would have made crew training easier and less expensive. But they ordered the A330 and introduced a new aircraft to their fleet.

The cross training from 757 to 767 is much less expensive from the A320 family to the A330. Maybe Airbus gave NW a good deal on the aircraft.

MEA321



MEA321
User currently offlineIndustrialPate From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4123 times:

Maybe Airbus gave NW a good deal on the aircraft.

As previously written, in that era (the mid/late 1980s),
- the B767 was too small for NW's needs
- the B767's cargo capabilities were inadequate for NW's needs


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 15, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4119 times:

Or maybe, duh, it was a better aircraft more suited to their routes?

Good lord. Northwest is one of the largest cargo operators in the world, they have a huge cargo requirement, and the 767 is not the airplane to do that with. Simple.

Who cares how cheap it is to fly both the 757 and 767 if you have to leave all the money behind on the ramp?

Crew training, while a significant expense, is both capitalizable and not a deal breaker.

N


User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2688 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4003 times:

They probably also don't operate the 767-300ER or 767-200ER because their cargo AND passenger capacities do not match up to those of the DC-10-30, or their now-deceased DC-10-40s. The A330s fill the niche for NWA better than the 767s.


Fly one thing; Fly it well
User currently offlineIsitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 23
Reply 17, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3952 times:

Now ask why didnt NW buy the 777? Same answer, I suppose.....NW was interested at one time in the triple seven and asked Boeing to install a larger cargo door. Boeing said sure....for a price. Scarebus said...we will give you a larger door on the 330 and no extra cost. The rest is history. I was told this by a NW employee. Whether or not this is fact remains to be seen.
safe



If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
User currently offlineIndustrialPate From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3880 times:

.....NW was interested at one time in the triple seven and asked Boeing to install a larger cargo door. Boeing said sure....for a price.

No, it's not true. NW purchased the A330/A340 before the B777 was even conceived. The A340 order was cancelled after the aircraft failed to meet expectations (the three A340 built for NW were delivered to, and are still with, VS) but the A330 order was continually deferred. In 2001, NW reconfirmed its order for the A330 (by placing a new, larger one & canceling its former one out at a rate of 4x per year). NW choose the A330 because of the A332/A332 commonality (the 7E7 was not conceived), smaller capacity, what they claim is cheaper operating costs vs. the B777 across the Atlantic & the fact that they stood to lose a large sum of money (at least $20 million, as much as $40 million) that they had invested in their A330/A340 deposits.

Boeing isn't better for everyone.


User currently offlineJetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7408 posts, RR: 50
Reply 19, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3813 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

In the early 1980's, NW felt it was more economical to stay with the DC10-40's that they had. NW was still more concentrated to the Orient at the time with a few routes to Europe. The country was also coming out of an oil crunch. Their widebody fleet plan was to keep the the types in the fleet simple. The 757's were aquired for transcon/higher-density routes that the 727's couldn't handle. The 707's had been gone for years and the needed to fill that small gap. There apparently was no gap between the 757/DC10/747 that warrented the 767. AA and UA were much bigger domestically than NW was at the time the 767 came out.


Made from jets!
User currently offlineIndustrialPate From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3777 times:

In the early 1980's, NW felt it was more economical to stay with the DC10-40's that they had..

Actually, NW had begun to phase the DC10-40 out  Smile. They sold off several aircraft, with plans to continue reducing the fleet... the purchase of RC obviously warranted a need for them.


User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7776 posts, RR: 16
Reply 21, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3773 times:

To beat an already dead horse....

Remember that when United, American, Delta and Air Canada purchased the 767 in the late 70/ early 80s was to fly their high density trunk routes.... IAD-LAX, JFK-LAX, YYZ-YVR, YYZ-LAX and so on. Before the Republic merger Nortwest Orient did not have this abundance of trunk routes. Flights like MSP-LAX/SFO/SEA could easily be served by a mix of DC-10s and 747s continuing on across the Pacific or 727s.



Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 852 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3729 times:

So when DC10 is phased out, the A332X is taking over 10´s routes?
Any info about NW´s 332X route?
Hejdå och tack för mej  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Michael//SE



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 23, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3695 times:

There is no such thing as a 332X.

As DC-10s are phased out, the 333X will replace them on the most dense or reasonably short routes over the Atlantic.

As the 332s arrive, they will replace DC-10s on the longer routes (over the Pacific).

I do wonder, and mebbe Patent can add insight, if NW will interchange the 332 and 333X on intra-Asia routes from NRT that currently see the DC-10. My guess is no, so that they can rotate the 332s back to the US via a revenue service from NRT for maintenance reasons.

N


User currently offlineJetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7408 posts, RR: 50
Reply 24, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3669 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

IP said, "Actually, NW had begun to phase the DC10-40 out . They sold off several aircraft, with plans to continue reducing the fleet... the purchase of RC obviously warranted a need for them."

That is true. We sold of ship 1142 in December of 81 to GATX and was immediately leased to ATA. It burned out during a mx evolution during and RON at ORD in 82. Ship 1143 was leased on and of to Sun Country until 88 when a couple of DC10-10's became available. I think they were from Scanair. I remeber seeing a Scandinavian reg's on them. We cancelled the further options for more D10's in late 1980.



Made from jets!
25 Nwfltattendant : Few 767/DC10 Notes........ *Ive heard the cargo thing for years at NW, supposedly the LD3s, and that it was only a matter of a few inches that caused
26 Gigneil : I think that's BS. NW was fully ready to migrate from the DC-10 to the 330/340, which is why they placed an order in the late 80s. I don't think it wa
27 BillElliott9 : Cargo is a big reason and one point I haven't seen touched on was the DC-10-40s were all PAID for, as well. They may have been sold and leased back wh
28 Acidradio : Could the fact that NW and KL partnered kind of early in the game play into this? The 767 seems to be a machine that lately is used on (often) thinner
29 Post contains images IndustrialPate : *The A330 decision wasnt made until Early to mid 2001 No, the decision was made in the late 1980s. *NW isnt forward-looking enough to see the benefits
30 Post contains images Flyguyclt : This thread is kind of funny to me being an NWA employee of over 14 years. What we all should know by now is that NWA is financially conservative. NWA
31 Post contains images IndustrialPate : What we all should know by now is that NWA is financially conservative. To a degree, yes . Don't forget that NW placed orders totaling 100 A320, 72 B7
32 Jetjack74 : Don't forget that NW placed orders totaling 100 A320, 72 B757, 40 A330/A340 and 16 B744 in the late 1980-early 1990s. Today they have 72 B752/16 B744
33 IndustrialPate : Didn't we convert some of our A320 orders to the A319? I know the original A330 orders to 320's. Just a question. No, half the original A320 order got
34 AirxLiban : well as the originator of this thread let me say that I am not bashing NWA for not getting any 767s, just wondering why not. And the question has been
35 Post contains images InnocuousFox : Why fly a 767 when you can fly 3 DC9s?
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why No 767-200/200ERs With BA? posted Mon Jan 30 2006 01:31:59 by AirCanada014
United, US Airways, Northwest...Why No A318? posted Thu May 30 2002 19:53:39 by 727LOVER
Why No F Class On AA 767-300s posted Thu Sep 14 2006 03:20:59 by Albird87
Why No 777-100 Than 767-400er posted Tue Sep 12 2006 15:17:11 by Albird87
Why No 737, 767. 777 For NW posted Tue Aug 29 2006 06:41:40 by FL370
Why No CO 767-300ER's? posted Wed Jun 22 2005 13:09:29 by Ewr756
Why No New BF Seats On CO 767-400/-200? posted Tue Dec 30 2003 18:15:59 by Transtar
Why No Double Decker 767? posted Fri Mar 16 2001 04:14:52 by AA777
Why No First Suite On United International 767's? posted Wed Jan 10 2001 19:34:15 by Surf
Why No CO 767-200ER Pics? posted Fri Dec 8 2000 15:19:06 by ContinentalEWR