Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No 767s In NW Fleet From Early Days?  
User currently offlineAirCanada014 From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 1513 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4751 times:

Hello all

I was wondering why NW didn't purchase 767s like most N.American carriers did? I'm not saying lets buy this plane because they have that too.
I've notice all legacy carriers have 767s in their fleet. AC 767-200/200ER and 767-300ER, AA 767-200ER and 767-300ER, DL 767-200, 767-300ER and 767-400ER, CO 767-200ER and 767-400ER, and US 767-200ER plus Aeromexico also have 767-200ER, 767-300ER.

Your comments are appreciate please  wave 

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAcidradio From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 1874 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4751 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

NW is big into freight, especially Asian freight. In a nutshell, the 767 didn't quite have the legs that they wanted to make it from the US mainland to Asia with a full load of freight. Also, the fact that the 767 doesn't accept standard LD3s side-by-side in the cargo hold didn't help either. 767 would have been neat for the US mainland to Europe, but NW concentrates more on their Asian operations.

Every airline is different and hence acquires its fleet based on what specifically does the best job for them, meeting their mission profile. UA, AA, US, DL and CO have generally put more emphasis on European routes, which a 767 is well suited for as far as payload and range. NW has opted to put more emphasis on it's Asian routes (which still fill up 747s) and instead teamed with KLM for much of its European routing.



Ich haben zwei Platzspielen und ein Microphone
User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7519 posts, RR: 24
Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4723 times:

Quoting Acidradio (Reply 1):
NW has opted to put more emphasis on it's Asian routes (which still fill up 747s) and instead teamed with KLM for much of its European routing.

I'm surprised that nobody mentioned that NW was (and still is) utilizing the DC-10. It's only been recent, that there's been plans for eventually retiring the type.

[Edited 2006-02-17 15:11:46]


"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently onlineCF-CPI From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 1056 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4706 times:

I too had heard that the freight issue was the major show-stopper with the 767 at NW. BTW, I was talking with someone affiliated with Western in the 1980s and they too didn't like the 767 freight situation. Although they ordered a few -200s, those were cancelled due to the airline's financial condition. When things got better by the mid-80s and the SLC hub was in place, they reconsidered the narrowbody twins, and were about to place an order for the A310 instead of the 767, due largely to freight advantages. Two things prevented us from seeing WA A310s: WA's large debt with Boeing, and the DL merger.

User currently offlineFilejw From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 359 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4668 times:

The real show stopper was the ETOP's. The people in charged of flt ops at the time didn't believe in 2 eng overwater operations.

User currently offlineORD From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4609 times:

Quoting Acidradio (Reply 1):
UA, AA, US, DL and CO have generally put more emphasis on European routes, which a 767 is well suited for as far as payload and range.

The 767 was not intended for European services; that did not happen until later. TWA was the first airline I believe across the Atlantic is a twin-engine jet and that was in 1985 I think.

With some exceptions, the big airlines (specifically UA, AA and DL) ordered the 767 in the late 1970s/early 1980s. UA didn't start serving Europe until 1990, AA until 1982 and Delta only had two routes in 1980 (to Frankfurt and London). The 767 was definitely only a domestic aircraft in the beginning, for routes that did not require the DC-10/L-1011. Northwest must have figured it did not need such an aircraft.


User currently offlineFlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2083 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4604 times:

Should be remembered that CO didn't order the 767 until the late 1990s when it took its 10 767-224ERs for international routes and the 16 767-424ERs for a domestic DC-10 replacement (Also now used internationally).

AA, DL, TW and UA all went with the 767-200 early on, followed by the 767-300 (Although not until the 1990s for TW). PA on the other hand went for the A300 and A310 for its widebody twin, as had EA with the A300. DL and CO respectively both picked these up when they absorbed the remains of both carriers, although they didn't remain too long in either fleet.



Let's Go British Caledonian!
User currently offlineJohnJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1657 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4576 times:

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 6):
Should be remembered that CO didn't order the 767 until the late 1990s when it took its 10 767-224ERs for international routes and the 16 767-424ERs for a domestic DC-10 replacement (Also now used internationally).

Continental had 767-300s on order in the early 1990s, and they were actually built. I saw (and have some video of) a 767-300 on the line at Everett in July 1995 in full CO livery. I don't believe they were ever delivered, probably due to the airline's severe financial straits during that period. From what I understand some of them went on to serve with Vietnam Airlines.


User currently offlineRampkontroler From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 859 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4469 times:

I don't know how many airframes were actually built, but there are a few CO airframes out there that never wore the Continenental colors.

Here's a few:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jeff Gilbert - JGPhotographics
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Darren Wilson


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jakub Gornicki[epwa_spotters]
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Spijkers



User currently offlineFLALEFTY From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 465 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4446 times:

Quoting Acidradio (Reply 1):
NW is big into freight, especially Asian freight. In a nutshell, the 767 didn't quite have the legs that they wanted to make it from the US mainland to Asia with a full load of freight. Also, the fact that the 767 doesn't accept standard LD3s side-by-side in the cargo hold didn't help either.

While I don't know for certain why NW passed on the 767, the explanation listed above seems to be the most plausible.

It is interesting, however, that they bought a large fleet of 757s, which share a common cockpit with the 767.


User currently offlineBurnsie28 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 7538 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4333 times:

Quoting FLALEFTY (Reply 9):
While I don't know for certain why NW passed on the 767, the explanation listed above seems to be the most plausible

Yep, that would be the correct reason, NW didn't like the LD3 container problem.

Quoting FLALEFTY (Reply 9):
It is interesting, however, that they bought a large fleet of 757s, which share a common cockpit with the 767.

A 757 has a much different role then a 767, thats like comparing an A330 with an A320.



"Some People Just Know How To Fly"- Best slogan ever, RIP NW 1926-2009
User currently offlineSupa7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4203 times:

Freight.

The DC-10 was just fine for many years. No 767 needed.

Then, the A330 took over. Still no 767 needed.

With freight in the mix, the DC-10 beat the 767 then, and the A330 beats the 767 now.


User currently offlinePSU.DTW.SCE From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 7565 posts, RR: 28
Reply 12, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4105 times:

Consider NW's route and fleet at the time.

When the 767 was introduced in the '80's NW had a limited domestic network and a small number of routes to Europe. They had numerous 747's and DC-10-40's. There was no need for the 762 or 763 then. The domestic network grew significantly when the Republic merger, but NW was in poor financial shape thereafter. Trans-Atlantic flying increased with the alliance with KLM in the early 90's, but NW choose to obtain second-hand DC-10-30's since they need to obtain long-haul aircraft fast and cheap. Plus, they were not an ETOPS operator too.

They considered the 767 and 777, but went with the A330 as the replacement for the DC-10-30's.


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 13, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4085 times:

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 12):

They considered the 767 and 777, but went with the A330 as the replacement for the DC-10-30's.

I'm glad, as the A330 are more superior in economics than the B767...

also, NW's A330's look mighty fine!


MyAviation.net photo:
Click here for bigger photo!
Photo © Jacobin777




"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineJrmsp From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 12 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4037 times:

Also, I believe at one point they did have A340's on order too, which eventually was cancelled in their early-90's financial crunch.

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 Freighters In QF´s Fleet? posted Sat Feb 17 2001 10:12:06 by Na
Why No MD-11s In NW's Fleet? posted Tue Jul 4 2000 22:44:06 by Samurai 777
Why No 747's In The FedEX Fleet posted Wed Oct 17 2001 22:01:58 by Thomacf
Why No Tupolev In US posted Tue Oct 31 2006 23:02:27 by KingAirMan
Why No KLM Service To Amsterdam From EMA & LPL? posted Sat Sep 23 2006 20:17:47 by 8herveg
Why No Windows In Toilets posted Sun Sep 17 2006 14:19:03 by Albird87
Why No 757's In India? posted Tue Jul 4 2006 09:49:08 by Deaphen
Why No UA In LGW? posted Sun May 28 2006 06:48:42 by Apodino
Why No Southwest In MSP? posted Tue May 9 2006 07:10:36 by NW757MSP
Why No EZY In Brussels? posted Fri Jan 13 2006 20:43:24 by VinnieWinnie