AirCanada014 From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 1513 posts, RR: 0 Posted (9 years 12 months 14 hours ago) and read 5617 times:
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.
Acidradio From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 1880 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (9 years 12 months 13 hours ago) and read 5617 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.
CF-CPI From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 1355 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 12 months 8 hours ago) and read 5572 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.
ORD From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 1398 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (9 years 12 months 7 hours ago) and read 5475 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.
FlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2238 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (9 years 12 months 7 hours ago) and read 5470 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.
JohnJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1725 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (9 years 12 months 7 hours ago) and read 5442 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.
FLALEFTY From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 496 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (9 years 12 months 6 hours ago) and read 5312 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.
PSU.DTW.SCE From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 8069 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (9 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4971 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.