Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Would Have BA Stayed At SAN With A 747SP?  
User currently offlineHockey55dude From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 213 posts, RR: 2
Posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4654 times:

If BA had 747SP's would they still be at San Diego. The 747-400's load factors with San Diego was 60-80% (correct if wrong). The 747SP is smaller so flights would be fully booked. Also weight restrictien wouldnt be alot since its smaller. Poast if you think BA would have stayed at San Diego if they had a 747SP!!   

[Edited 2006-08-21 04:45:50]

[Edited 2006-08-21 04:47:01]

21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16872 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4648 times:

The 787 is the perfect aircraft for San Diego-London.


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineAV8AJET From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1348 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4640 times:

Nope, BA couldn't make it work with a stop in PHX with the 744 or the 772, the non-stop 772 was still to much. To close to LAX.


"To fly or not to fly there is no question!"
User currently offlineMPDPilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 993 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4635 times:

I thought it was always a 777 on the route and since when has the route been stopped


One mile of highway gets you one mile, one mile of runway gets you anywhere.
User currently offlineCarduelis From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2001, 1586 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4620 times:

If you take a look at:-

The Real Reason BA Left SAN (by Trvlr Aug 20 2006 in Civil Aviation)

- you'll probably realise that it is not particularly the range of the operating aircraft, it is the mix of passengers - SANLHR needs premium traffic!



Per Ardua ad Astra! ........ Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense!
User currently offlineLegacyins From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 2077 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4590 times:

Plus, the 747SP has not been in production in over 20 years. To have a dedicated aircraft for a particular route would be an economic disaster. Remember AW and their 747s. It almost doomed the airline at that time.


John@SFO
User currently offlinePgtravel From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 446 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4448 times:

Quoting Hockey55dude (Thread starter):
If BA had 747SP's would they still be at San Diego. The 747-400's load factors with San Diego was 60-80% (correct if wrong). The 747SP is smaller so flights would be fully booked. Also weight restrictien wouldnt be alot since its smaller. Poast if you think BA would have stayed at San Diego if they had a 747SP!!

In short, no they wouldn't still be there with the SP, but it's always good to think about these things!

The slightly longer answer is that the SP wasn't exactly the most efficient plane around. It was built because of the need for longer range. They couldn't get the existing 747 to increase range, so they shortened the body, strapped on some fuel tanks, and made a go of it. When the 744 came along, it filled the range gap and was far more efficient so the SP basically disappeared. (There weren't that many in the first place.)

So I guess the point is, as has been mentioned, they needed premium cabin traffic to make it work. All the SP would do is cut down on the number of coach passengers and be more costly on a unit basis.


User currently offlineAirxLiban From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4512 posts, RR: 53
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4448 times:

I'm tempted to say that it would cost LESS to operate a 744 on the route than a 747SP for a given passenger loads but have no evidence to back that up. Anyway as has already been mentioned the range of the aircraft was not consideration.


PARIS, FRANCE...THE BEIRUT OF EUROPE.
User currently offlineCoronado990 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1599 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4412 times:

The challenge here, Hockey55dude, is the operational limitations of getting an aircraft efficiently off the ground non-stop to Europe from Lindbergh's shoebox geography without some sort of payload penalty.

Can the 747SP do that? Probably not.



Uncle SAN at your service!
User currently offlineYULYMX From Canada, joined May 2006, 977 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4369 times:

the B767 could do it though

User currently offlineDc10s4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4346 times:

Correct me if I am wrong, but BA never had the 747SP?

User currently offlineAV8AJET From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1348 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4236 times:

Quoting Dc10s4ever (Reply 10):
Correct me if I am wrong, but BA never had the 747SP?

You are correct, they had 747-100's, -200's & still have many -400's.



"To fly or not to fly there is no question!"
User currently offlineVEEREF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4220 times:

I'm willing to bet that performance wise the -SP would have made short work of a SAN-LHR no problem. Not exactly a stretch for that A/C. I flew on one from LHR-EWR and we climbed right to FL430 with no step climbs. The -SP, while not an economic success was a definitley a hot rod.

IIRC TWA had a few that were originally bought for some anticipated routes to the Middle East, but when those didn't materialize they sort of floated around the system, never really finding an economical niche.
I remember back in the day there were 3 per day out of IADto LAX, SFO, CDG.


User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4182 times:

Quote:
I thought it was always a 777 on the route and since when has the route been stopped


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andy Martin - AirTeamImages
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Snorre - VIP Vienna International Planespotters



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © James Richard Covington
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © James Richard Covington



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chris Coduto
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Leonardo Oliveira



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Larry Wolff
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Larry Wolff



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Larry Wolff
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Larry Wolff



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Larry Wolff
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Larry Wolff



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael Linnenkugel Jr.
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Blue Skies Aviation



The original authority to fly the route belonged to British Caledonian. When absorbed by BA, the originally routed the flight via LAX, then later as a tag-on from PHX.

I do not know when the routing was changed to PHX; however, from the time I moved to San Diego (June, 1999) it had always been a 747-400. According to the pictures, it was a DC-10 as recently as 1998.

When BA acquired a sufficient number of 777's, the flight became LGW-SAN non-stop, later changing to a daily LHR-SAN. Then came 9/11, and numbers dropped dramatically. It became a five day per week flight, and then finally cancelled altogether.

I am curious if anyone knows the take-off capability of a 747SP - could it have gotten off the runway at SAN fully loaded and made it to London non-stop? I don't think the SP's engines were that powerful.

For spotters, the loss of BA floating over Balboa Park is immeasurable. Please come back, BA!!



Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlineDCAYOW From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 602 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 23 hours ago) and read 4064 times:

I think a 744 may have been better and not on BA, but on VS. This has a lot of Y seats and J seats. Eliminates the F problem with SAN-LON.


Retorne ao céu...
User currently offlineCoronado990 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1599 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 19 hours ago) and read 3975 times:

Quoting DCAYOW (Reply 14):
I think a 744 may have been better and not on BA, but on VS. This has a lot of Y seats and J seats. Eliminates the F problem with SAN-LON.

When I spoke to the VS sales manager for the western states, he indicated VS would be in SAN in a heartbeat if it wasn't for BA.

Well VS, it will be 3 years since BA left SAN in OCT, what are you waiting for?



Uncle SAN at your service!
User currently offlineCtbarnes From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3491 posts, RR: 50
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 18 hours ago) and read 3922 times:

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 13):
I am curious if anyone knows the take-off capability of a 747SP - could it have gotten off the runway at SAN fully loaded and made it to London non-stop? I don't think the SP's engines were that powerful.

MTOW was about 670,000 pounds

Source:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/7471sec2.pdf

Runway data can be found here on page 43:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/7471sec3.pdf

Charles, SJ



The customer isn't a moron, she is your wife -David Ogilvy
User currently offlineElmoTheHobo From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1540 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 17 hours ago) and read 3895 times:

Quoting AirxLiban (Reply 7):
I'm tempted to say that it would cost LESS to operate a 744 on the route than a 747SP for a given passenger loads but have no evidence to back that up. Anyway as has already been mentioned the range of the aircraft was not consideration.

You're absolutely right that it would have been less expensive to fly a 747SP LHR-SAN than a 747-400. On a per seat basis however, the 747-400 would beat the 747SP's economics hands down.

Depending on the 747SP's MTOW and JT9D variant (please correct me but I am under the impression that most 747SPs were JT9 powered), the SP had a higher thurst to weight ratio than BA's 777-200/ERs, which might mean better runway performance, albeit not by much.


User currently offlineCoronado990 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1599 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 16 hours ago) and read 3866 times:

Quoting Ctbarnes (Reply 16):
MTOW was about 670,000 pounds

Source:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/7471sec2.pdf

Runway data can be found here on page 43:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/air...3.pdf

Does it say what the MTOW is when there is 200 feet of rising terrain at the end of a 9400' runway? I would like to see a chart for that.



Uncle SAN at your service!
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 14 hours ago) and read 3797 times:

Quoting YULYMX (Reply 9):
the B767 could do it though

Nope.


User currently offlineVEEREF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 14 hours ago) and read 3760 times:

Quoting Coronado990 (Reply 18):
Does it say what the MTOW is when there is 200 feet of rising terrain at the end of a 9400' runway? I would like to see a chart for that

Runway takeoff data for the B747SP Runway 27 at SAN would already have that taken into account.


User currently offlineElmoTheHobo From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1540 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 10 hours ago) and read 3701 times:

Quoting YULYMX (Reply 9):
the B767 could do it though

Southern California to Europe flights are usually pushing it on the payload side. The same problems faced by BA (or so it is said) with their 777 nonstop would be faced by a 767 nonstop, this time the problem being that SAN-LHR is right at the limit of a 767's range and some kind of payload reduction would be required for the plane to make it all the way to the final destination.


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...
BA Hiring At San Diego? posted Wed Mar 19 2003 00:56:47 by FLY777UAL
Why Does BA Have Cloth Seats At Rear Of B767s? posted Sun Sep 24 2006 20:46:58 by 8herveg
Have BA Stopped Handling AA At Manchester? posted Thu Apr 20 2006 00:34:56 by Concorde001
Problems With BA Catering At LHR? posted Wed Aug 10 2005 15:38:09 by ManxATP
Question About BA At SAN posted Wed Jun 8 2005 17:48:11 by San747
BA A319's Have Finally Arrived At LGW posted Sun Apr 3 2005 00:51:11 by A340600
BA At SAN -- Status posted Wed Apr 7 2004 06:56:57 by KLM11
How Many Would Have Survived With Smoke Hoods posted Tue Oct 31 2000 22:54:12 by Wjcandee
2 BA 777s At DFW Today 11/14/2006 posted Wed Nov 15 2006 07:34:14 by DFW13L
BA A319 At CWL Today posted Fri Nov 3 2006 14:27:52 by Cardiffairtaxi