Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?  
User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9210 posts, RR: 15
Posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 13587 times:

Airlines clearly knew that the B 747-300 has shorter range and the B 747-400 would be available soon. Why did they order it still?

BTW where does QF, JL and TG fly their B 747 classics to?

53 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineOB1504 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 3447 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 13557 times:

They probably didn't need the range. Same reason NL and JL ordered the 747-400D.

User currently offlineCharles79 From Puerto Rico, joined Mar 2007, 1331 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 13525 times:

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 1):
They probably didn't need the range. Same reason NL and JL ordered the 747-400D.

True, or simply couldn't wait for the 744 variant to enter service. As for their routes, I've seen QF's 743s here in LAX quite often this summer, doing MEL-LAX routes if I'm not mistaken (which I probably am).

Charles


User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9210 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 13400 times:

What's the longest ever B 747-300 flight?

User currently offlineOB1504 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 3447 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 13370 times:

Probably AKL-LAX at 5,652 nm.

User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9210 posts, RR: 15
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 13339 times:

What about Rome-Bangkok by TG? And SR's ZRH-HKG?

[Edited 2007-08-01 07:11:58]

User currently offlinePilotdude09 From Australia, joined May 2005, 1777 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 13191 times:

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 2):
MEL-LAX routes if I'm not mistaken (which I probably am).

Yeah wrong  Smile it was doing AKL-LAX to cover the 744 due to shortages and maintenance requirements.

If it did attempt MEL-LAX you certainly wouldnt need a return ticket!



Qantas, Still calling Australia Home.........
User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 13177 times:

Did the airlines really know that the B747-400 would be available "soon"? The first B747-300 was delivered to UTA on 1 March 1983, the first B747-400 was delivered to Northwest on 26 January 1989: that's a difference of six years, too much if you need new planes with increased capacity and any other upgraded equipment (not sure how much more in that regard the -300 had to offer compared to the -200).

For airlines needing planes, and not really needing the -400's range, the -300 was a good choice, especially if they didn't want to wait for more than half a decade to receive it - and that's only if Boeing had already told them at the time that the -400 was on it's way...



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineSwissgabe From Switzerland, joined Jan 2000, 5266 posts, RR: 33
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 13143 times:

Quoting United Airline (Reply 5):
And SR's ZRH-HKG?

SR routed the HKG via BOM and so it won't be the longest flight at all.

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 4):
Probably AKL-LAX at 5,652 nm.

Did QF route via AKL to LAX or which Airline did so?



Smooth as silk - Royal Orchid Service /// Suid-Afrikaanse Lugdiens - Springbok
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26785 posts, RR: 75
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks ago) and read 13053 times:

Quoting United Airline (Thread starter):
Airlines clearly knew that the B 747-300 has shorter range and the B 747-400 would be available soon. Why did they order it still?

Because it made sense over the 742 for a lot of routes, particularly at that time, and the 744 was still half a decade away, as Frank said. Remember, carriers like KLM even purchased the SUD option for their 742s to increase capacity.

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 1):
They probably didn't need the range.

That is only part of the story really. Since the 744 burns significantly less fuel than the 743, it makes plenty of sense to just use the 744 on routes you would use the 743 on. The main reason was the 6 year difference.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 2):
I've seen QF's 743s here in LAX quite often this summer, doing MEL-LAX routes if I'm not mistaken (which I probably am).

You are only sort of right. They aircraft routes MEL-AKL-LAX. The 743 does not have nearly enough range to do MEL-LAX non-stop.

Quoting Leskova (Reply 7):
(not sure how much more in that regard the -300 had to offer compared to the -200).

The same number as the -400 has over the -200. The -400 and -300 are the same size.

Quoting Swissgabe (Reply 8):

Did QF route via AKL to LAX or which Airline did so?

QF still uses the 743 on that route.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineCarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2977 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 12895 times:

- Clearly in the late 1970s, airlines such as SQ & JL wanted more lift than the 742. Nobody was planning for the 744 back then.
- For additional capacity, KL converted their 742s into 742SUD.
- By the mid-1980s, it was becoming clear the 744 was going to materialize and hence the lack of new orders for the 743.
- Had the 744 not come out sooner, then more 743 sales could have been realized but it was just a matter of time before 767-era technology was incorporated into the 747. And the rest is history....


User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7089 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 12802 times:

Btw was the 747-300 the last new developed aircraft with a three man cockpit ?


It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineFlySSC From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 7428 posts, RR: 57
Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 12763 times:

Quoting United Airline (Thread starter):
Airlines clearly knew that the B 747-300 has shorter range

They didn't need more range. They needed more capacity.

The B743 was available well before the B744.
The first B743 was delivered to Swissair early 1983.

Quoting Carpethead (Reply 10):
- For additional capacity, KL converted their 742s into 742SUD

UTA did so to in 1989 with F-BTDG and F-BTDH.
Before & After :


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John Kelly
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mika B Virolainen - FAP



Note that F-BTDG was a -Combi, used in a very particular configuration as the Cargo compartment could carry 11 Freight palets, starting at the Doors 3, unlike most of the other -Combi, carrying 7 palets, with a Cargo compatment starting at the Door 4.

You can see on the following pictures that only the 3 first doors are painted in Green, the last 2 beeing in the Cargo section and "neutreulized".


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © JetPix



User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26785 posts, RR: 75
Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 12631 times:

Quoting Columba (Reply 11):
Btw was the 747-300 the last new developed aircraft with a three man cockpit ?

Well, it wasn't exactly a new aircraft. It was more a development of the 742. The 744 was the truly new aircraft. Still, it is the last western aircraft I can think of that was introduced with a 3-member cockpit.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offline1stfl94 From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 1455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 12550 times:

Quoting Carpethead (Reply 10):
Had the 744 not come out sooner, then more 743 sales could have been realized but it was just a matter of time

The 744 partly materialised because of airline disappointment with the 743. It became clear soon after the 743 entered service that more needed to be done to the 747 and in 1985 Boeing announced the all new 747-400


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21580 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 12518 times:

Quoting 1stfl94 (Reply 14):
The 744 partly materialised because of airline disappointment with the 743. It became clear soon after the 743 entered service that more needed to be done to the 747 and in 1985 Boeing announced the all new 747-400

Bingo. The 743 was underwhelming, and Boeing had to scramble and introduce a real new 747, one with 2 man cockpit, greater range and greater efficiency. But when ordering the 743, airlines had no idea the 744 was going to come along. The premise that airlines knew and ordered the 743 anyway is false.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 12488 times:

Quoting 1stfl94 (Reply 14):
The 744 partly materialised because of airline disappointment with the 743. It became clear soon after the 743 entered service that more needed to be done to the 747 and in 1985 Boeing announced the all new 747-400

Exactly which airlines were disappointed with the 743? Most 743 operators went on to order 744s later on.....as stated above, the 743 was basically nothing more than a capacity upgrade over the 742 while the 744 project was complete update of the 744 incorporating new technology (developed from the then new 757/767 programs) including the two man cockpit.


User currently offlineQF108 From New Zealand, joined Oct 2005, 336 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 12342 times:

If im not mistaken that QF flight MEL-AKL-LAX is about to or has become an A330, which will leave only SYD/MEL-PER with regular 743 service. VH-EBX was recently damaged in MEL due to brakes failing on a baggage loader. So I think its basically one flight per day with the 743 SYD-PER, MEL-PER.

Mark



Blessed are the Cheesemakers !
User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9210 posts, RR: 15
Reply 18, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 12039 times:

The B 747-300 didn't sell very well.

What about Rome-Bangkok by TG? Wasn't it the longeset B 747-300 flight?

Quoting Swissgabe (Reply 8):
SR routed the HKG via BOM and so it won't be the longest flight at all.

Really?


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 19, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 10930 times:

Quoting United Airline (Reply 18):
The B 747-300 didn't sell very well.

Depends upon how you look at it, the B743 gave a boost to the 747 program when airlines were loosing interest in ordering new build 742s; the 743 also was introduced when many carriers worldwide, and especially US carriers, were beginning to take delivery of smaller widebodies such as the 767 and A310 which gave the carriers new options and choices. The 743 offered just enough to revive interest in the 747 Classics; Boeing then went to work on the 744. I always considered the 743 a ""transition"" aircraft.......a step inbetween the 742 and 744. Also consider that some airlines (like SR, SN, KL) ordered 743s to replace early build 741s and 742s......which was a very positive thing for Boeing and the 747 program.

Quoting United Airline (Reply 18):
Really?

Yep, Swissair's 743 flights between ZRH and HKG were routed via India; until the 744 (and other longer range widebodies that followed it) was introduced, most flights between Europe and Asia had to make atleast one stop enroute.....things have changed!

[Edited 2007-08-01 20:11:17]

[Edited 2007-08-01 20:11:40]

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25983 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 10476 times:

Quoting United Airline (Reply 18):
The B 747-300 didn't sell very well.

The 81 747-300s built far exceeded the 45 747SPs, not to mention certain models of more recent Boeing types, e.g. 55 757-300s and 37 767-400s. And apart from 3 -300s bought new by KL, they also converted 10 -200s into -200SUDs which for all practical purposes were identical to factory-built -300s.

The 747-300's extra seating capacity could generate a lot of additional revenue over the -100/-200. I recall SR had 69 economy class seats on the upper deck of their -300s.

[Edited 2007-08-01 20:59:42]

User currently offlineOceansWorld From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 10454 times:

Quoting United Airline (Reply 18):
The B 747-300 didn't sell very well.

Yes, only 81 were delivered, -300 (56), -300SR (4) & -300M (21)

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 19):
Also consider that some airlines (like SR, SN, KL) ordered 743s to replace early build 741s and 742s......which was a very positive thing for Boeing and the 747 program.

Indeed SR replaced its early B742s with B743s and B743Ms, while KL only ordered three -306M (received between 1980 and 1984) as they converted 10 -200B to -200B/M SUD. Of their early birds, six left the fleet between 1989 and 1991 only, so I can't consider their order as a true replacement of older aircraft.
SN was a late comer for the -300. The Belgian airline received its first in 1986 and the second in 1990. And it is only when that second -300M arrived that SN removed from service one of of its two older -100Ms.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 19):
Yep, Swissair's 743 flights between ZRH and HKG were routed via India; until the 744 (and other longer range widebodies that followed it) was introduced, most flights between Europe and Asia had to make atleast one stop enroute.....things have changed!

Not to forget that the Russian air space was closed to western airlines for many years. IIRC, late in the '90s, a SR B743 bound non-stop for NRT or PEK had to turn back because the captain had a cerebral stroke.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17172 posts, RR: 66
Reply 22, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 10151 times:

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 19):
Yep, Swissair's 743 flights between ZRH and HKG were routed via India; until the 744 (and other longer range widebodies that followed it) was introduced, most flights between Europe and Asia had to make atleast one stop enroute.....things have changed!

Indeed. I remember when I was a kid flights to the Far East were always via Dehli, Abu Dhabi or somewhere else. I also remember when I first saw that CX flew HKG-LHR direct. I was like "wow, that's far." Nowadays it's commonplace.

Quoting United Airline (Reply 18):
The B 747-300 didn't sell very well.

Yes and no. Just like other niche types it's not really a type by itself. It was made on the same production line and shares the same wing as the -100/-200. So it's just a variant. You cannot consider the isolated sales number as a sole indicator of success.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineYULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2185 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9773 times:

What is the actual technical difference among a 742SUD and a 743?


When I doubt... go running!
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 24, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 9447 times:

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 23):
What is the actual technical difference among a 742SUD and a 743?

743 = an aircraft built as a 747-300 with the streched upper deck.

742SUD = an aircraft built as a 747-200 and later modified to add the streched upper deck.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 22):
Yes and no. Just like other niche types it's not really a type by itself. It was made on the same production line and shares the same wing as the -100/-200. So it's just a variant. You cannot consider the isolated sales number as a sole indicator of success

Good point. I agree.


25 ShootTheMoon : Are the engines on the 742 and 743 the same? I know the 744 has newer, more efficient engines, but what about the 743?
26 Dutchjet : The 742s and 743s were equipped with the same generation of engines from the engine manufacturers. --------------- Didnt NW actually purchase two of
27 Post contains links and images Starlionblue : Similar to the distinction between new build 747 Freighters designated 747-xxxF and converted freighters designated 747-xxx(BCF) or 747-xxx(SF). This
28 OceansWorld : Yes, the first two B747-357 of the fleet ex. HB-IGC/D were bought by NW. Their engines were used for the freighter fleet.
29 DIA : Interesting thread about an (almost) overlooked model of the 747. Somone want to write down a quick list of all the original 743 operators here? I kno
30 MAS777 : But didn't the 743 signal the first LHR-SIN nonstop service for SQ....or was it at the cost of a 'reduced load' (which was negated by the larger capa
31 Superfly : The last western aircraft perhaps but remember the IL-96 is a three man cockpit and still in production. Los Angeles - Auckland is further distance.
32 Viscount724 : From Boeing website orders/deliveries data : Air India Cathay Pacific Egyptair Japan Airlines Japan Asia Airways (JL subsidiary) KLM Korean Air Malay
33 OceansWorld : Here's your list with the details for each operators. Air India (2) Cathay Pacific (6) Egyptair (2) Japan Airlines (13) Japan Asia Airways (JL subsid
34 Vikkyvik : Indeed. And the -400D has the long hump, but no winglets.
35 Airbuseric : In 1999-2000 JL still operated the 743 nonstop over Russian airspace e.g. NRT-AMS. Quite a distance too!
36 Moek2000 : I know SV has a lot of 743's...I used to fly them every 6 months back in the 90's, always had a great experience! As far as why SV ordered 743's, I wo
37 Max Q : Well CX flew the -300 on HKG-YVR and HKG-LGW prior to them switching into LHR. It was not a regular thing as they preferred tp use their -D4 powered -
38 N1120A : Out of more than 1300 aircraft, both numbers are rather small. The 747-200B should have had plenty of range and payload uplift to run the route.
39 YULYMX : Corsair had B743 until last year... and qantas use them as sub on SYD-LAX
40 N1120A : I do not think that is true, except maybe in a dire emergency. They would have to make a non-revenue stop in Honolulu or somewhere else along the way
41 Post contains links YULYMX : http://www.airliners.net/search/phot...truecount=false&engine_version=6.0 a few B743 from quantas at LAX
42 Avianca : very intresting! btw do you know on what routes they used these "special" combis..???
43 SEPilot : From what I've read Boeing was quite reluctant to develop the 744, preferring to rest on their laurels. It was pressure from the airlines, who could s
44 Malaysia : I was a bit too late, I ended up only flying the 743 only between JED-BKK and RUH-BKK and a 744 between RUH-JED-JFK and IAD-JFK-JED and Cockpit jumps
45 Post contains images Leskova : I was thinking more in terms of technology - I'm aware that they're the same size. While it wasn't introduced with it, the B767 was available with a
46 Carpethead : Thanks. I was using KL just as an example. Other than UTA & KLM, did other operators convert an existing 742 into an 742SUD? JL had the 741SUD but th
47 N1120A : Ah. In that case, not much if anything. Yes, there were those, but the aircraft had to actually be altered by Boeing to provide the option. It was de
48 Airbuseric : Basically yes, but more because you can uplift 4 Q7 sized pallets (instead of Q6 size). That's a main issue for the operators.
49 N1120A : How does the SUD make a difference there?
50 United Airline : It's QANTAS
51 FlySSC : UTA used this 11 Palets Combi mostly on its West African Network (ABJ, DLA, BZV, FIH) and to JNB.
52 Post contains images Cricket : AI continues to use its 747-337M's on routes to North Asia, but maybe not for much longer!
53 MAS777 : Interesting... so was it all advertising then - as SQ used to boast that only their 743 Big Tops were capable of doing the route nonstop in one direc
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...
When Did Cathay Retire The 747-200 And -300? posted Wed Aug 30 2006 10:09:31 by Airbus_A340
Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular posted Thu Feb 9 2006 07:28:35 by Flywithjohn
Singapore Airlines Might Order The B 747-400QLR? posted Tue May 28 2002 12:46:22 by United Airline
Why Don't America-based Airlines Buy The 777-300? posted Thu Jul 12 2001 18:59:18 by SSTjumbo
Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300? posted Wed Aug 1 2007 05:50:00 by United Airline
Why Didnt CO Order The 777-200LR? posted Mon Jul 30 2007 02:55:27 by CO787EWR
Why Did AA Buy The MD-11? posted Wed Jan 31 2007 17:24:33 by BALandorLivery
Why Did AL Purchase The 328 Jet? posted Sun Dec 31 2006 05:46:05 by Cubsrule
Where Are The 747-300 Of Corsair? posted Sat Oct 21 2006 23:41:03 by Gabypn1992
Why Didnt UA Order The A330? posted Fri Sep 29 2006 21:08:39 by BoeingFever777