Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?  
User currently offlineVHECA From Australia, joined May 2007, 262 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 6844 times:

I throw it open to the floor...

I dont mind the sleek looking 757 as I cruise through airports around the world or through websites like this. And I always wondered why we Australians seem to have lucked out on missing this Boeing species down here in Australia.

We have had associations with the rest of the Boeing fleet, from the 707, 727, 737, 747, 767 via Qantas and Ansett, and we will soon to be seeing the NG's of 777 and 787 breeds in Oz skies soon. But the 757 remained elusive.

Anyone care to help me why this was so?

Thanks in advance

VH-ECA


Types Flown on - 312,320,722,732,733,73H,73W,742,743,74C,752,762,AB4,D1C,D28,DHT,F27,L11
69 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMestrugo From Chile, joined Apr 2007, 237 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 6803 times:

Quoting VHECA (Thread starter):
We have had associations with the rest of the Boeing fleet, from the 707, 727, 737, 747, 767 via Qantas and Ansett, and we will soon to be seeing the NG's of 777 and 787 breeds in Oz skies soon. But the 757 remained elusive.

Annnd Qantaslink's 717s.

[Edited 2007-10-25 22:07:28]

User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6747 times:

Just a wild guess - the B757 offered nothing in terms of capacity/range/economics that either QF or AN thought that they could benefit from?

I guess the extra in range/weight never outweighed the disadvantage of having "too much aircraft" for most routes that it could have been deployed on - or too little capacity for those that it would have been deployed on for it's range.



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineANstar From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6737 times:

i think they went for the 763's as it has a faster deplaning time. Tunirng a 757 around quickly is a bit difficult witht he single aisle. I also believe this is a reason why no Aussie airline has ordered the 739

User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6729 times:

Quoting ANstar (Reply 3):
i think they went for the 763's as it has a faster deplaning time. Tunirng a 757 around quickly is a bit difficult witht he single aisle.

That was also one of the reported reasons why LH decided not to opt for the B757-300 as a replacement for the A300.



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineKoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6704 times:

The answer is that it is not particularly efficient for any given mission.

In 2007, the A320 or A321 is much more efficient, and in 1987 and 1997 the 767-200 and then 767-300 offered much more versatility to Ansett and Qantas.

And it's not a great plane to be a passenger in: it's the same old 707 narrow cabin as the 727 and 737, but elongated.


User currently offlineVHECA From Australia, joined May 2007, 262 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6678 times:

Quoting VHECA (Thread starter):
We have had associations with the rest of the Boeing fleet, from the 707, 727, 737, 747, 767 via Qantas and Ansett, and we will soon to be seeing the NG's of 777 and 787 breeds in Oz skies soon. But the 757 remained elusive.

And Qantaslink's 717s.[/quote]

Oh yes, the baby one! I forgot about this one!

Quoting Koruman (Reply 5):
The answer is that it is not particularly efficient for any given mission.

In 2007, the A320 or A321 is much more efficient, and in 1987 and 1997 the 767-200 and then 767-300 offered much more versatility to Ansett and Qantas.

And it's not a great plane to be a passenger in: it's the same old 707 narrow cabin as the 727 and 737, but elongated.

Yet it has served ...err...well in the US and in Europe? Well at least for some considerable amount of time and using them on semi- to major- routes. I just wondered why it was ignored. It just seems that it was not presented as well as the 767, no?

And thanks for the quick replies!

VH-ECA



Types Flown on - 312,320,722,732,733,73H,73W,742,743,74C,752,762,AB4,D1C,D28,DHT,F27,L11
User currently offlineKoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 6647 times:

Actually, a lot of European and North American airlines now find themselves with fully paid-off and depreciated 757s which they don't know what to do with (BA, CO, DL etc).

They are useless for freight, and much less efficient than 737NG and A320s for short-haul travel, so they are being used on trans-Atlantic flights to low-yield secondary centres which don't have freight requirements, like Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle or Bristol.

But what would be the equivalent Australian niche? The only comparable flights I can think of are PER-AKL (767 does this nicely for NZ), ADE-AKL (A320 does this well for NZ) and possibly Melbourne-Fiji.


User currently offlineTonymctigue From Ireland, joined Feb 2006, 1946 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 6608 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Koruman (Reply 5):
And it's not a great plane to be a passenger in: it's the same old 707 narrow cabin as the 727 and 737, but elongated.



Quoting Koruman (Reply 7):
Actually, a lot of European and North American airlines now find themselves with fully paid-off and depreciated 757s which they don't know what to do with (BA, CO, DL etc).

Yes, the 757 has found a new lease of life on TA routes with low yields but still a sufficient demand that makes the 752 the ideal AC for the job. Where I live on the west coast of Ireland, the nearest airport is Shannon (EINN) that currently CO, DL, US & GSM operate TA services to EWR, JFK, PHL & YHM respectively & previously AA operated to BOS also with a 752. They are perfect for an airport like SNN that have relatively small catchements but still enough demand to fill a 752. CO are the real master of using 752's on TA routes. They were the ones who really pioneered their use for such routes & they have been successful at operating 752's from EWR to SNN & BFS & making a profit on these routes where other carriers previously tried but failed. AA tried to copy CO but were not nearly as successful & both DL & US have both since started operating TA 752 services. However, they are horribly uncomfortable to sit on for a 7 hour flight, They are very narrow & you get this feeling the whole the whole time that the roof is about to cave in. At the same time though, people are just glad to have the oppertunity of getting direct flights to the US from their own local airoprts without the hassle of passing through overcrowded airports like DUB so they are willing to put up with the smaller AC. Also, many routes that start with a 752 get upgraded to a 763 after a couple of years of operation because once people get used to using the service, demands increase that warrents the use of a 763 but had they started with the 763, the route would not have lasted because of the excess capacity.



Flown With EI,FR,RE,UA,CO,AA,WS,CX,QF,JQ: Airports SNN,GWY,ORK,DUB,NOC,LHR,STN,BOS,EWR,JFK,ORD,BOI,SEA,MCI,LHR,LYS,CDG,H
User currently offlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4014 posts, RR: 34
Reply 9, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6531 times:

Quoting Koruman (Reply 7):
Actually, a lot of European and North American airlines now find themselves with fully paid-off and depreciated 757s which they don't know what to do with (BA, CO, DL etc).

Well BA is presently looking for 2 more B757.

Quoting Koruman (Reply 7):
They are useless for freight

But brilliant for package operators. BA sold a whole fleet of non-ETOPS B757 to DHL a couple of years ago.


User currently offlineTristarSteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4014 posts, RR: 34
Reply 10, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6525 times:

Quoting Tonymctigue (Reply 8):
However, they are horribly uncomfortable to sit on for a 7 hour flight, They are very narrow & you get this feeling the whole the whole time that the roof is about to cave in

When I was young we all travelled around in B707 DC8 and VC10 in 6 abreast economy. It was the height of luxury then. I suppose you would rather sit in the middle seat of a 10 abreast wide body?
If the roof was falling down that is no fault of the B757, its bad maintenance!

And by the way, Icelandair has leased out a B757 to a South Pacific airline. (sorry can't remember the name) so you may see one in Oz soon.


User currently offlineTonymctigue From Ireland, joined Feb 2006, 1946 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6449 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TristarSteve (Reply 10):
When I was young we all travelled around in B707 DC8 and VC10 in 6 abreast economy. It was the height of luxury then. I suppose you would rather sit in the middle seat of a 10 abreast wide body?
If the roof was falling down that is no fault of the B757, its bad maintenance!

I didn't mean that the roof was literally falling in. I just meant that because the cabin is so long & narrow it is really claustrophobic. You are right though about sitting in the middle seat of a 10 abreast wide body. It is not plesent. A window seat on a wide body is my preference. 752's are also terrible in turbulence. If you are in the very back & the plance hits turbulence, you can literally see the fuselage flexing.



Flown With EI,FR,RE,UA,CO,AA,WS,CX,QF,JQ: Airports SNN,GWY,ORK,DUB,NOC,LHR,STN,BOS,EWR,JFK,ORD,BOI,SEA,MCI,LHR,LYS,CDG,H
User currently offlineUAL777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1556 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6390 times:

Quoting Koruman (Reply 7):
They are useless for freight,

Tell that to UPS. Hint: they have 75 of them.



It is always darkest before the sun comes up.
User currently offlineVHECA From Australia, joined May 2007, 262 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6233 times:

Quoting UAL777 (Reply 12):
Quoting Koruman (Reply 7):
They are useless for freight,

Tell that to UPS. Hint: they have 75 of them.

That's true. UPS uses a lot of these on freighter duties.

Quoting Koruman (Reply 7):
But what would be the equivalent Australian niche? The only comparable flights I can think of are PER-AKL (767 does this nicely for NZ), ADE-AKL (A320 does this well for NZ) and possibly Melbourne-Fiji.

Got a good point, especially in today's environment. But when the plane was fresh out of the box from Boeing, no Australian carrier, as far as what I have read here so far, had even considered it. Even for the South Pacific runs that 742 and 743 aircraft made (Prior to the Ansett amalgamation, for want of a better word!)

It just seems weird that all but one variant was looked at and subsequently operated in Australia on a regular basis! May be just an anomoly where like Kourman said, there was no comparable niche!

Quoting TristarSteve (Reply 10):
And by the way, Icelandair has leased out a B757 to a South Pacific airline. (sorry can't remember the name) so you may see one in Oz soon.

TristarSteve, I believe that Royal Brunei operated their 752 into Oz a number of times before it was sold on. But I would love to see a 757 operate, but time is short for the bird!

Again thanks to all for answering something that has been a little bit of bother in my Aviation-minded head!

VH-ECA



Types Flown on - 312,320,722,732,733,73H,73W,742,743,74C,752,762,AB4,D1C,D28,DHT,F27,L11
User currently offlineAirbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8410 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6168 times:

Quoting VHECA (Reply 6):
Yet it has served ...err...well in the US and in Europe?

Not many European legagy carriers operated the 757, at least since the A320/1 became available. Even fewer exist today. Most 757's in Europe are being used by tour operators.
In my opinion, the easy answer to the original question is that the 757 was taylor made for the domestic US market.

Quoting UAL777 (Reply 12):
Tell that to UPS. Hint: they have 75 of them.

But they don't have to carry passengers. I think that's what he meant.


User currently offlineCurmudgeon From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 695 posts, RR: 22
Reply 15, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6166 times:

The 757 was considered as a 727 replacement back in the day, but the thinking was that it exceeded the single aisle max passenger capacity that the then airline management thought ideal (for turn-around times). Don't forget that through flights in Australia still deplane all passengers and groom the cabin, a process that would mean a :50 turn for a 757.

The 757 is a great aircraft for those airlines that can use its range/economy attributes, but it is too small for Australia. Sydney-Melbourne is one of the world's busiest routes, and is well served by wide bodies for peak and 737 for other times. The other city pairs are largely the same. Additionally, the cities served from Australia within the 757's range circle all demand bigger cabins.

By the way, the 757 cabin is unlike the 737/727...it is roomier. As for freight: As has been mentioned, the package operators love it, and are actively seeking additional 757 planes as/when/if they become available used.

The real missed opportunity in the Boeing catalogue was the 777...



Jets are for kids
User currently offlineNZ8800 From New Zealand, joined May 2006, 425 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6146 times:

Except for brief leases (Freedom Air and Kiwi International) - commercial carriers across the ditch in New Zealand doesn't use the 757 either.
However, two of them operate as transport aircraft from Royal New Zealand Airforce Base Whenuapai, near Auckland.
Due to the low strength and short length of Whenuapai's runways, and the need to transport around 190 people at a time, they were much better replacements for the RNZAF's aging 727s than a wide-bodied aircraft.
Does the RAAF use them as transport aircraft?

I'd agree with other people's opinions above - the 757 just doesn't suit Australian operations. And the 737-800, which both Qantas and Virgin Blue use carries nearly as many passengers as the 757s.
The 767 does de-plane much quicker, as noted; and would be more suitable for busy routes between the State Capitals.



MDZWTA ~ Mobile Disaster Zone When Travelling Abroad
User currently offlineVHHYI From Australia, joined Oct 2007, 97 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6142 times:

Hello all, I saw this thread and I registered so I can reply to it  Smile

Ansett DID order the 757. Six of them+options back in the Abeles days, along with a few 737's
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...9B0DEEDF133AF93BA35753C1A961948260

One can only guess where they evaporated off to? Ansett Worldwide leasing?



This Porsche is like an Airbus;an Engineering marvel, but without passion - Jeremy Clarkson
User currently offlineSh0rtybr0wn From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 528 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6130 times:

Quoting Curmudgeon (Reply 15):
The real missed opportunity in the Boeing catalogue was the 777...

No kidding. Mind boggling that QF doesn't have 40 of them.


User currently offlineANstar From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6091 times:

Quoting Sh0rtybr0wn (Reply 18):
No kidding. Mind boggling that QF doesn't have 40 of them.

Why is it boggling? They went for the 330 instead


User currently offlineVHHYI From Australia, joined Oct 2007, 97 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6091 times:

Another thing I dug up..

http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/...ository1/media/npaper_4/r31560.pdf

VB appears to have been considering 757 for short term capacity in the aftermath of the AN collapse.



This Porsche is like an Airbus;an Engineering marvel, but without passion - Jeremy Clarkson
User currently offlineCaspritz78 From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 518 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6067 times:

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 14):
Not many European legagy carriers operated the 757, at least since the A320/1 became available. Even fewer exist today. Most 757's in Europe are being used by tour operators.

Don't forget FI . They operate 16 757 of various configurations. Right now that is their main aircraft.


User currently offlineSh0rtybr0wn From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 528 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6058 times:

Quoting ANstar (Reply 19):
Why is it boggling? They went for the 330 instead

77W would be best plane for the longest QF routes right now. Most popular long haul aircraft, especially for a place that's far from everywhere. It would have been the perfect plane for them, thats why I find it mind boggling.


User currently offlineFlysherwood From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 1115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5890 times:

Quoting Koruman (Reply 5):
And it's not a great plane to be a passenger in: it's the same old 707 narrow cabin as the 727 and 737, but elongated.

Have you ever flown on a 757? It is probably one of the funnest planes to fly if you are an enthusiast. The sheer power and acceleration in comparison with a A320 or 737NG is like the comparison between a Porche 935 Turbo Carrera and a Toyota Corolla.


User currently offlineRampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3141 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5883 times:

Quoting NZ8800 (Reply 16):
And the 737-800, which both Qantas and Virgin Blue use carries nearly as many passengers as the 757s.
The 767 does de-plane much quicker, as noted; and would be more suitable for busy routes between the State Capitals.

Knowing little about Australian commercial aviation, I venture a guess that the density of Australian airports, and concentration to the east coast, limit the need for medium and transcontinent range in the same seating capacity that the 757 offered. Compare this to the US, where there are many more cities, many more transcontinent and medium ranges, and dispersion of cities across the country. Europe is somewhat similar to the US, though the popular A321 fulfills some of the need. I would guess that Canada might be analogous to Australia -- lower density of cities, and the 757 wasn't popular there, either.

-Rampart


25 777STL : No, it is mind boggling. Considering Boeing consulted a handful of airlines during the design phase of the 777, QF was one of these and the only one
26 OceansWorld : A few earlier details. During the '80s, when AN and TN were the domestic airlines, one went for a bunch of B767-200s while the other preferred the A3
27 BrianDromey : Thinking about the geographical spread of cities accross Oz, it is fairly easy to see why the 757 was not as popular as the 738 has been. Those cities
28 Dutchjet : Actually, LH concluded that the single aisle layout of the 753 did not result in longer boarding, deplaning or turn times....passenger reaction to th
29 Threepoint : It was popular, to a degree. Canada 3000, Harmony and a host of package tour operators used them extensively within Canada and to Sun destinations. T
30 Post contains links and images Lrdc9 : How could that possibly be? Delta just bought MORE from AA(ex-TWA birds)!!!!!!!!!!!! View Large View MediumPhoto © Stephen Dobbins View Large Vi
31 Post contains images CXfirst : In addition to that, the New Zealand Air Force 757 has been to Australia plenty of times. Even the mexican governmental 757 has been here! -CXfirst
32 Post contains links and images Viscount724 : Fuselage width is the same but the 757 may (not certain) have slightly more headroom due to a repositioned cabin floor since the 757 fuselage is tall
33 Gemuser : Obviously NOT in QFs opinion! And I would suggest than the QF route & fleet planning people had/have a LOT more information at their finger tips than
34 Post contains images PlymSpotter : It quite astounds me when this sort of comment comes up. So, the armchair CEO from the comfort of his own living room could have saved Qantas all tha
35 Tpaewr : CO flew the 752 GUM-CNS, often as a replacement for the 727 when the weather pushed the flight path outside the 727's range.
36 StearmanNut : I have flown on a QF 757 from SYD to Cairns twice.
37 Threepoint : I didn't think that QF ever had 757's did they? Was it a different aircraft/operator perhaps?
38 StealthZ : I doubt that but will qualify my doubt with the note that during the pilots strike of 1989 there were all kinds of strange things in Australian skies
39 Post contains images Leskova : Could be... would differ from what was reported at the time, but still could very well be a reason. I never get why people consider that a downgrade
40 OceansWorld : QF has never operated or leased B757s. During the strike, Ansett has leased two B757s from Air 2000 while Australian has done the same but with Monar
41 Post contains images Dutchjet : I happen to agree with you, but we are among the minority here; the theme at a.net lately has been: bigger is always better and widebody=good and nar
42 Post contains links OceansWorld : First, it wasn't QF that moved from 72S to 734, but rather TN (Australian Airlines) with the first aircraft arriving back in 1990. AN got its first A
43 Airbazar : It's not that one is good and one is bad as much as one is better for some missions and the other is better for other missions. And it's not just a.n
44 Post contains images Dutchjet : A dangerous game. Yet most passengers dont chose their flights based upon the type of equipment with which a flight is operated....the following fact
45 Airbazar : Oh yes they do, especially the ones that count the most such the the FF passengers. That is one reason an airline like SQ does not operate narrowbody
46 Dutchjet : Asian pax are one group that overwhelmingly prefer widebody airplanes.......thus SQ flies an exclusively widebody fleet. I am not so sure that the sa
47 Nzrich : Well in NZ the 757 really is not a option at all domestically it would not make sence with tight turn arounds and it would of meant a reduction in fr
48 Dutchjet : Agreed, the 757 is far too big for domestic NZ operations. While SYD-AKL is opeated primarily by widebody aircraft, other Trans Tasman routes are flo
49 Viscount724 : Private but in my experience (and I've heard many similar comments) not quiet. In fact I think the upper deck is the noisiest cabin on a 747 due to a
50 Post contains images Dutchjet : I meant quiet in the sense that there is far less noise from other passengers, galley operations, etc. So I guess that you are saying that the premiu
51 OceansWorld : I've travelled in the upper deck with Swissair. That was in Y-class, and the bins weren't overhead but between the seats and the windows. The top of
52 Viscount724 : Most 747s still have those bins below the windows on the upper deck as well as the smallish overhead bins. As you say they're not very practical exce
53 FlyboyOz : Sometimes, Canada 3000 flew YVR-HNL-NAN-AKL-SYD - probably three times a week and YVR-HNL-NAN-SYD 4 times a week.
54 Nzrich : Yes most tasman routes out of AKL on NZ have at least 1 widebody service ..The A320 and the rare 733 flights are operated on routes that there is sim
55 Antskip : The size difference is not huge - a matter of 15-20 seats, spread across economy and business. e.g, the NZ A320 has 8 business seats and 144 economy,
56 Viscount724 : Canada 3000 never operated daily. At most it was a couple of flights a week.
57 Nzrich : Yes but not all routes will support those extra seats ..Also the NZ A320 flew into regional airports for SJ too PMR HLZ and DUD now these routes have
58 Antskip : All very good points, Nzrich. There is no way a B757 would be considered nowadays. I just wonder, though, whether early on, when the B757 was newish,
59 Nzrich : The problem with replacing the 767 with the 757 early on is that every 767 also did long haul flights ie NZ to asia HNL and to LAX via the islands ..
60 Alangirvan : This is not a good comparison. The 757 is bigger than the A321 and the seating in the CO 757s include 16 sleeper seat, whereas the A320s have medium
61 VHECA : Thanks for all of your responses to this question. Some excellent points have been raised to assist with my query. I understand that other carriers, f
62 Post contains images Bongodog1964 : Your having a laugh aren't you ?
63 OceansWorld : In one of my book about the 757 (published in 1992), the author says: Ansett also ordered (in 1987) six aircraft plus six options which were taken up
64 Eta unknown : Two reasons: a) 757 = too much capacity. With the exception of SYD-MEL, a 737 is often the perfect fit for Australian domestic routes. Remember the po
65 Tonymctigue : I'm not talking about the dimensions of the seat itself. I am well aware that a coach seat is a coach seat no matter whether you are on a widebody or
66 Alangirvan : a) The 757 has too much capacity for short operations in a lot of countries. The 737-900ERs will be the biggest planes in CO's domestic fleet. In Eur
67 Tonymctigue : This I think is a major reason why the 757 was not chosen for many short haul operations. They are very long & only have that one single aisle that s
68 Alangirvan : Also, when Britannia originally chose its 767-200s for IT flights around Europe, they would turn their 767s in 45 minutes at a foreign port, taking ad
69 Tonymctigue : That is a good point. Maybe one of the reasons could be is the takeoff performance of a B762 or an A310 compared to a 752. I know from reading about
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...
Beechcraft Starship..Why Was It A Failure? posted Thu Jul 28 2005 19:32:52 by A5XX
EMB-123 Vector: Why Was It Cancelled? posted Wed Jul 14 2004 16:42:22 by Qb001
Was It The First Swiss 343 In USA? posted Mon Nov 3 2003 19:08:09 by CV990
Why Was NW Never A 767 Or A300 Customer? posted Mon Mar 24 2003 01:30:39 by 727LOVER
LHR : Why Is 09L Never Used For Take-offs? posted Tue Mar 26 2002 19:25:14 by LGW
US Government 757, What Was It Doing? posted Thu Mar 21 2002 19:02:00 by Bobbydgg
Why Isn't ABQ Ever Considered For A Hub? posted Tue Mar 7 2000 21:24:58 by ABQ757
Why Was The F-100 Never A Big Hit In Australia? posted Tue Jul 22 2003 10:06:30 by Positive rate
Runway 18 In FRA , Could It Be Used For Landings? posted Tue Sep 4 2007 23:52:51 by LHStarAlliance
Was The 747 Like Hump Considered For Other Planes? posted Sat Mar 17 2007 00:41:13 by JAM747