KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2066 times:
I know TZ is using their "new" DC-10-30s now, for their military charters, and a few charters to Hawaii. But, these former NW birds are old and have lots of hours and cycles on them, although they have been taken very good care of.
The DC-10-30s were bought because the airplanes TZ originally wanted, the B-767-300ERs, with GE engines were not available in time to replace the L-1011-500s.
But, would TZ have been better off ordering new build B-767-400ERs, instead of buying the DC-10s? I say the B-767-400ER because it carries the same number of pax as the DC-10-30, or about 25-30 more pax than the B-767-300ER. TZ could have gotten them at an attractive price, since Boeing wanted B-767 orders to keep the line open.
UnitedTristar From United States of America, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 1240 posts, RR: 4 Reply 1, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1969 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter): The DC-10-30s were bought because the airplanes TZ originally wanted, the B-767-300ERs, with GE engines were not available in time to replace the L-1011-500s.
well...one correction first...they wanted 767's with RR engines not GE...
the problem with the 767 is that they are going to use them for GOV charters and the GOV wants to use standard LD3's in 1 to 1....but the 767 uses LD2's. Now the GOV could still hire them with the 767's but they might loose some volume. I think they would have been better off picking up some 777's that UA returned to lessors or old RG ones, or perhaps some RG MD11's
-m
Welcome aboard United Airlines L1011 Friendship Service to Osaka!
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1951 times:
Quoting UnitedTristar (Reply 1): I think they would have been better off picking up some 777's that UA returned to lessors or old RG ones, or perhaps some RG MD11's
But weren't those B-777s just the "A" models (non ER -200)?
Quoting UnitedTristar (Reply 1): well...one correction first...they wanted 767's with RR engines not GE...
UnitedTristar From United States of America, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 1240 posts, RR: 4 Reply 3, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1913 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2): But weren't those B-777s just the "A" models (non ER -200)?
some were A and some were ER but even if they were A..they could still do the fuel stops as they do today.
IFlyATA From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 236 posts, RR: 3 Reply 4, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1850 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter): TZ could have gotten them at an attractive price, since Boeing wanted B-767 orders to keep the line open.
What do you consider an attractive price? Because for what ATA got for the DC-10s was an AMAZING deal (in ATAs favor). I think NWA definitely was the looser.
FlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6517 posts, RR: 11 Reply 5, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1819 times:
Quoting IFlyATA (Reply 4): Because for what ATA got for the DC-10s was an AMAZING deal (in ATAs favor). I think NWA definitely was the looser.
Not necessarily. NW got good use out of these birds and the price was commencurate for its age.
CAM2:"Lightning coming out of that one." CAM1: "What?"
LN-MOW From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1896 posts, RR: 15 Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1809 times:
Quoting UnitedTristar (Reply 1): the problem with the 767 is that they are going to use them for GOV charters and the GOV wants to use standard LD3's in 1 to 1...
Where on earth did you dream that? The government cares just as little about ULD configuration as whether the airline serves Coke or Pepsi .... That is the airline's decision. The government just want the lift.
Most military flights (also widebodies) are bulk loaded - or loaded on pallets - for easy offload. Highloaders are not widely in use on military facilities ..
All TZ aircraft are bulkloaded. If they would get 767's, they will also be bulkloaded. Its' just more practical. And there is no shortage of manpower on the bases. ...
New aircraft, like the 764, are also unsuitable for charterwork. You can not utilize the aircraft flying charters as well as you can with scheduled operations. That means that the capital costs go up and you won't be able to make money. For charter work, it is better with older aircraft/lower capital cost and higher operating cost (mx/fuel).
AirTran737 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3639 posts, RR: 12 Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1795 times:
Quoting UnitedTristar (Reply 1): the problem with the 767 is that they are going to use them for GOV charters and the GOV wants to use standard LD3's in 1 to 1....but the 767 uses LD2's.
Military charters are all bulk loaded my friend, they don't care about containers. Hell they don;t even use the lower deck on our freighters when we operate for them.
Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
TZTriStar500 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1419 posts, RR: 9 Reply 8, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1772 times:
This topic has been gone over time and time again. New or near new aircraft with high lease rates do NOT work in the ad-hoc AMC type business model. It would be impossible to plan the utilization for a brand new aircraft in this scenario. It may sit on the ramp for a week and your $150K in the hole just on lease payments.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter): The DC-10-30s were bought because the airplanes TZ originally wanted, the B-767-300ERs, with GE engines were not available in time to replace the L-1011-500s.
No, they were the only viable alternative after scouring the planet for used 763ERs with attractive lease rates. There is no truth that GE engines were a must. GE engines were preferred, but we could not be too exclusive to pass up ANY 763ER. Beggars can't be choosers or too picky.
Quoting UnitedTristar (Reply 1): well...one correction first...they wanted 767's with RR engines not GE...
the problem with the 767 is that they are going to use them for GOV charters and the GOV wants to use standard LD3's in 1 to 1....but the 767 uses LD2's. Now the GOV could still hire them with the 767's but they might loose some volume. I think they would have been better off picking up some 777's that UA returned to lessors or old RG ones, or perhaps some RG MD11's
The RR engine exclusivity is false. Read above. When you say GOV, I think you mean AMC and they do not use any containerized cargo for troop movement and the AMC pricing model works best with an aircraft in the 763ER size so I don't think your facts are correct. Read above again, used 777s and even A340s where looked at and rejected due to the lease rates and the nature of the AMC business. They just don't work guys. The MD11 might have been a possibility except pax versions were scarce and one would have to fight with FedEx or UPS for them which drove up their rates.
Quoting UnitedTristar (Reply 3): yea they wanted the RR because its the same engine they have experience with using the L1011
they wanted used models and the only two users are BA/QF and they were not getting rid of them anytime soon
Incorrect as engine type was not really a factor. See above.
35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
HSVflier From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 104 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1379 times:
i can say that military charters do not use containers, they volun-tell about ten troops to start slinging bags onto the aircraft with a civilian contractor overseeing the loading. also, the range of the 777s was probably not an issue since TZ uses 757s to fly troops to and from Kuwait as well as their L1011s.
Flown DL, UA, CO, WN, LH, TZ, WO, AA, US, LO, HA, PX, NW, KE, AB, QR, LX, EE
PropilotJW From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 585 posts, RR: 7 Reply 10, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1335 times:
ATA got their "fleet" of DC-10's for less than a new build 764
EGNR From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 503 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1239 times:
Quoting UnitedTristar (Reply 3): yea they wanted the RR because its the same engine they have experience with using the L1011
they wanted used models and the only two users are BA/QF and they were not getting rid of them anytime soon
Only BA and China Yunnan ordered RR-powered B763s. QF operates some of the BA (767-336) aircraft on a lease, and the China Yunnan (767-3WO) aircraft are now part of the China Eastern fleet.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, 
, 1240 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 503 posts, 
From South Africa, joined Dec 2003, 2916 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
