Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Did TWA Tried To Replace 741/742 With 743?  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3624 posts, RR: 2
Posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4431 times:

I was looking at a post on 747 300, and somebody posted that TWA wanted to replace their aging 741 and 742 fleet with ex Saudia 747 300's, but the 747 300 did not meet FAA standers.
Is this true, did TWA nearly become the US first 747 300 and RR powered 747 operator? If so that would have been so cool, darn FAA.  Angry

11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineChris From Canada, joined May 1999, 160 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4379 times:

What are "FAA standers"?

User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6388 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4296 times:



Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
I was looking at a post on 747 300, and somebody posted that TWA wanted to replace their aging 741 and 742 fleet with ex Saudia 747 300's, but the 747 300 did not meet FAA standers.

Now if we're talking about FAA standards, I wonder if Saudia was one of the carriers who specified a non-standard door layout (possibly one that didn't conform to FAA requirements) on their aircraft.

I also know that BA deactivated a couple of doors on their 742's, which would have been illegal if the birds were on the FAA registry (but was in full compliance with UK CAA requirements).



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8375 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3985 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
Sign up now for photo tracker!Photos | Forums | Articles | Site Wide
Change Forum... Civil Aviation Travel Polls & Prefs Tech/Ops Aviation Hobby Aviation Photography Photography Feedback Trip Reports Military Av & Space Non-Aviation Site Related LIVE Chat
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search
Did TWA Tried To Replace 741/742 With 743?

USER PROFILESEND INSTANT MSGADD TO RESP MEMBERSSUGGEST DELETIONQUOTE SELECTED TEXT

747400sp From United States, joined Aug 2003, 1885 posts, RR: 2
Posted Tue Nov 24 2009 23:11:56 your local time (8 hours 16 secs ago) and read 439 times:

I was looking at a post on 747 300, and somebody posted that TWA wanted to replace their aging 741 and 742 fleet with ex Saudia 747 300's, but the 747 300 did not meet FAA standers.
Is this true, did TWA nearly become the US first 747 300 and RR powered 747 operator? If so that would have been so cool, darn FAA.

IF there was some issue like the over wing door deactivated, things can be corrected. Saudia 743 Rolls powered 747's would have been newer and in better shape then the old TWA 741's.


User currently offlineJetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7410 posts, RR: 50
Reply 4, posted (4 years 10 months 17 hours ago) and read 3513 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting KELPkid (Reply 2):
Now if we're talking about FAA standards, I wonder if Saudia was one of the carriers who specified a non-standard door layout (possibly one that didn't conform to FAA requirements) on their aircraft.

I also know that BA deactivated a couple of doors on their 742's, which would have been illegal if the birds were on the FAA registry (but was in full compliance with UK CAA requirements).

Several European carriers had the L3/R3 doors "deactivated", but if it wasn't to FAA standards, they wouldn't be able to fly into the US. The reality of it, that the way these 747's were configured that these overwing doors were not needed at the time due to the seating numbers. Some of these aircraft were in a seating which only required 8 cabin exits, not all 10. In later years, these exits were reactivated as cabin bulkheads were placed in areas which restricted evacuation routes or additional seats were added, so the additional exits were required. But they weren't permanently sealed, they could be used if warrented.



Made from jets!
User currently offlineLijnden From Philippines, joined Apr 2003, 564 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (4 years 10 months 8 hours ago) and read 3254 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I have also heard that the SCD (Side Cargo Door) in a mixed configuration (freight/passenger) of the B747M (all series) was a problem by the FAA because of the escape route and that these planes could only fly to certain airports in the USA with special emergency equipement.


Be kind to animals!
User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8375 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (4 years 10 months 7 hours ago) and read 3157 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 4):
Several European carriers had the L3/R3 doors "deactivated", but if it wasn't to FAA standards, they wouldn't be able to fly into the US.

BA must have met these "FAA standards" they flew their classic 747's with the L/R3 door deactivated to teh USA, I flew on one of these from Miami to LHR.


User currently offlineJetstar From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1648 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (4 years 10 months 5 hours ago) and read 3050 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 6):
BA must have met these "FAA standards" they flew their classic 747's with the L/R3 door deactivated to teh USA, I flew on one of these from Miami to LHR.

I believe the US has a reciprocal agreement with other countries aviation authorities to honor their aircraft certification for operating into the US. So if the BA 747’s meet the UK certification, they were cleared to operate into the US. Same rules apply for US certified airplane on flights to the UK

This does not mean they can be sold and registered in the US without first having to comply with US certification standards.

JetStar


User currently offlineIsitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 23
Reply 8, posted (4 years 10 months 5 hours ago) and read 3048 times:

I do remember a photo in the paper with Ichon and an Airbus official holding up a model of an A330 the day TWA announced a purchase(or was it lease) of the airplane. Don't confuse this with the purchase of the 717. That was a different announcement.
I don't recall a public announcement of another purchase of the 747.
mc



If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2930 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (4 years 10 months 5 hours ago) and read 3026 times:

The only US airline I can think of that ever bought the 743 was NWA, which purchased 2 former Swiss aircraft for engines and spare parts.


The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9169 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (4 years 10 months 5 hours ago) and read 2981 times:

Weren't they interested in the B 747-400? Did they make any orders or sign any LOIs?

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25346 posts, RR: 22
Reply 11, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2705 times:



Quoting KELPkid (Reply 2):
Now if we're talking about FAA standards, I wonder if Saudia was one of the carriers who specified a non-standard door layout (possibly one that didn't conform to FAA requirements) on their aircraft.

No 741/742/743s were built with the overwing doors deactivated. Those were all modifications of existing aircraft, and if memory correct only BA/KL/CX did it. I believe TG also did it briefly on certain aircraft but then reactivated the doors. I believe the only BA 741/742s that were left with all 10 doors activated were the few 742s inherited from the B.Cal merger as they didn't plan to keep those very long.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 4):
Several European carriers had the L3/R3 doors "deactivated", but if it wasn't to FAA standards, they wouldn't be able to fly into the US.

The FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet for the 747-100/200/300 covers the door issue. It's not permitted on the -400. Excerpt from the TCDS below:

Maximum Passengers: For 747SR and 747-100, -100B, -200B, -200C airplanes the total passenger capacity is limited to:
550 with 5 pair of Type "A" exits on main deck
440 with 4 pair of Type "A" exits on main deck


Thread from 2 months ago on the 747 doors issue:
747 Eight Main Deck Exits (by Jetstream63 Sep 9 2009 in Civil Aviation)


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...
Bellview To Replace 737 Fleet With A320s posted Thu Jun 8 2006 16:10:33 by AsoRock
NW Plans To Replace DC-9s With RJs posted Fri Feb 24 2006 07:19:03 by United737522
KLM To Replace MD-11 With 787/A350 posted Wed Jun 8 2005 18:21:35 by MauriceB
CanJet To Replace All B732 With B735 posted Mon Nov 8 2004 18:20:58 by YVRtoYYZ
Why Did Twa Sell To Aa? And The Twa Story? posted Sat Feb 7 2004 22:57:23 by Bmi330
Did TWA Fly To Asia? posted Tue Jan 21 2003 20:19:53 by 777d
Is It Smarter To Replace Old 747's With New 777's? posted Wed Jul 24 2002 09:42:00 by AsianaAirlines
Where In Asia Did TWA Fly To? posted Mon Mar 19 2001 06:50:17 by VirginA340
JMC To Replace DC-10s With 767s? posted Wed May 24 2000 18:26:43 by Jet Setter
LTU To Replace All Boeings With Airbuses posted Tue Mar 28 2000 18:12:50 by Jet Setter