Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No 747 Or 777 For USAirways  
User currently offlineC5LOAD From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 917 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 20254 times:

If this has been answered before, please point me to it. Why didn't US ever go for the 747 or the 777? Every other major legacy airline has one or the other or both (UA, NW/DL) and it just struck me as odd that US didn't want any.


"But this airplane has 4 engines, it's an entirely different kind of flying! Altogether"
31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineM11Stephen From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1247 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 20173 times:

They have the A330-300...


My opinions, statements, etc. are my own and do not have any association with those of any employer.
User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3217 posts, RR: 16
Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 20154 times:

They don't have any routes that require the range of either of them. PHL-PEK or PHL-NRT would need the extra range of the 777 but US returned their PEK authorities.

Quoting M11Stephen (Reply 1):
They have the A330-300...

Capacity wise, yes. Range wise, not even close.


User currently offlineZrs70 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 3222 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 20129 times:



Quoting C5LOAD (Thread starter):
Every other major legacy airline has one or the other or both (UA, NW/DL) and it just struck me as odd that US didn't want any.

At the time other legacy carriers went for the 747 (back in the early 70's), US Airways was a small carrier (Allegheny). If I recall correctly, wide-body service only began after the merger with Piedmost, who had 767's to Europe in the late 1980's.



14 year airliners.net vet! 2000-2013
User currently offlinePlaneguy727 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1258 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 20050 times:

Don't forget that America West - now part of US Airways - had the 747 used on HNL and Japan routes.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Ameri...irlines/Boeing-747-206B/1520982/M/



I want to live in an old and converted 727...
User currently offlineSteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9272 posts, RR: 21
Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 20018 times:



Quoting Zrs70 (Reply 3):
US Airways was a small carrier (Allegheny). If I recall correctly, wide-body service only began after the merger with Piedmost, who had 767's to Europe in the late 1980's.

Correct. They mostly had DC-9s and other smaller jets at that time. I don't think they even expanded very much out west until they rebranded themselves as USAir in 1979.

I do believe they are going with the A350 tho as soon as it becomes available. In fact, aren't they the launch customer still? Won't that give them both capacity and range? Granted the timeline for that bird is what, 5-10 years still?



Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
User currently offlinePI731 From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 125 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 19957 times:

Probably because Airbus gave Wolf and crew a good deal when they made the famous 400 aircraft deal back in 96 or 97 to get more Airbus aircraft in the US. Boeing wouldn’t talk to them cause of their poor credit. If Boeing were willing to deal with then, we would of seen a the 767 / 777 ordered instead of the 333. That’s my guess..

User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8510 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 19941 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

USairways was insterested in an airplane form PHL and CLT to Europe, a 777 is too much plane. The A330-300 is lighter and gives US the medium haul they need, Asia was not on their radar ten years ago. The new A330-200 will allow longer flights.

User currently offlineUSAirALB From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 3175 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 19844 times:



Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 5):

Qatar is the launch customer, they were almost it, but Qatar beat them to it.



E135/E140/E145/E70/E75/E90/CR2/CR7/CR9/717/732/733/734/735/73G/738/739/752/753/762/772/319/320/321/333
User currently offlineAdam T. From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 957 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 19756 times:

Correct me if i'm wrong but I have heard rumors that US management was unhappy with Boeing after the 737-400 crash near Pittsburgh - not sure if that's true but if so could it have been a factor in choosing the A333s over the 777s? Also, I can never imagine US Airways operating a 747.

User currently offlineSteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9272 posts, RR: 21
Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 19713 times:



Quoting USAirALB (Reply 8):
Qatar is the launch customer, they were almost it, but Qatar beat them to it.

Oh...

Quoting Adam T. (Reply 9):
Correct me if i'm wrong but I have heard rumors that US management was unhappy with Boeing after the 737-400 crash near Pittsburgh - not sure if that's true but if so could it have been a factor in choosing the A333s over the 777s? Also, I can never imagine US Airways operating a 747.

That was a factor, and it was a 733 that crashed; not a 734.

But anyway... That was a factor in their decision to go with Airbus. I think they wanted a newer product to start phasing out some of their older planes (DC9s, MD80s, 727s etc), and Airbus had Boeing beat in terms of how soon the aircraft could be available. I don't think US wanted to wait around for the NG 737s. At least that was my take on it. I think someone else on here said something along those lines as well...



Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
User currently offlineUSAirALB From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 3175 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 19666 times:



Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 10):
734.

I believe US is very happy with their 734s. The 734 is truly a passenger friendly aircraft, and I enjoy flying on them. I believe US is the largest operator for that type.



E135/E140/E145/E70/E75/E90/CR2/CR7/CR9/717/732/733/734/735/73G/738/739/752/753/762/772/319/320/321/333
User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5853 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 19457 times:



Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 5):
I do believe they are going with the A350 tho as soon as it becomes available. In fact, aren't they the launch customer still? Won't that give them both capacity and range? Granted the timeline for that bird is what, 5-10 years still?

About 5 years.

I'm not even sure what they'd do with the A350, since it seems like any Asia plans are on ice. The A330 is the perfect medium (-300) or long (-200) haul aircraft for their network.


User currently offlineMSYPI7185 From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 711 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 years 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 19434 times:

US was the launch order customer for the original A350, before the redesign. Then QR became the launch for the updated A350, then US signed on later. US is now referred to as the N. American launch customer for the A350, in some articles.

US went with Airbus for several reasons, first Boeing would not deal with US, so US started talks with Airbus. Also US had an order for some 757's that Boeing could not deliver as scheduled. US then cancelled the order, forfeiting their deposits, and this wound up in the courts. This was a mistake on Boeings part, IMO, because Wolf then demanded delivery of the 757's, because of Boeing insistance on honoring the contract. Boeing was way behind in deliveries because of a strike, and unable to deliver. When it appeared that US and Airbus were nearing a deal for just over 400 aircraft including options, Boeing then showed some interest in talking with US. Wolf basically told them to get lost.

The closest US ever came to either a 777 or 747, was when US had applied to fly PIT-NRT. US was looking for a couple of 747's, however they withdrew their application when US said the could not locate the specific type of 747 they were looking to acquire. No other information was given to us.

AFAIK the 777 was not considered as it was a new aircraft and US was attempting to acquire 747 used and they could be had for much less money.


User currently offlineMrSkyGuy From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1214 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 19434 times:



Quoting USAirALB (Reply 11):
I believe US is very happy with their 734s. The 734 is truly a passenger friendly aircraft, and I enjoy flying on them. I believe US is the largest operator for that type.

US may be, but I'm sure not. Having flown USA's "classic" 737s and their older and modern Airbus equivalents, I'm hands-down more in favor of the Airbus product. Not necessarily because I'm an "Airbus man" (because I'm neither Airbus or Boeing preferred) but because USA's classic 737s are, well, in dire need of some interior TLC.



"The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee." -- Gunter's 2nd Law of Air
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26021 posts, RR: 22
Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 19392 times:



Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 10):
Quoting Adam T. (Reply 9):
Correct me if i'm wrong but I have heard rumors that US management was unhappy with Boeing after the 737-400 crash near Pittsburgh - not sure if that's true but if so could it have been a factor in choosing the A333s over the 777s? Also, I can never imagine US Airways operating a 747.

That was a factor, and it was a 733 that crashed; not a 734.

The US 737 that overran into the water at LGA during a rejected takeoff (due to rudder problems) in September 1989 was a 737-400. Luckily only 2 fatalities.

http://aviation-safety.net/photos/accidents/750/19890920-0-C-d-1-750.jpg


User currently offlineMSYPI7185 From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 711 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 19320 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 15):
The US 737 that overran into the water at LGA during a rejected takeoff (due to rudder problems) in September 1989 was a 737-400. Luckily only 2 fatalities.

That was flight 5050. Lots of jokes on the late night shows on that flight number and incident. IIRC the problem was not the aircraft, unlike US 427 near PIT.

However the crash of US427 near PIT was a 733.

MD


User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2988 posts, RR: 13
Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 18896 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I knew a lady from my office that was on that US Airways that was in this crash at LGA!
She was picked off the wing, soaking wet. Her presentation was distroryed. She was pissed off!!!



The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21873 posts, RR: 55
Reply 18, posted (5 years 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 18842 times:



Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 7):
USairways was insterested in an airplane form PHL and CLT to Europe, a 777 is too much plane.

 checkmark  US rejected the 777 for the same reason that NW rejected the 777 - it was (and still is) too much airplane for the routes they were going to fly. And since US doesn't have an Asia network, there was no need to even consider sacrificing some effectiveness on the Atlantic side to gain some on the Pacific side with the 777 the way NW considered (of course, they eventually decided not to order the 777).

And if a 777 is too much airplane, a 747 is certainly too much airplane.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineORDnHKG From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 191 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 18680 times:



Quoting Mir (Reply 18):
US rejected the 777 for the same reason that NW rejected the 777 - it was (and still is) too much airplane for the routes they were going to fly.

I think it is a different reason.

US reject 777 the reason is right, whereas NW should have bought 777 instead of 330.

Given NW is concentrated in Asia, 333, and even 332 the most it can do is SFO-NRT, 332 is suitable for atlantic flying but not for pacific for its lack of range. If NW had bought 777 in the first place, it can basically phase out the entire 747 fleet, use 777 on DTW-NRT, MSP-NRT and DTW-PEK. They can have an entire fleet of 200ER like AA does.


User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8510 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (5 years 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 16099 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting ORDnHKG (Reply 19):
US reject 777 the reason is right, whereas NW should have bought 777 instead of 330.

Given NW is concentrated in Asia, 333, and even 332 the most it can do is SFO-NRT, 332 is suitable for atlantic flying but not for pacific for its lack of range. If NW had bought 777 in the first place, it can basically phase out the entire 747 fleet, use 777 on DTW-NRT, MSP-NRT and DTW-PEK. They can have an entire fleet of 200ER like AA does.

WE can play what could of and should of all day but NW was in an LBO in 1989 backed by our Dutch friends at KLM. Then it went public, bankrupt and somewhere in there they ordered A340 which were cancelled and posponed A330's. The current fleet of A330 probably was a compromise in that their deposits were going to be lost as well as the later versions of the A330 are more capable then the early 1990 version. In 2000 NW still had many 742 around and needed a DC-10 replacement for more service to Europe and Amsterdam.

A 777 would seem logical in hindsight but LBO, Bankrutcy and deposits may chart the course taken.


User currently offlineUSAirALB From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 3175 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (5 years 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 15367 times:



Quoting MrSkyGuy (Reply 14):

Yessir, all 734s have now have leather in Y and new leather seats in F. The 733s dont have anything new. I heard that they might add new overhead bins to the 734, but that was in 2007.



E135/E140/E145/E70/E75/E90/CR2/CR7/CR9/717/732/733/734/735/73G/738/739/752/753/762/772/319/320/321/333
User currently offlineNwarooster From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1158 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (5 years 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 13771 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 20):
A 777 would seem logical in hindsight but LBO, Bankrutcy and deposits may chart the course taken.

Northwest tried hard to get Boeing to build a shorter length 777, the 777-100.
Boeing showed NO interest, so Northwest bought the A330-300 and then the A330--200.
If Boeing had built the 777-100, Boeing may have won the US Air Force tanker bid against Airbus and Northrup.  old 



Procrastination Is The Theft Of Time.......
User currently offlineDeltaflyertoo From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1663 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (5 years 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 13543 times:

US doesn't have 777 or 747 because they never had any market share on any route that demanded that kind of capacity. As posters above pointed out, before the Airbuses, US was a fairly regional airline. Both PIedmont and US in the 1980s catered to more smaller markets (like Pittsubrugh, Charlotte, Raleigh, the northeast and south, etc), while United, American, Northwest and Delta carved out their main hubs at big metropolis centers like Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York. Flights between these cities and say Europe and Asia required 747s.

Both US and Piedmont pioneered the flying of 737s and 727s on near transcon flights. Even in their most profitable days there was no need for most part even 767s or DC10s the others had on same route lengths.

MOving into the 1990s it evident for the need to expand to Europe, and thats when the 767s came on board. But US never did reach the economies of scale the legacies were at where they saw traffic either transcontinent or across the atlantic to warrant the 747 or 777 like the legacies have.

I think in the heart of hearts at US in the 90s when all the merger dust had settled the ultimate plan by say 2000 or 2010 was to grow out of the niche regional image they had and someday be flying 747s and 777s and have heavy presence in another major city besides PHL like NYC, LA, NYC (In'tl speakig) etc. But as we know that chapter was never written.


User currently offlineSteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9272 posts, RR: 21
Reply 24, posted (5 years 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 13468 times:



Quoting USAirALB (Reply 11):
I believe US is very happy with their 734s. The 734 is truly a passenger friendly aircraft, and I enjoy flying on them. I believe US is the largest operator for that type.

I do remember seeing something earlier about US' 734 fleet, and yes they are a remarkable piece of equipment. I've flown on a 734 before and enjoyed it very much myself.

Quoting MSYPI7185 (Reply 13):
US was the launch order customer for the original A350, before the redesign. Then QR became the launch for the updated A350, then US signed on later. US is now referred to as the N. American launch customer for the A350, in some articles.

Ah.

Quoting MSYPI7185 (Reply 13):
US went with Airbus for several reasons, first Boeing would not deal with US, so US started talks with Airbus. Also US had an order for some 757's that Boeing could not deliver as scheduled. US then cancelled the order, forfeiting their deposits, and this wound up in the courts. This was a mistake on Boeings part, IMO, because Wolf then demanded delivery of the 757's, because of Boeing insistance on honoring the contract. Boeing was way behind in deliveries because of a strike, and unable to deliver. When it appeared that US and Airbus were nearing a deal for just over 400 aircraft including options, Boeing then showed some interest in talking with US. Wolf basically told them to get lost.

The closest US ever came to either a 777 or 747, was when US had applied to fly PIT-NRT. US was looking for a couple of 747's, however they withdrew their application when US said the could not locate the specific type of 747 they were looking to acquire. No other information was given to us.

AFAIK the 777 was not considered as it was a new aircraft and US was attempting to acquire 747 used and they could be had for much less money.

Thanks for the post. Very interesting on how US once considered the long-haul aircraft when applying for PIT-NRT. I wonder what 747s they wanted... I'd guess some used 742s, and I suppose they could have been configured to seat about 300 pax? I do believe that even a 742 could have seated even more than that in a 2- or 3-class layout...

I'm just curious tho. What is their seating capacity/configuration for the A332?



Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
25 Brilondon : Maybe in 5 years the economy will pick up and they will again be looking to go past Hawaii. This shows what an astute business man we have here. With
26 Flylku : Not to dispute this and similar statements that have been made but every day United launches nearly a dozen or more 777 A models to Europe from IAD a
27 MSYPI7185 : Well not quite, see US went to Boeing first. IIRC we had 14 different aircraft types and none were Airbus. Boeing REFUSED to even speak to US. When A
28 Post contains images Ouboy79 : Would have looked pretty sharp. :-P
29 CHRISBA777ER : Some top end anti-Airbus sentiment on here. The reason US didnt order the 777 was that the A330 worked better for them. Simple as that.
30 Centrair : I think that HP learned its lesson on the 747 with PHX-HNL-NGO which carried what....32 passengers total? US was not in a position for goign to Asia w
31 FX1816 : Hardly a rare bird is the 747, now orders for the 748 yes those are rare. FX1816
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...
Why No A340 Or A320 For KLM? posted Sun Aug 22 2004 14:45:59 by Kl911
Why No 717 Or 757 For AF? posted Sun Apr 25 2004 12:45:24 by Airtrainer
Why No 747-330s For Lufthansa? posted Thu Aug 28 2008 03:54:01 by Columba
Why No 747 For AA? posted Mon Apr 5 2004 06:00:23 by Aa777jr
Why No 747-300's For US Carriers posted Mon Jan 12 2004 16:19:38 by CRJ'sRule
Cheap Routes For The 747 Or 777 posted Sun Dec 9 2001 08:13:53 by Dash8King
Why No DL Or AA 747's Anymore? posted Mon Feb 5 2001 00:01:26 by Amtran727
Why No CO Or AA 757s At DCA? posted Sun Jul 19 2009 15:27:15 by LHCVG
Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal? posted Mon Oct 22 2007 12:53:52 by SCUMBAG
Why No MAXjet Or Eos At ORD? posted Tue Sep 4 2007 17:24:36 by FWAERJ