Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The -100s; How Close Were They?  
User currently offlinebunumuring From Australia, joined Jan 2014, 832 posts, RR: 2
Posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 16544 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi all,
How close were the following '-100s' to being launched? Launch customers? Plans?
I'm curious... Any information would be most welcome.
757-100
767-100 (also the -500 model that was apparently offered to Qantas)
777-100 (offered to SIA)
Plus also ...
717-300 (SAS passed on it I believe, as did Hawaiian???)
727-300 (United???)

Keep smiling!
Bunumuring


I just wanna live while I'm alive!
39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCF-CPI From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 1062 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 15964 times:

With the 757-100 and 767-100, I understand these were very early models which were externally identical to the more popular -200 variants. Early in the development program, the -100s were tweaked for uprated engines and longer range, producing those -200s, which sold better due to increased flexibility.

United initially spec'd the 767 for quasi-transcons such as CLE-LAX, which the -100 could do. Their thinking was probably to keep the DC-10s and 747s for the transcontinental markets, but in 1978 deregulation was passed and frequency became more critical. The -200 extended things to transcons (easily) and the rest is history. The 767-200ER for transatlantic routes was an unexpected bonus as well.

Interesting footnote with the 757: GE initially offered a competing engine for this airframe, but only AA and TransBrasil specified it, circa 1980. The AA order was small and eventually cancelled. TransBrasil actually ordered a mixed fleet with GE and PW as I recall, but they never entered service. AA would return to the 757 in the late 1980s with a large order, using RR.

I'm clueless about the 767-500 you mentioned. Was this based on the 767-400? There was a -400 extended range model that no one ordered.


User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16259 posts, RR: 56
Reply 2, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 15715 times:

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 1):
With the 757-100 and 767-100, I understand these were very early models which were externally identical to the more popular -200 variants. Early in the development program, the -100s were tweaked for uprated engines and longer range, producing those -200s, which sold better due to increased flexibility.

I recall something different. The 752 and the 762 were the base-line models with no 751 or 761 seriously considered by Boeing, although they were referred to occasionally.

At the time of the 757/767 launch in the late 70's, the 721, 731 and 741 were all selling poorly (or no longer offered) and had been supplanted by the more successful 722, 732 and 742, I recall reading one article at the time that Boeing decided to launch the 757 and 767 beginning with the -200 model name (rather than -100) for primarily marketing purposes to avoid the perception that a 751/761 would quickly become obsolete (as had the 721/731/741).

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 1):
Interesting footnote with the 757: GE initially offered a competing engine for this airframe, but only AA and TransBrasil specified it, circa 1980. The AA order was small and eventually cancelled. TransBrasil actually ordered a mixed fleet with GE and PW as I recall, but they never entered service. AA would return to the 757 in the late 1980s with a large order, using RR.

I seem to recall that the only 757 GE order was from Aloha for 3 plus 2 options, which was subsequently cancelled. The original AA 757 order was for 15+15 with the PW2000 engine which was cancelled in the 1981/82 recession.

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 1):
I'm clueless about the 767-500 you mentioned.

Same. I don't recall this at all.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21529 posts, RR: 59
Reply 3, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 15565 times:

The 717-300 was quite close to offer before Boeing pulled the plug. It was accidentally displayed on Boeings front page before the program ended. It was being shopped around, but some at Boeing were pushing the useless 736 and overweight 73G. The 713 would have been a solid MD80 replacement for AA but I don't think Boeing was willing to improve its range lest it compete with the 737. They thought AA would just be forced to take 737s. Ultimately it opened the door for the A319 at AA. And DL would also have liked an improved 713


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30989 posts, RR: 86
Reply 4, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 15174 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bunumuring (Thread starter):
777-100

This is what I posted in an older thread - What Happened To Boeing's Planned 777-100? (by marcouscg Dec 13 2011 in Civil Aviation)

Boeing performed a fair bit of work on the 777-100X, starting in June of 1995 and working through early 2000. However, the trip costs were similar to the 777-200 and therefore the per seat costs were higher. Nonetheless, SQ, AA and BR all continued to express strong interest in the model to allow them to perform LAX-SIN, DFW-NRT and JFK-HKG non-stop. CX, EK, KE, BA and UA also attended Boeing briefings on the model.

However, by early 1996 the static wing tests on the 777 test frame showed they were stronger than projected and therefore TOWs significantly higher than the 300t planned for the 777-200ER and 777-300 were possible. Rolls-Royce had also shown the Trent 8104 demonstrator engine, which offered enough thrust to support these higher TOWs. Boeing therefore started the 777-200X program in conjunction with the 777-100X. Per seat costs for the 777-200X were projected to be 8-9% lower than the 777-100X.

By the end of 1996, the 777-200X proposal called for an MTOW between 322 and 331 tons. Boeing also started development on the 777-300X based on customer feedback. AA decided to wait for the 777-200X, while SQ still expressed interest in the 777-100X as it could be available sooner (1999 vs. 2001 for the 777-200X).

The 777-200X became the 777-200LR and the 777-300X became the 777-300ER. Still, SQ kept pestering Boeing about the 777-100X and in January of 2000, Boeing responded with a 277t model with a range of 7300nm. However, economics still looked poor and the GP7000-powered 767-400ERX was deemed a solid threat so the project was again shelved.

In addition to the long-range C market model, Boeing also developed a B-market model called the 777-100B. Pitched to Delta and Continental as a replacement for the DC-10 and L-10 11, both airlines rejected the offer as a result of the higher than desirable operating cost per seat, leading Boeing to develop the 767-400ER, which better met both of their specifications.


The initial 777-100X was a planned 9.5 frame (6.4m) shrink to the 777-200. It would hold 259 passengers in three classes in a standard Boeing configuration. Wing, tailplane and tail would have the same dimensions as on the 777-200. It would have used the same wing and fuselage structural changes for the 777-300X as well as shared the common overwing fuselage section with exit door. The final 777-100X was a 12-frame reduction (149 in / 3.8m forward of the wing and 104 in / 2.6m aft of Section 44) with a length of 57.3m (188'1") and a tail fin height of 18.6m (60'11"). MTOW was around 298t and OEW was between 124-131t. Three ranges were proposed: 12,200km / 13,320km / 14,800km. Boeing was gravitating to the 13,320km range model.


User currently offlinesassiciai From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2013, 346 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 14509 times:

Quoting bunumuring (Thread starter):
Hi all,
How close were the following '-100s' to being launched? Launch customers? Plans?
I'm curious... Any information would be most welcome.

Apart from the "100" in the name, do you have any specific specification in mind? Am I missing an aircraft family here? B only? Should the "100" have different specs - longer range, less range, more pax, ......?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30989 posts, RR: 86
Reply 6, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 13668 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 5):
Am I missing an aircraft family here? B only? Should the "100" have different specs - longer range, less range, more pax, ......?

When Boeing was dimensioning the 757 program, they had two models in mind. The 757-100 would have been sized around the 727-200 (~160 seats) and the 757-200 would have been a step above that (~180 seats). The first two customers actually willing to launch the program - BA and EA - wanted the 757-200, so that was the first model Boeing committed to. The larger model had better operating and seat-mile costs so as new customers joined the program (like DL and NW), they also chose the -200 model and eventually Boeing dropped the -100 from the family.

The 767-100 was a bit like the A380-800 - too short for the amount of wing and weight it was saddled with to support the planned stretches (-200 and -300). Unlike the A380-800, however, the 767-100 has a direct competitor in the 757-200 - both offered around ~180 seats in two classes. As such, there was little customer - or Boeing - interest in the model and Boeing went forward only with the -200 model.

The 777-100 started as a shrink of the 777-200 that offered longer range, but poorer seat-mile costs. In it's final offering, it was designed as a LGW shrink of the 777-200 for DL and CO as a replacement for their DC-10 and L-1011 fleets.


User currently onlineNWAROOSTER From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1090 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 13194 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
The 777-100 started as a shrink of the 777-200 that offered longer range, but poorer seat-mile costs. In it's final offering, it was designed as a LGW shrink of the 777-200 for DL and CO as a replacement for their DC-10 and L-1011 fleets.

Northwest Airlines wanted Boeing to build the 777-100 in the late 1990s. Boeing refused to do so. As a result Northwest decided to buy the A330-300.
As a side note Boeing was later competing for the US Air Force's fuel tanker replacement of the KC-135 and lost the first round to the Airbus A330 with a warmed over version of the 767. If they had a 777-100 Boeing may have won the contract on the first round. Boeing won the second round, after "convincing" the US government that the original sale was biased in favor of Airbus, which probably had the better aircraft. Boeing, with much political maneuvering won the the second round which will use the 767. Several foreign governments are buying the Airbus A330.   


User currently offlinespyglass From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 110 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 12831 times:

More (bigger) is better.....

User currently offlineCF-CPI From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 1062 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 12544 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 2):
I seem to recall that the only 757 GE order was from Aloha for 3 plus 2 options, which was subsequently cancelled. The original AA 757 order was for 15+15 with the PW2000 engine which was cancelled in the 1981/82 recession.

OK thanks - I searched the web and as things went, GE was betting on both DL and AA to order their powerplant, since they were both GE 767 customers. When they both went PW for the 757, GE backed out of that airframe.

The TransBrasil 757 was for six PW and three RR (not GE as I had said). In the end, they went for 767s only, finding some advantage in payload for their routes (cargo especially). As an aside, it was said that the 767-200 burned 2 percent less fuel than a 727-100 on a 500nm segment.

According to Wiki, there was a 767-100 with 190 (some say 180) seats vs 210 seats for the -200, both on offer in February 1978. UA ultimately ordered the -200, and the -100 was axed as being too close to the 757 in seating anyhow. See Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767
It would be interesting to see models or layouts of the -100 vs -200 - it sounds like a difference of about three or four seat rows. Even this older thread from 2001 did not uncover a picture:
Boeing 767-100 - Pictures/Drawings? (by TransSwede Oct 6 2001 in Civil Aviation)


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30989 posts, RR: 86
Reply 10, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 12509 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 7):
Northwest Airlines wanted Boeing to build the 777-100 in the late 1990s. Boeing refused to do so. As a result Northwest decided to buy the A330-300.


They should have worked on convincing DL and CO to take the 777-100B instead of holding out for the 767-400ER.  Smile


Not sure what the rest of your post has to do with the topic at hand. but then a.net does tend to have more thread tangents than a Geometry 101 class, so...

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 7):
As a side note Boeing was later competing for the US Air Force's fuel tanker replacement of the KC-135 and lost the first round to the Airbus A330 with a warmed over version of the 767.

Boeing actually won the first round, which was then killed by Mad Dog McCain on the grounds it was a financially bad deal for the USAF. Ironically, studies subsequently done taking into the account the delays in in requiring a second and third round of bids have suggested the current KC-46 contract will end up costing the USAF more than if they had been allowed to do the original KC-767 lease deal and then bought the planes at the end of said lease.



Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 7):
If they had a 777-100 Boeing may have won the contract on the first round.

Boeing probably would have won the second round with the 777 Freighter as the USAF was enamored with size, which is why they intentionally rigged the bid to ensure the larger A330 MRTT would win. That intentional rigging gave Boeing the legal grounds to challenge the contract award and force a third round of bidding that Boeing won by offering a lower overall price than Airbus Military.



Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 7):
Several foreign governments are buying the Airbus A330.

And so they should, frankly, as their entire tanker fleets won't equal a USAF tanker squadron in size so they need the greater capacity and capability.

[Edited 2014-03-23 12:30:42]

[Edited 2014-03-23 12:32:39]

User currently onlineNWAROOSTER From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1090 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 11585 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 7):
Northwest Airlines wanted Boeing to build the 777-100 in the late 1990s. Boeing refused to do so. As a result Northwest decided to buy the A330-300.


They should have worked on convincing DL and CO to take the 777-100B instead of holding out for the 767-400ER.  


Not sure what the rest of your post has to do with the topic at hand. but then a.net does tend to have more thread tangents than a Geometry 101 class, so...

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 7):
As a side note Boeing was later competing for the US Air Force's fuel tanker replacement of the KC-135 and lost the first round to the Airbus A330 with a warmed over version of the 767.

Boeing actually won the first round, which was then killed by Mad Dog McCain on the grounds it was a financially bad deal for the USAF. Ironically, studies subsequently done taking into the account the delays in in requiring a second and third round of bids have suggested the current KC-46 contract will end up costing the USAF more than if they had been allowed to do the original KC-767 lease deal and then bought the planes at the end of said lease.

If you read, I stated "as a side note." Maybe John McCain did not think there was enough in it for himself, or his constituents or pals. Politicians are nothing but legalized criminals. If you or I did what they did, we would be thrown in jail and the key would be thrown away. Maybe then the US Senate and House of Representatives is luxurious jail with a lot of perks, along with the ability to walk out when the politicians desire. Why do these politicians spend so much money to get themselves elected? Anyone have a good answer. But hen lets just talk about what this forum started as.   


User currently offline777Jet From Australia, joined Mar 2014, 1757 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 8804 times:

I'd love to see drawings / plans of what these -100s would have looked like...


DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90,717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788,306,320,321,332/3,346,388
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8496 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 3):

The 717-300 was quite close to offer before Boeing pulled the plug. It was accidentally displayed on Boeings front page before the program ended. It was being shopped around, but some at Boeing were pushing the useless 736 and overweight 73G.

How was the 73G overweight? At the time, it weighed less than its only direct competitor, the A319.

From what I remember a decade ago, the problem with the 717-300 is that FL wanted to make the U.S. west coast from ATL. I personally don't see how you could add +20% payload and +75% range and not morph the airplane to a similar weight as a 73G.

But speaking of -100 models, I also vaguely recall that the 717-100 was a contender when Star Alliance was considering a joint RJ order. As that never materialized, neither did the 717 opportunity.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
The 767-100 was a bit like the A380-800 - too short for the amount of wing and weight it was saddled with to support the planned stretches (-200 and -300)

Frankly, I think the "A380-800 is the shrink" model was conjured when the initial frames were overweight. Initially the A3XX had a shrink model below the -800. I don't think we can ever say, since by the time the A380-900 arrives it will likely use a different generation of materials and relative empty weight comparisons will be meaningless.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
When Boeing was dimensioning the 757 program, they had two models in mind. The 757-100 would have been sized around the 727-200 (~160 seats) and the 757-200 would have been a step above that (~180 seats). The first two customers actually willing to launch the program - BA and EA - wanted the 757-200, so that was the first model Boeing committed to. The larger model had better operating and seat-mile costs so as new customers joined the program (like DL and NW), they also chose the -200 model and eventually Boeing dropped the -100 from the family.

It's hindsight of course, but I consider this one of Boeing's biggest blunders. By not addressing the core 727-200 market, they left the door wide open for Airbus to seize market share with the perfectly-sized A320.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30989 posts, RR: 86
Reply 14, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7777 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 13):
Frankly, I think the "A380-800 is the shrink" model was conjured when the initial frames were overweight. Initially the A3XX had a shrink model below the -800.

I personally do not consider the A380-800 a shrink, but it's pretty clear the fuselage was designed to be stretched and her wings are designed for significantly higher MTOWs than even the 590,000kg planned for the A380-800F, much less the 569,000kg she entered service with.



Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 13):
It's hindsight of course, but I consider this one of Boeing's biggest blunders. By not addressing the core 727-200 market, they left the door wide open for Airbus to seize market share with the perfectly-sized A320.

It may have been a blunder, but at the time Boeing was having a difficult time finding buyers for the 757 in general and those that were interested in buying wanted the 757-200 thanks to it's better economics. And Boeing did address the 727-200 replacement by 1985 with the 737-400.

And honestly, I don't think the 757-100 would have been very competitive on a seat-mile cost with the A320 so even if Boeing had gone forward with it, I expect it would have done worse than the 737-400 did in that area.


User currently offlineHNLPointShoot From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 319 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6650 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 2):
I seem to recall that the only 757 GE order was from Aloha for 3 plus 2 options, which was subsequently cancelled.

Wait, Aloha Airlines had an order for the 757?   


Modified Airliner Photos:
Click here for bigger photo!
Design © mikephotos
Template © mikephotos



User currently onlineNWAROOSTER From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1090 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (5 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5940 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 7):
As a side note Boeing was later competing for the US Air Force's fuel tanker replacement of the KC-135 and lost the first round to the Airbus A330 with a warmed over version of the 767.

Boeing actually won the first round, which was then killed by Mad Dog McCain on the grounds it was a financially bad deal for the USAF.
Quoting 777stl (Reply 14):

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 11):

If you read, I stated "as a side note." Maybe John McCain did not think there was enough in it for himself, or his constituents or pals. Politicians are nothing but legalized criminals. If you or I did what they did, we would be thrown in jail and the key would be thrown away. Maybe then the US Senate and House of Representatives is luxurious jail with a lot of perks, along with the ability to walk out when the politicians desire. Why do these politicians spend so much money to get themselves elected? Anyone have a good answer. But hen lets just talk about what this forum started as.

If we're going to devolve into political poo slinging here, I'd be willing to wager McCain has sacrificed more for this country than you have. I'd recommend sticking to commenting on subjects your knowledgeable on, such as defunct airlines and aircraft paint jobs.

777stl. If you would have read my original side note, which it appears you did not, does not criticize any politician. A politician's name was brought in by another commentator in reference to my side note. I replied and included that politician's name, which I should not have, but I stand behind the rest of my statements. I worked on real aircraft for 37 years, which is nearly twice as long as you have been alive, and know more about aircraft and airlines than just "defunct airlines and aircraft paint jobs." Personal criticism of commentators on this website by you does not enhance your respectability and intelligence here or in your life. It does just the opposite.   

[Edited 2014-03-23 21:41:44]

User currently offlinebunumuring From Australia, joined Jan 2014, 832 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (5 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4744 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi all,
Thanks for the replies to my question. Much appreciated and very interesting.
Here are my understandings and recollections about the models mentioned...
As to the 767-500, according to an article in the Australian aviation magazine 'Aircraft' (now sadly defunct) about future fleet options for Qantas, the 767-500 was a 767-200 fuselage married to 767-400ER wings, engines and weights. It was proposed as a niche aircraft for ULH routes. The article indicates that Qantas had considered and rejected the proposed aircraft by the time the article was written but provided no other details. I came across the article again about two years ago when culling my magazine collection and read it with considerable interest as it seemed to be heavily leaning towards a large fleet of A340s for QF as the best solution for it's future needs. I can't remember the publishing date of the article ... Maybe someone on A.net has it archived? It was around the time of the 767-400ER's flight testing.
As to the 777-100, I remember there being extensive discussion about SIA being it's potential launch customer but ultimately they purchased and 'misused' the standard 777-200ER for the smaller capacity routes the -100 was proposed for. I vaguely remember talk of it being offered to Qantas and Ansett as well.
I don't recall much talk about the 757-100, thus the original question, but I know Boeing at least proposed it.
I remember seeing profile drawings of the 767-100 in something like 'Jane's All the World's Aircraft', alongside the standard 767-200 and 767-300 models. Beyond that, I don't recall much of it.
The 717-300 was of course on offer to SAS and Hawaiian, and undoubtedly many others. Was it ever considered by Qantas/QantasLink?
The 727-300 was apparently close to being launched by United. I am quite sure it would have found a good market but I guess it might have slowed the development of the 757. My understanding is that the 757 directly developed from the stretched 727 studies.
Keep smiling!
Bunumuring.



I just wanna live while I'm alive!
User currently offlineUSAirALB From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 3079 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (5 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4690 times:

Quoting HNLPointShoot (Reply 15):
Wait, Aloha Airlines had an order for the 757?

Yes, they ordered 3 in the 1980s.

http://www.airlinercafe.com/forums.php?m=posts&q=4651



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 offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3075 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (5 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3912 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 2):
Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 1):
I'm clueless about the 767-500 you mentioned.

Same. I don't recall this at all.

I know nothing about the 767-500 either, and I have a fair amount of experience with that airplane. To my knowledge, Britannia was the next closest to buying the 767-400, which unfortunately didn't happen.

Quoting HNLPointShoot (Reply 15):
Wait, Aloha Airlines had an order for the 757?

Interesting. I didn't know that either. Apparently, AS looked very seriously at a 757 order also.


User currently offlineProst From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1042 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (5 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3868 times:

Regarding the 727-300, I found this:

http://airchive.com/html/museums/boe...ng-727-300-model-early-1970s/19137

Development stopped in 1975, it was to be an 18 foot stretch of the 727-200 with 220 passenger-all economy capacity.


User currently offlineCF-CPI From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 1062 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3725 times:

Quoting bunumuring (Reply 17):
It was around the time of the 767-400ER's flight testing.

This would have put it circa 1999/2000.

Sounds like the 767-500 was something of an 'SP' . In the same post, mention was made of the A340. At the time, I suppose it may have offered some flexibility on long overwater segments, and this was some years prior to the 777LR, which, with hindsight, turned out to be an A340 killer in the market. BTW, way back in the day, Qantas was seriously interested in the L1011-500. Seems like they were fertile ground for all sorts of special long range requirements.


User currently offlinebunumuring From Australia, joined Jan 2014, 832 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3187 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 21):
BTW, way back in the day, Qantas was seriously interested in the L1011-500. Seems like they were fertile ground for all sorts of special long range requirements.

Hi mate,
Yes, it is widely accepted that Qantas was seriously considering the TrIStar 500 to break its 'all 747' fleet when Lockheed decided to wind up production. It's such a shame an order did not eventuate as, if for no other reason, TriStars were relatively rare birds for us Aussie photographers to capture on our home turf. TAA was seriously interested in an order for TriStars as well, in the years before Qantas developed an interest, but eventually went with the A300B4.
As for the 717-300, is it true that Midwest was also seriously considering it?
Thanks,
Bunumuring.



I just wanna live while I'm alive!
User currently offlineCF-CPI From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 1062 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3053 times:

Quoting bunumuring (Reply 22):
TriStars were relatively rare birds for us Aussie photographers to capture on our home turf.

Did the CX L10s have long enough legs for this? They were -1s, not the longer haul -100s and -250s. Other than that, I can't see who would have brought them to Oz regularly.

Quoting bunumuring (Reply 22):
As for the 717-300, is it true that Midwest was also seriously considering it?

I recall hearing such things, and with Air Tran as well, I believe. I'm going by memory, but there was some operational stumbling block, like transcontinental range, as they wanted to reach the west coast. By this time, Boeing was reluctant to morph a McDD airframe into something that would compete with the 737NG. In the meantime, at least DL is keeping the 717 alive in the US.


User currently offlinebunumuring From Australia, joined Jan 2014, 832 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2993 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 23):
Did the CX L10s have long enough legs for this? They were -1s, not the longer haul -100s and -250s. Other than that, I can't see who would have brought them to Oz regularly.

Hi mate,
We got Hawaiian TriStars into Sydney for a short while. Also for a short time Airlanka TriStars but I hardly saw them. Perhaps they were charters-sorry, i dont remember. Apart from those, the occasional ATA TriStar and of course the RAF ones.
I don't ever recall seeing a Cathay Pacific TriStar in Sydney... sadly. I remember my first trip to Hong Kong was all about seeing CX TriStars ... And not much else! Likewise my first Tokyo trip and ANA TriStars...
Cheers,
Bunumuring.



I just wanna live while I'm alive!
25 Post contains images NWAROOSTER : Lockheed tried to sell Northwest Airlines L1011s with Pratt & Whitney engines. Northwest declined. I think it may have been one of Lockheed's las
26 CF-CPI : Interesting info. It would have looked awesome in the Bowling Shoe. Offhand, was Lockheed promoting the -500? With a group of DC-10-40s onhand in the
27 CF-CPI : Oh a mix of -1s and -500s then, very nice. Offhand, did HA come nonstop, or via Guam or some such? That's alot of water for a -1 to cover.
28 Post contains images NWAROOSTER : Northwest did not consider Lockheed's proposition as Northwest already was flying the DC-10-40. I do not remember what model Lockheed was offering. N
29 bunumuring : Hi mate, That's interesting, I thought it was an Indian Airlines deal that went sour that led to the Republic deal, not Air India. Both government ow
30 Post contains images NWAROOSTER : Greetings...... You may be correct. At least I think I have the right country, India.
31 FlyCaledonian : Interesting that for the long over water flights QF weighed up options and routinely went for the 747, whereas in the 1980s a the L1011/DC10, and in
32 Stitch : Airbus was looking into an A330-100 in the Summer of 2000 as a 20-40 seat shrink of the A330-200. There were two versions in discussion, both designe
33 Max Q : They simply didn't have the range. CX did fly them to Perth but that was with an intermediate stop in Bangkok.
34 bunumuring : Hi there, I had forgotten about the Airbus A330-100 model. I vaguely recall reading about it but I'm not sure who if anyone was interested in it. Was
35 Post contains images NWAROOSTER : Hello. According to RZJETS.net, all 21 A320-100s have been scrapped, except the Air France A320 that crashed during a fly over.
36 bunumuring : Hi mate, Thanks for that information. I suspected that was the case. Cheers, Bunumuring.
37 BoeingGuy : On a similar note, there isn't a single airworthy 737-100 that I know of either. The last flyable one was the America West charter for the Phoenix Su
38 UA444 : The first A320 is a 100 and is still flying as a test bed. That said, it's been modified considerably over the years.
39 Post contains images NWAROOSTER : This aircraft, cn 1, was converted to a 200 (211) , and had sharklets installed on it's in 2011. Registration is F-WWBA, is owned by Airbus and spend
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...
Mexicana Fokker 100s How Old Are They? posted Wed May 14 2008 17:45:24 by SlcDeltaRUmd11
Morris Air: How Big Were They? posted Mon Aug 25 2003 01:32:21 by 727LOVER
How Close Were Eastern 401, And Valujet 592 posted Mon Dec 30 2002 16:28:10 by BR715-A1-30
Who Has The 787 In Fleet And How Many Do They Have posted Tue Jan 8 2013 01:19:11 by DJMEL
How Close Was The Qantas A-380 To Crashing? posted Tue Oct 4 2011 12:57:21 by washingtonian
Bmi - How Long Can They Carry On The Way They Are? posted Sat Feb 24 2007 16:36:23 by Demoose
Legend Airlines, How Were They? posted Mon Apr 11 2005 02:04:33 by OttoPylit
How Safe Were The Concordes? posted Fri Oct 24 2003 14:58:13 by Captjetblast
How Close The 777 Was To Never Existing posted Thu May 16 2002 00:25:15 by DeltaAir
How Close Can You Get To The Runway? posted Mon Jun 26 2000 16:52:18 by Aerokid