Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Aircraft Airlines Regretted Ordering And Flying  
User currently offlineCairnterriAIR From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 409 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 18552 times:

Yout often hear about how a given airline proudly advertised operating a certain type of plane...good example is Pan Am proudly using the 747 or 707 in adds or whatnot. But what aircraft type did an airline order with high expectations only for the company to regret the order and quickly (or not) remove the plane from the fleet? Any good example of airlines and planes?

116 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinewilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9097 posts, RR: 76
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 18536 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting CairnterriAIR (Thread starter):
But what aircraft type did an airline order with high expectations only for the company to regret the order and quickly (or not) remove the plane from the fleet? Any good example of airlines and planes?

I think CX got rid of their 340-600 quite quickly and preferred the 777 instead.

I don't know what they exactly were complaining about, but it looks like this airplane wasn't best for CX, so they got rid of them.

Not 100% sure, but didn't AC use 340-500 for a short period as well?

wilco737
  



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlinebomber996 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 18505 times:

MD-11 anyone?   

Peace   



AVIATION - A Vacation In Any Town, I Own Nothing
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17110 posts, RR: 66
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 18501 times:

Quoting wilco737 (Reply 1):
I think CX got rid of their 340-600 quite quickly and preferred the 777 instead.

I don't know what they exactly were complaining about, but it looks like this airplane wasn't best for CX, so they got rid of them.

AFAIK CX leased the 340-600. When the lease ended, they returned the planes. My impression is that the plane was fine but once the lease ended the 777 was a better choice for CX for those routes.

[Edited 2013-07-25 23:08:04]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinewilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9097 posts, RR: 76
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 18475 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 3):
AFAIK CX leased the 340-600. When the lease ended, they returned the planes. My impression is that the plane was fine but once the lease ended the 777 was a better choice for CX for those routes

That could be. But the lease seemed to be rather short. Only couple years.

wilco737
  



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17110 posts, RR: 66
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 18457 times:

Quoting wilco737 (Reply 4):
That could be. But the lease seemed to be rather short. Only couple years.

CX operated the 340-600 for seven years so not super-short. I'm guessing they had options to extend but didn't.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinewilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9097 posts, RR: 76
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 18451 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 5):
CX operated the 340-600 for seven years so not super-short. I'm guessing they had options to extend but didn't.

Then it was longer than I thought. I had 3-4 years in mind. It is not super short, but not particular long. I guess they recalculated with the 777 and found that it is more efficient for them.

Thanks for the info.

wilco737
  



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlinedavidho1985 From Hong Kong, joined Oct 2012, 376 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 18374 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 3):
Quoting wilco737 (Reply 1):I think CX got rid of their 340-600 quite quickly and preferred the 777 instead.

I don't know what they exactly were complaining about, but it looks like this airplane wasn't best for CX, so they got rid of them.
AFAIK CX leased the 340-600. When the lease ended, they returned the planes. My impression is that the plane was fine but once the lease ended the 777 was a better choice for CX for those routes.[Edited 2013-07-25 23:08:04]
Quoting wilco737 (Reply 6):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 5):CX operated the 340-600 for seven years so not super-short. I'm guessing they had options to extend but didn't.
Then it was longer than I thought. I had 3-4 years in mind. It is not super short, but not particular long. I guess they recalculated with the 777 and found that it is more efficient for them.

Thanks for the info.

wilco737

Becasuse thos A346 are over-weighted, which affect the fuel efficiency.


User currently offlineSpeedbird128 From Pitcairn Islands, joined Oct 2003, 1648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 18367 times:

Quoting wilco737 (Reply 6):

I think CX got the early model birds with the heavy wing and so performance wasn't the best. And when the leases expired the 77W was getting better by the day...



A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
User currently offlinejoffie From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 814 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 18315 times:

Virgin Blue ordered the E-170 and got rid of them about 4 years later in favour for the ATR.

User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2630 posts, RR: 23
Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 18251 times:

B-307 New technology. High ops costs. Not kept in service any longer than necessary.
Martin 202 Poor design. Bad Karma.
Tudor?
Deux Ponts?
Hermes?
B-377 Reliability/ mx issues. High ops. costs. Not kept in service any longer than necessary. WFU ASAP!
Comet 1 Pioneering design issues led to crashes/grounding. New 4 series too late entering market. Unable to compete.
L1049-L1649 all series. Unable to generate extra revenue expected because of excessive ops/mx issues. WFU ASAP!
DC-7 all series. Unable to generate extra revenue expected because of excessive ops/mx issues. WFU ASAP!
L-188 Design flaws (Typical Lockheed flutter issues   .) Poor timing. (Adored by EA,RA,VG for niche use.) Found niche as freighter.
Vanguard Poor timing for pax. found niche as freighter.
Cv-990 Design issues/Performance issues.
Mercure?
MD-11 Poor timing. Should have had a new wing. Redesign (from DC-10) of horizontal tail surfaces caused critical landing issues (although some carriers ops the aircraft for many years without incident!.)

Comments/fill in blanks-----------?  



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlineCaptCufflinks From UK - England, joined Dec 2012, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 18182 times:

Quoting wilco737 (Reply 1):

Not 100% sure, but didn't AC use 340-500 for a short period as well?

AC had both the -300 and the -500.

They operated the -500 for about 3/4 years as a stop gap between the 744 and the arrival of their 777's.

The -300's were slightly more successful with them and were operated from the mid 90's until their retirement in 2008. I was fortunate enough to be on one of the very last trips of the A343 to LHR.


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5757 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 18152 times:

AS was never particularly happy with its 737-700s. After operating them for a short time they switched all orders going forward to the 737-800. Now they are gradually leaving early, even though there are still 737-400s in the fleet.

User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6952 posts, RR: 76
Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 18003 times:

Quoting CairnterriAIR (Thread starter):
But what aircraft type did an airline order with high expectations only for the company to regret the order and quickly (or not) remove the plane from the fleet? Any good example of airlines and planes?

SQ with the 757-200... they preferred the A310...

Bouraq... MD-80s... copycat move (when Lion got the MD-80s)... their ops geared to the 732, adding new type resulted in ops and mx nightmares.
Star Air... MD-80s... copycat move (when Lion got the MD-80s)... their ops geared to the 732, adding new type resulted in ops and mx nightmares.
Indonesian Airlines... 727... bought 20... cheap to lease/buy, fuel hog, maintenance hog... ruined the airline (along side with the 747-200SR and -300). Regretted giving back their 737-330s they leased. Then RVSM killed it (their 727 was non-RVSM).
Mandala... 727... copycat move (Jatayu was operating up to 5 727s and enjoying full loads while Mandala was on 732s). They got rid of it pretty quickly.
Merpati... 727... same story as Mandala.
Merpati... MA-60... expensive to operate (more expensive than the ATR72 they leased) and they can't get rid of it (one reason driving Merpati into deeper financial problems).

All the above were highly advertised... and it disappeared quick enough   



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlinegolfradio From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 811 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 17923 times:

AI and its Government imposed purchased of the 77L. They are still trying to sell them.

[Edited 2013-07-26 12:46:53]

User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2630 posts, RR: 23
Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 17875 times:

I think EI used 720's trans-atlantic for a while and couldn't wait to trade them in for something with longer legs.


"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2313 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 17841 times:

Quoting CaptCufflinks (Reply 11):
They operated the -500 for about 3/4 years as a stop gap between the 744 and the arrival of their 777's.

The A345s were not intended to be a stopgap, AC at one point also had A346s on order. They eventually decided to switch to the 777s (which CEO Milton allegedly preferred in the first place, but Airbus offered a much better deal that AC couldn't refuse).

Anyways AA/DL and the MD-11s come to mind. DL also was initially unhappy with the MD-90 and had plans to get rid of them to simplify their fleet, but eventually changed their mind obviously.


User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 17802 times:

AA and DL: 747-100's...


Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25846 posts, RR: 22
Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 17798 times:

Quoting bomber996 (Reply 2):
MD-11 anyone?

KLM would probably disagree.

Quoting CaptCufflinks (Reply 11):
Quoting wilco737 (Reply 1):

Not 100% sure, but didn't AC use 340-500 for a short period as well?

AC had both the -300 and the -500.

They operated the -500 for about 3/4 years as a stop gap between the 744 and the arrival of their 777's.

AC's 2 A345s were acquired for the YYZ-HKG-YYZ route which the A343 couldn't easily operate nonstop. So they were unrelated to the 744 which also wasn't capable of YYZ-HKG nonstop. The 2 A345s were the only A340s actually owned by AC. The A343s were all leased. AC still owns the A345s. They're stored at Malta if not mistaken after their fairly brief lease to TAM.

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 10):
B-307 New technology. High ops costs. Not kept in service any longer than necessary.
Martin 202 Poor design. Bad Karma.
Tudor?
Deux Ponts?
Hermes?
B-377 Reliability/ mx issues. High ops. costs. Not kept in service any longer than necessary. WFU ASAP!
Comet 1 Pioneering design issues led to crashes/grounding. New 4 series too late entering market. Unable to compete.
L1049-L1649 all series. Unable to generate extra revenue expected because of excessive ops/mx issues. WFU ASAP!
DC-7 all series. Unable to generate extra revenue expected because of excessive ops/mx issues. WFU ASAP!
L-188 Design flaws (Typical Lockheed flutter issues .) Poor timing. (Adored by EA,RA,VG for niche use.) Found niche as freighter.
Vanguard Poor timing for pax. found niche as freighter.
Cv-990 Design issues/Performance issues.
Mercure?
MD-11 Poor timing. Should have had a new wing. Redesign (from DC-10) of horizontal tail surfaces caused critical landing issues (although some carriers ops the aircraft for many years without incident!.)

I would add the Bristol Britannia. Very late going into service and many problems, mainly with the engines and electrical system. Two prototypes were written off during the development program.


User currently offlineopethfan From Canada, joined Dec 2012, 639 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 months 21 hours ago) and read 17667 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 16):
The A345s were not intended to be a stopgap, AC at one point also had A346s on order. They eventually decided to switch to the 777s (which CEO Milton allegedly preferred in the first place, but Airbus offered a much better deal that AC couldn't refuse)

Which would probably explain why AC have 8 A333s in the middle of their 767s and 777s.


User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2630 posts, RR: 23
Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 20 hours ago) and read 17617 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 18):
add the Bristol Britannia



yeah. if they hadn't had the engine issues they would have had more of them online earlier. Bad timing with the jets right on their heels. Same for the CL44 D and J's.

I thought of a few more.

Air Florida started-up in '72 with a $19.00 fare and a 707-321 to hop around Florida in!    Can you imagine the fuel situation! And I remember a lot of those flights were less than half-full! They couldn't wait to get their hands on a fleet of L188's!

Then there was the PA blunder of ordering a small fleet of L15's. That was a cluster f%#k.

Still 'thinkin.



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 18 hours ago) and read 17558 times:

Then there was Delta, who was the launch customer for the MD-90. They cancelled the order after just 16 were delivered, citing the fact that the thing was a maintenance nightmare for themselves.

Then who starts grabbing up every second hand MD-90 in existence in the late 2000's?   



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlinedlednicer From United States of America, joined May 2005, 547 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 16 hours ago) and read 17519 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

America West and the 747-200. They leased four after Ansett invested in the company. I have heard first-hand that one actually departed on a scheduled flight with only one passenger on board.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stuart Haigh



User currently offlineDL_Mech From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1979 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 15 hours ago) and read 17485 times:

I would think that WN would rather be flying a large fleet of -800s instead of -700s at this point.

TW almost flew the 707 into 1984. Not many airlines flew 707s and 767s side-by-side.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © George Gayuski
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © George Gayuski


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © George Gayuski
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © George Gayuski




This plane is built to withstand anything... except a bad pilot.
User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2630 posts, RR: 23
Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 10 hours ago) and read 17375 times:

DL and the 310's.
Seems like there was "bad-blood" for quite a while between Ron Allen and Airbus over that one.



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlineplanewasted From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 538 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 4 months 10 hours ago) and read 18430 times:

The Q400 was not a success with SAS. After three crash landings in a short time frame because of landing gear problems passengers started to refuse flying on them. Understandable as people were hurt, but not seriously, by propeller parts entering the cabin. I think Bombardier bought them back in the end and sold some CRJs to SK instead.

User currently offlinebohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2738 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 4 months 6 hours ago) and read 18354 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 17):
AA and DL: 747-100's...

There were many airlines worldwide who jumped on the 747 bandwagon for prestige reasons. I don't have any numbers available, but I wonder how many airlines who ordered the 747 got rid of them before 1980?


User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 27, posted (1 year 4 months 5 hours ago) and read 18959 times:

Quoting bohica (Reply 26):
There were many airlines worldwide who jumped on the 747 bandwagon for prestige reasons. I don't have any numbers available, but I wonder how many airlines who ordered the 747 got rid of them before 1980?

DL did for sure. AA kept them going on NY-LA domestic flights until about 1984 or so...although one of their early 747's became NASA 905, the (original) shuttle carrier aircraft:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © AirNikon Collection-Pima Air and Space Museum




Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlinebohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2738 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 4 months 3 hours ago) and read 18771 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 27):
AA kept them going on NY-LA domestic flights until about 1984 or so...

I thought AA discontinued 747 ops before 1980 then got a couple SP's in the 80's for the NRT flights. I could be wrong though.


Possibly the worst buyers remorse were the L-1011's purchased by PSA. "Mother Grinningbird" almost bankrupted the company.


[Edited 2013-07-27 13:05:44]

User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1431 posts, RR: 3
Reply 29, posted (1 year 4 months 1 hour ago) and read 18725 times:

SAS and the Q-400. Took three incidents involving collapsed landing gears before they pulled the plug, put the fleet up for sale and got a very good deal for a replacement batch of CRJ9s.


From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25846 posts, RR: 22
Reply 30, posted (1 year 4 months 1 hour ago) and read 18710 times:

Quoting bohica (Reply 28):
Quoting KELPkid (Reply 27):
AA kept them going on NY-LA domestic flights until about 1984 or so...

I thought AA discontinued 747 ops before 1980 then got a couple SP's in the 80's for the NRT flights. I could be wrong though.

I think 1984 is correct for the last AA 747-100s in passenger service. In the July 1, 1983 OAG AA had 4 daily 747s LAX-JFK. They were operating 747 freighters (converted from passenger aircraft) until later in the 1980s.

Following AA 741 photos all dated 1984.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © OGGturbojets



User currently offlineclickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9653 posts, RR: 68
Reply 31, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 18576 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

How about SQ and their A340-300's?

User currently offlinebohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2738 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 18392 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 30):
I think 1984 is correct for the last AA 747-100s in passenger service. In the July 1, 1983 OAG AA had 4 daily 747s LAX-JFK.

I humbly stand corrected. It's been a while. I must be getting old.   


User currently offlineYukon880 From United States of America, joined Sep 2011, 137 posts, RR: 2
Reply 33, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 18331 times:

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 10):
B-307 New technology. High ops costs. Not kept in service any longer than necessary.
Martin 202 Poor design. Bad Karma.
Tudor?
Deux Ponts?
Hermes?
B-377 Reliability/ mx issues. High ops. costs. Not kept in service any longer than necessary. WFU ASAP!
Comet 1 Pioneering design issues led to crashes/grounding. New 4 series too late entering market. Unable to compete.
L1049-L1649 all series. Unable to generate extra revenue expected because of excessive ops/mx issues. WFU ASAP!
DC-7 all series. Unable to generate extra revenue expected because of excessive ops/mx issues. WFU ASAP!
L-188 Design flaws (Typical Lockheed flutter issues .) Poor timing. (Adored by EA,RA,VG for niche use.) Found niche as freighter.
Vanguard Poor timing for pax. found niche as freighter.
Cv-990 Design issues/Performance issues.
Mercure?
MD-11 Poor timing. Should have had a new wing. Redesign (from DC-10) of horizontal tail surfaces caused critical landing issues (although some carriers ops the aircraft for many years without incident!.)

Comments/fill in blanks-----------?

You're painting with an incredibly broad brush here Eagle! Perhaps I am detecting some personal bias, coming from your own experiences with some of these aircraft, but I would really like to hear your opinion of individual situations. Would you care to take just a few from your list and apply the qualification found in the OP's last sentence?

"Any good example of airlines AND planes?"

Thanks in advance,

Yukon



Pratt & Whitney, In thrust we trust!
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31702 posts, RR: 56
Reply 34, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 18341 times:

Add the B739 to the list after the B739ER was available  


Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineAmericanB763ER From Luxembourg, joined Sep 2005, 166 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 18358 times:

Quoting clickhappy (Reply 31):
How about SQ and their A340-300's?
SIA went the extra mile by ordering MD-11's in late 80's/early 90's, then cancelling the order in favor of the A343's which didn't exactly arouse the enthusiasm of the airline either...

As this thread is about ordering AND flying the SIA MD-11-order does't qualify since the airline cancelled it before the aircraft was available but it's an interesting fact nevertheless...

[Edited 2013-07-28 02:47:47]

User currently onlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4936 posts, RR: 1
Reply 36, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 18285 times:

Surprised no one has mentioned the "critters" yet.....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andrew Compolo
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tsuyoshi Hayasaki - AroundWorldImages


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Royal S King


Apparently, F9, Mexicana/Avianca or LA didn't exactly have very "high expectations" of everyone else's favorite whipping boy either.  


Ditto with the 736.....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Luca Carminati - Malpensa Spotters Group
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mats Salder


   .....though its operators are seemingly less vocal about its "short"comings.   

[Edited 2013-07-28 07:50:04]


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2630 posts, RR: 23
Reply 37, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 18177 times:

Quoting Yukon880 (Reply 33):
You're painting with an incredibly broad brush here Eagle!

Well, he asked! I just threw some examples out there off the top of my head.  
Oh, and yes, I am deffinately opinionated. Like everyone else I formed those opinions out of personal experience or because I was lucky enough to grow-up around so many old-time commercial aviation pioneers. Is there some specific example you wish for me to pontificate over?  

I will say that I am personally fond of a lot of those aircraft I mentioned. I am hoping someone with experience with the Hermes will shed some light on that rare bird. Same thing for the Breguet 763 at least it had reliable engines as far as piston engines go. I was able to have a nice (and short) conversation with an old-salt from Great Brittain years ago and never was able to get any pertinent info. on the Hermes.



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlineYukon880 From United States of America, joined Sep 2011, 137 posts, RR: 2
Reply 38, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 17567 times:

For starters, step up to the pulpit and give us the CV-990 sermon!
I may well counter with the    's advocate point of view.
We'll see how it goes.

 



Pratt & Whitney, In thrust we trust!
User currently offlinecornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 39, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 17219 times:

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 10):
B-307 New technology. High ops costs. Not kept in service any longer than necessary.

I've never heard that the 307 had high ops costs; it was a pretty similar aircraft to the DC-2. It might have been priced a good bit higher than the DC-2, Boeing's pricing being what it was at the time. However, from what I've read, what killed it (besides WWII) was that Boeing screwed up their order management and promised United the first 75 production slots. Other airlines that might have been interested went to Douglas because they could get their first deliveries a lot sooner.

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 10):
B-377 Reliability/ mx issues. High ops. costs. Not kept in service any longer than necessary

Yep, the 377 had extremely high operating and mx costs. It was pushing the limits of piston-engine technology, at a point where the jet age was only a few years off. Pan Am and the other airlines that bought them got rid of them as soon as they could. A few of them survived in the form of the Guppies.

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 10):
L1049-L1649 all series. Unable to generate extra revenue expected because of excessive ops/mx issues

I've never heard that... I thought the Connies were considered good performers once the R-3350 issues got solved.

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 10):
Mercure?

An oddball. From what I've read Air France was happy with the ones they had. But they had extremely short range, too short for any other airline to be interested. What they were designed to do, they apparently did well, but they were too specialized.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Reply 40, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 17161 times:

There is of course the Armavia SSJ situation, but it's very difficult to fully pick the bones out of that one. Likely a combination of some concern with political considerations and over-commitment.


✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3144 posts, RR: 3
Reply 41, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 17213 times:

Quoting cornutt (Reply 39):
I've never heard that... I thought the Connies were considered good performers once the R-3350 issues got solved.

TWA was replacing over a hundred engines a month for their fleet. That takes a lot of Mx to R & R and even more to overhaul that many engines.
The R-3350 was just a little ahead of their time as far as metallurgy was concerned. The concept of using PRT is just now starting to be re-introduced what 50+ years later on reciprocating engines.

Okie


User currently offlineCitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2457 posts, RR: 3
Reply 42, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 17149 times:

America West - 747-200
AA - MD-11
AA - F100
I would add the Mercure & Air Inter. Only 12 aircraft were built. The plane had a very short range. That explains why only 12 of the 194 photos of the Mercure in A.net's database were taken outside of France.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © TZ Aviation


My     Wink

[Edited 2013-07-30 14:37:28]


Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
User currently offlineAircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1729 posts, RR: 8
Reply 43, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 17033 times:

Quoting cornutt (Reply 39):
Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 10):
B-307 New technology. High ops costs. Not kept in service any longer than necessary.

I've never heard that the 307 had high ops costs; it was a pretty similar aircraft to the DC-2. It might have been priced a good bit higher than the DC-2, Boeing's pricing being what it was at the time. However, from what I've read, what killed it (besides WWII) was that Boeing screwed up their order management and promised United the first 75 production slots. Other airlines that might have been interested went to Douglas because they could get their first deliveries a lot sooner.

Would you be meaning the 247?

Quoting CitationJet (Reply 42):
I would add the Mercure & Air Inter. Only 12 aircraft were built. The plane had a very short range. That explains why only 12 of the 194 photos of the Mercure in A.net's database were taken outside of France.

Air Inter barely flew out of France: they were the domestic airline, save for a few liaisons, a few years before their merging into AF.


User currently offlineHA_DC9 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 655 posts, RR: 1
Reply 44, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 17030 times:

Two airlines come to mind for this thread: HA and AQ

In the case of HA, they were a longtime user of the DC-9 series all the way up to the current 717. Back in the 1980's, HA acquired the MD-80 for use in interisland flying alongside their DC-9-50's. I believe HA had about 6-7 MD-80's total in the fleet, but the MD-80's only stayed for a few years and I think were totally gone by around 1990-1991 with some going to CO including the one that had its nose crash through the EWR terminal back in 2000.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © AirNikon Collection-Pima Air and Space Museum
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © The Douglas Aircraft Company (Jammy Lee)


From my understanding (although I could be wrong), HA got rid of the MD-80's because they were too costly for the very short interisland runs. I'm not sure how they handled from these short flights from the maintenance perspective. Plus too, for the interisland market, an MD-80 had way too much capacity. Once the MD-80's were gone, HA stuck with the DC-9-50's until eventually acquiring the 717 and the rest is history.

In the case of AQ, they were a longtime user of the 737 series all the way to their demise in 2008. In 1992, AQ acquired a pair of 737-400's for use in interisland flying alongside their classic 737-200's.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Joe G. Walker


The 737-400's stayed shorter than HA had their MD-80's as AQ faced the same problem...too costly to operate for the interisland market. Also like HA, I think the 737-400 had too much capacity for the market. Also as has been discussed many times on a.net, the CFM-56 engines the 737 used could not handle the ultra short range, high frequency flying that makes the Hawaii interisland market. Thus, AQ stuck with the 737-200 to the end (which some would argue partly contributed to them going tango uniform in 2008).


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25846 posts, RR: 22
Reply 45, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 16955 times:

Quoting CitationJet (Reply 42):
he plane had a very short range. That explains why only 12 of the 194 photos of the Mercure in A.net's database were taken outside of France.

For their entire history, Air Inter was almost exclusively a French domestic carrier.


User currently offlinebohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2738 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 16926 times:

Back in the mid 1990's Atlantic Coast Airlines purchased 12 Dash 8's from Air Wisconsin. At the time, ACA was not prepared to handle operating the Dash 8 and it almost caused them to go into bankruptcy. ACA got rid of them within 2 years.

User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2630 posts, RR: 23
Reply 47, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 16912 times:

Quoting cornutt (Reply 39):
I've never heard that the 307 had high ops costs; it was a pretty similar aircraft to the DC-2.

Huh?
The 307 was introducing pressurizaton, superchargers, high altitude structural technology, etc. with plenty of weight penalty. Neither PA nor TW ordered more than a handfull and were relieved to move them over to the war effort.

Quoting cornutt (Reply 39):
It was pushing the limits of piston-engine technology, at a point where the jet age was only a few years off. Pan Am and the other

The Pratt 4360's were "pushing" it all right. However the 377 entered service with the airlines well before the jets were to enter service------ with the exception of the Comet I of course.

Quoting cornutt (Reply 39):
I thought the Connies were considered good performers once the R-3350 issues got solved.

Well the original short-bodied models were pretty good once the original "kinks" were worked out. The 3350's did o.k.

When Lockheed brought out the 1049's they also had plain 3350's. They had to be careful to take it easy on that first batch because those engines were underpowered on that airframe.

Then with the 1049C's-1649A's the 3350's had the three each PRT's added and THOSE 3350 issues NEVER did get solved!
Oh, you could derate them as PA tried to tell everyone they would end up doing. That helped. And fly in the soup at lower altitudes to keep 'em in LOW Blower. But, on a hot day you still had to run-up the power for takeoff and the temps could get scary pretty quick. Then there was the oil------------- 



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlinedlednicer From United States of America, joined May 2005, 547 posts, RR: 7
Reply 48, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 16922 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

And then there was Airpac and the BAe-146. Airpac sued BAe and Avco (the engine manufacturer) for $100m, claiming that claiming that the airline had been "driven into bankruptcy" by the allegedly poor reliability and excessive maintenance costs of a single BAe 146-100 which it leased for two years.

http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1989/1989%20-%203839.PDF


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4742 posts, RR: 18
Reply 49, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 16965 times:

Continental and the 737-500.


Little pig of an Aircraft, carrying significantly less passengers than the -300 but with almost identical fuel burn, very slow (as in all the -300 / 400/ 500 series) and cramped with a horrible ride in turbulence.


It was supposed to be the ideal machine for 'Cal Lite" which was even more misguided than this, very worst of Boeings designs.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2630 posts, RR: 23
Reply 50, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 16692 times:

Quoting Yukon880 (Reply 38):
give us the CV-990 sermon

I have been sitting here writing a whole lot of stuff and when I sat back and looked at it----it is all the same stuff we already know about the 990. It was really interesting to see what the initial scramble to beat or at least match Douglas and Boeing with jets brought about. Too bad GD didn't go straight for the medium-range market right off the bat. Just a year or two ahead of Douglas and Boeing might have made the difference and they could have beaten everyone else out of that market--------at least for a while. Just wasn't meant to be.

What I personally find interesting about the 990 is that in spite of how expensive it was to ops. there were airlines that used them right into the 70's. Spantax made money with them although the pax cabin was likely configured to rampackem.

I used to love to hear the sound of those smokey old GE's as the 990's would blast-off.



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlineNorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 3056 posts, RR: 36
Reply 51, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 16672 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

One that hasn't been mentioned:

Northwest and the DC-8

They bought the DC-8 on a promise from Douglas to push the range up to 5500nm (or was is 4500nm... one or the other?) in a future version. Douglas reneged on this agreement, Northwest switched to the 707-320B/C and sold off the 8s

Douglas DID get the performance NW wanted later (with the -62), but NW had dumped the DC-8s by then.



One could argue the same about Pan Am, but they were never dissatisfied with the 8, they just decided the 707 suited their needs better in the end, and got a good deal from Boeing to trade them in (Boeing sold them on to Delta)



Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
User currently offlinePSAJet17 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 341 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 16188 times:

PSA-Pacific Southwest Airlines was doing well in the California Intrastate market in the late 60's and early 70's. To help on certain high density routes (especially LAX-SFO), the airline looked at the Lockheed L-1011 and placed an order in 1970. The bankruptcy of Rolls-Royce (engine manufacturer for the L-1011) caused them to cancel their order and look at other options such as the A-300 and DC-10. PSA returned to Lockheed and placed an order for 5 aircraft, two for delivery in 1974 and then an additional plane in each of the next three years.

The L-1011 were modified from the standard versions with part of the forward cargo hold changed into a lower level lounge and a place for passengers to carry on and store their luggage. A passenger doorway and stairs was added to the lower level.

The unfortunate event that ruined this for PSA was the fuel crisis that hit in 1973. When the PSA management looked at using a large, three engine airplane like the L-1011, they were paying Shell Oil between 9 and 11 cents per gallon of jet fuel. By the time the first L-1011 arrived in August of 1974, PSA was now paying 33 cents per gallon and had their supply cut by 20%. The first plane went into service, mostly running from LAX to SFO and back. The second aircraft was used by Lockheed for a publicity run including the Farnsworth Airshow in the UK and started revenue flights in late October, 1974. While it was nice to be able to carry almost twice the passengers in a single airplane, the L-1011 did not work well in the usually 30 minute turn arounds used for the B727 and B737 on the same route.

The planes were pulled from service in April 1975 and stored for a while. They were finally leased or purchased by other companies including LTU, World, Donald Trump. The original L-1011 is sporting the Flying Hospital colors and is parked at KTUS. Reports are it has not been flown since 2000/2001. PSA refused delivery of the remaining three airplanes.

[Edited 2013-07-31 16:36:43]

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25846 posts, RR: 22
Reply 53, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 16169 times:

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 51):
One could argue the same about Pan Am, but they were never dissatisfied with the 8, they just decided the 707 suited their needs better in the end, and got a good deal from Boeing to trade them in (Boeing sold them on to Delta)

8 Pan Am DC-8s also went to UA, one more than the 7 that went to DL. A few went to various other carriers.


User currently offlinecornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 54, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 16009 times:

Quoting Aircellist (Reply 43):
Would you be meaning the 247?

Yes, sigh.   


User currently offlineSinlock From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1650 posts, RR: 2
Reply 55, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 15873 times:

I think one of the planes not mentioned yet, serves to underscore what a disappointment it was to the few operators who had them in their fleets.
The Dornier 328 and 328JET earns a place onto the list. Loud cabin, High CASM, Poor dispatch rate, and the JET had some major MX issues with the PW306BL. In the end a 32 seat Prop/JET could not fit into the marketplace it was born into.



My Country can beat up your Country....
User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3144 posts, RR: 3
Reply 56, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 15684 times:

Quoting Sinlock (Reply 55):
The Dornier 328 and 328JET earns a place onto the list. Loud cabin, High CASM, Poor dispatch rate, and the JET had some major MX issues with the PW306BL. In the end a 32 seat Prop/JET could not fit into the marketplace it was born into

The 328 was tough enough to market, Dornier just kept putting more lipstick on a pig so to speak. The only thing left would have been to put winglets on the aircraft which would also be useless in the airframes market design.
The concept of putting a turbine on a straight prop designed wing was just way to inefficient.
I am not sure why in the world Dornier picked the PW306BL but PW did not support it very well and just did not put any resources into taking care of the design issues since there were so few in the market place. The operators would sometimes have to wait months for engine parts.

Great Plains tried to start a small airline with 5 328Jet frames. They really had a pretty good following but just could not afford keeping the fleet in operation with airframes sitting in the hanger waiting on engine parts and no revenue coming in from cancelled flights because they had no operational frames along with high fuel costs trying push a draggy airframe around with a jet engine. Dog chasing tail so to speak.
They went Tango Uniform.

Okie


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17110 posts, RR: 66
Reply 57, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 15462 times:

Quoting PSAJet17 (Reply 52):
Farnsworth Airshow in the UK

Farnborough. Futurama slip?  



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinenorthstardc4m From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 3056 posts, RR: 36
Reply 58, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 15340 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 53):
8 Pan Am DC-8s also went to UA, one more than the 7 that went to DL. A few went to various other carriers.

Yes sorry, they sold some off directly, Delta bought 7 via Boeing, I read the listing wrong   



Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2630 posts, RR: 23
Reply 59, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 15088 times:

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 58):
Delta bought 7

Yeah, it was kool to see them ops in and out of ATL. Last time I flew on one was early in '71. Took an "Early Bird" to TPA one morning and to my surprise it was one of the ex-PA -8's. Loved it.  



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlinedaviation From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 60, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 14767 times:

I don't know if these aircraft would qualify as 'regrets,' but they certainly seemed like oddities to me when I flew on them:

AA - BAC-111 (way back in my college days)

AA - F-100 (flew them several times, including one very turbulent ORD-SWF with a female captain; many ill-informed pax couldn't believe that a woman got us home safely!)

CO - A-300 (in 1990)

US - F-100 (in 1999) - at the time, these aircraft were very nice in comparison to much of the US fleet; our return flight home was scheduled as an F-100, but an old DC-9 was substituted. The cabin was in such a state of disrepair that I really feared for our safety.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25846 posts, RR: 22
Reply 61, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 14751 times:

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 59):
Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 58):
Delta bought 7

Yeah, it was kool to see them ops in and out of ATL. Last time I flew on one was early in '71. Took an "Early Bird" to TPA one morning and to my surprise it was one of the ex-PA -8's. Loved it.

Assume you're referring to the cabin interior? How did they differ from DL's own early model DC-8s that made you identify it as ex-PA?


User currently offlineYukon880 From United States of America, joined Sep 2011, 137 posts, RR: 2
Reply 62, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 14737 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 61):

If Eagle will allow me, I would say he had probably ID'd the DC-8 as an ex-PAA a/c before he even stepped aboard. As a kid riding on the Widget fleet I would have done the same! Only the first six DC-8s delivered to DL had JT3Cs and turbojet power, all other factory deliveries were equipped with JT3D FanJets. Once the initial DC-8-51s started arriving in 1962, the earlier DC-8-12s were rotated quickly through conversion with JT3Ds and the entire DC-8 fleet was FanJet powered. With the arrival of the Pan American birds in late '68 and '69, the turbojet DC-8 returned to the fleet and served Europe via the PA/DL Interchange service and select long-haul destinations. Aircraft scheduling being the art that it is, these DC-8s also saw service on much shorter routes as well.

I'm not certain of the interior configurations, I'm sure there were some variations with the original DL fleet, but I do think that some effort was probably made to 'standardize' where able. Eagle may be able to comment further.
Still, I would wager he knew the a/c was previously flown by the world's most experienced airline even before the gate agent handed him his first class boarding pass!

Yukon



Pratt & Whitney, In thrust we trust!
User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2630 posts, RR: 23
Reply 63, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 14747 times:

Quoting Yukon880 (Reply 62):
If Eagle will allow me

Oh yeah. You explained it very well. Just a glance and you would know it was a JT-4A powered bird.Even if you never looked at it the start sequence would give it away. I do not recall Palomar seats on those.



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1653 posts, RR: 7
Reply 64, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 14771 times:

Quoting CitationJet (Reply 42):
AA - F100

Out of curiosity, why didn't AA like the F100?



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlineexFWAOONW From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 410 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 14804 times:

I don't know how accurate this one is: UA and the caravelle. My dad's comment was the cargo bins were so small, they could barely fit the luggage in, let alone any freight or mail to help make money on the flight.


Is just me, or is flying not as much fun anymore?
User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2630 posts, RR: 23
Reply 66, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 14765 times:

Quoting exFWAOONW (Reply 65):
cargo bins were so small, they could barely fit the luggage in, let alone any freight or mail to help make money

It's true. Ridiculous!



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25846 posts, RR: 22
Reply 67, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks ago) and read 14753 times:

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 63):
I do not recall Palomar seats on those.

They had the Palomar seats with Pan Am, like all DC-8s prior to some of the last -50 series and all -60 series. Looks like Pan Am referred to the DC-8-32 as "DC-8C". Not sure if Douglas used that terminology for the -30 series.

http://www.everythingpanam.com/images/1960%20First%20DC%208%20delivered%20to%20PA.jpg


User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2630 posts, RR: 23
Reply 68, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 14731 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 67):
They had the Palomar seats with Pan Am
Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 59):
Last time I flew on one was early in '71.

And in 1971 I do not recall any of the Palomar seats left on any of the Company -8's!  



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently onlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4936 posts, RR: 1
Reply 69, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 14735 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 67):

A bit off-topic...but that feature reminded me of this PANAM promo video in German.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owCWG4d0KAw

Although I can't understand German, I somehow get the gist of the clip and wish Manila is as clean, uncrowded and traffic-jam-free as then. Of course, a 25 million population was bound to be less chaotic than 92 million!   



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineYukon880 From United States of America, joined Sep 2011, 137 posts, RR: 2
Reply 70, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 14722 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 67):
Looks like Pan Am referred to the DC-8-32 as "DC-8C". Not sure if Douglas used that terminology for the -30 series.

Though it was never an official model designation, Douglas originally marketed DC-8A and DC-8B models, based on the engines installed, either the JT3 or JT4. Eastern was quick to market their -21s as "The Jet with Power to Spare," the DC-8B. In similar fashion, Pan American, Northwest and National initially referred to their -30s as the DC-8C. Perhaps for the best, Douglas would not formalize the DC-8A/B designation and continued to use the official "series" nomenclature we are familiar with today.



Pratt & Whitney, In thrust we trust!
User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2630 posts, RR: 23
Reply 71, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 14056 times:

Well the sales departments were quick to jump on the "C" bandwagon because it reminded people of the DC-7C or at least that was what they thought. The "C" model being somehow better, more powerful, better range, etc. than whatever the competition had. It was pretty goofy, yet I am sure plenty of people were swayed by it. Nobody gave a s$$t about the 1049C-----it was ALL about the "Super "G"'s! Then when Douglas rolled-out the DC-7C it was ALL about them!


"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3208 posts, RR: 7
Reply 72, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 14026 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 69):
I somehow get the gist of the clip and wish Manila is as clean, uncrowded and traffic-jam-free as then. Of course, a 25 million population was bound to be less chaotic than 92 million!

Unfortunately that's true all over the world. Have you ever seen promotional videos of Southern California from like the 1940? Now it's all ugly strip malls, concrete and massive crowding.

My vote for worst airplane purchase is also the PSA L1011s. From an aviation fan standpoint, I liked them, but it was not a good business decision. PSA was a great airline, but did a lot of dumb stuff in that era.


User currently onlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4936 posts, RR: 1
Reply 73, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 13938 times:

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 72):

My vote for worst airplane purchase is also the PSA L1011s. From an aviation fan standpoint, I liked them, but it was not a good business decision.

PR had the DC-10 (leased & owned) for the longest time until they could spring for the 747.....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Carlos A. Morillo Doria


.....and finally the 744 (amid the hyped deposits) to keep up with the competition. There didn't seem to be too many complaints about the DC-10 from the passengers (probably because it was way better than the DC-8s and 707s they were accustomed to)...nor from the crew, maintainers and management (due perhaps to NDAs and the rarity of the web then)...that would've led to the "banjo's" poor rep.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 74, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 13872 times:

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 64):
Out of curiosity, why didn't AA like the F100?

Initially, they loved it. Then around the early 2000's, they decided they were paying too much for spare parts. So much so that they set out on their own and had TUL start fabritacting their own replacement parts. Not sure how Fokker's bankruptcy figured into this, as Fokker was still able to support other airlines' F70 and F100 fleets. Anyhow, it wasn't long after that that the F100 became persona non grata in AA's mainline fleet...



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3208 posts, RR: 7
Reply 75, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 13777 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 73):
PR had the DC-10 (leased & owned) for the longest time until they could spring for the 747.....

View Large View Medium

I was referring to PSA as in Pacific Southwest Airlines, not Philippine Airlines. However, I do remember that PR had a new DC-10 seized for awhile by the US government at SFO, but I don't recall why. I'm not aware that PR regretted their DC-10s though.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25846 posts, RR: 22
Reply 76, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 13754 times:

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 68):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 67):
They had the Palomar seats with Pan Am
Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 59):
Last time I flew on one was early in '71.

And in 1971 I do not recall any of the Palomar seats left on any of the Company -8's!

This DL DC-8-51 photo is dated 1976 and it has the Palomar seats.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ellis M. Chernoff



User currently onlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4936 posts, RR: 1
Reply 77, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 13648 times:

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 75):
I was referring to PSA as in Pacific Southwest Airlines, not Philippine Airlines.

That was clear...I was just citing PR's experience with the DC-10.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 75):
However, I do remember that PR had a new DC-10 seized for awhile by the US government at SFO, but I don't recall why.

That's hazy to me too...though it might have had something to do with fuel accounts during the Asian financial crisis.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 75):
I'm not aware that PR regretted their DC-10s though.

They did not, far as I could tell...which makes the general ambivalence toward the DC-10 somewhat enigmatic.

[Edited 2013-08-06 22:35:07]


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineYukon880 From United States of America, joined Sep 2011, 137 posts, RR: 2
Reply 78, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 13608 times:

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 58):
Yes sorry, they sold some off directly, Delta bought 7 via Boeing, I read the listing wrong

I take you at your word sir, especially the last five of them!  

I too could be wrong, but I really don't think Boeing had anything to do with the sale of the PAA DC-8s to Delta. Every source of info I have, indicates Delta purchased these DC-8s directly from Pan American in late 1968 and August 1969.

Yukon



Pratt & Whitney, In thrust we trust!
User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1653 posts, RR: 7
Reply 79, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 13604 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 74):
Quoting travelavnut (Reply 64):
Out of curiosity, why didn't AA like the F100?

Initially, they loved it. Then around the early 2000's, they decided they were paying too much for spare parts. So much so that they set out on their own and had TUL start fabritacting their own replacement parts. Not sure how Fokker's bankruptcy figured into this, as Fokker was still able to support other airlines' F70 and F100 fleets. Anyhow, it wasn't long after that that the F100 became persona non grata in AA's mainline fleet...

Thanks KELPkid! It's a damn shame that bankcruptcy   But good to hear their beef had more to do with spare parts than the aircraft itsefl.



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 80, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 13391 times:

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 79):
Thanks KELPkid! It's a damn shame that bankcruptcy But good to hear their beef had more to do with spare parts than the aircraft itsefl.

And every F100 I ever personally spoke to loved every second of flying the oval-windowed wonder   



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2630 posts, RR: 23
Reply 81, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 13353 times:

Quoting Yukon880 (Reply 78):
but I really don't think Boeing had anything to do with the sale of the PAA DC-8s to Delta. Every source of info I have, indicates Delta purchased these

Right. Boeing (reluctantly) took them on trade for 722's.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 76):
DL DC-8-51 photo is dated 1976

I believe the last company -51 I was on was in 1977 and we did ATL-MCO-TPA. I don't recall the Palomar seats on that one either. I guess I just didn't worship them enough to remember them. I do recall the MCO-TPA portion only had a handful of pax. We blasted out of MCO like the space-shuttle and dodged typical central Florida afternoon storms all the way into TPA. One of the last few to go (77-78) was old 8008 and it sat around (ATL) for quite a while.



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 82, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 13231 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 80):
And every F100 I ever

Should read F100 pilot...   



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineRogerThat From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 12695 times:

AA's BAe-146 acquired from OC Air Cal. In a late 1980s speech to employees, AA's then SVP Operations Bob Baker stated the flight costs per hour were similar to the DC-10.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.



User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21495 posts, RR: 53
Reply 84, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 12595 times:

Quoting RogerThat (Reply 83):
AA's BAe-146 acquired from OC Air Cal. In a late 1980s speech to employees, AA's then SVP Operations Bob Baker stated the flight costs per hour were similar to the DC-10.

On the same route?

Or the 146 on its short hops vs. the DC-10 on long haul, which is a completely different metric?


User currently offlineRogerThat From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 85, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 11907 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 84):
Quoting RogerThat (Reply 83):
AA's BAe-146 acquired from OC Air Cal. In a late 1980s speech to employees, AA's then SVP Operations Bob Baker stated the flight costs per hour were similar to the DC-10.

On the same route?

Or the 146 on its short hops vs. the DC-10 on long haul, which is a completely different metric?

He really didn't go into those details. The theme of his speech was future challenges and opportunities; this nugget has stuck in my memory over the years. Soon after, AA announced a big order for Fokker F-100s: 75 firm orders and 75 options.

I do recall him saying the reason for the higher than expected operating costs was the engines were originally developed for a helicopter resulting in higher maintenance and lower dispatch reliability.

Mr. Baker passed away in 2003 and he would have enjoyed discussing this with Klaus.


User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 86, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 11822 times:

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 10):
MD-11 Poor timing. Should have had a new wing. Redesign (from DC-10) of horizontal tail surfaces caused critical landing issues (although some carriers ops the aircraft for many years without incident!.)

Not too mention lower than expected range which by the time was rectified, it was too late. Delta's MD-11s were still fairly new when they retired the fleet (average age at retirement was 10-12 years old) and one was 8 years old at the time of retirement. The MD-11 was about 5-7 years too late to market.


User currently offlineTrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2388 posts, RR: 7
Reply 87, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 11690 times:

Sometimes regretted aircraft orders have less to do with the types' potential and more to do with the fit for for the airline. In short, ordering new and modern aircraft does not always payoff.

First, EA and the 757: EA's launch 757 order gets respect from enthusiasts on here, but it actually proved to be a very bad business decision. Even as the launch customer, the 757 had a higher acquisition cost than the 727-200ADV it was meant to supplment. The debt from the financing of the 757 order was never paid off. This burden contributed to the financial issues from which EA could not recover from. EA did not earn profits utilizing the 757 either. Aside from a few routes, the aircraft did not fit EA's network nor its needs. The 757 was simply too much plane and too much cost for EA.

Second, PA and the L-1011-500: PA's Tristar 500 order was a step in the right direction in the late 70's. Right sizing with an advanced aircraft off of a proven model. However, the type soon became reduntant with purchase of NA and the DC-10s which came as a result. Then PA was hurt by de-regulation and in an effort to streamline and generate cash sold both trijet models in favor of oversized gas guzzling 741s. Of which further contributed to the airlines' demise.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 21):
Then there was Delta, who was the launch customer for the MD-90. They cancelled the order after just 16 were delivered, citing the fact that the thing was a maintenance nightmare for themselves.

Then who starts grabbing up every second hand MD-90 in existence in the late 2000's?

To answer your question: The airline that cancelled their order because production was going to cease. Grabbing second-hand frames years later might seem ironic, except the picture you imply about the cancellation or "regret" is simply not true. The initial issues were ironed out in mid 1996, before the cancellation. The DL MD-90 order cancellation could easily be the leader in a "best a.net myths" thread; one I have corrected in many times on here. Unfortunately, the false presumuptions feed onto themselves...

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 74):
Quoting travelavnut (Reply 64):
Out of curiosity, why didn't AA like the F100?

Initially, they loved it. Then around the early 2000's, they decided they were paying too much for spare parts.

Not to pick on you here, but I don't think the AA F100 order qualifies as a "regret." As you note, AA were happy with the aircraft and it served them well for over a decade. Instead of taking a DL approach and buying used frames for parts, AA made a post 9/11 response decision to retire the fleet. Following that decision, AA badly mismanaged the F100 phaseout and replacement, most of all.



There's nothing quite like a trijet.
User currently offlineTrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2388 posts, RR: 7
Reply 88, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 11693 times:

Quoting srbmod (Reply 86):
Delta's MD-11s were still fairly new when they retired the fleet (average age at retirement was 10-12 years old) and one was 8 years old at the time of retirement.

Indeed they were very new, with several frames being late-build PIP modles. IIRC, the last three frames delivered were only 4-6 years old at the time of retirement. But despite the early problems, DL's retirement had more to do with circumstance than anything else. DL even took a new-build delivery post Boeing/MDC merger. A healthy DL acknowledged plans to operate the type through 2009, from an investor call circa 1997. But the post-9/11 DL were looking for ways to cut and restructure. Eating the lease costs at 100% and gaining ZERO revenue through sub-leasing or operating the aircraft is not a financially sound move. But parking a fleet while taking all the losses factors into positioning an entity towards bankruptcy...For which a Ch.11 restructure can be accomplished. But that was the Leo Mullin regime...I could not see RA doing the same with 77L fleet in the current DL.



There's nothing quite like a trijet.
User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 89, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 11634 times:

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 87):
First, EA and the 757: EA's launch 757 order gets respect from enthusiasts on here, but it actually proved to be a very bad business decision. Even as the launch customer, the 757 had a higher acquisition cost than the 727-200ADV it was meant to supplment. The debt from the financing of the 757 order was never paid off. This burden contributed to the financial issues from which EA could not recover from. EA did not earn profits utilizing the 757 either. Aside from a few routes, the aircraft did not fit EA's network nor its needs. The 757 was simply too much plane and too much cost for EA.

Eastern had been having financial issues for years and the 757s didn't help at all. They probably would have been better off with the 737-300 or the MD-82, but they probably would have been in a similar financial situation with them.

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 88):
IIRC, the last three frames delivered were only 4-6 years old at the time of retirement.

Nope. Three of the last four MD-11s DL took delivery of were delivered in 1996 and the final delivery was in 1998 (Said a/c was retired in December 2006). The last MD-11 DL retired was N814DE, which was delivered on 9/14/1996 and retired on 1/22/2007.

http://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Delta%20Airlines-history-md11.htm


User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2313 posts, RR: 1
Reply 90, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 11551 times:

Quoting srbmod (Reply 89):
The last MD-11 DL retired was N814DE, which was delivered on 9/14/1996 and retired on 1/22/2007.

Last flight was in 2004, they just didn't sell it to FX until 2007.


User currently offlineTrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2388 posts, RR: 7
Reply 91, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 11422 times:

Quoting srbmod (Reply 89):

Eastern had been having financial issues for years and the 757s didn't help at all. They probably would have been better off with the 737-300 or the MD-82, but they probably would have been in a similar financial situation with them.

I agree with the MD-82.... In fact, I said as much in our Carriers Who Flew DC10 & L1011 Huge Mistake? thread a few months ago.

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 21):
The critical miscalculation was in the 757 order, which put EA in a debt that they never recovered from. Operationally, the 757 was not a success for EA on the balance sheet either. In hindsight, EA would have been far better off never ordering the 757 and using the funds for the Tristar 500.

Supplemental/replacement 727 capacity could have been accomplished with a more favorable MD-82 order, 2-3 years later. With the DC-9 operations and support, the MD-82s would have fit in fine. And there's no doubt MDC were willing to deal.

IMO, the 733 lacked the capacity to warrant an order, when considering EA had a number of D93s, D95s, and 721s at the time. Of which were not ready for retirement in 1983. The 752 order was for growth, anyway. Meanwhile, AA and TW showed the MD-82 was very effective at supplementing 722s.

Quoting srbmod (Reply 89):
Nope. Three of the last four MD-11s DL took delivery of were delivered in 1996 and the final delivery was in 1998 (Said a/c was retired in December 2006). The last MD-11 DL retired was N814DE, which was delivered on 9/14/1996 and retired on 1/22/2007.

Actually, I am correct. Your interpretation of the airfleets.net data is not accurate. The last four aircraft delivered were retired from DL between 2002-2003. The final DL MD-11 flight was 01/01/2004, N807DE NRT-ATL.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/28042007@N07/4202108537/

As I eluded to in reply 88, Leo Mullin parked the fleet and ate the leases until the aircraft were transferred FE and UP in 2006/2007. This decision was part of a strategy to put DL further in the red, so the airline could benefit from Ch.11 restructuring. If mgmt wanted to avoid Ch.11 in the early 2000s, the MD-11s would not have been retired before their leases expired.



There's nothing quite like a trijet.
User currently offlineaviatorcraig From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2010, 245 posts, RR: 0
Reply 92, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 11272 times:

91 posts and nobody has used AA and A300 in the same sentence yet - amazing!


707 727 Caravelle Comet Concorde Dash-7 DC-9 DC-10 One-Eleven Trident Tristar Tu-134 VC-10 Viscount plus boring stuff!
User currently offlineTrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2388 posts, RR: 7
Reply 93, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 11275 times:

Quoting aviatorcraig (Reply 92):
91 posts and nobody has used AA and A300 in the same sentence yet - amazing!

Funny you say that, as I thought about AA and A300 while contemplating my above post. But the A300 made a lot of money for AA. They were perfect for the MIA/LatAm operation, while fuel prices were low and the company was in the black. AA also got a great deal from Airbus, which outweighed the cost of adding another fleet type.

It's true flight 587 cast a bad spell on the type in the eyes of many at AA and created a rift with Airbus. Plus in the later years the plane was a maintenance hog. But in the end, the A300 brought a lot of profitability to the MIA operation.



There's nothing quite like a trijet.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17110 posts, RR: 66
Reply 94, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 11234 times:

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 93):
It's true flight 587 cast a bad spell on the type in the eyes of many at AA and created a rift with Airbus.

For years people on this board were saying AA would never order another Airbus and blablabla. I kept thinking "we'll see..."

And now...



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3144 posts, RR: 3
Reply 95, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 11138 times:

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 93):
But in the end, the A300 brought a lot of profitability to the MIA operation.

I had always thought the A300 operated out of JFK and not so much MIA because of its longer legs.
Did they move them south later in life?

Okie


User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 96, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 11137 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 94):
For years people on this board were saying AA would never order another Airbus and blablabla. I kept thinking "we'll see..."

And now...

And it really makes sense to introduce the A320 series, in parrallel with the 737Max, when you're already operating a sizeable fleet of 737-800's? The only way the A320 makes any sense at all for AA is if the merger with US goes through and they start retiring 737's    The 73G would have made more sense than the A319, as they could have used the same pilot pool for both...



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17110 posts, RR: 66
Reply 97, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 11125 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 96):
And it really makes sense to introduce the A320 series, in parrallel with the 737Max, when you're already operating a sizeable fleet of 737-800's? The only way the A320 makes any sense at all for AA is if the merger with US goes through and they start retiring 737's    The 73G would have made more sense than the A319, as they could have used the same pilot pool for both...

Three things:
- It makes sense to not have one supplier who feels they have your full attention.
- I'm pretty sure that one supplier would not have been able to handle all the deliveries AA wanted.
- When you're talking this many aircraft, having two pilot pools and so forth matters less. Your economies of scale and flexibility are already in place.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineTrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2388 posts, RR: 7
Reply 98, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 10850 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 94):
For years people on this board were saying AA would never order another Airbus and blablabla. I kept thinking "we'll see..."

And now...

Well, I don't think you can truly say "never" in terms of aircraft orders, but there most definitely was a rift between AA and Airbus following 587. Ten years passed when the A319/321 order was made. Time is everything. For instance, AA doesn't place that order in say, 2004...   

Quoting okie (Reply 95):

I had always thought the A300 operated out of JFK and not so much MIA because of its longer legs.
Did they move them south later in life?

The A300 was a staple at MIA for years, and was a very good earner on the LatAm freight market, with it's large cargo capacity. That said, the type did operate heavy out of JFK for many years. At one time, even did some TATL and ORD domestic runs.



There's nothing quite like a trijet.
User currently offlinen5014k From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 99, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 10664 times:

This happened a long time ago and not many will remember it, but Lake Central was all but ruined by the Nord 262. LCA had other issues, including a huge expenditure to convert their Convairs to 580's, but I believe it is safe to say that they regretted buying the Nord.

User currently offlineDIJKKIJK From France, joined Jul 2003, 1818 posts, RR: 4
Reply 100, posted (1 year 3 months 12 hours ago) and read 9845 times:

KLM ordered the A310-200, and were very unsatisfied. They lasted only 13 years or so.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © N94504



Also AC and the A343.



Never argue with idiots. They will bring you down to their level, and beat you with experience.
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25846 posts, RR: 22
Reply 101, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 9572 times:

Quoting DIJKKIJK (Reply 100):
KLM ordered the A310-200, and were very unsatisfied. They lasted only 13 years or so.

I don't think KLM's 767-300ERs, which replaced the A310s, lasted that long.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gerhard Vysocan



User currently offlineAircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1729 posts, RR: 8
Reply 102, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 9612 times:

KL's A310 were a delight on AMS-CDG, though: no flaps on take-off, and to the sky so quickly!   

User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6515 posts, RR: 54
Reply 103, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 9607 times:

SAS and A300.

40 years ago SAS bought four A300-B2 for use on high traffic European routes. Even before they were delivered, strategy was changed - high frequency instead of large planes, and more DC-9s were ordered.

The four A300-B2 were consequently modified to B4 standard at a cost not much less than the original price of the new planes. With the extended range capability they served some mainly Asian routes for a short while. Sometimes they operated some Scanair flights - Scanair was at that time SAS's charter department.

Since they were the only A300-B4 planes in the world with PW JT9D engines, they were hard to get rid of. They were then leased to various suspect airlines. One was crashed - in Portugal if memory serves me well. One got stranded for several months in Egypt for legal reasons as the operator went bankrupt. When SAS was finally allowed to pick up their plane, then it was a mixed pleasure since it had been standing in the desert for months without having the lavs cleaned after its last flight. The smell in the plane back home shall have been   

SAS demanded to have them with PW engines because they were building a JT9D mx facility in Arlanda for their 747s. But hardly had the A300s been delivered before the 747s were sold and replaced with DC-10s with GE engines.

Eventually the three remaining A300s were sold - or given away - to Conair, a Danish tour operator - as replacement for their old B720 planes, which were falling apart. They kept them flying until 1990-91 when they switched to new A320s.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5903 posts, RR: 5
Reply 104, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 9547 times:

Another A300: TAA. They only ordered 4, which then spent most of their life in the 1980s leased out, and they went away very quickly after the merger with QF.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 49):
Continental and the 737-500

Are you sure? The 735 served CO for a very long time (almost 20 years?) and lasted longer than the 733. It served the niche between the EM4 and larger aircraft that other airlines had large RJs for. While CO probably "regrets" not have broader scope agreements, I don't think that they "regret" ordering the 735 as the aircraft to plug this gap.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 96):
The 73G would have made more sense than the A319

The A319 has much lower trip costs than the 73G IIRC. Also had the entire 319/73H/321 order gone to Boeing then they would probably have had to wait much longer to take delivery of all the ordered frames.


Devils advocate here: many airlines and the 787   



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4742 posts, RR: 18
Reply 105, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 9520 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 104):


Quoting Max Q (Reply 49):
Continental and the 737-500

Are you sure? The 735 served CO for a very long time (almost 20 years?) and lasted longer than the 733. It served the niche between the EM4 and larger aircraft that other airlines had large RJs for. While CO probably "regrets" not have broader scope agreements, I don't think that they "regret" ordering the 735 as the aircraft to plug this gap.

Yes, the 735 was taken on specifically for CAL LITE, if you remember that ill fated operation and after that fell apart Continental was stuck with an Aircraft with almost the same operating cost as a -300 but far less capacity.


In addition to that they were on very unfavourable lease rates that were very difficult to get out of (due to Cal's terrible finances at the time)


They tried to make them profitable by cramming in as many seats as possible which made them very uncomfortable, this, coupled with the original -300's wing which was very slow made for a terrible ride, but at least it lasted a long time !



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 106, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 9342 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 104):
The A319 has much lower trip costs than the 73G IIRC.

How are you getting at that? The 737 NG series and the A32X series are almost neck and neck as far as operating costs go, with no clear advantage to either one...   Maybe at certain stage lengths, the A32X wins out. If anything, the advantage for the A32X will go to shorter stage lengths on account of the fact that it is a heavier airframe.



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5903 posts, RR: 5
Reply 107, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 8774 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 106):
The 737 NG series and the A32X series are almost neck and neck as far as operating costs go

I know that is true for the 320 v 73H (there is practically no difference on the same mission) but I though that the 319 was lighter (for want of a better word) than the 73G, which helped edge it out performance wise?



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5130 posts, RR: 43
Reply 108, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 8774 times:

Quoting DIJKKIJK (Reply 100):
Also AC and the A343.

The A340-300 was the best aircraft at the time, and fit very well into AC's fleet. They were also much more efficient than what they replaced.

However, as more capable versions of the B777 became available, the A340s (both the -300s and -500s) became obsolete. As with most airlines operating the A340s at the time, the decision to replace them was made.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinesrqkef From Iceland, joined Jun 2011, 896 posts, RR: 1
Reply 109, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 8337 times:

Icelandair leased a DC-10 in the late 70's. Only a few weeks after it arrived in Keflavik the DC10 grounding took place and the plane sat unused while FI still had to pay the lease rates. Not only that, but flying a widebody from KEF also made absolutely no sense (largest aircraft before that were the Loftleidir DC8s and some 727s). FI nearly went belly-up because of the whole DC-10 ordeal.

Needless to say it was returned as quickly as possible.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Baldur Sveinsson
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © George Canciani


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © George Canciani



regards
Sveinn  



Flights flown: 287 - Airlines: 41 - Airports: 66 - Next flights: KEF-LHR-KEF, RKV-AEY-RKV, KEF-EWR-MCO, SRQ-LGA, JFK-KEF
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 110, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 8184 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 107):
I know that is true for the 320 v 73H (there is practically no difference on the same mission) but I though that the 319 was lighter (for want of a better word) than the 73G, which helped edge it out performance wise?

From the respective manufacturer's websites:

A319: Maximum Zero Fuel Weight: 57,000 KG
B737-700 with winglets: Maximum Zero Fuel Weight: 55,202 KG

(And, being a Yank, I'm none too comfortable working in metric units   But that's what they put up...)



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineYQBexYHZBGM From Canada, joined May 2009, 204 posts, RR: 1
Reply 111, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 7579 times:

Eastern's 747s and DC-10s

AA's F100s and BAC 1-11s

I'm not sure whether the aircraft contributed to the airline's demise or vice-versa, but the Dornier 328JET didn't last very long with Atlantic Coast Airlines.

Al


User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6952 posts, RR: 76
Reply 112, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 7481 times:

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 103):
Since they were the only A300-B4 planes in the world with PW JT9D engines, they were hard to get rid of.

They were not the only B4-220s... Garuda had them too!
But if you said they were the only B4-220s with 3-man crew, that's a different story as Garuda's B4-220s had the 2 man crew option.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 104):
Devils advocate here: many airlines and the 787

        

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 107):
I know that is true for the 320 v 73H (there is practically no difference on the same mission) but I though that the 319 was lighter (for want of a better word) than the 73G, which helped edge it out performance wise?

Errr... 319 is heavier...

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 110):
A319: Maximum Zero Fuel Weight: 57,000 KG
B737-700 with winglets: Maximum Zero Fuel Weight: 55,202 KG

And as per the Operating Empty weight:
A319 OEW = 40800kg
73G OEW = 38147kg

In fuel burn, those two aircraft are neck and neck, even with either engines on the A319, despite the heavier A319 weights... it's only at the very short sectors does the 73G win. And brochures of both manufacturers "lie" about who has the lower trip cost... go with the certified flight performance numbers I say!   



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 113, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7316 times:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 112):

In fuel burn, those two aircraft are neck and neck, even with either engines on the A319, despite the heavier A319 weights... it's only at the very short sectors does the 73G win. And brochures of both manufacturers "lie" about who has the lower trip cost... go with the certified flight performance numbers I say!

IIRC, it was described to me as thus:

-The A320 series uses an optimal sized fan for the thrust of the engine on the CFM56 (and indeed, the IAEV2500).
-The 737NG has constrained fan diameter (due to it's weedeater engines , actually short landing gear), so the CFM56 fan is slightly smaller than optimal. But the lighter weight of the 737 series gives it back any advantage the A320 may have over it due to the A320's more optimal fan size. Boeing kept the 737 fuselage low to the ground in the NG planes because that's the way their existing customers wanted it    It makes ground servicing more convenient.



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6952 posts, RR: 76
Reply 114, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7210 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 113):
IIRC, it was described to me as thus:

Yeah that explanation works fine for me...   
Although a correction is called for...

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 113):
(due to it's weedeater engines   , actually short landing gear)

I call it the lawnmower efficiency combo...    Amputate a good engine by giving short legs and regain some of the loss back through simplicity and crudeness... Scale it up to a 737-900ER and it's like watching an 18 wheeler being pulled by a lawnmower.    (while the A321 is just a weird animal in its family)...



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineYQBexYHZBGM From Canada, joined May 2009, 204 posts, RR: 1
Reply 115, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5689 times:

I don't know if they truly regretted ordering them, but after operating 747s for a number of years, SK realized that "Huge Viking" and its sisters were indeed too huge for the markets they served. I loved the 1970s Viking ship livery on these aircraft, though!

Al
YQBexYHZBGM


User currently offlineCairnterriAIR From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 409 posts, RR: 0
Reply 116, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4065 times:

I have to disagree with EA and the DC-10. They only bought three of them second hand in order to serve a route from Miami to London. The L-1011's EA had didn't have the range. When the route was transferred to CO, EA kept two of the DC-10's for use to their deep routes in South America non-stop. Again something they could not do with their other aircraft. In addition, the GE engines were the same as those in use on EA's A300...making replacements easy. The plane had a great dispatch rate and had the DC-10 not been so difficult to locate second hand at that time and EA in better financial shape, you would most likely have seen more in the fleet replacing the L-1011's.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Aircraft Airlines Regretted Ordering And Flying
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Mobile Phone Apps And Flying posted Thu Oct 29 2009 14:30:58 by GolfOscarDelta
Seaplanes And Flying Boats (What Are The Obstacle) posted Sat Feb 17 2007 02:23:21 by Blackbird
Heights Of Thunderstorms And Flying Over Them posted Sun Apr 30 2006 21:14:04 by JulianUK
Aircraft With "turning And Burning"- Engines. posted Sun Oct 30 2005 22:32:08 by AmericanB763ER
Alcohol And Flying - Where To Draw The Line? posted Wed Nov 12 2003 14:26:09 by Gordonsmall
Attention Deficit Disorder And Flying posted Tue May 20 2003 20:52:54 by JBirdAV8r
Night Taxing And Flying posted Tue Jul 17 2001 04:39:01 by David B.
Aircraft Type Rating And Different Airlines posted Tue Mar 1 2011 11:32:43 by goinv
Which Airlines / Aircraft Have You Been Flying? posted Thu Jun 3 2004 18:45:03 by INNflight
Aircraft Cycles And Flight Hours posted Sun Jul 14 2013 09:34:36 by whiplash

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format