IslandHopper
Topic Author
Posts: 309
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2003 8:28 am

Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 3:22 am

I was reading the history of PSA and came across thier ordering L1011s in the early 70s. Fuel was cheap back then and the plan was to fly pax within California in widebody luxury. 2-4-2 seating and an underfloor lounge decked out in bright orange 70's glory! Groovvvy Baby!!!


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Marcel Brunner



However, the first fuel crisis hit just as the planes were delivered. They were used for a few months and parked in the desert for years before being used again by other airlines. Today the notion of flying widebodies intra-state is laughable.

Any other examples of airliners that were purchased that were either too big or too small for their needs, or oddballs in the fleet? Planes they later regretted purchasing?

[Edited 2003-08-01 20:47:34]
 
User avatar
lindy field
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2001 1:52 pm

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 3:29 am

Hmm... didn't Delta purchase some new-build A310s to replace the beat-up ones they inherited from Pan Am?
 
UA744Flagship
Posts: 1433
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 1999 1:55 pm

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 3:31 am

United overestimated the amount of Pacific flying it would be doing by about 14 airplanes.

As a result, ordering an additional 20 744 in the 90s in addition to the 24 it orginally had factored into United's terrible losses over the last 2 years.

United would have been better served with more 767-300s.
no wire hangers!
 
Guest

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 3:31 am

Pacific Western purchased a pair of 767-200's back in the early eighties and used them on milk runs across Western Canada in an all-Y config. I think the typical routings were YVR-(YYC or YEG)-(YXE or YYR)-YWG. They quickly realized they had more plane than they needed and the two 767's ended up at Air Canada.

At one point Boeing had ads in Maclean's magazine boasting that all three of Canada's biggest airlines (AC, CP, PW) had ordered the 767.
 
Capital146
Posts: 2099
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 8:45 pm

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 3:37 am

Air Europe (UK) springs to mind this side of the pond. They ordered MD11's with Rolls-Royce engines (yes, US readers, its true) but went out of business in 1991 before they were delivered. At the time, AE had a policy of only operating aircraft under 5 years old (which in todays marketplace is ludicras) so by now they would probably have been parked up as odd-ball MD11's in the mojave.

I'm sure I could think of better examples of bad aircraft orders given time. The only other is BA's RR powered 767's even though personally I see this as an excellent order. As proud as I am as an englishman to see these aircraft, most of the world thinks they are rather strange, except our good old friends at Qantas.
Like a fine wine, one gets better with age.
 
Ikarus
Posts: 3391
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2001 10:18 pm

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 3:49 am

Wardair Canada ordering a large number of Fokker 100s, MD80s and Airbus 310s comes to mind. They went bankrupt (or, well, nearly did but got gobbled up by Canadian just in time) due to their overexpansion.

Did they ever take delivery of the MD 80s? I have a photo of one flying around in Wardair livery, but I've never seen any other pics...

Regards

Ikarus
 
ssides
Posts: 3248
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2001 12:57 am

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 3:54 am

We'll have to see, but I think just about any A380 purchase will look foolish 15-20 years from now. I just don't think the market will stand for a plane that large.
"Lose" is not spelled with two o's!!!!
 
modesto2
Posts: 2669
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2000 3:44 am

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 4:03 am

AA wasn't particularly fond of its MD-11's. Not necessarily a foolish decision, but the type lasted no more than 10 years with the airline. Airlines (such as AA, DL) soon realized that the 777 exceeded the MD-11 in many ways and ditched them. What a shame...a great looking aircraft.
 
andersjt
Posts: 367
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:50 am

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 4:32 am

Didn't America West have a couple of 747's in the stable?
Oh how I long for the day when the skies were truly Friendly!
 
Ikarus
Posts: 3391
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2001 10:18 pm

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 4:40 am

And, of course, the recent Easyjet & Jetblue orders...  Big grin
 
Vimanav
Posts: 1439
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 4:33 am

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 4:40 am

There have been some thought provoking ones in this category. Any airline fleet with a multitude of types is seriously asking for trouble. Its really difficult to justify the costs associated with spares, engineering expertise, crew training etc. when you have various complementary types of aircraft in the fleet.

I think the AF fleet is a prime example: Could hardly understand why they needed the A330-300 / A340 / B777 in their fleet instead of standardizing on one type/manufacturer and opting for different marques. Also their fleet of B737s & A320 family in peaceful coexistence is quite striking.

LH has a similar situation, but they justify it by citing that a multitude of types actually gives Lufthansa Technik the technical expertise on these types and therefore attracts 3rd party business. Logical, until we realize that LH Technik is now a separate business entity from the main Passenger business. Anyways, LH is slowly getting rid of the Boeing types in favour of Airbuses.

TG also has a strange fleet composition, long/medium haul has B744 / MD11 / B777-200/300 / A330. I am surprised they keep declaring profits every year.

KU similarly has just 17 aircraft and five different types (B777 / A340 / A300 / A310 / A320). The number / types go higher if we include the B747-400 which is part of their Amiri fleet and another 742 in storage.

There are many others, these are just a few examples. In perspective, such fleets are a recipe for high costs place a heavy financial burden on the carrier - net net, they look foolish!

Vimanav
Sarfaroshi kii tamannaa ab hamaare dil mein hai, Dekhnaa hai zor kitnaa baazu-e-qaatil mein hai
 
jetstar
Posts: 1366
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 2:16 am

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 4:46 am

In the mid 1990's, America West used leased 747's for PHX/HNL service in a somewhat ill advised expansion, I believe these 747's were ex KLM.

I was returning from HNL to STL on a TW 747 which was cancelled because of a maintenance problem. Parked next to us was an America West 747 that also had a cancellation due to a maintenance problem. Needless to say there was a lot of scrambling around by TW and HP trying to find another carrier out of HNL for their stranded passengers.

We were lucky and got some of the last seats out on a AA DC-10 to LAX.

After HP realized they could not make money on the Hawaii flights, they returned the 747's and dropped the mainland to Hawaii flights.

These 747's wound up in the desert and were scrapped.
 
artsyman
Posts: 4516
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 4:46 am

I would have to think that the large order that swiss made last year as part of their re-planning must be considered suspect.
 
IslandHopper
Topic Author
Posts: 309
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2003 8:28 am

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 4:54 am

This thread isn't about judging orders recently made, time will tell. I wanted to hear about mistakes in hindsight. You can learn from history, but speculation is useless.

I thought of another good example. Continental bought 720s in 1966...from factory new to scrap dealer within 10 years:

cn 19002 N17207 720-024B. Delivered Feb 66, scrapped Mar 76.
cn 19003 N17208 720-024B. Delivered Feb 66, scrapped Apr 76.

What were they thinking with those? Why not get 727s that could do the same job, no? Perhaps these were white-tails that Boeing gave CO a steal on.
 
Braniff727
Posts: 656
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 2:25 am

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsi

Sat Aug 02, 2003 5:12 am

Braniff II picked up the Pan Am order for 50 A320's with options for an additional 50. They also ordered 17 F100's.

I believe 3 or 4 320's made it into service before they shut down. F100's weren't even produced.
Climbing
 
747buff
Posts: 676
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2001 3:05 pm

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 5:14 am

Pan Am bought a fleet of 12 L1011-500s in the late 1970s and early 80s, for routes which needed a widebody aircraft, but couldn't fill up a 747. Unfortunately, around the time PA received their first L10s, they purchased National Airlines, which had a large fleet of DC10s. This was cited as one reason that the NA merger was a mistake. PA now had a fleet of every type of widebody aircraft on the market at that time, increasing their expenses, which only increased their financial losses. IMHO, PA would've been better off purchasing DC10-30s. Half of their L1011 fleet was sold in 1984 and 1985 (with most going to Delta, I believe), and the remaining six went to United in early 1986 as part of the Pacific route sale.
At Eastern, we earn our wings every day!
 
Vimanav
Posts: 1439
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 4:33 am

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 5:14 am

SK purchase of A300s in the late 70s/early80s (I'm not too sure) and then getting rid of them in a few years (max 5) must rank high.

LH purchased several B737-400s 1992 which too did not last too long in the fleet and were out by 2000 (I think).

PK had DC10s for a short while.

AI had a couple of Tristars (leased from Caribjet) for about a year I suppose. The deal is apparently under scrutiny.

SQ A340s - the less said the better.

PA - DC8s

rgds//Vimanav
Sarfaroshi kii tamannaa ab hamaare dil mein hai, Dekhnaa hai zor kitnaa baazu-e-qaatil mein hai
 
fanofjets
Posts: 1977
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2000 2:26 am

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 5:15 am

The all-time bad purchase was United buying up all the initial-production Boeing 247s, trying to gain a monopoly with the new low-wing monoplane, forcing other airlines to look elsewhere. TWA worked with Douglas to produce the DC-2, which was followed by the DC-3, clearly outclassing the Boeing product.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bob Harrington - Mazama Photographs



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Charles A. Rau

The aeroplane has unveiled for us the true face of the earth. -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
 
jetstar
Posts: 1366
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 2:16 am

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 5:30 am

How about the old National Airlines buying 747's to use between JFK and MIA.

Flying an airplane capable of 10 or more hours in the air for a 2 1/2 hour flight.
It cost them a fortune to carry all that extra aluminum around on what is basically a low profit run.

And this forced both Eastern and Delta to use 747's to compete.

I think these 747's lasted about 3 years before all the airlines realized they were losing money on almost all the flights and they dumped their 747's about the same time.
 
elwood64151
Posts: 2410
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 10:22 am

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 5:42 am

NJ originally operated 737-300s, then dumped them for 737-200s. Most of the 732s were older model aircraft that were severely limited in their range. It took four years to get rid of all the really bad 732s, and we were still flying six of more 732s at the end. The MD-80s were a huge improvement. Now if we'd just gotten just a few more just a bit faster...

Cheers!
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
 
ThirtyEcho
Posts: 1409
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 1:21 am

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 5:45 am

Dumbass move of the century has to be Braniff's lease of a Concorde to fly subsonic from Dallas to JFK.
 
Capital146
Posts: 2099
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 8:45 pm

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 5:47 am

Yes, ThirtyEcho, I have to agree that it is defeating the whole object of the purpose.
Like a fine wine, one gets better with age.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 5:50 am

Sabena needed 17 A320 but purchased 34 instead helping put the company into serious financial trouble.
 
TriStar500
Posts: 4411
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 1999 9:50 pm

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 6:05 am

German charter airline LTU pursued a rather questionable replacement strategy for their fleet of ten L1011's in the late 80's. Not only did they order about 5 or 6 A330, but also 4 or 5 MD-11, both with an option for more. At the same time. LTU's fleet also consisted of B757 and 767.

Therefore, during a period between 1991, when the first MD-11 was delivered, and 1996, when the last TriStar left the fleet, LTU's modest fleet of about 30 aircraft consisted of 5 types from four manufacturers with four different cockpits.  Wow!
The ensuing troubles to keep such a chequered fleet in profitable operation were further increased when it turned out that the MD-11, which were supposed to fly on long-haul routes (the virtually equal-sized A330 were scheduled on medium haul routes), offered just too many seats for the longhaul leisure destinations LTU served. Instead, the 767 proved to be the ideal aircraft, both in terms of performance and capacity on most of the routes.

In order to standardize its hotchpotch fleet, LTU decided to withdraw the MD-11 by late 1998. At this time, some longhaul routes demanded higher capacities than the 767 could provide. Thus longhaul flying with the A330-300 was started, and further examples of the type added. As this wasn't the high-gross weight version of the -300, and the -200 was still a few years away, LTU had to operate the A330 with reduced seating; about 1/4 of the seats had to be left vacant on longhaul flights. Hardly a profit-making decision on low-yiedling charter routes!

To cut a long story short, the situation at LTU has somewhat imrpved over recent years after bankcruptcy was narrowly averted with a much-discussed state loan in 2001.
Nowadays, the MD-11, 757 and 767 have left the fleet as have some of the A330-300. Instead, further A330-200 were added plus A320/321 as replacement for the 757. Today LTU operated a single-cockpit fleet of just two types from a single manufacturer - A320/321 and A330-200/-300, increasing the economic turnover greatly.

In hindsight, acquring the MD-11 was a very bad decision, since the aircraft proved to be too big on longhauls and wasn't as economical to operate on medium hauls like the similar sized fleet sister, the A330-300.
But the hotchpotch fleet was just one incredibly obvious dumb decision of the inept LTU management of the 1990's.



Homer: Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!
 
Guest

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 6:18 am

That photo of the PSA L-1011 at the start of this topic does bring back memories. My old employer and now defunct carrier, Worldways Canada Ltd.,
purchased 2 of PSA's L-1011's (complete with the lower lounges) I worked many a flight on those 2 birds.
 
ssides
Posts: 3248
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2001 12:57 am

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 6:20 am

When did DL dump its last L-1011s? I remember flying one DFW-FLL circa 1995.
"Lose" is not spelled with two o's!!!!
 
Guest

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 6:21 am

"Did they (Wardair) ever take delivery of the MD 80s?"

No. PWA Corp purchased Wardair shortly after the WD order for the MD-80's were placed.
 
luv2fly
Posts: 11056
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 2:57 am

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 6:33 am

The HP 747's were for the HNL market that continued on to Japan as well! It was not NRT I believe it was OSA? Short lived tho I will say this the planes looked good in the old HP CS. I am not sure why they did not keep the PHX/LAS service just to HNL. Anyone know.
You can cut the irony with a knife
 
747buff
Posts: 676
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2001 3:05 pm

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 6:35 am

HP's Japan route was PHX-HNL-NGO.
At Eastern, we earn our wings every day!
 
srbmod
Posts: 15446
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:32 pm

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 6:43 am

Delta retired their last L-1011 in the Summer of 2001. Speaking of Delta, I nominate their Convair 880s as a foolish airliner purchase.
 
luv2fly
Posts: 11056
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 2:57 am

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 6:49 am

Thanks for the info 747buff I knew it was not NRT.
You can cut the irony with a knife
 
L.1011
Posts: 2163
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 7:46 am

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 7:21 am

Actually the DC-8 was great planning for PA. Juan Trippe made sure he had all his bases covered. He figured- "If the 707 fails, I still have the -8, if the -8 fails, I still have the 707, If they both fail, no one else will have jets either"
 
desertjets
Posts: 7564
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 3:12 pm

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 7:22 am

The America West 747 is definately a bad one, and not even in hindsight. There were actually 4 ex-KLM birds that wore HP colors, though never more than 2 ran at any given time. The 747 was way too much plane for a handful of PHX/LAS-HNL. Though the tag onto Nagoya must have gotten a decent draw from the Japanese tourist market. Even with the Nagoya sector gone, America West did not have a plane that could fly the PHX-HNL sector, as their 757s are/were never ETOPS approved. I suppose they could have done so, and set up the three new build 57s they had to fly it. But they were also in Ch.11 bankruptcy at the time and dumping money into a low yield market wasn't a wise thing to do.

I believe both the late Swissair and Sabena's decisions to buy an entirely new fleet, replacing relatively new types, was ill-advised. Especially given the rate at which they were taking the planes and the small overall size of the fleet.

I am surprised nobody has mentioned PanAm's initial 25 plane order for the 747-100. Even pre-oil crisis, it was too many planes and too much capacity for the market.
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 8:32 am

Someone above commented on National Airlines 2 747-100s, which they flew JFK-MIA-LAX and then on the MIA-LHR route, at least that made some sense.

What about AA, UA, DL and CO buying 747-100s for domestic services when none of these airlines had an overseas route? Or EA ordering 50 L1011s and then 30+ A300s for domestic route system. When the first generation wide-body airliners came into service, the airlines went on a buying spree that I do not think we will ever see again.
 
srbmod
Posts: 15446
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:32 pm

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 9:16 am

Eastern's A300s were 100 and 200 series, which lacked the range of the later 600 series, so Eastern's use of them on domestic routes fit. If it wasn't for Eastern's A300s, Airbus may have taken a lot longer to crack the US market.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 9:57 am

All things told, the A300 and A310 are ideal planes for the high density domestic market - better than the 767 due to less capability and increased seat count, and if needed more cargo.

I always thought JAS was onto something buying new A300B4-600Rs rather than following the typical Japanese buy of 767-300ERs.

As for my contribution to the thread - what about SAA's buy of all those 738s? They're all but brand new, and already new A320 series planes on order to replace them.

N
 
ssides
Posts: 3248
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2001 12:57 am

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 10:10 am

It would be interesting to see what would have happened in the airline industry had fuel prices not skyrocketed in the 70s. I think this is a sometimes overlooked aspect of why we don't see 747s and other large jets on longer domestic routes.
"Lose" is not spelled with two o's!!!!
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2391
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 10:23 am

"As for my contribution to the thread - what about SAA's buy of all those 738s? They're all but brand new, and already new A320 series planes on order to replace them."

Neil, I know this was discussed before but to what do YOU attribute this to?

 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2303
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 10:47 am

I nominate Aeroflot.

The Grandest one of them all being the Tu-144, which ended up
spending more time flying mail supersonically than anything else!

 
User avatar
OzarkD9S
Posts: 4720
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:31 am

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 11:16 am

The 747 was a bad move for nearly ALL US carriers, Northwest and possibly Pan Am excepted. Pan Am ordered too many, they (and definately TWA) should have waited for long-range DC-10-30/40's. 747's were too large for year-round operations for both of those airlines.

What about selling fleets? TWA sold off their DC-9's just before deregulation, when they would have been very handy. Ended up buying Ozark, with 46 DC-9's and 4 MD-80's.

On another note, Ozark ordered 2 727-200 Advanced models from Boeing, painted in OZ colors...OZ sold them to Pan Am prior to delivery as Ozark was coming off a mechanic's strike and needed some quick cash. That's a case of ordering the right planes at the right time, without ever operating them.

One of the shrewdest moves was Braniff NOT ordering a fleet of 747's or DC-10/L-1011's in the early 70's. They standardized on the 727 and weren't stuck with a bunch of widebodies they couldn't fill when the oil crisis hit, just the lone 747 for the DFW-HNL run.


Next up: STL-OAK-RNO-LAS-ICT-STL
 
behramjee
Posts: 4325
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 4:56 am

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 3:29 pm

Probably the smartest fleet replacement decision for a major Intl carrier has to be KLMs :

B 744s + 744ER Freighters for long haul high density routes
B 772ERs for long haul medium density routes
A 332s for routes to Middle East and Africa
B 737NGs for short haul European and Northern African flights.

Wierd ones are like those of Air France which as A 343s, B 772 ERs and B 773ERs in their fleet for long haul flights, even CX and EK have A 340s when they had already B 777s, shouldnt they have instead ordered the ER versions of the 777s rather than order A 343s, and 345s and 346s!

Alitalia for its long haul routes has B 742s, 772ERs, 763s and MD 11s...just imagine the operation, crew training, maintainence and other costs associated with a varied fleet. Air Canada too now has B 744s, B 763s, A 340s and A 330s for its long haul routes!
 
behramjee
Posts: 4325
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 4:56 am

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 3:50 pm

I find the SAS purchases of A 321s and A 330-300s + 343s wierd as with a large 737NG fleet, the 739 would have been better though with 15-20 fewer seats and the 777-200ERs are ideal to standardize its long haul routes on their range and capacity is as good the A 333s and 343s.

Therefore they could have had a stable efficient fleet which would have been B 777-200 ERs for all its long haul US and ASIAN flights and B 737NGs for European flights! Now they instead have 737NG, 321s, 333s, 343s!

Isnt the 772ER more efficient to operate than the A 333 and 343s?
 
gr8slvrflt
Posts: 1443
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 10:53 pm

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sat Aug 02, 2003 11:26 pm

Eastern ordered a large number of DC-7s, Super Constellations and Convair 440s in the mid-fifties right when the jets were right around the corner. Most the these planes were reduced to cargo runs or sold-off within ten years.

Everyone over-ordered widebodies in the late sixties and early seventies. Stretch-8s would have been a much more logical step up from earlier jets.
I work for Southwest, but the views expressed are my own and do not necessarily represent those of Southwest.
 
fanofjets
Posts: 1977
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2000 2:26 am

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sun Aug 03, 2003 1:19 am

Lake Central should have ordered something more powerful and reliable than the Nord 262 - either F27s or Viscounts, or upgraded its CV340s to turbine power.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John F. Ciesla

The aeroplane has unveiled for us the true face of the earth. -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
 
mbmbos
Posts: 2566
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 4:16 am

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sun Aug 03, 2003 1:33 am

TWA's purchase of three 747-SPs always seemed peculiar. They initially purchased them in anticipation of being awarded one of the firts US - China routes, which never materialized. Instead, the aircraft ended up on routes, such as LAX-BOS-CDG. Yeah, you need an SP for that!
 
USAIRWAYS321
Posts: 1703
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 4:31 pm

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sun Aug 03, 2003 12:59 pm

Sorry to revive a nearly dead thread, but the first move that came to my mind was Horizon's Do328's. Horizon was the launch customer for the type, and after 5 or so years, they were being replaced by Dash 8's because Horizon wasn't happy with them. I'm surprised nobody mentioned this one.

 Smile/happy/getting dizzy Smile/happy/getting dizzy Smile/happy/getting dizzyUSAIRWAYS321 Smile/happy/getting dizzy Smile/happy/getting dizzy Smile/happy/getting dizzy
 
aa757first
Posts: 3140
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:40 am

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sun Aug 03, 2003 1:06 pm

How about Tower Air's fleet? Why not 767? Gee, I wonder why their bankrupt? Poor service, old planes (also in poor condition!)
 
dstc47
Posts: 1252
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 1999 3:53 am

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sun Aug 03, 2003 4:41 pm

British Airways (then BEA) wanted to order the B737 but were leaned on to purchase the Trident, which was not the worst of aircraft and one I always liked.

Guess what replaced the Trident eventually?

Aer Lingus brought new Vikings into service for about 10 months before dumping them for more Dc3's, an aircraft which they already operated anyhow.
 
Guest

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sun Aug 03, 2003 4:57 pm

Here are all I know/think of...

UA L1011s
DL A310s and DC10s
AA 747s
HP 747s
TWA 747SPs
SQ 757s

I  Love BOI
 
clipperno1
Posts: 641
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 1999 12:47 am

RE: Airliner Purchases That Look Foolish In Hindsight

Sun Aug 03, 2003 4:59 pm

Air Namibia: Brought in the 767 to replace the 747SP in 97. They dumped the 767 after less than 3 months and flew the 747SP again. After a year or so they got a 'new' 74M and said goodbye to the 747SP for good. Early this year they said the 747 was too big, parked it and wet-leased a Novair A330. Lease was terminated after a few months and the 74M was back again. Nott bad for an airline which only has one long-haul aircraft.
"I really don't know one plane from the other. To me they are just marginal costs with wings."� Alfred Kahn, 1977