United Airline
Topic Author
Posts: 8782
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:24 pm

Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Wed Aug 01, 2007 12:50 pm

Airlines clearly knew that the B 747-300 has shorter range and the B 747-400 would be available soon. Why did they order it still?

BTW where does QF, JL and TG fly their B 747 classics to?
 
OB1504
Posts: 3029
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 5:10 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Wed Aug 01, 2007 12:58 pm

They probably didn't need the range. Same reason NL and JL ordered the 747-400D.
 
Charles79
Posts: 1117
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:35 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:06 pm

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 1):
They probably didn't need the range. Same reason NL and JL ordered the 747-400D.

True, or simply couldn't wait for the 744 variant to enter service. As for their routes, I've seen QF's 743s here in LAX quite often this summer, doing MEL-LAX routes if I'm not mistaken (which I probably am).

Charles
 
United Airline
Topic Author
Posts: 8782
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:24 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:51 pm

What's the longest ever B 747-300 flight?
 
OB1504
Posts: 3029
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 5:10 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Wed Aug 01, 2007 2:02 pm

Probably AKL-LAX at 5,652 nm.
 
United Airline
Topic Author
Posts: 8782
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:24 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Wed Aug 01, 2007 2:11 pm

What about Rome-Bangkok by TG? And SR's ZRH-HKG?

[Edited 2007-08-01 07:11:58]
 
pilotdude09
Posts: 1335
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 12:35 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Wed Aug 01, 2007 3:17 pm

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 2):
MEL-LAX routes if I'm not mistaken (which I probably am).

Yeah wrong  Smile it was doing AKL-LAX to cover the 744 due to shortages and maintenance requirements.

If it did attempt MEL-LAX you certainly wouldnt need a return ticket!
Qantas, Still calling Australia Home.........
 
Leskova
Posts: 5547
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:39 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Wed Aug 01, 2007 3:21 pm

Did the airlines really know that the B747-400 would be available "soon"? The first B747-300 was delivered to UTA on 1 March 1983, the first B747-400 was delivered to Northwest on 26 January 1989: that's a difference of six years, too much if you need new planes with increased capacity and any other upgraded equipment (not sure how much more in that regard the -300 had to offer compared to the -200).

For airlines needing planes, and not really needing the -400's range, the -300 was a good choice, especially if they didn't want to wait for more than half a decade to receive it - and that's only if Boeing had already told them at the time that the -400 was on it's way...
Smile - it confuses people!
 
swissgabe
Posts: 5147
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2000 4:57 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Wed Aug 01, 2007 3:30 pm

Quoting United Airline (Reply 5):
And SR's ZRH-HKG?

SR routed the HKG via BOM and so it won't be the longest flight at all.

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 4):
Probably AKL-LAX at 5,652 nm.

Did QF route via AKL to LAX or which Airline did so?
Smooth as silk - Royal Orchid Service /// Suid-Afrikaanse Lugdiens - Springbok
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:02 pm

Quoting United Airline (Thread starter):
Airlines clearly knew that the B 747-300 has shorter range and the B 747-400 would be available soon. Why did they order it still?

Because it made sense over the 742 for a lot of routes, particularly at that time, and the 744 was still half a decade away, as Frank said. Remember, carriers like KLM even purchased the SUD option for their 742s to increase capacity.

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 1):
They probably didn't need the range.

That is only part of the story really. Since the 744 burns significantly less fuel than the 743, it makes plenty of sense to just use the 744 on routes you would use the 743 on. The main reason was the 6 year difference.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 2):
I've seen QF's 743s here in LAX quite often this summer, doing MEL-LAX routes if I'm not mistaken (which I probably am).

You are only sort of right. They aircraft routes MEL-AKL-LAX. The 743 does not have nearly enough range to do MEL-LAX non-stop.

Quoting Leskova (Reply 7):
(not sure how much more in that regard the -300 had to offer compared to the -200).

The same number as the -400 has over the -200. The -400 and -300 are the same size.

Quoting Swissgabe (Reply 8):

Did QF route via AKL to LAX or which Airline did so?

QF still uses the 743 on that route.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Carpethead
Posts: 2567
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 8:15 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:30 pm

- Clearly in the late 1970s, airlines such as SQ & JL wanted more lift than the 742. Nobody was planning for the 744 back then.
- For additional capacity, KL converted their 742s into 742SUD.
- By the mid-1980s, it was becoming clear the 744 was going to materialize and hence the lack of new orders for the 743.
- Had the 744 not come out sooner, then more 743 sales could have been realized but it was just a matter of time before 767-era technology was incorporated into the 747. And the rest is history....
 
columba
Posts: 5054
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:48 pm

Btw was the 747-300 the last new developed aircraft with a three man cockpit ?
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
FlySSC
Posts: 5192
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 1:38 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:05 pm

Quoting United Airline (Thread starter):
Airlines clearly knew that the B 747-300 has shorter range

They didn't need more range. They needed more capacity.

The B743 was available well before the B744.
The first B743 was delivered to Swissair early 1983.

Quoting Carpethead (Reply 10):
- For additional capacity, KL converted their 742s into 742SUD

UTA did so to in 1989 with F-BTDG and F-BTDH.
Before & After :


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John Kelly
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mika B Virolainen - FAP



Note that F-BTDG was a -Combi, used in a very particular configuration as the Cargo compartment could carry 11 Freight palets, starting at the Doors 3, unlike most of the other -Combi, carrying 7 palets, with a Cargo compatment starting at the Door 4.

You can see on the following pictures that only the 3 first doors are painted in Green, the last 2 beeing in the Cargo section and "neutreulized".


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © JetPix

 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Wed Aug 01, 2007 7:06 pm

Quoting Columba (Reply 11):
Btw was the 747-300 the last new developed aircraft with a three man cockpit ?

Well, it wasn't exactly a new aircraft. It was more a development of the 742. The 744 was the truly new aircraft. Still, it is the last western aircraft I can think of that was introduced with a 3-member cockpit.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
1stfl94
Posts: 1082
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:33 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Wed Aug 01, 2007 7:40 pm

Quoting Carpethead (Reply 10):
Had the 744 not come out sooner, then more 743 sales could have been realized but it was just a matter of time

The 744 partly materialised because of airline disappointment with the 743. It became clear soon after the 743 entered service that more needed to be done to the 747 and in 1985 Boeing announced the all new 747-400
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13808
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Wed Aug 01, 2007 7:55 pm

Quoting 1stfl94 (Reply 14):
The 744 partly materialised because of airline disappointment with the 743. It became clear soon after the 743 entered service that more needed to be done to the 747 and in 1985 Boeing announced the all new 747-400

Bingo. The 743 was underwhelming, and Boeing had to scramble and introduce a real new 747, one with 2 man cockpit, greater range and greater efficiency. But when ordering the 743, airlines had no idea the 744 was going to come along. The premise that airlines knew and ordered the 743 anyway is false.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Wed Aug 01, 2007 7:58 pm

Quoting 1stfl94 (Reply 14):
The 744 partly materialised because of airline disappointment with the 743. It became clear soon after the 743 entered service that more needed to be done to the 747 and in 1985 Boeing announced the all new 747-400

Exactly which airlines were disappointed with the 743? Most 743 operators went on to order 744s later on.....as stated above, the 743 was basically nothing more than a capacity upgrade over the 742 while the 744 project was complete update of the 744 incorporating new technology (developed from the then new 757/767 programs) including the two man cockpit.
 
QF108
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:29 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Wed Aug 01, 2007 8:54 pm

If im not mistaken that QF flight MEL-AKL-LAX is about to or has become an A330, which will leave only SYD/MEL-PER with regular 743 service. VH-EBX was recently damaged in MEL due to brakes failing on a baggage loader. So I think its basically one flight per day with the 743 SYD-PER, MEL-PER.

Mark
Blessed are the Cheesemakers !
 
United Airline
Topic Author
Posts: 8782
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:24 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Wed Aug 01, 2007 11:52 pm

The B 747-300 didn't sell very well.

What about Rome-Bangkok by TG? Wasn't it the longeset B 747-300 flight?

Quoting Swissgabe (Reply 8):
SR routed the HKG via BOM and so it won't be the longest flight at all.

Really?
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 3:09 am

Quoting United Airline (Reply 18):
The B 747-300 didn't sell very well.

Depends upon how you look at it, the B743 gave a boost to the 747 program when airlines were loosing interest in ordering new build 742s; the 743 also was introduced when many carriers worldwide, and especially US carriers, were beginning to take delivery of smaller widebodies such as the 767 and A310 which gave the carriers new options and choices. The 743 offered just enough to revive interest in the 747 Classics; Boeing then went to work on the 744. I always considered the 743 a ""transition"" aircraft.......a step inbetween the 742 and 744. Also consider that some airlines (like SR, SN, KL) ordered 743s to replace early build 741s and 742s......which was a very positive thing for Boeing and the 747 program.

Quoting United Airline (Reply 18):
Really?

Yep, Swissair's 743 flights between ZRH and HKG were routed via India; until the 744 (and other longer range widebodies that followed it) was introduced, most flights between Europe and Asia had to make atleast one stop enroute.....things have changed!

[Edited 2007-08-01 20:11:17]

[Edited 2007-08-01 20:11:40]
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19287
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 3:43 am

Quoting United Airline (Reply 18):
The B 747-300 didn't sell very well.

The 81 747-300s built far exceeded the 45 747SPs, not to mention certain models of more recent Boeing types, e.g. 55 757-300s and 37 767-400s. And apart from 3 -300s bought new by KL, they also converted 10 -200s into -200SUDs which for all practical purposes were identical to factory-built -300s.

The 747-300's extra seating capacity could generate a lot of additional revenue over the -100/-200. I recall SR had 69 economy class seats on the upper deck of their -300s.

[Edited 2007-08-01 20:59:42]
 
OceansWorld
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:00 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 3:45 am

Quoting United Airline (Reply 18):
The B 747-300 didn't sell very well.

Yes, only 81 were delivered, -300 (56), -300SR (4) & -300M (21)

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 19):
Also consider that some airlines (like SR, SN, KL) ordered 743s to replace early build 741s and 742s......which was a very positive thing for Boeing and the 747 program.

Indeed SR replaced its early B742s with B743s and B743Ms, while KL only ordered three -306M (received between 1980 and 1984) as they converted 10 -200B to -200B/M SUD. Of their early birds, six left the fleet between 1989 and 1991 only, so I can't consider their order as a true replacement of older aircraft.
SN was a late comer for the -300. The Belgian airline received its first in 1986 and the second in 1990. And it is only when that second -300M arrived that SN removed from service one of of its two older -100Ms.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 19):
Yep, Swissair's 743 flights between ZRH and HKG were routed via India; until the 744 (and other longer range widebodies that followed it) was introduced, most flights between Europe and Asia had to make atleast one stop enroute.....things have changed!

Not to forget that the Russian air space was closed to western airlines for many years. IIRC, late in the '90s, a SR B743 bound non-stop for NRT or PEK had to turn back because the captain had a cerebral stroke.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17208
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 4:07 am

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 19):
Yep, Swissair's 743 flights between ZRH and HKG were routed via India; until the 744 (and other longer range widebodies that followed it) was introduced, most flights between Europe and Asia had to make atleast one stop enroute.....things have changed!

Indeed. I remember when I was a kid flights to the Far East were always via Dehli, Abu Dhabi or somewhere else. I also remember when I first saw that CX flew HKG-LHR direct. I was like "wow, that's far." Nowadays it's commonplace.

Quoting United Airline (Reply 18):
The B 747-300 didn't sell very well.

Yes and no. Just like other niche types it's not really a type by itself. It was made on the same production line and shares the same wing as the -100/-200. So it's just a variant. You cannot consider the isolated sales number as a sole indicator of success.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
YULWinterSkies
Posts: 1266
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:42 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 4:34 am

What is the actual technical difference among a 742SUD and a 743?
When I doubt... go running!
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:01 am

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 23):
What is the actual technical difference among a 742SUD and a 743?

743 = an aircraft built as a 747-300 with the streched upper deck.

742SUD = an aircraft built as a 747-200 and later modified to add the streched upper deck.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 22):
Yes and no. Just like other niche types it's not really a type by itself. It was made on the same production line and shares the same wing as the -100/-200. So it's just a variant. You cannot consider the isolated sales number as a sole indicator of success

Good point. I agree.
 
ShootTheMoon
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:43 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:03 am

Are the engines on the 742 and 743 the same? I know the 744 has newer, more efficient engines, but what about the 743?
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:11 am

Quoting ShootTheMoon (Reply 25):
Are the engines on the 742 and 743 the same? I know the 744 has newer, more efficient engines, but what about the 743?

The 742s and 743s were equipped with the same generation of engines from the engine manufacturers.

---------------

Didnt NW actually purchase two of SR 747-300s for parts and engines.? NW of course never operated the 743 in revenue service, but the SR 743s had so much in common with the NW 742s that it made sense to use the ex-SR 743s for spare parts, engines, etc. One of those strange stories.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17208
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:18 am

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 24):
Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 23):
What is the actual technical difference among a 742SUD and a 743?

743 = an aircraft built as a 747-300 with the streched upper deck.

742SUD = an aircraft built as a 747-200 and later modified to add the streched upper deck.

Similar to the distinction between new build 747 Freighters designated 747-xxxF and converted freighters designated 747-xxx(BCF) or 747-xxx(SF).

This whole designation madness could lead to such tongue twisters as: "747-206B(SF/SUD)"

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Josef P. Willems




Trivia: did you know the 747-400F has the old short hump?

[Edited 2007-08-01 22:19:49]

[Edited 2007-08-01 22:23:21]
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
OceansWorld
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:00 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:22 am

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 26):
Didnt NW actually purchase two of SR 747-300s for parts and engines.?

Yes, the first two B747-357 of the fleet ex. HB-IGC/D were bought by NW. Their engines were used for the freighter fleet.
 
DIA
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 2:24 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:30 am

Interesting thread about an (almost) overlooked model of the 747.

Somone want to write down a quick list of all the original 743 operators here? I know Varig was one, I don't think I saw them mentioned above.
Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
 
MAS777
Posts: 2757
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 1999 7:40 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:31 am

Quoting FlySSC (Reply 12):
They didn't need more range. They needed more capacity.

But didn't the 743 signal the first LHR-SIN nonstop service for SQ....or was it at the cost of a 'reduced load' (which was negated by the larger capacity the 743 provided) compared to the 742.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:41 am

Quoting Columba (Reply 11):
Btw was the 747-300 the last new developed aircraft with a three man cockpit ?

The last western aircraft perhaps but remember the IL-96 is a three man cockpit and still in production.

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 4):
What about Rome-Bangkok by TG? And SR's ZRH-HKG?

Los Angeles - Auckland is further distance.
Bring back the Concorde
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19287
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:59 am

Quoting DIA (Reply 29):
Somone want to write down a quick list of all the original 743 operators here? I know Varig was one, I don't think I saw them mentioned above.

From Boeing website orders/deliveries data :

Air India
Cathay Pacific
Egyptair
Japan Airlines
Japan Asia Airways (JL subsidiary)
KLM
Korean Air
Malaysian Airlines
Qantas
Sabena
Saudi Arabian Airlines
Saudi Arabian govt. (VIP aircraft)
Singapore Airlines
South African Airways
Swissair
Thai Airways
UTA
Varig

Also 4 delivered to leasing company ILFC. Not sure who operated those.
 
OceansWorld
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:00 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:13 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 32):

Here's your list with the details for each operators.

Air India (2)
Cathay Pacific (6)
Egyptair (2)
Japan Airlines (13)
Japan Asia Airways (JL subsidiary) (1)
KLM (3)
Korean Air (3)
Malaysian Airlines (1)
Qantas (6)
Sabena (2)
Saudi Arabian Airlines (10)
Saudi Arabian govt. (VIP aircraft) (1)
Singapore Airlines (14)
South African Airways (2)
Swissair (5)
Thai Airways (2)
UTA (3)
Varig (5)

UTA B747-3B3 F-GDUA was destroyed by fire at CDG, 03/1985.
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11907
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:00 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 27):

Trivia: did you know the 747-400F has the old short hump?

Indeed. And the -400D has the long hump, but no winglets.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
User avatar
airbuseric
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 1:24 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:14 am

In 1999-2000 JL still operated the 743 nonstop over Russian airspace e.g. NRT-AMS. Quite a distance too!
"The whole world steps aside for the man who knows where he is going"
 
moek2000
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:37 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:18 am

I know SV has a lot of 743's...I used to fly them every 6 months back in the 90's, always had a great experience!

As far as why SV ordered 743's, I would have two guesses:

-They were growing in the 80's and needed immediate jumbo's for hajj flights
-There was a political motive between the Saudi Govt. and U.S. govt (similar to the huge 744, 772, MD11, and MD90 order SV placed in mid 90's).

Quoting United Airline (Reply 3):
What's the longest ever B 747-300 flight?

I regularly flew the JFK-JED route using the 743 in the 90's...6365 miles...And at that time, it was the only route that flew over 4 continents (Asia, Africa, Europe, America)
 
Max Q
Posts: 5695
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:41 am

Well CX flew the -300 on HKG-YVR and HKG-LGW prior to them switching into LHR.

It was not a regular thing as they preferred tp use their -D4 powered -200's but they did it !
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 10:05 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 20):

The 81 747-300s built far exceeded the 45 747SPs

Out of more than 1300 aircraft, both numbers are rather small.

Quoting MAS777 (Reply 30):

But didn't the 743 signal the first LHR-SIN nonstop service for SQ....or was it at the cost of a 'reduced load' (which was negated by the larger capacity the 743 provided) compared to the 742.

The 747-200B should have had plenty of range and payload uplift to run the route.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
YULYMX
Posts: 734
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 10:53 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 10:06 am

Corsair had B743 until last year... and qantas use them as sub on SYD-LAX
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 10:13 am

Quoting YULYMX (Reply 39):
and qantas use them as sub on SYD-LAX

I do not think that is true, except maybe in a dire emergency. They would have to make a non-revenue stop in Honolulu or somewhere else along the way. They would be better suited to take a 744 off the Kangaroo Route and stick the 743 on that.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
YULYMX
Posts: 734
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 10:53 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 10:20 am

 
Avianca
Posts: 5283
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:33 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 10:25 am

Quoting FlySSC (Reply 12):
Note that F-BTDG was a -Combi, used in a very particular configuration as the Cargo compartment could carry 11 Freight palets, starting at the Doors 3, unlike most of the other -Combi, carrying 7 palets, with a Cargo compatment starting at the Door 4.

very intresting! btw do you know on what routes they used these "special" combis..???
Colombia es el Mundo Y el Mundo es Colombia
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5021
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 10:30 am

From what I've read Boeing was quite reluctant to develop the 744, preferring to rest on their laurels. It was pressure from the airlines, who could see that it could be substantially improved that caused them to do it. Clearly the Boeing malaise that was so evident in the 90's had its start in the 80's; Boeing wanted to take a break after the 757-767 program. So the idea that the airlines knew the 744 was coming when they ordered the 743 I believe is false; it could well be that some of the 743 purchasers were among those who pressured Boeing. More likely, it was airlines that refused to buy the 743 (NW?) that told Boeing that they needed to do better.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
malaysia
Posts: 2616
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 1999 3:26 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 11:40 am

Quoting Moek2000 (Reply 36):
I regularly flew the JFK-JED route using the 743 in the 90's...6365 miles...And at that time, it was the only route that flew over 4 continents (Asia, Africa, Europe, America)

I was a bit too late, I ended up only flying the 743 only between JED-BKK and RUH-BKK and a 744 between RUH-JED-JFK and IAD-JFK-JED and Cockpit jumpseat on the 744 unfortunately for a full flight segment, but I only had chance to stay in cockpit during midflight on a 743.
There Are Those Who Believe That There May Yet Be Other Airlines Who Even Now Fight To Survive Beyond The Heavens
 
Leskova
Posts: 5547
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:39 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 3:05 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 9):
Quoting Leskova (Reply 7):
(not sure how much more in that regard the -300 had to offer compared to the -200).


The same number as the -400 has over the -200. The -400 and -300 are the same size.

I was thinking more in terms of technology - I'm aware that they're the same size.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 13):
Quoting Columba (Reply 11):
Btw was the 747-300 the last new developed aircraft with a three man cockpit ?

Well, it wasn't exactly a new aircraft. It was more a development of the 742. The 744 was the truly new aircraft. Still, it is the last western aircraft I can think of that was introduced with a 3-member cockpit.

While it wasn't introduced with it, the B767 was available with a three-member cockpit as well, though, if I recall correctly, only Ansett ever took that option.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 27):
Trivia: did you know the 747-400F has the old short hump?

Yup - no use for the extra space, but much use for the reduction in weight by not having it...  Wink
Smile - it confuses people!
 
Carpethead
Posts: 2567
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 8:15 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 4:28 pm

Quoting FlySSC (Reply 12):

Thanks. I was using KL just as an example.
Other than UTA & KLM, did other operators convert an existing 742 into an 742SUD?
JL had the 741SUD but that aircraft actually was delivered new to JL.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:16 pm

Quoting Leskova (Reply 45):

I was thinking more in terms of technology

Ah. In that case, not much if anything.

Quoting Leskova (Reply 45):

While it wasn't introduced with it, the B767 was available with a three-member cockpit as well, though, if I recall correctly, only Ansett ever took that option.

Yes, there were those, but the aircraft had to actually be altered by Boeing to provide the option. It was designed as a 2 crew aircraft.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
User avatar
airbuseric
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 1:24 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:22 pm

Quoting Leskova (Reply 45):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 27):
Trivia: did you know the 747-400F has the old short hump?

Yup - no use for the extra space, but much use for the reduction in weight by not having it...

Basically yes, but more because you can uplift 4 Q7 sized pallets (instead of Q6 size). That's a main issue for the operators.
"The whole world steps aside for the man who knows where he is going"
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:30 pm

Quoting Airbuseric (Reply 48):

Basically yes, but more because you can uplift 4 Q7 sized pallets (instead of Q6 size). That's a main issue for the operators.

How does the SUD make a difference there?
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos