olddominion727
Topic Author
Posts: 420
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:16 pm

United Vs DC9's

Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:44 am

I know UA has been very happy with Boeing over the years, but they've always been a huge MD operator as well. What where the lagistics of going with the 727's & 737's over DC9-MD80-MD90 family?
 
sparky35805
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:27 pm

RE: United Vs DC9's

Sun Jan 08, 2012 9:21 pm

United from the start favored 6 across seating on their jets.That is why they waited on the DC-8 over the 707 as it was proposed at the time that they ordered jets.Same with the 737 over the DC-9.The DC9-10 was too small and when Boeing decided to build the 737-200 United decided to wait on it over the DC9-30 due to cabin width.The Caravelle was the one exception as it was the only small jet availible for 1961 delivery,three years before the first 727s.They were operated in all first class while with United.
 
User avatar
drerx7
Posts: 4223
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:19 am

RE: United Vs DC9's

Sun Jan 08, 2012 9:37 pm

Besides didn't Boeing start United? Even though they opted for the DC8 over the 707.
Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
 
User avatar
American 767
Posts: 3929
Joined: Wed May 19, 1999 7:27 am

RE: United Vs DC9's

Sun Jan 08, 2012 10:32 pm

Quoting sparky35805 (Reply 1):
United from the start favored 6 across seating on their jets.That is why they waited on the DC-8 over the 707 as it was proposed at the time that they ordered jets

Doesn't the 707 also have a 3-3 across seating? The 707 and the DC-8 both have that config in Y Class.
I believe that United also flew the Boeing 720, although a rather small fleet.

Quoting drerx7 (Reply 2):
Besides didn't Boeing start United?

I believe they did. They started United in 1931 and it was at the request of United that Boeing built the 247, the then rival of the Douglas DC-3. But it turned out that only United flew the 247. 60 Boeing 247s were built. Since then, Boeing, United and Pratt & Whitney started working together, from the 247 to the 777 (not sure if their 787s will be PW powered).

United bought the DC-10 in the early 70s when it was all new because they needed a wide body for their major trunk routes in their system. I think that the reason they helped Md Donnell Douglas launch the DC-10, it was co launched by United and American, was Boeing didn't have an airplane available then for hi capacity domestic routes. It was only 10 years after that the 767 came out. Although it was American who was the first airline to commit to the DC-10, United helped a lot because if it wasn't for United, the DC-10 would have never existed. The project would have gone nowhere beyond the drawing board.

If airliners.net existed then, there would have been a lot of B vs D war.

Ben Soriano
Ben Soriano
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 2575
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

RE: United Vs DC9's

Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:06 am

Quoting American 767 (Reply 3):
Doesn't the 707 also have a 3-3 across seating? The 707 and the DC-8 both have that config in Y Class.

Boeing's original design used the same fuselage width as the KC-135, which would have only allowed for 5 abreast. In order to compete with the DC-8 design, Boeing widened the fuselage to accommodate 6 abreast. No 707s were actually produced with the narrower width - and that's one of the reasons the KC-135 isn't simply a "military 707", it has a completely different fuselage design.
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19046
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: United Vs DC9's

Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:52 am

Quoting American 767 (Reply 3):
Quoting sparky35805 (Reply 1):
United from the start favored 6 across seating on their jets.That is why they waited on the DC-8 over the 707 as it was proposed at the time that they ordered jets

Doesn't the 707 also have a 3-3 across seating? The 707 and the DC-8 both have that config in Y Class.
I believe that United also flew the Boeing 720, although a rather small fleet.

For that period, UA's order for 29 720s was a fairly significant number. UA was the largest original customer for the 154 720s and 720Bs built, followed by Western Airlines with 27 and AA with 25.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: United Vs DC9's

Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:09 am

I would say that United had a stronger relationship with Pratt & Whitney than they did with either Boeing or Airbus. At the beginning of the jet age, United partnered with Douglas in developing the DC-8 and being a big customer. However they also purchased Boeing products in the 707. The 727 was mainstay of every US airline along with the popular 757 and 767. United chose the 737 over the DC9, which continued until the they switched over to the A320 due to its range and performance numbers.

Nowadays, United doesn't really have allegiance to any supplier. They'll chase the best deal and model that complements their fleet the best.

Quoting sparky35805 (Reply 1):
United from the start favored 6 across seating on their jets

Was that really that big of a factor? That seems a bit odd to me. Cabin width might be heavily talked about in marketing, but isn't that big of a factor in deciding which manufacturer and model to choose.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19046
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: United Vs DC9's

Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:55 am

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 6):
Quoting sparky35805 (Reply 1):
United from the start favored 6 across seating on their jets

Was that really that big of a factor? That seems a bit odd to me. Cabin width might be heavily talked about in marketing, but isn't that big of a factor in deciding which manufacturer and model to choose.

I disagree. It's been widely reported that the 5 vs 6-abreast issue was by far the major reason why UA ordered the DC-8 originally, which forced Boeing to redesign the 707.

Many observers also think the Convair 880 and 990 would have been more successful had they been designed for 6-abresat seating.
 
dtw9
Posts: 895
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:09 am

RE: United Vs DC9's

Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:35 am

In the fall of 1957 Uniteds BOD gave the go ahead for the purchase for up to 30 CV-880's. Boeing, upon hearing of this, quickly reduced the size and capacity of the B720 to more closely fit Uniteds needs and also undercut Convairs pricing by $200,000 per aircraft to secure Uniteds order. It worked. United ordered 11 720's with options on 18 more. At the last minute Convair even offered United CV-880's with JT3C's, but to no avail.As to the DC-9, Uniteds engineering staff recommended a purchase of DC-9's over the 737, however when it came time to order, the 737 was purchased to keep commonality of spares with the 727 (which more were ordered at the same time)and because the 737 had a wider fuselage.The only problem United had with this order was that the Pilots union hadn't agreed to fly the 737 with a two man crew yet.
 
sparky35805
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:27 pm

RE: United Vs DC9's

Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:26 am

Boeing decided to make the 707 fuselage wider after losing orders to Pan Am and United.Pan Am only ordered 20 707s for early delivery and DC-8s were the be the backbone of their jet fleet.When Boeing thought that American would buy DC8s they decided to produce the wider fuselage for the 120 and the 320 with a longer fuselage and new wing wuth JT4s for Pan Am.
United was part of United Aircraft and Airlines untill 1934.This included Boeing,United Airlines,Pratt&Whitney,and Hamilton Standard.
 
cargolex
Posts: 1201
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:20 pm

RE: United Vs DC9's

Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:44 am

Quoting American 767 (Reply 3):
They started United in 1931 and it was at the request of United that Boeing built the 247, the then rival of the Douglas DC-3.

The 247 predates the DC-2/DC-3 and the prototype-only DC-1. The 247's aerodynamics were tested in the Caltech labs, labs which Douglas also had access to. This situation led directly to Boeing creating it's own wind tunnel. But while Boeing's approach with that plane was a bit insular, Douglas used the DC-1 as a laboratory for the DC-2 much the way Boeing would use the Dash 80 20 years later as a laboratory for the 707. Douglas' end product, created through more testing and wider input (after troubling tests at Caltech, they revised the wing in testing in a government facility at Langley in Virginia), was better.

The 247 was designed for United, and it was designed mainly internally at Boeing. It was downsized slightly after the initial review by United and locked into that configuration, and Boeing's team spurned certain innovations Douglas developed on the DC-1, like the flaps. The result was a situation similar to what happened with the Hawker Siddeley Trident - designed to requirements for a specific customer that made it less competitive for almost everybody else.

Quoting American 767 (Reply 3):
Doesn't the 707 also have a 3-3 across seating?

Initially, it did not, but having the same cross section as the 727 and 757, many 707's quickly went to 3-3. More importantly, when United placed an order for DC-8s, Boeing decided it didn't want to replay the 247 vs. DC-2, and widened the 707 at considerable expense. United had also only seen mock-ups of the 707 wherein the original plan for a heating system in the floor had raised the deck somewhat, making it seem even smaller.

As for the DC-9 vs. 727, United was a launch customer for the 727-100, and it was ready before the DC-9 - the initial versions of which were very small. There wasn't any reason for United to buy the DC-9 at that time, and eventually with a mixture of 727-100, 737-200, and 727-200, they could match all the points of the DC-9 and have better fleet commonality.
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: United Vs DC9's

Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:47 am

Quoting sparky35805 (Reply 9):
United was part of United Aircraft and Airlines untill 1934.This included Boeing,United Airlines,Pratt&Whitney,and Hamilton Standard.

IIRC, they were ordered by the gov't to split the businesses up.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
NWAROOSTER
Posts: 1031
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:29 pm

RE: United Vs DC9's

Mon Jan 09, 2012 6:21 pm

Quoting mayor (Reply 11):

Quoting sparky35805 (Reply 9):
United was part of United Aircraft and Airlines untill 1934.This included Boeing,United Airlines,Pratt&Whitney,and Hamilton Standard.

IIRC, they were ordered by the gov't to split the businesses up.

   You are correct.....   
Procrastination Is The Theft Of Time.......
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: United Vs DC9's

Mon Jan 09, 2012 6:42 pm

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 12):
Quoting mayor (Reply 11):

Quoting sparky35805 (Reply 9):
United was part of United Aircraft and Airlines untill 1934.This included Boeing,United Airlines,Pratt&Whitney,and Hamilton Standard.

IIRC, they were ordered by the gov't to split the businesses up.

You are correct.....

Thanks. I think it had something to do with the scandal, at the time, with the postmaster general and the mail routes.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
User avatar
tjwgrr
Posts: 2010
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2000 4:09 am

RE: United Vs DC9's

Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:20 pm

Had they ordered the DC9:

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/photos/big/00009646.jpg

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/photos/big/00009668.jpg

[Edited 2012-01-09 11:26:05]
Direct KNOBS, maintain 2700' until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26 left approach.
 
nomadic
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 1:56 am

RE: United Vs DC9's

Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:54 pm

Quoting Cargolex (Reply 10):
The 247 was designed for United, and it was designed mainly internally at Boeing. It was downsized slightly after the initial review by United and locked into that configuration, and Boeing's team spurned certain innovations Douglas developed on the DC-1, like the flaps. The result was a situation similar to what happened with the Hawker Siddeley Trident - designed to requirements for a specific customer that made it less competitive for almost everybody else.

IIRC TWA wanted to order the 247 but Boeing told them the first 40 aircraft were for United. Jack Frye, TWA president did not want to wait until aircraft were available and thus sent his famous letter to Donald Douglas giving rise to the DC-1, & DC-2.
 
flflyer
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 2:29 am

RE: United Vs DC9's

Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:31 pm

Loved the Caravelle!
 
The777Man
Posts: 5923
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 1999 4:54 am

RE: United Vs DC9's

Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:56 am

Quoting mayor (Reply 13):
Thanks. I think it had something to do with the scandal, at the time, with the postmaster general and the mail routes.

That's correct. UA had a market share over 70 % of us passenger traffic in the USA at the time of the split........

The777Man
Boeing 777s flown: UA, TG, KE, BA, CX, NH, JD, JL, CZ, SQ, EK, NG, CO, AF, SV, KU, DL, AA, MH, OZ, CA, MS, SU, LY, RG, PE, AZ, KL, VN, PK, EY, NZ, AM, BR, AC, DT, UU, OS, AI, 9W, KQ, QR, VA, JJ, ET, TK, PR, BG, T5, CI, MU and LX.. Further to fly.. LH 777
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19046
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: United Vs DC9's

Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:54 am

Quoting Cargolex (Reply 10):
Quoting American 767 (Reply 3):
Doesn't the 707 also have a 3-3 across seating?

Initially, it did not, but having the same cross section as the 727 and 757, many 707's quickly went to 3-3.

Not correct. What early 707s were not 3-3 when first delivered? I can't think of any. Pan Am's early 707s, the first in service, were certainly 3-3, as were all other early 707 operators. If any 707s were factory-delivered with 5-abreast seating in economy class I would be interested to know which ones.
 
warden145
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:36 am

RE: United Vs DC9's

Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:09 am

Quoting nomadic (Reply 15):
IIRC TWA wanted to order the 247 but Boeing told them the first 40 aircraft were for United. Jack Frye, TWA president did not want to wait until aircraft were available and thus sent his famous letter to Donald Douglas giving rise to the DC-1, & DC-2.

FWIW Howard Hughes' Airline (Robert Serling, 1983) describes exactly that, on pages 30-31. At the risk of going off-topic, it's worth noting that TWA (and, more specifically, Charles Lindbergh) actually asked for a trimotor, but Douglas decided that a twin-engine would be better and had to convince TWA (and Lindbergh) that it was doable and safe.

[Edited 2012-01-09 18:17:35]
ETOPS = Engine Turns Off, Passengers Swim
 
sparky35805
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:27 pm

RE: United Vs DC9's

Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:06 am

The 707s that Pan Am originally ordered were the same width as the KC135 and would have had 5 across in coach.However,the fuselage was made wide enough to accomadate 6 across,to save Americans order.This was the 707 that went into service.
 
milesrich
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 2:46 am

RE: United Vs DC9's

Wed Jan 11, 2012 2:58 am

Quoting American 767 (Reply 3):
Quoting drerx7 (Reply 2):
Besides didn't Boeing start United?

I believe they did. They started United in 1931 and it was at the request of United that Boeing built the 247, the then rival of the Douglas DC-3. But it turned out that only United flew the 247. 60 Boeing 247s were built. Since then, Boeing, United and Pratt & Whitney started working together, from the 247 to the 777 (not sure if their 787s will be PW powered).
Quoting sparky35805 (Reply 9):
United was part of United Aircraft and Airlines untill 1934.This included Boeing,United Airlines,Pratt&Whitney,and Hamilton Standard.

United Air Lines was a merger of four airlines: National Air Transport (NAT) that operated the original part of United's Route 1 from Chicago east via Toledo, Cleveland to New York; and a route from Chicago to Dallas via Moline, Kansas City, and other points. United forfeited this route in the airmail scandals of the early 30's, but kept Moline and added it to what was Route 1; Boeing Air Transport (BAT) that flew from Chicago west to San Francisco via Iowa City, Des Moines, Omaha, Lincoln, Grand Island, North Platte, Cheyenne, Rock Springs, Salt Lake City, Elko, Reno, Sacramento and Oakland; Pacific Air Transport that flew from San Diego to Seattle via Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland and Intermediate points, and Varney Air Lines that operated from Salt Lake City to Seattle via Boise, Portland, and Pasco. In 1934, the four merged to form UAL. Boeing with P&W formed United Aircraft and Transport Corporation in 1929. Previously, Boeing had purchased Pacific Air Transport.

Quoting Cargolex (Reply 10):
As for the DC-9 vs. 727, United was a launch customer for the 727-100, and it was ready before the DC-9 - the initial versions of which were very small. There wasn't any reason for United to buy the DC-9 at that time, and eventually with a mixture of 727-100, 737-200, and 727-200, they could match all the points of the DC-9 and have better fleet commonality.

United did NOT choose the 727 instead of the DC-9. They ordered the 727 in late 1960. As was written, many at the company wanted to order the DC-9, because waiting for the 737 would cost them two years in the replacement of the DC-6, Convair, and Viscount with jet aircraft, but UAL went with the 737 because it supposedly shared 40% or more of its parts with the 727, and they had an article introducing the 737 in Mainliner Magazine that said so.

You must remember that Delta introduced the DC-9-14 in December of 1965, and the 737 didn't go into service until 29 months later at the end of April of 1968. During 1966 and 1967, TWA was flying DC-9's, and American had BAC-111's and Electras, and UAL had DC-6's, DC-6B's, and Viscounts, and believe me, while the Viscount was a nice airplane, it was no match for the Electra.

As far as the DC-9 being too small, yes it turned out to be but it held as many or more people as a DC-6.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 18):
Not correct. What early 707s were not 3-3 when first delivered? I can't think of any. Pan Am's early 707s, the first in service, were certainly 3-3, as were all other early 707 operators. If any 707s were factory-delivered with 5-abreast seating in economy class I would be interested to know which ones.

As Viscount knows, Boeing agreed to widen the fuselage to seat six across after losing United's order to Douglas and Pan Am ordered more DC-8's than 707's, when C.R. Smith told them if they widened it to one inch more than the DC-8, he would order the airplane but if they didn't, he was going with the DC-8.

Quoting sparky35805 (Reply 20):
The 707s that Pan Am originally ordered were the same width as the KC135 and would have had 5 across in coach.However,the fuselage was made wide enough to accommodate 6 across,to save American's order.This was the 707 that went into service.

That is exactly correct.
 
N62NA
Posts: 4010
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

RE: United Vs DC9's

Wed Jan 11, 2012 3:08 am

Quoting tjwgrr (Reply 14):
Had they ordered the DC9:

I love both those old liveries - would have been great if they had operated DC9s.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19046
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: United Vs DC9's

Wed Jan 11, 2012 3:15 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 18):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 18):
Not correct. What early 707s were not 3-3 when first delivered? I can't think of any. Pan Am's early 707s, the first in service, were certainly 3-3, as were all other early 707 operators. If any 707s were factory-delivered with 5-abreast seating in economy class I would be interested to know which ones.

As Viscount knows, Boeing agreed to widen the fuselage to seat six across after losing United's order to Douglas and Pan Am ordered more DC-8's than 707's, when C.R. Smith told them if they widened it to one inch more than the DC-8, he would order the airplane but if they didn't, he was going with the DC-8.

Yes, all of that was discussed earlier. I was replying to a post that implied that some 707s actually went into service initially with 5-abreast seating and were later changed to 6-abreast. I'm quite sure that wasn't the case.
 
NWAROOSTER
Posts: 1031
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:29 pm

RE: United Vs DC9's

Wed Jan 11, 2012 3:29 am

The Boeing 720 was a KC-135/717 variate. It was built and flown as five abreast seating in coach. Some people may confuse this model with the later build 707s which were all built with six abreast seating inncoach and a wider fuselage.
Almost all 707s Boeing built were the wider 320 version and not the original 720 version.   
Procrastination Is The Theft Of Time.......
 
cargolex
Posts: 1201
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:20 pm

RE: United Vs DC9's

Wed Jan 11, 2012 3:51 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 23):
I'm quite sure that wasn't the case.

And you'd be right. I stand corrected.
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3174
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: United Vs DC9's

Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:49 am

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 24):
The Boeing 720 was a KC-135/717 variate. It was built and flown as five abreast seating in coach. Some people may confuse this model with the later build 707s which were all built with six abreast seating inncoach and a wider fuselage.
Almost all 707s Boeing built were the wider 320 version and not the original 720 version.

That is most certainly incorrect. The 720 was the same width as the 707, but 5 frames shorter than the -120 variant.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
User avatar
zippyjet
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2001 3:32 pm

RE: United Vs DC9's

Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:38 am

UA was the launch customer for the 737. They had the DC-8's both Palomar and stretch versions, 720, and 727. And then it was 1968 and the 737's debut. Just my spin on this.
I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19046
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: United Vs DC9's

Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:53 am

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 27):
UA was the launch customer for the 737.

LH was the launch customer for the 737, not UA. LH's order for the 731 was almost 2 months before UA's first order for the 732. LH also took delivery of their first 731 one day before UA took delivery of their first 732.

Following excerpt from Boeing website summary of 737 background:

The Boeing 737 program launched February 1965 as a short-range airplane to complement the larger 707 and 727 jetliners. The initial customer for the 737-100 was Lufthansa, the German national airline, which ordered 22 airplanes. This was the first time that a Boeing airplane was sold to a foreign airline before it was ordered by an American customer.
 
sparky35805
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:27 pm

RE: United Vs DC9's

Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:02 am

All 707/720s were the same width.United did operate their 720 with 5 acroos coach for a time in the mid 60s.United was the launch customer for the 737-200.
 
milesrich
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 2:46 am

RE: United Vs DC9's

Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:17 pm

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 24):
The Boeing 720 was a KC-135/717 variate. It was built and flown as five abreast seating in coach. Some people may confuse this model with the later build 707s which were all built with six abreast seating inncoach and a wider fuselage.
Almost all 707s Boeing built were the wider 320 version and not the original 720 version.

Where did this come from? As someone else wrote, the 720 fuselage was the same width as the 707, just shorter NW did fly some of their 720's with business class type wider seats in a 2-3 configuration according to what some have written on this board, but I never personally witnessed this, and I flew in NW 720-051B's many times over the years, 1964-1970, and each and every one was 3-3 in coach. In about 1962, Continental introduced three class service on their 720-024B's with First in 2-2, Coach in 2-3, and Economy in 3-3 service (there were no meals in economy). In 1963, United introduced a premium service, called One Class, S Class, on some of their 720-022's, with 2-3 seating, free liquor, and upgraded meals. In fact, in a losing effort, UA actually tried to convince passengers nationwide to try this service, and even converted some DC-8's before abandoning the effort, but some 720's kept their F-Y configuration for use on the competitive ORD-DEN-LAX route with CO. Then UA tried F-L-Y, with 2-3 Seating, like Continental, with L being Standard Class, offering the same service as the former S class with free liquor and upgraded meals. On the ORD-DEN-LAX routes, these flights were sold as F-Y-K, just like Continental. By 1968, the three class experiment at UA was over with, and all 720-022's were configured with Y as 3-3. EA's 720-025's were always configured as 3-3 in coach as were PNA's 720-062's, BN's 720-027's, AA 720-023's and 023B's, WA's 720-024B's. I never flew on 720's with LH or Aer Lingus, or El Al, so I can't tell you how they were configured from personal experience, but from everything I have ever read, they had standard 3-3 coach cabins, just like the 707. Braniff scheduled their 707-227's and 720-027's together, the only interior difference being that the 707 had a first class lounge. And American even called their 720's, "707" with the airplanes carrying 707 titles. Only in the OAG, can one tell whether the flight was scheduled as a 707 or 720.

Boeing never built one 707/720 production airliner for sale on the narrower KC-135 platform. In fact, it was the inability of the Convair 880/990 to seat six across in coach that first led to its lack of orders.

And just to add it again, the 720 WAS A 707, THE 707-020, and it was called the 720 because United Air Lines wanted it renamed, because they wanted a higher number than 707, and also did not want to use the 707 moniker, because they had purchased DC-8's, waiting longer for deliveries and allowing AA and TW to beat them with jet service in the Trans Con wars, because United claimed the DC-8 was going to be a superior product. The 720 had a lighter structure than the 707, and the 720 was actually longer than the Qantas 707-138, but it was exactly the same width.
 
mcg
Posts: 746
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 11:49 am

RE: United Vs DC9's

Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:16 pm

Quoting flflyer (Reply 16):
Loved the Caravelle!

In the 60's my dad flew ORD-LGA quite often. UA actually had Caravelle operated flights that were sold to male passengers only. On the evening return flight to ORD the passengers were served whisky and cigars to smoke. How times have changed!
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3174
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: United Vs DC9's

Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:56 pm

Quoting milesrich (Reply 30):
Where did this come from? As someone else wrote, the 720 fuselage was the same width as the 707, just shorter NW did fly some of their 720's with business class type wider seats in a 2-3 configuration according to what some have written on this board, but I never personally witnessed this, and I flew in NW 720-051B's many times over the years, 1964-1970, and each and every one was 3-3 in coach.

Someone posted a 737 sales brochure on this site a few weeks back. In it, Boeing initially offered 3-3 seating, with an option for wider seats in a 3-2 configuration. I don't think anyone actually used it.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19046
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: United Vs DC9's

Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:36 pm

Quoting milesrich (Reply 30):
The 720 had a lighter structure than the 707, and the 720 was actually longer than the Qantas 707-138, but it was exactly the same width.

720 also had a different wing profile than the original turbojet 707-120 which reduced drag and permitted slightly faster speeds. The -120B with JT3B turbofans adopted the 720's wing "glove" and it was also applied as part of the conversion process to those turbojet -120s that were later converted to -120Bs.

Who is online