Boeing 727 Launch

baileyncreme · Tue Jan 29, 2013 6:51 pm

Greetings from N. Scottsdale!

I've had a fondness for the 727 aircraft and have recently wondered about what type of teething issues this model experienced during its design, roll out and deliveries.

The 787 has had it's share of news, but what occurred with the 727..??

Anybody have any knowledge or history to share with the group?

longhauler · Tue Jan 29, 2013 7:18 pm

What always amazed me is that the time from its first flight (February 9, 1963), to its first airline delivery (October 29, 1963) to its first entry in airline service (February 1, 1964) was less than a year!

The only major "quirk" I recall, (reading about, as I was very young at the time), were the B727 "sink rate" accidents shortly after its introduction. Not a fault of the aircraft, but as the vast majority of the pilots had never flown a jet, they were not used to the spool up time of a jet engine vice a prop engine.

When configured to a high drag/low speed condition, if the thrust was brought back to idle, the consequences could be and were fatal.

slcguy · Tue Jan 29, 2013 7:34 pm

Greetings!

I too am a 727 fan. The 727 aircraft itself had very few teething problems, but an issue arose after entry into service that in todays media/online age might have doomed it. There were 3 or 4 major crashes in the first year of service, all in approach/landing phase of flight. Unlike the other jets of the time which behaved a lot like the prop planes they replaced only faster, the 727 had a very large advanced LED/flap system to allow operations out of short to medium length runways. The downside to these devices was the large amount of drag they created. Pilots not used to this, especiallly ones transitioning from props would get too slow and steep on approach with the engines spooled down near idle. Since jet engines don't respond as quick to throttle commands as props, several aircraft were not able to arrest the high descent rate and crashed short of the runways. I believe these crashes were at CVG , ORD, SLC, and one in Japan. Once the problem was realized, pilot training for the type was improved and a few airlines even restricted max landing flaps to 30 degrees. This resolved the problem and 727 went on to be a very popular aircraft and the backbone of the airline industry in the 70's and 80's.

[Edited 2013-01-29 11:48:44]

tdscanuck · Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:15 pm

Quoting baileyncreme (Thread starter):
I've had a fondness for the 727 aircraft and have recently wondered about what type of teething issues this model experienced during its design, roll out and deliveries.

There were 5 AD's in the first year (Fuel Tank Access Panels, Flight Spoiler Actuators, Thrust Reverers, Cove Light Systems, and the Autopilot) and more than 30 in the first five years.

First year had 323 Service Bulletins.

By comparison, the 787 had 3 AD's in the first year and no Service Bulletins.

Tom.

SpaceshipDC10 · Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:30 pm

Another fan of the 727 here.

Quoting SLCGuy (Reply 2):
Since jet engines don't respond as quick to throttle commands as props, several aircraft were not able to arrest the high descent rate and crashed short of the runways. I believe these crashes were at CVG , ORD, SLC, and one in Japan.

They happened in just six months:

on approach to ORD; on approach to CVG; at SLC and on approach to HND.

tb727 · Tue Jan 29, 2013 10:11 pm

Quoting longhauler (Reply 1):
The only major "quirk" I recall, (reading about, as I was very young at the time), were the B727 "sink rate" accidents shortly after its introduction. Not a fault of the aircraft, but as the vast majority of the pilots had never flown a jet, they were not used to the spool up time of a jet engine vice a prop engine.

Quoting SLCGuy (Reply 2):
The 727 aircraft itself had very few teething problems, but an issue arose after entry into service that in todays media/online age might have doomed it.

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 4):
They happened in just six months:

on approach to ORD; on approach to CVG; at SLC and on approach to HND.

You know it's funny, I have been thinking these exact same things the last few weeks with all that has been going on. My poor 3-holer would have never made it out of the 60's if these things happened in todays world and I would have never had a dream to live!

Tan Flyr · Tue Jan 29, 2013 10:37 pm

Quoting longhauler (Reply 1):
The only major "quirk" I recall, (reading about, as I was very young at the time), were the B727 "sink rate" accidents shortly after its introduction. Not a fault of the aircraft, but as the vast majority of the pilots had never flown a jet, they were not used to the spool up time of a jet engine vice a prop engine.

When configured to a high drag/low speed condition, if the thrust was brought back to idle, the consequences could be and were fatal.

Just going by my memory, but wasn't there 2 at CVG, one AA and one TWA?

tb727 · Tue Jan 29, 2013 10:42 pm

Quoting Tan Flyr (Reply 6):
Just going by my memory, but wasn't there 2 at CVG, one AA and one TWA?

You might be thinking of the TWA Convair 880 that crashed there about 2 years later while on approach. TWA flight 128.

Viscount724 · Tue Jan 29, 2013 10:47 pm

Quoting longhauler (Reply 1):
What always amazed me is that the time from its first flight (February 9, 1963), to its first airline delivery (October 29, 1963) to its first entry in airline service (February 1, 1964) was less than a year!

That was also the case for the 737, DC-9 and even the 747. The DC-9 probably holds the record with the first dellivery slightly less than 7 months after the first flight, and entry into service with DL only 9.5 months after the first flight.

longhauler · Tue Jan 29, 2013 10:53 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 8):
That was also the case for the 737, DC-9 and even the 747. The DC-9 probably holds the record with the first delivery slightly less than 7 months after the first flight, and entry into service with DL only 9.5 months after the first flight.

Yes, I always thought that was amazing, compared to today's Introduction to Service times ... then Tom quotes this ...

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 3):
There were 5 AD's in the first year (Fuel Tank Access Panels, Flight Spoiler Actuators, Thrust Reverers, Cove Light Systems, and the Autopilot) and more than 30 in the first five years.

First year had 323 Service Bulletins.

By comparison, the 787 had 3 AD's in the first year and no Service Bulletins.

Tom.

It is hard to tell which is better, or safer, as everything always seems to develop into a safe airliner, as I am certain will the B787.

Type-Rated · Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:04 pm

The ones at SLC & ORD were both UA, I believe the CVG was an AA plane.

As noted above some pilots transitioning from props had a hard time dealing with the "slickness" of jets. They didn't slow down as fast as the prop planes did and you really have to keep your mind more ahead of the aircraft then you had to with props. The NYC collision between the UA DC8 & TW Constellation cited this as one of the causes. The DC8 simply got ahead of the pilot.

[Edited 2013-01-29 15:07:32]

longhauler · Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:07 pm

Quoting type-rated (Reply 10):
The ones at SLC & ORD were both UA, I believe the CVG was an AA plane.

Yes, I don't think the ORD one was a "sink rate" accident, as it was still 30 miles from the airport, and not likely in a high drag/low speed condition. When reading the report, that one is a very curious accident!

SpaceshipDC10 · Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:24 pm

Quoting longhauler (Reply 11):
Yes, I don't think the ORD one was a "sink rate" accident, as it was still 30 miles from the airport, and not likely in a high drag/low speed condition. When reading the report, that one is a very curious accident!

The flight was cleared to descend from 16,000 ft to 6,000ft, but continued downward until impact.

Quoting type-rated (Reply 10):
I believe the CVG was an AA plane.

From what I can read in a book I have, pilots were totally unaware of their dangerously low altitude, and the crash site was 225ft below the airport elevation.

longhauler · Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:30 pm

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 12):
The flight was cleared to descend from 16,000 ft to 6,000ft, but continued downward until impact.

Yes, but the "sink rate" accidents (and incidents) were all characterized by having full flaps, speed near Vapp, then bringing thrust back to idle. The slow spool up rate of the jet engines compared to a prop, would put them in a dangerous situation as they would also likely be near the ground, to be in such a configuration.

Being 30 miles from the field, in a clean configuration and descending to 6000', they would have had room to correct the error of not anticipating the slow spool up rate of the engines. While no probable cause was named, I understand that some confusion with the type of altimeter was likely the cause. Something that had happened in the past.

SpaceshipDC10 · Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:47 pm

Indeed, that case probably wasn't a 'sink rate' accident. It's too bad the FDR wasn't retrieved.

s5daw · Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:07 am

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 12):
The flight was cleared to descend from 16,000 ft to 6,000ft, but continued downward until impact.

Wikipedia has an article on that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_389

One theory was misread 3p altimeter ...

7BOEING7 · Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:08 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 8):
That was also the case for the 737, DC-9 and even the 747. The DC-9 probably holds the record with the first dellivery slightly less than 7 months after the first flight, and entry into service with DL only 9.5 months after the first flight.

Don't forget the 777 -- just under a year.

N243NW · Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:16 am

You might enjoy this - not so much in-service problems, but an interesting overview of the flight test program...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IY-jkT_sMw

connies4ever · Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:28 am

Quoting longhauler (Reply 1):
The only major "quirk" I recall, (reading about, as I was very young at the time), were the B727 "sink rate" accidents shortly after its introduction. Not a fault of the aircraft, but as the vast majority of the pilots had never flown a jet, they were not used to the spool up time of a jet engine vice a prop engine.

When configured to a high drag/low speed condition, if the thrust was brought back to idle, the consequences could be and were fatal.

A point made very clear in Robert Serling's aviation book "Loud and Clear". A lot of the older prop guys had a hard time with the transition. IIRC Serling devoted a whole chapter to the rash of 727 accidents shortly after service entry. Probably the best airline safety book ever written. Brother of Rod ("Twilight Zone") Serling, b.t.w.

802flyguy · Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:30 am

The accidents early in the 727 days are discussed in detail in two books from the 1960s on air safety: Robert Serling's "Loud and Clear" and Capt Vernon Lowell's (somewhat more sensationalist) "Airline Safety is a Myth". (Both available used on Amazon). Previous posters have described the basic issue: crews (who earned their wings on slower props) getting behind the airplane. While Serling's book is the better of the two, the latter is well worth a read.

[Edited 2013-01-29 19:31:15]

zippyjet · Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:43 am

Though not a fault of the aircraft type and well after the 727 proved itself as a workhorse, the hijack craze took hold on many 727's culminating in the DB Cooper hijacking where he bailed out through the rear aft floor mounted retractible airstairs. Shortly after DB Cooper and his antics, the rear bottom stairs were sealed to prevent a repeat performance.

winstonlegthigh · Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:52 am

Quoting N243NW (Reply 17):
You might enjoy this - not so much in-service problems, but an interesting overview of the flight test program...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IY-j...T_sMw

Thanks for linking that. Great stuff.

7BOEING7 · Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:09 am

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 20):
Though not a fault of the aircraft type and well after the 727 proved itself as a workhorse, the hijack craze took hold on many 727's culminating in the DB Cooper hijacking where he bailed out through the rear aft floor mounted retractible airstairs. Shortly after DB Cooper and his antics, the rear bottom stairs were sealed to prevent a repeat performance.

Actually rather than going to the trouble of sealing the door (because they wanted to use its airstair capability on the ground) they put a metal right angle mechanism that when hit by the airflow rotated 90 degrees and prevented the airstairs from opening in flight.

FlyMKG · Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:44 am

Early 727s had bucket reversers before they switched to the cascading vanes. Too much FOD from the buckets if I recall. Also the first 727 built did not have the wing fence in early pictures. Obviously over the course of the test program they discovered the span wise flow issues and had to instal the fence.

FlyMKG

Type-Rated · Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:51 am

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 22):
Actually rather than going to the trouble of sealing the door (because they wanted to use its airstair capability on the ground) they put a metal right angle mechanism that when hit by the airflow rotated 90 degrees and prevented the airstairs from opening in flight.

Hence this lock was commonly referred to as the "DB Cooper Lock".

Speaking of the rear stairs wasn't there a case where a TW 727 near SAT had the rear stairs come open in flight and an F/A had to go down the stairs to pull the stair up so the plane could land? I believe the F/A, male, was held on to by passengers so he wouldn't fly out the opening. I seem to remember something like this happening. Maybe someone here knows more.

7BOEING7 · Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:11 am

Quoting type-rated (Reply 24):
Speaking of the rear stairs wasn't there a case where a TW 727 near SAT had the rear stairs come open in flight and an F/A had to go down the stairs to pull the stair up so the plane could land? I believe the F/A, male, was held on to by passengers so he wouldn't fly out the opening. I seem to remember something like this happening. Maybe someone here knows more.

http://articles.latimes.com/1996-01-18/news/mn-25948_1_crew-member

I think they're confused about what he actually did. After the plane was depressurized he probably just opened the door and them reached out opened the air stair control panel and selected the lever to the raise position and when it was up put it in the detent locking the stairs up. Must have not been in the proper detent prior to taxi???? Worst case is he went down one or two stairs to operate the handle.

milesrich · Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:46 am

Quoting longhauler (Reply 1):
What always amazed me is that the time from its first flight (February 9, 1963), to its first airline delivery (October 29, 1963) to its first entry in airline service (February 1, 1964) was less than a year!

The only major "quirk" I recall, (reading about, as I was very young at the time), were the B727 "sink rate" accidents shortly after its introduction. Not a fault of the aircraft, but as the vast majority of the pilots had never flown a jet, they were not used to the spool up time of a jet engine vice a prop engine.

When configured to a high drag/low speed condition, if the thrust was brought back to idle, the consequences could be and were fatal.

The fast sink rate accidents, United into Lake Michigan on approach to ORD, United at SLC, American at CVG all occurred more than a year after introduction. The airplane had no teething problems. The Lake Michian crash, the first for the 727 was never really solved, but it appeared the crew flew it into the water while flying VFR approach over the Lake. The SLC crash was caused by the inept captain, Gale C. Kehmeier and much has been written about him and his lack of flight deck management skills as well as his trouble transitioning to jets. By the time of the 1965 crashes over 100 of the aircraft were in service.

Type-Rated · Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:53 am

I remember that UA 727 going into Lake Michigan. At the time it happened the CAB was investigating to see if the pilot mistook the lights on the shoreline for the approach lights at ORD. How that could happen is beyond me, but I never heard any more about it.

Did they ever bring the wreckage up? I know Lake Michigan is very deep in some spots.

SpaceshipDC10 · Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:53 am

Quoting type-rated (Reply 27):
Did they ever bring the wreckage up? I know Lake Michigan is very deep in some spots.

Only two thirds was recovered.

tdscanuck · Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:11 pm

Quoting milesrich (Reply 26):
The airplane had no teething problems.

The airplane had *tons* of teething problems. Just not all resulted in crashes.

Tom.

Newark727 · Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:50 pm

Speaking of the early 727, I seem to recall a tech/ops discussion saying that the 727-100 had its R1 door further back on the aircraft because it was anticipated that they would have larger first class cabins than usually ended up being the case, or something like that. How was the 727-100 usually configured? I know the -200s must have been roughly comparable with an A320 or 737-400 in capacity since those types were used to replace them.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Thomas Greenlandy Williges

Tan Flyr · Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:01 pm

Quoting tb727 (Reply 7):
You might be thinking of the TWA Convair 880 that crashed there about 2 years later while on approach. TWA flight 128.

[Yes, Thank you.. perhaps I am recalling, if I am doing that correctly, that the locations were close? maybe the same approach path?

All accidents are tragedies..all lost RIP. Never any disrespect to lost souls.

Type-Rated · Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:31 pm

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 30):
How was the 727-100 usually configured?

The 727-100's usually had 4 or 5 rows of F then a galley mid ships then maybe 12-14 rows of Y. the first time I was on one, I thought the plane looked smaller on the inside than it did on the outside. Some airlines also had a forward galley too.

SpaceshipDC10 · Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:43 pm

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 30):
How was the 727-100 usually configured?

I guess it depends of the time. In my book, there's a seating chart with 28 first and 66 economy. That configuration was apparently typical. There are six rows of four seats, plus 2x two seats opposite the galley and a large coat-storage area behind the last pair of seats. Then, there are 11 rows with six seats each, starting right after the galley.

NYCAAer · Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:23 pm

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 30):
How was the 727-100 usually configured?

By the time I started flying with AA as a flight attendant in the late '80s, we had a configuration of 10F/108Y. The galley in the middle of the cabin was reduced in size to be on just the right hand side of the cabin. Some F/As hated the plane because there was so little galley space, but I liked it. It was so cute, and not too many people even in the last configuration. And we used to fly it with 5 F/As if there was a meal service!

I remember the senior F/As talking about the original seating arrangement with 28F/66Y. I think AA changed it again to 68 in Y, and it went up gradually through the '70s and '80s, as pressure mounted to make the plane more economical with rising fuel costs.

milesrich · Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:24 pm

United started out with S class service and I think were 90 seats, 18 rows of 5. Then they went to 24F and 72Y, and as time went on made the F smaller. But even in the early 80's, 34 inches of pitch in coach

iceberg210 · Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:36 pm

If you want some great information on the launch and especially the story of HOW it ever even got off the drawing board and into the air try "Billion Dollar Battle: The Story Behind the "Impossible" 727 Project" by Harold Mansfield, excellent excellent book if you can find it, sadly out of print but there are some copies running around here and there.....

Viscount724 · Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:42 pm

Quoting type-rated (Reply 32):
Quoting Newark727 (Reply 30):
How was the 727-100 usually configured?

The 727-100's usually had 4 or 5 rows of F then a galley mid ships then maybe 12-14 rows of Y. the first time I was on one, I thought the plane looked smaller on the inside than it did on the outside. Some airlines also had a forward galley too.

The 727-200 had the galley moved to the front but I can't recall any 727-100s with a forward galley. How would that have worked as the only galley service door was just forward of the wing on the right hand side?

Viscount724 · Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:49 pm

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 33):
Quoting Newark727 (Reply 30):
How was the 727-100 usually configured?

I guess it depends of the time. In my book, there's a seating chart with 28 first and 66 economy. That configuration was apparently typical. There are six rows of four seats, plus 2x two seats opposite the galley and a large coat-storage area behind the last pair of seats. Then, there are 11 rows with six seats each, starting right after the galley.

CP only had 4 727-100s delivered in 1970/71. They couldn't do much the 737-200 couldn't do (and required one more engine and one more cockpit crew to do it) so they were disposed of in 1977 to cut costs. They originally had 22 F and 75 Y. That was far too many F class seats and it was changed to 12 F and 90 Y after a year or so.

The mid-cabin galley on the 721 wasn't ideal in terms of cabin flexibility.

[Edited 2013-01-30 14:13:09]

longhauler · Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:07 pm

I have a seating sticker chart (most of the old-timers on here would know what I mean) for the Eastern B727-100 dated 1979. The configuration is 12F/95Y.

12 F seats and 21Y seats forward of the centre galley and 74Y aft of the centre galley.

Viscount724 · Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:22 pm

Quoting longhauler (Reply 39):
I have a seating sticker chart (most of the old-timers on here would know what I mean) for the Eastern B727-100 dated 1979. The configuration is 12F/95Y.

As of 1987 it was 12 F/107Y.
http://boardingarea.com/blogs/freque...-eastern-air-lines-boeing-727-100/

AA 721 seat map from 1977, then 14F/86Y with typical pre-deregulation spacious seating (34 inch pitch in Y at least).
http://boardingarea.com/blogs/freque...airlines-boeing-727-100-from-1977/

By 1985 it was 10F/105Y.
http://boardingarea.com/blogs/freque...airlines-boeing-727-100-from-1985/

Tomassjc · Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:01 pm

Quoting longhauler (Reply 39):
12 F seats and 21Y seats forward of the centre galley and 74Y aft of the centre galley

I can remember thinking that little "private" section of 21 Y seats forward of the center galley and coat closet on EA's -100s was pretty cool!!

Quoting milesrich (Reply 35):
United started out with S class service and I think were 90 seats

5 across, right? I do remember United's "California Commuter" configuration was all Y class 6 across in the late 60s.

Can anyone recall PSA's -100s used in the late 70s? I don't think they had a mid cabin galley, but I seem to recall a small half bulkhead there at the R1 with lounge style rear facing seats. (Like in the rear of the -200s)

Type-Rated · Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:30 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 37):
The 727-200 had the galley moved to the front but I can't recall any 727-100s with a forward galley. How would that have worked as the only galley service door was just forward of the wing on the right hand side?

I don't know how. But I do know I was on a BN 727-100 around 1971 in F and drinks were served out of the front space and meals were served out of the middle galley which covered both sides of the aisle. So you are saying that the -100 models never had a service door across from 1L?

I have only been on a single handfull of -100's, most of my 727 travel always seemed to be on the -200's.

CF-CPI · Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:44 am

Quoting Tomassjc (Reply 41):
I can remember thinking that little "private" section of 21 Y seats forward of the center galley and coat closet on EA's -100s was pretty cool!!

Right, this is when F class was shrinking and economy seats were moved into this area. It wasn't just Eastern. Depending on the airline, this area was called the "Twilight Zone" or "Upper Middle Class".

longhauler · Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:55 am

Quoting type-rated (Reply 42):
I don't know how. But I do know I was on a BN 727-100 around 1971 in F and drinks were served out of the front space and meals were served out of the middle galley which covered both sides of the aisle. So you are saying that the -100 models never had a service door across from 1L?

That is correct, Braniff's B727-100s only had a galley service door just ahead of the wing on the right side. In fact, I don't think any B727-100s were built otherwise. (not even Dan-Air which put extra exits just ahead of the engines for extra capacity!)

I have read that service from a single centre galley for both F and Y was quite cumbersome. There is a chance therefore, a galley cart was moved from the galley to the entry door area, and some service was performed from there. Maybe that is what you saw?

[Edited 2013-01-30 17:59:32]

85027 · Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:39 pm

Quoting iceberg210 (Reply 36):
If you want some great information on the launch and especially the story of HOW it ever even got off the drawing board and into the air try "Billion Dollar Battle: The Story Behind the "Impossible" 727 Project" by Harold Mansfield, excellent excellent book if you can find it, sadly out of print but there are some copies running around here and there.....

Thanks for the recommendation! Just looked, there are a few copies left at varied prices on Amazon.

135Mech

Type-Rated · Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:40 pm

Thinking back it wasn't a cart because it had a bulkhead between the seats and the area. I did see the F/A pull out a fifth of Boodles Gin when I ordered a Gin & Tonic. I was surprised that they used full bottles to make drinks in F with rather than using mini bottles.

planesofthepast · Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:45 am

I still clearly remember seeing several Eastern 727s at MIA circa 1970! And being impressed with their "radical" engine placement.. Have liked the plane ever since.

rcair1 · Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:55 am

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 22):
they put a metal right angle mechanism that when hit by the airflow rotated 90 degrees and prevented the airstairs from opening in flight.

Quoting type-rated (Reply 24):
DB Cooper Lock".

Actually - I think it was called the Cooper Vane.

I do remember 727's and how, as you got onto final, the engines would spool up to be above a particular threshold that provided reasonable spool up time for go-arounds and such.

I few (on) many a 727 in Alaska - very fond memories.

longhauler · Fri Feb 01, 2013 6:13 am

Quoting type-rated (Reply 46):
Thinking back it wasn't a cart because it had a bulkhead between the seats and the area.

No that's what I mean. A cart could be taken from the galley and "parked" by the forward entry door, between the bulkhead and the cockpit wall, out of sight from the passengers and opposite the lav. And F passengers could be served from there, while Y passengers were served from the actual galley. Drinks only, as you state. The source is from a cart whether it is locked in the galley or moved to somewhere where there is more room.

I have seen our F/As do that on the EMB, where the forward galley is pretty tight. They take the drink cart out of the galley and park it by L1, and serve drinks from there, while meals are served from the galley.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net