Hi all,
How close were the following '-100s' to being launched? Launch customers? Plans?
I'm curious... Any information would be most welcome.
757-100
767-100 (also the -500 model that was apparently offered to Qantas)
777-100 (offered to SIA)
Plus also ...
717-300 (SAS passed on it I believe, as did Hawaiian???)
727-300 (United???)

Keep smiling!
Bunumuring

With the 757-100 and 767-100, I understand these were very early models which were externally identical to the more popular -200 variants. Early in the development program, the -100s were tweaked for uprated engines and longer range, producing those -200s, which sold better due to increased flexibility.

United initially spec'd the 767 for quasi-transcons such as CLE-LAX, which the -100 could do. Their thinking was probably to keep the DC-10s and 747s for the transcontinental markets, but in 1978 deregulation was passed and frequency became more critical. The -200 extended things to transcons (easily) and the rest is history. The 767-200ER for transatlantic routes was an unexpected bonus as well.

Interesting footnote with the 757: GE initially offered a competing engine for this airframe, but only AA and TransBrasil specified it, circa 1980. The AA order was small and eventually cancelled. TransBrasil actually ordered a mixed fleet with GE and PW as I recall, but they never entered service. AA would return to the 757 in the late 1980s with a large order, using RR.

I'm clueless about the 767-500 you mentioned. Was this based on the 767-400? There was a -400 extended range model that no one ordered.

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 1): With the 757-100 and 767-100, I understand these were very early models which were externally identical to the more popular -200 variants. Early in the development program, the -100s were tweaked for uprated engines and longer range, producing those -200s, which sold better due to increased flexibility.

I recall something different. The 752 and the 762 were the base-line models with no 751 or 761 seriously considered by Boeing, although they were referred to occasionally.

At the time of the 757/767 launch in the late 70's, the 721, 731 and 741 were all selling poorly (or no longer offered) and had been supplanted by the more successful 722, 732 and 742, I recall reading one article at the time that Boeing decided to launch the 757 and 767 beginning with the -200 model name (rather than -100) for primarily marketing purposes to avoid the perception that a 751/761 would quickly become obsolete (as had the 721/731/741).

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 1): Interesting footnote with the 757: GE initially offered a competing engine for this airframe, but only AA and TransBrasil specified it, circa 1980. The AA order was small and eventually cancelled. TransBrasil actually ordered a mixed fleet with GE and PW as I recall, but they never entered service. AA would return to the 757 in the late 1980s with a large order, using RR.

I seem to recall that the only 757 GE order was from Aloha for 3 plus 2 options, which was subsequently cancelled. The original AA 757 order was for 15+15 with the PW2000 engine which was cancelled in the 1981/82 recession.

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 1): I'm clueless about the 767-500 you mentioned.

Same. I don't recall this at all.

The 717-300 was quite close to offer before Boeing pulled the plug. It was accidentally displayed on Boeings front page before the program ended. It was being shopped around, but some at Boeing were pushing the useless 736 and overweight 73G. The 713 would have been a solid MD80 replacement for AA but I don't think Boeing was willing to improve its range lest it compete with the 737. They thought AA would just be forced to take 737s. Ultimately it opened the door for the A319 at AA. And DL would also have liked an improved 713

Quoting bunumuring (Thread starter): 777-100

This is what I posted in an older thread - What Happened To Boeing's Planned 777-100? (by marcouscg Dec 13 2011 in Civil Aviation)

Boeing performed a fair bit of work on the 777-100X, starting in June of 1995 and working through early 2000. However, the trip costs were similar to the 777-200 and therefore the per seat costs were higher. Nonetheless, SQ, AA and BR all continued to express strong interest in the model to allow them to perform LAX-SIN, DFW-NRT and JFK-HKG non-stop. CX, EK, KE, BA and UA also attended Boeing briefings on the model.

However, by early 1996 the static wing tests on the 777 test frame showed they were stronger than projected and therefore TOWs significantly higher than the 300t planned for the 777-200ER and 777-300 were possible. Rolls-Royce had also shown the Trent 8104 demonstrator engine, which offered enough thrust to support these higher TOWs. Boeing therefore started the 777-200X program in conjunction with the 777-100X. Per seat costs for the 777-200X were projected to be 8-9% lower than the 777-100X.

By the end of 1996, the 777-200X proposal called for an MTOW between 322 and 331 tons. Boeing also started development on the 777-300X based on customer feedback. AA decided to wait for the 777-200X, while SQ still expressed interest in the 777-100X as it could be available sooner (1999 vs. 2001 for the 777-200X).

The 777-200X became the 777-200LR and the 777-300X became the 777-300ER. Still, SQ kept pestering Boeing about the 777-100X and in January of 2000, Boeing responded with a 277t model with a range of 7300nm. However, economics still looked poor and the GP7000-powered 767-400ERX was deemed a solid threat so the project was again shelved.

In addition to the long-range C market model, Boeing also developed a B-market model called the 777-100B. Pitched to Delta and Continental as a replacement for the DC-10 and L-10 11, both airlines rejected the offer as a result of the higher than desirable operating cost per seat, leading Boeing to develop the 767-400ER, which better met both of their specifications.


The initial 777-100X was a planned 9.5 frame (6.4m) shrink to the 777-200. It would hold 259 passengers in three classes in a standard Boeing configuration. Wing, tailplane and tail would have the same dimensions as on the 777-200. It would have used the same wing and fuselage structural changes for the 777-300X as well as shared the common overwing fuselage section with exit door. The final 777-100X was a 12-frame reduction (149 in / 3.8m forward of the wing and 104 in / 2.6m aft of Section 44) with a length of 57.3m (188'1") and a tail fin height of 18.6m (60'11"). MTOW was around 298t and OEW was between 124-131t. Three ranges were proposed: 12,200km / 13,320km / 14,800km. Boeing was gravitating to the 13,320km range model.

Quoting bunumuring (Thread starter): Hi all, How close were the following '-100s' to being launched? Launch customers? Plans? I'm curious... Any information would be most welcome.

Apart from the "100" in the name, do you have any specific specification in mind? Am I missing an aircraft family here? B only? Should the "100" have different specs - longer range, less range, more pax, ......?

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 5): Am I missing an aircraft family here? B only? Should the "100" have different specs - longer range, less range, more pax, ......?

When Boeing was dimensioning the 757 program, they had two models in mind. The 757-100 would have been sized around the 727-200 (~160 seats) and the 757-200 would have been a step above that (~180 seats). The first two customers actually willing to launch the program - BA and EA - wanted the 757-200, so that was the first model Boeing committed to. The larger model had better operating and seat-mile costs so as new customers joined the program (like DL and NW), they also chose the -200 model and eventually Boeing dropped the -100 from the family.

The 767-100 was a bit like the A380-800 - too short for the amount of wing and weight it was saddled with to support the planned stretches (-200 and -300). Unlike the A380-800, however, the 767-100 has a direct competitor in the 757-200 - both offered around ~180 seats in two classes. As such, there was little customer - or Boeing - interest in the model and Boeing went forward only with the -200 model.

The 777-100 started as a shrink of the 777-200 that offered longer range, but poorer seat-mile costs. In it's final offering, it was designed as a LGW shrink of the 777-200 for DL and CO as a replacement for their DC-10 and L-1011 fleets.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6): The 777-100 started as a shrink of the 777-200 that offered longer range, but poorer seat-mile costs. In it's final offering, it was designed as a LGW shrink of the 777-200 for DL and CO as a replacement for their DC-10 and L-1011 fleets.

Northwest Airlines wanted Boeing to build the 777-100 in the late 1990s. Boeing refused to do so. As a result Northwest decided to buy the A330-300.
As a side note Boeing was later competing for the US Air Force's fuel tanker replacement of the KC-135 and lost the first round to the Airbus A330 with a warmed over version of the 767. If they had a 777-100 Boeing may have won the contract on the first round. Boeing won the second round, after "convincing" the US government that the original sale was biased in favor of Airbus, which probably had the better aircraft. Boeing, with much political maneuvering won the the second round which will use the 767. Several foreign governments are buying the Airbus A330.   

More (bigger) is better.....

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 2): I seem to recall that the only 757 GE order was from Aloha for 3 plus 2 options, which was subsequently cancelled. The original AA 757 order was for 15+15 with the PW2000 engine which was cancelled in the 1981/82 recession.

OK thanks - I searched the web and as things went, GE was betting on both DL and AA to order their powerplant, since they were both GE 767 customers. When they both went PW for the 757, GE backed out of that airframe.

The TransBrasil 757 was for six PW and three RR (not GE as I had said). In the end, they went for 767s only, finding some advantage in payload for their routes (cargo especially). As an aside, it was said that the 767-200 burned 2 percent less fuel than a 727-100 on a 500nm segment.

According to Wiki, there was a 767-100 with 190 (some say 180) seats vs 210 seats for the -200, both on offer in February 1978. UA ultimately ordered the -200, and the -100 was axed as being too close to the 757 in seating anyhow. See Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767
It would be interesting to see models or layouts of the -100 vs -200 - it sounds like a difference of about three or four seat rows. Even this older thread from 2001 did not uncover a picture:
Boeing 767-100 - Pictures/Drawings? (by TransSwede Oct 6 2001 in Civil Aviation)

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 7): Northwest Airlines wanted Boeing to build the 777-100 in the late 1990s. Boeing refused to do so. As a result Northwest decided to buy the A330-300.

They should have worked on convincing DL and CO to take the 777-100B instead of holding out for the 767-400ER.  


Not sure what the rest of your post has to do with the topic at hand. but then a.net does tend to have more thread tangents than a Geometry 101 class, so...

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 7): As a side note Boeing was later competing for the US Air Force's fuel tanker replacement of the KC-135 and lost the first round to the Airbus A330 with a warmed over version of the 767.

Boeing actually won the first round, which was then killed by Mad Dog McCain on the grounds it was a financially bad deal for the USAF. Ironically, studies subsequently done taking into the account the delays in in requiring a second and third round of bids have suggested the current KC-46 contract will end up costing the USAF more than if they had been allowed to do the original KC-767 lease deal and then bought the planes at the end of said lease.

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 7): If they had a 777-100 Boeing may have won the contract on the first round.

Boeing probably would have won the second round with the 777 Freighter as the USAF was enamored with size, which is why they intentionally rigged the bid to ensure the larger A330 MRTT would win. That intentional rigging gave Boeing the legal grounds to challenge the contract award and force a third round of bidding that Boeing won by offering a lower overall price than Airbus Military.

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 7): Several foreign governments are buying the Airbus A330.

And so they should, frankly, as their entire tanker fleets won't equal a USAF tanker squadron in size so they need the greater capacity and capability.

[Edited 2014-03-23 12:30:42]

[Edited 2014-03-23 12:32:39]

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10): Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 7): Northwest Airlines wanted Boeing to build the 777-100 in the late 1990s. Boeing refused to do so. As a result Northwest decided to buy the A330-300. They should have worked on convincing DL and CO to take the 777-100B instead of holding out for the 767-400ER.   Not sure what the rest of your post has to do with the topic at hand. but then a.net does tend to have more thread tangents than a Geometry 101 class, so... Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 7): As a side note Boeing was later competing for the US Air Force's fuel tanker replacement of the KC-135 and lost the first round to the Airbus A330 with a warmed over version of the 767. Boeing actually won the first round, which was then killed by Mad Dog McCain on the grounds it was a financially bad deal for the USAF. Ironically, studies subsequently done taking into the account the delays in in requiring a second and third round of bids have suggested the current KC-46 contract will end up costing the USAF more than if they had been allowed to do the original KC-767 lease deal and then bought the planes at the end of said lease.

If you read, I stated "as a side note." Maybe John McCain did not think there was enough in it for himself, or his constituents or pals. Politicians are nothing but legalized criminals. If you or I did what they did, we would be thrown in jail and the key would be thrown away. Maybe then the US Senate and House of Representatives is luxurious jail with a lot of perks, along with the ability to walk out when the politicians desire. Why do these politicians spend so much money to get themselves elected? Anyone have a good answer. But hen lets just talk about what this forum started as.   

I'd love to see drawings / plans of what these -100s would have looked like...

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 3): The 717-300 was quite close to offer before Boeing pulled the plug. It was accidentally displayed on Boeings front page before the program ended. It was being shopped around, but some at Boeing were pushing the useless 736 and overweight 73G.

How was the 73G overweight? At the time, it weighed less than its only direct competitor, the A319.

From what I remember a decade ago, the problem with the 717-300 is that FL wanted to make the U.S. west coast from ATL. I personally don't see how you could add +20% payload and +75% range and not morph the airplane to a similar weight as a 73G.

But speaking of -100 models, I also vaguely recall that the 717-100 was a contender when Star Alliance was considering a joint RJ order. As that never materialized, neither did the 717 opportunity.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6): The 767-100 was a bit like the A380-800 - too short for the amount of wing and weight it was saddled with to support the planned stretches (-200 and -300)

Frankly, I think the "A380-800 is the shrink" model was conjured when the initial frames were overweight. Initially the A3XX had a shrink model below the -800. I don't think we can ever say, since by the time the A380-900 arrives it will likely use a different generation of materials and relative empty weight comparisons will be meaningless.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6): When Boeing was dimensioning the 757 program, they had two models in mind. The 757-100 would have been sized around the 727-200 (~160 seats) and the 757-200 would have been a step above that (~180 seats). The first two customers actually willing to launch the program - BA and EA - wanted the 757-200, so that was the first model Boeing committed to. The larger model had better operating and seat-mile costs so as new customers joined the program (like DL and NW), they also chose the -200 model and eventually Boeing dropped the -100 from the family.

It's hindsight of course, but I consider this one of Boeing's biggest blunders. By not addressing the core 727-200 market, they left the door wide open for Airbus to seize market share with the perfectly-sized A320.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 13): Frankly, I think the "A380-800 is the shrink" model was conjured when the initial frames were overweight. Initially the A3XX had a shrink model below the -800.

I personally do not consider the A380-800 a shrink, but it's pretty clear the fuselage was designed to be stretched and her wings are designed for significantly higher MTOWs than even the 590,000kg planned for the A380-800F, much less the 569,000kg she entered service with.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 13): It's hindsight of course, but I consider this one of Boeing's biggest blunders. By not addressing the core 727-200 market, they left the door wide open for Airbus to seize market share with the perfectly-sized A320.

It may have been a blunder, but at the time Boeing was having a difficult time finding buyers for the 757 in general and those that were interested in buying wanted the 757-200 thanks to it's better economics. And Boeing did address the 727-200 replacement by 1985 with the 737-400.

And honestly, I don't think the 757-100 would have been very competitive on a seat-mile cost with the A320 so even if Boeing had gone forward with it, I expect it would have done worse than the 737-400 did in that area.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 2): I seem to recall that the only 757 GE order was from Aloha for 3 plus 2 options, which was subsequently cancelled.

Wait, Aloha Airlines had an order for the 757?   


Modified Airliner Photos:

Design © mikephotos
Template © mikephotos

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10): Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 7): As a side note Boeing was later competing for the US Air Force's fuel tanker replacement of the KC-135 and lost the first round to the Airbus A330 with a warmed over version of the 767. Boeing actually won the first round, which was then killed by Mad Dog McCain on the grounds it was a financially bad deal for the USAF.

Quoting 777stl (Reply 14): Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 11): If you read, I stated "as a side note." Maybe John McCain did not think there was enough in it for himself, or his constituents or pals. Politicians are nothing but legalized criminals. If you or I did what they did, we would be thrown in jail and the key would be thrown away. Maybe then the US Senate and House of Representatives is luxurious jail with a lot of perks, along with the ability to walk out when the politicians desire. Why do these politicians spend so much money to get themselves elected? Anyone have a good answer. But hen lets just talk about what this forum started as. If we're going to devolve into political poo slinging here, I'd be willing to wager McCain has sacrificed more for this country than you have. I'd recommend sticking to commenting on subjects your knowledgeable on, such as defunct airlines and aircraft paint jobs.

777stl. If you would have read my original side note, which it appears you did not, does not criticize any politician. A politician's name was brought in by another commentator in reference to my side note. I replied and included that politician's name, which I should not have, but I stand behind the rest of my statements. I worked on real aircraft for 37 years, which is nearly twice as long as you have been alive, and know more about aircraft and airlines than just "defunct airlines and aircraft paint jobs." Personal criticism of commentators on this website by you does not enhance your respectability and intelligence here or in your life. It does just the opposite.   

[Edited 2014-03-23 21:41:44]

Hi all,
Thanks for the replies to my question. Much appreciated and very interesting.
Here are my understandings and recollections about the models mentioned...
As to the 767-500, according to an article in the Australian aviation magazine 'Aircraft' (now sadly defunct) about future fleet options for Qantas, the 767-500 was a 767-200 fuselage married to 767-400ER wings, engines and weights. It was proposed as a niche aircraft for ULH routes. The article indicates that Qantas had considered and rejected the proposed aircraft by the time the article was written but provided no other details. I came across the article again about two years ago when culling my magazine collection and read it with considerable interest as it seemed to be heavily leaning towards a large fleet of A340s for QF as the best solution for it's future needs. I can't remember the publishing date of the article ... Maybe someone on A.net has it archived? It was around the time of the 767-400ER's flight testing.
As to the 777-100, I remember there being extensive discussion about SIA being it's potential launch customer but ultimately they purchased and 'misused' the standard 777-200ER for the smaller capacity routes the -100 was proposed for. I vaguely remember talk of it being offered to Qantas and Ansett as well.
I don't recall much talk about the 757-100, thus the original question, but I know Boeing at least proposed it.
I remember seeing profile drawings of the 767-100 in something like 'Jane's All the World's Aircraft', alongside the standard 767-200 and 767-300 models. Beyond that, I don't recall much of it.
The 717-300 was of course on offer to SAS and Hawaiian, and undoubtedly many others. Was it ever considered by Qantas/QantasLink?
The 727-300 was apparently close to being launched by United. I am quite sure it would have found a good market but I guess it might have slowed the development of the 757. My understanding is that the 757 directly developed from the stretched 727 studies.
Keep smiling!
Bunumuring.

Quoting HNLPointShoot (Reply 15): Wait, Aloha Airlines had an order for the 757?

Yes, they ordered 3 in the 1980s.

http://www.airlinercafe.com/forums.php?m=posts&q=4651

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 2): Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 1): I'm clueless about the 767-500 you mentioned. Same. I don't recall this at all.

I know nothing about the 767-500 either, and I have a fair amount of experience with that airplane. To my knowledge, Britannia was the next closest to buying the 767-400, which unfortunately didn't happen.

Quoting HNLPointShoot (Reply 15): Wait, Aloha Airlines had an order for the 757?

Interesting. I didn't know that either. Apparently, AS looked very seriously at a 757 order also.

Regarding the 727-300, I found this:

http://airchive.com/html/museums/boe...ng-727-300-model-early-1970s/19137

Development stopped in 1975, it was to be an 18 foot stretch of the 727-200 with 220 passenger-all economy capacity.

Quoting bunumuring (Reply 17): It was around the time of the 767-400ER's flight testing.

This would have put it circa 1999/2000.

Sounds like the 767-500 was something of an 'SP' . In the same post, mention was made of the A340. At the time, I suppose it may have offered some flexibility on long overwater segments, and this was some years prior to the 777LR, which, with hindsight, turned out to be an A340 killer in the market. BTW, way back in the day, Qantas was seriously interested in the L1011-500. Seems like they were fertile ground for all sorts of special long range requirements.

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 21): BTW, way back in the day, Qantas was seriously interested in the L1011-500. Seems like they were fertile ground for all sorts of special long range requirements.

Hi mate,
Yes, it is widely accepted that Qantas was seriously considering the TrIStar 500 to break its 'all 747' fleet when Lockheed decided to wind up production. It's such a shame an order did not eventuate as, if for no other reason, TriStars were relatively rare birds for us Aussie photographers to capture on our home turf. TAA was seriously interested in an order for TriStars as well, in the years before Qantas developed an interest, but eventually went with the A300B4.
As for the 717-300, is it true that Midwest was also seriously considering it?
Thanks,
Bunumuring.

Quoting bunumuring (Reply 22): TriStars were relatively rare birds for us Aussie photographers to capture on our home turf.

Did the CX L10s have long enough legs for this? They were -1s, not the longer haul -100s and -250s. Other than that, I can't see who would have brought them to Oz regularly.

Quoting bunumuring (Reply 22): As for the 717-300, is it true that Midwest was also seriously considering it?

I recall hearing such things, and with Air Tran as well, I believe. I'm going by memory, but there was some operational stumbling block, like transcontinental range, as they wanted to reach the west coast. By this time, Boeing was reluctant to morph a McDD airframe into something that would compete with the 737NG. In the meantime, at least DL is keeping the 717 alive in the US.

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 23): Did the CX L10s have long enough legs for this? They were -1s, not the longer haul -100s and -250s. Other than that, I can't see who would have brought them to Oz regularly.

Hi mate,
We got Hawaiian TriStars into Sydney for a short while. Also for a short time Airlanka TriStars but I hardly saw them. Perhaps they were charters-sorry, i dont remember. Apart from those, the occasional ATA TriStar and of course the RAF ones.
I don't ever recall seeing a Cathay Pacific TriStar in Sydney... sadly. I remember my first trip to Hong Kong was all about seeing CX TriStars ... And not much else! Likewise my first Tokyo trip and ANA TriStars...
Cheers,
Bunumuring.

Quoting bunumuring (Reply 22): Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 21): BTW, way back in the day, Qantas was seriously interested in the L1011-500. Seems like they were fertile ground for all sorts of special long range requirements. Hi mate, Yes, it is widely accepted that Qantas was seriously considering the TrIStar 500 to break its 'all 747' fleet when Lockheed decided to wind up production. It's such a shame an order did not eventuate as, if for no other reason, TriStars were relatively rare birds for us Aussie photographers to capture on our home turf. TAA was seriously interested in an order for TriStars as well, in the years before Qantas developed an interest, but eventually went with the A300B4. As for the 717-300, is it true that Midwest was also seriously considering it? Thanks, Bunumuring.

Lockheed tried to sell Northwest Airlines L1011s with Pratt & Whitney engines. Northwest declined. I think it may have been one of Lockheed's last attempts to keep the L1011 production line alive.
Also as a side note. After Northwest Airlines merger with Republic Airlines as Republic had six Rolls Royce powered 757s, Roll Royce tried to convince Northwest Airline to buy Rolls Royce powered 757s as they still were purchasing 757s. Rolls even went as far as to offer to convert Northwest's existing 757s from Pratt & Whitney to Rolls Royce engines and pay for the modifications needed. They even offered to foot the cost of setting up Northwest's engine shop for repair and overhaul of Rolls Royce engines. Northwest did not accept the offer. The six Rolls 757s that Republic had were sold to America West. If I am correct, those six aircraft that Republic had were intended for Air India who did not take delivery of them   

[Edited 2014-03-25 08:56:27]

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 25): Lockheed tried to sell Northwest Airlines L1011s with Pratt & Whitney engines. Northwest declined. I think it may have been one of Lockheed's last attempts to keep the L1011 production line alive.

Interesting info. It would have looked awesome in the Bowling Shoe. Offhand, was Lockheed promoting the -500? With a group of DC-10-40s onhand in the 70s, I can't see NW doubling up with standard body L10s.

IIRC, some of the RR 757s found their way into full NW colors. I didn't know the Air India bit, but Air India was also going to order the L1011-500, only to fail in their quest for financing from the government. All of this was a real game of musical RB211s.

Quoting bunumuring (Reply 24): We got Hawaiian TriStars into Sydney for a short while. Also for a short time Airlanka TriStars but I hardly saw them.

Oh a mix of -1s and -500s then, very nice. Offhand, did HA come nonstop, or via Guam or some such? That's alot of water for a -1 to cover.

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 26): Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 25): Lockheed tried to sell Northwest Airlines L1011s with Pratt & Whitney engines. Northwest declined. I think it may have been one of Lockheed's last attempts to keep the L1011 production line alive. Interesting info. It would have looked awesome in the Bowling Shoe. Offhand, was Lockheed promoting the -500? With a group of DC-10-40s onhand in the 70s, I can't see NW doubling up with standard body L10s. IIRC, some of the RR 757s found their way into full NW colors. I didn't know the Air India bit, but Air India was also going to order the L1011-500, only to fail in their quest for financing from the government. All of this was a real game of musical RB211s.

Northwest did not consider Lockheed's proposition as Northwest already was flying the DC-10-40. I do not remember what model Lockheed was offering. Northwest did not want to fly both the DC-10 and Lockheed L1011.
Yes, a couple of the Republic 757s were delivered in Northwest's pre bowling shoe livery with the Republic tittles and white tails. The RC N numbers were N601RC thru N606RC. The tails were painted red and the titles changed to Northwest after the merger. Those that had the Republic paint livery, just had the tail painted red and the tittles replaced with Northwest, including the meatball. They were sold in about one year.   

[Edited 2014-03-25 10:43:03]

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 25): . If I am correct, those six aircraft that Republic had were intended for Air India who did not take delivery of them

Hi mate,
That's interesting, I thought it was an Indian Airlines deal that went sour that led to the Republic deal, not Air India. Both government owned and of course now merged but at the time, they were two distinctly different airlines.
I remember all of the Air India TriStar talk and how they wanted six plus three TriStars but couldn't get approval and / or financing at the time. I also remember serious talk about Lufthansa being interested in the TriStar 500. What a difference orders from Air India, Lufthansa and Qantas might have made to the TriStar's longevity!
I had never heard of the Northwest proposals however until now.
Once again, thanks to all who have posted.
Keep smiling,
Bunumuring.

Quoting bunumuring (Reply 29): Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 25): . If I am correct, those six aircraft that Republic had were intended for Air India who did not take delivery of them Hi mate, That's interesting, I thought it was an Indian Airlines deal that went sour that led to the Republic deal, not Air India. Both government owned and of course now merged but at the time, they were two distinctly different airlines. I remember all of the Air India TriStar talk and how they wanted six plus three TriStars but couldn't get approval and / or financing at the time. I also remember serious talk about Lufthansa being interested in the TriStar 500. What a difference orders from Air India, Lufthansa and Qantas might have made to the TriStar's longevity! I had never heard of the Northwest proposals however until now. Once again, thanks to all who have posted. Keep smiling, Bunumuring.

Greetings......
You may be correct. At least I think I have the right country, India.   

Quoting bunumuring (Reply 22): Yes, it is widely accepted that Qantas was seriously considering the TrIStar 500 to break its 'all 747' fleet when Lockheed decided to wind up production.

Interesting that for the long over water flights QF weighed up options and routinely went for the 747, whereas in the 1980s a the L1011/DC10, and in the 1990s the A340/MD-11 could have given it an aircraft suited to the 747 missions, but by being smaller potentially allowing more frequency or diversity of routes.

Back to topic, the Airbus A320-100 was a very shortlived production run before the A320-200 became the norm. The A321-100 was also shortlived before the A321-200 became the norm, yet the A318 and A319 both remain available as the -100 models.

Was there ever an A330-100 and A340-100 proposal? The -300 was the standard model for both, with the A340-200 the long range shrink launched at the same time and the A330-200 coming later.

Also, when there was talk of a 717-300, wasn't there also proposals for a 717-100 too? With a -300 on the table I think Boeing could have kept the 717 line going, as a family would have offered options to airlines. But then again, if we don't use hindsight was the writing really on the wall for the 737-600 back then? I'd certainly hazard that the 737-700 was still considered a seller, so Boeing probably didn't want to canabilise the sales.

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 31): Was there ever an A330-100 and A340-100 proposal?

Airbus was looking into an A330-100 in the Summer of 2000 as a 20-40 seat shrink of the A330-200.

There were two versions in discussion, both designed to replace the A300-600R and to better compete with the 767-300ER.

A330-100A - 8300km @ 195,000kg MTOW
A330-100B - 12400km @ 221,000kg MTOW

ILFC also wanted a model with a 230,000kg MTOW to directly take on Boeing's proposed 767-400ERX.

Airbus originally considered using the A300-600's wing, however the decision was made to use a lighter version of the A330 wing to reduce development costs. The original idea of using the Trent 500 engine was also abandoned in favor of using the current A330 engines.

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 23): TriStars were relatively rare birds for us Aussie photographers to capture on our home turf. Did the CX L10s have long enough legs for this? They were -1s, not the longer haul -100s and -250s. Other than that, I can't see who would have brought them to Oz regularly.

They simply didn't have the range. CX did fly them to Perth but that was with an intermediate stop in Bangkok.

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 31): Back to topic, the Airbus A320-100 was a very shortlived production run before the A320-200 became the norm. The A321-100 was also shortlived before the A321-200 became the norm, yet the A318 and A319 both remain available as the -100 models. Was there ever an A330-100 and A340-100 proposal? The -300 was the standard model for both, with the A340-200 the long range shrink launched at the same time and the A330-200 coming later.

Hi there,
I had forgotten about the Airbus A330-100 model. I vaguely recall reading about it but I'm not sure who if anyone was interested in it. Was the A340-100 proposal simply the matching 4-engined variant?
And of course, the A320-100 was stopped at around 21 frames, with Ansett taking the first A320-200 as the first of it's order. How many of these -100 models are still in service out of the 21 built? I recall British Airways retired theirs.
Keep smiling,
Bunumuring.

Quoting bunumuring (Reply 34): And of course, the A320-100 was stopped at around 21 frames, with Ansett taking the first A320-200 as the first of it's order. How many of these -100 models are still in service out of the 21 built? I recall British Airways retired theirs. Keep smiling, Bunumuring.

Hello.
According to RZJETS.net, all 21 A320-100s have been scrapped, except the Air France A320 that crashed during a fly over.   

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 35): According to RZJETS.net, all 21 A320-100s have been scrapped, except the Air France A320 that crashed during a fly over.

Hi mate,
Thanks for that information. I suspected that was the case.
Cheers,
Bunumuring.

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 35): According to RZJETS.net, all 21 A320-100s have been scrapped,

On a similar note, there isn't a single airworthy 737-100 that I know of either. The last flyable one was the America West charter for the Phoenix Suns. The other intact one is at the Seattle Museum of Flight.

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 35):

The first A320 is a 100 and is still flying as a test bed. That said, it's been modified considerably over the years.

Quoting UA444 (Reply 38): Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 35): The first A320 is a 100 and is still flying as a test bed. That said, it's been modified considerably over the years.

This aircraft, cn 1, was converted to a 200 (211) , and had sharklets installed on it's in 2011. Registration is F-WWBA, is owned by Airbus and spends most of its time in storage even though it is in airworthy condition. Airbus has kept it as a pet to use as a test bed as it was never sold for use by an airline. The first six A320s, N601US through N606US that were sold to Northwest Airlines were heavily modified aircraft before delivery to Northwest Airlines. They all had an aft bulk cargo door removed and the potable water tank was moved from the forward end of the aft cargo compartment to the aft end of of the forward cargo compartment due to a center of gravity problem as the aircraft tended to have an aft CG problem. You are correct that it was built as 100, but it was upgraded to a 200. I should have stated that 20 of the first 21 A320s are scrapped or sitting in storage in a non flyable condition.