Braniff Was To Replace DC-8s With 767s

doulasc · Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:03 am

I heard in the late 1970s before things got bad with Braniff International that they were looking for a replacement
for their Douglas DC-8-62s for their routes to South America.Braniff was looking at the Boeing 767-200. For the
range wouldn't the planes have to be ER models and be ETOPS certified.

thomasphoto60 · Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:16 am

Yep, they were in the market for some new models replacing the '8s' (if I recall the 707s were largely phased out by the mid-70s) on the South American network. There are postcards floating out there with renderings of L1011s and DC-10s in the Jellybean and Flying Colors schemes. Wouldn't be too shocked if they were talking to Airbus as well.

dcajet · Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:22 am

None of the routes that BN flew towards their end between the US and South America would qualify as ETOPS and yes, an ER version of the 767 would have been needed for the JFK-EZE or MIA-EZE routes and similar ones like GIG-MIA. It is worth remembering that GRU did not exist back then and not sure now if BN ever operated from VCP.

LAXintl · Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:23 am

If you read Airline Pasionado by Bob Booth, it seems the L-1011-500 or DC-10-30 along with more 747SP were the favorites.
I dont recall reading a peep about the 767.

Viscount724 · Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:39 am

Quoting dcajet (Reply 2):
It is worth remembering that GRU did not exist back then and not sure now if BN ever operated from VCP.

Yes they did. I flew LIM-VCP-GIG on a Braniff DC-8-62 in September 1978. I remember the stop at VCP. The BN DC-8 seemed to be the only aircraft visible at the otherwise deserted airport.

LAXintl · Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:50 am

Yes BN served both Sao Paulo and Rio. IIRC those routes came with the Panagra merger.

kaitak · Sat Sep 05, 2015 4:57 am

They may have looked at the 767, but they certainly never ordered it.

The initial, baseline 767 would have given them about 6-7h range, which would have been too short for many of their US-Latam route (apart from say Colombia/Ecuador, possibly Lima); the -200ER would probably have been good and of course, the -300ER, but by then the original Braniff had ceased to be.

Max Q · Sat Sep 05, 2015 5:33 am

Interesting what a comprehensive S American route system they had.

flyingclrs727 · Sat Sep 05, 2015 7:24 am

Would Braniff have been interested in upgrading their DC-8-62's to DC-8-72's? They could have been available years before 767-200ER's. The extra range could have allowed some long range thin routes to South America.

OzarkD9S · Sat Sep 05, 2015 10:33 am

Quoting kaitak (Reply 6):

Interesting what a comprehensive S American route system they had.

They served many markets, yes. But a cursory look at their schedules show very few flights operating daily. While the
Lima station looks like a decent sized hub on a map, at most they had 3-4 flights per day on average. The markets were
different back then of course.

Flyingsottsman · Sat Sep 05, 2015 10:43 am

How come they didn't have direct DFW to SFO seemed to be a tag on from LAX.

cathay747 · Sat Sep 05, 2015 11:20 am

Can you imagine a 767 in the Ultra livery? Wow.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 5):
IIRC those routes came with the Panagra merger.

Yes, indeed, that's how BN got into South America.

superjeff · Sat Sep 05, 2015 1:53 pm

Quoting OzarkD9S (Reply 9):
They served many markets, yes. But a cursory look at their schedules show very few flights operating daily. While the
Lima station looks like a decent sized hub on a map, at most they had 3-4 flights per day on average. The markets were
different back then of course.

I actually worked for Braniff between 1972 and 1977. The Lima "hub" was actually that. Braniff had Fifth Freedom rights beyond, and inbound flights from NY and MIA met up with multi-stop Southbound flights from MIA via PTY, BOG, UIO, Guyaquil (don't remember the code), etc. and there was a connecting bank going further South to Buenos Aires, Santiago, Asuncion, and LaPaz, along with an Eastbound to Brazil. Big central reservations operation in the regional offices at the Hotel Gran Bolivar in downtown Lima.

Braniff had a pretty substantial route network on the West Coast of South America which became even stronger when the company acquired Panagra in the mid 1960's. That's where the DC8's came from - Braniff had 707's, mostly acquired for military contract routes during the Vietnam war, and also for Hawaii. They took delivery of the DC8-62's that Panagra had ordered, and found them a great match for their routes. But, however, by the early 1980's, those planes were getting old, and Braniff was hurting bad. I do remember models of the L1011's and DC10's in Braniff colors both at the old headquarters in Exchange Park in Dallas, and also at DFW.

superjeff · Sat Sep 05, 2015 1:54 pm

Quoting Flyingsottsman (Reply 10):
How come they didn't have direct DFW to SFO seemed to be a tag on from LAX.

Actually it was a tag on from Lima (2-3 times a week). I don't remember any nonstops or even through flights out of DFW.

WA707atMSP · Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:13 pm

Quoting superjeff (Reply 13):
Quoting Flyingsottsman (Reply 10):
How come they didn't have direct DFW to SFO seemed to be a tag on from LAX.

Actually it was a tag on from Lima (2-3 times a week). I don't remember any nonstops or even through flights out of DFW.

For the first 1 1/2 years of deregulation, the only way airlines could add new routes was to take over "dormant" routes that other airlines were authorized to fly, but were not actually doing so.

Continental was awarded LAX-Dallas in 1969, but was never able to compete against AA and DL. CO reduced their schedule to 1x week, then suspended the route entirely after deregulation, enabling Braniff to assume it.

The only airlines authorized to fly San Francisco-Dallas before deregulation were AA and DL, and both airlines continued to fly the route after deregulation...so there was no dormant route authority that Braniff could take over. Braniff could have added DFW-SFO in 1980, after airlines were free to add any route they wanted, but by then they were in retrenchment mode.

Many commentators have said Braniff was doomed by trying to build a route system after deregulation out of dormant routes other airlines didn't want to fly, without asking why the routes Braniff was adding were dormant in the first place.

georgiabill · Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:16 pm

The flights ran SFO-LAX-LIM-SCL in the late 70'S. I believe they operated this route 3 times weekly. I had always hoped they would have offered flights to DFW or DEN as at this time BN had a rather large operation at DEN. I will see if I can locate a BN schedule for days of week this flight operated and departure times

georgiabill · Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:57 pm

The flights from SFO were BN 921 Departed SFO 5:30PM arrives LAX at 6:35PM WED and Sun. Flight BN 923 Departed SFO to LAX at 9:00PM arrived LAX at 10:05PM.
Flight 921 was 1 stop from SFO to LIM WED and SUN on WED in LIM you could connect with BN 911 and arrive in SCL 5:00PM or on SUN
921 operated as a 2 stop thru plane to LIMA arriving monday at 1:10PM All flights were operated by DC-8"S.

[Edited 2015-09-05 08:19:17]

LAXintl · Sat Sep 05, 2015 3:39 pm

Quoting Flyingsottsman (Reply 10):
How come they didn't have direct DFW to SFO seemed to be a tag on from LAX.

Routes within the U.S were regulated by the C.A.B. and airlines had to be awarded them. Airlines could not simply operate what they wished.
For BN specifically they always however had much larger presence in LA versus SF.

Quoting cathay747 (Reply 11):
Yes, indeed, that's how BN got into South America.

BN had its own LatAm network going back to 1940s. The Panagra merger in 1967 beefed up some existing destinations but brought in some all new markets for BN.

Also interesting to note, BN got into the DC-8-62 thanks to Panagra which had 5 aircraft on order which BN assumed the with the merger and eventually led BN to acquire additional frames itself and started to sell its 720/707 fleet during the 70s.

JohnJ · Sat Sep 05, 2015 5:06 pm

There is a Facebook group called "Braniff Flying Colors" that has a wealth of information on the airline. According to them, Braniff actually announced the 767 in 1978 as the replacement for the DC-8. The 767-100 would have been used domestically as replacements for 727-200s on longer routes, and the 767-200 for international routes.

Not sure if you need to "like" them on Facebook to read the information, but here's the link to their post:

Braniff Flying Colors Facebook Page

timz · Sat Sep 05, 2015 8:29 pm

Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 14):
there was no dormant [DFW-SFO] route authority that Braniff could take over.

BN started LAS-OAK and DEN-OAK in 1978-- I think DFW-OAK too.

georgiabill · Sat Sep 05, 2015 11:14 pm

Both flights were gone as of 12/14/1979

bluemeatball · Sat Sep 05, 2015 11:24 pm

I lived in Santos, Brazil 1970-71 and visited Sao Paulo several times, seeing Braniff's ticket office on Ave Sao Luis along with most other airline offices at the time. I flew out of VCP in August of 1970 on PA and VCP at that time was usually deserted except for a daily PA 707 going somewhere and other long haul aircraft of other airlines flying in once or twice a week (Braniff included)

Viscount724 · Sat Sep 05, 2015 11:39 pm

Quoting cathay747 (Reply 11):
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 5):
IIRC those routes came with the Panagra merger.

Yes, indeed, that's how BN got into South America.

Sorry, not correct. BN had been serving South America for almost 20 years (June 1948) before the 1967 Panagra merger.

For example, this is their January 1956 route map, 11 years before the merger:
http://www.timetableimages.com/ttimages/bn/bn56/bn56-01.jpg

The Panagra merger gave BN access to SCL where they had no rights previously. That was about the only significant addition from the merger, plus 5th freedom rights SCL-EZE.

DTWPurserBoy · Sat Sep 05, 2015 11:55 pm

Braniff was very proud of the fact that when they started South America flying enroute navigation aids were very poor and unreliable. They went in and constructed and maintained what they wanted in the interest of safety.

I was flying for Braniff in 1978 and I do not recall any announcement about 767's. Braniff loved the 747 even though the SP was purchased for the Pacific and was never really used properly. They certainly would not have ordered an airplane with insufficient range for their long-haul services. I do recall some discussion about the DC-10-30 and the L1011-500 but it never got beyond the chatter stage. In the headquarters there were some sales models of both airplanes on display in the lobby painted in BN colors.

thomasphoto60 · Sun Sep 06, 2015 12:01 am

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 23):
In the headquarters there were some sales models of both airplanes on display in the lobby painted in BN colors.

A Braniff nut like myself would kill to get their hands on those.

doulasc · Sun Sep 06, 2015 1:16 am

Quoting JohnJ (Reply 18):

I don't recall there ever was a Boeing 767-100.I know of a 767-200,767-200ER,767-300ER and 767-400ER which did not
get many orders.As far as a 727-200 for Braniff I imagine they would have ordered some Boeing 757s

superjeff · Sun Sep 06, 2015 1:40 am

Quoting thomasphoto60 (Reply 24):
A Braniff nut like myself would kill to get their hands on those.

Check some of the model airplane companies - I've seen them from time to time.

superjeff · Sun Sep 06, 2015 1:45 am

Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 14):
Many commentators have said Braniff was doomed by trying to build a route system after deregulation out of dormant routes other airlines didn't want to fly, without asking why the routes Braniff was adding were dormant in the first place.

Actually, there was method to their madness. Braniff management (Harding Lawrence) felt that with deregulation, the company would have to grow, and grow fast. So they literally stood in line overnight to be the first one into the CAB the day the dormant authorities became available and grabbed everything they could. With a modern fleet for the time, of 100% 727-200's for their domestic services, and the DC8-62's for South America, as well as the 747's on the Hawaii and European routes (and later the Asian), it could have worked, except for the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979 which caused major fuel price increases and a strong recession. It actually was a "perfect storm," because Braniff felt that with a modern fleet, they could easily sell off any surplus airplanes if the routes didn't work out. They really wanted DFW-LAX, and DFW-BOS, but there were other routes too. Unfortunately ideas like a focus city in BHM didn't work out, and because of the recession and the disastrous effect on the airlines, they weren't able to sell off assets.

Jetxdammit · Sun Sep 06, 2015 9:44 am

Interesting.

The first 767-200 to fly was in 1981, and Braniff went under 1982. But the first 767-200 didn't have Braniff's logo on the side of the aircraft as a launch customer at all. Hmmmm.....

FlyCaledonian · Sun Sep 06, 2015 10:56 am

Quoting doulasc (Reply 25):
I don't recall there ever was a Boeing 767-100.

The 767-100 was to be a shorter 180 seat plane, compared to the 210 seat 767-200. It was dropped after nobody expressed interest (plus it was too similar in size to the 757-200).
The 757-100 was to be a shorter 160 seat plane, compared to the 180 seat 757-200. Again, it was dropped after nobody expressed interest. I'd imagine a 757-100 with ETOPS might have had some serious range for long and thin routes, but by the time everybody latched onto that potential for the 757 it was in the twilight of orders.

dcajet · Sun Sep 06, 2015 5:41 pm

Quoting georgiabill (Reply 16):

The flights from SFO were BN 921 Departed SFO 5:30PM arrives LAX at 6:35PM WED and Sun. Flight BN 923 Departed SFO to LAX at 9:00PM arrived LAX at 10:05PM.
Flight 921 was 1 stop from SFO to LIM WED and SUN on WED in LIM you could connect with BN 911 and arrive in SCL 5:00PM or on SUN
921 operated as a 2 stop thru plane to LIMA arriving monday at 1:10PM All flights were operated by DC-8"S

And interesting enough, no US based fight service crews were qualified on the DC-8-62, so BN got a dispensation from the FAA to allow them to operate the LAX-SFO-LAX legs with crews from the EZE/SCL/LIM bases - i.e. a domestic flight with foreign national crews.

And to this day, AA has kept those three bases (plus BOG) open. And the spirit of BN lives on as AA is currently interviewing applicants in Buenos Aires to expand the EZE base. AA can, per an agreement with the US FAs union, hire outside the US only when it is hiring in the US. The EZE base does one of the daily MIA flights and then does a lot of flying ex MIA such as Brazil and Central America, some of them just day or overnight turnarounds. From EZE, the NYC base does the JFK flight, DFW does the DFW flight and MIA does one of the MIA flights, with EZE doing the rest.

Somehow,some of the practices started by BN back in the 60s are alive and well in LatAm.

[Edited 2015-09-06 10:44:21]

charlienorth · Sun Sep 06, 2015 7:52 pm

Quoting jetxdammit (Reply 28):
Interesting.

The first 767-200 to fly was in 1981, and Braniff went under 1982. But the first 767-200 didn't have Braniff's logo on the side of the aircraft as a launch customer at all. Hmmmm.....

It wasn't an announcement, It looks like they were shopping for DC8 replacements in the late 70's when times were still good.

timz · Sun Sep 06, 2015 8:11 pm

Quoting timz (Reply 19):
BN started LAS-OAK and DEN-OAK in 1978-- I think DFW-OAK too.

Turns out BN started DFW-LAS in 1978, but DFW-OAK, LAS-OAK and DEN-OAK aren't in the 11/78 OAG. They're all in the 2/79.

DDR · Sun Sep 06, 2015 8:12 pm

Quoting dcajet (Reply 30):

Were U.S. based flight attendants ever qualified on the DC-8? I thought the DC-8s flew some domestic and European flights.

timz · Sun Sep 06, 2015 8:19 pm

DC-8-62s, you mean. Don't recall if the EA/BN interchange lasted until the DC-8-62, and no other BN domestic DC-8-62 flight comes to mind aside from SFO-LAX.

n1805bn · Sun Sep 06, 2015 11:52 pm

There were, of course, other DC-8 variants flown domestically in the US by Braniff. For example, the -51 was used on many routes in the US (including some of the routes mentioned above like DFW-LAS-OAK and DFW-LAS-SMF), and operated with US crews.

seat1a · Mon Sep 07, 2015 3:11 am

Quoting timz (Reply 34):

Didn't BN fly between JFK and IAD with the DC8s?

WA707atMSP · Mon Sep 07, 2015 9:31 am

Quoting timz (Reply 32):
Quoting timz (Reply 19):
BN started LAS-OAK and DEN-OAK in 1978-- I think DFW-OAK too.

Turns out BN started DFW-LAS in 1978, but DFW-OAK, LAS-OAK and DEN-OAK aren't in the 11/78 OAG. They're all in the 2/79.

Braniff's 1978 annual report has a map showing the dormant routes they added in Dec 1978 and Jan 1979. OAK-LAS/DEN/DFW are on the map. The map doesn't show Braniff added any dormant routes from SFO.

Quoting superjeff (Reply 27):
Actually, there was method to their madness. Braniff management (Harding Lawrence) felt that with deregulation, the company would have to grow, and grow fast. So they literally stood in line overnight to be the first one into the CAB the day the dormant authorities became available and grabbed everything they could. With a modern fleet for the time, of 100% 727-200's for their domestic services, and the DC8-62's for South America, as well as the 747's on the Hawaii and European routes (and later the Asian), it could have worked, except for the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979 which caused major fuel price increases and a strong recession. It actually was a "perfect storm," because Braniff felt that with a modern fleet, they could easily sell off any surplus airplanes if the routes didn't work out.

Braniff was not the first airline in line at the CAB, according to back issues of Air Transport World from 1978 / 79; United was 1st in line (there were allegations that UA was tipped off in advance, because they were the strongest proponent of deregulation), but UA took just five dormant routes. AA was next in line, and took (among others) Eastern's dormant routes from DFW to MSY, TPA, and MIA and ORD to MSP, and Frontier's dormant DFW-ABQ/LAS routes, that AA had coveted for many years. Braniff was in the middle of the line.

John Nance was the strongest proponent of the "perfect storm" theory in his (good, but not perfect) book about Braniff's collapse, "Splash of Colors". However, Braniff had dropped most of the dormant routes they won in the first days of deregulation before the recession started in the fall of 1979. One of the more infamous examples was that Braniff took over Pan Am's SEA/PDX-HNL authority and leased a 747 to fly the routes.....at a 5% load factor because they weren't able to take traffic away from NW. Likewise, Braniff's routes from Oakland are missing from their 1979 route map.

Braniff would not have dropped most of the dormant routes they added in 1978 / 79 so quickly (and while the economy was still strong) if the routes were viable.

In 1980, Braniff did sell off a large number of used 727s to AA, so AA could accelerate the retirement of their even older 707s. This transaction lowered the average age of the fleets at both BN and AA, but it wasn't enough to save Braniff.

longhauler · Mon Sep 07, 2015 1:25 pm

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 23):
Braniff was very proud of the fact that when they started South America flying enroute navigation aids were very poor and unreliable.

A lot of the "kids" around here may be surprised by this. There was a time when the "pioneers" of aviation were trailblazing ... Braniff, Pan American, Northwest, etc. It wasn't like today where you just leased an aircraft, bought a bunch of maps and arranged gate space.

These airlines not only had to build navigation aids, but also draw their own maps and build their own terminals.

Quoting superjeff (Reply 27):
Actually, there was method to their madness. Braniff management (Harding Lawrence) felt that with deregulation, the company would have to grow, and grow fast.

The time before deregulation was very frustrating for airlines. Sometimes it would take YEARS to receive approval (if at all) for even one new route. It also took just as long to drop a route. Lawrence was sure that deregulation wouldn't last long, and he wanted Braniff to have as many routes in place when the music stopped. As we now know, that did not happen.

Viscount724 · Tue Sep 08, 2015 12:15 am

Quoting seat1a (Reply 36):
Quoting timz (Reply 34):

Didn't BN fly between JFK and IAD with the DC8s?

Yes, they had a few DC-8s a week JFK-IAD that were continuations of South America flights.

In April 1, 1981 schedules they had 3 DC-8-62s a week JFK-IAD plus 2 daily 727s.

superjeff · Wed Sep 09, 2015 2:44 am

Bra off also flew one daily DC8-62 MIA-DFW-DEN (and before DFW, DAL) with domestic crews for years. I flew the trip many times in both directions. They also used the DC8-62 to fly DFW-HNL-DFW when their first (and for years, only) 747 (N601BN) was out of service for maintenance.

N328KF · Wed Sep 09, 2015 3:10 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 5):

What I don't understand is this: why did PanAm give up Panagra?

Viscount724 · Wed Sep 09, 2015 3:35 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 41):
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 5):

What I don't understand is this: why did Pan Am give up Panagra?

Panagra was a 50-50 joint venture between Pan Am and the W.R. Grace shipping company. Unfortunately the two partners rarely got along and at the end the two CEOs were barely on speaking terms. And being owned 50-50, neither Pan Am nor Grace could do anything without the other's agreement. Juan Trippe at Pan Am even stopped sending representatives to Panagra board meetings to ensure they wouldn't have a quorum and thus couldn't make any decisions.

Pan Am tried to buy Grace's share and Grace agreed but it was turned down by the U.S. government who preferred the Braniff offer on competitive grounds. Pan Am would have had too much control of the U.S.-South America market if they'd been permitted to take over Panagra. Even Panagra as it was had raised U.S. antitrust concerns over the years.

[Edited 2015-09-08 21:01:06]

seat1a · Wed Sep 09, 2015 3:38 pm

Quoting superjeff (Reply 40):

I recall a Friday only service DFW-MSY-PTY on a DC8?

milesrich · Fri Sep 11, 2015 5:09 pm

Quoting JohnJ (Reply 18):
There is a Facebook group called "Braniff Flying Colors" that has a wealth of information on the airline. According to them, Braniff actually announced the 767 in 1978 as the replacement for the DC-8. The 767-100 would have been used domestically as replacements for 727-200s on longer routes, and the 767-200 for international routes.

Not sure if you need to "like" them on Facebook to read the information, but here's the link to their post:

Braniff Flying Colors Facebook Page

Some Yahoo named Ben runs that website and posts lots of incorrect information on it. Don't rely on it at all. And unfortunately, if you join the Facebook page and point out the mistakes, he bans you. For example, he has claimed that Braniff operated, starting in 1948, an interchange with American and Delta to California, with get this, Braniff HOU-SAT; American SAT-ELP, and Continental, ELP-LAX/SAN.

DTWPurserBoy · Fri Sep 11, 2015 6:46 pm

Quoting dcajet (Reply 30):
And interesting enough, no US based fight service crews were qualified on the DC-8-62, so BN got a dispensation from the FAA to allow them to operate the LAX-SFO-LAX legs with crews from the EZE/SCL/LIM bases - i.e. a domestic flight with foreign national crews.

Definitely incorrect. All BN flight attendants--domestic and LAD--were DC-8-62 qualified. I not only flew on them I taught it at the Flight Attendant Training College.

Braniff did not want to rework flight attendant schedules to position people in MIA or LAX for a one or two hour flight as it was too expensive.

[Edited 2015-09-11 11:53:24]

The LAD (Latin American Division) was a highly political thing. All of the flight attendants were related either to high government officials or people that had the chops to cancel BN's landing rights. All were from VERY well to do families. It was not unusual for them to get off the airplane in LIM or GIG and see a chauffer with a Mercedes there at the door to drive them home.

[Edited 2015-09-11 11:56:42]

milesrich · Fri Sep 11, 2015 10:05 pm

In 1972, Braniff operated one DC-8-62 DEN-DAL RT in the middle of the afternoon

DTWPurserBoy · Fri Sep 11, 2015 11:57 pm

Braniff operated the DC-8-62 on numerous flights--including the DFW-DEN route on occasion. It was also used on the MSP-MCI-DFW-MEX-DFW-MCI-MSP Flight 50/51 for months in the late 70s'. I worked it when we bought two airplanes ex-Alitalia that had not had the interiors changed out yet. It also operated intermittently on DFW-MIA, sometimes just ship positioning.

Braniff operated the DC-8-62, DC-8-62CF(all of ONE!) and DC-8-51 and were frequently substituted on domestic flights due to heavy maintenance and were frequently used on charter flights to Europe and South America.

WA707atMSP · Sat Sep 12, 2015 12:15 pm

Quoting milesrich (Reply 44):
For example, he has claimed that Braniff operated, starting in 1948, an interchange with American and Delta to California, with get this, Braniff HOU-SAT; American SAT-ELP, and Continental, ELP-LAX/SAN.

Oops! Errors like that make everything else on a website completely untrustworthy.

DTWPurserBoy · Sat Sep 12, 2015 12:57 pm

Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 48):
Oops! Errors like that make everything else on a website completely untrustworthy.

There are a lot of people out there saying totally incorrect things about Braniff. They are not happy when those of us that actually worked there say something. This guy's Facebook page is loaded with factual errors.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net