Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

doulasc · Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:27 am

I want to start with that in the mid 1950s Howard Hughes was looking at the Douglas DC-6B for TWA but chose Lockheed
1049 Super Constellation instead.
Next TWA was going to order some Bristol Brittanias but that fell through.
TWA had plans to order the Lockheed Prop Jet Electra
Next TWA made plans for the Sud aviation Caravelle.
Then toward the end TWA had plans for the Airbus A318 and A330.
It would have been great to see these Planes fly for TWA.I just wonder was it financial issues that caused TWA
to back out of the orders?

OzarkD9S · Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:36 am

IIRC they had a tentative order for Concorde like most US carriers to operate as a stopgap until the Boeing 2707 was ready. Don't know whether they were "firm" or "letter of intent".

KELPkid · Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:45 am

Carl Icahnn was a disaster for the airline...he quashed the fleet renewal plans. I think TWA 800 exposed what was wrong with TWA at the time. Who was still flying 747-100's across the Atlantic in 1996? Most other airlines had long retired their -100s or had moved on to different types (like the 767). The few that were flying 747's were using later build -200s or -400s at this point in the game...

P.S. Didn't TWA also have A340's on order?

jetjack74 · Sat Oct 03, 2015 2:02 am

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 2):
I think TWA 800 exposed what was wrong with TWA at the time.

TWA800 exposed what was wrong with US airlines and aging airliners at the time(kapton wiring, dangers with antiquated fuel systems), much like United 811 and Aloha 243(such as microscopic metal fatigue in aging planes) did 7/8 years earlier. TWA was in serious trouble yes, but is was mostly to do with incompetent people and someone who was entrusted to save the company, but bailed out faster than he arrived, much due to his, again, incompetence(Jeffery Erickson)

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 2):
Who was still flying 747-100's across the Atlantic in 1996?

BA
AF
UA
NW
VS

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 2):
P.S. Didn't TWA also have A340's on order?

They had the A330 and A318 on order, but cancelled them in the AA merger.

[Edited 2015-10-02 19:14:53]

PlanesNTrains · Sat Oct 03, 2015 2:38 am

Quoting jetjack74 (Reply 3):
They had the A330 and A318 on order, but cancelled them in the AA merger.

The A330 made a lot of sense to me. The A318 seemed like a bad joke when announced.

-Dave

hOMSaR · Sat Oct 03, 2015 3:59 am

Quoting jetjack74 (Reply 3):
They had the A330 and A318 on order, but cancelled them in the AA merger.

I thought the A330 order was converted into A318s. The A330 was on order for a long time, but was continually deferred, and nobody ever expected TWA to take them. Then they converted the order to A318s around the same time they ordered 717s.

TrijetsRMissed · Sat Oct 03, 2015 5:33 am

In early 1996, TW were looking at replacing their 741 fleet with 15 MD-11ERs. The MD-11ER would have been the new flagship aircraft for the airline. As it was, the MD-11s were the final piece to a greater MDC order that included 50 MD-83s and 50+50 MD-95s - all to have been announced and made official towards the end of Q3 1996.

Sadly, TW 800 changed everything and the multi billion dollar order was shelved. TW would go on to order 15 MD-83s in Oct 1996, and 24 more in April 1998. Later in 1998, the 50+50 MD-95 order was placed in the form of the 717 with Boeing.

But the large MD-11ER order never came to be. It would have been a real game changer for passenger the trijet, and perhaps McDonnell Douglas.

Quoting hOmSaR (Reply 5):
I thought the A330 order was converted into A318s

Removing themselves from the A330 obligation was the primary reason why the A318s were ordered by TW. That and they were converted at very favorable pricing. Airbus ate most of that A330 MOU at the time.

rikkus67 · Sat Oct 03, 2015 6:54 am

Howard Hughes was very interested in the A.V.Roe (AVRO) Canada Jetliner. Had it went into production, it would have been an easier transition from props to jets, as the aircraft was similar in size.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfPhIT7VLVg

AVRO Canada Jetliner. First flown in 1949 (13 days after the Comet)

MD80 · Sat Oct 03, 2015 9:44 am

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 6):

Oh, I always love your detailed information regarding historical information in context of McDonnell Douglas. Thanks!

IIRC, there was an article from 1994 or so with an interview of the CEO of TWA and he said that they were looking at the possibility to order additional MD-80s and also MD-90s.

Btw. the initial agreement for 15 MD-82s was signed after TWA evaluated all potential scenarios and at I´ve read that TWA was close to order the Boeing 737-300 instead of the MD-80. It is interesting to note that TWA were no longer a DC-9-operator before selecting the MD-80. TWA became a DC-9-user again through the purchase of Ozark Air Lines.

The selection of both the Airbus 318 and Boeing 717 was sometimes seen as an indication that no manufacturer was willing to “finance more than the announced numbers” alongside the fact that the A318-order (and options to get A320s and A321s at a later time) more or less replaced with the A330-order.

Nevertheless it was amazing to see that TWA replaced a large portion of their ageing fleet during the second half of the 1990s at a very high pace. This task probably consumed much money but it enabled TWA to re-new their fleet and to retire several types with the aim to streamline their fleet.

L-188 · Sat Oct 03, 2015 10:03 am

Quoting rikkus67 (Reply 7):
Howard Hughes was very interested in the A.V.Roe (AVRO) Canada Jetliner.

Although they did operate the type Howie also told Convair to stuff a bunch of CV-880's he had on order. Charlie Willis found out about that and went to Convair and got favorable terms for Alaska Airlines to purchase their first jet.

AirbusA6 · Sat Oct 03, 2015 10:15 am

The order for Trent powered A330s was ahead of its time, and I imagine TWA got a good price, as at the time they were ordered, A330 sales were unspectacular while RR were struggling to stay in the game.

Subsequently, it turned into a best selling combination!

N14AZ · Sat Oct 03, 2015 10:18 am

Quoting doulasc (Thread starter):
Then toward the end TWA had plans for the Airbus A318 and A330.

Quoting jetjack74 (Reply 3):
They had the A330 and A318 on order

I made a brief google search but didn't find anything. Are there any renderings out there from the time they ordered these airliners?

MD80 · Sat Oct 03, 2015 10:29 am

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 11):

Here is an article with an A330-rendering from 1989:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/denon/2849946940

SpaceshipDC10 · Sat Oct 03, 2015 11:27 am

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 6):
In early 1996, TW were looking at replacing their 741 fleet with 15 MD-11ERs. The MD-11ER would have been the new flagship aircraft for the airline.

What? That would have been awesome to look at their then brand new livery.

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 6):
It would have been a real game changer for passenger the trijet, and perhaps McDonnell Douglas.

Yup.

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifieda...inerphotos/photos/big/00000126.jpg

[Edited 2015-10-03 04:29:32]

Cody · Sat Oct 03, 2015 12:56 pm

What aircraft did TWA plan to operate from STL to Tokyo? I heard they were looking at getting a few 777's, although this was always a rumor and not a confirmed order.

jfk777 · Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:04 pm

Quoting Cody (Reply 14):
What aircraft did TWA plan to operate from STL to Tokyo? I heard they were looking at getting a few 777's, although this was always a rumor and not a confirmed order.

TWA was looking to fly to Tokyo but never actually did, a 763ER with a reduced payload was a plane they were looking at.

CF-CPI · Sat Oct 03, 2015 2:00 pm

Didn't they have options/orders for Convair 990s along with the 880s? Crazy times.
The proposed Caravelles were GE powered as well, using the GE aft-fan engine used on the 990.

Looking back, the A330 would have been great out of JFK as a replacement for the aging 747-100s (which eventually figured in the airline's downfall).

The A318s were eyed for use on long, thin semitranscons out of the midwest: Moline-LAX and the like. Given the economics and performance of that airframe, it is probably just as well that TW never go involved with them.

shuttle9juliet · Sat Oct 03, 2015 3:02 pm

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 2):

Air Canada and Tower Air were also flogging their 100s at this time too across the pond.

Viscount724 · Sat Oct 03, 2015 4:35 pm

Quoting shuttle9juliet (Reply 17):
Quoting KELPkid (Reply 2):

Air Canada and Tower Air were also flogging their 100s at this time too across the pond.

BA's 741s were still in heavy use on their LHR-east coast U.S./Canada routes in 1996. I remember my last flight on a 741 was on BA LHR-YMX (Montreal Mirabel) in late July 1996. I think their last 741s were retired in 1998. Some were 28 years old by then. If memory correct the one used on that July 1996 flight was one of their oldest, delivered when they were still BOAC.

When the 742s replaced the 741s on longer BA routes the 741s primarily operated the shorter North Atlantic routes for their last few years of service.

bmacleod · Sat Oct 03, 2015 5:24 pm

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 6):
In early 1996, TW were looking at replacing their 741 fleet with 15 MD-11ERs. The MD-11ER would have been the new flagship aircraft for the airline. As it was, the MD-11s were the final piece to a greater MDC order that included 50 MD-83s and 50+50 MD-95s - all to have been announced and made official towards the end of Q3 1996.

Sadly, TW 800 changed everything and the multi billion dollar order was shelved. TW would go on to order 15 MD-83s in Oct 1996, and 24 more in April 1998. Later in 1998, the 50+50 MD-95 order was placed in the form of the 717 with Boeing.

But the large MD-11ER order never came to be. It would have been a real game changer for passenger the trijet, and perhaps McDonnell Douglas.

I highly doubt that had TWA800 not occured, the MD-11 order would have gone ahead; In 1995-1996 TWA had huge financial issues, Chapter 11 and stuff.

More 767-300ERs would be more likely.

[Edited 2015-10-03 10:25:57]

Polot · Sat Oct 03, 2015 5:49 pm

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 16):
Given the economics and performance of that airframe, it is probably just as well that TW never go involved with them.

I'm of the opinion that because of all the PW6000/initial A318 woes if TW had survived that A318 order would have led to some nice discounted A319/A320s (and no A318s).

PlanesNTrains · Sat Oct 03, 2015 5:57 pm

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 16):
Moline-LAX

A TW A318 Moline-LAX. That'd have been an oddball.

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 16):
Given the economics and performance of that airframe, it is probably just as well that TW never go involved with them.

Absolutely.

Quoting Polot (Reply 20):
I'm of the opinion that because of all the PW6000/initial A318 woes if TW had survived that A318 order would have led to some nice discounted A319/A320s (and no A318s).

I'd hope so. The A319 and up would have been a great fleet renewal for them.

-Dave

Gasman · Sat Oct 03, 2015 6:00 pm

Quoting jetjack74 (Reply 3):
TWA was in serious trouble yes, but is was mostly to do with incompetent people and someone who was entrusted to save the company, but bailed out faster than he arrived, much due to his, again, incompetence(Jeffery Erickson)

There is always going to be a hierarchy of competence between individual airline's management teams. That said, I would argue that much of what happened to some US legacy carriers was simply a realignment and consolidation of the market. From the 60's through the 90's you had Pan American, United, Delta, American, TWA, Northwest (dare I include Eastern?) all behemoth carriers performing very similar roles in an ultimately deregulated market. What's surprising is that this situation was able to be sustained for as long as it was.

People are very quick to say "Lockerbie" or "Erickson" but in reality these were probably only the factors which initiated a process which was inevitable anyway.

rikkus67 · Sat Oct 03, 2015 6:39 pm

Quoting L-188 (Reply 9):
Although they did operate the type

TWA never operated the type. Howard leased the prototype from AVRO, and used it for a few years as his personal transport. The Canadian Government killed the program, before the type ever went into production. Trans-Canada Air Lines (Air Canada) was govt. owned at that time, and wanted the original design, which was 2 engined... the prototype was ready before the engines (remember this was early jet engine development), and was quickly redesigned to have 4 engines.

It's too bad Howard didn't push harder to get the plane into production. Instead, AVRO was forced into (the more basic) CF100 fighter production, to support war efforts during the era. Both the C-102 Jetliner, and CF100 Arrow Interceptor were cancelled near the same time.

Even with a minor landing accident during testing, the model flew until 1957, at which time it was donated to the National Air Museum. Because of space limitations, only the cockpit survives.

Had the type went into production, Canada would have been well ahead of England and the USA in commercial jet production. While the Comet had to be redesigned due to metal fatigue around the square windows (the Jetliner had smaller round fuselage windows), and the 707 was still in design phase... the AVRO Jetliner was flying constantly across the USA with HH.

It also didn't need airport improvements, which would have helped with sales. The aircraft was also the first in North America to fly jet Air Mail, from Toronto to New York (in then, record time).

http://www.groseducationalmedia.ca/vsc/canada3a.jpg

L-188 · Sat Oct 03, 2015 7:26 pm

Quoting rikkus67 (Reply 23):
TWA never operated the type

I was referring to the Convair 880 I discussed.

rikkus67 · Sat Oct 03, 2015 7:42 pm

Quoting L-188 (Reply 24):
I was referring to the Convair 880 I discussed.

TMI on the AVRO? lol....

TrijetsRMissed · Sun Oct 04, 2015 1:35 am

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 19):
I highly doubt that had TWA800 not occured, the MD-11 order would have gone ahead; In 1995-1996 TWA had huge financial issues, Chapter 11 and stuff.

Your entitled to that opinion, but the truth is TW had some positive momentum right before flight 800, from which they never recovered. Of course, it should go without saying that the airline had far deeper rooted issues than that single crash.

But as for the OP's topic is concerned... I was there, and we were engaged in discussions for MD-11ERs with tentative deliveries from 1997-99.

Quoting MD80 (Reply 8):
I always love your detailed information regarding historical information in context of McDonnell Douglas.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

Quoting MD80 (Reply 8):
IIRC, there was an article from 1994 or so with an interview of the CEO of TWA and he said that they were looking at the possibility to order additional MD-80s and also MD-90s.

I think TW would have eventually ordered MD-90s down the road. But in my dealings with the airline, they were content on building upon their MD-83s with the JT8D-219s, rather than adding a smaller sub-fleet in the same category with different engine. Because of finances, TW could never commit to one massive order for fleet renewal purposes, 'Ala AA and DL.

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 16):
Looking back, the A330 would have been great out of JFK as a replacement for the aging 747-100s (which eventually figured in the airline's downfall).

Maybe. But an early/mid '90s build A333 was not the airplane it is today. As far as mission capabilities are concerned, the early A333s were closer to the A306Rs, with better fuel consumption.

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 16):
The A318s were eyed for use on long, thin semitranscons out of the midwest: Moline-LAX and the like. Given the economics and performance of that airframe, it is probably just as well that TW never go involved with them.

Agree with you here.

Viscount724 · Sun Oct 04, 2015 1:58 am

Quoting rikkus67 (Reply 23):
TWA never operated the type. Howard leased the prototype from AVRO, and used it for a few years as his personal transport.

That's news to me. Do you have a source for your Howard Hughes info? As far as I know the single prototype was never certified and certainly not for operation in the U.S. by a private owner.

DeltaMD95 · Sun Oct 04, 2015 3:29 am

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 6):
In early 1996, TW were looking at replacing their 741 fleet with 15 MD-11ERs. The MD-11ER would have been the new flagship aircraft for the airline. As it was, the MD-11s were the final piece to a greater MDC order that included 50 MD-83s and 50+50 MD-95s - all to have been announced and made official towards the end of Q3 1996.

The MD-11ER order would have been incredible. But even the 50 MD83s and 50+50 MD95s would have been huge. The latter would have been a nice boost for the MD95 program, as it still stood a chance of being successful at that point.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 15):
TWA was looking to fly to Tokyo but never actually did, a 763ER with a reduced payload was a plane they were looking at.

IMO, TWA were extremely limited with any chance of Int'l expansion relying only on 763s.

Quoting MD80 (Reply 8):
the initial agreement for 15 MD-82s was signed after TWA evaluated all potential scenarios and at I´ve read that TWA was close to order the Boeing 737-300 instead of the MD-80.

It is a great thing that both TWA and Delta passed on the 737-300 and instead ordered hundreds of MD80s.

Quoting MD80 (Reply 8):
It is interesting to note that TWA were no longer a DC-9-operator before selecting the MD-80. TWA became a DC-9-user again through the purchase of Ozark Air Lines.

I didn't realize this. How many DC9s did TWA order originally? Why were they retired so early? It is interesting to note the Ozark aircraft lasted until 2001, IIRC.

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 13):

Wow, that is one sexy three-holer! STL-NRT, STL-LGW, PDX-ICN/HKG (just hypothesizing)... Oh what could have been...

Viscount724 · Sun Oct 04, 2015 3:53 am

Quoting DeltaMD95 (Reply 28):
How many DC9s did TWA order originally?

TWA ordered 20 DC-9-14s on July 1, 1964. They were delivered between February 1966 and August 1967.

Quoting DeltaMD95 (Reply 28):
Why were they retired so early?

I'm guessing the short-fuselage DC-9s became too small and uneconomic for a high-cost carrier like TWA, especially after deregulation when fares dropped significantly in many cases. They of course inherited a few more short-fuselage DC-9s when the acquired Ozark 6 years after the last of the original TWA DC-9s left the fleet.

shuttle9juliet · Sun Oct 04, 2015 5:21 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 18):

Similar what happened to the 742s.After the 136s had gone in 1998, the 742s were deployed on Transatlantic Including JFK, BOS, YYZ, YVR, PHL,EWR,MIA and on the other side, LHR to CAI, BOM, etc etc .
I have no doubt missed a few out.
My last flight was a on G-BDXG ( City of Birmingham )

Back to TWA, were 747 300s mentioned once upon a time ( on the second hand market.?)

CF-CPI · Sun Oct 04, 2015 3:00 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 29):
I'm guessing the short-fuselage DC-9s became too small and uneconomic for a high-cost carrier like TWA, especially after deregulation when fares dropped significantly in many cases. They of course inherited a few more short-fuselage DC-9s when the acquired Ozark 6 years after the last of the original TWA DC-9s left the fleet.

I have always been fascinated with those original TWA DC-9s. I was told they were purchased to replace the old L749 Constellations that were plying the east coast in the 60s. Those original series 10s seemed to be relegated to the east coast and Ohio valley for their life with TW in the 60s and 70s.

Maybe a real TWA expert could provide details, but IIRC that original set was delivered in an all-economy configuration, then around 1970 they got a small F section, but this only lasted a few years and they went back to all coach, then left the fleet starting in the late 1970s.

MD80 · Sun Oct 04, 2015 3:52 pm

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 31):
...but this only lasted a few years and they went back to all coach, then left the fleet starting in the late 1970s

I am no expert but I am quiet sure that the configuration for the DC-9 was Y83 at TWA during the second half of the 1970s with two lavatories in the back of the cabin, one galley section left and right of the forward service door and a closet/carry-on baggage compartment next to the main door.

EA CO AS · Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:08 pm

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 6):
But the large MD-11ER order never came to be. It would have been a real game changer for passenger the trijet, and perhaps McDonnell Douglas.

As much as I'd have loved to see that, an order for 15 frames wouldn't have changed the fortunes for either the MD-11 program or McDonnell-Douglas.

Viscount724 · Sun Oct 04, 2015 11:50 pm

Quoting MD80 (Reply 32):
Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 31):
...but this only lasted a few years and they went back to all coach, then left the fleet starting in the late 1970s

I am no expert but I am quiet sure that the configuration for the DC-9 was Y83 at TWA during the second half of the 1970s with two lavatories in the back of the cabin, one galley section left and right of the forward service door and a closet/carry-on baggage compartment next to the main door.

Y83 matches the DC-9 seat map on the last page of this TWA seating guide (3rd item on the page after NW). No date but probably mid-to-late 1970s.
http://airlinespastpresent.blogspot.ch/2012/02/twa-seat-guide-map.html

TrijetsRMissed · Mon Oct 05, 2015 1:22 am

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 33):

In the short term it would. The MD-XX would have been launched. In the long term, who knows.

I don't think the acquisition would've happened at that time, or in the direct months that followed. The price would've been too high for Boeing. And so the 100 frame US MD-95 order that directly followed TW's order would not have been voided by the CEO either, whom by then had decided the price was right.

EA CO AS · Mon Oct 05, 2015 1:28 am

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 35):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 33):
In the short term it would.

Not with just 15 frames, no chance. Short or long. Especially given how quickly other carriers dropped their MD-11s.

Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

RE: Planes TWA Was Going To Order But Backed Out,

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net