LH707330
Posts: 2284
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Thu May 19, 2016 5:00 am

Quoting longhauler (Reply 139):
But as runways lengthened and engines became more powerful, the B707 could then fulfill this role as well. The thick wings and powerful engines the VC-10 which got it off the ground quickly, became a high fuel burn detriment during cruise. This made the aircraft hard to sell, as it's one main function was no longer necessary.
Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 140):
Everyone who was associated with the VC-10 had nothing but praise for it as an aircraft. On a typical LHR-JFK segment it burned 8% more fuel than a 707 (as I recall). However, its passenger appeal probably translated into higher loads which offset the fuel burn.

Is that versus a Conway-powered 707? I know the Conway 707 beat the JT4A by about 6-7%, and the JT3D leapfrogged about another 6-7%, so the VC10 couldn't have been tooooo bad.

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 144):
Back to the thread, I wonder if BA has regretted buying the 767-336ER with RR engines. Whilst essentially the same as used on the 747-400 (BA would switch engines from the 767 to the 744 prior to overhaul I believe), the RR powered 767 is the least efficient.

The 763 and the 744 both had the same engine choices, so if they regretted them on the 763 they probably also would on the 744. From what I've read, the GE engines were best on that generation, which explains the sales breakouts.

To expand the topic a bit, there are certain engine buys I bet people regretted:

JT3C 720s a year before the JT3D came out
Conway 707s and DC-8 for the same reason
PW4098 777s
Jury's still out, put PW1100G on the neo

[Edited 2016-05-18 22:04:42]
 
VX321
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 8:53 pm

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Thu May 19, 2016 6:13 am

Quoting na (Reply 148):

Royal Brunei used the B777s as an interim until they received the 787,so technically not true buyers' remorse.
 
dc863
Posts: 1480
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 1999 10:52 am

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Thu May 19, 2016 8:25 am

Egyptair and it's IL-62s and TU-154Bs from the Soviet Union were so poor that they made a permanent switch to Boeing by 1973.
 
CF-CPI
Posts: 1448
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2000 12:54 am

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Thu May 19, 2016 10:32 am

Quoting na (Reply 148):

As for regretting to buy 777s, Jet Airways and Kenya Airways certainly should have never ordered 77Ws.
Gulf Air also operated the 77W for a very short time.

Ironically, the Gulf Air 777W were leased from Jet Airways, when Jet was saddled with overcapacity.

The Gulf Air 777 was ill-timed, coming right as the global recession hit. IMHO it looked stunning in their livery.
 
jfk777
Posts: 7247
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Thu May 19, 2016 10:48 am

Pan Am buying National back in 1980, they paid too much got a dog in the Dc-10 fleet and didn't get what they need. They needed east to west feed not Florida to JFK feed.
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6461
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Thu May 19, 2016 1:10 pm

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 150):
Is that versus a Conway-powered 707? I know the Conway 707 beat the JT4A by about 6-7%, and the JT3D leapfrogged about another 6-7%, so the VC10 couldn't have been tooooo bad.

BOAC said that the seat mile fuel burn on the Standard VC-10 was about 20% more than the B707-420. The Super VC-10 was better, but still quite a bit more than the -320C.

There were a lot of things working against the VC-10. The Standard only carried about 115 passengers, against the B707-420s 134 (then 142), but the Super was closer with 138. The Conways on the VC-10 were about 5000 lbs of thrust more powerful than the ones on the B-707-420 and DC-8-40, with their eventual higher fuel burn. The thick wing and advanced aerodynamics for short field performance caused a lot of drag in cruise as well.

But I say again, it did exactly what BOAC wanted. And that was to carry a 20,000 lbs payload non-stop from NBO to LHR. The B707-420 could not do that. The B707-320C could only do it after the runways were lengthened. And that was the big tragedy of the aircraft, it was so fine tuned to that one mission ... that once runways and airports were improved, it made the aircraft unnecessary.

Toward the end of its career at BOAC, it was flown in an all Y configuration. I am sure that helped seat mile fuel burn a lot. My last flgiht on the VC-10 was in an all Y cabin flying YYZ-YMX-PIK-MAN.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
okay
Posts: 642
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:11 pm

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Thu May 19, 2016 4:29 pm

AY was never happy with the E170s. They were more happy with the E190s, but most of the smaller ones were phased out rather soon after they entered service with the airline.
 
iahcsr
Posts: 4777
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 1999 2:59 pm

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Thu May 19, 2016 7:36 pm

Odd question; Speaking of the VC10.. were the leading edge devices referred to as 'droops' as they were on the Trident?
The term seems more correctly disciptive than 'slats'
Working Hard, Flying Right Friendly....
 
olympic472
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 5:37 am

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Fri May 20, 2016 6:10 am

SQ had a few. Both A & B.

The B757. I recall it was due to cargo hold issue.
They replaced them with A310.

Also mentioned earlier,
The A340. Replaced with 777s
Civil Aviation has a "Need for Speed"!
 
User avatar
northstardc4m
Posts: 3347
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Fri May 20, 2016 2:28 pm

Here's anonther one...

BCal and the A310. The original order seemed to make sense granted, but by the time they were received the nature of the African routes had changed to the extent that they were no longer needed (Either the routes worked economically with DC-10s or they did not work economically even with the smaller A310 and were dropped). And we get that wonderful shadowy saga of them ending up flying for Libyan Airlines.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
superjeff
Posts: 1310
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:14 am

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Fri May 20, 2016 4:54 pm

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 142):
Did Braniff ever send the 707-220 to South America? I thought they were only for high temperature mid-west airports.

Yes, but Braniff also bought some 707-327's to use in the Vietnam contract they had (Travis AFB-HNL-(GUM)-SGN) and IIRC also ran some of these. And then, of course, in 1967 they bought Panagra so were able to use Panagra's DC8's instead.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6313
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Fri May 20, 2016 5:06 pm

Quoting superjeff (Reply 160):
Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 142):
Did Braniff ever send the 707-220 to South America? I thought they were only for high temperature mid-west airports.

Yes, but Braniff also bought some 707-327's to use in the Vietnam contract they had (Travis AFB-HNL-(GUM)-SGN) and IIRC also ran some of these. And then, of course, in 1967 they bought Panagra so were able to use Panagra's DC8's instead.

Yes, I only remember Braniff flying the DC-8-62 to South America. They had that SFO-LAX tag on to various South America and Central America destinations.

Somewhere along the line, Braniff sold their 707-220s to BWIA. As noted earlier, there were only four of them in service. Five were build, I believe. One crashed near Arlington during a test flight, which is the only time that has ever happened with a Boeing airplane during the jet age.

I'm pretty sure Braniff also used the 707-320s to Hawaii, especially the DAL-ITO route.
 
bmacleod
Posts: 2990
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Fri May 20, 2016 5:17 pm

AC - the A343 and E175 (the E195 have done somewhat better) the A345/A346 order cancelled. Mostly the fuel burn though the FAs reportedly hated the galley setup..

CP - the 727 (in the mid 1970s)

[Edited 2016-05-20 10:19:44]
"What good are wings without the courage to fly?" - Atticus
 
CF-CPI
Posts: 1448
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2000 12:54 am

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Fri May 20, 2016 5:29 pm

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 162):
AC - the A343 and E175 (the E195 have done somewhat better) the A345/A346 order cancelled.

CP - the 727 (in the mid 1970s)

The way I heard things, the 345 (two of them) were not working out well on YYZ-HKG. AC saw the writing on the wall and axed the A346 order before any airframes were delivered, then migrated to the 77L and 77W, which have been stellar.

I'm not sure the A343 was such a tragedy, fulfilling a certain long haul niche for awhile. It was just eclipsed (in general), by the 777 over time, and the A333 filled in some as well. I did see an A343 in MIA once, which seemed like overkill from YYZ. Perhaps sit was a sub or extra needed capacity (this was in February).

The 727-200 (two of them for CP) was too large for the market conditions. CP had some 727 100 series which were probably more appropriate, but once 737 deliveries were sufficient I suspect they were less useful.
 
User avatar
FlyCaledonian
Posts: 1950
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 6:18 am

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Fri May 20, 2016 8:26 pm

Alitalia and the 747-443 - Five aircraft were ordered for delivery in 2001 but AZ never took delivery and they ended up with VS. I've never understood why they ordered these given they had gone down the MD-11 route and 2001 was very late to start being a 747-400 operator! (They went on to take ten 777-243ERs between 2002-04).

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 162):


Quoting CF-CPI,reply=163:
The 727-200 (two of them for CP) was too large for the market conditions. CP had some 727 100 series which were probably more appropriate, but once 737 deliveries were sufficient I suspect they were less useful.

The 737-300 was also shortlived. Canadian Pacific took delivery of five 737-317s in 1985 but they were gone by 1986 (and two orders were cancelled). Pacific Western, which merged with Canadian Pacific to form Canadian Airlines International, also had three 737-375 aircraft on order but their acquisition was cancelled before delivery in 1987.
Let's Go British Caledonian!
 
CF-CPI
Posts: 1448
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2000 12:54 am

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Fri May 20, 2016 9:24 pm

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 164):
The 737-300 was also shortlived. Canadian Pacific took delivery of five 737-317s in 1985 but they were gone by 1986 (and two orders were cancelled).


Interesting, these. All in all, I count three different liveries on 737-300s which were in the fleet for 1-2 years max. Certainly this is some kind of record, even exceeding the Alia L1011-500s, which seemed to have a livery of the month as well?

At least one of them, an 'Empress of Ontario', was in the Orange. Possibly the other four as well. Note the orange -300 in here:
http://cpair.blogspot.com/2007/03/fleet-boeing-737s.html

One or more of them was in the short lived Attache (business class) livery, September 1985
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Attache-de-CP/Boeing-737-317/0287405/L/

The blue Canadian Pacific scheme from 1986 is shown here on a -300, April 1986:
http://www.airpixbycaz.co.uk/cazsite...ation/airlines/calp02/calp211.html
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5535
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Fri May 20, 2016 11:05 pm

Juan Trippe ordered 25 707s and 30 DC-8s in the same week (surprising both of them, each thought they were getting the whole deal). Once they were delivered PA decided they liked the 707's better and ditched the DC-8s fairly quickly and never ordered another one. I wonder if that wasn't part of the reason why Juan Trippe lobbied Bill Allen so hard for the 747; he wanted a larger plane and Douglas was offering the DC-8-60 series; by getting Boeing to build the 747 he did not have to buy any more DC-8s after spurning them.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
LH707330
Posts: 2284
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Sat May 21, 2016 2:53 am

Quoting longhauler (Reply 155):
BOAC said that the seat mile fuel burn on the Standard VC-10 was about 20% more than the B707-420. The Super VC-10 was better, but still quite a bit more than the -320C.

Ok, so if we assume the 320C was ~7% better than the 420, then maybe the Supers were a few percent worse than the 420. The 420 didn't do so hot, RR really got leapfrogged there.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 166):
Juan Trippe ordered 25 707s and 30 DC-8s in the same week (surprising both of them, each thought they were getting the whole deal). Once they were delivered PA decided they liked the 707's better and ditched the DC-8s fairly quickly and never ordered another one. I wonder if that wasn't part of the reason why Juan Trippe lobbied Bill Allen so hard for the 747; he wanted a larger plane and Douglas was offering the DC-8-60 series; by getting Boeing to build the 747 he did not have to buy any more DC-8s after spurning them.

Sort of. PA and AA pushed Boeing to do the 320, and once they showed up, PA never ordered another DC-8.

Why they never ordered DC-8-60s is probably partly due to the delivery issues DC had at the time. PA was still taking plenty of 707s into 1967 and 1968, I think at that point they just thought Boeing was the more reliable supplier. The 747 was I think largely due to the 707 being a victim of its own success (damn narrowbodies clogging airports ).
 
skyhawkmatthew
Posts: 480
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:42 pm

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Sat May 21, 2016 3:42 am

DJ/VA and their E170s bought to compete with QF's Q400s. They were only around for a few years before getting replaced with ATRs.
Qantas - The Spirit of Australia.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Sat May 21, 2016 4:17 am

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 162):
CP - the 727 (in the mid 1970s)

The 727-100s couldn't do much that the later 737-200 deliveries couldn't do, and with one less cockpit crew and one less engine.

CP's 4 721s were delivered with 22 F and 75 Y seats. The 22 F was far too many and they were reconfigured to 12 F and 90 Y. That compares to the early 737-200s which were either 12 F and 83 Y or 107 all-Y. That was of course when Y seat pitch was 34 inches. In later years of service the all-Y configuration was around 120 or slightly more.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5535
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Sat May 21, 2016 2:40 pm

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 167):
PA and AA pushed Boeing to do the 320, and once they showed up, PA never ordered another DC-8.

I had read that PA never ordered another DC-8 after the first 30, and they dumped them as soon as they could. Do you have information to the contrary?

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 167):
The 747 was I think largely due to the 707 being a victim of its own success (damn narrowbodies clogging airports&nbsp .

Actually, the 747 was due largely to both Bill Allen and Juan Trippe envisioning bringing air travel to the masses. The C-5 project had proved that a much bigger airliner was practical, and the numbers proved that if you could fill it then air fares could fall dramatically. I think Juan Trippe was the one who was most enthusiastic about it, and he pushed Allen the hardest. There is the story about their meeting on the golf course, and shaking hands over the agreement that if Allen will build it, Trippe will buy it. That agreement was the tipping point that transformed the 747 from just a dream to a real project. Of course it did not prove in real life to be anything like what Allen and Trippe envisioned; it can be reasonably argued that the 747 purchase doomed PA-they got too many too soon, and were financially crippled by it. It also put them in the position that when the 747 was improved (the -200 and -300, they were pretty much dead by the time the -400 appeared) they could not buy them. It nearly sank Boeing as well. Only very harsh and severe moves by Boeing kept it from going bankrupt in the early 70's, but they did survive and the 747 ultimately proved very lucrative for them. But many airlines found in the 70's that just offering a lot of seats on a flight did not guarantee that they would be filled, and the 747 was a very expensive plane to fly empty.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
VC10er
Topic Author
Posts: 4246
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Sat May 21, 2016 3:06 pm

Thanks for the great VC-10 information. That aircraft makes my heart skip a beat!

I think this may be the longest thread I ever started: thank you to everyone, very educational.

R (VC-10er)
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
jfk777
Posts: 7247
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Sun May 22, 2016 1:28 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 170):
Actually, the 747 was due largely to both Bill Allen and Juan Trippe envisioning bringing air travel to the masses. The C-5 project had proved that a much bigger airliner was practical, and the numbers proved that if you could fill it then air fares could fall dramatically. I think Juan Trippe was the one who was most enthusiastic about it, and he pushed Allen the hardest. There is the story about their meeting on the golf course, and shaking hands over the agreement that if Allen will build it, Trippe will buy it. That agreement was the tipping point that transformed the 747 from just a dream to a real project. Of course it did not prove in real life to be anything like what Allen and Trippe envisioned; it can be reasonably argued that the 747 purchase doomed PA-they got too many too soon, and were financially crippled by it. It also put them in the position that when the 747 was improved (the -200 and -300, they were pretty much dead by the time the -400 appeared) they could not buy them. It nearly sank Boeing as well. Only very harsh and severe moves by Boeing kept it from going bankrupt in the early 70's, but they did survive and the 747 ultimately proved very lucrative for them. But many airlines found in the 70's that just offering a lot of seats on a flight did not guarantee that they would be filled, and the 747 was a very expensive plane to fly empty.

PA did have a 747 problem when deregulation came along and many of the "domestic" airlines started flying from their hubs to Europe with Dc-10-30 and L-1011-500's. Its surprising PA didn't buy DC-10-30 in the mid 1970's. That was the only Atlantic range airplane at the time. PA had a huge capacity gap between the 707 & 747 which the Dc-10 could have addressed, this would have been years before the National merger and its Dc-10's. Could of should have ?
 
CF-CPI
Posts: 1448
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2000 12:54 am

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Sun May 22, 2016 1:46 pm

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 172):
Its surprising PA didn't buy DC-10-30 in the mid 1970's. That was the only Atlantic range airplane at the time. PA had a huge capacity gap between the 707 & 747 which the Dc-10 could have addressed, this would have been years before the National merger and its Dc-10's. Could of should have ?

Pan Am made a fatal mistake in 1971 when they took up further 747s which had come up as options. At the time, Pan Am was still reeling from the effects of 'too many 747s' and taking on more just added to the problems.

As you have suggested, the sensible path would have been DC-10-30s, or possibly DC-10-40s with Pratts to match their 747s. I can only think that with all the second round 747s coming on line, Pan Am did not need any more capacity, and their financials may have been decaying to the extent that a loan for DC-10s was impossible or totally ill-advised. In addition, Pan Am seems to have snubbed Douglas after the DC-8-30s and no one is sure why.
 
User avatar
msp747
Posts: 477
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 6:42 pm

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Sun May 22, 2016 2:49 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 170):
It nearly sank Boeing as well. Only very harsh and severe moves by Boeing kept it from going bankrupt in the early 70's, but they did survive and the 747 ultimately proved very lucrative for them.

I think the SST project had much more of an impact on Boeing's near bankruptcy than the 747 did. Not saying the 747 didn't have its problems, but Boeing had bought into supersonic travel being the wave of the future and had put a lot of its eggs in that basket
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10156
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Sun May 22, 2016 2:54 pm

Quoting msp747 (Reply 174):
I think the SST project had much more of an impact on Boeing's near bankruptcy than the 747 did. Not saying the 747 didn't have its problems, but Boeing had bought into supersonic travel being the wave of the future and had put a lot of its eggs in that basket

Along with the 737. Developing the 737, 747, and 2707 all concurrently stretched Boeing very thin. Then of course the 747 had development troubles, the 737 initially struggled for sales, and we all know what happened to the SST.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5535
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Sun May 22, 2016 6:08 pm

Quoting msp747 (Reply 174):
I think the SST project had much more of an impact on Boeing's near bankruptcy than the 747 did. Not saying the 747 didn't have its problems, but Boeing had bought into supersonic travel being the wave of the future and had put a lot of its eggs in that basket

The sheer amount of money required to build the 747 (remember, they had to build a whole new factory in Everett to build it) made it the biggest factor in the financial crisis. The 2707 was being built with public money, and when Congress cut it off Boeing stopped the development. It was a blow, but they did not have the huge amount of their own money sunk into it. The 747 had a rocky start, largely because of PW problems with the engines. They had a whole field of completed 747's lined up at one point without engines. This was the real financial bottleneck.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
UA444
Posts: 2850
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:03 am

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Sun May 22, 2016 6:30 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 176):

It wasn't just the engines, the flutter tests also caused some setbacks.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2284
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Sun May 22, 2016 7:27 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 170):
I had read that PA never ordered another DC-8 after the first 30, and they dumped them as soon as they could. Do you have information to the contrary?

I don't have contrary information, what I was suggesting is that the reason for them not liking the 30s is that the 707-320 and 320B were better planes and Boeing went ahead and launched those quickly. Had Boeing stuck with only the 707-120s, PA would probably have ordered more DC-8s, as they were bigger and more capable in early iterations.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 170):
Actually, the 747 was due largely to both Bill Allen and Juan Trippe envisioning bringing air travel to the masses.

All true of course, I was joking (note the smiley).

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 170):
But many airlines found in the 70's that just offering a lot of seats on a flight did not guarantee that they would be filled, and the 747 was a very expensive plane to fly empty.

I think in some regards the 747 was too big, especially after deregulation. Pan Am definitely took too many early on.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5535
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Sun May 22, 2016 10:22 pm

Quoting Polot (Reply 175):
Along with the 737.

The 737 was developed before the 747, and it entered service in 1968. Joe Sutter was on the 737 team when he was selected to be chief engineer on the 747. Granted, the 737 was not completed before the 747 was started, but it was long finished by the time Boeing was in financial difficulty, and deliveries should have been making a positive impact by then.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Mon May 23, 2016 3:33 am

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 178):
I don't have contrary information, what I was suggesting is that the reason for them not liking the 30s is that the 707-320 and 320B were better planes and Boeing went ahead and launched those quickly.

I would disagree that the 707-320B is better than the DC-8-50. They're very comparable.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 22961
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Mon May 23, 2016 3:40 am

If we're going to discuss 707 and DC-8, we might as well say that BOAC must have had buyer's remorse over the Comet.

Two mid-air breakups in nine months (followed by SA's mid-air breakup three months later), followed by a lengthy grounding, inquiry and re-design. If I'm reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet correctly, Comet was grounded from 1953 to 1958, and by the time it was flying again as Comet 4, the 707 was about to enter service and provide it very stiff competition indeed, followed shortly by the DC-8.

Now, who wants to cover the piston era aircraft?

[Edited 2016-05-22 20:53:54]
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5535
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Mon May 23, 2016 12:38 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 180):
I would disagree that the 707-320B is better than the DC-8-50. They're very comparable.

My understanding is that the 707 had better high-and-fast aerodynamics than the DC-8, and this applied to all models. It is due to the fact that Boeing had their own high-speed wind tunnel, which Douglas did not, and also that the DC-8 design was rushed due to the surprise appearance of the 707. Boeing engineers had a lot more time to do the wind tunnel tests, plus having more experience due to the B-47 and B-52, and they did a better job. This was a big reason why PA ditched the DC-8 and settled on the 707.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
WA707atMSP
Posts: 1857
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:16 pm

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Mon May 23, 2016 3:55 pm

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 173):
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 172):
Its surprising PA didn't buy DC-10-30 in the mid 1970's. That was the only Atlantic range airplane at the time. PA had a huge capacity gap between the 707 & 747 which the Dc-10 could have addressed, this would have been years before the National merger and its Dc-10's. Could of should have ?

Pan Am made a fatal mistake in 1971 when they took up further 747s which had come up as options. At the time, Pan Am was still reeling from the effects of 'too many 747s' and taking on more just added to the problems.

As you have suggested, the sensible path would have been DC-10-30s, or possibly DC-10-40s with Pratts to match their 747s.

Pan Am seriously considered buying DC-10s in 1973, but chose to be the launch customer for the 747SP instead. Pan Am felt that commonality between the SP and Pan Am's fleet of 747-121s, plus the SP's longer range, outweighed the SP's higher operating costs.

I know PA flew the SP on DTW-BOS-LHR in the late 1970s. Was the SP used on any other transatlantic routes?
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Tue May 24, 2016 12:33 am

Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 183):
I know PA flew the SP on DTW-BOS-LHR in the late 1970s. Was the SP used on any other transatlantic routes?

I flew on 3 PA 747SPs on transatlantic routes:

LHR-JFK May 1983
JFK-LHR December 1983
SEA-LHR August 1985

My only other transatlantic SP flights were on TWA:

IAD-CDG October 1981
LHR-LAX March 1983
 
LH707330
Posts: 2284
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: Airlines And "Buyers Remorse"?

Tue May 24, 2016 2:28 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 182):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 180):
I would disagree that the 707-320B is better than the DC-8-50. They're very comparable.

My understanding is that the 707 had better high-and-fast aerodynamics than the DC-8, and this applied to all models. It is due to the fact that Boeing had their own high-speed wind tunnel, which Douglas did not, and also that the DC-8 design was rushed due to the surprise appearance of the 707. Boeing engineers had a lot more time to do the wind tunnel tests, plus having more experience due to the B-47 and B-52, and they did a better job. This was a big reason why PA ditched the DC-8 and settled on the 707.

That's consistent with what I've heard as well, they were nicknamed the "DC-late." Although the 8s could go .86 when pushed, they burned more fuel at those speeds, so they typically cruised a bit slower.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos