Airliners That Didn't Work In Australia

AAvgeek744 · Tue Aug 08, 2017 6:56 am

With family in Australia, and I don't know how many times I've gone down there, i've always been curious. The MD-80 and 757 didn't catch on in Australia. I know one of the versions of Compass tried the Mad Dog after the A300's proved too much. There have always been umpteen services from SYD to MEL and BNE on larger aircraft. i've never understood why these aircraft never were able to make it a go in Australia?

TWA772LR · Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:00 am

And the 757 would've allowed for a myriad of SE Asia cities to be served outside the usual SIN, BKK, KUL and SGN.

Plus the MD-80 would look good in QFs red and gold Winged Roo livery, as well as the 757 in their current livery.

cedarjet · Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:09 am

The biggest miss was the L-1011 Tristar. From the retirement of the B-707 in 1979 until the advent of the B-767 in c. 1986, Qantas only flew jumbos (-238B and SP) which was way too much aeroplane for the likes of Port Moresby, Christchurch, Belgrade, Damascus (check old route maps if you don't believe me!) or Townsville, Adelaide, Darwin to anywhere, and the L-1011 had an ingredient that made it a uniquely good fit for Qantas, which was its Rolls-Royce RB.211 engines like most of Qantas' jumbos. How Lockheed failed to make a sale is a big mystery.

jupiter2 · Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:36 am

TWA772LR wrote:
And the 757 would've allowed for a myriad of SE Asia cities to be served outside the usual SIN, BKK, KUL and SGN.

Plus the MD-80 would look good in QFs red and gold Winged Roo livery, as well as the 757 in their current livery.

Not sure where you would've flown the 757 to in Asia and from where. Except for PER and DRW, the flights to anywhere but Indonesia would've been out of range for anything from the major East Coast cities. It would've been perfect for trans cons and Tasman flights though.

As for the L1011, it didn't have the range QF needed in its early guises. It wasn't until later that range increases would've made it practical for QF to consider it and by that time the 767 was becoming available and was a much better fit for Australian conditions.

You all need to remember that despite this countries size, the population is small, air service used to be heavily regulated and was expensive. Major Australian carriers of the 80's would've been nothing more than the size of a regional carrier in the U.S. and it wasn't until the government merged Australian Airlines and Qantas that QF reached a decent mass and had access to domestic routes for the first time. Even now, we still really only a have a two airline system, sure there are a variety of liveries around, but they mostly come back to two owners, with the exception of some regional players like REX.

oldannyboy · Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:54 am

cedarjet wrote:
The biggest miss was the L-1011 Tristar. From the retirement of the B-707 in 1979 until the advent of the B-767 in c. 1986, Qantas only flew jumbos (-238B and SP) which was way too much aeroplane for the likes of Port Moresby, Christchurch, Belgrade, Damascus (check old route maps if you don't believe me!) or Townsville, Adelaide, Darwin to anywhere, and the L-1011 had an ingredient that made it a uniquely good fit for Qantas, which was its Rolls-Royce RB.211 engines like most of Qantas' jumbos. How Lockheed failed to make a sale is a big mystery.

I also always thought that the TriStar would have looked exceptionally good in QF livery. Also, as you quite rightly point out, it offered engine commonality with the -238Bs and the -SP38s. The TrisStar 200 & 500 variants would have been perfect in terms of range & capacity for Qantas - still smaller than a 747, but bigger than their original 762s, and offering great range. My armchair-CEO two cents! :-)

a320fan · Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:08 am

The CRJ was a failure in AU, they were flown in the late 90s by Ansetts regional operater Kendall. I'm not sure of all the reasons they failed but the CRJ failure is something that pops up in quite a few Australian aviation history books.

I'm tempted to list the E-170, but it continues to be operated quite successfully by Air North.

VSMUT · Tue Aug 08, 2017 12:35 pm

jupiter2 wrote:
You all need to remember that despite this countries size, the population is small, air service used to be heavily regulated and was expensive. Major Australian carriers of the 80's would've been nothing more than the size of a regional carrier in the U.S. and it wasn't until the government merged Australian Airlines and Qantas that QF reached a decent mass and had access to domestic routes for the first time. Even now, we still really only a have a two airline system, sure there are a variety of liveries around, but they mostly come back to two owners, with the exception of some regional players like REX.

This. Australia is smaller population wise than Canada (24 vs 36 mio), and Canada can tap into the huge US, transpacific and transatlantic markets. Still, Canada can barely sustain 2-3 major airlines, and the fewer airlines that you have around, the less variety you are likely to have. Somebody mentioned the CRJ200 being mentioned as a failure. It could simply be that the one major player on the market decided that the Fokker 27 and Fokker 100 (or whatever) were better choices, rather than the CRJ200 being a failure. Maybe the other manufacturer gave an extremely good deal, and simply outbid the better product by lowering the price.

Ryanair01 · Fri Aug 11, 2017 10:58 pm

AAvgeek744 wrote:
With family in Australia, and I don't know how many times I've gone down there, i've always been curious. The MD-80 and 757 didn't catch on in Australia. I know one of the versions of Compass tried the Mad Dog after the A300's proved too much. There have always been umpteen services from SYD to MEL and BNE on larger aircraft. i've never understood why these aircraft never were able to make it a go in Australia?

The simple reason is regulation. Australia had a law called the "Two Airline Policy", which said there could only be two domestic airlines (Ansett and TAA - later re-branded as Australian) who went for competiting models, leaving no gap in the market. Qantas of those times was only an international airline and almost exclusively flew long haul so didn't have a need for narrow body aircraft. Another factor was that many of the 727-200 frames in Australia were quite late build, so aircraft in the 757 size category were relatively young. Although both AN and TAA were DC9 customers, when it came time to replace them Boeing won out against the MD80 with the 737-300/400.

Whilst this explanation is a bit of a simplification, when de-regulation happened, all of the airport space (terminal gates and hangars) were leased to Ansett or Australian (which later merged with Qantas). That made it impractical to start a new airline. Compass Mark 1 got A300s and an A310 to launch infrequent but very cheap flights, then Compass Mark 2 (which was a totally different business) tried MD80s but that saga ended with various people going to jail.

Then the airports were sold by the government their new owners were open to the idea of building extra terminals (all be they basically cargo sheds) which made it easier to launch a new airline, but that didn't happen until around the millennium by which time MD no longer existed and 757 was on the way out.

The 757 would have been a good aircraft for Australia instead of Ansett's 767s and TAA's A300s which were always hard to fill up. As someone else mentioned range isn't quite long enough from MEL, SYD, BNE to reach far into Asia though.

mariner · Fri Aug 11, 2017 11:14 pm

Ryanair01 wrote:
The 757 would have been a good aircraft for Australia instead of Ansett's 767s and TAA's A300s which were always hard to fill up.

The TAA A300 was full, pretty much, every time I flew on it - and it was a sweet ride. I'm puzzled that the OP thinks it didn't work, it worked fine for me.

It was also the subject of a funny ad by Ansett, who decided to go with 767's - I think it was the first visible break in the two airline policy on aircraft purchases, or the first I remember.

The Ansett ads proclaimed "Catch a Boeing, not a 'Bus."

mariner

AAvgeek744 · Sat Aug 12, 2017 12:52 am

mariner wrote:
Ryanair01 wrote:
The 757 would have been a good aircraft for Australia instead of Ansett's 767s and TAA's A300s which were always hard to fill up.

The TAA A300 was full, pretty much, every time I flew on it - and it was a sweet ride. I'm puzzled that the OP thinks it didn't work, it worked fine for me.

It was also the subject of a funny ad by Ansett, who decided to go with 767's - I think it was the first visible break in the two airline policy on aircraft purchases, or the first I remember.

The Ansett ads proclaimed "Catch a Boeing, not a 'Bus."

mariner

My question on the A300 is more that it was used by a twice failed airline. I was well aware of the regulation rules in Australia. It just seemed to the 757 specifically was an aircraft that would seem logical, but was not used.

Delta757MD88 · Sat Aug 12, 2017 1:06 am

The 777-200 the 300er is for Virgin Australia but never the 200.

jfk777 · Sat Aug 12, 2017 1:34 am

777 for Qantas, QF was one of Boeing"s Gang of eight airlines to advice on what the 777-200 should be. All others of the eight ordered 777's. The 777-200ER would have been great for Qantas to cities like San Francisco from SYD and Brisbane to LAX. IF QF had ordered he 777 in the 1990's they may not have ordered their A330 fleet which works for Asia but not North America. Well what could have should have...

ZK-NBT · Sat Aug 12, 2017 2:38 am

The A343 could have been a good aircraft for QF in the 1990's aswell given the long over water flights to South Africa and South America along with routes like AKL-LAX, SYD-BOM, SFO, YVR where the 747 at the time was all they had a smaller aircraft with range and 4 engines on some of these routes would have been good.

Obzerva · Sat Aug 12, 2017 2:47 am

has anyone mentioned the A319 yet?

ZK-NBT · Sat Aug 12, 2017 3:00 am

Obzerva wrote:
has anyone mentioned the A319 yet?

Not that I've seen, it didn't take off but what would it have been good at? The 757 could have been good for Tasman and domestic but I guess that's where the 762 came in around the same era.

Obzerva · Sat Aug 12, 2017 3:07 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
Obzerva wrote:
has anyone mentioned the A319 yet?

Not that I've seen, it didn't take off but what would it have been good at? The 757 could have been good for Tasman and domestic but I guess that's where the 762 came in around the same era.

I was thinking it'd be ideal for thinner routes that the A320 just wouldn't fill.
HBA/CBR/NTL - AKL

Any domestic route which is currently marginal in either AU or NZ.

I imagine it's never really been picked up as the operating costs are too similar to the A320 to worry about the fleet complications.

mariner · Sat Aug 12, 2017 3:37 am

AAvgeek744 wrote:
My question on the A300 is more that it was used by a twice failed airline. I was well aware of the regulation rules in Australia. It just seemed to the 757 specifically was an aircraft that would seem logical, but was not used.

I don't quite understand - who was the twice failed airline? TAA wasn't an airline, it was a government toy.

And yes, the 757 - with hindsight - would have been a good aircraft for nearer Asia, but in those days, TAA/Ansett couldn't fly internationally, and when they were finally allowed to do so, "International" was that - long distance, synonymous with the 747.

When Qantas began using the A300's (acquired from TAA/Australian?) to Singapore, an aggrieved politician (Bill Hayden, from memory) asked questions in the house as to why he didn't get the 747.

mariner

Lufthansa · Sat Aug 12, 2017 4:04 am

Also about the 757 not being able to reach much of Asia from BNE/SYD/MEL.

Well back in the 80s a lot of flights to Asia had a technical stop Either in Darwin, or Townsville (later switching
to CNS as its not qld stop). So the 757 out of DRW or CNS wouldn't have been an issue. It's rocket like performance
would have been perfect for wellington's short runway.

And let's not forget, up until the opening of a new runway and domestic terminal in 1998, most long range aircraft couldn't
operate BNE-SIN nonstop because of BNE's short runway, so that flight usually stopped in Darwin. British Airways could do
it as the VC10 was built for "empire routes" into less developed countries with shorter runways.

So I would put it to you, the real reason the 757 wasn't ordered (Given at the time BA was operating it Transatlantic out of Scotland)
was a mindset of an all wide body fleet, backed up by the fact that if they didn't make too much of a profit the Australian Government
picked up the tab for the losses.

cougar15 · Sat Aug 12, 2017 4:45 am

mariner wrote:
AAvgeek744 wrote:
My question on the A300 is more that it was used by a twice failed airline. I was well aware of the regulation rules in Australia. It just seemed to the 757 specifically was an aircraft that would seem logical, but was not used.

I don't quite understand - who was the twice failed airline? TAA wasn't an airline, it was a government toy.

And yes, the 757 - with hindsight - would have been a good aircraft for nearer Asia, but in those days, TAA/Ansett couldn't fly internationally, and when they were finally allowed to do so, "International" was that - long distance, synonymous with the 747.

When Qantas began using the A300's (acquired from TAA/Australian?) to Singapore, an aggrieved politician (Bill Hayden, from memory) asked questions in the house as to why he didn't get the 747.

mariner

If I recall correctly, QF were infact not that unimpressed with the A300, once they started using it due to it´s huge Bellies compared to the 76´s. Again, if memory serves me right, they were to be disposed of immediately when the merger went ahead, but they (QF) liked the plane. Wonder if that had anything to do with them taking a serious look at the A330? The rest is history.....

Gemuser · Sat Aug 12, 2017 5:17 am

jfk777 wrote:
777 for Qantas, QF was one of Boeing"s Gang of eight airlines to advice on what the 777-200 should be. All others of the eight ordered 777's. The 777-200ER would have been great for Qantas to cities like San Francisco from SYD and Brisbane to LAX. IF QF had ordered he 777 in the 1990's they may not have ordered their A330 fleet which works for Asia but not North America. Well what could have should have...

Arrr this furphy again!
The following is a post made by member Stitch:

As I understand it, QF's traditional long overwater route structure favored four-engined aircraft, both for performance and passenger safety/convenience (an IFSD did not require a diversion).

As twins proved themselves to be reliable, the "safety/convenience" argument carried less weight compared to the efficiency argument they offered over quads. Therefore, QF started to operate twins on missions to destinations around Asia previously served with quads, but continued to operate quads on the traditional "trunk" routes like North America, South America and Europe.

By the time QF decided to start adding twins, the A330-300 was more efficient than the 777-200 on medium-haul missions and QF didn't really need the extra range the 777-200ER offered, since the long-haul missions were the province of the 747-400 fleet. And by the time the 777-300ER proved herself as such a capable plane, QF already had 12 A380-800s on order with 12 options at favorable pricing and they were expecting to start receiving those A380s in less than three years. So the 777 family just didn't really fit into their route structure.

It's why I am bit hesitant about seeing an A350XWB order. The only real way it makes sense to me is if the A380-800 proves to be a failure for QF in that it offers too many seats and flies at load factors too low to make it efficient and therefore QF needs to purchase something smaller in their place.

And if QF is indeed sticking to a "hub centric" model out of SYD, then it seems to me they should be able to force enough people through SYD to keep those A380-800s at a profitable load factor and therefore the need for the A350XWB just is not there - as it just was not there for the 777

From:

https://www.airliners.net/aviation-forum ... 724725/#41

by Stitch

I'll just add to Stitch's post that Australia's CASA is EXTREMELY conservative about ETOPS > 180 until the last few years when they said they would approve a complying application. So far none has been approved and we don't know if any application has been made.

So the B777 was not ordered by QF because by the time long haul, overwater twins were really feasible for its route network the A330 was the superior aircraft. So the answer to your question is that QF ordered the A330 instead of the B777 because it was the superior aircraft for QFs route network and operating & regulatory environment.

Gemuser

jupiter2 · Sat Aug 12, 2017 5:34 am

mariner wrote:
AAvgeek744 wrote:
My question on the A300 is more that it was used by a twice failed airline. I was well aware of the regulation rules in Australia. It just seemed to the 757 specifically was an aircraft that would seem logical, but was not used.

I don't quite understand - who was the twice failed airline? TAA wasn't an airline, it was a government toy.

And yes, the 757 - with hindsight - would have been a good aircraft for nearer Asia, but in those days, TAA/Ansett couldn't fly internationally, and when they were finally allowed to do so, "International" was that - long distance, synonymous with the 747.

When Qantas began using the A300's (acquired from TAA/Australian?) to Singapore, an aggrieved politician (Bill Hayden, from memory) asked questions in the house as to why he didn't get the 747.

mariner

When did QF fly the A300 to Singapore ? I can't recall them ever operating any international flight, as they were predominantly used on the East Coast triangle and maybe PER/MEL, they didn't have the legs for SYD/PER.

jupiter2 · Sat Aug 12, 2017 5:41 am

Lufthansa wrote:
Also about the 757 not being able to reach much of Asia from BNE/SYD/MEL.

Well back in the 80s a lot of flights to Asia had a technical stop Either in Darwin, or Townsville (later switching
to CNS as its not qld stop). So the 757 out of DRW or CNS wouldn't have been an issue. It's rocket like performance
would have been perfect for wellington's short runway.

And let's not forget, up until the opening of a new runway and domestic terminal in 1998, most long range aircraft couldn't
operate BNE-SIN nonstop because of BNE's short runway, so that flight usually stopped in Darwin. British Airways could do
it as the VC10 was built for "empire routes" into less developed countries with shorter runways.

So I would put it to you, the real reason the 757 wasn't ordered (Given at the time BA was operating it Transatlantic out of Scotland)
was a mindset of an all wide body fleet, backed up by the fact that if they didn't make too much of a profit the Australian Government
picked up the tab for the losses.

I can't recall many if any flights from the southern states to Asia making tech stops in DRW, especially in the 80's. Nearly all flights were operated by 747's or DC10'S and they all had the legs to get to any destination in Asia operated then.

BNE out of Eagle Farm couldn't do BNE/SIN ? I did BNE/HKG on a very full QF 747 in 1983 and I know QF did BNE/SIN on 707's in the 70's.

jupiter2 · Sat Aug 12, 2017 5:47 am

Gemuser wrote:
jfk777 wrote:
777 for Qantas, QF was one of Boeing"s Gang of eight airlines to advice on what the 777-200 should be. All others of the eight ordered 777's. The 777-200ER would have been great for Qantas to cities like San Francisco from SYD and Brisbane to LAX. IF QF had ordered he 777 in the 1990's they may not have ordered their A330 fleet which works for Asia but not North America. Well what could have should have...

Arrr this furphy again!
The following is a post made by member Stitch:
As I understand it, QF's traditional long overwater route structure favored four-engined aircraft, both for performance and passenger safety/convenience (an IFSD did not require a diversion).

As twins proved themselves to be reliable, the "safety/convenience" argument carried less weight compared to the efficiency argument they offered over quads. Therefore, QF started to operate twins on missions to destinations around Asia previously served with quads, but continued to operate quads on the traditional "trunk" routes like North America, South America and Europe.

By the time QF decided to start adding twins, the A330-300 was more efficient than the 777-200 on medium-haul missions and QF didn't really need the extra range the 777-200ER offered, since the long-haul missions were the province of the 747-400 fleet. And by the time the 777-300ER proved herself as such a capable plane, QF already had 12 A380-800s on order with 12 options at favorable pricing and they were expecting to start receiving those A380s in less than three years. So the 777 family just didn't really fit into their route structure.

It's why I am bit hesitant about seeing an A350XWB order. The only real way it makes sense to me is if the A380-800 proves to be a failure for QF in that it offers too many seats and flies at load factors too low to make it efficient and therefore QF needs to purchase something smaller in their place.

And if QF is indeed sticking to a "hub centric" model out of SYD, then it seems to me they should be able to force enough people through SYD to keep those A380-800s at a profitable load factor and therefore the need for the A350XWB just is not there - as it just was not there for the 777

From:

https://www.airliners.net/aviation-forum ... 724725/#41

by Stitch

I'll just add to Stitch's post that Australia's CASA is EXTREMELY conservative about ETOPS > 180 until the last few years when they said they would approve a complying application. So far none has been approved and we don't know if any application has been made.

So the B777 was not ordered by QF because by the time long haul, overwater twins were really feasible for its route network the A330 was the superior aircraft. So the answer to your question is that QF ordered the A330 instead of the B777 because it was the superior aircraft for QFs route network and operating & regulatory environment.

Gemuser

Except that QF had long been operating the 767 on long ETOP's fligthts, so in reality, being conservative about ETOP's ops is a furphy. The simple fact is that the earlier 777's didn't fit the network correctly, combined with a great deal for 330's and the story ends.

mariner · Sat Aug 12, 2017 5:47 am

jupiter2 wrote:
When did QF fly the A300 to Singapore ? I can't recall them ever operating any international flight, as they were predominantly used on the East Coast triangle and maybe PER/MEL, they didn't have the legs for SYD/PER.

Sorry, can't remember, it was a long time ago and I wasn't keeping notes.

I seem to recall that it was an intra-Asian-flight - so it may have been a sub - but mostly I remember the fuss caused by the politician. I had recently flown on an a European A300 and loved the aircraft and I was puzzled by Mr. Hayden's reaction to it.

mariner

zkncj · Sat Aug 12, 2017 6:09 am

jupiter2 wrote:
Except that QF had long been operating the 767 on long ETOP's fligthts, so in reality, being conservative about ETOP's ops is a furphy. The simple fact is that the earlier 777's didn't fit the network correctly, combined with a great deal for 330's and the story ends.

ETOP's to Asia and ETOPS to North America are two very different things, Asia has plenty of airports along that way and 120min is fine, the Pacific is water and water and airport every 3-4 hours if your lucky.

NZ benefited from the government allowing the 77E ETPOS to be used much earlier than what QF could of for crossing the Pacific.

AirbusA322 · Sat Aug 12, 2017 6:29 am

Tiger were originally going to bring 2 A319s to open the Adelaide base but later converted to A320s. About 2009 from memory.

jupiter2 · Sat Aug 12, 2017 6:30 am

mariner wrote:
jupiter2 wrote:
When did QF fly the A300 to Singapore ? I can't recall them ever operating any international flight, as they were predominantly used on the East Coast triangle and maybe PER/MEL, they didn't have the legs for SYD/PER.

Sorry, can't remember, it was a long time ago and I wasn't keeping notes.

I seem to recall that it was an intra-Asian-flight - so it may have been a sub - but mostly I remember the fuss caused by the politician. I had recently flown on an a European A300 and loved the aircraft and I was puzzled by Mr. Hayden's reaction to it.

mariner

Would've had to have been a 767 service, most likely a 762 early on in their use. Positive the A300's never left the country except for leases and maintenance.

jupiter2 · Sat Aug 12, 2017 6:34 am

zkncj wrote:
jupiter2 wrote:
Except that QF had long been operating the 767 on long ETOP's fligthts, so in reality, being conservative about ETOP's ops is a furphy. The simple fact is that the earlier 777's didn't fit the network correctly, combined with a great deal for 330's and the story ends.

ETOP's to Asia and ETOPS to North America are two very different things, Asia has plenty of airports along that way and 120min is fine, the Pacific is water and water and airport every 3-4 hours if your lucky.

NZ benefited from the government allowing the 77E ETPOS to be used much earlier than what QF could of for crossing the Pacific.

QF flew their 767's as far as YYZ, YVR and LAX, via HNL. The trip to HNL was no different then to what it is now, or when they got their first 330's.

mariner · Sat Aug 12, 2017 6:43 am

jupiter2 wrote:
Would've had to have been a 767 service, most likely a 762 early on in their use. Positive the A300's never left the country except for leases and maintenance.

Whatever you wish.

I can only tell you that - for whatever reason, a sub or maybe a government charter - a Qantas A300 flew through SIN with a certain highly placed (and quite unhappy) politician on board. I imagine it will be in Hansard if you want to check.

mariner

Lufthansa · Sat Aug 12, 2017 8:22 am

jupiter2 wrote:
Lufthansa wrote:
Also about the 757 not being able to reach much of Asia from BNE/SYD/MEL.

BNE out of Eagle Farm couldn't do BNE/SIN ? I did BNE/HKG on a very full QF 747 in 1983 and I know QF did BNE/SIN on 707's in the 70's.

The 707 usually stopped without big weight restrictions, however it was a single flight number. As for BNE HKG - were you on an SP? It would have been
able to get off the shorter runway, or possibly even a 747-200 Combi with no freight on the upper deck. When the 744 first came around a lot of 742s spent
more time in Brisbane than previously.

AngMoh · Sat Aug 12, 2017 9:11 am

Lufthansa wrote:
Also about the 757 not being able to reach much of Asia from BNE/SYD/MEL.

Well back in the 80s a lot of flights to Asia had a technical stop Either in Darwin, or Townsville (later switching
to CNS as its not qld stop). So the 757 out of DRW or CNS wouldn't have been an issue. It's rocket like performance
would have been perfect for wellington's short runway.

And let's not forget, up until the opening of a new runway and domestic terminal in 1998, most long range aircraft couldn't
operate BNE-SIN nonstop because of BNE's short runway, so that flight usually stopped in Darwin. British Airways could do
it as the VC10 was built for "empire routes" into less developed countries with shorter runways.

So I would put it to you, the real reason the 757 wasn't ordered (Given at the time BA was operating it Transatlantic out of Scotland)
was a mindset of an all wide body fleet, backed up by the fact that if they didn't make too much of a profit the Australian Government
picked up the tab for the losses.

One big factor is the completely different environment of operation: in Asia you had a very limited network of routes between big cities with severe restrictions in the number of flights you could operate (even today it is far from open skies with a few exceptions). So if you are limited to 1 flight per day and at both ends you have large cities (e.g SYD-CGK), then flying a wide body is the only thing which makes sense. Add the fact that cargo to/from Australia is probably significant and then the 757 does not really fit in.

The same for not choosing the 777: at that time QF had a significant, and more important, relatively new fleet of 747s, which could do the kangaroo route as well as LAX very well. Their Asia routes were mainly a part of the Kangaroo route so heavily served by the 747s. The remaining routes were not significant and better served by the A330 - keep in mind that their A330 were predominantly the smaller -200s. So the 777 was more or less the right aircraft at the wrong time.

ZK-NBT · Sat Aug 12, 2017 9:40 am

QF's first A330's were 200's but they were CityFlyer aircraft on the SYD/MEL/BNE routes while the 300's were first also domestically used the first 3 at least before moving to international services. The 200's weren't used internationally until they got some long haul configured ones for AKL-LAX and SYD-BOM in 2007.

TN486 · Sat Aug 12, 2017 9:53 am

When did QF fly the A300 to Singapore ? I can't recall them ever operating any international flight, as they were predominantly used on the East Coast triangle and maybe PER/MEL, they didn't have the legs for SYD/PER.[/quote]

TN (TAA) timetable eff 25 Oct 1981 shows the following A300 services eastern states / perth / and return:
TN 571 Dep SYD 0700 Arr MEL 0815 TN 4 Dep MEL 0900 Arr PER 0945 Sat and Sun.
TN 5 Dep PER 1100 Arr MEL 1715 Sat and Sun.
TN 409 Dep SYD 1800 Arr MEL 1915 TN 14 Dep MEL 2000 Arr PER 2045 Daily ex Sat
TN 11 Dep PER 2315 Daily ex Sat Arr SYD 0610 Next Day.
All other services were on the Eastcoast services MEL/SYD return or SYD/BNE return.
The above schedule was introduced on the arrival of VH TAC (John Forrest) the 3rd A300 received by TAA with the PER evening services eff 19 Dec 1981.
cheers.

Ryanair01 · Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:53 am

mariner wrote:
jupiter2 wrote:
When did QF fly the A300 to Singapore ? I can't recall them ever operating any international flight, as they were predominantly used on the East Coast triangle and maybe PER/MEL, they didn't have the legs for SYD/PER.

Sorry, can't remember, it was a long time ago and I wasn't keeping notes.

I seem to recall that it was an intra-Asian-flight - so it may have been a sub - but mostly I remember the fuss caused by the politician. I had recently flown on an a European A300 and loved the aircraft and I was puzzled by Mr. Hayden's reaction to it.

mariner

I vaguely remember something like this too. The A300 definitely never made Singapore, but for many years TAA/Australian subleased some of their A300s to other airlines, one of which was Air Niugini, so may have been some kind of QF/PX co-operative flight? Or alternatively Mr Hayden got confused and was onboard a 767 which QF did fly Brisbane to Singapore daily for quite a few years.

I wouldn't say the A300 failed in Australia. Throughout its' sales life in Australia the only realistic targets were Ansett, TAA/Australian/Qantas and Compass. Airbus sold to two out of that three. For Qantas pre 1992 merger (i.e. exclusively international) A300s wouldn't have been viable because it didn't have the range.

Regarding TAA. All I can say is that growing up one of our family friends worked at TAA/Australian in Swanston St and was involved with the subletting of A300s because they had too much capacity (I'm not totally sure of how he was involved, I was a kid). He said the A300s were a nightmare because they swallowed such a large chunk of TN's regulated seat allowance in one hit, leaving them with too many seats on A300 flights and too few on the surrounding ones - before that I never really knew anything about regulation etc. Sadly I never flew on one, although I did many AN 762 flights I'd have loved to catch a TN A300. I very nearly did as a kid coming back from Townsville, but the connecting flight in Brisbane was subbed to a 737-300

- although we got upgraded to "Business Class"!

jupiter2 wrote:
wrote:
Also about the 757 not being able to reach much of Asia from BNE/SYD/MEL.

Well back in the 80s a lot of flights to Asia had a technical stop Either in Darwin, or Townsville (later switching
to CNS as its not qld stop). So the 757 out of DRW or CNS wouldn't have been an issue. It's rocket like performance
would have been perfect for wellington's short runway.

And let's not forget, up until the opening of a new runway and domestic terminal in 1998, most long range aircraft couldn't
operate BNE-SIN nonstop because of BNE's short runway, so that flight usually stopped in Darwin. British Airways could do
it as the VC10 was built for "empire routes" into less developed countries with shorter runways.

So I would put it to you, the real reason the 757 wasn't ordered (Given at the time BA was operating it Transatlantic out of Scotland)
was a mindset of an all wide body fleet, backed up by the fact that if they didn't make too much of a profit the Australian Government
picked up the tab for the losses.

I can't recall many if any flights from the southern states to Asia making tech stops in DRW, especially in the 80's. Nearly all flights were operated by 747's or DC10'S and they all had the legs to get to any destination in Asia operated then.

BNE out of Eagle Farm couldn't do BNE/SIN ? I did BNE/HKG on a very full QF 747 in 1983 and I know QF did BNE/SIN on 707's in the 70's.

Certainly by the 1980s tech stops up north and VC10s had long gone. There may have been the odd weekly sector or something similar, but it was not the norm. Triangle routes were not uncommon, I certainly flew CX HKG-MEL-SYD, MH SYD-MEL-KUL, BA BNE-SYD-SIN but all on 747s without the need for a technical stop.

Flyingsottsman · Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:29 am

mariner wrote:
Ryanair01 wrote:
The 757 would have been a good aircraft for Australia instead of Ansett's 767s and TAA's A300s which were always hard to fill up.

The TAA A300 was full, pretty much, every time I flew on it - and it was a sweet ride. I'm puzzled that the OP thinks it didn't work, it worked fine for me.

It was also the subject of a funny ad by Ansett, who decided to go with 767's - I think it was the first visible break in the two airline policy on aircraft purchases, or the first I remember.

The Ansett ads proclaimed "Catch a Boeing, not a 'Bus."

mariner

I think you are right there, from memory when I was a kid both AN and TAA had the exact fleet 721 and 722s with AN ordering the 727 Advanced and used them on their East Coast to Perth flights, also as well they both had the F27s. I was not until around 1980 I think (and correct me if I am wrong) when TAA ordered the A300 I can remember reading an old Age news paper at work ( the library at my work have been collecting the Age from when it was the Argus) any way I saw an old TAA add and they were advertising the future of TAA with a Douglas DC-10 or the brand new Airbus A300. I think it was around 1984 or 85 that you did see the difference between the 2 airlines and AN going with the 767s as well as Qantas. I also remember during the 2 airline policy days that there was also East West Airlines to they had F27s and later the F28 I think, I do remember seeing one of them in Hobart in their green and gold livery but cant remember what year that was. So yes early to med 80s that you saw a marked difference in fleets between the 2 airlines.

AAvgeek744 · Sat Aug 12, 2017 4:53 pm

mariner wrote:
AAvgeek744 wrote:
My question on the A300 is more that it was used by a twice failed airline. I was well aware of the regulation rules in Australia. It just seemed to the 757 specifically was an aircraft that would seem logical, but was not used.

I don't quite understand - who was the twice failed airline? TAA wasn't an airline, it was a government toy.

And yes, the 757 - with hindsight - would have been a good aircraft for nearer Asia, but in those days, TAA/Ansett couldn't fly internationally, and when they were finally allowed to do so, "International" was that - long distance, synonymous with the 747.

When Qantas began using the A300's (acquired from TAA/Australian?) to Singapore, an aggrieved politician (Bill Hayden, from memory) asked questions in the house as to why he didn't get the 747.

mariner

Were there not two attempts by Compass? One using M80's and the other A300s?

jupiter2 · Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:27 pm

mariner wrote:
jupiter2 wrote:
Would've had to have been a 767 service, most likely a 762 early on in their use. Positive the A300's never left the country except for leases and maintenance.

Whatever you wish.

I can only tell you that - for whatever reason, a sub or maybe a government charter - a Qantas A300 flew through SIN with a certain highly placed (and quite unhappy) politician on board. I imagine it will be in Hansard if you want to check.

mariner

Bill retired from politics before the merger, he did become G.G. later.

jupiter2 · Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:33 pm

Lufthansa wrote:
jupiter2 wrote:
Lufthansa wrote:
Also about the 757 not being able to reach much of Asia from BNE/SYD/MEL.

BNE out of Eagle Farm couldn't do BNE/SIN ? I did BNE/HKG on a very full QF 747 in 1983 and I know QF did BNE/SIN on 707's in the 70's.

The 707 usually stopped without big weight restrictions, however it was a single flight number. As for BNE HKG - were you on an SP? It would have been
able to get off the shorter runway, or possibly even a 747-200 Combi with no freight on the upper deck. When the 744 first came around a lot of 742s spent
more time in Brisbane than previously.

Definitely a PW powered 742. BNE was actually an unscheduled stop, there was a medical transfer from SYD/BNE which took up the last 3 rows of the port side. After departing BNE they were the only available seats, at least in the economy cabin. It was my first overseas trip on my own, so it stands out in the memory.

Planesmart · Sun Aug 13, 2017 8:55 pm

So many rules and regulations in those days. International carriers, frequencies and pricing all controlled. Model parity. Boeing sales enjoyed full EXIM funding and pricing - Airbus didn't due to UK content, eventually partial.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net