I believe this was a business arrangement between
KLM
Swissair
Sabena
UTA
Hence the initials.
These Airlines all operated identical types in the same era , I think it
was mainly the DC10-30 and 747-200/300 that the agreement was based on
to pool parts for engines and airframes etc..
What else did this cover ?
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
-
- Florianopolis
- Posts: 377
- Joined:
Re: KSSU
This PDF says
And
Later on, really bad alliance strategy (thanks to the highly paid geniuses at McKinsey & Co) helped kill Swissair.
Dating back to the late 1960ies, Swissair's first alliance was the KSSU group (with KLM, SAS and UTA) for the joint maintenance of widebody aircraft which were being introduced at that time.
And
As early as 1950, Swissair, KLM and Sabena had created a joint spare parts pool in the so-called BeNeSwiss Agreement. In 1958 Swissair and SAS had crafted a cooperative agreement to standardize their fleets around a number of jet types and to pool maintenance and training resource
Later on, really bad alliance strategy (thanks to the highly paid geniuses at McKinsey & Co) helped kill Swissair.
Re: KSSU
ANZ maintenance is in house. https://www.airnewzealand.com/engineeri ... aintenance
For code sharing, ANZ is a member of the STAR Alliance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Alliance
For code sharing, ANZ is a member of the STAR Alliance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Alliance
Re: KSSU
ANZ did use vertical tapes for engine instruments in their DC-10's & 747-219B's just like the KSSU birds. I do not know if they had any biased selection of their engine instruments following in the footsteps of the KSSU config. Personally, I think the KSSU cockpit configuration was way ahead of the game for their time, vertical tapes, vertical flaps indication, full size standby ADI, flight engineer re-fueling panel....etc
Re: KSSU
stratclub wrote:ANZ maintenance is in house. https://www.airnewzealand.com/engineeri ... aintenance
For code sharing, ANZ is a member of the STAR Alliance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Alliance
Thanks, but that's not where I was going with the question. I should have been more explicit as I that the ANZ DC10-20 were either KSSU or ATLAS configured. I has occasion to fly one of these every so often and it was a PITA simply because they had the AINS-70 area nav system which was okay if you operated it frequently but almost dangerous if say once every 90 days. I thought these airplanes were KSSI configured but I might be wrong.
Re: KSSU
Max Q wrote:What do you mean by ‘flight engineer refueling panel’ ?
It's been to long so I have forgotten most if not all the ANZ DC10-30 stuff. But FWIW, the early 707/720's had an aux panel just to the right of the main FE panel where the FFE could pre-select the fuel load, I suspect that the ANZ airplanes had a similar provision. The 707/720 system was deleted on later 707 series aircraft as it was more bother than it was worth in that the precise load was all over the place at times if the FE was not really careful, whereas the under wing system worked better a producing accurate fuel loads.
-
- arcticcruiser
- Posts: 508
- Joined:
Re: KSSU
ATLAS vs KSSU refers to galley standards
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=774163
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=774163
-
- arcticcruiser
- Posts: 508
- Joined:
Re: KSSU
arcticcruiser wrote:ATLAS vs KSSU refers to galley standards.
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=774163
There were other aspects such as spares pooling and engineering/maintenance IIRC. But the legacy of those are the galley equipment standards.
-
- arcticcruiser
- Posts: 508
- Joined:
Re: KSSU
BravoOne wrote:XMS3200's comments regarding the flight deck configuration strikes a chord simply because there must have been more to this than galley furnishing?
Probably. I flew both ex KLM and ex SAS DC-8-63s, no special cockpit commonality there IIRC.
Re: KSSU
The KSSU & ATLAS standard were mostly applied to the 747's & DC-10's. The galleys as well as the cockpits was where you noticed the commonalities.
The flight engineer refueling panel was a nice option where you could refuel the plane controlling the operation from the cockpit, it was a duplicate of the wing refueling panel
The flight engineer refueling panel was a nice option where you could refuel the plane controlling the operation from the cockpit, it was a duplicate of the wing refueling panel
Re: KSSU
xms3200 wrote:The KSSU & ATLAS standard were mostly applied to the 747's & DC-10's. The galleys as well as the cockpits was where you noticed the commonalities.
The flight engineer refueling panel was a nice option where you could refuel the plane controlling the operation from the cockpit, it was a duplicate of the wing refueling panel
As noted in my earlier post, it didn't work very well I the 707. It may have been an option as I have only seen it in few early 707/720'.