Which airlines have Airbus and Boeing done custom modifications for?

Stitch · Mon Dec 25, 2017 5:19 pm

Kno wrote:
6ft stretch? I can't find anything about this anywhere - do you have any more evidence or information?

CarbonFibre wrote:
From Bruce Campion-Smith's book "Boeing 777".

Mr. Campion-Smith's book was published in 1997 and while ANA might very well have been asking for a 2m stretch to the aft of the 777-200 during the development stage of the program that he is subsequently referencing in said book, their 777-200 fleet is identical in length with the rest of the world's 777-200 fleet.

Kno · Tue Dec 26, 2017 4:35 am

Stitch wrote:
Kno wrote:
6ft stretch? I can't find anything about this anywhere - do you have any more evidence or information?

CarbonFibre wrote:
From Bruce Campion-Smith's book "Boeing 777".

Mr. Campion-Smith's book was published in 1997 and while ANA might very well have been asking for a 2m stretch to the aft of the 777-200 during the development stage of the program that he is subsequently referencing in said book, their 777-200 fleet is identical in length with the rest of the world's 777-200 fleet.

Thanks for clarifying!

varsity · Tue Dec 26, 2017 5:28 pm

Didn't an inter-European carrier (I'm thinking Braethens-SAFE) have special larger overwing exits on the 737? IIRC they tipped up and out instead of being throwaway.

JustAnFO · Tue Dec 26, 2017 5:29 pm

kabq737 wrote:
7BOEING7 wrote:
kabq737 wrote:

What switch configuration is standard now? You refer to TWA as Two Worlds Apart. Out of nothing but shear curiosity are there any other strange things they ordered on their aircraft? Sorry for so many questions but you’ve intrigued me

That’s what all the old guys used to say TWA stood for back in 1980+\-. Even when they got 767’s they went their own way on some of their cockpit selections (too far back for me to remember exactly) but as with many airlines it related what their senior captains had a cozy warm feeling about from the days of the DC-3.

European or American standard isn’t such a big deal anymore since we’ve gone from fore/aft switches to push buttons on most new airplanes but still crops up with the light switches. Most airlines except for a few are American standard - forward is on.

Is it possible for a second hand operator to have this reversed if they would like or are they stuck with whatever was ordered from the factory?

In the late 90’s, I flew two ex-TW 727-31s (N210NE and N220NE) that retained the TW-standard up-is-on switchology. In addition, the FE’s pneumatic panel was also non-standard. The standard Boeing air panel has the bleed switches at the bottom, and the pack switches on top...air “flowed” up. But the ex-TW birds had bleed switches on top and packs at the bottom. I have no idea why they were set up this way... I doubt it was for commonality with the 707, as the 707 panel was not like that. We all had to be very careful when flying those jets...you had to think twice before moving a switch.

Stitch · Tue Dec 26, 2017 5:51 pm

varsity wrote:
Didn't an inter-European carrier (I'm thinking Braethens-SAFE) have special larger overwing exits on the 737? IIRC they tipped up and out instead of being throwaway.

The 737 Next Generation overwing exists operate out and upward.

JetBuddy · Tue Dec 26, 2017 6:07 pm

Stitch wrote:
varsity wrote:
Didn't an inter-European carrier (I'm thinking Braethens-SAFE) have special larger overwing exits on the 737? IIRC they tipped up and out instead of being throwaway.

The 737 Next Generation overwing exists operate out and upward.

Braathens operated everything from 737-200adv to 737-700 (except -300) before being taken over by SAS. Maybe they had those overwing exits on the Classics or Jurassics?

varsity · Tue Dec 26, 2017 6:12 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
Stitch wrote:
varsity wrote:
Didn't an inter-European carrier (I'm thinking Braethens-SAFE) have special larger overwing exits on the 737? IIRC they tipped up and out instead of being throwaway.

The 737 Next Generation overwing exists operate out and upward.

Braathens operated everything from 737-200adv to 737-700 (except -300) before being taken over by SAS. Maybe they had those overwing exits on the Classics or Jurassics?

Doing some more digging, it appears it was Maersk that was mentioned, and it was when the NG was nearing launch. This article talks about certifying the new exits, which were added as part of an ongoing struggle with the EU.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 737-21088/

Stitch · Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:25 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
Braathens operated everything from 737-200adv to 737-700 (except -300) before being taken over by SAS. Maybe they had those overwing exits on the Classics or Jurassics?

Such a change would have required an STC and I cannot find mention of one. There was a discussion about such a retrofit six years ago ( viewtopic.php?t=766449 ) and the consensus appears to be that the changes were too extensive to warrant anyone developing an STC for the modifications necessary.

DocLightning · Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:37 pm

VirginFlyer wrote:
This comes up fairly often, but I feel it is important to note that the 747-400ER wasn't custom built for Qantas; it was offered generally by Boeing, and Qantas was the only airline to take it up.

V/F

We could go back and forth on this, I think, and it ultimately depends on how you define "custom built for." Certainly, Boeing would have been quite happy to sell 747-400ERs to just about anyone who came asking for one, but they wouldn't have designed it if QF hadn't asked for it and I think they made the type knowing that QF was the only committed airline.

I don't know who else they might have courted (this was the late 1990s, mind you). They probably floated it at UA and NW, neither of whom really needed that kind of range, maybe AI and the EU3 (also none of whom needed the range), and CX/SQ, but they would have had to have known that QF was the only airline that really needed that kind of range at the time.

Stitch · Tue Dec 26, 2017 9:00 pm

DocLightning wrote:
I don't know who else they might have courted (this was the late 1990s, mind you). They probably floated it at UA and NW, neither of whom really needed that kind of range, maybe AI and the EU3 (also none of whom needed the range), and CX/SQ, but they would have had to have known that QF was the only airline that really needed that kind of range at the time.

According to aviation media reports at the time, QF, CX and UA were the three airlines most-interested in the 747-400ER. UA could not afford it and CX felt that the TPE tech stops were few enough that adding the ER just to eliminate them was not financially prudent. Which left just QF.

trnswrld · Tue Dec 26, 2017 9:00 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Many of those features and options start as customized. For example, RNP RNAV is now a common feature that can be selected out of a catalog. It was originally a custom feature developed for Alaska Airlines back in 1996 for approaches into Juneau.

To go along with this and someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I think tail logo lights are a similar situation. I wanna say TWA was either the first to have them or came up with the idea all together. As we know logo lights are now a very common thing these days.

FlyboyOz · Tue Dec 26, 2017 11:03 pm

Cathay Pacific - change from 744 to 744Combi
All Cathay Pacific 743s have missing doors in the middle of the fuselage (above the wings)

longhauler · Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:08 pm

FlyboyOz wrote:
All Cathay Pacific 743s have missing doors in the middle of the fuselage (above the wings)

This modification was permitted on the 747-100/200/300 and several airlines with low cabin density blocked off the 3L/R exit and placed seats there instead. British Airways for example ...

If I recall correctly, there were no aircraft that came from the factory without that exit and the -400, licenced under different rules, was not allowed this modification.

DL_Mech · Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:31 pm

Max Q wrote:

Are you referring to the rudder or the fairing between the bottom of the rudder and the #2 exhaust on the BWIA L1011 ?

Can’t imagine Lockheed would install a larger rudder for one customer.

A larger rudder according to this post:

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=730073

PEK777 · Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:34 pm

Who could forget the failure that was the 767-400?

Stitch · Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:37 pm

PEK777 wrote:
Who could forget the failure that was the 767-400?

Not even remotely accurate to call it a custom modification even if only two airlines ended up ordering it.

Otherwise, we'd need to add models like the 737-100 for Lufthansa, the A340-8000 for the Sultan of Brunei and the A330-800 for Haw--, er, Airbus themselves.

thgsr08 · Wed Mar 14, 2018 3:57 am

GOL's 737-800 comes with the SFP system which allows them to land at SDU. Boeing developed the system for G3 and now it comes with every 737-900ER delivered and is an option for B738.

Jomar777 · Wed Mar 14, 2018 9:49 am

MD80 wrote:
conaly wrote:
anstar wrote:
easyJet had the A319 with 2 overwing exits on each side.

A319 high density. Not sure if it was a special request from easyJet but it is currently offered to any airline.

I think that this was a request by easyJet and this allowed the configuration with 156 seats. Other airlines also selected this variant with four overwings exits at a later stage.

I think this is the case also for Gol Airlines in Brazil which required modifications on their ordered B738s (the B737-800SFP) so that they could take off and land at CGH (heavily built surrounding area with short runway) and SDU (short runway and step approach).

But I am not sure any other airline ordered their B737s with the modifications required.

AirbusA6 · Wed Mar 14, 2018 10:04 am

Were Ryanair getting their 738s with no window shades something Boeing had always offered, or a custom modification for FR?

For that matter is the MAX 200 derivative a Ryanair special as well, in that while other customers can order it, it was FR who pushed for its development?

Slash787 · Wed Mar 14, 2018 10:22 am

AirbusA6 wrote:
Were Ryanair getting their 738s with no window shades something Boeing had always offered, or a custom modification for FR?

For that matter is the MAX 200 derivative a Ryanair special as well, in that while other customers can order it, it was FR who pushed for its development?

its was a custom modification for Ryan Air and yeah they pushed for the Max200 as well.

juliuswong · Wed Mar 14, 2018 2:27 pm

This is an informative thread, learning so much here. Thanks to all contributors and thread starter! We should bookmark this thread!

Tristarsteve · Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:38 pm

I think TWA had all the switches going in the opposite direction of standard. ON towards the rear/down.

When BA bought new BAC 111-500 they ordered them with the switches upside down. This made the switch operation the same a s the Dh Trident which they already operated..
This was the BAC 111-510.
No one else did this, so later on when BA acquired second hand BAC111s they had to operate them with different crews on another type rating.

NBGSkyGod · Wed Mar 14, 2018 5:18 pm

What about the CRJ-705? A CRJ-900 with 70 seats requested AC Jazz.

globetrotter94 · Wed Mar 14, 2018 5:40 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
AI's dual-use(commercial/VVIP) 744s VT-EVA/EVB said to have redundant wiring and EMI protection. Not sure if VT-ESN and ESO have the same.

AI's new 77Ws are getting $155 Million worth of unspecified modifications and interiors. Each frame costs $290M. Total $580M. I am guessing these also will be dual-use.

Indeed, and the same applies for other airlines who also operate their country's VIP flights--such as Air China for example. "Air China 1" used to be a 747-400 and either is, or will shortly be a 747-8, so I would expect those aircraft also get similar modifications to Air India 1.

Yflyer · Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:13 pm

When Southwest ordered their first 737NGs didn't they request a special software modification from Boeing to make the glass cockpit emulate the appearance of the old analog gauges, which they had on their 737 Classics? That way the same pilots could fly both planes. It seems like that was something I read here on a.net a long time ago, anyway.

And then there was the ERJ-140, a slight shrink of the ERJ-145 with 44 seats instead of 50, built specifically for American Eagle to get around AA's scope clause.

DL_Mech · Wed Mar 14, 2018 10:23 pm

Boeing did a custom "hatrack" door on early UA 727-222s.

The 727-222 also had three windows aft of the L2 door.

Channex757 · Wed Mar 14, 2018 11:09 pm

McDonnell Douglas built a unique MD-11C design for Alitalia. These aircraft had a special (and expensive to build on the production line) main deck cargo door aft of the wing instead of forward, where normal MD-11F or MD-11C aircraft had theirs.

These were also harder to remarket to secondhand buyers as they were totally nonstandard.

juliuswong · Thu Mar 15, 2018 1:21 pm

Not sure this qualifies as one, Singapore Airlines's former A345 fleet came with special cupboard to store dead passengers just in case any death happens on board during the 17 hours non-stop flight SIN-LAX/JFK vv.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... travelnews

travaz · Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:59 am

I say that definitely qualify's

BAINY3 · Fri Mar 16, 2018 4:34 am

NBGSkyGod wrote:
What about the CRJ-705? A CRJ-900 with 70 seats requested AC Jazz.

Yflyer wrote:
And then there was the ERJ-140, a slight shrink of the ERJ-145 with 44 seats instead of 50, built specifically for American Eagle to get around AA's scope clause.

Along these lines, some CRJ-200s for Northwest Airlink (I believe Pinnacle at the time) were built as "CRJ-440s" for scope clause reasons, seating 44 people instead of 50. This was more like the Jazz situation, where the outward appearance of the plane was the same as the CRJ-200 rather than being an actual shrink variant. I believe it was accomplished by having an absurdly-large amount of closet space. Eventually the scope problem ceased to be an issue and they were converted into normal CRJ-200s.

USAirKid · Fri Mar 16, 2018 4:45 am

DL_Mech wrote:
Boeing did a custom "hatrack" door on early UA 727-222s.

Umm. whats a "hatrack" door? Is this just the door forward of the wing, but aft of the L1 door?

longhauler · Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:59 pm

USAirKid wrote:
Umm. whats a "hatrack" door? Is this just the door forward of the wing, but aft of the L1 door?

It was officially called a "jetescape" door. It was hinged at the bottom, when unlatched a slide also fell out.

During the early 1960s, United had a couple crashes where passengers survived the crash, but were not able to evacuate alive. So they had these doors added to their 727-200s, as well as they had an extra door added to their DC-8-61s. Both were eventually decommissioned. Also, they had this door added to their DC-8-62s, the only passenger versions of that aircraft that had this door.

If you google "Jetescape Evacuation System", you will see a drawing of the door.

It was first added to the combi version of the DC-8-50 Jet trader for configurations where the overwing exits were inaccessable due to freight.

Channex757 · Fri Mar 16, 2018 5:15 pm

Dan-Air modified their 727-46 aircraft to high density using Boeing kits to install extra doors. The ex-JAL planes had L2 and R2 doors fitted just forward of the engines, in the same way Boeing fitted them to the 727-200.

Dan-Air did the work at Lasham but Boeing would have been involved for the STC and doors

VS0 · Fri Mar 16, 2018 6:08 pm

Didn't some of the Lufthansa fleet have light switches that were moved in the opposite way to normal to turn the lights on/off?
I think it was something to do with commonality between Boeing/Airbus narrowbodies.

Philippine747 · Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:27 pm

One of Royal Nepal's 757s was delivered as a Combi, a passenger model with a -200PF cargo door installed to allow 2 pallets to be loaded on the main deck in addition to the passenger load. It also came with uprated RB211s, which gave it a higher MTOW. The cargo capabilities aren't used currently however, and it still flies in an all pax config.

7BOEING7 · Sat Mar 17, 2018 5:42 pm

VS0 wrote:
Didn't some of the Lufthansa fleet have light switches that were moved in the opposite way to normal to turn the lights on/off?
I think it was something to do with commonality between Boeing/Airbus narrowbodies.

Actually all the European airlines, Thai, and TWA (plus others) had OFF is forward switches long before Airbus started building the A300. With the coming of push button switches most of that disappeared except for the light switches on a few customers.

IRC Air France also had the FE's panel on the 727 in French.

kunta67 · Sat Mar 17, 2018 6:25 pm

I believe Alaska had their MD-80’s with the 3 on the left side of the plane so they could have a full galley with the rear exit door

TheRedBaron · Sat Mar 17, 2018 6:44 pm

SAS had like 10 Dc.9-21. They had the larger wing of the 30 and the short fuselage of the 10 series with more powerful engines, the result was the Porsche carrera of the sky. If memory serves well only SAS had them.

TRB

longhauler · Fri Mar 23, 2018 12:51 pm

kunta67 wrote:
I believe Alaska had their MD-80’s with the 3 on the left side of the plane so they could have a full galley with the rear exit door

Yes, Delta and Swissair as well, for that reason. A higher level of onboard service required a larger galley.

It is interesting to note that when Delta bought the MD-90 and better service was less of a priority, they stuck to convention and put the 3 on the right side of the aircraft resulting in a smaller aft galley.

JoKeR · Fri Mar 23, 2018 2:13 pm

What about the original galley design on KLM 747s, running the entire right hand-side of the J class cabin. This was unique to KL if I recall and required quite a bit of main deck work.

YSAPW · Fri Mar 23, 2018 3:07 pm

Gr8Circle wrote:
jubguy3 wrote:
Air India's first 30 or so delivered A320s had double bogey main landing gears for use at airports with subpar runways. I believe this is a modification unique to Air India. Here is an example

As the main topic of this thread is "Which airlines have ....?" would just like to point out that those A320's were ordered by and delivered to Indian Airlines, not AI.......AI inherited those frames when they took over Indian Airlines..... the need for those double bogeys has gone now as most airports have been upgraded since then.....

I have always wondered what the "subpar runways" are or were? I know how the planes with the double bogey look like, but i cannot figure out the purpose of those mods. I searched the web for subpar runways but don't find anything. Could someone briefly explain what those are?

7BOEING7 · Fri Mar 23, 2018 3:48 pm

JoKeR wrote:
What about the original galley design on KLM 747s, running the entire right hand-side of the J class cabin. This was unique to KL if I recall and required quite a bit of main deck work.

That was an option not specific to KLM. IIRC it was a SP thing and PAA had it.

XAM2175 · Fri Mar 23, 2018 3:53 pm

YSAPW wrote:
I know how the planes with the double bogey look like, but i cannot figure out the purpose of those mods.

It spreads the weight of the aircraft over a larger number of wheels and therefore a larger ground area, meaning the runways and taxiways can be built to support a lower pavement loading.

A similar tactic is used in railways, where adding axles (for example, moving to a Co-Co wheel arrangement of six axles over two bogies instead of Bo-Bo at four over two) can allow locomotives to use weaker track with no reduction in gross weight.

YSAPW · Fri Mar 23, 2018 6:10 pm

XAM2175 wrote:
YSAPW wrote:
I know how the planes with the double bogey look like, but i cannot figure out the purpose of those mods.

It spreads the weight of the aircraft over a larger number of wheels and therefore a larger ground area, meaning the runways and taxiways can be built to support a lower pavement loading.

A similar tactic is used in railways, where adding axles (for example, moving to a Co-Co wheel arrangement of six axles over two bogies instead of Bo-Bo at four over two) can allow locomotives to use weaker track with no reduction in gross weight.

Oh i get it. It has to do with weight distribution which now makes complete sense... I had always wondered. Thanks!!

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net