It was mentioned in the Delta 777 thread that ATL-JNB not only requires almost all of the range of the 777-200LR, but actually needed additional custom modifications from Boeing and Goodyear to meet performance demands as ATL-JNB operates at the ragged edge of the 77L's operational capability and the 77L is the only aircraft that can practically fly it. Qantas is also well known for being the only airline operating the 744ER, having a custom pax variant of the 747 built for it to fly some of the longest routes in the network at the time such as SYD-DFW. What other examples of custom OEM mods exist to boost performance?

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

BA A318s were modified to allow them to land at LCY I believe.

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

BA A318s were modified to allow them to land at LCY I believe.

Hardware mods or just software tweaks for the glideslope?

neomax wrote:

77L is the only aircraft that can practically fly it.

The A340 could do it

luv2cattlecall wrote:

Hardware mods or just software tweaks for the glideslope?

There is a STEEP APPR button added to the overhead panel.

luv2cattlecall wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

BA A318s were modified to allow them to land at LCY I believe.

Hardware mods or just software tweaks for the glideslope?

Hardware mods: 1 ( in words ONE ) button "go Stuka" in the cockpit

remainder is FBW software tweaks:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ty-206788/

neomax wrote:

Qantas is also well known for being the only airline operating the 744ER, having a custom pax variant of the 747 built for it to fly some of the longest routes in the network at the time such as SYD-DFW.

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

VirginFlyer wrote:

neomax wrote:

Qantas is also well known for being the only airline operating the 744ER, having a custom pax variant of the 747 built for it to fly some of the longest routes in the network at the time such as SYD-DFW.

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

Also important to note that QF is the only operator of the pax -400ER. There are freighter versions of it in service too.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/servic ... ifications

Boeing and Airbus have airplane modification departments. Here is a link to their modifications webpage

Just about every airline has some customized functions. There are options and catalogs. Beyond that airline engineering departments can work on modifications with third parties, internally or contract with Boeing or Airbus. The avionics equipment can be highly customized for an airlines needs. Are they using GPS/CPDLC/RNAV/EFB? What about English vs metric units? MTOW options. Tire, wheel, etc customization.

Newbiepilot wrote:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/services/maintenance-engineering/modifications

Boeing and Airbus have airplane modification departments. Here is a link to their modifications webpage

Just about every airline has some customized functions. There are options and catalogs. Beyond that airline engineering departments can work on modifications with third parties, internally or contract with Boeing or Airbus. The avionics equipment can be highly customized for an airlines needs. Are they using GPS/CPDLC/RNAV/EFB? What about English vs metric units? MTOW options. Tire, wheel, etc customization.

The items you refer to are options not customization for a specific customer. The units is a pin selectable function, the nav equipment you mention is pretty much standard on all Boeing/Airbus wide bodies and are options on narrow body aircraft. Those would not be considered options not customization.

The type of work which would have to done would require an STC and plenty of engineering work. For example the 4 wheel MLG on the Air India 320s.

mmo wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/services/maintenance-engineering/modifications

Boeing and Airbus have airplane modification departments. Here is a link to their modifications webpage

Just about every airline has some customized functions. There are options and catalogs. Beyond that airline engineering departments can work on modifications with third parties, internally or contract with Boeing or Airbus. The avionics equipment can be highly customized for an airlines needs. Are they using GPS/CPDLC/RNAV/EFB? What about English vs metric units? MTOW options. Tire, wheel, etc customization.

The items you refer to are options not customization for a specific customer. The units is a pin selectable function, the nav equipment you mention is pretty much standard on all Boeing/Airbus wide bodies and are options on narrow body aircraft. Those would not be considered options not customization.

The type of work which would have to done would require an STC and plenty of engineering work. For example the 4 wheel MLG on the Air India 320s.

Correct, those are options and features. Newer airplanes allow software to change them. Older planes have pin programming and wiring for sensors. They are still customized service bulletins since the configuration is customized and that is why the modifications department does the work.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Correct, those are options and features. Newer airplanes allow software to change them. Older planes have pin programming and wiring for sensors. They are still customized service bulletins since the configuration is customized and that is why the modifications department does the work.

Those features are done on the line as they are part of the normal configuration. What the OP is asking is about specific changes, again such as the 4 wheel MLG, not the selection of options or option deletions. An example of the customization would be when I worked for a VVIP carrier in the ME, they acquired a white tail A-320. They wanted to install 3 aux tanks (IIRC) in addition to the two installed at the factory. Airbus was more than willing to provide the service at a very high price. They also were more than happy to price out a ACJ or white tail 330.

easyJet had the A319 with 2 overwing exits on each side.

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. For example some Germanwings planes have them, too.


Airbus and Honeywell are currently modifying the A300F4-600 for UPS Airlines with Primus Epic cockpit. One of the reasons is, that the FMC isn't capable of storing all necessary Navigation data, so that under certain circumstances the database has to be updated before each flight, which takes a long time.


https://twitter.com/UPSAirlines/status/ ... 4385128448
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... on-program

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.

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

BA A318s were modified to allow them to land at LCY I believe.

That was simply a tweak to the flight profiles & crew training changes.

anstar wrote:

easyJet had the A319 with 2 overwing exits on each side.

Why it makes it harder to resell, the OWEED frames are already there from the A320 design. Just not the added wight after cutout & installation. The A321 3 door, dual OWEED config also just has them cutout & activated. Would be interesting to know how much the exits add to the weight.

KLM have some Combi B747, I don't think many many more airlines have this in operation.

I think EL AL have some special and unique features in many of the planes, mainly self protection.

ATR made some modifications on the ATR42-500 for Precision Air, to operate them in unpaved airports, dirt runways.

Not really Boeing, but the DC-9-21 was more or less built for SAS

migair54 wrote:

KLM have some Combi B747, I don't think many many more airlines have this in operation.

I think EL AL have some special and unique features in many of the planes, mainly self protection.

ATR made some modifications on the ATR42-500 for Precision Air, to operate them in unpaved airports, dirt runways.

I believe the 747-400M was a request by KLM.

Wasn't the 747-200SUD not a KLM-request as well?

Air New Zelaland's A320s have extensive modifications to their FMCG and an extra GPS to allow them to be RNP .1 compliant for the approach into Queenstown.

I believe that their original A320s were some of the first A320s to be ETOPS120 certified? Speaking of which, Air New Zealand is the only airline to have ETOPS330 rated aircraft (777s).

In former times more or less every airliner was especially outfitted for each costumer. That's the reason why Boeing had all the special costumer codes. Lufthansa for example asked for a special location of the tank opening or one on both sides if I remember it correctly from a Flugrevue or Areo International magazine article (plz correct me if I'm wrong)

mmo wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Correct, those are options and features. Newer airplanes allow software to change them. Older planes have pin programming and wiring for sensors. They are still customized service bulletins since the configuration is customized and that is why the modifications department does the work.

Those features are done on the line as they are part of the normal configuration. What the OP is asking is about specific changes, again such as the 4 wheel MLG, not the selection of options or option deletions. An example of the customization would be when I worked for a VVIP carrier in the ME, they acquired a white tail A-320. They wanted to install 3 aux tanks (IIRC) in addition to the two installed at the factory. Airbus was more than willing to provide the service at a very high price. They also were more than happy to price out a ACJ or white tail 330.

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.

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.

rbavfan wrote:

anstar wrote:

easyJet had the A319 with 2 overwing exits on each side.

Why it makes it harder to resell, the OWEED frames are already there from the A320 design. Just not the added wight after cutout & installation. The A321 3 door, dual OWEED config also just has them cutout & activated. Would be interesting to know how much the exits add to the weight.

Easyjet had to have get them installed as they fitted them with 156 seats. (2 owe were certified to 145 pax). I believe many have been in service with some other airlines like Allegiant after life with easyjet. Their 321 NEO's will also have a double overwing exit + 3 doors to allow for the 235 capacity.

Qantas’ 707-138B was a shotened version of the standard 707-100 which gave it longer range.

Well, not Boeing/Airbus, but McDonnell Douglas completed seven DC-10-15, based on the DC-10-10, by request of Mexicana and Aeroméxico, for their MEX-elsewhere hot and high operations. Aeroméxico operated them with some 260 seats on some regional and transatlantic routes (mostly via MIA) but Mexicana´s ones seated 315 on US/Mexico flights.

hawaiian717 wrote:

Qantas’ 707-138B was a shotened version of the standard 707-100 which gave it longer range.

Not quite: everyone else's were a longer version that they did because of Pan Am: http://www.adastron.com/707/qantas/138-length.htm

Would a 787 8/9 need to be customized for NYC & LHR to SYD/SIN?

To a certain extent, the A380 has a relatively high level of customization for each of the customer airline compared to other aircraft. To the point that:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ls-of-a380

Financiers and leasors distinguish between common options, versus unusual options and custom modifications, the latter strongly disliked.

For example, a leasor will usually fund the custom modification differently, requiring the balloon payment at end of lease, to incorporate removal / re-instatement to standard.

Some options / modifications become de facto standards by virtue of volume. For example, EK A380 and in future, UPS 748F.

I'll have to defer to someone like Longhauler on this one, but AC's 767's were the first to use metric units instead of imperial IIRC.

anstar wrote:

easyJet had the A319 with 2 overwing exits on each side.

I just looked at an SRM for the A319 and it shows the forward overwing exit as optional.

VirginFlyer wrote:

neomax wrote:

Qantas is also well known for being the only airline operating the 744ER, having a custom pax variant of the 747 built for it to fly some of the longest routes in the network at the time such as SYD-DFW.

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.

Would that view also apply to the 767-400 ?

Boeing was prepared to make a folding wing version of the 777 at American's request, but not even AA ordered it.

WIederling wrote:

VirginFlyer wrote:

neomax wrote:

Qantas is also well known for being the only airline operating the 744ER, having a custom pax variant of the 747 built for it to fly some of the longest routes in the network at the time such as SYD-DFW.

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.

Would that view also apply to the 767-400 ?

My recollection from the time was that Continental and Delta were quite instrumental in developing the specification for the 767-400, but again it was something which was offered generally, so yes I would say it wasn't custom built for those two operators.

V/F

When the circumstances following the loss of the South African Airways B747 Combi over the Indian Ocean in late 1987 became apparent, Transport Canada was going to restrict Combi passenger/freight operations. "Combi" aircraft were going to have to be either totally cargo or totally passenger. During this time, Air Canada was working with Boeing on an order for 747-433 Combis. It looked like the order was in jeopardy ... as were the operations of the current 747-233 Combis.

Boeing proposed a version with a fixed wall between the passengers and cargo, with separate A/C systems and very effective fire suppression systems which would not affect passengers. This was acceptable to Transport Canada the aircraft were ordered.

However, after construction of the airframes were started .... airlines in Canada's arctic, flying 737 and 727 combis stated they would all but have to shut down with such a restriction as neither passengers nor frieght alone would allow a profitable operation. Transport Canada backed down, but added very restrictive SOPs for combi operations.

The 747-433 combis though, were past the point of no return ... and Air Canada ended up with three very unique 747 combis, which while ingenious to start with, ended up a liability. Kudos to Boeing though, to design an aircraft which could withstand a bad fire only feet away from safe passengers.

diverted wrote:

I'll have to defer to someone like Longhauler on this one, but AC's 767's were the first to use metric units instead of imperial IIRC.

They were certainly the first at Air Canada. Years later, with the merge with Canadian, the like fleets of 767s, 747s and A320s showed that Canadian's were imperial while Air Canada's were metric. I am not sure about the rest of the world. Air Canada's first 767 was delivered in October 1982 ... were there any else in the world operating in metric at that time? I am guessing that in the USSR or China, likely there were.

If I'm not mistaken, the 747-400D (domestic) was tailored for JAL and ANA domestic market in Japan. I don't remember any other carrier flying this particular -D version.

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'm surprised nobody has mentioned these:

Airbus basically custom-made the A350-900ULR for SQ after they requested it. (A and B were also willing to stretch their planes for them, like the A350-8000 and 777-10X)

Pretty sure the 787-3 was basically custom-made for the Japanese, like the 747-100SR and 747-400D

Also with the A350, I think PAL's extra weight version is a special request

And Qantas has requested Boeing and Airbus to get their aircrafts' range up to be able to make Australia to LHR and JFK non-stop with 300 seats (Boeing can definitely pull it off with the 777-8, and I'm certain they'd be willing to do so considering we're probably talking about a large order here, maybe 30-40 planes firm)

longhauler wrote:

When the circumstances following the loss of the South African Airways B747 Combi over the Indian Ocean in late 1987 became apparent, Transport Canada was going to restrict Combi passenger/freight operations. "Combi" aircraft were going to have to be either totally cargo or totally passenger. During this time, Air Canada was working with Boeing on an order for 747-433 Combis. It looked like the order was in jeopardy ... as were the operations of the current 747-233 Combis.

Boeing proposed a version with a fixed wall between the passengers and cargo, with separate A/C systems and very effective fire suppression systems which would not affect passengers. This was acceptable to Transport Canada the aircraft were ordered.

However, after construction of the airframes were started .... airlines in Canada's arctic, flying 737 and 727 combis stated they would all but have to shut down with such a restriction as neither passengers nor frieght alone would allow a profitable operation. Transport Canada backed down, but added very restrictive SOPs for combi operations.

The 747-433 combis though, were past the point of no return ... and Air Canada ended up with three very unique 747 combis, which while ingenious to start with, ended up a liability. Kudos to Boeing though, to design an aircraft which could withstand a bad fire only feet away from safe passengers.

diverted wrote:

I'll have to defer to someone like Longhauler on this one, but AC's 767's were the first to use metric units instead of imperial IIRC.

They were certainly the first at Air Canada. Years later, with the merge with Canadian, the like fleets of 767s, 747s and A320s showed that Canadian's were imperial while Air Canada's were metric. I am not sure about the rest of the world. Air Canada's first 767 was delivered in October 1982 ... were there any else in the world operating in metric at that time? I am guessing that in the USSR or China, likely there were.

I am too lazy to check, but was it not a major contributory cause of the AC767-glider incident that the refueling done prior to departure got its knickers in a twist over imperial and metric units, resulting in a less than adequate fuel load?

sassiciai wrote:

I am too lazy to check,

Check ... it's a fascinating story.

There are so many slices of Swiss Cheese, it makes one's head spin.

Fuel ordered in kilos, delivered in pounds. Normally caught, but the gauges weren't working. The MEL ordered drip check was done on a Boeing inches chart, but but graduation on the aircraft was in cms. Three different versions of the MEL being used as the aircraft was brand new. etc etc etc.

The last slice of Swiss Cheese was ignored when, north of YQT the "low fuel" warning sounded indicating less than 40 minutes of fuel. The pilots were told a diversion to YQT was not necessary as the warning was caused by the inop guages. 40 minutes later ... history.

I cant believe no one has mentioned PanAm! Almost every plane they flew in their history, including the 747 they had a say in.

Also 747-SR. If Tokyo Haneda was still a two runway operation, Airbus might have developed an A380D.

32andBelow wrote:

I cant believe no one has mentioned PanAm! Almost every plane they flew in their history, including the 747 they had a say in.

Nobody mentioned it, because it isn’t an answer to the question asked. Are there any Boeing (at least, since the jet age) or Airbus, or even other jet planes that have modifications that only Pan Am purchased, but nobody else did?

Pan Am had plenty of say in the 747, but the 747 was ordered by dozens of airlines and wound up selling well over a thousand planes. Is there any significant design feature in Pan Am’s 747s that no other airline ordered?

The joke use to be that every 707 was a prototype as no two airlines had the same configuration. Not to far from the truth.

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

GF

EK 380's bathing facilities

Sabena's 747-100s (OO-SGA and OO-SGB) were modified into combi aircraft in the 1970s.