FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1968
1968 - 0004.PDF
FLIGHT International, 4 January 1968 AIR TRANSPORT... BUA's "COMMANDOS" THE forecast loss by British United Airways for 1967 was £532,000 and for 1968 it is £1.1 million—"and at the rate we are going now the 1969 loss would be £1.4 million." This was said by Mr Alan Bristow, BUA's new managing director, when speaking to staff members soon after his appointment. As already reported (last week's issue, page 1058) he has been organising a key management team ("Bristow's commandos") and it will be among their responsibilities to cut these losses down. The team consists of five new directors, including one still to be named. Announced just as we go to press, names and responsibilities are: Mr E. F. Bates (previously general sales manager), sales; Mr John E. Bes (general manager, finance), comptroller; Mr William A. Richardson (chief en- gineer), engineering; and Mr John Sidebotham (assistant to the managing director), administration. The operations director has still to be appointed. In addition, two general managers, Mr Peter Lewis, personnel, and Mr Alastair T. Pugh, planning, are responsible to the managing director. Mr Bristow said to the staff that he proposed to set out a clear and definite plan of the scheduled routes and type of work on which BUA aircraft would be employed. "I want BUA at the top of the first independent league," he said. Supplemental traffic would be generated; the sales effort would be increased. "We will expand our charter business and progressively withdraw from trooping." He described trooping rates as "totally uneconomic." Whilst strict economies will be made in non-essential, non- productive areas, expenditure will be increased in areas which Type Powerplant and sea level thrust Overall dimensions Span (ft) Length (ft) Height (ft) Wing area (sq ft) Mean J-chord sweep (deg) Wheel track (ft) Wheel base (ft) Weights (Ib) Ramp gross ... ... Take-off gross Max landing Max zero fuel Operating weight empty'/appropriate interior layout Fuel capacity (Imp gal) Standard tanks Optional total tankage Accommodation Cabin length (ft) Front hold length (ft) Front hold volume (cu ft) Rear hold length (ft) Rear hold volume (cu ft) Max seating capacity (34in pitch) Cabin pressurisation (Ib/sq in) ... Performance FAR take-off field length (ft)t ... FAR landing field length (ft) : Approach speed (kt)i Cruising speed (kt)/altitude (ft)§ High-speed Long-range Max permitted operating altitude (ft) ... Engine-out service ceiling (ft)§ Max std tanks fuel range (n.m.)/payload (lb)1i() Max opt tanks fuel range (n.m.)/payload (lb)K 737-100 Basic Inter- mediate 737-200 Basic Inter- mediate Two Pratt & Whitney JT8D-7 (14,0001b thrust) or JT8D-9 (14,5001b thrust) 93 94 37 980 25 17-2 34-3 100.800 100,000 98,000 85,000 56.749/101-seat 2,375 3,508 111,000 110,000 99,000 90,000 57/926/ 101-seat 3,508 3,956 62-3 I IS 280 181 370 101 75 above 18,500ft 14-7 below 18.500ft 6,150,/, I 4,950 134 I 7,400! 4.700 131 475/22,000 406/30,000 35,000 1^540/ 20,000 1,950/ 20.000 35,000 17,00011 2,260/ 20,000 2,630/ 20,000 100,800 100,000 98,000 85,000 58.189/ 113-seat 2,375 3,508 111,000 110,000 99,000 92,000 59,255/ 113-seat 2,955 3.956 68-7 14-5 370 21-3 505 117 75 above 18,500ft 14 7 below 18,500ft 6,I5O<// 4,950 134 7,400[| 4,700 131 475/22,000 406/30,000 35,000 17,00011 1,850/ 20,000 2,510/ 20,000 1,570/ 20,000 1,790/ 20,000 * Including typical electronic and other equipment. Excluding crew, usable fuel, payload and consumables such as drinking water and galley provisions, f ISA, sea level, take-off gross weight, t ISA, sea level, max landing weight. § ISA, 95,0001b. H ISA, still air, no fuel reserves, long range cruise technique. ^rJT8D-7. i\ JT8D-9. can show a genuine increase in productivity and efficiency. "Every economic measure will have a clear purpose." Improve- ments would be made to facilities in the accounts department; operations staff would get better working conditions. His aim was to create proper facilities in which people could work efficiently. As already recorded, costs are being cut by moving all BUA staff from Portland House in Victoria, London, to the Gatwick area just as soon as facilities can be provided. Of this Mr Bristow said that he believed "that we must masterplan facilities at Gatwick and stop this everlasting piecemeal Topsy-like growth. Steps will be taken in a matter of weeks to turn the top floor of the administration block into a management nerve centre. This floor will house all the directors and a conference room." He also outlined two incentive schemes, one for boost- ing passenger and cargo sales, and the other for ideas awards. BOEING 737 UP TO DATE WITH certification of the Boeing 737 now in the bag one can assess the full implication of the specification changes follow- ing certain shortcomings and some credits revealed during flight development. Although the 737 has turned out to be heavier and more draggy than predicted, an excess of lift and the availability of the flat-rated JT8D-9 allowed a sufficient increase in operating weights to permit the basic mission guarantees still to be met. Britannia Airways, the only British operator to have ordered the 737, calculates that, even with the extra cost of devalua- tion on the 70 per cent or so of the purchase price outstanding for the fleet, the type still promises a seat-mile cost advantage over comparable types that could carry at least 117 passengers on the London-Palma route. Britannia's disappointment is over the two-month delay in deliveries (which Boeing attributes to production problems). The company's first 737-200 is to arrive in July, and the second in August. Arrangements are in hand to lease jet equipment for the early part of the tour season. Britannia has chosen to delay the delivery of its final two 737-200s until the spring of 1969, and to have them at the higher all-up weights that will, by then, be avail- able. Incidentally, Britannia is apply- ing for certification of its initial pair of 737-2OOs at a take-off gross weight of 103,2001b by trading against a re- duced zero-fuel weight. During the 737 development trials, at the lower cruise speeds drag was some 5 per cent worse than estimated, and somewhat worse at higher Mach cruise speeds. The net result is that cruise speeds are some 30kt below the original estimate, with a corres- ponding effect on the specific range. A drag-reduction investigation is in hand, and there is hope of gains by subtle alteration of profile in such critical areas as the back end of the fuselage and the powerplant support pylons. Exceptional care went into the design of the triple-slotted Fowler flaps, and with the optimisation of settings following flight trials the stal- ling speeds were very much lower than predicted. On take-off perform- ance this was equivalent to as much as 7,0001b, with the aircraft at around 100,0001b. At least 2,0001b is a typical gain over the whole spectrum of con- ditions. Landing-distance gains are of a similar order. The data on this page were supplied by Boeing and is presented in the format of our annual Commercial Aircraft Survey (Flight for November 23, 1967). 737-200C Basic Inter- mediate 93 100 37 980 25 17-2 373 100,800 100,000 98,000 88,000 60,496/ all-cargo 2,375 3,508 111,000 110,000 99,000 95,000 62,693/ all-cargo 2,375 3,956 6,150,/. 4,950 134 7,400|| 4,700 131 475/22,000 406/30,000 35,000 17,00011 1,440/ 20,000 2,170/ 20.000 1,480/ 20,000 1,580/ 20,000
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
