View Full Version : 1972 or 1973 London to Los Angeles
swavesey
24th Jan 2018, 04:02
Can anyone tell me about BA flights between Heathrow and LAX during the summers of 1972 and 1973? What planes would they have used?
canberra97
24th Jan 2018, 14:52
Have you had a look at departedflights.com although they don't list 1972/73 they do list 1971 as it shows the following.
LHR depart 12.00
JFK arrive 14.50
JFK depart 16.15
LAX arrive 18.55
Flights operated by BOAC Super VC10.
I should imagine that B707 may well have been used on LHR to LAX by 1973 but a few years before the arrangement with Air New Zealand and the use of their DC10-30's on the route which lasted until 1979.
swavesey
24th Jan 2018, 15:44
Thanks for this. I know it was a nonstop flight.
primreamer
24th Jan 2018, 19:00
swavesey,
A little later than the summer but in December 1973 I travelled LHR-LAX on a BOAC B707 with a refuel stop in Winnipeg.
June ‘73 LHR-LAX with a stop outbound at Winnepeg - the return was non-stop although at times we had a stop at Ottawa . Due if I recall correctly to the Cabin crew union playing silly buggers again.
The transition to the ANZ DC-10 was in May 1975. I was a regular on these at the time. Prior to that BOAC (still until April 1974) and finally BA had since 1972 operated a 707, ostensibly nonstop but the westbound made an unannounced stop in Winnipeg. Prior to that, it was a VC-10 through JFK and continuing to Sydney.
BOAC at that time also operated quite a number of transatlantic charters, with 707s, trading separately as "BOAC Ltd" to appease IATA, and LAX was one of the more common destinations. These used a small pool of economy-only 707s, which also were used on scheduled services to Toronto, although strangely nowhere else.
rog747
25th Jan 2018, 13:04
the newish 747 (-136 P/W) could not make westcoast, not until the 747-236 RR came along late 70's
the ANZ/BA DC10 interchange came in mid 70's
prior to this the Super VC-10 certainly in 1971 op'd via JFK
There have been various accounts of why BA did not use the 747 on Los Angeles from the start, the most convincing of which is that it was beyond range of the initial -100 models. So how come Pan Am and TWA did so ? It seems that BA standards for range were somewhat stricter than theirs.
Several accounts from Heathrow ATC of how the summer afternoon departures of the two US carriers to LAX/SFO were met with some concern, given the unreliability of the early JT9Ds, especially if on easterlies. A TWA departure off 10R was described as "Leaving by the Piccadilly Line", and a Pan Am one was said to be a "Hedge Clipper". The moment the Rolls-powered 747-200B was available to BA, the first route it was put on was LAX, and SFO was started.
I don't know how often the US carriers had to stop for fuel westbound with their 747s. Presumably this was somewhat easier for them to arrange a relief crew to be at say Las Vegas to take over, where BA stopping there would be stranded.
Brit312
25th Jan 2018, 14:49
Just thought I would add my two pennies worth , but had to look up my log book first,
Last Sydney through the west that I operated was leaving London on the 17-7-74 and arriving back at London on the 01-08-74. The aircraft used though out the trip were both Standard and Super VC-10
Now I always thought that , at that time on a schedule basis Lax was a VC-10 destination whereas San Francisco was a B707 destination
Goodness me I just realised I am talking about a trip that took place some 44 years ago, surely I cannot be that old !!!!!!!
DaveReidUK
25th Jan 2018, 17:14
Last Sydney through the west that I operated was leaving London on the 17-7-74 and arriving back at London on the 01-08-74. The aircraft used though out the trip were both Standard and Super VC-10
Now I always thought that , at that time on a schedule basis Lax was a VC-10 destination whereas San Francisco was a B707 destination
I'd have thought that LHR-LAX in a VC-10 would need a tech stop, though I may be wrong.
The VC-10 route was London-JFK-Los Angeles-Honolulu-Fiji-Sydney. Brit312 above can probably make us all envious with entries from his log books :) .The 707 route was London-JFK-San Francisco-Honolulu-Tokyo-Hong Kong. The Sydney flights had been 707s until the late 1960s, but the Tokyo ones seem to have been 707s until the transpacific flights were given up. The Tokyo route of course was on Hong Kong licences, this was long before Cathay Pacific flew such routes.
The BOAC 707 that was lost at Mount Fuji in (1966 ?) was on this routing, many of the passengers were American, including a substantial corporate "best sales" group on a junket to Hong Kong. BOAC sold a lot of transpacific traffic from California - in fact, possibly more than over the Atlantic from there.
DaveReidUK
25th Jan 2018, 18:13
The 707 route was London-JFK-San Francisco-Honolulu-Tokyo-Hong Kong.
The Mount Fuji 707 appears to have routed LHR-SFO-HNL-TYO (albeit with a diversion to Fukuoka), so no stop at JFK.
The Mount Fuji 707 appears to have routed LHR-SFO-HNL-TYO (albeit with a diversion to Fukuoka), so no stop at JFK.
BOAC 1966 transpacific TT
http://www.timetableimages.com/ttimages/ba2/ba66/ba66-09.jpg
There used to be a poster here on PPrUne who was a BOAC timetable devised in the 1960s, but haven't seem him around lately.
DaveReidUK
25th Jan 2018, 20:59
That timetable may well be how the Mount Fuji 707 actually routed, in which case the various reports and the Wikipeda article are wrong (nothing new there). Even for a 707, LHR-SFO non-stop does seem quite a long way.
finncapt
26th Jan 2018, 04:34
I may be wrong but I didn't think BOAC operated LHR - SFO, wetsbound, in the very early 70s.
I seem to recall the service routed eastbound through Tokyo and then to SFO, turning round there and then back across the pacific to Tokyo and thence to LHR.
I think SFO - TYO was quite a long sector for a -436 and a refuelling stop (Guam?) may have been neccessary occasionally.
Tagron
26th Jan 2018, 05:08
My memory agrees with finncapt that the SFO B707 routing was eastbound via Tokyo then reverse back to LHR.
DaveReidUK is also correct that the VC10 would not have made LHR-LAX without a tech stop. In fact there was a brief period (1975 or 76 ?) when the VC10s operated LHR-LAX with a scheduled tech stop at Gander. I believe this was because of delays in getting the nonstop DC10 service up and running
Agree, the BOAC sector from JFK to San Francisco had been given up by 1971, the timetable shows a connection on United. The route onwards, ultimately to Hong Kong, was doubtless worth retaining. The 707 did indeed have to get there the long way round, outward via Asia.
San Francisco to Tokyo on BOAC always routed through Honolulu rather than direct, but it was still a bit of a stretch across the western Pacific and I believe even the inaugural 707 had put in at Guam, although it was never shown in the timetable.
Alan Baker
26th Jan 2018, 11:13
References to the "707" need to distinguish between the Conway powered 707-436 and the longer ranged P & W JT3D powered 707-336B/C, of which by 1972/73 BOAC had several in passenger trim (the two 707-336Bs were specifically ordered for the new polar route from London to Tokyo via Anchorage).
I recall that the HNL-HND if unable to do nonstop usually went via Wake Island
Halcyon Days
26th Jan 2018, 12:11
I did a couple of trips on the LHR LAX route. June 74 was via Ottawa on G-AXGW 707-336
and November 74 via Calgary on G-ASZF 707-336. Cabin crew changed there but flight deck crews carried on to LA-due to union rules etc.
The other LAX route was the 591 service London/JFK/LAX and on to HNL and beyond -at that time they were always on the VC.10
Wander00
26th Jan 2018, 15:01
Discussion of the take off capabilities of differently powered aircraft reminds me of the first 747 sent to Mt Pleasant in 1986 after the Tristar had failed to round out from its autoland approach in UK. First 747 down had US engines - we thought it was not going to make it taking off from MPA, and apparently it was even more dramatic at Ascension. All other flight by BA were with RB211 powered aircraft, to the relief of all.
treadigraph
26th Jan 2018, 15:05
I do love threads like this - a relatively simple question leads to a wealth of stories and info. :ok:
finncapt
26th Jan 2018, 19:56
Ah, the 591/592 rotation.
Sixteen, or was it a 14 day trip.
All the way to Melbourne via JFK, LAX, HNL, NAN (Nandi, Fiji), SYD and back.
Did several of those in the early 70s.
Remember being the nav on a delayed flight - between NAN and HNL having a meridian passage - look it up, a navigators dream - better than sex!!
Preon
26th Jan 2018, 20:42
Ah, the 591/592 rotation.
Sixteen, or was it a 14 day trip.
All the way to Melbourne via JFK, LAX, HNL, NAN (Nandi, Fiji), SYD and back.
Did several of those in the early 70s.
Remember being the nav on a delayed flight - between NAN and HNL having a meridian passage - look it up, a navigators dream - better than sex!!
I remember this splendid VC-10 trip which as BOAC/BA Cabin Crew could be 21 days . Senior Captains usually operated the ‘Sydney thru the West’ on Thursdays. One skipper had strawberry’s loaded for him at LAX for the HNL sector. We slipped in Melbourne transiting SYD in both directions. England cricket teams used to turn up at our hotel opposite Carlton footie ground where some rooms had cooking facilities.Always operated on VC10/S/VC10 on the route but we could operate the final JFK -LHR sector on B707 if so required.
vctenderness
27th Jan 2018, 16:52
The 591proved so popular with one crew that, it is rumoured, they all had ‘591’ tattooed on their arse!
DC10RealMan
27th Jan 2018, 17:16
I remember the TWA 761 LHR-LAX and the PAA 121 LHR-LAX did on occasion flight plan to KONT (Ontario in Calfornia) and then re-release in flight to LAX which is an FAA thing?
Peter47
27th Jan 2018, 17:34
I'm certainly not the expert but en-route re-clearance - hoping that you don't use up your contigency fuel en route was (is?) quite common. The first Pan Am 707 from New York to Paris did just that. Could make an interesting thread...
On the 707-436 we often had to reclear on the BDA-LHR in the summer by filing BDA-SNN and then reclearing once en-route and we can reduce the contingency fuel
Halcyon Days
27th Jan 2018, 20:54
I remember this splendid VC-10 trip which as BOAC/BA Cabin Crew could be 21 days . Senior Captains usually operated the ‘Sydney thru the West’ on Thursdays. One skipper had strawberry’s loaded for him at LAX for the HNL sector. We slipped in Melbourne transiting SYD in both directions. England cricket teams used to turn up at our hotel opposite Carlton footie ground where some rooms had cooking facilities.Always operated on VC10/S/VC10 on the route but we could operate the final JFK -LHR sector on B707 if so required.
Yes 21 days for cabin crew and we carried on round the world on those that I did. HKG/CCU/DXB etc I did two in a row and the second one was extended to 6 weeks due to Mid East war.
Goldencane
27th Jan 2018, 22:18
I was a member of the BOAC cabin crew rostering team during 70's.
The trip was a 21 day RTW. Round the world, with 6 days off on return. SVC 10 west bound to Sydney, then continuing on the B707 from Sydney back across India and Europe. This swap of aircraft was designated the integrated fleet.
Halcyon Days
30th Jan 2018, 11:47
I was a member of the BOAC cabin crew rostering team during 70's.
The trip was a 21 day RTW. Round the world, with 6 days off on return. SVC 10 west bound to Sydney, then continuing on the B707 from Sydney back across India and Europe. This swap of aircraft was designated the integrated fleet.
It was VC10 all the way round on the ones I did? The only 707 routes I did to/from Australia were on the freighters.
sandiego89
30th Jan 2018, 14:05
I recall that the HNL-HND if unable to do nonstop usually went via Wake Island
How did things work like that for the occasional stops at places like Wake? USAF fuel? USAF fuelers? or would they have company/contractor folks still there waiting for the occasional drop in?
I realize that there were places for routine fuel stops with dedicated fuel and ground crews, of which Wake was one along with Midway and Canton island among others, but as range increased in the jet age these stops became less frequent, and I imagine a general phase out of having dedicated refuel crews?
Wake and Guam were regular stops for Pan Am 707s across the Pacific in the 1960s. Of course, Pan Am had built facilities all across the Pacific when they started their China Clipper flying boat pre-WW2. Commercial charter carriers operating for the US military to Vietnam would also use the facility. Strangely, the Pan Am 707s stopped at Wake both ways in the deep middle of the night. It must have had adequate lighting. It would be USAF military personnel.
In 1967 there was a significant shipwreck on the reef at Wake of the tanker bringing in 6 million gallons of aviation fuel, which gives a bit of a pointer to the usage.
Ian Burgess-Barber
30th Jan 2018, 15:04
sandiego89 yr. last
How did things work like that for the occasional stops at places like Wake? USAF fuel? USAF fuelers?
My Other,(sorry dear, Better),Half was a B.O.A.C. hostie and remembers dropping into Wake during the late 60s when their 707 could not manage HNL-HND against the headwind. She recalls that she and the two other female crew were definitely the main event of the day as they walked to the terminal, and that the numbers of USAF personnel involved in the refueling had increased remarkably by the time they walked back to the aircraft. I guess young ladies were a rare sight for the guys in those parts back in the day.
Ian BB
banjobill
30th Jan 2018, 18:29
And of course in those days there was always a flight engineer on board who could do the refuelling...given a bowser.
rog747
31st Jan 2018, 05:19
sandiego89 yr. last
How did things work like that for the occasional stops at places like Wake? USAF fuel? USAF fuelers?
My Other,(sorry dear, Better),Half was a B.O.A.C. hostie and remembers dropping into Wake during the late 60s when their 707 could not manage HNL-HND against the headwind. She recalls that she and the two other female crew were definitely the main event of the day as they walked to the terminal, and that the numbers of USAF personnel involved in the refueling had increased remarkably by the time they walked back to the aircraft. I guess young ladies were a rare sight for the guys in those parts back in the day.
Ian BB
cue the song
https://youtu.be/Ljm9CDRAhMQ
cue the song
From the musical 'South Pacific'.
Unfortunately Wake Island is in the North Pacific :)
It was VC10 all the way round on the ones I did? The only 707 routes I did to/from Australia were on the freighters.
Me too always there and back e.g. Xmas 74/75 with Dougie Cooper for once not a senior Capt watched some bruising cricket from Thompson and Lillie in Melbourne.
Freighters.....hmmm.....memories of The late great Fannie Bay Hotel in Darwin.
Goldencane
2nd Feb 2018, 02:42
The 707/VC10 swap for cabin crew in Syd was late sixties, early seventies. I did this RTW twice as pax.
707, LHR, FRA, TLV, THR, (try doing that now) BOM, SIN, PER, SYD, then VC10, SYD, NAN, HNL, LAX, JFK, LHR. 21 day's altogether.
QF start their PER, LHR non stop in a couple of months, how things have changed.
First 747 down had US engines - we thought it was not going to make it taking off from MPA, Still at about 100ft when it did it’s flypast down the runway at Stanley........
teeteringhead
2nd Feb 2018, 11:45
Slightly off thread - my apologies.
Was having a discussion with a colleague recently about how much cheaper in real terms long haul is these days. So what would the sort of transatlantic flight of which we speak have cost in 1972 £GBP?
Jhieminga
2nd Feb 2018, 12:57
Not really an answer to your question, but perhaps it helps. On a ticket for a return flight from London to the Solomon Islands, in 1966, the full price is given as £839.8-0 with £418.6-0 as the price for the return leg. The route for this is listed as HIR-VLI-NAN-LON, which includes a transatlantic (or transpacific) bit of course.
teeteringhead
2nd Feb 2018, 15:31
Thanks Jhieminga
in 1966, the full price is given as £839.8-0 with £418.6-0 as the price for the return leg.
That's about £15k and £7.5k respectively in today's money. Just a bit cheaper now!
The 707/VC10 swap for cabin crew in Syd was late sixties, early seventies. I did this RTW twice as pax.
The division of BOAC routes between 707 and VC10 did change almost yearly as the fleet was updated. The basic 707 fleet, the ones with Conway engines, were all delivered before the first VC10 arrived. There were a handful of later 707s with P&W engines, but these were either freighters or assigned to specific routes. After the first Standard VC10s replaced the Comets, the Super VC10s progressively spread across the system and the arrangements were varied. The last Super VC10 was only delivered a year before the first 747, and of course changes in assignments continued after that.
QF start their PER, LHR non stop in a couple of months, how things have changed. Qantas 8 was doing LHR-Bombay-Perth (and on to Melbourne and Sydney) on the (original) 747 by 1980, 38 years ago. Given how airport procedures have expanded in time since then, I suspect the overall time from entering to finally exiting the airports will be much the same as with one stop.
bols59
5th Mar 2022, 18:52
Surely the Super VC10 had the range to fly LHR - LAX nonstop, yes?
Surely the Super VC10 had the range to fly LHR - LAX nonstop, yes?
No. Max payload range with no reserves 4100 nautical miles. Great circle distance with zero wind LHR-LAX 4741 nautical miles
pax britanica
6th Mar 2022, 14:23
VC10 were not great on range, my very first ever flight LHR-Barbados ( staff travel subload) in Nov 1971 turned into LHR-JFK JFK Barbados because us subloads were bumped due to the SV10 being unable to make the trip due to Winter winds something that was not uncommon apparently . Barbados is almost exactly 4100 miles from LHR so no margin for winds and back then the alternate would have had to be Port of Spain another couple of hundred miles further I think the VC10 struggled to make Bermuda at times since there is no real alternate for Bermuda except JFK which is another 750 odd miles on top of the 3400 LON-BDA trip often requiring a long northward diversion in the winter due to 'winds aloft (a lovely phrase) and the risk that in winter Bermudas common Sw Gales are a challenge with the runway facing NW .. Which leads me to wonder which would be better in a cross wind the 70' or the VC10.
The VC10 especially the Super was a lovely aircraft as pax and I have clear and lovely memories of walking out and up the steps on a hot steamy night on some relatively small ex colonial airfield towards a VC10 bathed in the flood lights tail lit up ready to take me back to the grey skies of LHR . What it wasnt good at was range and once the 'fanjet' 707s and DC8s came along it was seriously lacking in range and thus flexibility on BOAC/BAs very extensive route . Fine for LHR to the Gulf ,Eastern seaboard but that's all it could do reliably. The African trips were mostly mulit stoppers . (I did LHR- Cyprus-Khartoum-Addis Seychelles once) On the other hand it (and perhaps the 707 occasionally) operated the amazing LHR-JFK- LAX-Honolulu-Fiji -NZ-SyD referred to above and the even more exotic Tokyo-HK-Colombo-Seychelles Mauritius (?) - Joburg , which involved some complex schedule juggling to get the actual plane back to LHR.
Convenient as the ultra long range non stops are they do lack a certain mystique compared to the multi stoppers which must have been terrific trips for the crews
PB
Can anyone tell me about BA flights between Heathrow and LAX during the summers of 1972 and 1973? What planes would they have used?
The December 1971 General Time Table shows LHR JFK LAX by VC10 . Although I still believe an only 707-436 could have flown LHR LAX Nonstop.
Jhieminga
5th Apr 2023, 07:26
In 1971, the LHR to LAX service used a VC10 but it made a stop in New York along the way. It wasn't a non-stop sector. See: http://www.timetableimages.com/ttimages/ba2/ba71/ba71-13.jpg
I also had a look at an ex-VC10 Captain's logbook and whenever Los Angeles turned up in his log during the early 70s, it was a flight to or from New York.
. Although I still believe an only 707-436 could have flown LHR LAX Nonstop.
yes I hope so . Anyway BA shedulled 707 LHR LAX LHR NSTP by 1962 (same source old time table image) . It only could have been 707-436 due to the fact the -336C was not existing and were introduced into BA network by 1965 .
many thanks your answers
the even more exotic Tokyo-HK-Colombo-Seychelles Mauritius (?) - Joburg , which involved some complex schedule juggling to get the actual plane back to LHR.
I believe this one, which lasted well into 747 days, on Hong Kong licences, and which later became a Cathay route, was actually run as a triangle, to minimise the time (both aircraft ands crew) away from Heathrow, running London-Tokyo-Jo'burg-London.
yes I hope so . Anyway BA shedulled 707 LHR LAX LHR NSTP by 1962 (same source old time table image) . It only could have been 707-436 due to the fact the -336C was not existing and were introduced into BA network by 1965 .
many thanks your answers
The 707s tech stopped at winnipeg. Even 320s couldn''t always make it non stop
The 707s tech stopped at Winnipeg. Even 320s couldn''t always make it non stop
We had a discussion about this one a while ago, concluding indeed that while there may have been the odd favourable westbound nonstop, and notwithstanding what the timetables said, needing to refuel at Winnipeg was normal.