british airways tristar
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was talking to a retired BA senior Ops guy today and mentioned the Tristar. He said the folk at the sharp end of the airline loved it, but the bean counters said it had to go when they made an elimentary mistake.
They calculated its fuel and maintenence operating costs on a 'per engine' basis. But despite its name, they didn't cotton on that it was a 3-engined aeroplane and awarded it costs as if it were operating with 4 engines! So they allocated it 33% higher costs in those areas than it was actually incuring!
They calculated its fuel and maintenence operating costs on a 'per engine' basis. But despite its name, they didn't cotton on that it was a 3-engined aeroplane and awarded it costs as if it were operating with 4 engines! So they allocated it 33% higher costs in those areas than it was actually incuring!
The Four-engined TriStar
The “four-engined” TriStar story, also referred to by BEagle earlier in the thread, was in widespread circulation in BA in the 1980s. Personally I tend to adopt a sceptical attitude to rumours that spread within the workforce and develop a momentum of their own. So was this one true, and if so was it significant ? According to the story the error was spotted by TriStar flight crew management and one would have thought that suitably corrective action would have been taken.
There is no doubt that BA longhaul fleet planning viewed the 747 as a potentially greater profit generator than the TriStar, always assuming they could fill the 747 with pax and cargo at the right yields. I recall this point being made at a presentation in the latter part of the 1980s. The upshot was that TriStars tended to be assigned to the thinner or weaker routes which themselves were vulnerable in times of financial stress.
There was also the stated strategic aim of reducing the number of types in the BA fleet and the number of suppliers. Indeed there was a period of 15 years or so, through to 1999, when they only newbuild aircraft delivered to BA mainline were Boeings (the exception being the A320 order inherited from BCAL).
Then there was the technical reliability of the TriStar in BA service, a problem that seemed most acute with the -500s. Just why BA seemed to have such a problem with it is a moot point, especially compared with Delta’s evident success with the type. ( Not forgetting of course, a quarter of a century later, 411A’s operation.
)
So my guess is that BA longhaul’s relative lack of enthusiasm for the TriStar stemmed from a combination of factors that conspired against it. Doubtless there were other factors too. Maybe there are others here who were closer to the action and can shed some more light ?
There is no doubt that BA longhaul fleet planning viewed the 747 as a potentially greater profit generator than the TriStar, always assuming they could fill the 747 with pax and cargo at the right yields. I recall this point being made at a presentation in the latter part of the 1980s. The upshot was that TriStars tended to be assigned to the thinner or weaker routes which themselves were vulnerable in times of financial stress.
There was also the stated strategic aim of reducing the number of types in the BA fleet and the number of suppliers. Indeed there was a period of 15 years or so, through to 1999, when they only newbuild aircraft delivered to BA mainline were Boeings (the exception being the A320 order inherited from BCAL).
Then there was the technical reliability of the TriStar in BA service, a problem that seemed most acute with the -500s. Just why BA seemed to have such a problem with it is a moot point, especially compared with Delta’s evident success with the type. ( Not forgetting of course, a quarter of a century later, 411A’s operation.
)So my guess is that BA longhaul’s relative lack of enthusiasm for the TriStar stemmed from a combination of factors that conspired against it. Doubtless there were other factors too. Maybe there are others here who were closer to the action and can shed some more light ?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A, you need to read the report!
The -1 brakes were marginal, the -250 and -500 brakes are outstanding.
-200's were a mixture, SVA aircraft not bad, BA -200's very good.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Berkshire UK
Age: 92
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA Tristar
I think Tagron's post sums up the BA position on Tristar perfectly.
The 500 just did not fit the routes.
411a The problem with operating a mixed Fleet -1 200 and 500 was after a morning trip in a -1 in the afternoon you applied the brakes on leaving the Stand to find the Flight Engineer wrapped round the Windscreen, oh yes this is a 500.
Or maybe I have big feet.
The 500 just did not fit the routes.
411a The problem with operating a mixed Fleet -1 200 and 500 was after a morning trip in a -1 in the afternoon you applied the brakes on leaving the Stand to find the Flight Engineer wrapped round the Windscreen, oh yes this is a 500.
Or maybe I have big feet.
