What was considered long-haul in the 70s and what now?
 

I recently read an article somewhere (I think it was part of the 50th Airbus anniversary at Flight Global) and I read this:
"While the A300B, which first flew in 1972, and its followers, the A300-600 and A310, could not compete in the long-haul market with [the] US types, their capacity and reliability made them strong-sellers in the short- and medium-haul market."

The airplanes mentioned had the range of 9600km (A310) and 7500km (A300-600). I checked Boeing 747-100 specifications and it turned out it only had the range of 8500km, actually a thousand less than A310.

So my question is, what was considered "long-haul" in the 70s? And while we're on it, what do you, the people of PPRUNE, consider long-haul today? Where was (and is now) the watershed between short-haul, medium-haul, long-haul, ultra-long-haul? How and when did that change happen... if it did?

Heathrow Airport takes an innovative approach to categorising short- vs long-haul - see Fly Quiet League table Q4 2018.

Note that in 23rd and 39th position, respectively, are "Turkish Airlines - long haul" and "Turkish Airlines - short haul".

This is despite the fact that Turkish only serves one destination - Istanbul - to/from Heathrow. :ugh:

Digging into Heathrow's methodology reveals that aircraft under 180 tonnes (effectively all narrow-body types) are classed as "short haul" and those of 180 tonnes and over (i.e. wide-bodies) are classed as "long haul".

On second thoughts, that probably doesn't help you very much. :O

I can't answer your question with any official data. My own categorisation, which hasn't changed over the years, is: Up to roughly 2 hours = short haul. From 3 to 5 hours = medium haul. Anything above 6 hrs = long haul.

Back in the 70's twins couldn't fly over expanses of water or other terrain where they didn't have a suitable alternate airfield to drop in to PDQ.

At Laker (11 x DC10's) the A300-B4 was considered for the YYZ route but it never materialised.

707s were flying 9+ hour sectors from the early 1960s. For a long time the World's longest non-stop route was Buenos Aires to Madrid which was introduced in 1968 or so; 5450nm great-circle.

Going back another decade, Tel Aviv to New York was a 4950nm slog on a Britannia, mostly completed non-stop.

In the 1970's long haul routes were still the domain of 707-320B/C's, plus the DC-8 super sixty series. Only these types could manage UK/Europe - USA West Coast usually non-stop.
The VC-10 tended to have to stop quite often for a drink flying for BOAC BUA/BCAL - she served down to Santiago until BCAL decided the 707C was the way to go.

At the time all the routes from UK down to South and East Africa stopped on the way - SAA in Europe then again in Sal island for fuel, and the other carriers like BOAC LH KL and AZ also stopped say on the NBO/JNB runs.
Nothing was non-stop at that time going down that way - or to the Far East and Australasia - again stops were made going there in Europe, then in the Middle East Iran India Burma for HKG SIN BKK KUL which were the norm...

1971-1972 enter the 747-100 - but she was not able to do what a 707C or DC-8-62/63 could do ie; LHR-LAX non-stop -
The 741 was USA East Coast only, she also could not do LHR-NBO non-stop either.
Fast forward 10 years and the BA 747-236 with RR engines was then able to do the West Coast or NBO non-stop.

With the earlier versions of the 747-200B bought by SAA QF SQ and others we started to see more non-stop longer hauls achievable by mid-late 1970's.

Also in 1972 we saw the DC-10 and L1011 enter service - both of these were short-mid haul only - The exception being the long range DC-10 30 (and -20) which was able to do what a DC-8 62/63 could do.
Almost all of the European carriers (and ANZ who flew the LHR- LAX for BA) ordered the DC-10 30.

OK - same time enters Airbus with the Bus-Stop jet A300B - the initial design was only a short haul people mover a/c at the time, until the A310 came along which was designed for longer thin routes (rather like the 787-8 of today)
The A310 was further developed in to the -300 series with a much longer range.
Only when the A300-600R in the early 1990's (with ETOPS developments saw the series used on the Transatlantic for instance) and Olympic used them from ATH to NBO and JNB replacing the 747.

Today -
Short haul is possibly defined where a crew can operate there and back in a day - just my opinion
For UK charter airlines this is to the Med, Canaries, Cyprus and the Greek Islands.

Medium haul is say LHR-DXB, AUH

Long haul is LHR-NYC LAX SFO NBO JNB CPT etc


In the early 1970's - (from the UK non-stop)
short haul was Europe down to the Med
medium haul was the Canaries Greece Tel Aviv Cyprus Egypt etc
long haul was probably defined as BAH DXB NYC YUL YYZ Caribbean - remember that NBO was still then not possible non-stop with a wide body, nor was the USA west coast until the DC-10 30 and the 747-200B.
ULR did not exist in the last century (ULR today defined by needing 4 pilots usually, and well over a 12 hours FT) but Oz and NZ would be a very long haul flight with many stops back in those days

IMHO these days it's almost impossible to define by aisle numbers or aircraft type, one obvious (?) example being the BA JFK-LCY service..very much single aisle, operated by "crews" from the shorthaul pool ( albeit with extra training), and sometimes enjoying a long layover in New York because of aircraft utilisation and passenger demand..

If you have to have a definition I think that's as good as any these days, with the emphasis on "can", because of course in some cases the FDP rules would allow an out and back but aircraft scheduling, slots, curfews may prevent it being scheduled in reality.

One historical legacy at BA, which still applies, is that flight numbers from BA1 to BA299 are nominally longhaul (with odd numbers used outbound from the UK and even numbers inbound), whereas flight numbers BA300 and above are shorthaul and use the opposite convention (even outbound, odd inbound).

Mr reid, thank you for incidentally answering something that I have often wondered about t and that was did BEA and BOAC reverse the odd even flight numbers .
As to the main question it is really difficult because obviously as a passenger London to Hong Kong was a long haul flight but you could fly there ona medium haul aircraft on one of the many complicated west east routes from Europe that stopped every five or six hours. I also think 747 -100s could fly to NBO but not fly back due to altitude there and SAA used to fly a 747 Clasic non stop to Joburg on Mondays-a very very long haul but again couldnt operate the reverse direction.

For what it is wrth my personal view was that short haul was LHR to Helsinki Mocow and Cyprus. Anything beyond that but less than westbound transatlantic was medium haul and JFK Tehran Bombay etc were all long haul. No such thing as ultra long haul back then as although some flights were scheduled LHR-LAX lots of times they made tech stops until the DC10-30 came along .

of course as far as LHR was concerned if it was BEA it ws short haul if it was the other lot it was long hail and if it was Cyprus or Rome it could be both.

Also how would one class the great BOAC route from Tokyo to Jo burg via Hong Kong . Colombo Seychelles Mauritius

SAA did operate non stop to LHR with the classic (sort of) by flying first to Upington to refuel at sea level

Re the SAA 747 ops LHR-South Africa and v.v - Most interesting, thanks, to note your comments about some SAA 747 non-stops - Was this done from the start of SuperB ops or was it later on with the SP?

Of course there was then also the overfly ban for South Africa (anti apartheid) so SAA had to route down out over the Atlantic hence Sal in the Cape Verde's was used to tech stop.

Re early BA 747-100 Ops to NBO - my pal (CC CSD long retired) just said they always had to stop in Rome or somewhere both ways...
LH flew three days a week FRA-NBO-JNB, 747-100 at first.

TIA Rog.

No, it doesn't. But it's an interesting read nonetheless. Thank you. :-)

PS Doesn't A310 weigh less than 180 tonnes? And 767-200? And 767-300? May I suggest, dear sirs, that the Heathrow methodology is... not ideal?

WOW! What a post! Thank you very much!!!

Indeed they do, apart from the 767-300ER.

I suspect that whoever at Heathrow dreamed up the bizarre demarcation was influenced by the fact that A310s, B762s and non-ER/-F B763s are all rarely to be seen nowadays at LHR.

you're welcome
 

Thanks - the subject of these times fascinates me - and has done since a boy. Very lucky to then enjoy a career working with those aircraft during those times.

Like many chaps on here I started working at the London airports from 1972 (plus being a spotter from 1962 lol) so then was the real start of the 747 and DC-10 beginning to show its strengths and any weaknesses on the long haul routes they were to take over from the 707 and DC-8's (and in some ways the VC-10)

Developments of the 747 later in the 70's (one can also include the 747SP) culminating in the 747-400 almost 20 years later, were the true long haulers for all the Legacy airlines making LHR-SIN, BKK HKG JNB CPT and South America truly non-stop.

There were as many charter airlines then as there are Low cost ones now.
Many legacy carriers had their own charter arm, which operated both short and long haul flights for many of the carriers.
SAS - Scanair
KLM - Martinair
LH - Condor (soon to be repeated?)
BEA - BEA airtours (under BA - British Airtours)
Sabena - Sobelair
Iberia - Aviaco
Alitalia - SAM
Swissair - Balair
AF - Air Charter International
El Al - Sun D'or

Re the A300 - It was seen that twin engine wide body concept was a weak and flawed concept at the start and sales were poor.
Douglas mooted a DC-10 twin but only as far as a brochure.
The DC-10-10 and L1011 all saw sterling service on US domestic routes, TransCon and Hawaii being their stomping grounds.
The 747 was ordered by JAL as an SR version for domestic service seating over 500 pax.

Rog747: Cathay Pacific were doing HKG-LGW direct with B747-267 in 1986! My longest such sector 14:45 Most airlines only introduced ULH with the arrival of the B747-400

Re SAA , the Monday non stop was 747-100 or 200 if they had the latter. interesting that it stopped in Uppington I thought it came back via Ilho do Sal , as you say they could not overfly many African states in those days As for BOAC stopping in Rome I am sure you are right now I think about it, BOAC had quite few stops there en route further east or south .

The Monday SAA non stop was quite a sight from the departure end of 28L , one I remember rotating at the junction with old 23R and being able to hear the real thunder of all those jumbo wheels ahead of the engine noise , Certainly the longest take off runs I ever saw at LHR

To me Short Haul was within Europe or West Russia , Long Haul was other areas, ie Africa, Asia, Americas or East Russia, ie BEA or BOAC. Remember BOAC flew from Oceanic terminal.
Nowadays Short haul is up to 3 hours, Med haul up to 6 Hours , Long Haul up to 12 hours and ULH the rest regardless of aircraft types

Yes indeed they did, and they were with the RR RB211 747-200's (which BA obtained their RR -236's a few years after) but our post started with how the venerable old -100 series did perform as well (not so well lol)

cheers for that though R

How did they fly to South America back then? Especially to places like Buenos Aires and Santiago. Where were the stopovers? I'm looking at DKR-SCL, and it's still a VERY long way away. How long was the "radio gap" back then? Even now there is one between Rio and Dakar. It must've been even worse then.

And, if you're still not tired of questions, has there ever been a stopover at the Azores for any flights?

No problem - the Azores has, was, and still is used as a tech stop (or an ETOPS refuge) since the days of piston airliners. Back in the 70's for instance both Monarch and Court Line used the islands for fuel when flying from LTN to St Lucia
using 720B and L1011's

It certainly wasn't the SP. (I don't recall them ever on the LHR route.) The time frame for the Upington stop was just before I left SAA so around 1976 - 1978 so IIRC the 74 Classics had been upgraded to Super B by then. (don't think the Upington tech stop lasted too long as I remember sitting on the ground waiting for the temp to drop to get the last drop of fuel in before setting off north).

Thanks = the SP went on the LHR-CPT iirc

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....74c849e666.jpg

Boeing 747SP-44 - South African Airways | Aviation Photo #1170452 | Airliners.net

South America BUA and Africa VC-10 and 1-11
 

BUA took over the loss making South America routes from BOAC in 1964 and had ordered two VC-10's, plus added one more, ex Ghana AW (NTU), and the ex-prototype added in 1969.

BUA (then BCAL) flew the VC-10 from LGW to South America via Madrid Lisbon, with fuel at Las Palmas (calls were on different days)
They served Rio, Buenos Aires Montevideo and Santiago
A third weekly frequency, which routed through Freetown to/from Buenos Aires, and permitted BUA to alter its South American route pattern.
As a result, one flight terminated in Brazil and end-to-end travelling times on the new Gatwick — Freetown — Buenos Aires — Santiago service reduced by over two hours compared with the previous routeing. BUA managed to do the route in 19 hours to SCL.

BUA also flew the VC-10 on flights LGW to Freetown Accra and Robertsfield, and to East and Central Africa from Gatwick to Entebbe (non-stop), Nairobi, Ndola, Lusaka and Salisbury

BUA's VC10s also had extended wingtips that were slightly bent downwards to reduce the aircraft's cruise drag and to help it overcome the instability encountered when entering a stall, as well as an intermediate, 14-degree flap setting to enable all-year round, nonstop flights from the then relatively short runway at Nairobi's hot-and-high Embakasi Airport to Gatwick with a full payload and reserves.
BUA were to order two stretched Super VC-10's but these were never built.

BUA also became the only airline in the world to operate BAC One-Elevens on an intercontinental, long-haul scheduled route, when it introduced the -200 series on its multi-stop West African service linking Gatwick with Lagos via Lisbon, Las Palmas, Bathurst, Freetown and Accra.

This is good

calling at all stations....
 

[/QUOTE]

Indeed -- and not too dissimilar to BUA's BAC One-Eleven 200 sojourn down the Empire on their intercontinental, long-haul multi-stop West African service linking Gatwick with Lagos via Lisbon, Las Palmas, Bathurst, Freetown and Accra. !!

Cape Town to London
 

I and my wife and a 5 month old daughter had the good fortune to fly on the first SAA 747SP scheduled flight CPT-LHR on 1st April 1977, I recall on entering the aircraft seeing the plaque commemorating the delivery flight from Everett to CPT.
We were on ZS-SPA "Matroosberg".

On 30th April 1981 we departed Johannesburg for London, now with 2 daughters. Before takeoff we were advised that industrial action by Heathrow ATC may result in a diversion, which we were made to understand meant Amsterdam or Paris.
When push came to shove the industrial action did happen and we landed at Stansted!
In a conversation with the Captain several years later it transpired that we were flightplanned to Stansted, with Heathrow as alternate.

Now imagine those early days at Stansted, the old terminal, our 747-200 towered over the building with the queue for immigration stretching outside and under the wing.

There were 2 (TWO) taxis on the rank, I commandeered one to Bishops Stortford railway station, and we took the train to Cambridge and home.

R747,, nice stop overs on that route though.
Has to be one of the most exotic routes ever along with a Qantas 70's flight in their shortened 707s LHR-Nassau Mexico City Papeetee /Tahiti Sydney, so called fiesta route-the leg out of MEX altitude must have been a challenge at times -definately Long haul

Ah yes - the Fiesta Route - a nice alternative to the Kangaroo Route - what was the others called ?
Southern Cross, Coral route ?

THANK YOU!!! Unbelievable! Entebbe! Freetown!!! Somehow I thought that was Liberia and thought, WHAT?! :-) Then I remembered it's Sierra-Leone. This is absolutely fantastic historical review!

19 hours Gatwic-Santiago!? THAT is quick. Even today with a direct flight, I think it's about 13-14 hours (at least FRA-SCL), so considering all the additional landing, refuelling, 19 hours really don't look too long.

What were the airports like in Africa and South America? I saw some VHS (and even 8-mm) footage from the 70s and it's really not impressive - usually a white-ish building in what looks like a very lonely desert. Did you have your own staff there to refuel, service and check the planes or could you rely on local mechanics for that? I know Aeroflot carried their own ground crews to some African airports.

AND I'll continue to exploit your memory, if you don't mind. :-) I watched a documentary about a London airport (don't remember which one or what the film was about; I think it was a series about "Britain in the 50s" or a similar name). It talked about a flight to Tokyo, and it described the route as going from London to Anchorage and then proceeding to Tokyo. Did you ever fly that route? I'm just thinking about the navigation part of such a flight. Even today it's often impossible to correctly navigate that close to the North Pole, and I wondered how it was done in the past.

Actually navigation back in the day is what REALLY interests me. GPS didn't exist. Was LORAN available to pilots? I know ships used it but not sure if it could be used by planes. Or was it inertial? Or astro? How the heck did you find your way in the middle of the Atlantic/Pacific/Africa?

And another thing is flying over the Soviet Union. I know there were ten "corridors" the USSR opened for European airlines, mostly Germany for signing the contract to supply pipes and trucks to build gas pipelines and railroads. Were Brits included in that deal? Have you ever flown (or do you know anything about flying) over the USSR? If you have, what was the experience like? Especially concerning fuel temps and radio communications.

Let me know when you've had enough. :-) Seriously.

Edit: Please don't feel obliged to reply quickly (or at all) if you're otherwise engaged. I'm quite alright with waiting. Don't want you to regret replying to me. :-)

ProPax,

Here is a link to what it was like to fly VC10s in Africa. There were many interesting problems less likely to be encountered today.
Operating VC10s in Africa

Also a mine of information to be found on this link, and all true.
BETTER ON A CAMEL

LOL I didn't realize Better On A Camel was a backronym for BOAC. :-))))

Thanks! Will definitely add both to my bookmarks.