Air New Zealand/Teal/MCA might have beens

[Naki]

Okay .,here you go...pics/storeys here..

[Bruce]

Can we change the thread title to English please "Might HAVE beens..."

sorry "Might of / could of / should of" is a pet hate...

[Naki]

Jeepers that was quick I was already editing a change when you posted. I shouldn't really post etc on my I phone.

[kevsmith]

Is there meant to be a link to the subject??

[nuuumannn]

Nope, add any you know of - de Havilland Comets, Convair 880s, Bristol Britannias etc. The following are passages from unfinished articles I've been working on for some time and never published:

"Prior to the arrival of the DC-6s, TEAL's board had requested the purchase of Douglas DC-4s or their military equivalent, the C-54 Skymaster to replace the obsolescent flying boats, but the request had been denied by the British government, which preferred that Commonwealth nations continued to “Buy British”. Ironically however, by 1949 BCPA had received four DC-6s named after Capt James Cook’s four ships; Adventure, Discovery, Endeavour and Resolution. First registered in Sydney, Australia in June 1946, BCPA was jointly owned by the Australian, New Zealand and British governments, with Australia the majority owner. Its aims were trans-pacific routes from Australia and New Zealand, leaving TEAL plying between the Pacific Islands and across the Tasman in conjunction with Qantas.

On the New Zealand – North America route, BCPA’s nearest competitor was Pan American, who had introduced the impressive Boeing 377 Stratocruiser (known to its crews in BOAC service as the “Stratoboozer” because of the bar located below the main passenger deck aft of the wing box) in response to BCPA's DC-6s. Encouraged by the success of its luxuriously appointed Douglases, BCPA's board took the bold decision to order jet airliners; in early 1953 three Comet 2s were ordered. By the middle of that year however, due to financial losses the three governments concerned agreed on the cessation of BCPA. Qantas took over BCPA’s trans-pacific route from Sydney to San Francisco and Vancouver and was also to be the recipient of the Comet order, with delivery promised in 1956. As a result of the tragic Comet 1 losses however, no production Comet 2s went to their respective buyers and all were impressed into military service.

With BCPA's dissolution in October 1953, British control of TEAL's interests ended and the airline came under joint ownership by the Australian and New Zealand governments, each with a 50 percent share. Although TEAL finally received the landplanes the airline management had repeatedly requested for the last decade, many felt that it had ended up as the poorer relation after BCPA's collapse. TEAL's General Manager Sir Geoffrey Roberts believed that that New Zealand's interests were not being served, claiming the nation had received “...the s****y end of the stick.”

With the restricting influence of BCPA removed from the region, TEAL management saw that the time was right for expansion; Chairman of TEAL's Board of Directors Sir Leonard Isitt recommended one out of five aircraft types for purchase. These were the Bristol Britannia, de Havilland Comet, Douglas DC-6, Handley Page Hermes and Lockheed Constellation, although only the first two were jet powered. Of these, the big four-engined turbo-prop Britannia, which was suffering delays to its introduction into service due to powerplant reliability issues was the favourite."

"Confidence in the airline's growth led its management to examine a suitable replacement for the ageing DC-6s in mid 1957, which had been in continuous airline service since 1949. In June that year, TEAL announced that six types were under consideration for their replacement. The list included the Britannia and Comet from its 1953 preferences and also the Boeing 707, Douglas DC-8, Lockheed Electra and Vickers Vanguard. Later added to this list was the Convair 880, which TEAL General Manager Mr F.A. Reeves went so far as to publicly endorse for purchase. TEAL Chairman Sir Leonard Isitt was quick to rebuff any bias towards any particular type, but insiders knew it was a two-horse race between the Convair and the Comet.

In mid August 1957, TEAL's board met in Sydney to discuss the aircraft under consideration to replace the three DC-6s. At this time Australian domestic airlines were strictly government controlled under the “Two Airlines Agreement”; a source of considerable amusement at home and abroad and the butt of many derisory jokes, which stipulated that only two different airlines were permitted to operate flights between state and major city airports. These were the privately owned Ansett and the government owned Trans Australian Airways (TAA). After Ansett bought the ailing Australian National Airways, Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies sought to ratify the Two Airlines policy as a means of enforcing government control over the industry. This restrictive state of affairs lasted until 1992.

In the mid 1950s, the Lockheed L-118 Electra appeared as an economical solution to an entry into the jet age for Ansett-ANA, while TAA's board showed interest in the Sud Aviation SE-210 Caravelle. The government preferred the British option, the Vickers Viscount 800, but this was not to remain so for long, however. Because of its committed relationship with Lockheed through its success with the Constellation, international carrier Qantas nominated the Electra as a candidate for Tasman and Asian routes over the Bristol Britannia and Vickers Vanguard. This brought about a sudden shift in ministerial thinking; it was decided that Qantas, and in an about-face of previous loyalties, TAA were to receive the American airliner. Thus the die was cast for 50 percent Australian owned TEAL to receive the Lockheed product.

Ordering the Electra was an attractive deal for the Australians and during a visit to the United Kingdom on business, evidently not to purchase aircraft, Qantas' chief executive, Mr C.O. Turner made his thoughts clear about the Electra decision. He was quoted as stating that the Allison turbo-prop engine that powered the American airliner had “immense military experience” and since the Royal Australian Air Force's new Lockheed C-130s were to be powered by the military version, the T-56, the new Qantas engine overhaul facility at Mascot “...offered obvious engineering economies.” He also made clear that it was logical that Ansett, TAA and TEAL all operate the Electra, for; “...one airline to have Caravelles, another Vanguards, another Comets and another Electras would have made a crazy pattern”.

Thus, on 22 May 1958 the Australian government announced that more than ￡20,000,000 had been allocated for the purchase of 21 new aircraft for the four airlines under its jurisdiction; four Electras for Qantas, three for TEAL and two each for Ansett and TAA, with the latter receiving six Fokker F-27s and four Vickers Viscounts. Furthermore, funding was released to provide engineering support for the incoming aircraft and the upgrade of airports and servicing facilities.

Despite the attractive package that Australia presented with the Electra purchase, there was disappointment among the TEAL executives; they had once again been forced to purchase an aircraft that they didn't favour. No airline wanted to be told which aircraft it could or could not operate, nor what routes it was allowed to fly, especially if the results were financially unfavourable to its operation. For awhile, TEAL was said to stand for Take Electras And Like it! Many believed that the Australian decision was borne out of a fear that TEAL's choice of a pure jet operated on the Tasman routes would have given the airline an unfair advantage in speed and passenger appeal over Qantas' turbo-props; a situation that almost certainly would have arisen had TEAL gone ahead with buying Comets."

[Peter Lewis]

Apparently George Bolt was a fan of the Comet.

When the Mechanics Bay big hangar was designed, they already knew that the days of the flying boat were numbered and eventually they would be replaced by landplanes. Thus the hangar was designed to be able to be dismantled and then re-erected (probably at Wheuapai). George also specified that it needed to be built to a size that would be able to accomodate the Comet.

[nuuumannn]

Interesting, Peter, the Comet received considerable interest in New Zealand, from what I've read, despite the incidents. It was a distinct possibility seeing a Comet 4 in TEAL markings instead of a DC-8 at one stage. I have been told that the New Zealand government was against the Comet because it was considered uneconomical, but I don't see how, unless they were operated solely on trans-Tasman routes, which would have been silly, but long distance flights to Hawaii, the USA and on to the UK were certainly feasible and looking at the success of the DC-8 in TEAL/Air NZ service, would have led to considerable expansion for the airline.

The DC-8 changed everything; the lure of a real 'Jet Airliner' coupled with the introduction of Tourist Class prices, air travel to and from New Zealand experienced enormous growth and more people in this country began flying than had ever before.

[ZacYates]

There's rather fetching artwork in the Waugh, Layne et al NAC book of a BAC 1-11 in NAC colours. Lovely!

[isc]

It's a wonder that in 1950 someone didn't suggest that maybe seeing the RNZAF might get the Hastings as a transport, why not get the civilian version the Hermes, which although a trike under cart type, it shared some parts of the Hastings. isc

[gebbw]

Apr 9, 2016 11:24:36 GMT 12 nuuumannn said:

Interesting, Peter, the Comet received considerable interest in New Zealand, from what I've read, despite the incidents. It was a distinct possibility seeing a Comet 4 in TEAL markings instead of a DC-8 at one stage. I have been told that the New Zealand government was against the Comet because it was considered uneconomical, but I don't see how, unless they were operated solely on trans-Tasman routes, which would have been silly, but long distance flights to Hawaii, the USA and on to the UK were certainly feasible and looking at the success of the DC-8 in TEAL/Air NZ service, would have led to considerable expansion for the airline.

The DC-8 changed everything; the lure of a real 'Jet Airliner' coupled with the introduction of Tourist Class prices, air travel to and from New Zealand experienced enormous growth and more people in this country began flying than had ever before.

The VC-10 was also a consideration at some stage too? I've seen a photo where there's a desktop model of a 707 and VC-10 in TEAL colours.

[Bruce]

A TEAL VC-10 would look awesome!

[kiwithrottlejockey]

Whilst the VC10 would have allowed TEAL/Air NZ to have replaced their Electras with jet services out of Wellington earlier, I think Air NZ definitely made the right decision when they went for the DC-8-52. VC10s were more expensive and had a higher fuel burn per seat-kilometre, so wouldn't have been as economic to operate. Plus, the fact that there are still DC-8s flying and earning a living (hauling freight these days), but no VC-10s still flying speaks volumes about the merits of the two aircraft types.

[nuuumannn]

Not necessarily, KTJ, whilst I can see the logic of your reasoning, and although you are right concerning its range and fuel burn; the VC-10 was designed for hot and high conditions across medium range routes, the fact that there are DC-8s still flying does in no way reflect badly on the VC-10 at all as a product. Firstly, there were more DC-8s built than VC-10s, considerably more, also, product support plays a large part in this story; neither the Conway nor the airframe are supported by their respective manufacturers and the VC-10 passed from service in civilian roles many years earlier and gained a new life as a military product - the VC-10 was not retired because it was incapable of operating any further; in civilian and military service it was superseded by more modern equipment with greater performance and capability; it simply did not make sense to continue operating the aircraft.

The DC-8 has undergone considerable growth in terms of airframe and powerplant development; most of the DC-8s in service today don't operate the same engines they entered service with, also, the needs of a freight carrier are quite different to those of an airline, and the DC-8 also passed from airline service some time ago for the same reasons as the VC-10. The fact that US aircraft have greater product and maintenance support than British airframes plays a big part in the DC-8's longevity.

To say the DC-8 is a better aircraft than the VC-10 because it's still in service is far too simplistic a conclusion. Longevity of service reflects many influential factors, not least environmental and technical and does not necessarily support the conclusion that quality is a reason behind it.

[Swingtail]

The fuel burn between the VC-10 and DC-8 was negligible, 0.78 for the JT3 and 0.87 for the Conway
Fuel was cheap too so it didn't matter.

Does anyone have the pictures of a VC-10 or 707 in TEAL livery, please post!!

[kiwithrottlejockey]

I never had the pleasure of flying in a VC10, but I flew in QANTAS Boeing 707-338C and Air NZ Douglas DC-8-52 airliners during the early-1970s.

[lindstrim]

Whilst not entirely keeping with the thread, in the Eagle offices there is a EMB-120 model lurking. As I believe it was in contention when they originally went for the 1900's

[madmac]

I wonder if TEAL had gone with the Comet 4, would have the RNZAF ended up with the Nimrod instead of the Orion!

[gebbw]

I will find the picture of the VC-10 and 707 models in TEAL colours, but from memory its in a book, so I am unsure about posting an image due to copyright issues.

But on the VC-10, here are some links to articles in Flight International about when they were considering them.

www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1963/1963%20-%201409.PDF
www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1963/1963%20-%200264.PDF

On a more personal note, I build airliner models and had contemplated building the nice little Roden VC-10 model kitset in 'what-if' TEAL colours, and this thread has sealed my decision to do so now.

I'm intrigued by the Convair 880, I didn't know they were a consideration. Now that would have been interesting.

And finally, I'm glad TEAL/Air NZ got the DC-8, I think they have much better aesthetics than a 707, but not more than a VC-10 of course! It's a pity the ex-Air NZ DC-8 aircraft languishing in South America some years ago couldn't be rescued to go to a museum here but dreams are free.

George

[pvsjetstar]

When I was doing research for the book I wrote on Air New Zealand (published Dec 2003) I found in the Walsh Memorial Library, a written proposal from the de Havilland Aircraft Company, Hatfield, England, to TEAL proposing that they purchase a fleet of their new Trident 1E jet in either a 16 First Class/63 Economy Class or all Economy with 93 seats for use on 5 specific routes:
1. Auckland/Wellington/Christchurch to Sydney/Brisbane/Melbourne
2. Auckland to Nadi and Papeete
3. New Zealand Domestic Main Trunk routes connecting Auckland/Wellington/Christchurch
4. (Wait for this!!!) Auckland to Noumea, Port Moresby, Guam, Tokyo, Manila and Hong Kong
5.Auckland to Sydney, Darwin, Singapore, Hong Kong
This proposal however, was un solicited by TEAL and was never considered to be an option.
I sometimes wonder what other proposals were received by TEAL (and for that matter Air New Zealand!!)
When I spoke with Captain Oscar Garden in the 1990s we told me that the decision to take the Solents in 1949, when DC-4s were already available, was the cause of his resignation from TEAL as he had never considered that the Flying Boats were suitable for the Tasman operations and that they had had a number of incidents with the 'boats' that put him off flying completely. When he resigned from TEAL, he never flew again and did not like being called 'Captain' !!!!

[nuuumannn]

The fuel burn between the VC-10 and DC-8 was negligible, 0.78 for the JT3 and 0.87 for the Conway

Interesting info, I presume that's during the cruise? Fuel burn is not a constant though and depends on a number of conditions.

And finally, I'm glad TEAL/Air NZ got the DC-8, I think they have much better aesthetics than a 707, but not more than a VC-10 of course!

Yes, I agree, the VC-10 is/was an attractive bird - and that tail... The DC-8s were definitely an inspired choice and not without much consideration; TEAL had built up a good relationship with Douglas, who had a reputation for good customer service, and this was a big factor in choosing the Douglas product. This carried through to the choice of the DC-10 also.

Interesting, pvsjetstar; I was not aware that DH had proposed the Trident 1 (too small, too inflexible) for TEAL, I've read (somewhere - searching through personal library for reference) about it for NAC; when the 737 was chosen, the BAC.1-11 was shortlisted, but also the DC-9 and Caravelle were considered; both of which missed certain criteria. With the 737/BAC.1-11, it was a very close race and BAC were not giving up in a hurry; I do recall that (former Supermarine test pilot) Jeffrey Quill was sent to NZ to help with the sale of the aircraft. The NZ government was very keen on the BAC.1-11 owing to imminent trade deals with Britain at one stage.

I've done a bit of reading into the DH.118 choice and I've read that TEAL considered the Comet V proposal, but not come across too much reference to it in contemporary literature. The concept obviously looms large in BOAC, but I've not found much reference to it regarding TEAL's proposals.