From: john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III)
Newsgroups: rec.travel.air,rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Revive the Lokheed 1649 Starliner?
Date: 24 Jul 92 06:25:04 GMT
Followup-To: rec.travel.air
Organization: Newave Communications, Ltd, Lake Wobegon, MN

In article <1992Jul22.121100.16635@pbs.org> pstinson@pbs.org writes:
> On most domestic flights is what we want reliable, ontime service that does
> not cost a fortune for the airfare?  If this is the case, do we really care
> if we are flying a jet airliner such as the 727, 737 or even 757?

Business travelers would probably mind, but many tourists probably would not.

> Jets are expensive to operate.  This is one of the biggest reason behind the
> current mess in the air carrier industry.

Jets are expensive, but the cost per passenger is much lower, especially
in the maintenance area.  This means that jets depend on passenger volume.

> What if Lockheed or somebody could reintroduce the model 1649 Starliner?
> This was the last of the famed Constellation series to go into production in
> the late 1950's or early 60's.  It lost out to the novelty of jet transports. 

You seriously need to join the Save A Connie club in Kansas City.  They
are restoring a connie to TWA motif of the late 50's.  It is one of the few
connies still flying on a regular basis.

> If a new Starliner (I wouldn't want to ride a 40-year-old relic) could be made
> available, I would ride it.  I believe maintenance costs would be less than
> for the comparable jet airliner and perhaps the airlines could offer low air
> fares that were not gimmics eventually leading to higher prices and fewer
> airlines.

If it were cheaper to run prop planes, would the air cargo people have picked
up all of the cheap connies and DC-7's that were available?  No, they are
buying new planes and refurbing DC-8's.  One of the key factors is aircraft
time.  It takes a jet 2.5 hours to do MSP to SFO, but a piston plane might
take 7 hours.  This is three times as much crew time, and the plane only
makes 1/3 as many trips between 100 hour inspections and X hour maintenance
intervals.  And given that a prop plane typically carries only 1/2 the number
of people as a typical smaller jet passenger plane, you need to make twice
as many trips.  Multiply the twice as many trips by 3 times as slow, and you
end up needing 6 times as many airplanes and aircrews.

An alternative that might would would be to use a turbo-prop plane.  Maybe
a C-130 for cargo, or a P-3 Orion converted to haul passengers.

> Let's go back to the future and back to the Connie!

The connie is certainly on my list of favorite planes, along with the B-25,
F7F, SR-71, F-14, Boeing 747, F-101, AH-1, Me-262, Ar-234, Su-26, P-51 ....

There is a DC-6 sitting at the airport in St Paul.  It has been there for
years.  It is owned by a man with the dream of someday running a charter
plane service using a vintage prop airliner.  His plan is to book tours
to events in midwestern cities, like theatre or museums, and offer top
notch service on the airplane ride.  So far, he is lacking cash to get
started, and there are no backers in sight.  But every so often, he goes
down to the airport and runs the engines for a few minutes.

-john-

-- 
==============================================================================
John A. Weeks III		(612) 942-6969		    john@newave.mn.org
Newave Communications, Ltd.			    ..!uunet!tcnet!newave!john
Newsgroups: rec.travel.air