A few weeks ago we made a video covering unpopular Airbus and Boeing aircraft variants.
Some of these aircraft were developed in conjunction with one airline and were only ever purchased
by that airline.
Perhaps it was unfair to call them ‘unpopular,’ as there were probably low expectations for
these aircraft to be big sellers anyways.
Of course, we can be sure that any additional sales would have been welcomed by the big
planemakers!
But today, we examine the aircraft variants that were seemingly developed with just one
airline in mind.
It’s quite common for planemakers to consult airlines on aircraft development.
This not only increases the likelihood of securing a customer, but it helps manufacturers
make aircraft that will fill a real-world mission.
Sometimes, however, the mission an airline has in mind is so unique that the variant
developed to fulfill it is only ever ordered by that one airline.
The variants listed in today’s video appear to have been developed due to these specific
airline requests and ultimately fall into one of two categories: These were either aircraft
that offered more range than the base variant, or offered less range, and were specifically
tailored for short-haul operations.
One last note before starting, it’s worth noting that this is not an exhaustive list.
If you have something to add, please drop it in the comments section down below!
Let’s start with the Boeing 747-400ER.
The program for this extended-range 747-400 variant was formally launched in November
2000 with an order from Qantas.
The first 747-400ER then rolled off the assembly line in June 2002.
Boeing noted that this jet had a maximum takeoff weight of 910,000 pounds (412.8 tonnes).
This was an increase of 35,000 pounds (15.9 tonnes) over the base 747-400.
According to the planemaker, this jumbo jet was the quote “largest and fastest commercial
airplane in the sky” at the time, cruising at Mach 0.85.
Carrying more fuel, the 747-400ER was stated to have a range of 7,670 nautical miles - over
14,200 km.
This was approximately 410 nautical miles (760km) further than the original 747-400.
To offer more range with its increased weight, the 747-400ER had some structural modifications
from the base -400.
In areas where loads increased, the body and empennage were strengthened with thicker skins,
stringers, frames, and bulkheads.
Additionally, the aircraft’s wing box skins were thickened, and the leading edge and trailing
edge flaps and flap drive systems were strengthened.
Boeing also notes that the landing gear and supporting structure were redesigned and larger,
and 50 inch radial tires and wheels were installed.
Then, to accommodate the larger tires, and to provide sufficient room to retract the
wheels, the shape of the landing gear doors was modified.
As per a press statement, Boeing states that the 747-400ER was developed to provide quote
“new features and capabilities that add value for customers.”
In addition to the 747-400ER's new Boeing signature interior architecture, the variant
offered a greater range or more payload, a choice customers would be able to make themselves
to best fit their operations.
But, in the end, just six of these passenger jets would be ordered by and built for Qantas.
It’s worth noting, however, that the 747-400ERF, or extended range freighter, developed alongside
the -400ER, was picked up by a handful of cargo operators.
Next, there’s the Boeing 737-700ER, which was only ever ordered and operated by Japanese
carrier All Nippon Airways (ANA).
ANA launched the 737-700ER program in January 2006, when it exercised rights to substitute
a portion of its 737-700 order with just two 737-700ERs.
With ANA looking for a low-capacity aircraft that could fly longer ranges, as many as nine
auxiliary fuel tanks were fitted onto the aircraft.
Additionally, FlightGlobal notes that the -700ER also featured the wings, blended winglets,
engines, and landing gear of the 737-800.
Ultimately, it was stated that this long-range 737-700 variant the was capable of flying
5,510 nautical miles (10,205 km).
Scott Carson, president and CEO, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, was quoted as saying:
"This new 737 configuration shows the versatility of the Next-Generation family, and the 737-700ER
is attracting significant customer interest…It is particularly special that this introduction
is with ANA, one of the world's foremost aviation innovators and a customer we value greatly."
Meanwhile, ANA President and CEO at the time, Mineo Yamamoto, noted that the new 737-700ER
allowed the airline to offer a quote “product tailored for the business community” that
also secured the cost benefits derived from streamlining the airline’s narrow-body fleet
into one family of aircraft.
The two 737-700ERs, fitted in an all-premium configuration, would be deployed exclusively
on ANA’s Tokyo - Mumbai route before being retired in 2016.
Moving forward by about a decade, Airbus would develop the A330-300 Regional, a variant only
ever operated by Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia).
A variant still flying with the airline today, the A330-300 Regional was optimized for missions
up to 2,700 nautical miles (5,000 km).
With this distance in mind, the jet would perform best on flights of about five hours
in duration, covering short to medium haul routes.
The jet was said to offer an overall 20% cost savings over its longer-range counterpart,
through a reduced operational weight of around 200 tons.
Saudia took delivery of the very first A330-300 Regional in 2016 and had ordered 20 of this
shorter-range A330 at the 2015 Paris Airshow.
Among the numerous routes operated by the variant, FlightRadar24.com shows that the
jet is deployed out of the Saudi cities of Riyadh and Jeddah, serving destinations like
Dubai, Karachi, and Cairo.
Next is another Airbus widebody.
While the original 2015 press release announcing the launch of the Airbus A350-900ULR has mysteriously
disappeared, we know that Singapore Airlines was tagged as the launch customer for the
jet and would take its first ULR delivery in September 2018.
Fitted with a modified fuel system, the aircraft’s fuel capacity was increased by 24,000 liters,
all without the need for additional fuel tanks.
This increase allowed the aircraft to fly over 20 hours non-stop with a range of 9,700
nautical miles or nearly 18,000 km.
Speaking about his airline’s collaboration with Airbus, Singapore Airlines CEO, Mr Goh
Choon Phong said:
“This is a proud moment for both Singapore Airlines and Airbus, not only because we have
again strengthened our partnership, but also because we have pushed the limits with this
highly advanced new aircraft to extend long-range flying to new lengths,”
As you may know, Singapore Airlines would be the only carrier to order and operate the
A350-900ULR, taking just seven ULR jets.
Fitted with an all-premium configuration, these aircraft are mainly tasked with flying
from Singapore to New York.
This sees a traveling time of up to 18 hours 45 minutes.
While Singapore Airlines seems to be the only carrier interested in the ultra-long-range
variant of the A350-900, it’s safe to say that Airbus’ development of this jet has
paved the way for the A350-1000ULR.
While this longer-range A350-1000 variant has yet to officially appear on Airbus’
website, it is widely understood that the European planemaker ‘won’ Qantas’ Project
Sunrise by offering an extended-range variant of its flagship widebody.
Indeed, while Airbus and Qantas have been very public about Project Sunrise going ahead
with the A350-1000, a ULR variant has yet to surface.
In May 2022, an A350-1000 test aircraft flew to Sydney for a media event.
“This isn’t an -1000ULR”, an Airbus spokesperson emphasized to the media outlet
AirInsight.
Nonetheless, we can expect the same ‘tweaks’ for the A350-1000ULR as we currently see with
the -900ULR, which is mainly increased fuel capacity.
Additionally, with such long flights planned, we might expect to see a more premium-heavy
configuration like Singapore Airlines’ A350-900ULRs.
At the moment, however, it looks like Qantas intends to install at least a few rows of
economy class seats.
It will be interesting to see if the A350-1000ULR continues the pattern set by the other aircraft
we’ve listed - having just one airline customer with orders for just a handful of aircraft.
We thought we would conclude this video by mentioning one variant developed for very
niche operations but ultimately never materialized.
Announced in 2004 with ANA as its launch customer, the Boeing 787 was developed to be extremely
efficient and capable of operating long-haul services.
However, ANA was also keen to operate the type on short and medium-haul flights as well.
Similar to how the domestically-focused Boeing 747-400D was developed for the Japanese market,
the 787-3 was supposed to be a lighter, shorter-range Dreamliner variant.
While very little official Boeing material exists on this never-built aircraft, an official
ANA press release notes that the airline was prepared to order 30 787-3 derivatives.
An ANA webpage celebrating the Dreamliner’s 10th anniversary confirms that the airline
wanted to introduce the Dreamliner on short flights within Japan and thus had a hand in
developing two options: one for international flights and one for domestic flights.
As we now know, the 787-3 was not manufactured.
However, as ANA notes, while few people are aware of the never-built variant, the process
of developing it may have been one of the most meaningful for the Dreamliner program.
As reported by Air Data News, Masami Tsukamoto - part of the 787’s development team - stated
that the 787-3 had the same wingspan as the 767.
Tsukamoto also stated “Boeing told us it couldn’t be developed due to insufficient
fuel economy, so we decided to introduce the 787-8 into the domestic market,”
As we’re not privy to the closed-door meetings between airlines and aircraft manufacturers,
we have very little insight into how these niche aircraft variants come to be, particularly
in light of all the costs associated with aircraft development.
We imagine that planemakers would require a minimum-order commitment in order to proceed
with these further-modified aircraft.
After all, any changes are sure to require additional resources when it comes to development,
testing, certification, and manufacturing.
It would also be interesting to know which variants were profitable and which ones were
loss-makers.
Sadly, these are questions that will likely remain unanswered…
But what do you think of these aircraft variants?
Are you surprised by some of the low sales figures?
Share your thoughts by leaving a comment.