Planesailing From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 802 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 9383 times:
WHEN I flew a 762 LGW-PIT, the aircraft was in a pretty shabby shape. Certainly looked its age. I dont know if they have updated them at all in the 3 years since I flew that flight.
The service was good though, had no complaints about that!
MichiganMAN From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 139 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 9379 times:
If it's anything like the A330 service I received on the PHL - MAN flight then I'd have to say cheap, no frills, pay for drinks, but gets you there....which is all that ultimately matters to me.
Planesailing From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 802 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 9351 times:
Quoting MichiganMAN (Reply 2): If it's anything like the A330 service I received on the PHL - MAN flight then I'd have to say cheap, no frills, pay for drinks, but gets you there....which is all that ultimately matters to me.
I guess I did fly them 3 years ago (might be 4 now!) when they werent classified as a LCC. Their service was good back then.
Chazzerguy From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 277 posts, RR: 3 Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 9343 times:
It's adequate...
I flew CLT-LGW five years ago in coach. Meals were fine, plane was clean. But the seats do get uncomfortable after three or four hours. Even fully reclined it was tough to get any sleep.
But, bottom line, they opened the doors, and there I was at LGW!
Not terrible, not fantastic. I will say the exteriors of the 767s (and much of the rest of the fleet) are looking pretty rough these days... They have been deferring painting of their fleet, and that navy blue color doesn't hold up well. But I find they keep the interiors plenty clean, and I guess that's what really matters.
MichiganMAN From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 139 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 9290 times:
Quoting Planesailing (Reply 3): I guess I did fly them 3 years ago (might be 4 now!) when they werent classified as a LCC. Their service was good back then.
Times have changed I suppose!
I was going back to Manchester for my mums funeral. May 2005. I just had to get there. They were cheapest. The flight sucked, but then again I wasn't in the best frame of mind either.
SmithAir747 From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 1599 posts, RR: 33 Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 9200 times:
I flew on a US 767 on Sat. 18 Sept. 2004, PIT-LGW, because I was starting university in London at King's College London. (US flight 740, PIT-LGW, Boeing 767-200).
Because of the design of the PIT terminal (it had frosted windows in the international concourse), I never really saw the outside of the plane until I arrived at LGW early the next morning (at 5:30am at LGW, it was still dark out); the only time I saw the plane itself was when the bus took me from the round part of the South Terminal to the main building itself for immigration/customs. So I don't know how well this particular 767's exterior was holding up (much less knowing the registration).
You can tell the US 767 is a 1980's "classic"--inside, especially.
Inside, it was like any old 767--the original interior with the squarish-looking overhead bins, etc. I sat in the left aisle seat in the middle block of 3 seats.
I could not get any sleep on the PIT-LGW flight, because there was nothing to lean against (like in a window seat, you can lean against the window or wall). The IFE is basic--just a screen on the bulkhead, where it cycles through a movie or two and some TV fare. The interior gets cluttered up fast on a transatlantic flight, with the usual food wrappers and other paper/plastic waste. Otherwise the aircraft seemed to be pretty well kept up. All in all, the old 767s are basic transportation, nothing luxurious (in coach anyway), a bit cluttered (but any plane would get cluttered on a transatlantic trip). They are beginning to show their age, for example in the dated interior decor and design, as well as in the small, old lavs.
The exterior of US 767s sort of carries over into the "grey" atmosphere of the interior--dated and worn. You can tell, inside and out, that US 767s (and other old 767s) are a product of the 1980s and 1990s, as compared with the redesigned 767s of American Airlines (with the new interiors) and the newer, shinier aircraft of today.
But I was glad to fly on a 767 anyway! They're becoming an endangered species on many routes from the US to London--777s and A330s have been taking over most of the transatlantic routes.
Not too long ago, old 747 classics were "queen" of the transatlantic route! (I flew on an ancient TWA 747 back in 1994, JFK-MAD round trip).
I'd like to fly on a DC-10 and an L-1011 someday--before they all disappear! I have never flown on those two at all! They're rare in the US anymore, much less transatlantic.
Somehow it's more memorable to fly on a "classic"--like an old 767 or 747 classic, like I have done in the past, or a DC-10 or L-1011, which I have never experienced.
SmithAir747
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made... (Psalm 139:14)
Crox1 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 302 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 20 hours ago) and read 9149 times:
Quoting SmithAir747 (Reply 6): I'd like to fly on a DC-10 and an L-1011 someday--before they all disappear! I have never flown on those two at all! They're rare in the US anymore, much less transatlantic.
Hey SmithAir747
Try NWA / KLM, I think NWA are still using DC10-30's on DTW-LGW and AMS-MEM also I think KLM are still using their MD11's on routes such as SFO-AMS
Andy
Both optimists and pessimists contribute to the society. The optimist invents the aeroplane, the pessimist the parachute
AzoresLover From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 744 posts, RR: 8 Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 7 hours ago) and read 9121 times:
Quoting SmithAir747 (Reply 6): I'd like to fly on a DC-10 and an L-1011 someday--before they all disappear!
I've had several DC-10 flights, and have NEVER liked that aircraft. It seemed to me like it vibrated a whole lot, much more than other aircraft, and was basically just a very uncomfortable ride. I always go out of my way to NOT fly a DC-10.
Now the L-1011...what a great ride!! There is a world of difference between these two aircraft, IMO. I am really sorry that the L-1011 isn't flying anymore like they used to. DL had the L-1011, and I loved flying it with them.
DC-10's of course still ply the Atlantic and other routes, as has been pointed out. But you'll have to really work now to get an L-1011 flight...very rare now, it seems.
I've never flown on an MD-11, so I have no comparison with the -10.
Those who want to do something will find a way; those who don't will find an excuse.
AzoresLover From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 744 posts, RR: 8 Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 7 hours ago) and read 9136 times:
To get to the topic at hand, I've never flown US across the pond. I've flown Pan Am, TWA, and a half dozen European lines. However, regarding the US 767...
I was on one a few years ago from PIT to BOS, that was continuing on to FRA. While I normally love riding on the 767, this one was the worst I'd ever been on. It was dirty, seats were very uncomfortable, etc. I thought to myself at the time that I was VERY glad I wasn't staying on this plane all the way to FRA!!
Of course that was a few years ago, and I've made sure I haven't flown US to Europe because of that flight.
I know this won't help you now with current conditions...just sharing my experience on the US 767 a few years ago.
Those who want to do something will find a way; those who don't will find an excuse.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6869 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 802 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 1599 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
