Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4350935/

Topic: Why Did EI Get Rid Of 767
Username: EI737NG
Posted 2009-03-15 02:59:27 and read 5877 times.

What were the reasons for ordering it and then why did they get rid of the 767 so quickly as it didn't stay in the fleet for very long, despite the fact that they still hadn't taken delivery of some of the ones they had ordered?

Thanks

Topic: RE: Why Did EI Get Rid Of 767
Username: Shamrock321
Posted 2009-03-15 03:05:38 and read 5863 times.

I didnt know EI had actually ordered new 767s from Boeing, I always thought they were to fill the gaps in the transition period between the 747s and A330s?

Topic: RE: Why Did EI Get Rid Of 767
Username: Seemyseems
Posted 2009-03-15 04:31:42 and read 5725 times.

Weren't they just a temporary lease like the MD-11's?

I love their A330's, they look so cool!

Topic: RE: Why Did EI Get Rid Of 767
Username: Kaitak
Posted 2009-03-15 04:52:40 and read 5675 times.



Quoting Shamrock321 (Reply 1):
I didnt know EI had actually ordered new 767s from Boeing, I always thought they were to fill the gaps in the transition period between the 747s and A330s?

These aircraft were -3Y0(ER)s, leased from GPA. They were originally intended to operate the DUB-LAX route, but the govt of the time refused to relent on the SNN stopover rule, so that route wasn't operated.

They were then scheduled to operate the DUB-SNN-ORD route, but this didn't materialise either; one of them ended up with Aeromexico and another with TWA.

However, although the decision to lease them out in 1992 was understandable, what was not as understandable was the fact that for a long time, one of them was sitting on the apron at DUB, all white, doing nothing - and because EI was still leasing them, it was costing them a lot. Through no fault of EI, a lease to Air Aruba fell through, as did a lease to Royal Nepal. However, given that their fleet at the time consisted of ageing 747s, they could have pressed that 767 into service.

They did actually use a 767 in service on the DUB-SNN-BOS route for a time, but by the time the 767s' lease came to an end, in 1997, they already had the A330 in service and once the A330s had arrived, the need for 763s evaporated.

So, although some circumstances occurred which were outside EI's control, I think that EI could have made better use of them; trouble is, of course, it's quite hard to justify use of a single long haul aircraft. Better to try and get rid of it, which they tried to do, but without success.

I had the oportunity to fly on an EI 767, from DUB to SNN; it was a nice aircraft, but the A330 beat it in every conceivable yardstick, so once the A330 became a possibility, that was it, as far as the 767 was concerned.

Topic: RE: Why Did EI Get Rid Of 767
Username: AmricanShamrok
Posted 2009-03-15 05:05:50 and read 5633 times.



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 3):
They were then scheduled to operate the DUB-SNN-ORD route

So they stopped the ORD service for a time in the 1990s because they had no aircraft for it didn't they? But wasnt it supposed to be SNN-DUB-ORD and not the other way around?

Topic: RE: Why Did EI Get Rid Of 767
Username: Bestwestern
Posted 2009-03-15 05:31:37 and read 5573 times.

Dont forget Gulf war 1, and travel recession that surrounded the industry at the time. EI had already started a DUB LAX cargo service at the time, and the 767s were to replace this with a passenger and cargo service.

EI learnt some valuable lessons over the 767 'fiasco' - since then they have had the ability every winter to hand back leased long haul aircraft, which saved their bacon in the winter of 2001.

Topic: RE: Why Did EI Get Rid Of 767
Username: EI737NG
Posted 2009-03-15 10:08:14 and read 5346 times.

Sorry, but I still don't see why they got rid of them in favour of the A330. Why order/lease it in the first place, why not just opt for the A330 and not bother with it? Surely when they were evaluating the replacement for the 747 surely the A330 was in the mix along with 767 or 777?Why order the 767 and then revert to the A330? Doesn't really make sense

Topic: RE: Why Did EI Get Rid Of 767
Username: Aer Lingus
Posted 2009-03-15 10:17:51 and read 5320 times.



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 3):
although the decision to lease them out in 1992 was understandable



Quoting EI737NG (Reply 6):
Sorry, but I still don't see why they got rid of them in favour of the A330.

well the A330 was only a new aircraft and had just started coming into service in 93/94. the need for the 767's was 91/92 and the need at that was only for two airframes for LAX. The 330 has more cargo capacity which kept EI's transatlantic service alive in the early to mid ninties and when the time came around to replacing the 747s the A330 was the best option for a complete fleet replacement overall.

Topic: RE: Why Did EI Get Rid Of 767
Username: Kaitak
Posted 2009-03-15 10:20:50 and read 5307 times.



Quoting EI737NG (Reply 6):
Sorry, but I still don't see why they got rid of them in favour of the A330. Why order/lease it in the first place, why not just opt for the A330 and not bother with it? Surely when they were evaluating the replacement for the 747 surely the A330 was in the mix along with 767 or 777?Why order the 767 and then revert to the A330? Doesn't really make sense

The A330 was, of course, not available when the 767s were ordered via GPA in 1990 (or thereabouts); consideration was given to going to an all-767 fleet (which would have required about six aircraft), but the big failing of the 767, as fine an aircraft as it undoubtedly is, is its cargo capacity. When EI looked at the A330, it had an aircraft with MORE cargo capacity than the 747 (and vastly more than the 767), had pax capacity about 80% of the 747, but burned about half as much fuel. It was an excellent aircraft. The 767 just wasn't in the game from that point on.

Topic: RE: Why Did EI Get Rid Of 767
Username: Bramble
Posted 2009-03-15 10:29:43 and read 5280 times.



Quoting Bestwestern (Reply 5):
Dont forget Gulf war 1, and travel recession that surrounded the industry at the time.



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 3):
but the govt of the time refused to relent on the SNN stopover rule, so that route wasn't operated.

My understanding was that these 2 reasons were the death knell of the short lived EI B767 relationship.

Quoting EI737NG (Reply 6):
why not just opt for the A330 and not bother with it?

Correct above. The A330 only started flying in 1993/4. EI got in quite quickly and operated MSN 54(-SHN), 55(-DUB), 59(-ORD), 70(-CRK), 86(-JFK),

EI I believe also were the first ETOPS operator of A330 over the Atlantic.

Topic: RE: Why Did EI Get Rid Of 767
Username: Pilot21
Posted 2009-03-15 13:22:11 and read 5062 times.



Quoting Bramble (Reply 9):
EI I believe also were the first ETOPS operator of A330 over the Atlantic.



Quoting Bramble (Reply 9):
Correct above. The A330 only started flying in 1993/4. EI got in quite quickly and operated MSN 54(-SHN), 55(-DUB), 59(-ORD), 70(-CRK), 86(-JFK),

Both correct - also EI got a great deal on the original A330's from Airbus as Air France had taken over Air Inter and told Airbus they wouldn't be filling the rest of the latters A330 order - hence EI ordered the planes in March 94 and recieved the first in May from what I remember.

Pilot21

Topic: RE: Why Did EI Get Rid Of 767
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2009-03-15 18:56:28 and read 4739 times.



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 8):
Quoting EI737NG (Reply 6):
Sorry, but I still don't see why they got rid of them in favour of the A330. Why order/lease it in the first place, why not just opt for the A330 and not bother with it? Surely when they were evaluating the replacement for the 747 surely the A330 was in the mix along with 767 or 777?Why order the 767 and then revert to the A330? Doesn't really make sense

The A330 was, of course, not available when the 767s were ordered via GPA in 1990 (or thereabouts)

And even if the A330 had been available, I don't think the early A330-300s had the range for economic DUB-LAX nonstop service, and the A330-200 hadn't even been launched when the 333 went into service.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/