Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5582955/

Topic: The 767 Thread
Username: Max Q
Posted 2012-10-08 22:08:15 and read 17808 times.

This superb Aircraft has been in service for over 30 years now. The picture of the new LAN 767 on the home page started me thinking what an underated, barely noticed Aircraft this is but it's still going.


It may not be the most exotic Aircraft out there but it is universally liked and extremely popular with Pilots and passengers alike, another superb Boeing from the finest Aircraft manufacturer in the world (I am a little biased)

Such a shame it's smaller sister is no longer made.

Thoughts / opinions ?

[Edited 2012-10-08 22:08:49]

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: SCL767
Posted 2012-10-08 22:35:57 and read 17887 times.

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):
The picture of the new LAN 767 on the home page started me thinking what an underated, barely noticed Aircraft this is but it's still going.

For LAN, the B-767-300ER is a profitable airliner to operate on various routes. If it was not, LAN would not have placed two separate orders for them last year.

CC-BDI is the sixth new B-767-316ER to join LAN's fleet this year:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © A. Kwanten



Is this SCL or MIA?  
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ricardo Morales - Aviation Photography of Mexico
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ricardo Morales - Aviation Photography of Mexico

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: Someone83
Posted 2012-10-08 23:22:07 and read 17757 times.

And it still rolls out about two aircraft each month.....quite similar to the A380  

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2012-10-08 23:32:45 and read 17754 times.

If Boeing had been able to give it an A300-like cross section, there might never have been a need for the 787. But unfortunately engines at the time just weren't powerful enough to give a twin both a cross section that wide and true intercontinental range.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: Max Q
Posted 2012-10-08 23:44:54 and read 17705 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 3):


If Boeing had been able to give it an A300-like cross section, there might never have been a need for the 787. But unfortunately engines at the time just weren't powerful enough to give a twin both a cross section that wide and true intercontinental range.

I don't think it was so much about power with the 767, it was more of a drag issue. The -ER versions with their narrower fuselage than the A310 had much better range than the Airbus product.


The freight capability was not the same but for most airlines, particularly the US based ones it didn't matter.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: PHX787
Posted 2012-10-09 00:02:58 and read 17695 times.

Lets see....my 767 memories:

My first flight was on a 757 from CVG-FLL in 1992 but I was a baby then and don't remember anything at all...besides-oddly enough- me reaching for the flight attendant call button. It's strange I remember that.


I DO remember my first flight of my memory-era (from when I was past 5... I haven't flown from between ages 5 to 10) but when I flew to SRQ to visit my grandmother in 2002 it was my first flight that I could remember clearly. It was CVG-ATL-SRQ and the CVG-ATL flight was a 767- DL1963.

When I fly to Barcelona and back, I flew 767s across the pond on DL.
CVG-CDG 763ER, 61 people on board the first time. I had the entire row of seats to myself to stretch out and sleep.

Flying from BCN-JFK-CVG, BCN-JFK both times was on a 764. Huge aircraft. Jam-packed.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: oykie
Posted 2012-10-09 00:34:34 and read 17608 times.

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):
It may not be the most exotic Aircraft out there but it is universally liked and extremely popular with Pilots and passengers alike, another superb Boeing from the finest Aircraft manufacturer in the world (I am a little biased)

I have enjoyed many Atlantic crossings in the 767 and have always appreciated the cross section. Almost always window seat or aisle seat. Even the middle seat is better than other widebodies.

I will always like the 767. Yes today's engineering has a lot of new features that the 767 will never get, but it was a pioneer of its time!

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: cchan
Posted 2012-10-09 00:35:49 and read 17609 times.

The 767 is the type I have flown most. Can't beat 2-3-2 in economy.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: dlramp4life
Posted 2012-10-09 01:17:18 and read 17546 times.

From a rampers POV the 767 is a good airplane to work. Easy because of cans, fueling on the other side, bin door controls from the ground, pushback is easy. The only beef I have is when the cargo system is not working and you are inside the bin pushing a can on tracks hoping not to trip over a lock.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: vaus77w
Posted 2012-10-09 03:32:34 and read 17389 times.

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):

It may not be the most exotic Aircraft out there but it is universally liked and extremely popular with Pilots and passengers alike, another superb Boeing from the finest Aircraft manufacturer in the world (I am a little biased)

Agreed, it is a superb aircraft. It is extra special for me because my first flight (that I have memory of) was on a QF 767-300ER from SYD-BNE in 1998. My last flight 2 weeks ago, returning from MEL-SYD was also on a QF 767, nothing had really changed lol.

The one thing I love about flying on the 767 is the take-off. Don't know if it's just me but it feels more powerful than planes such as the 737/A320, you can really feel the seat pushing you forward. Makes take-off so much more exciting!

I have heard pilots talking on aviation podcasts about the 767 and they all said it's quite overpowered, with a high thrust to weight ratio due to only 2 engines.

Long live the 767!

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: GCPET
Posted 2012-10-09 04:27:34 and read 17269 times.

Great Plane! Look's best with two RB211's! Here's a cockpit video of a BA 767 on my YouTube Channel!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Leo-d3USV98&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqAJQk_DPXA&feature=relmfu

Probably the one of the more rewarding Aircraft to do a good landing in with the way the main gear is set!

GCPET

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: neutronstar73
Posted 2012-10-09 04:30:20 and read 17251 times.

The 767 will always have a special place in my heart, because it is a pretty airplane, every trip on it was great, the 2-3-2 can't be beat, and when i was a kid, my dad got me the ability to get inside the cockpit when we were flying to Atlanta on Delta and that is always a fun memory.

I truly go out of my way to fly in the 767 if I can find it. It and the 757 are just class acts in the aviation world. The 757 is just bad-ass...I can't see how anyone can NOT like that bird.

Maybe it is because Boeing really designs some good gear....from the 707 on up, I don't think they make a bad plane at all. Guess I have to try out the 787....

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: zkojq
Posted 2012-10-09 04:49:18 and read 17198 times.

I love the 767. My first flight (of which I can remember a substantial portion of) was in a Air New Zealand 767-200ER ZK-NBA (named Aotearoa V), flying across the Tasman. Air New Zealand's 767s are great for short hops (such as to Australia) or long haul flights (such as to Hong-Kong or Japan). Recently they updated the cabins of their 767s and installed winglets, making them nicer than most other aircraft types to travel on (and to look at).  
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jonathan Rankin
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jonathan Rankin

Quoting cchan (Reply 7):
Can't beat 2-3-2 in economy.

   Not only is the configuration nice, but it is also nice to have less other passengers to travel with (as compared with a 777 or A330).

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):
Such a shame it's smaller sister is no longer made.

   It is a real pity that Boeing didn't do more with the 767-200. It would be nice if they had developed an upgraded version of the -200ER with:
- Lower OEW
- Higher MTOW
- More effecient engines (or at least a PIP)
- Winglets

for long, thin routes.   

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: Someone83
Posted 2012-10-09 05:22:50 and read 17110 times.

Just to list the 767 deliveries so far this year:

767-300ER: 10
ANA: 2
AZAL Azerbaijan Airlines: 1
LAN: 5
Uzbekistan Airlines: 2

767-300F: 10
Silk Way (Azerbaijan): 2
DHL: 1
UPS: 7

The two for Uzbekistan has PW engines, the rest GE

Next of the line is another 300ER for LAN

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: beechnut
Posted 2012-10-09 05:27:00 and read 17089 times.

Great aircraft, especially the 300! Air Canada make theirs work on transatlantic, transpacific, transcontinental, Caribbean holiday, and short-haul domestic (Rapidair) routes. Name me another widebody that can do all that and make a buck for its owner! A truly versatile aircraft. And from the aesthetic perspective, if it looks right, it probably flies right... it just seems to have great, well-proportioned lines, especially the 300. No frills, just a good-looking bird.

I too have many hours logged (as passenger) on them, on transatlantic, transpacific, transcontinental and domestic short-haul runs. Easily the most comfortable widebody with the fewest number of center seats.

Beech

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: flyhossd
Posted 2012-10-09 07:44:39 and read 16829 times.

Great machines, the 767s, and that's what I last flew.

From this pilot's perspective, one of my favorite features was just how quiet the cockpit was compared to my prior airplanes (727, 737 and even compared to the 757).

"Last" may not be truly the last, though, as I'm considering an offer to fly again - yes, 767s again.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: JAAlbert
Posted 2012-10-09 07:51:29 and read 16823 times.

I'll add to the positive reviews - always my favorite widebody. Comfortable and non-claustrophobic. The only thing that bothers me about the 767 of late are its windows. Those square-ish shapes seem small and terribly dated. Load 787 windows on the 787 and it'd be a beautiful bird to fly!

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: 2travel2know2
Posted 2012-10-09 08:03:51 and read 16800 times.

If an airline was to order B767 right now,
What'd be the delivery time?
Is it in weeks or months or years?

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: Luv767s
Posted 2012-10-09 08:44:33 and read 16616 times.

As my user name suggests, I absolutely love 767s. Every variant is aesthetically pleasing and doesn't look oddly proportioned like some other aircraft do.

I've been on every version of every US operator except for Hawaiian Airlines. Two of my most memorable flights were on 767s. The best sleep I ever had on a plane was an AF 763 from CVG to CDG in coach in 2002. Then in 2006, I was able to get a seat in first class on a DL 764 from JFK-MAN-JFK when they sold the whole plane as coach.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: cargolex
Posted 2012-10-09 09:21:43 and read 16509 times.

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):
The picture of the new LAN 767 on the home page started me thinking what an underated, barely noticed Aircraft this is but it's still going.
Quoting SCL767 (Reply 1):
CC-BDI is the sixth new B-767-316ER to join LAN's fleet this year:

Thanks for the display.

I felt very fortunate to catch an unpainted pax 767 as there are not too many more in the pipeline. Plenty of freighters (I've missed two unpainted 767 freighters in a row by being in the wrong place on the field), but not so many passenger frames, left to go.

I've always liked the 767 and will go out of my way to fly on one, though I haven't flown on one lately (the last one I flew was a CO 764). My first 767 flight was a short hop between Orlando and Sarasota back in 1988. No idea why United chose to fly that aircraft on that route that day, that's just how it worked out.

I live in Seattle now and many years ago my first flight to Seattle was on a 767-200. I'm a loyal Alaska Airlines flyer, but if I book to Hawaii, I book on Hawaiian specifically because of the 767 (eventually I suppose it'll be an A332, but that's the future). I'd even like to try AA's SFO-JFK 762 service before it goes away.

It's a reliable and efficient aircraft, and I can see why airlines like them.

Quoting 2travel2know2 (Reply 17):
If an airline was to order B767 right now,
What'd be the delivery time?
Is it in weeks or months or years?

Air Astana ordered a few earlier this year and my guess is that they will get them in late 2013, so I'd say that you can get one within 24 months. However, with the large FedEx order coming up, that might actually be optimistic.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2012-10-09 09:29:13 and read 16492 times.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 4):
I don't think it was so much about power with the 767, it was more of a drag issue.

Two sides of the same coin... to add either weight or drag, you need more thrust or lift. And the amounts of thrust and lift were (more or less) fixed by the available engine and wing technology at the time. Within those constraints, Airbus chose to optimize for passenger and cargo capacity at short range, while Boeing chose to optimize for TATL range. Boeing's choice was the better one throughout the '80s. But then when the '90s came along with more powerful engines and new wing design techniques, Airbus profited from the better-optimized cross section it had developed, but previously been unable to carry over long distances.

[Edited 2012-10-09 09:29:33]

[Edited 2012-10-09 09:29:46]

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: HAL
Posted 2012-10-09 09:50:16 and read 16410 times.

I have more hours as pilot in the 763 than any other type, as I've been flying it exclusively for most of the last 10 years. It's honest, durable, and predictable. I've flown it as far west as MNL, and east to TPA. North to SEA, and south to SYD. It's been a great, reliable moneymaker for my airline, which means I get to keep my job and continue to progress through my career. I've moved on to the A330 recently, but I'm sure I'll be back in the 767 someday. Cheers to the 767: It's not flashy, but it gets its job done quietly & efficiently, which means it's doing exactly what it was designed to do.

HAL


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ben Wang
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tony Silgrim

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: yowviewer
Posted 2012-10-09 09:50:29 and read 16385 times.

A favorite of mine as well. And don't forget the 767-200 became (I believe) the first major commercial jet to land successfully from 33,000 ft with zero engine power on AC143 back in 1983. Doesn't get much better than that !

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: fleabyte
Posted 2012-10-09 10:07:46 and read 16340 times.

back in 79 or 80, I got to ride on a new UA 767 from Stapleton to Ohara...that was cool

I was checking out the 767 lists on airlinelists.com and about 2 years ago, it was amazing how many, almost all of them were utilized, a few AA 200's had been scrapped and Air Canada and Ansett were stored.

Now, looking at the list, there are a whole bunch of aircraft scrapped and out of service, lots of -200s

so when was the inflection point reached for the 767 when more frames are being scrapped than are being built, I think it is somewhere around 2011. So then the total number of frames in service will start to decline for the first time since the program was launched 30+ years ago. finally....no just kidding, except im sick of those tired old AA birds from Sao Paulo, the 777 is so much nicer in First Class

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: FI642
Posted 2012-10-09 10:08:23 and read 16323 times.

In the early 1980's I remember seeing UAL's "State of the Art" JT-9D powered 762's with the Saul Bass Livery at my local field. Too bad they didn't paint a 787 in that Livery!

Piedmont used to fly 762's back and forth from MCO to BWI. Lovely trip to experience.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2012-10-09 10:20:47 and read 16748 times.

Quoting HAL (Reply 21):
I've moved on to the A330 recently, but I'm sure I'll be back in the 767 someday.

Would you mind commenting on how these two compare from the pilot's POV?

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: SJCMSP
Posted 2012-10-09 11:10:59 and read 16052 times.

My first flight on a 767 was in 1987. It was a 767-200 SFO-ORD. The thing I remember most clearly about the trip was eating carrot cake for dessert. (I was 8 years old). The funny thing about that trip was that I had my last flight on a DC-8 on the way home.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: floridaflyboy
Posted 2012-10-09 11:34:10 and read 16061 times.

I love the 767, personally. It was my very first widebody. My first 767 flight was in 1999, a DL 767-300 SLC-CVG. Since then, I've had 3 flights on the 767-200 on DL, US, and CO, 14 on the 767-300 on DL and UA, and 22 on the 767-400 (I used to fly between BIL and DAB for school and would always book my SLC-ATL portion on a 767-400   )

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: ggsm
Posted 2012-10-09 11:45:31 and read 15899 times.

If that LAN 763 is new why doesn't it have winglets?

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: cargolex
Posted 2012-10-09 11:48:00 and read 15841 times.

Quoting ggsm (Reply 28):
If that LAN 763 is new why doesn't it have winglets?

Winglets are not installed at the factory.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: iFlyLOTs
Posted 2012-10-09 11:48:40 and read 15890 times.

The first time I was on a 767 was an AA flight from ORD to HNL and at the time I hated it (I was still bitter over AA dropping the DC-10, I should also note that I was only 8 at the time and I thought that the DC-10 would live forever...) but I have since grown to love the plane, I love how majestic it looks, especially with the winglets. I hope it's a sight that won't soon go away.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2012-10-09 11:51:36 and read 15872 times.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 4):
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 3):


If Boeing had been able to give it an A300-like cross section, there might never have been a need for the 787. But unfortunately engines at the time just weren't powerful enough to give a twin both a cross section that wide and true intercontinental range.

I don't think it was so much about power with the 767, it was more of a drag issue. The -ER versions with their narrower fuselage than the A310 had much better range than the Airbus product.

Boeing put the biggest engines they could on the 767 just as Airbus did with the A300. The initial 767 was much smaller than the A300, so Airbus chose capacity whereas Boeing chose range and payload. In the early 1980s, the GE CF6 was still a bit undersized to be put on a long range twin. The 300ER came out in the late 1980s with the payload increases that came from engine upgrades that increased power and led to the concurrent 747-400 and MD-11 development. The 767 was always limited based on engines. It wasn't until the 1990s when engines continued to get more powerful that the A330 and 777 started to make twins full transoceanic airplanes.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2012-10-09 11:51:41 and read 15785 times.

Quoting cargolex (Reply 29):

Winglets are not installed at the factory.

Can't they be installed there if the customer wants, though?

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: TR763
Posted 2012-10-09 11:52:21 and read 15801 times.

I just love the 767 as it is the aircraft i've most flown in my life, with Transbrasil, American and United.
The first flight of my life was aboard a Transbrasil 767-200, in 1990, in a GRU-MIA sector.
And my nickname here was chosen in honor to this guy:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Daniel R.Carneiro

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-10-09 11:58:28 and read 15780 times.

I've done a handful of flights on the 767-200 and 767-300 families.

My first 767 flights were Business Class on TWA SEA-JFK and JFK-SEA in the Summer of 1985. Have to say what I remember the most was how loud it was compared to the L-1011 I'd flown from CDG-JFK.   

I've also flown the 767-200 on UA between SFO-JFK-SFO and the three-class 767-300ER between SFO-ORD-SFO and IAD-SEA. I've also flown the 767-300ER two-class on UA between LAX and SEA.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: cargolex
Posted 2012-10-09 12:10:45 and read 15498 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 32):

Can't they be installed there if the customer wants, though?

I'm not sure. I don't see why they couldn't be fit there - at least by ATS if not by Boeing, but for some reason they don't do it there. Several LAN 767s have flown directly to ATL for winglet installation by Delta TechOps or MEX for the same service from Mexicana MRO Services.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: SCL767
Posted 2012-10-09 12:23:19 and read 15346 times.

Quoting ggsm (Reply 28):
If that LAN 763 is new why doesn't it have winglets?

Delta Tech Ops and/or Mexicana MRO perform the winglet installation after the a/c is delivered to LAN:
LAN Becomes Largest Customer For 767 Winglets (by SCL767 Sep 26 2012 in Civil Aviation)

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: 1337Delta764
Posted 2012-10-09 12:25:06 and read 15286 times.

The earliest 767 flight I can remember (based on a past thread asking about it) was a DL 763 in the summer of 1992 on SFO-ATL. Of course, I might have flown a 767 earlier than that on a different airline, however, I can't remember the particular years and routes I flew on other airlines prior to 1992. My other two flights (HNL-SFO and ATL-SJU) were both L-1011s. I remember the SFO-ATL flight looking different inside, with the No Smoking/Fasten Seat Belt signs being symbols rather than words like on the L-1011s.

I know that I flew on AA, TWA, and US (and perhaps others) prior to my first trip on DL in 1992. One of the ones I know about (as told by my father) was HNL-STL on a 747. With AA, I think I might have flown on at least one DC-10. Totally not sure what I flew on with US (cannot remember the route). Some destinations that I know I have flown in/out of prior to 1992 include HNL, SJU, BQN, JFK, and STL; however, I am pretty sure there are other destinations that I missed.

[Edited 2012-10-09 12:28:50]

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2012-10-09 12:26:46 and read 15283 times.

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 36):
Delta Tech Ops and/or Mexicana MRO perform the winglet installation after the a/c is delivered to LAN:

So for whatever reason, it's less expensive to fly the aircraft empty to ATL or MEX and then have the work done there than it is to have the work done at Boeing. Either that or Boeing simply doesn't offer the service, which strikes me as wasteful because that means that the wingtips installed at the factory must be discarded once they are removed at ATL or MEX. If it were done at the factory, the original wingtips would never even be installed.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2012-10-09 12:38:39 and read 15140 times.

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):
started me thinking what an underated, barely noticed Aircraft this is

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. The 767 was the most heavily used type on transatlantic routes for years. Does anyone know if that's still true now?

Quoting oykie (Reply 6):
I have enjoyed many Atlantic crossings in the 767 and have always appreciated the cross section. Almost always window seat or aisle seat. Even the middle seat is better than other widebodies.

Agree. And the 767 is the only type flying that has to be at least 86% full before anyone has to sit in a middle seat.

Quoting GCPET (Reply 10):
Look's best with two RB211's

Unfortunately only 2 767 customers agreed.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 16):
The only thing that bothers me about the 767 of late are its windows. Those square-ish shapes seem small and terribly dated.

I like the Boeing windows. They're larger than Airbus windows and the rectangular shape makes better use of the window area. That's always been one thing that makes me prefer the 737 over the A320 family, including the fact that the Boeing windows are mounted somewhat lower and makes them easier to see out of than Airbus windows.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: MSYtristar
Posted 2012-10-09 12:59:40 and read 14883 times.

One of my favorite airplanes hands down. Never had a bad flight on a 767. I've never experienced a smooth landing on one (don't think those exist), but hey, beggars can't be choosers. My first 767 flight was in June 1995 on DL. ORD-ATL flight #1941. It was a 767-300. Since then I've flown on around 40 767's of all variants. The shortest 767 flight I've taken would be ATL-MCO on a DL -400ER, and the longest being ATL-AMS on a DL -300ER.

This Friday I get to step back in time and pretend it's 2005 again when I get to fly a 763 from MSY to ATL and another 763 from ATL to BOS. And the following week on the way home, a 763 from ATL to MSY.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: KPDX
Posted 2012-10-09 13:07:34 and read 14834 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 39):
I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. The 767 was the most heavily used type on transatlantic routes for years. Does anyone know if that's still true now?

Though it's popular among airlines, I'd say it is quite underrated among aviation enthusiasts.   

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: GCPET
Posted 2012-10-09 13:20:59 and read 14655 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 39):
Unfortunately only 2 767 customers agreed.

Everyone else is missing out! Love going on BA 767's just for the sound of the RB211! BA and RR just go together! The 767 is very versatile and it can work well for both Short-Haul and Long-Haul. Still work's very well for BA after nearly 23 years of service. Well Done Boeing!

GCPET

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: HOONS90
Posted 2012-10-09 13:24:43 and read 14621 times.

I've flown on all variants of the 767 on various short, medium and long haul flights. Excellent aircraft. From my personal experience, LAN has the best 767 interiors followed by Delta on the 767-400ER. Gotta love the 777-style overhead bins and sidewalls!

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: DoubleDelta
Posted 2012-10-09 13:31:35 and read 14569 times.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 16):
The only thing that bothers me about the 767 of late are its windows. Those square-ish shapes seem small and terribly dated. Load 787 windows on the 787 and it'd be a beautiful bird to fly!

IIRC, the 767-400ER features the updated windows from the 777 series.

Quoting MSYtristar (Reply 40):
I've never experienced a smooth landing on one (don't think those exist), but hey, beggars can't be choosers

I wonder if that has something to do with those atypical forward-tilting MLG??

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

Why no love for the 767-400ER?? I sure hope I don't get lambasted for my opinion, but I see to be the only comment that will go against the 767. I absolutely do not like that plane, purely based on exterior looks. I have never flown on one, and I will not try to contest how comfortable the interior is. I've just never found the 767 to be anywhere near beautiful on the outside. It looks weird and just aesthetically unappealing. I don't know how to describe it. I even find the nose section ugly on the 767, but I find that same nose beautiful on the 777. With a lot of 767-300ERs gaining the blended winglets, I'm now warming up to the 763. I can even find some close to 'beautiful.' However, I really do find the 764 to be attractive. The longer fuselage and raked wingtips really did wonders for the aircraft, not to mention the 777-styled interior.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: jporterfi
Posted 2012-10-09 13:33:59 and read 14493 times.

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 1):

Are LA aircraft used to operate 4M, 4C, XL, and LP flights? Is that why there are 5 LAN aircraft in the photos? Combined, all of the LAN carriers operate flights to 7 destinations from MIA, whereas LA only flies to 4 destinations from MIA, so it would make a whole lot more sense if the aircraft were cross-utilized by all of the LAN carriers (or at least aircraft painted in the normal LA livery were used on other LAN carriers' flights).

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: 1337Delta764
Posted 2012-10-09 13:38:56 and read 14466 times.

Quoting DoubleDelta (Reply 44):
Why no love for the 767-400ER?? I sure hope I don't get lambasted for my opinion, but I see to be the only comment that will go against the 767. I absolutely do not like that plane, purely based on exterior looks. I have never flown on one, and I will not try to contest how comfortable the interior is. I've just never found the 767 to be anywhere near beautiful on the outside. It looks weird and just aesthetically unappealing. I don't know how to describe it. I even find the nose section ugly on the 767, but I find that same nose beautiful on the 777. With a lot of 767-300ERs gaining the blended winglets, I'm now warming up to the 763. I can even find some close to 'beautiful.' However, I really do find the 764 to be attractive. The longer fuselage and raked wingtips really did wonders for the aircraft, not to mention the 777-styled interior.

No way, the 764ER is sleek and beautiful like a beautiful woman. The 762, on the other hand, is stubby and ugly.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: lasairlinerenth
Posted 2012-10-09 13:43:00 and read 14369 times.

In my 30-some odd years of flying as a passenger, I've only been on one 767 . . . and that was a BA 763 from PRG to LHR in the summer of 2011. When I booked the flight, it was scheduled to be an A320; but when I got to PRG, BA had substitued the 763 instead. I had paid for a seat toward the front of the A320 that translated to the 2-2-2 section on the 767; that was really nice instead of the very cramped economy section of the BA A320 (LHR to PRG was an A320 for me). The plane was a bit tatty on the inside, and it creaked and moaned all the way from PRG to LHR, but it was still a very cool ride. If there are no substitutions, my flight from BNE to PER in late November is scheduled to be a Qantas 767; it'll be only my second flight on a 767 and I'm really looking forward to it.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: TrnsWrld
Posted 2012-10-09 13:44:38 and read 14351 times.

To the OP who stated this:
"what an underated, barely noticed Aircraft this is but it's still going."

Really? How is the 767 barely noticed and underated? Considering this airplane has probably logged more hours across the ponds than any other aircraft in history, IMO its the exact opoosite of what you said.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: SCL767
Posted 2012-10-09 13:48:10 and read 14269 times.

Quoting jporterfi (Reply 45):
Are LA aircraft used to operate 4M, 4C, XL, and LP flights? Is that why there are 5 LAN aircraft in the photos? Combined, all of the LAN carriers operate flights to 7 destinations from MIA, whereas LA only flies to 4 destinations from MIA, so it would make a whole lot more sense if the aircraft were cross-utilized by all of the LAN carriers (or at least aircraft painted in the normal LA livery were used on other LAN carriers' flights).

All LAN B763s now use Chilean registrations; except LAN Argentina's.
LAN Airlines:
SCL-MIA
SCL-CCS-MIA
SCL-CUN-MIA
SCL-PUJ-MIA
SCL-GYE-CCS-MIA
*SCL-GIG-MIA
LAN Perú:
LIM-MIA
LAN Ecuador:
UIO-MIA
LAN Argentina:
EZE-MIA
EZE-PUJ-MIA
LAN Colombia:
BOG-MIA A-320
*Starts next year.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: DoubleDelta
Posted 2012-10-09 13:48:28 and read 14310 times.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 46):
No way, the 764ER is sleek and beautiful like a beautiful woman. The 762, on the other hand, is stubby and ugly.

"No way" what, lol? I said I liked the 764. And I agree completely with your assertion. I will never warm-up to the 762. Stubby and ugly is the perfect wording. I don't want to open another can of worms, but it's probably the same reason I don't care for the 787.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2012-10-09 13:55:40 and read 14222 times.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 46):
The 762, on the other hand, is stubby and ugly.

I've always liked the looks of the 762, but then again I always preferred the shorter (and much better-performing) 720B to the 707 also.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: B757forever
Posted 2012-10-09 14:01:29 and read 14023 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 38):
Boeing simply doesn't offer the service

Exactly. The cost to re-tool the Boeing production line exceeds the potential returns.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2012-10-09 14:20:23 and read 13852 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 39):
I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. The 767 was the most heavily used type on transatlantic routes for years. Does anyone know if that's still true now?

I think the A330 now holds that honor.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: ETinCaribe
Posted 2012-10-09 14:51:53 and read 13446 times.

the 767 has also been a workhorse for ET, first entry in service in 1984.
Here is a sticker that was commonplace in Ethiopia in the early 80s which made many, including myself, aviation fans.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRotXlOuvbSDp-MpX7XND3zBJWeGdlFgnEQY-QJy9b8sJlwZ8UNerH1s09X5A

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: JAAlbert
Posted 2012-10-09 15:29:58 and read 13049 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 39):
I like the Boeing windows. They're larger than Airbus windows and the rectangular shape makes better use of the window area.

I agree that Boeing's windows are better that Airbus due to the size. I just think the 777 windows look more modern, and the 787 - well who can beat those? But I'll take a square window if need be.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: s.p.a.s.
Posted 2012-10-09 15:51:09 and read 12852 times.

Having upgraded from the Embraer 190/195 to the B763 recently, I can only vouch that is indeed a very nice plane, albeit one or two generations behind the Embraer, avionics wise. But besides that, is almost like comparing apples and oranges in terms of performance, cockpit comfort, joy to fly and many other technical aspects. A pilot's airplane, for sure.

I am looking forward to master it, piloting wise (still under line training), but I like it more and more as the training progresses.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: krisyyz
Posted 2012-10-09 15:59:11 and read 12734 times.

Some of my first flights across the pond were on 767s. I always found the 2-3-2 config to be one of the most comfortable around.

I'm surprised that this venerable bird is still getting pax orders. I think we will the 767 flying for quite some time especially with the recent upgrades like winglets and the new flight deck upgrade.

Have any major airlines like AA, DL, UA or AC looked at what Rockwell Collins is offering? Upgrading the flightdeck is a big cost and I would imagine a lot of work, but it would extend the service life and enable to move towards the future navigation/ATC services.

http://www.rockwellcollins.com/sitec...CS/FY12CSNR35-767_Flight_Deck.aspx


KrisYYZ

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2012-10-09 16:17:57 and read 12591 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 39):
The 767 was the most heavily used type on transatlantic routes for years. Does anyone know if that's still true now?

Someone did a TATL analysis earlier this year (couldn't find the thread), and with all the 767s that DL, UA, AA, BA, AC(?), LO, and a few others send across the Atlantic, IIRC the 767 still held first place for most trips by aircraft type, but only by a very slight margin now.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: N243NW
Posted 2012-10-09 16:26:51 and read 12499 times.

Quoting krisyyz (Reply 57):
Have any major airlines like AA, DL, UA or AC looked at what Rockwell Collins is offering?

AA is currently retrofitting their aircraft with IS&S flat panels and other avionics, installing SATCOM, VDL Mode 2, Pegasus FMS, RNP RNAV/GPS, ADS-B surveillance, CPDLC, etc. These planes definitely have a lot of life still left in them.

http://www.innovative-ss.com/platfor...asp?ID=53&L1=2&L2=1&L3=0&display=1

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2012-10-09 16:37:04 and read 12416 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 58):
Someone did a TATL analysis earlier this year (couldn't find the thread), and with all the 767s that DL, UA, AA, BA, AC(?), LO, and a few others send across the Atlantic, IIRC the 767 still held first place for most trips by aircraft type, but only by a very slight margin now.

I thought it was the A330.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: my235
Posted 2012-10-09 16:45:43 and read 12431 times.

I'll break the 767 loving streak. It's 30yr old tech. I find it sad that the Human race is not able to progress faster as it's hampered by coin. (I still love it though)  

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2012-10-09 16:50:05 and read 12316 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 60):
I thought it was the A330.

While certainly growing in popularity, there isn't any airline flying the A330 in bulk across the Atlantic like UA/AA/DL are still with the 767, from what I recall from the report. You're free to take a stab at finding the thread that detailed it all out. I think it covered TATL operations for a week in June or July, and was posted this past spring sometime. If my other computer wasn't in storage, I could link to it in a jiffy.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2012-10-09 16:59:45 and read 12206 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 62):
You're free to take a stab at finding the thread that detailed it all out.

See, I was hoping I could pawn that duty off on you...  

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: vaus77w
Posted 2012-10-09 17:03:07 and read 12137 times.

Quoting ETinCaribe (Reply 54):

the 767 has also been a workhorse for ET, first entry in service in 1984.
Here is a sticker that was commonplace in Ethiopia in the early 80s which made many, including myself, aviation fans.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRotXlOuvbSDp-MpX7XND3zBJWeGdlFgnEQY-QJy9b8sJlwZ8UNerH1s09X5A

Very cool, thanks for sharing!

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2012-10-09 17:06:46 and read 12177 times.

Found it.

Summer 2012 Transatlantic Offer Analysis (by BrusselsSouth Jun 24 2012 in Civil Aviation)?threadid=5496521&searchid=5496555&s=transatlantic+analysis#ID5496555

This last summer A330's offered 293,043 weekly seats and 1,073 weekly flights (one-way) across the Atlantic. 767's 240,236 one-way seats and 1,067 flights. This makes the A330 the most popular TATL aircraft with the 767 a close second. The 777 is a close third for 1,036 flights but offers #1 overall seat capacity at 307,361 seats one-way.

I recall being a bit surprised to learn that the A330 was #1 for weekly flights across the pond.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2012-10-09 17:08:30 and read 12104 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 65):
Found it.

Ah nice. Thanks for doing the footwork.  

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2012-10-09 17:21:05 and read 12040 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 66):
Thanks for doing the footwork.

You owe me one.  

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: HAL
Posted 2012-10-09 18:39:20 and read 11565 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 25):
Would you mind commenting on how these two compare from the pilot's POV?

The 767 is of course a generation (or two) older than the 330 in its technology. The Boeing has cables going back to the control surfaces from the cockpit, vs. the electrical wires in the Airbus. The computers on the Airbus that will normally provide envelope protection are a good safety factor too. i.e., if you want to stall the 767, pull the power back and keep the nose up. Stalling the Airbus would require turning off at least a couple of the computers. But beyond those areas, the two are actually quite similar, and I like them both. In terms of day-to-day flying, the 767 feels a little lighter, as the control response seems to be a little quicker, and a little more crisp than in the Airbus. The 330 has a bit more of a lag time in control response, mainly (I think) because it is simply a heavier plane with a much longer wing. Putting in a roll request on the sidestick gives just a fraction of a second longer delay, compared to the 767. I don't know if it's anything that someone not used to the planes would notice, but after a decade on the 767, it's response to how I controlled it became second nature. That's always the way it is when you move to a new type though - it just takes a little while to get used to the differences. The 330 has more power, and even at full gross weight really gets up and moves. Also, the sight picture at landing is different because the Airbus is longer, with higher gear. In the flare, those of us in the cockpit are quite a bit farther off the ground than in the 767, and the first few approaches are striking in how different they look. But after a few flights, it's all back to normal. I do like the new technology in the cockpit, which can save time, especially in an emergency by having the checklists and procedures right there for us on the ECAM screen, rather than having to look them up in the emergency handbook. Overall though, I love them both. They're both fun to fly, and make my job easy. I couldn't ask for more from any plane I'd be working in.

HAL

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: PGNCS
Posted 2012-10-09 19:27:56 and read 11119 times.

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):
It may not be the most exotic Aircraft out there but it is universally liked and extremely popular with Pilots and passengers alike, another superb Boeing from the finest Aircraft manufacturer in the world (I am a little biased)

I generally agree with your point. I very much appreciate the small widebody crossection as a passenger, particularly in coach. That is by far the best feature of the aircraft in my opinion. As a pilot it is generally, but not universally well liked: I flew it for five or six years, and while I enjoyed the 757, I always disliked the 767. That dislike got stronger the longer I flew it. I particularly loathe how excessively responsive it is in roll at low speeds, especially in comparison to the much nicer control harmony of the 757. I am pleased I won't have to fly it again.

Quoting oykie (Reply 6):
I have enjoyed many Atlantic crossings in the 767 and have always appreciated the cross section.

No question. Best feature, hands down.

Quoting flyhossd (Reply 15):
From this pilot's perspective, one of my favorite features was just how quiet the cockpit was compared to my prior airplanes (727, 737 and even compared to the 757).

Really? I suppose that makes sense given your Boeing background (it is practically a company calling card,) but there are much quieter airliner cockpits out there.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 39):
Quoting oykie (Reply 6):
I have enjoyed many Atlantic crossings in the 767 and have always appreciated the cross section. Almost always window seat or aisle seat. Even the middle seat is better than other widebodies.

Agree. And the 767 is the only type flying that has to be at least 86% full before anyone has to sit in a middle seat.

I couldn't agree more. Love that, though I don't find it inherently preferable to an A-330/340. As long as I am no more than one seat from an aisle, I'm fairly pleased in widebody coach.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: Max Q
Posted 2012-10-09 21:42:50 and read 10321 times.

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 69):

I generally agree with your point. I very much appreciate the small widebody crossection as a passenger, particularly in coach. That is by far the best feature of the aircraft in my opinion. As a pilot it is generally, but not universally well liked: I flew it for five or six years, and while I enjoyed the 757, I always disliked the 767. That dislike got stronger the longer I flew it. I particularly loathe how excessively responsive it is in roll at low speeds, especially in comparison to the much nicer control harmony of the 757. I am pleased I won't have to fly it again.

I think we've discussed this before but I was always surprised at your preference. I have always found the 767 far more responsive in pitch and especially roll compared to the 757. I have not encountered one Pilot that didn't like the 767 (except for the unforgiving landing gear)


With four Ailerons on the 76 vs two on the 75 it should be more responsive.


Whether it's Airline specific or a personal preference though to each his own.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: divemaster08
Posted 2012-10-09 21:49:49 and read 10252 times.

Quoting N243NW (Reply 59):

Quoting krisyyz (Reply 57):
Have any major airlines like AA, DL, UA or AC looked at what Rockwell Collins is offering?

AA is currently retrofitting their aircraft with IS&S flat panels and other avionics, installing SATCOM, VDL Mode 2, Pegasus FMS, RNP RNAV/GPS, ADS-B surveillance, CPDLC, etc. These planes definitely have a lot of life still left in them.

http://www.innovative-ss.com/platfor...asp?ID=53&L1=2&L2=1&L3=0&display=1

Sounds and looks like a good upgrade!

One thing that I ponder on though is if your updating the flightdeck with LCD on the PFD and ND, why not go full out and replace the CRT engine monitoring with one screen (looks long enough to fit both on there) or at least LCD them up also to remove more weight!

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: YVRLTN
Posted 2012-10-09 22:11:15 and read 10162 times.

I didnt fly on a 767 until 2003, ironically with AC LHR-YYZ and return YYC-LHR, little knowing I would emigrate to Canada exactly 2 years later and I would get a lot of AC 767 rides, including some non ER 200's before they retired. In between, I flew BA twice, LHR to BUD return and DAR return, demonstrating the flexibility of this wonderful aircraft.

I also flew with Zoom YVR-BFS-LGW return before they went under, making the 300ER most flown type for me 2nd to the 737-300, though the A320 and A330 are now catching up.

A family friend flew from LGW to SYD on a BY 767 at least twice, with fuel stops in the Mid East and Asia, I am going to say BAH and KUL. Anyone remember those? Around 1996 time I think.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: kaitak
Posted 2012-10-09 22:19:03 and read 10119 times.

It's always been a favourite of mine; I had my first flight in October 1990, from ATL to ORD with Delta; I think it was ship 108. I've had many enjoyable flights since - with several airlines, including Ansett, KLM, Continental, Qantas, ANA, JAL, Aer Lingus and BA.

I also believe that the 767 is one of the most significant aircraft in aviation history; when it started out, all long haul flights were on 3 or 4 engined aircraft; it was the trailblazer for ETOPS; today, this is commonplace; we've gone from abou 120 minutes to over 200 minutes now and there are very few routes a long haul twin can't fly. Had the 767 faltered, had there been an accident or catastrophe, it would have set this development back quite a bit, but its reliability (and in fairness, we have to recognise its engines too!), has been superb. Even still, after nearly 30 years, there have been no losses (of any aircraft) on ETOPS services.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: N809FR
Posted 2012-10-09 23:00:41 and read 10058 times.

The 767 is by far my favorite plane. I also don't concern myself with IFE when booking a ticket, that's what I have an iPad for. I first flew the 767 back in 2009, CDG-CVG on Delta, recently flew JFK-NCE-JFK on Delta as well.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: oykie
Posted 2012-10-10 00:48:04 and read 9965 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 39):
Agree. And the 767 is the only type flying that has to be at least 86% full before anyone has to sit in a middle seat.

   It is the most comfortable way to travel long haul in economy, no doubt!

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 69):

I couldn't agree more. Love that, though I don't find it inherently preferable to an A-330/340. As long as I am no more than one seat from an aisle, I'm fairly pleased in widebody coach.

   The A330/340 with 8 across seating is quite good, and I am sure the 787 will be as well. however I have experienced 9 across seating in the A330, and I will never do that again.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-10-10 01:08:33 and read 9936 times.

I once flew SYD-FRA in a 767 with LH, at that age I was disappointed that it was not the usual 744   But it sure is a nice aircraft and 2-3-2 in economy is great, all the love here for 2-4-2 very seldom do we see love of 2-3-2, a bit strange.

I flew a few flights to Toronto with SKs 767s, before that I had a few trips on Sterling's 727s with a fuel stop in Iceland and that was the time when it was a camera ban, I always had the urge to snap a pic just to see what would have happened  

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: VC10er
Posted 2012-10-10 17:49:44 and read 9594 times.

A 767 feels like a second home! I have flown hundreds of thousands of miles on her. A United 767 kept my 15 year relationship going. The new UA business is not liked by many but I love it. United's new Global First on a 767 fits perfectly and seat 1k is one of the most private and luxurious of an U.S. airline!

The ex CO 767-400 in the new configuration is BEAUTIFUL to fly and look at. As is the amazing pleasure I had flying a brand new ANA 767 last year in the domestic First from HNL to SIN. I was so sorry that flight ended.

Many years ago, before 9/11, I was waiting for the LAV with the pilot aboard a United 767 from JFK to Rio. I asked him how he liked flying a 767 and I loved his response "the 767 is a gentleman's airplane"

History will recognize her role in the advancement in aviation. She helped make the world more connected. As far as I am concerned a new 767 would suit me fine for the rest of my life.

Thank you for this thread, I don't think the 767 gets as many accolades as she deserves.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: XFSUgimpLB41X
Posted 2012-10-10 17:57:01 and read 9578 times.

The 767 was always a treat to fly when I was in the 757/767 category. That big, quiet cockpit (quietest cockpit I've ever flown in- even moreso than the airbus), nimble hand flying, and excellent performance was always a treat. I never flew the 200, only the 300 and 300ER.... the 300ER was my favorite plane in the category to fly. It had performance like the 757 with all the niceties of the 767 cockpit.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: N243NW
Posted 2012-10-10 18:47:20 and read 9486 times.

Quoting divemaster08 (Reply 71):
One thing that I ponder on though is if your updating the flightdeck with LCD on the PFD and ND, why not go full out and replace the CRT engine monitoring with one screen (looks long enough to fit both on there) or at least LCD them up also to remove more weight!

Most likely case is that there is just not enough benefit to an EICAS upgrade to justify the development costs. Other than the weight, it doesn't really make the airplane more capable. Although the flat PFD and ND may look great, it's not the meat of the project - the behind-the-scenes stuff like GPS, SATCOM, datalink, and surveillance technologies will allow the 767 to fly in the world's changing airspace and meet future regulations for ATC.

Also, keep in mind that the EICAS computers are currently programmed and wired to feed two independent display screens. Swapping two for one would require a lot of electrical engineering.

[Edited 2012-10-10 18:57:50]

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: aviateur
Posted 2012-10-10 18:55:01 and read 9496 times.

I fly 767s. From the perspective of most pax, the type of aircraft matters very little. It comes down to how they are configured and outfitted. It has almost nothing to do with the plane itself.


PS

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: VC10er
Posted 2012-10-10 20:32:51 and read 9389 times.

Quoting aviateur (Reply 80):

Except for us of course. I make travel reservations based on aircraft type. As much as I love my 767's like my most comfortable shoes, I love a 747 the most!

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: Skydrol
Posted 2012-10-10 21:28:21 and read 9331 times.

Quoting aviateur (Reply 80):
From the perspective of most pax, the type of aircraft matters very little. It comes down to how they are configured and outfitted. It has almost nothing to do with the plane itself.

And it is for this exact reason so many passengers like the B-767; the awesome 2-3-2 seating layout in economy. The average passenger may not remember the model of the airplane, but they will remember the comfort due to the cabin layout and the contribution to a pleasant flight.


B-767 - My favorite as well. Will always choose a 767 flight over any other airplane type whenever possible.



LD4

  

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2012-10-10 21:43:28 and read 9325 times.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 70):
With four Ailerons on the 76 vs two on the 75 it should be more responsive.

I think he's complaining that it's too responsive.

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 82):
B-767 - My favorite as well. Will always choose a 767 flight over any other airplane type whenever possible.

As a passenger, I love the 767. But the A330 is even better.

Quoting HAL (Reply 68):
I couldn't ask for more from any plane I'd be working in.

Thank you for your insight. I had the pleasure of flying outbound aboard N340HA and back to the mainland on N343HA (which wasn't even a year old at the time). Your airline is truly a pleasure to fly (and that's heady praise in a day and age when airline travel is anything but a pleasure). I was really impressed with the 332 as a passenger. It was so quiet, even behind the engines. Fantastic aircraft.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: mandala499
Posted 2012-10-10 21:46:44 and read 9324 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 39):
Unfortunately only 2 767 customers agreed.
Quoting GCPET (Reply 42):
Everyone else is missing out! Love going on BA 767's just for the sound of the RB211! BA and RR just go together!

Numbers for the beancounters come first, aesthetics last.
And engine wise, the numbers include: Engine price, time between overhaul, overhaul costs, line maintenance costs, and fuel burn... (That's where GE is hard to beat... price, and the overhaul & line costs, so unless fuel burn difference is staggering, RR would lose out on engine price and overhaul costs, albeit offset by longer time between overhauls)...

Quoting DoubleDelta (Reply 50):
I will never warm-up to the 762.

I was converted to warm up to the 762ER after one night, on a BKK-CPH, Afghanistan was declared closed after we closed the aircraft doors in BKK, and we missed all the quick and suitable slots... so the airline looked for a the fastest way we could get to BKK. The Captain explained later in the flight, we either had to call it a night because of the lack of slots at ideal altitude, or we flew low out of BKK, and if we didn't get a higher altitude then, we had to stop in DXB, and wait for a new crew, and if we get a higher altitude over India, we would still had to stop in VIE and wait for a new crew... Had it been a 763ER, it would have surely been either of the above. Being a 762ER, we flew at FL280 out of BKK all the way to midpoint within the Indian subcontinent on the route, obtained a slightly higher altitude than planned from there (we jumped to FL350 or 390 *pre RVSM), and by the time we passed Dubai, we were at 390... and got above (we got 410 or 430), and a very direct route over Europe... made it into CPH with only a few kgs spare above the required final reserve (Captain announced it on the PA).

We left 3 hours late, arrived 2 hours late... despite all that, we caught up 1hr in difficult circumstances thanks to the aircraft's flexibility. If it was a 763, I would have been AT LEAST 6 hours late.

It was unique experience that put the 762ER in a special place in my life! (That flight had lots of memory too! Good and bad).

The 2-3-2 on the 767 is always a favorite... it was a Big small-plane feeling, rather than a small big-plane (like the competing A310s... although I'd take a 2-3-2 and 2-4-2 over 2-5-2 or 3-4-3 anyday...).

Quoting my235 (Reply 61):
I'll break the 767 loving streak. It's 30yr old tech. I find it sad that the Human race is not able to progress faster as it's hampered by coin.

As long as it can make money in today's environment, so be it.

Quoting HAL (Reply 68):
I don't know if it's anything that someone not used to the planes would notice, but after a decade on the 767, it's response to how I controlled it became second nature.

Many (especially those who are now on the 330) I know, said their 767 days were their best days on a Boeing   

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 69):
I particularly loathe how excessively responsive it is in roll at low speeds, especially in comparison to the much nicer control harmony of the 757.

I think the 767/757 pilot pool is rather split on which of the two have better control harmonics... (but most agree, it's better than other non-FBW Boeings)...

---
The 763ER economics, for a 30yr old design, is just... unbelievable. Now with the Winglets, it remains competitive... not bad for a 30yr old aircraft... not bad indeed...

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: XFSUgimpLB41X
Posted 2012-10-10 22:14:46 and read 9286 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 83):
I think he's complaining that it's too responsive.

Correct- below 10,000 feet the 767 is a fingertip flying airplane. It borderlines twitchy!

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: Max Q
Posted 2012-10-10 23:13:34 and read 9226 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 83):

With four Ailerons on the 76 vs two on the 75 it should be more responsive.

I think he's complaining that it's too responsive.

Rereading his response I see that is what he said. Personally I find the incredible responsiveness very appealing, you have to be careful but with experience you find all you have to do is think where you want it to go and its already there.


It reminds me of the incomparable B727.


The 757's control response, in comparison seems very sluggish. Loads of power but flies like a truck.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: cgnnrw
Posted 2012-10-11 01:26:36 and read 9120 times.

You can add me to the list of satisfied 767 passengers.

Back in the 1990s when KLM had their 767s I flew them often between AMS-DTW. Can't recall anything negative about the flights. I also flew an AF 767 between PHL-CDG as well as numerous DL flights from DUS-ATL. Again all good flights. I also did two segments on AA between FRA-MIA.

As far a domestic flights in the US goes my experience is more limited. If I recall correctly only a few 767s flights and those were on DL from ATL to MIA, FLL or SLC .

However, despite my relative positive experiences on the 767 my favorite plane to date is the A330. In my opinion an aircraft can't get any sexier.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2012-10-11 02:17:06 and read 9088 times.

I'm quite fond of the 767. It's one of my favourite commercial airliners. I think it's a testament to its design and flexibility that it has lasted 30 years without a major upgrade.

As a passenger, I enjoy flying on 767s. The 2-3-2 configuration in economy is magnificent because I'm never more than one seat away from the aisle. However, the original 767's overhead bins are somewhat tiny, ceiling and sidewalls make the aircraft look dated. I have yet to fly on a Signature Interior equipped 767, which would no doubt solve that problem.

I prefer flying on the A330 than the 767, especially if it has the newer A340NG style overhead bins, ceiling and sidewall, mainly because of the more modern looking interior and bigger bins than the old 767 interior. But if it were a choice between the A330 and a Signature Interior equipped 767, I'd probably choose the 767  

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: RWA380
Posted 2012-10-11 02:36:35 and read 9040 times.

I love this aircraft, and am excited that my next 767 ride comes in less than two months. I have reserved seats on the window for my party of two, and will get a free Y meal, and a big screen movie just like the old days when I started flying back and forth to Hawaii back in 1979 on 747's and DC-10's. All I hope is the HA 767 I am on, has winglets. I think it's a 50/50 chance by number in fleet. Awesome thread, Awesome plane.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: aviateur
Posted 2012-10-11 19:04:23 and read 8795 times.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 70):
With four Ailerons on the 76 vs two on the 75 it should be more responsive.

Indeed it is. The 767 is VERY light on the controls. You could fly the thing with two fingers. It's almost TOO light, and reminds me somewhat of the Dash-8 I used to fly. (We're talking about the 767-300. I never flew the -200, but I'm told it handled differently.)

The 757 is a lot more sluggish and heavy. In some ways I like it better, because it's not as jittery.

Or maybe it's just me who's jittery.


PS

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: VC10er
Posted 2012-10-11 19:29:41 and read 8749 times.

On Saturday I am on United from EWR to GVA, return, on a 767. I am at a window, bulkhead seat in BF. I am totally excited and I can't wait to get into that seat. Yes, an old 767 looks OLD, unless it's had a total overhaul or is brand new. I will be on a totally overhauled 767 with clean new carpets, seats and bins. The outside and the inside has a perfect feel. It's a human airplane. When something is done right, like a 767, it can last 30 years and beyond.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: SCL767
Posted 2012-10-11 19:57:59 and read 8716 times.

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):
The picture of the new LAN 767 on the home page started me thinking what an underated, barely noticed Aircraft this is but it's still going.

Here is a video of LAN's newest B-767-316ER CC-BDI departing KPDX for KPAE:
http://youtu.be/I0Lyg2MPlRE

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: zkojq
Posted 2012-10-11 21:35:32 and read 8622 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 83):
Thank you for your insight. I had the pleasure of flying outbound aboard N340HA and back to the mainland on N343HA (which wasn't even a year old at the time). Your airline is truly a pleasure to fly (and that's heady praise in a day and age when airline travel is anything but a pleasure). I was really impressed with the 332 as a passenger.

Might want to check your registrations, Doc. HA's A330s are registered N38*HA. I assume you meant N380HA and N383HA.  
Quoting VC10er (Reply 91):
Yes, an old 767 looks OLD, unless it's had a total overhaul or is brand new.

Or has winglets.  

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: smi0006
Posted 2012-10-11 21:43:32 and read 8625 times.

Being an Australian, the 767 would have to be one of the most common aircraft in our skies after the 73s.

With so many short domestic hops (MEL-SYD, SYD-BNE, MEL-BNE) plus a fair amount of trans cons still. Is there any airline that would work their 767s as hard as QF? They must be some of the highest cycle aircraft out there? With the 767 only featuring on the domestic scene plus SYD-HNL and SYD-NOU, 23 is a pretty impressive fleet wide body fleet number for domestic ops.

Do US carriers us the 767 domestically that much?

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: XFSUgimpLB41X
Posted 2012-10-11 22:13:39 and read 8576 times.

Quoting smi0006 (Reply 94):
Do US carriers us the 767 domestically that much?

DL used to. With fleet rationalization that has dropped off dramatically.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: ha763
Posted 2012-10-11 22:39:48 and read 8554 times.

Count me in as well as a huge fan of the 767 (see my user name), especially HA's wingletted ones. The flower motif on the 767 winglets make HA's the best looking winglets out there. I always try to find a way to fly a HA 767 at least one way on my trips to LAS and SFO. I have flown the 767-300, 767-300ER, and 767-400ER. I haven't had a chance to fly a 767-200/-200ER yet, but Vacations Hawaii charters Omni's 767-200ERs so I still have a chance.

Quoting smi0006 (Reply 94):
With so many short domestic hops (MEL-SYD, SYD-BNE, MEL-BNE) plus a fair amount of trans cons still. Is there any airline that would work their 767s as hard as QF? They must be some of the highest cycle aircraft out there? With the 767 only featuring on the domestic scene plus SYD-HNL and SYD-NOU, 23 is a pretty impressive fleet wide body fleet number for domestic ops.

JAL and ANA both abuse their domestic 767s on routes as short as 172nm (HND-KMQ) and accumulate a huge amount of cycles over the 25 or so years they are kept. Many of the non-ER 767s that were delivered in the 1980's were only retired in the mid 2000's. They also fly 767s internationally as far away as YVR.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: Max Q
Posted 2012-10-11 22:52:57 and read 8547 times.

Quoting aviateur (Reply 90):

Indeed it is. The 767 is VERY light on the controls. You could fly the thing with two fingers. It's almost TOO light, and reminds me somewhat of the Dash-8 I used to fly. (We're talking about the 767-300. I never flew the -200, but I'm told it handled differently.)

I have not flown the -300. I have flown our 200's and 400's.


Our 200's are incredibly responsive as you say about the-300, combined with our having the most powerful available engines I consider it a delight to fly. I prefer it's very high level of response to the 757's sluggishness.


The -400 is a very nice handling Aircraft, a bit heavier in roll but still very responsive and a delightfully linear smooth response in pitch. For me it ties with the B727 as the nicest Aircraft I have flown.

Quoting aviateur (Reply 90):
Or maybe it's just me who's jittery.

I doubt that, you sound like you know exactly what you are talking about,


Happy landings !

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: smi0006
Posted 2012-10-12 01:27:25 and read 8481 times.

Quoting ha763 (Reply 96):
especially HA's wingletted ones. The flower motif on the 767 winglets make HA's the best looking winglets out there.

Hahah I think the winglets look the best on a 767 of all wingletted aircraft!! As for HA, tricky! lol I think NZ, LA and OS are top contenders too. An AC wingletted 767 would look awesome too!

Quoting ha763 (Reply 96):
JAL and ANA both abuse their domestic 767s on routes as short as 172nm (HND-KMQ) and accumulate a huge amount of cycles over the 25 or so years they are kept. Many of the non-ER 767s that were delivered in the 1980's were only retired in the mid 2000's. They also fly 767s internationally as far away as YVR.


Very interesting to note; I had over looked the Japanese carriers. They do seem to work their domestic fleets exceptionally hard indeed!

[Edited 2012-10-12 01:28:55]

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: aviateur
Posted 2012-10-12 18:41:38 and read 8246 times.

Quoting smi0006 (Reply 94):
Do US carriers us the 767 domestically that much?

AA uses them for its popular transcon NYC to LAX service. They fly 767-200s with THREE classes!

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: Bananaboy
Posted 2012-10-12 20:34:54 and read 8181 times.

Quoting smi0006 (Reply 94):
Is there any airline that would work their 767s as hard as QF?

Must be some high hours on some of the 767s owned by the European charter carriers. Thomson, MyTravel & Thomas Cook for example have worked theirs very hard over the years, as I understand it up to 20 hrs a day in the summer shuttling tourists to and from the Mediterranean resorts. Winter utilisation is probably lower I guess.

Mark

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: Someone83
Posted 2012-10-13 00:19:18 and read 8081 times.

And the next 767 of the line, a 300F to DHL, had its first flight yesterday

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: VC10er
Posted 2012-10-13 16:56:22 and read 7876 times.

If I was a multimillionaire I would choose my own 767-400. If Boeing can still make a 400.
The private Russian 767-3 I see in grey and white at EWR makes me drool.

Unless I could afford a 747-8.

But even still, I think I want a 767 more.

When clean and chrome shining in the sun--she is the most beautiful.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: Max Q
Posted 2012-10-13 20:04:35 and read 7775 times.

I'm sure my opinion is in the minority but of all the 757 and 767 models I think the 767-400 is by far the best looking.


The longer body with the taller gear and nose down attitude on the ground lends an agressive look to an already great looking Aircraft.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: VC10er
Posted 2012-10-13 20:24:18 and read 7754 times.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 103):

Not from me! I think the extra few meters of the 767-400 made her elegant in a way she wasn't before- and while I prefer the tall winglets, I also love the swept wingtip. Bummer there are only a couple dozen of them. Inside I love to look down the entire tube at how long she is. Amazing.

Can Boeing build more 767-400's on the 1% chance an airline wants one?
I know they were built just to replace Delta and Continental's aging L-1011's and DC-10's. But I wondered why FedEx didn't order them for similar reasons.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: mayor
Posted 2012-10-13 21:04:19 and read 7723 times.

Quoting fleabyte (Reply 23):
back in 79 or 80, I got to ride on a new UA 767 from Stapleton to Ohara...that was cool

I hate to be picky, but it's O'Hare, not O'Hara........named after Medal of Honor recipient Edward "Butch" O'Hare.


However, I remember when I worked cargo at ORD, that we had comat come in with preprinted labels that said "O'Hara".

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: VC10er
Posted 2012-10-14 06:02:13 and read 7547 times.

At any one time, which airline has operated the most 767's? Delta?

Today, who operates the largest fleet of 767's

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: travelhound
Posted 2012-10-14 07:06:28 and read 7501 times.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 103):
I'm sure my opinion is in the minority but of all the 757 and 767 models I think the 767-400 is by far the best looking.

In my opinion the most elegant looking 767 is the LOT 767-300ER. What a beautiful aircraft. The emergency landing with no landing gear was also one of the most elegant landings I have ever seen.

I enjoy flying 767's with QF. Far more space than the 737.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: B757forever
Posted 2012-10-14 07:20:19 and read 7493 times.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 106):
Today, who operates the largest fleet of 767's



That would be DL.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: Max Q
Posted 2012-10-14 13:03:13 and read 7361 times.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 107):
The emergency landing with no landing gear was also one of the most elegant landings I have ever seen.

It was, it was also one of the biggest mistakes and totally preventable !

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: carpethead
Posted 2012-10-16 00:39:33 and read 7011 times.

Quoting ha763 (Reply 96):
JAL and ANA both abuse their domestic 767s on routes as short as 172nm (HND-KMQ) and accumulate a huge amount of cycles over the 25 or so years they are kept

Abuse - not exactly how we put it. Those machines are meant to fly 6 segments maybe one or two more per day for greater part of the year for the last 25 years. It has only been recently the domestic 767s have been retired due to tardiness of the 788 deliveries.
They definitely earned their keep for NH & JL.
I have even flown KMQ-HND or HND-TOY which is nearly the same distance.
I think there are even more routes where the city pairs are about 150 nm where NH has flown currently or previously.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: Deltal1011man
Posted 2012-10-16 01:55:26 and read 6965 times.

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 1):
Quoting ggsm (Reply 28):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 32):

Its funny yall bring this up. It has been pretty darn cool to be able to get to at least walk on some of the earliest 767s and knowing that those LAN 67s coming to TOC for winglets could be some of the last. Tons of flights on the 67. She is right up there with the 27 and the 1011 for me.

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 11):
It and the 757 are just class acts in the aviation world. The 757 is just bad-ass...I can't see how anyone can NOT like that bird.

this is true. a empty 752 at full power....yeah buddy. Glad i have gotten to fly these birds and i hope Delta does its best to keep them around. Like the 737 but it isn't a 757 by any means.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 106):
At any one time, which airline has operated the most 767's? Delta?

Delta

Quoting VC10er (Reply 106):
Today, who operates the largest fleet of 767's

and Delta.  

[Edited 2012-10-16 02:45:52]

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: SCL767
Posted 2012-10-16 02:26:17 and read 6929 times.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 111):
Its funny yall bring this up. It has been pretty darn cool to be able to get to at least walk on some of the earliest 767s and knowing that those LAX 67s coming to TOC for winglets could be some of the last. Tons of flights on the 67. She is right up there with the 27 and the 1011 for me.

CC-BDI may be headed either to ATL or MEX for winglet installation this week. LAN will continue to receive new B-767-316ERs throughout 2013. It's interesting to note that LAN is simultaneously incorporating new B-767-316ERs and B-787-8s into the fleet.
CC-BDI at KPAE:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/moonm/8083149308/in/photostream/

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: A388
Posted 2012-10-16 10:19:12 and read 6729 times.

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 112):
It's interesting to note that LAN is simultaneously incorporating new B-767-316ERs and B-787-8s into the fleet.

I think you are aware of why that is:


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...e-767s-as-787s-are-delayed-352388/


A388

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: SCL767
Posted 2012-10-16 10:42:25 and read 6702 times.

Quoting A388 (Reply 113):

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 112):
It's interesting to note that LAN is simultaneously incorporating new B-767-316ERs and B-787-8s into the fleet.

I think you are aware of why that is:

LAN's fleet planners were thinking of the airlines' future growth plans; especially after acquiring Aires Colombia and TAM. LAN views the 787 as a "game changer" and plans to launch new routes with the 787s. LAN's potential to launch new routes has grown tremendously not only due to the rapid increase in air traffic in South America, but also due to LAN's merger with TAM. LAN's Boeing 787 Project Director Justin Siegel recently gave an interview to ATW (http://atwonline.com/issue/october-2012) where he stated, "Many airlines are buying the 787 as a replacement aircraft. We're using it for growth." He also stated that, "Eventually, the 787 will be more used for flights to Europe...because that's where you get the most benefits." LAN will have 12 B-787-8s in the fleet by the end of 2014.

LAN continues to receive new B-767-316ERs and plans to continue operating the B763s as more 787s arrive on property. LAN currently has a fleet of 34 B763s and LATAM Cargo affiliates operate 12 B763Fs.
Last year, LAN took delivery of 3 new B-767-316ERs:
CC-BDA
CC-BDB
CC-BDC
So far this year, LAN took delivery of 5 new B-767-316ERs:
CC-BDD
CC-BDE
CC-BDF
CC-BDG
CC-BDH
LAN plans to receive another 5 B-767-316ERs this year:
CC-BDI
CC-BDJ
CC-BDK
CC-BDL
CC-BDM
And will also receive four new B-767-316ERs next year.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: A388
Posted 2012-10-16 11:02:25 and read 6678 times.

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 114):
LAN's fleet planners were thinking of the airlines' future growth plans; especially after acquiring Aires Colombia and TAM. LAN views the 787 as a "game changer" and plans to launch new routes with the 787s. LAN's potential to launch new routes has grown tremendously not only due to the rapid increase in air traffic in South America, but also due to LAN's merger with TAM. LAN's Boeing 787 Project Director Justin Siegel recently gave an interview to ATW (http://atwonline.com/issue/october-2012) where he stated, "Many airlines are buying the 787 as a replacement aircraft. We're using it for growth." He also stated that, "Eventually, the 787 will be more used for flights to Europe...because that's where you get the most benefits." LAN will have 12 B-787-8s in the fleet by the end of 2014.

LAN continues to receive new B-767-316ERs and plans to continue operating the B763s as more 787s arrive on property. LAN currently has a fleet of 34 B763s and LATAM Cargo affiliates operate 12 B763Fs.
Last year, LAN took delivery of 3 new B-767-316ERs:

So they ordered brandnew 767's, an aircraft type that is already being phased out at the same time.

A388

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: SCL767
Posted 2012-10-16 11:16:42 and read 6655 times.

Quoting A388 (Reply 115):
So they ordered brandnew 767's, an aircraft type that is already being phased out at the same time.

LAN has flexibility with certain leases and can rapidly phase out certain B763s at any time. However, LAN will continue to operate its current and growing fleet of B763ERs until the airline deems it necessary. LAN has even delayed phasing out the A343s entirely from the fleet until 2015. Only one A343 will be phased out next year. Anyways, it's great to know that LAN will be flying brand new B-767-316ERs alongside brand new B-787-8s!

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: A388
Posted 2012-10-16 11:21:51 and read 6648 times.

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 116):
LAN has flexibility with certain leases and can rapidly phase out certain B763s at any time. However, LAN will continue to operate its current and growing fleet of B763ERs until the airline deems it necessary. LAN has even delayed phasing out the A343s entirely from the fleet until 2015. Only one A343 will be phased out next year. Anyways, it's great to know that LAN will be flying brand new B-767-316ERs alongside brand new B-787-8s!

LAN is only receiving brandnew 767's because of 787 delays. That's why they are receiving brandnew 767's alongside the 787, nothing more.

A388

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: SCL767
Posted 2012-10-16 11:37:26 and read 6633 times.

Quoting A388 (Reply 117):
LAN is only receiving brandnew 767's because of 787 delays. That's why they are receiving brandnew 767's alongside the 787, nothing more.

Incorrect; LAN is a growing carrier and uses the B-767-316ERs on a variety of routes. LAN deploys the B-767-316ERs on routes including short-haul, mid-haul and long-haul routes and does not plan to operate the 787s on many of its B763 operated routes for at least 12-14 years, (look at where LAN deploys certain B-767-316ERs). The B767 is a very versatile aircraft and LAN can deploy them on current and/or future routes in order to increase capacity. LAN's B-767-300ERs also has operating synergies with its fleet of B763Fs.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: A388
Posted 2012-10-16 12:03:26 and read 6583 times.

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 118):
Incorrect;

Read your own post from the past:


http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...eneral_aviation/read.main/5509310/

Your qoutes from reply 6 and especially the bold texts:

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 1):
Quoting An225 (Thread starter):
Why should an airline place orders for an older design when it has newer options

If they need capacity immediately, and if they can negotiate a competitive price.


Quite accurate; especially for a fast growing airline such as LAN which already operates a size-able fleet of B-767-300ERs and B-767-300ER/Fs.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 1):
My feeling is that no it didn't divert many orders, but it did create additional need for the 763 as a stopgap. NH was ordering 763s anyway because even with the 787 in service the 763 still performs well in the niche they want it for.


Similarly, the B-767-300ERs continue to perform very well for LAN on various routes where LAN deploys the B-763s and is a profitable airliner for LAN's operations. Also, it is part of LAN's fleet renewal program.

Quoting An225 (Thread starter):
1. Why should an airline place orders for an older design when it has newer options (e.g. 787, A330, 777)?


In the case of LAN, it's for the reasons I stated above. Also, LAN needed to acquire additional widebody passenger aircraft during 2011-2013 to offset the delays associated with Boeing 787 deliveries.
LAN may acquire more 767s as 787s are delayed




A388

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: SCL767
Posted 2012-10-16 12:13:32 and read 6566 times.

Quoting A388 (Reply 119):

And how many B-767-316ERs has LAN ordered and/or acquired during the past two years compared to how many B-787-8s LAN should have in its fleet by the end of 2013?

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: A388
Posted 2012-10-16 12:51:15 and read 6508 times.

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 120):
And how many B-767-316ERs has LAN ordered and/or acquired during the past two years compared to how many B-787-8s LAN should have in its fleet by the end of 2013?

You're the all-knowing LAN expert, entertain us.

A388

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: SCL767
Posted 2012-10-16 12:56:32 and read 6495 times.

LAN has officially taken delivery of its 35th B-767-300ER (CC-BDI).  
CC-BDI will fly from KPAE to MEX where it will be fitted with blended winglets:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/LAN9998

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: A388
Posted 2012-10-16 13:55:13 and read 6427 times.

So all the brandnew 767's LAN receives between 2011 and 2013 are to offset late 787 deliveries, including this one going to MEX for winglet fitting.

A388

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: SCL767
Posted 2012-10-16 14:10:34 and read 6406 times.

Quoting Someone83 (Reply 101):
And the next 767 of the line, a 300F to DHL, had its first flight yesterday

Is this CC-BDJ at the fuel dock:
http://paineairport.com/kpae5494.htm

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: PHX787
Posted 2012-10-16 15:46:32 and read 6322 times.

I love this thread! Its like the 787 thread about deliveries, except, 767   

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 122):
CC-BDI will fly from KPAE to MEX where it will be fitted with blended winglets:

How many 767ERs have been delivered to LAN?

Who else has outstanding 767 orders?

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: B757forever
Posted 2012-10-16 16:00:35 and read 6314 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 125):
Who else has outstanding 767 orders?


Not orders, but interestingly enough, DL still has options for 4 -300ERs and 8 -400ERs according to their 2012 10K.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: SCL767
Posted 2012-10-16 17:20:00 and read 6305 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 125):
How many 767ERs have been delivered to LAN?

LAN Chile received its first B-767-216ER CC-CJU on 29MAY1986 and has ordered over 50 B767ERs and B767F/ERs throughout its history. LAN has also operated and continues to operate some B767ERs that were originally ordered by other carriers in the past. In 2004 LAN Chile was rebranded as LAN Airlines S.A.

B-767-216ER CC-CJU:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andy Pope


B-767-316ER CC-BDF:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Francisco Muro


LAN Cargo B-767-316F/ER CC-CZZ:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tim Bowrey - Sydney Spotters

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2012-10-16 17:21:25 and read 6294 times.

Quoting zkojq (Reply 93):
Might want to check your registrations, Doc. HA's A330s are registered N38*HA. I assume you meant N380HA and N383HA.

Yes. I stand corrected.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: SCL767
Posted 2012-10-16 23:24:00 and read 6145 times.

Quoting A388 (Reply 123):
So all the brandnew 767's LAN receives between 2011 and 2013 are to offset late 787 deliveries, including this one going to MEX for winglet fitting.

Once again, LAN has aggressive growth plans and the 17+ new B-767-316ERs are part of LAN's strategy to be the dominant South American carrier operating more routes and frequencies from its hubs. LAN will receive its second B-787 in a few days and will receive its third B-787 in December. If you researched recent articles; you would have noticed that LAN actually deferred delivery of two B-787s that LAN could have received this year; but will take delivery of at a later date. The B-787 are initially deployed on regional routes such as SCL-EZE and SCL-LIM for crew training purposes and will be deployed on the SCL-LAX and SCL-LIM-LAX routes. However, by the end of Q1 2013, they will be deployed on long-haul routes to Europe such as the SCL-MAD-FRA route. Can the B-767-316ER operate the SCL-MAD-FRA route? LAN will use the additional B-787s that it will receive next year to launch new long-haul routes to Europe from its hubs at LIM and SCL. By the end of 2014, LAN will have a widebody fleet consisting of up to 55 a/c; which is quite impressive! The B-767-316ERs are being used to significantly boost flights between South America and North America, and also to increase capacity on regional routes. For example, the SCL-MIA route now operates 2x daily year-round and will receive additional frequencies starting in December, the SCL-PUJ-MIA, SCL-CUN-MIA and LIM-LAX routes recently increased in frequency. Routes such as SCL-IPC, SCL-LIM, SCL-MEX, LIM-JFK, LIM-MEX, LIM-MIA, etc. will increase in frequency as well. The GYE-JFK route is increasing from 7x weekly to 11x weekly and LAN plans to launch SCL-GIG-MIA early next year. The B-767-316ERs will also enable LAN to launch BOG-JFK, BOG-LAX and BOG-MAD early next year. As well as launching new routes from LIM and to increase capacity on the daily BOG-MIA and BOG-GRU routes. LAN will eventually deploy B763s on routes such as LIM-BOG and LIM-UIO, thus increasing capacity on even more regional routes. Also, I'm not sure if you are aware that the new UIO airport will open next year and routes such as UIO-JFK and UIO-MAD are being considered by LAN Ecuador. Thus, LAN's decision to place three additional orders for new B-767-316ERs during the past two years was a wise decision!

[Edited 2012-10-16 23:43:08]

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: A388
Posted 2012-10-17 05:07:39 and read 6025 times.

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 129):
LAN has aggressive growth plans

Agressive growth plans by deferring 787 deliveries?

A388

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: CamiloA380
Posted 2012-10-17 05:32:51 and read 6001 times.

Quoting A388 (Reply 130):
Agressive growth plans by deferring 787 deliveries?

Yeah, they will get A388s by 2017 so that they can operate SCL-MAD 21x weekly MAD-FRA 14 weekly, for example SCL-EZE will be 30x weekly, SCL-LIM 7x daily, and LIM-LAX will be going 10x daily, all with the A388.......I guess you fell asleep by now. 

I love the 767 and will never forget the experiences I've been through with it.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: SCL767
Posted 2012-10-17 05:36:08 and read 5992 times.

Quoting A388 (Reply 130):
Agressive growth plans by deferring 787 deliveries?

That is correct. I already explained it to you in post #129. LAN is using the B-787-8s initially on short-haul routes; then on the SCL-LAX and SCL-LIM-LAX routes. Then the B-787-8s will be deployed on routes to Europe and the A343s will be deployed only on the SCL-LIM-LAX and SCL-AKL-SYD routes. LAN has stated that the B-787 will be a "game changer" for LATAM and will be deployed mostly on long-haul routes to Europe because that's where LATAM will "get the most benefits" from operating the a/c. Within two years, LAN will have over 12 B-787-8s in the fleet and plans to launch new routes to Europe starting next year. Remember, LATAM has primary hubs at GIG, GRU, LIM, and SCL and the 787s will enable LATAM to open new and exciting long-haul routes; (LAN also has options for ten additional 787s that could be delivered between 2016 and 2018, alongside LAN's original order for 32 B-787s).

[Edited 2012-10-17 05:38:41]

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: SCL767
Posted 2012-10-17 07:08:09 and read 5905 times.

Quoting CamiloA380 (Reply 131):

Quoting A388 (Reply 130):
Agressive growth plans by deferring 787 deliveries?

Yeah, they will get A388s by 2017 so that they can operate SCL-MAD 21x weekly MAD-FRA 14 weekly, for example SCL-EZE will be 30x weekly, SCL-LIM 7x daily, and LIM-LAX will be going 10x daily, all with the A388.......I guess you fell asleep by now.

Both SCL and LIM will have new non-stop routes to Europe with the 787s. Also, remember that LAN will launch new long-haul routes via the GRU and GIG hubs with the 787s.

Quoting CamiloA380 (Reply 131):
I love the 767 and will never forget the experiences I've been through with it.

LAN Colombia and LAN Perú will launch new routes to the U.S. with the B-767-316ERs in the near-term. LAN will increase B763 operated flights on the SCL-MVD and SCL-BOG routes. The SCL-CUN-MIA will further increase in frequency utilizing the B763s. Eventually, LAN will increase B763 operated flights on the SCL-LIM and SCL-GRU routes replacing current flights operated with A319/A320s in order to increase capacity on those routes. Unfortunately, LAN cannot increase capacity on the EZE-GRU route; but LAN may code-share with its future oneworld partner Qatar Airways on the EZE-GRU-DOH route.

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: A388
Posted 2012-10-17 11:53:48 and read 5702 times.

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 132):
That is correct.

If LAN wants to grow agressively then why are they deferring 787 deliveries? What are we missing here?

A388

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: SCL767
Posted 2012-10-17 12:22:43 and read 5673 times.

So far this year, LAN Airlines has taken delivery of 6 new B-767-316ERs. CC-BDD was delivered to LAN featuring the new Premium Business Class, the new Economy Class; along with the new IFE system that LAN recently introduced on its B-787 Dreamliner. All B-767-316ERs delivered after CC-BDD also feature the new cabins. CC-BDD got the red carpet treatment at KPAE:
CC-BDD:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38619847@N05/7378075632/in/photostream
http://paineairport.com/kpae5125.htm
CC-BDE:
http://paineairport.com/kpae5137.htm
CC-BDF:
http://paineairport.com/kpae5255.htm
CC-BDG delivery flight:
http://youtu.be/Ku8aKpdXQZM
CC-BDH:
http://paineairport.com/kpae5394.htm
CC-BDI delivery flight yesterday:
http://youtu.be/DryNYkE3rGU

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: A388
Posted 2012-10-17 12:41:34 and read 5623 times.

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 135):
So far this year, LAN Airlines has taken delivery of 6 new B-767-316ERs.

Yes, I can see that but why are 787 deferred? Don't they have enough crew for training on the 787? Are there payment issues? I don't understand why their jewel, the 787, is being delayed while the older model, the 767, is delivered brandnew(?) What's the logic behind this?

A388

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: SCL767
Posted 2012-10-17 12:56:34 and read 5596 times.

Quoting A388 (Reply 134):

A388, this thread is about the B767s. There are several other threads pertaining to LAN's 787s.

Here's a great shot of CC-BDI at KPDX after being painted:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cjlebel/8073234991/

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: huxrules
Posted 2012-10-17 15:19:24 and read 5546 times.

To me 767s are kinda forgetable. It's not a racecar like it's sibling the 757, or a monster like it's half brother the 777. I've flown on a bunch of them and they are always my favorite plane when I'm headed home! Also- has anyone ever heard the loud "Clank Clunk" when the slats retract on DL 767s? Scares the crud out of me everytime!

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: SCL767
Posted 2012-10-17 16:34:06 and read 5487 times.

Quoting A388 (Reply 136):
Are there payment issues? I don't understand why their jewel, the 787, is being delayed while the older model, the 767, is delivered brandnew(?) What's the logic behind this?

Nothing is being delayed, period! Payment issues? What a farce! LATAM is taking delivery of 18 widebody a/c from Boeing this year! LAN's new B-767-316ERs will allow LAN to rapidly increase frequencies on various routes as previously mentioned. They will enable LAN to increase capacity on certain routes, i.e. LIM-BOG, BOG-GRU, BOG-MIA, etc. and will be used to launch new routes to the U.S., etc. LAN also deploys the B-767-316ERs on certain routes due to cargo demand; which complements its fleet of B763Fs. Not to mention that the new B-767-316ERs will significantly lower LAN's maintenance costs! LAN recently ordered 10 sets of blended winglets for the additional B-767-316ERs joining the fleet: LAN Airlines Orders 10 Additional 767-300ER/F Blended Winglet Systems

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: A388
Posted 2012-10-18 06:06:13 and read 5318 times.

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 139):
Nothing is being delayed, period!

Those 787's have been deferred by LAN, that is known already. Fact is that it is strange that brandnew 767's are being taken while the 787 is not taken as originally planned.

A388

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: BoeEngr
Posted 2012-10-19 17:05:44 and read 5007 times.

Love the 767. My first ever flight was on a '67. BA from Seattle to London. Loved every minute of it, as well as the 747-200 on the ride back.

Also loved many Hawaii trips on it via HA, and a few trips (one recent) from Atlanta to Seattle on Delta.

Can't wait to see the first 767-2C roll out of the Everett factory!

Topic: RE: The 767 Thread
Username: CamiloA380
Posted 2012-10-20 01:34:56 and read 4881 times.

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 133):
AN Colombia and LAN Perú will launch new routes to the U.S. with the B-767-316ERs in the near-term. LAN will increase B763 operated flights on the SCL-MVD and SCL-BOG routes.

I live in Sweden, plenty of chances to take a 767 here in Europe. Thanks though.

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 137):
A388, this thread is about the B767s.

Then why do you keep advertising LAN here?


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/