Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Isn't The 762ER More Widely Used?  
User currently offlineAvion346 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 184 posts, RR: 1
Posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5154 times:

With such a great range and small-ish capacity, appears to be the perfect plane for some lower density intercontinental routes. Seems like a lot of really neat smaller markets could have been opened up in the past. Why hasn't this aircraft been as widely used as others? Is it a question of profitability? You get the capacity of a 752 in a widebody configuration, plus almost twice the range. Thoughts?

32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5123 times:

762ER doesnt have anywhere near "twice" the range of a 752.

Airlines have found that it's typically more cost efficient to fly the 763ER (and later, the A332) due to the smaller per-seat cost, only marginally higher aggregate trip cost, and the fact that most hubs and/or high-yielding international gateways can easily fill 200-250 seats.



[Edited 2003-11-10 20:41:15]

User currently offlineAvion346 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 184 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5061 times:

762ER: 6,600 nm range
752: 3,900 nm range


User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7760 posts, RR: 16
Reply 3, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5022 times:

The one market where the 767-200 continues to dominate is on the premium transcontinental market in the US, with United and American continuing to run a 3-class product with high frequency.

Continental is probably the only airline now to be operating 767-200ERs on intercontinental flights. However they have a decidedly different strategy than the other majors. They are far more aggressive in opening and developing transatlantic markets. By having a mix of 757s, 767-200s, 767-400s, and 777s, they are able to open service to smaller 1st tier and 2nd tier destinations and grow or shrink seat and cargo capacity as demand fluctuates and markets mature.

Now if you are a United, American, or Delta and only serve larger 1st tier markets the, a mix of 767-300s and 777s makes lots of sense given the lower operating costs per seat-mile vis a vis the 762.



Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlineAvion346 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 184 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5012 times:

In addition, why would Continental fly 752's across the Atlantic when they could fly widebody 762ER's with about the same capacity. I think its 170 in two classes for the 752 and 181 in three classes for the 762ER.

User currently offlineOD720 From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1924 posts, RR: 33
Reply 5, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4957 times:

Malev uses the 762ER to fly to the US. I agree with Avion346 and have brought it up this here in the forums before. The 762 and A310 are great for small airlines that need a small capacity long range services, such as airlines in East Europe and the CIS.
I meant to ask this before, is the economics of these smaller airliners different from the larger jets? I mean, is it not economical to use small planes on such long routes?

Also, KrasAir of Russia is considering the 762 too.


User currently offlineSjc>sfo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4913 times:

Avion346,

You have to remember that continental doesn't offer 3-class service. Even so your numbers might not be far off, but I'm pretty sure the operating costs of a 752 are going to be cheaper than a 762 on, say, EWR-DUB.


User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6761 posts, RR: 76
Reply 7, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4879 times:

I remember when SAS briefly flew the 762ER SIN-BKK-CPH... quickly replaced by the 763... The 762ERs are very nice to fly on... none of that claustrophobic tube effect... But, for very incremental costs, you can get more loads on the 763ER... Might aswell reduce the load of the 763ER on some flights than get 762ERs... you can fill the seats when the range is not required.

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4858 times:

why would Continental fly 752's across the Atlantic when they could fly widebody 762ER's with about the same capacity.

Their int'l 752 has lower trip costs, doesnt need much cargo to turn a profit, and is catered toward low-premium/high-leisure markets.

Their 762ERs have higher trip costs, which is negated by their ability to carry significantly more premium pax (total, & relative to steerage) and cargo.


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16245 posts, RR: 56
Reply 9, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4722 times:

The 762 was effectively replaced by the 763. The overwhelming majority of 762's were built in the 80's. Once the 763 entered service, it became the standard 767.




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineCospn From Northern Mariana Islands, joined Oct 2001, 1605 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4597 times:

We asked why it could not fly GUM-LAX Nonstop and they told us there we no crew rest areas for long haul flights.. Sad

User currently offlineLymanm From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1138 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4483 times:

While not scheduled at the moment, Air Canada will still sub a 762ER over the Atlantic on secondary routes (YYZ-MAN, YYZ-ZRH, etc) occasionally. It was used extensively across the Atlantic in the mid-late 90s, back when they were profitable. Coincidence?

Hmmm....ok, so it's a spurious connection!



buhh bye
User currently offlineContinentalEWR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3762 posts, RR: 13
Reply 12, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 4340 times:

The 767-200 production line was reopened in 1998 when Continental ordered 10 airframes to complete its longhaul fleet (widebody) renewal program, with B777, B767-400, and B767-200 replacing the 747-100/200 and DC10-30 fleet. Continental's 767-200's have 777 style interiors and new avionics.

ContinentalEWR


User currently offline9V-SPF From Germany, joined Sep 2001, 1375 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4230 times:

Continental is probably the only airline now to be operating 767-200ERs on intercontinental flights.

US Airways and Malev (as OD720 stated above) use them across the atlantic, too.

I agree with those who stated that there are just a few airlines who would need the range of the 762ER. On all other routes, the 767-300 and the A330 have proved to be very reliable and efficient aircraft even if they aren´t filled up all the time.

Daniel


User currently offlineAA777MIA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 686 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4173 times:

What airline has the most 767-200ER's....??

User currently offline9V-SPF From Germany, joined Sep 2001, 1375 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4133 times:

What airline has the most 767-200ER's....??

My guess would be US Airways. They currently have 11 in service, as far as I know.



User currently offlineKingsford From Belgium, joined Nov 2003, 427 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4057 times:

I flew QF flights SIN-ADL and BNE-SIN back in the late 80's : Long Haul yet low density flights. They were brand new planes back then. Those flights were fed by the Western Europe-Singapore QF flights and I remember the transit times in Changi were very convenient even though we were changing planes.

I think the 762 is the most beautiful of the 767 range.


User currently offlineJuanr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3862 times:

I think that right now Avianca is using a 767-200ER in its daily BOG-MAD-BOG flight

User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3827 times:

What airline has the most 767-200ER's....??

AA was the largest customer (17 ordered) and continues own the largest fleet (20), but not sure how many of those are still in service.








[Edited 2003-11-11 19:41:59]

User currently offlineOD720 From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1924 posts, RR: 33
Reply 19, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3793 times:

I think AA has some of its 762s stored at the moment. Also, some of the ERs were upgraded from the standard 762s

CO's order of 10 762ERs a few years ago probably puts them in the lead.


User currently offlineIahcsr From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 3400 posts, RR: 42
Reply 20, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3708 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

For the record, CO's BisFirst Configured 757's are 16/156=172, 762's 25/149=174.


Working very hard to Fly Right....
User currently offlineAvion346 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 184 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (10 years 8 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3560 times:

I would think that since the seating capacities are very similar, it would be a question of operating cost. Thanks for all the info.

User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (10 years 8 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3523 times:

The aggregate costs are obviously much lower for the 757.. as it's lighter and uses less fuel.

The per-seat costs are rather difficult to compare since CO uses them on vastly different missions: the former- medium capacity, low yield, low cargo; the latter - medium capacity, high yield, higher cargo.



User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 23, posted (10 years 8 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3512 times:

Its all about margin........it costs very little extra to purchase/lease/operate a 763 over the 762, and the extra capacity of the 763 is made available to the airlines. While its true that the 762er does have a bit more range than the 763er, 767s are rarely used for very long haul routes (especially since the 777 and long-haul Airbus airliners have become available) where range becomes a major issue.

That being said, I do think that the 767-200er is a very good airplane for thin long-haul routes.......a very reasonable number of passengers, enough space for a full service international standard business class cabin and adequate cargo capacity all add up to a versatile aircraft; I fly very often between BRU and EWR on CO (both in businessfirst and economy) and found the 762, with its updated interior, a superior aircraft as far as comfort and CO's employees seem to be very taken with the -200s as well. (I prefer it to the 764 now flying that route.) (As mentioned above, CO has a different strategy with its fleet, and wanted the 762s to operate routes that could not support the 764/777 but still offer wide-body service and cargo capacity). If Boeing would add a bit more range, and make some other updates to the 762, they could have an ideal aircraft for airlines to use on unserved, thin long-haul routes through out the world.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (10 years 8 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3465 times:

If Boeing would add a bit more range, and make some other updates to the 762, they could have an ideal aircraft for airlines to use on unserved, thin long-haul routes through out the world.

..or, they could launch the 7E7 and let it do that job (supposedly) a heck of a lot more efficiently  Big grin


25 Sydscott : I agree with ConcordeBoy, it would be nice to have a 7E7 variant to directly replace the 767-200 so the airlines could choose a widebody aircraft.
26 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : so the airlines could choose a widebody aircraft huh?
27 Sydscott : So the airlines can replace their 767-200's with a widebody like the proposed 7E7 or a more advanced 767-300ER rather than a 757 or the like.
28 ConcordeBoy : considering that the 757 is scheduled to end production (the same cannot be said for the 767)... the likelihood of anyone replacing 762ER with 757, on
29 Haveric : US has ordered the A332 to replace their 762s.... They are scheduled for deliver in 2005 and 2006, I think...
30 Sydscott : QF has ordered A330's to replace 767's as well. The point of my previous posts was to point out that I hope airlines replace their 767-200's with oth
31 AM744 : Aeromexico uses them on the daily MEX-CDG MEX-MAD runs. As strange as it may seem.
32 AWspicious : Air Canada's website shows 15 B762s in the fleet, of which 8 are ERs. I think I recall counting 10 ERs at one time. AC sometimes use (used?) 762s on t
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Isn't The Fuel Supplement Included In Prices? posted Mon Jan 9 2006 23:06:48 by Demoose
Why Doesn't The 'SP' Moniker Get Used Anymore posted Tue Dec 20 2005 11:44:06 by RB211-524H
Why Isn't The 737 Popular In Middle East? posted Sun Nov 27 2005 19:38:57 by ConcordeLoss
Why Is The Dash8 More Popular In The Caribbean posted Wed Aug 17 2005 20:41:36 by 8B775ZQ
Why Isn't The A380 Popular With Charter Operators? posted Sat Jun 19 2004 00:42:06 by GoMEA
Why Isn't PIE Used More? posted Thu Mar 25 2004 00:54:14 by MainRunway
Why Isn't ONT Used More? posted Thu Dec 11 2003 19:20:08 by PropJock04
WestJet Tail Numbers - Why Is The #4 Never Used? posted Thu Jun 1 2006 15:52:28 by YOW
Why Didn't DL Order More T7's In The Good Old Days posted Tue Mar 28 2006 10:27:20 by Gokmengs
Why Isn't CDG The Busiest Airport In The World? posted Wed Jul 27 2005 16:57:41 by Juventus