Avion346 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 184 posts, RR: 1 Posted (12 years 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5502 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?
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5471 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.
DesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7876 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (12 years 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5370 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
Avion346 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 184 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (12 years 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5360 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.
OD720 From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1928 posts, RR: 30
Reply 5, posted (12 years 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5305 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.
Sjc>sfo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (12 years 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5261 times:
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.
Mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 7408 posts, RR: 78
Reply 7, posted (12 years 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5227 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.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
Lymanm From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1140 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (12 years 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4831 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?
ContinentalEWR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3762 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (12 years 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4688 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.
9V-SPF From Germany, joined Sep 2001, 1375 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (12 years 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4578 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.
Kingsford From Belgium, joined Nov 2003, 427 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (12 years 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4405 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.
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (12 years 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3871 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.
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 23, posted (12 years 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3860 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.