Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
767's LatAm To Europe: Range Issues  
User currently offlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7584 posts, RR: 43
Posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4525 times:

First of all, I want to say that my knowledge of the technical aspects of airplanes is very limited, so please be gentle with your answers. My doubt has to do with the fact that some Latin American carriers use 767's to Europe and, specifically, with whether a 767-300ER can complete, non-stop, certain routes without running out of fuel.

Facts:

After doing a little research, I found that, currently, the routes between Latin America and Europe served with 767's are the following. I am also including the distance between each city pair quoted in the Great Circle Mapper website (I acknowledge the distance may not be 100% accurate):

AM MEx-CDG 5725 mi. 767-200ER*
AM MEx-MAD 5643 mi. 767-200ER*
PU GIG-MAD 5047 mi. 767-300ER
AV BOG-MAD 4992 mi. 767-300ER
I may have missed other routes but these are the only ones that I found.

*AM has on very few occasions used the 767-300ER in these routes and, in accordance with many a.net threads, AM uses the 767-200ER to Europe basically because of range issues.

Additionally, LB's website mentions a non-stop flight to MAD (I believe it is not a regularly scheduled flight, though) and I assume that they are planning to use their 767-300ER for that route. The website does not indicate if VVI is the departure city, but I assume that is the case and, according to the Great Circle Mapper, the distance between VVI and MAD is 5531 mi.

Finally, in accordance with a.net, the 767-300ER has a range of 5505 mi. when equipped with CF6 engines and of 5875 mi. when equipped with P&W engines. The 767-200ER has evidently a bigger range.

Questions:

The reason why AM does not operate its 767-300ER to Europe is that MEx is a high above the sea level and this results in extra fuel being burnt, which circumstance can seriously compromise the completion of the flight (especially if the load factor is high). Is this correct? I am assuming AM's 767-300ER is equipped with Pratt & Whitneys.

If the Great Circle Mapper's distances are accurate, PU and AV do not have a problem with getting from GIG and BOG, respectively, to MAD or viceversa using a 767-300ER because the distance in both cases is safely within the stated range (with any of the two available types of engines) and, in the case of PU, because GIG is hot but not high (0 meters above sea level). Correct?

Isn't it a risky business that LB is considering (or has started) flying to MAD from VVI (or elsewhere in Bolivia) using its 767-300ER (I take for granted that it is equipped with the P&W's)? I tend to think it is risky since the whole territory of Bolivia is high above the sea level (which is why, theoretically, AM does not fly its 767-300ER to Europe from MEx). What do you make of it? Could it happen that LB's 767-300ER run out of fuel before arriving to its destination?

Finally, MX just received an ex-SK 767-300ER which it is flying to EZE (only 4548 mi. so no range problems there). According to a.net members, MX will receive more 767-300ER's in the coming months and they will be used for new routes to European destinations. The routes that MX may start most commonly mentioned here are MEx-LHR (5541 mi.) and MEx-FRA (5944 mi). If this indeed happens, how on Earth is MX going to be able to complete these flights (especially the flight to FRA) when the distance of MEx-FRA is clearly beyond the stated range of the 767-300ER and when successfully completing MEx-LHR non-stop can be seriously impaired by the fact that MEx is high above the sea level? I am missing something? Are these potential flights going to stop at some place for refueling? Is it really more 767-300's that MX will be receiving, or is it actually 767-200ER's or other types of aircraft?

Thanks a lot for your help. I hope I was clear and not too confusing (or annoying) with all my questions.

[Edited 2004-03-11 03:08:54]


Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRockyRacoon From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 974 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4478 times:

I believe AM has 767-200ER, range is around 6050 nm.

Check out the Aircraft Data section of this site, lots of good info: http://www.airliners.net/info/

peace

[Edited 2004-03-11 03:06:05]

User currently offlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7584 posts, RR: 43
Reply 2, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4455 times:

Okay, an oversight. All my references to 767-200's and 767-300's in the very first post are indeed references to ER versions, obviously. Sorry if by forgetting to include that I sounded stupid.


Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
User currently offlineMarcopolo747 From Brazil, joined Mar 2001, 460 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4447 times:

Amigo Eddie,

Just before entering in a codeshare agreement with RG and stop flying its own planes on the route, SK had a daily nonstop GRU-CPH flight which was among the longest nonstop routes to Europe using a 763 ER. I don't think range is a big issue for the 767 at least for crossing the south Atlantic because so many alternate airports are available and the oversea flight is just 1871 miles on its narrowest point (Natal-Dakar). Other long routes operated by 767s in this sector were : GRU-LHR and GRU-VIE (TransBrasil)and GIG-FRA (Varig).


User currently offlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7584 posts, RR: 43
Reply 4, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4415 times:

Hey MarcoPolo, how are you? Thanks for the info, although now I am more confused because, as I mentioned, the a.net database of aircraft's technical details states that the maximum range of the 763ER is 5,875 miles and GRU-CPH's distance is very likely more than 6,000 miles (GRU-FRA is, according to the Great Circle Mapper, 6,073 miles). Are you sure those flights you are mentioning were not operated with 762ER's?


Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
User currently offlineMarcopolo747 From Brazil, joined Mar 2001, 460 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4366 times:

Amigo Eddie,

Thanks, how are you ? Both airlines published their flights as 767 not specifying which type, I have flown to CPH with SK and I am almost sure it was a 763 ER, RG operated both types , the 762 and 763 in the ER version.

Sorry if I didn't bring much light to this.

Best


User currently offlineLan_Fanatic From Chile, joined Sep 2001, 1071 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4306 times:

I don't know very much about technical stuff, but I remember some years ago, when Pinochet was released from his arrest in London, Mr.Sebastian Piñera, one of the major shareholders of LanChile offered a 767-300ER of this company to pick him up in London and bringing him back to Chile non-stop.

Can a 763ER fly non-stop from London to Santiago?


User currently offlineSoAmSky From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 310 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4294 times:

"AV BOG-MAD 4992 mi. 767-300ER"

I think AV uses its 767-200 for the BOG-MAD run. The 767-300 is mostly used for flights within America, such as BOG-EZE and BOG-NYC. Reason being, BOG high altitude.



Soar the blue of the South American Sky
User currently offlineFly727 From Mexico, joined Jul 2003, 1789 posts, RR: 19
Reply 8, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4285 times:

Dude:

To begin with; your questions are very interesting and have all a technical, if not logic answer.

The airport elevation is a major factor to consider when calculating an aircraft performance. Generally, the higher the airport is the lesser the thrust output will be due to air density. This is also true when analyzing the effect of temperature over performance. The hotter it gets the poorer the performance will be.

The first argument that might answer some of your questions is that the distance calculations of your source are in Statute Miles instead of Nautical Miles -used in aviation-. Thus the 5,643 Statute Miles of the MEx-MAD equals to roughly 4,900 Nautical Miles.

The reason why AM does not operate its 767-300ER to Europe is that MEx is a high above the sea level and this results in extra fuel being burnt

It is not something directly related to fuel endurance. Remember that the performance out of high & hot airports is greatly affected -reduced- and as a consequence the aircraft must be either MORE POWERFUL or LIGHTER in order to be able to achieve the performance specs of a safe operation. Can we make it more powerful? Well, maybe if we install JATO units, but this is not the case. We MUST make it lighter. How do we do that? Well... less fuel load, which will directly affect range. This is why AM uses the 762 instead of the 763 most of the times on its Europe flights. They both can provide relatively the same output of energy from its engines with the difference that the 763 carries much more weight than its shorter brother.

Just to make it crystal clear as I see you have confused the relation between altitude and fuel to burn; the higher you depart from, the lesser the altitude you will have to climb to reach your flight level (duh!) and thus the amount of fuel needed for that stage of the flight will be generally less (penalized of course by the slight extra fuel applied in order to get out of the demanding high-elevation airport).

which circumstance can seriously compromise the completion of the flight (especially if the load factor is high). Is this correct? I am assuming AM's 767-300ER is equipped with Pratt & Whitneys.

The completion of the flight is not compromised unless some serious, strong and unexpected weather condition develops. Before the plane even leave the ground hundreds of calculations are done by the dispatchers, weather men and pilots to prevent those situations to occur. When the amount of fuel is limited a "redispatch" is done in the air, that is, another set of calculations that will lead to a decision to continue or divert to any of the pre-planned alternates.

If the Great Circle Mapper's distances are accurate, PU and AV do not have a problem with getting from GIG and BOG, respectively, to MAD or viceversa using a 767-300ER because the distance in both cases is safely within the stated range (with any of the two available types of engines) and, in the case of PU, because GIG is hot but not high (0 meters above sea level). Correct?

Yes, these scenarios do not represent a problem because it is well within the range of the aircraft (more now that we've seen the distances shown are in Statute rather than Nautical). Also, we should consider that not all the aircraft have equal specs. ER's might not be all the same (I ignore the particular specs), but trust me that every airplane has its own corrected performance tables.

Finally, MX just received an ex-SK 767-300ER which it is flying to EZE (only 4548 mi. so no range problems there). According to a.net members, MX will receive more 767-300ER's in the coming months and they will be used for new routes to European destinations. The routes that MX may start most commonly mentioned here are MEx-LHR (5541 mi.) and MEx-FRA (5944 mi). If this indeed happens, how on Earth is MX going to be able to complete these flights (especially the flight to FRA) when the distance of MEx-FRA is clearly beyond the stated range of the 767-300ER and when successfully completing MEx-LHR non-stop can be seriously impaired by the fact that MEx is high above the sea level? I am missing something? Are these potential flights going to stop at some place for refueling? Is it really more 767-300's that MX will be receiving, or is it actually 767-200ER's or other types of aircraft?

Nautical vs Statute fact. Redispatch can happen. Particular specs of the aircraft to be considered. Limiting the passenger/cargo load in favor of fuel. Also, consider this; what is the current configuration of MX 763s? Yeap, a lot of Business seats (40). Do not expect the airplane to do that in an all-coach arrangement.

Hope it helps, it took me quiet some time to write this (I'm having dinner, watching TV and downloading stuff) so, I'm sorry if in the mean time someone came with an answer to your questions.

RM  Smile



There are no stupid questions... just stupid people!
User currently onlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32811 posts, RR: 71
Reply 9, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4266 times:

LAB already flies between Santa Cruz and Madrid. To Madrid is non-stop, but the return flight stops in Brazil, I believe Fortaleza.


a.
User currently offlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7584 posts, RR: 43
Reply 10, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4209 times:

Wow, very interesting stuff. I really appreciate all this information. I guess the biggest lesson I got from this is the confirmation of how little I know of the technicalities of aviation. Thanks to everybody and, mainly Tassio and Fly727 (especially Fly727) for your time. So maybe the bottom line is that a 763ER can make the hop from most Latin American cities to Western European airports subject to (i) particular engine specifications, (ii) the specific cabin layout of the plane in question (no. of First, Biz and Econ. seats) and the average load factors, and (iii) temperature and altitude of the airports.

MAH4546 mentions that LB's 763ER to MAD only makes a stop on its way back. Under a combination of factors (full flight, extremely hot weather, maybe certain wind patterns, etc.), could it happen that the outbound leg (the VVI-MAD non-stop leg) may need to be diverted for refueling like Fly727 mentioned?

Finally I have a new round of questions (please moderators, don't close the thread saying this is off-topic). If AM is being pressured by SkyTeam to upgrade its aircraft used to MAD and CDG, this most likely will result in AM getting 772's sooner or later, NOT more 763ER's, right? My assumption is that AM has good load factors to MAD and CDG and, for the reasons outlined by Fly727, getting more 763ER's is not the way to go for AM. Second, we can then expect MX's new 763ER's to be configured with a relatively large number of business seats and a relatively low number of coach seats (like the "Buenos Aires" 763ER) so that flying them across the Atlantic to any new destinations they may start will not be a problem, correct?



Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
User currently offlineAM772 From Mexico, joined Mar 2004, 135 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4164 times:

AM, uses 767-200, with a config of 180-181 pas in MEX-CDG, MEX-MAD, MEX-GRU routes and the lone 767-300, in the route MEX-SCL and sometimes MEX-MAD, theres a rumor AM, will make in april an order for 3 772, and start new routes,,, good luck AM!!

User currently offlineLVZXV From Gabon, joined Mar 2004, 2041 posts, RR: 37
Reply 12, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4155 times:

I have a vague memory of seeing LAN Chile 767-300ERs in Madrid prior to the arrival of the A340-300X. I doubt I'm wrong because LAN always flew to Europe, and had nothing with greater range than the 763. Did they fly SCL-MAD direct or did they stop in EZE?

I know Southern Winds flies almost daily from EZE-MAD with a 763 and so does Air Europa, with whom it occasionally codeshares. Spanair also used to fly 763s on the route, which must be one of the greatest stretches of the 767's range.

Air Canada also does YYZ-SCL and YYZ-EZE with the 763. On the North/South axis, I forget how far that is, but I believe AA and UA don't send their 767s to EZE from further afield than MIA, IAD or DFW. JFK is usually a 777 service, I think.

In short, I have no idea how much range the 763 has to spare on these routes, but they are obviously certified!



How do you say "12 months" in Estonian?
User currently offlineJoseMEX From Mexico, joined Oct 1999, 1539 posts, RR: 24
Reply 13, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4147 times:

LVZXV,

LAN Chile's 767 service to Madrid was not nonstop, I'm sure, as the first MAD-SCL nonstops were flown by IB with their 340's. I can't remember if they stopped at EZE or maybe Brazil, though.


User currently offlineLVZXV From Gabon, joined Mar 2004, 2041 posts, RR: 37
Reply 14, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4140 times:

You have to remember what the 767 was really replacing in the case of most South American carriers, before measuring the aircraft's performance: the 707. The 767 carries a good 100 passengers more, can in most cases hop the 'pond' non-stop, is a great deal more comfortable and more efficient, has more range, and is a great deal cheaper than the A340/B747/B777. The 4 vs. 2 engine argument doesn't really enter the equation given most South American airlines' budgets. The 767 is just fine. And, in the case of Avianca, LAB, LAN Chile, and PLUNA, it improved and modernised the airlines' image (all were flying 707s into the '90s!)

Avoiding an A. vs. B. discussion, I am surprised that TAM is South America's only customer for the A330, and neither the A300 nor the A310 caught on either... Also, note the only 2 A310s in the continent (LAB's CP-2232 & AR's LV-AIV) do NOT fly transatlantic services, despite their impressive range.



How do you say "12 months" in Estonian?
User currently offlineGhost77 From Mexico, joined Mar 2000, 5222 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4117 times:

Eddiedude,

Afaik AM was getting 2 more B763's and 1 more B762 this year. That was the only plans they had for their long haul fleet.

More over and I would say sadly... was told that N703AM is about to be returned to ILFC (current status / its stand at MEx, AM logos and titles have been removed) N801AM is the next one to leave the fleet. So 2 757 less out of the current 7 that will make 5 757s only! Meanwhile DL flies 4 757 to MEx! And 767s to CUN, AA flies 2 daily A300s from MIA to MEx and 767s all day long arriving at CUN... bla bla bla bla and more of what we all know. Also fly727 told me that soon some MD80s will leave AM fleet since lessor contracts are about to end. AM's fleet is dramaticlly decreasing. Perphaps, this has to be with the 14/15 average daily hours 737s are flying compared to the 8 hours Dc9s were flying. Maybe it has to do something with this! Same goes with MX... A319s are flying more hours average than what the 727s used to fly 1 one day for the airline.

About the T7s in AM, I knew that AM priority was to received the 15 B737W ordered and then they were due to start talks with either Boeing or AF for the lease of 3 aircraft. AM772 just show today saying AM will order 3 777s, dunno his sources but hope its true! AM as long as the other mexican carriers really need widebodies!!! Its frustrating to see MEx and CUN being dominated by a bunch of foreign carriers with widebodies.

More over on April 2nd LAN's network will enter the Mexican market.... Lan Peru.... will start a 4x service Lima-Mexico City. Meanwhile AM flies a daily 757 and no PTV's that I'm sure will be offered on Lan Peru's 767.

AM should upgrade this route with 767 and they need to install IFE on all their 767s!! And instead of getting 777s they should first increase their 767 fleet. While Lan Chile is adding 5 more B767-300s in all this year (AM total number of 767s)., here everything is uncertan, we are just guessing and crossing all our fingers to see AM increasing the number 767. Shame on AM, MX and CINTRA!

Ricardo APM  Smile




Ricardo Morales - flyAPM - ¡No es que maneje rapido, solo estoy volando lento!
User currently offlineFly727 From Mexico, joined Jul 2003, 1789 posts, RR: 19
Reply 16, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4092 times:

So maybe the bottom line is that a 763ER can make the hop from most Latin American cities to Western European airports subject to (i) particular engine specifications, (ii) the specific cabin layout of the plane in question (no. of First, Biz and Econ. seats) and the average load factors, and (iii) temperature and altitude of the airports.

Stated that way, yes. It is technically doable and those factors that you mentioned are some of many that flight dispatchers and designers have to deal with everyday. Hallaste el hilo negro, pues.  Big grin

MAH4546 mentions that LB's 763ER to MAD only makes a stop on its way back. Under a combination of factors (full flight, extremely hot weather, maybe certain wind patterns, etc.), could it happen that the outbound leg (the VVI-MAD non-stop leg) may need to be diverted for refueling like Fly727 mentioned?

Again right assumption. As a matter of fact westbound flights take much more time than eastbound. In this case, the MAD-MX), Mexico">MEX can take up to 3 more hours, depending on winds and route of flight.

Finally I have a new round of questions (please moderators, don't close the thread saying this is off-topic). If AM is being pressured by SkyTeam to upgrade its aircraft used to MAD and CDG, this most likely will result in AM getting 772's sooner or later, NOT more 763ER's, right? My assumption is that AM has good load factors to MAD and CDG and, for the reasons outlined by Fly727, getting more 763ER's is not the way to go for AM.

We once discussed that and someone thought about the 767-400. It turned out to be that it had a very poor performance and that the way to go for AM needs was the 762 or step up on the 777. A matter of heavy passenger loads and personal pride  Big grin makes me think the latter will be chosen (more over that Ghost brings back again the so-much-heard gossip about the triple seven).

Second, we can then expect MX's new 763ER's to be configured with a relatively large number of business seats and a relatively low number of coach seats (like the "Buenos Aires" 763ER) so that flying them across the Atlantic to any new destinations they may start will not be a problem, correct?

I ignore the capabilities of MX's 763s but I know they are not fitted with the most powerful engines available. That penalizes with some weight restrictions. Anyway, AFAIK due to the contract signed with SK, MX can't modify the layout of the plane (doesn't make a hell lot of sense to me, I think MX kept the configuration due to weight restrictions rather than for contractual reasons).

Saludos,
RM  Smile



There are no stupid questions... just stupid people!
User currently onlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32811 posts, RR: 71
Reply 17, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4069 times:

Air Canada also does YYZ-SCL and YYZ-EZE with the 763. On the North/South axis, I forget how far that is, but I believe AA and UA don't send their 767s to EZE from further afield than MIA, IAD or DFW. JFK is usually a 777 service, I think.

JFK-EZE is a 767 on AA. Only MIA-EZE has 777s.



a.
User currently offlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7584 posts, RR: 43
Reply 18, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3956 times:

Whoa, if LanPerú is starting flights to MEx from LIM with a 767, then this is going to be a lot of pressure for AM and TACA Perú! It is a very, very aggressive move by LanPerú because MEx-LIM is less than 6 hours long and many airlines don't see the case for using widebodies in a route less than 6 hours long unless their passenger loads are really high. Hopefully AM will upgrade the 752 to a 762ER or a 763ER (if AM's 752 fleet is shrinking and it is supposedly getting more widebodies, then this seems very possible). What I unfortunately don't see happening is AM installing PTV's in its widebodies (something that should have been done a long time ago). Is there really a market for three carriers doing MEx-LIM? I know both AM and TACA Perú use narrowbodies and that they don't fly the route daily; if you add a third airline with a superior product, then someone is going to have to drop the route or offer lower fares, double mileage, etc. Do you think that AM could give the MEx-LIM route to MX in exchange for another route and MX start operating a 763ER once it receives more of those?

As for 763ER's doing the MAD-EZE route, that seems a little bit of a stretch to me. Maybe they do a stop in Brazil or something, or have a seating configuration similar to MX's 763ER.

In connection with the potential 777 orders by AM, April is less than a month away, so I hope we will hear very soon about the orders. There is a thread from 2 weeks ago or so discussing how DL had some outstanding orders for 772's and that it was very likely not going to exercise them, so maybe the plan is to assign said orders to AM. The same thread also discussed how DL might actually get rid of one or two 777's that they currently operate; perhaps they would sell/lease these aircraft to AM. Could that be?

As for MX's widebody plans, I recall reading that the 767's were supposedly an interim solution and that negotiations to lease or buy 777's, A330's or even A340's are currently underway. MX getting any of the three types would be incredible. I am sure JJ is happy with its A330's and I think the airplane is a good choice for the GRU-CDG flight.



Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
User currently offline123 From Bolivia, joined Nov 2003, 745 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3907 times:

LB takes their 763 regularly VVI-MAD, on the return flight they stop in Recife.

Range is no problem because the aircraft takes of in VVI which is at 400 m above sealevel, which is 3600 m less than La Paz.... Not all of Bolivia is mountains and highland; 33% is! 33% are mountanous valleys and the rest is lowland.

According to LB, the 767's have even longer ranges than only VVI-MAD.

RISK. Which one? It depends on ETOPS certifications. LB flyies within the ETOPS instructions because otherwise nobody would let them leave the ground.


User currently offlinePlaaneboy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 50 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3840 times:

MAH4546 is correct, AA operates a 767-300 JFKEZE. It operates with a permanent weight restriction of 18 passengers southbound, while northbound it doesn't.

Also, UA operates a 767-300 IADEZE. I'm not sure if it also takes a weight penalty southbound though.


User currently offlineLan_Fanatic From Chile, joined Sep 2001, 1071 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3784 times:

I read above about LanChile's 767s flights to Europe.

In the early nineties, the routing was SCL-REC-MAD-FRA. Then, in 1996 I think, the stopover in REC was moved to GRU.
After that, Lan got the A340s and since then the SCL-MAD route is non-stop.


User currently offlineUnicorn From Vatican City, joined Nov 2003, 102 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3718 times:

Pluna of Uruguay use a 767-300ER for flights to Europe (Madrid I believe)

Unicorn



User currently offlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7584 posts, RR: 43
Reply 23, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3708 times:

Yes, that's correct. They fly from GIG. I guess the route is MVD-GIG-MAD.


Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
User currently offlineMarcopolo747 From Brazil, joined Mar 2001, 460 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3614 times:

Amigo Eddie,
You are right, PU's MVD-MAD run stops at GIG. MVD-GIG is a codeshare with RG and PU has full 5th freedom rights to MAD.


25 LVZXV : EddieDude: You're right about the MAD-EZE route: Southern Winds' 763ERs have just 201 seats, with economy enjoying a 35-inch pitch (and an impressive
26 EddieDude : That's interesting. Is it a one-class cabin? With that pitch, Southern Winds' economy cabin sounds almost like premium economy. MX's 763ER has 42 busi
27 LVZXV : Southern Winds is notoriously comfortable! They have no 1st class. Instead they have Business, Surf (Premium, if you like) and Economy. I'm not sure i
28 NAVEGA : All this talk about AM getting new aircraft etc. has me puzzled. It seems as though no one here reads the press from Mexico. Aeromexico is in the midd
29 S.p.a.s. : Let's make some clarifications: Marcopolo747: SAS indeed flew CPH-GRU-CPH, but the flight was discontinued back in 1994 IIRC. It wasn't daily and it w
30 AM772 : Whay I've read, MX is going to get 4 and an option to 5 ex-SAS B763, And 10 A318 at the end of this year,,, at first, MX asked for 10 A318 to replace
31 Lan_Fanatic : I flew SCL-GRU-MAD in LanChile back in 1997. It was a hot evening in Sao Paulo when we took off. And I have never been in such a long run for taking o
32 Post contains links and images S.p.a.s. : Indeed some long hauls eat a lot of asphalt before being airborne, GRU has a undesireble combination of elevated altitude (2540ft) and high temperatur
33 LVZXV : Lan Fanatic: In response to an earlier post of yours', I think a 763 could only fly LHR/LGW-SCL with a VERY light passenger load. In fact, I remember
34 Post contains images Fly727 : Navega: Finally CINTRA's move to place two directors in AM's board didn't happened and that is been around in the net for a few days now. Also, AM wil
35 Post contains links EddieDude : Guys, perhaps you remember a thread on IB wet-leasing 744's from SQ a few days ago. I "dared" talk about how IB got the A346's from Airbus instead of
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...
DL 767-400ER - To Europe What About BusinessElite? posted Sun Nov 6 2005 03:41:32 by Deltadude
Did Delta Fly 767-200's To Europe? posted Sun Jul 20 2003 22:18:08 by ContinentalEWR
More 767-400's To Europe! posted Wed Apr 3 2002 03:20:49 by ContinentalEWR
AA 767-300ER To Europe In First posted Sat Oct 21 2000 02:26:18 by Shinton
Not All Delta 767-300s Go To Europe? posted Sun Feb 10 2002 21:51:53 by Donder10
Will The 767-400 Ever Come To Europe? posted Sat Sep 29 2001 08:59:27 by Flying Belgian
George (SA) To Europe? posted Tue Dec 5 2006 19:34:48 by Jet2Leeds
Iraqi Flying To Europe? posted Mon Nov 27 2006 19:16:21 by Vasu
Fares To Europe posted Mon Nov 6 2006 09:05:35 by EI747SYDNEY
PK Temporarily Suspends 747 Flts To Europe posted Wed Nov 1 2006 12:33:45 by BHXDTW