Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Where Should USAir Re-Deploy The 767?  
User currently offlineLrgt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 710 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 5284 times:

US Airway has a bunch of 767-200s that ruled the PHL-Europe and PIT-Europe service until the bigger A330s came in. Where sould they use them?

I know they just started PHL-GLA. How about PHL-HNL like CO does from EWR with much success? OR, PHL-NRT (but there would be payload restrictions).


Don't bring up the NW DC9's unless you have to!
53 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePanAm330 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (9 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 5159 times:

To my knowledge, they're still used for that purpose. They operate PHL to AMS, GLA, DUB/SNN, and MUC with the 762. They also operate the PIT to F RA segment (soon, anyways) with their 767. CLT to LGW and F RA I believe are both A330s now, correct?
That would make 5 dailies with their 767-200. Where are the rest going? I know some are going trans-con as subs, and some to Florida, MCO in particular (I think it's scheduled. Don't quote me on that).


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 2, posted (9 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5138 times:

You're a tidge obsessed with HNL, ain't ya?  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

US' widebody fleet is absolutely used, there's hardly a spare minute available on any of them, even the 767s.

Now, as 332s come in, that story may change. In that case, the 767s might get relegated to domestic runs and lowest-yield transatlantics, and yes, potentially PHL or CLT to HNL.

The reason I think they may not run that flight is because they have a domestic partner that's huge to the Islands, and, unless they believe they can fill the planes, it might be best to leave them to United.

The same story goes for NRT. Even during the UA/US merger plans, they never were going to add PHL-NRT. They were going to add BOS-NRT and DEN-LGW. Now they have even less incentive to do so.

N


User currently offlineWidgetBoi From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1432 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (9 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5117 times:

US does schedule two 767 roundtrips to MCO. Southbound, the 767s operate the 7:55 am departure from PHL and the 11:00 am departure from CLT. Northbound, the 767s operate two flights to CLT (the 11:20 am and 1:30 pm departures).

jeremy


User currently offlineORD2PHL From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 312 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5114 times:

Where should they re-deploy these craft?

To Mojave or Victorville unless the interiors are overhauled, if you've taken a trip on one recently you'll know what I'm talking about. Although I suppose some are better than others!!

ORD2PHL


User currently offlineKYAir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 362 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (9 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5099 times:

US only has 10 762s, not "a bunch". They do Florida service, from CLT I think, as well as some transatlantic service. The 752s and 321s have almost the pax payload of the 762s, so cargo needs would probably dictate where the 762s go once the 332s come in.

Didn't US loose a 762 on the ground to fire during maintenance a few years back?



Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened - Dr. Seuss
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 6, posted (9 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5093 times:

To Mojave or Victorville unless the interiors are overhauled, if you've taken a trip on one recently you'll know what I'm talking about.

I fully agree with this. These planes are perfectly fine, they could live on for years, but they need new interiors.

N


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 7, posted (9 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5080 times:

Unless and until the A332s ordered by US are added to the fleet, the US 762 fleet is rather busy flying to secondary European destinations. Unless US pulls off a dramatic turnaround in the coming year or so, I am not sure if US will be able to accept delivery of those A332s.

Lets be optimistic and think that US will accept the A332s and those aircraft replace the 762 on long-range routes, I think it will be US's plan to eliminate the 762 from its fleet. The 762s (some of which were originally delivered to Piedmont) are about 20 years old and have been used heavily - and according to some pax, the interiors are in dismal shape and require many upgrades to bring them up to the standard of the A330. I think the main idea behind getting the A332s is to replace the 767s and be done with them (not to redeploy them on other missions).

As for the PHL-HNL route, I could see US trying this (maybe on a weekend only basis, just as US serves some carib destinations) even if the only reason was to spice up its FF program. That was the logic used with respect to some of the exotic island destinations US now serves, so why not Hawaii? Although US pax can fly to Hawaii with UA - trying to redeem miles on another carrier for flights to popular vacation destinations like Hawaii can be nearly impossible.


User currently offlineSafetyDude From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3795 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (9 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5073 times:

As mentioned, they serve (not limited to) DUB and MCO.

In any event, I heard that the 757s are not happy with the lack of sun that they are getting and are requesting a one-way ticket to the desert.  Big grin As with the 767s, if you have flown on a 757 recently, you will get the idea.  Laugh out loud

-Will



"She Flew For What We Stand For"
User currently offlineLrgt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 710 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5070 times:

Since they hold the nearly the same as the 752 and 321s, I am surprised they are using them to Europe still instead of the 752 and to MCO instead of the 321. They would be best used to open up new markets where the range is needed but does not warrent a huge a/c.

The interiors need an overhaul! 2-4-2 coach would make them economicly superior to the 757 rather than inferior and could make sense to the PHL leasure markets such as FLL and MCO. Whilst the seats would be slightly bigger on the 757 in that case, I would still prefer the 762 because of it is a wide body  Smile



Don't bring up the NW DC9's unless you have to!
User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7482 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (9 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5059 times:

Don't US still use them for their Puerto Rican and Carribean flights?



"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlineKYAir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 362 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (9 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5029 times:

Lrgt: I have suggested, too, that US use 752s to secondary European cities, but have been told they aren't ETOPS certified. I suggested adding some European cities from BOS with 752s, but can't be done.

I've flown on several 767s (Delta) and can't say I'd like a 2-4-2 coach set up. Perhaps as some have suggested US will just retire them, they are old, and try to save costs by further fleet simplification.



Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened - Dr. Seuss
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 12, posted (9 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5027 times:

The interiors need an overhaul! 2-4-2 coach would make them economicly superior to the 757 rather than inferior and could make sense to the PHL leasure markets such as FLL and MCO. Whilst the seats would be slightly bigger on the 757 in that case, I would still prefer the 762 because of it is a wide body.

--------------------------------

Have you ever been on a 767 with 2-4-2 seating (as used by some British charter carriers)? I will simply say that it is not a pleasant experience and the configuration would be unacceptable to most passengers. Anyone with a weight of more than 125 lbs would be uncomfortable. As many of us Americans are super-sized, it would be nothing but trouble for US.

In addition, the 762s with high density seating have extra emergency exits and US's 762 are not so equipped.

I really think that the plan is to park the 762s if and when the A332 are delivered.


User currently offlineJfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3171 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (9 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4941 times:

2-4-2????

Is this a correct statement? I thought all 767s were 2-3-2 in coach! 2-4-2??? How can that be? That's awful. Absolutely awful! I don't even believe that.

PJ


User currently offlineWidgetBoi From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1432 posts, RR: 20
Reply 14, posted (9 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4934 times:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Derek Pedley - AirTeamImages



Looks comfortable...right?  Yeah sure


User currently offlineKYAir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 362 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (9 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4906 times:

Egads! That looks even worse than I imagined. Thanks WidgetBoi.


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened - Dr. Seuss
User currently offlineAa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3345 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (9 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4898 times:

"Ladies and gentlemen, the flight attendants will be coming around the cabin with headphones, which can be purchased for $4, and Crisco, to help you squeeze into your seat, for $3."

Seriously now, I think US Airways should keep the 767s. BTW, it would be so stupid , IMO, to use the 767s to HNL. That's what United is for. United: west of the Mississippi, US Airways: east of the Mississippi.

AAndrew


User currently offlineLrgt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 710 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (9 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4859 times:

but have been told they aren't ETOPS certified

WHAT??? They were on exclusivly ETOPS routes for years. The last time I checked, PHL-Europe was over water.


In addition, the 762s with high density seating have extra emergency exits and US's 762 are not so equipped.

That is only if they want to bring them up to 290Y. With the current exits they are limited to 270 or something so with a good sized business class (like AA has in its 767s on leisure routes) and 2-4-2 european style economy, they would be ok with their current exits.

Bigger is not always better. Does anyone now if when UA did their feasibility study on 767-200 for transcon whether they considered 2-4-2 before deciding to retire the a/c as uneconomical. If it means the difference between whether the 767-200ER dies or not, I would say go with 2-4-2 than nothing or a damn 757; the 2-4-2 seats are the same size as a 717. I would rather fly a 767-200 from PHL to FLL in 2-4-2 than a 717. No offense to overweight people, but if you can't fit in those seats, you have bigger problems than that seat (like your health). If you can't fit in coach, fly business class. Does anyone know if US makes overweighters buy two seats like WN does?

7-Abreast 767 Vs. 8-Abreast

7-Abreast on UA

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jason Junker


8-Abreast (someone posted another 8-abreast picture earlier in the thread)
Most pax are oblivious and would think this looks nicer anyway

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Karim SARR




Don't bring up the NW DC9's unless you have to!
User currently offlineLrgt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 710 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (9 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4826 times:

All right smart asses...redeploy assumes they stay in business and by definition, redeploy does not mean retirement, it is the opposite.


Don't bring up the NW DC9's unless you have to!
User currently offlineD950 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 493 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (9 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4812 times:

They already have several 752's @ VCV


Resting on your laurels is a synonym for flirting with disaster
User currently offlineLrgt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 710 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (9 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4806 times:

The 752s have been replaced by 320s and 321s


Don't bring up the NW DC9's unless you have to!
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 21, posted (9 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4786 times:

The 752s are not ETOPS, and, being some of the first off the line, are likely not capable of Europe trips. They're also god awful on the inside.

N


User currently offlineLrgt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 710 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (9 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4778 times:

Ok, but since the 767-200s are ETOPS, then that is the only other option on European routes other than the new A330s.


Don't bring up the NW DC9's unless you have to!
User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (9 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4779 times:

I've not flown the 2-4-2 setup, but it was my understanding it's about the same as CRJ seating.

As much as I like RJ's, I think doing PHL-HNL in that seating arrangement would not be very popular for most Americans, especially when they have alternatives.

Steve


User currently offlineJohn From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 1374 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (9 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4774 times:

Folks, US's economy config on the 762 is 2-3-2. Also there are 11 active 767s, last time I looked. And yes, one was written off in a maint accident during an engine run up and fire.

25 Post contains links and images Lrgt : No one said that US's 767s were not 2-3-2. The point that I brought up is that since they need new interiors, they should explore 2-4-2. Thare are no
26 Gigneil : 2-4-2 is for charter operators. No sane full service airline would offer it. Bottom line, US' 767s are old. Very old. And they probably will not spruc
27 A330323X : To clear some things up: US has 10 767's. They had 12 at one point, N645US-N656US. N654US was written off after the uncontained engine failure at PHL.
28 Lrgt : Thank you for those claifications A330323X. As for the interiors being redone in 1997, while they look older I can beleive that; even the colours on U
29 Aa717driver : A 767-200 could almost make PHL-HNL. Almost being the operative word. Plenty of people do HNL from the middle of the country with 767-300's(not counti
30 Dvk : I have a special interest in US, because I'm vested in the RSA. I'd really like to see them survive, but I'm not too optimistic. When I flew a US A33
31 Gigneil : The US Airways 767-200s are 767-200ERs. They're not standard 767-200s like some of UA, AA, and DL's. N
32 Haveric : LRGT -- i don't think you understand -- their 757s are NOT ABLE to cross the Altantic. they cannot be made ETOPS capable as they are the oldest 757s o
33 A330323X : their 757s are NOT ABLE to cross the Altantic. they cannot be made ETOPS capable as they are the oldest 757s off the line. I maintain that the relativ
34 Lrgt : You beat me to it Gigneil. I was about to correct Aa717driver in his saying that it does not have the range and that the 767-300ER's bairly would have
35 Post contains images Lrgt : Haveric...like A330323x said...70% of their 757 fleet were delivered in the late 90's, hardly the beginning of the line. I never said they don't do AN
36 Post contains images A330323X : like A330323x said...70% of their 757 fleet were delivered in the late 90's, hardly the beginning of the line. Like A330323X said...68% of their 757 f
37 Post contains images Lrgt : Wow your picky ...change 70% to 68%, sorry for rounding ...change late-90s to 1995
38 Gigneil : PHL-NRT or PHL-BOM/DEL would have some payload restrictions and but are within Boeing's range chart (w/reserves) for the -200ER. There is a zero perce
39 Post contains images Lrgt : You may have a point Gigneil, but I am afraid your credibility was lost 5 minutes ago in the Airtran 737NG ETOPS board when you said that JFK/SJU and
40 US653 : I believe they used to use their 767s to SJU and CUN, but I think they've moved them to MCO (and maybe a LAX flight) domestically. I think they may al
41 A330323X : Wow your picky It's not that I'm picky, it's that "stretching" the facts will not help your credibility. 1993-1995 is clearly not the late 90's. Take
42 Gigneil : You may have a point Gigneil, but I am afraid your credibility was lost 5 minutes ago in the Airtran 737NG ETOPS board when you said that JFK/SJU and
43 Lrgt : While they are appearing on routes within the continental US when they carry (roughly)* the same number of pax as a A321, it is clear that that they r
44 Gigneil : While they are appearing on routes within the continental US when they carry (roughly)* the same number of pax as a A321, it is clear that that they r
45 A330323X : While they are appearing on routes within the continental US when they carry (roughly)* the same number of pax as a A321, it is clear that that they r
46 Lrgt : My post was in response to the person who said the 767s being releived from the European routes were being put on domestically. FOR THE 10TH TIME...I
47 A330323X : I am aware that some are still doing the European routes, but the ones that are ONLY doing domestic routes where they are nothing but doing an A321's
48 Lrgt : Maybe I should just give up on this thread since we can't agree that US even has any extra 767-200's now...which was not the point the tread was debat
49 A330323X : There is 1 that does transcon exclusivly that I would consider wasted. It's needed as a spare. That's just how it is. The other airlines all do the sa
50 Lrgt : Ok, if that is correct, then where will they re-deploy them to in 2007? ...Did US postpone the deliveries or something?
51 A330323X : ...Did US postpone the deliveries or something? No. In fact, US only had 1 A330-300 on firm order until last January during bankruptcy, when they exch
52 US653 : I too am pretty sure that there is 1 767 that get's rotated in as a spare. I have seen (Friday night, specifically) a 767 parked at their maintenance
53 Qantas777 : I would like to seem them on PHL-ZRH and MXP services. Or down to the caribbean in a high-density format and! down to South America lets say PHL-GRU.
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...
Should AirTran Re-consider The PVD Market? posted Fri Jun 9 2006 14:53:55 by John
Should LOT Consider The 767-400? posted Fri Oct 17 2003 03:57:26 by Cancidas
Where Are The 767 Of China Airlines Now? posted Thu Aug 21 2003 13:00:54 by Lf278
Where Should The Next US Spottermeeting Be? posted Sat Apr 5 2003 15:25:05 by UN_B732
Where Are Fares Going In The Next Year? posted Mon Nov 13 2006 19:05:09 by ATLAaron
Why Doesn't NZ Re-enter The SYD-LAX Market? posted Sun Nov 12 2006 05:06:12 by ZKNBX
CO And The 767-300ER posted Fri Nov 3 2006 03:07:08 by TrijetFan1
Should Airbus Re-launch A350 Non XWB? posted Fri Oct 6 2006 11:33:24 by OyKIE
Should Delta Have Bought The Pan Am Name posted Sun Jun 4 2006 20:00:25 by TTailSteve
Economics Of The 767-300ER Compared To The 787-8? posted Tue May 30 2006 15:35:07 by OyKIE