KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12234 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4380 times:
AC, TZ, CO, NA, and a few other airlines are looking for B-767-300ERs. Many prefer those with GE engines, and I believe the (soon to be) ex-UA B-763ERs have P&Ws. I don't think the lease companies that own these airplanes will have problems getting them onto new leases and flying again, soon.
SAS_A330-300 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4132 times:
Quoting LUV4JFK (Reply 4): SAS better jump on it instead of looking for aircraft. I bet their feeling pretty dumb that they didn't keep a couple of 763's. It's not like fleet commonality is a big deal to them.
After the CPH-IAD schedule last winter I wouldn't think so. SAS has currently no plans to put any new aircraft into their fleet.
I can see AC taking them. Keeping them in the STAR Alliance family will benefit both UA and AC. If/when UA returns to better health, they can perhaps more easily return to UA service if a partner airline has snagged them.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
Crosswind From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 2617 posts, RR: 57
Reply 11, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4034 times:
These United B767s are a lot less marketable than you might think because of their PW engines.
A lot of carriers are on the lookout for B767-300ERs at the moment, but they want them with GE CF6s. For many Boeing operators it's a stop gap until the B787 arrives so they aren't willing to order a new aircraft that's about to be obsolete. When a GE-powered aircraft becomes available it's snapped up straight away by another operator...
On the other hand there have always been PW -300ERs on the market throughout the recent used 767-300ER drought because most operators looking of aircraft want the GE engine, there are several PW-powered examples sitting on BAT, Speednews and Plane Trading at the moment. Given that most potential customers have a fairly small 767 fleet they won't want to run with 2 engine types.
Best bet may be someone like ATA building a fleet from scratch but I suppoese it depends on what sort of maintenance/support package they can put together with PW, not to mention what sort of lease rate they'll be able to negotioate bearing in mind the lessor has just had to reposess them from one airline operating under Ch11.
EddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7663 posts, RR: 41
Reply 12, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4023 times:
I am sure that if AM were not so busy getting more 737NG's and finalizing the lease of 2 or 3 772ER's (delivery 2006), it would go for at least a couple. That way, it could increase frequencies to SCL to 1 daily from the current 6 daily and to GRU, and would be able to use -300's only to South America freeing the -200's for the flights to MAD and CDG also increasing those routes. Sadly, AM's widebody fleet will not expand at all until it receives the 772ER's next year, unless MX transfers the 763ER it is leasing from SK to AM.
Next flights: MEX-JFK-MEX AM 788 | MEX-JFK-FCO AM 788/AZ A332 | AMS-MEX 74M
WhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4011 times:
Quoting Crosswind (Reply 11): These United B767s are a lot less marketable than you might think because of their PW engines.
That's the major problem. 763ER users seem to have a marked preference for the CF6 engined variety.
They could go literally anywhere however. Take the blinkers off for a moment and there are potential customers in places like Russia or Asia who would be interested, smaller operators rather than the majors or flag carriers.
Plenty of potentials if the price is right. Condition should not be an issue.
UAORD2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 267 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3728 times:
As much as I hate to see these planes leave the UA fleet, I see TZ acquiring these jets. The only issue is that the lessors are more than likely skeptical taking from one bankrupt airline and giving them to another bankrupt airline. Who knows, but I will sure miss my ORD-EZE trips. Maybe I'll just transfer to Washington.
Unicorn From Vatican City, joined Nov 2003, 102 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3729 times:
Air China, Vietnam Airlines, SkyService, LAN, Air Europa, Nationwide, Hawaiian and a number of other airlines are actively looking for additional leased 767s for the next few years while waiting to take delivery of their currently ordered 787s / A350s or consider their options on which way they go on the 787 / A350 decision.
Many lessors will be reluctant to put 10-12 year old 767s into an American legacy carrier given many of them are in Chapter 11, just coming out of C11 or likely to go in to divest themselves of their pension obligations.
Besides overseas 767 operators don't have Chapter 11 to dive into to screw the lessors and are often as profitable as the majors in the US.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21711 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3707 times:
Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 6): I would say that Hawaiian would be the most likely choice for at least 2-3 of these planes.
This topic was also in the repo man thread, but I will restate my answer here...
Hawaiian needs planes to launch JFK, Japan, others. They would also like to add another Vegas route at least on the weekends, as LAS is the number one destination for Hawaii residents (#2 being Disneyland).
Hawaiian uses only 717s locally (obviously), and 763ERs overseas. Hawaiian 763ERs have P&W engines.
Thus, Hawaiian is a likely customer for as many as they can afford to lease, and considering that few others use P&W and want more, they may get favorable terms...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.