Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
757 Renaissance..... Would 767-200ER Be Better?  
User currently offlineWarreng24 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 708 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 6916 times:

We all have seen the topics for the 757 "renaissance" for the trans-atlantic point-to-point services from "non-hub" cities.

It seems that these services are all point-to-point services that really stretch the range limits of the 757.

The US legacy carriers are all jumping at this trans-atlantic point-to-point service because of the hopes of increased fares for international services.

So, the question is... why not the 767-200? Or the 767-200ER?

This aircraft has similar passenger loads to the 757. Airliners.net data pages shows typical two class configuration of 18/198 for the 762 and 12/190 for the 752. Plus you get the extra cargo capacity of the 762 (extra revenue).

Ranges for the 762 is even better than the 752. More choices for point-to-point destinations (farther reach to Europe). In addition the range of the ER model opens up many point-to-point destinations trans-pacific.

Are we going to see a 762 renaissance in the near future?

[Edited 2006-06-10 19:19:45]

[Edited 2006-06-10 19:20:03]

31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26170 posts, RR: 50
Reply 1, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 6905 times:

The 762 has higher operating cost than the B757.

One of the reasons why the B757 works so well is that it has one of the lowest CASM on the market.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineAA777223 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1259 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 6848 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 1):
The 762 has higher operating cost than the B757

Why? It has the same number of engines, roughly similar capacity etc.? I am not arguing with you, I just genuinely want to know what makes two similar aircraft so different in CASM.



Sic 'em bears
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26170 posts, RR: 50
Reply 3, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 6781 times:

The 767 is a widebody.. while the B757 is a narrow body.

The aircraft weight significantly different, a 762 empty is about 175-180,000lbs while the 752 comes in about 135,000lbs.

The 762 requires engines that produce close to 60,000lbs thrust while the 752 is about 35-40,000lbs.

The B762 is simply a larger/heavier aircraft hence is it is inherently costlier to run then the smaller 752.

If anything you will notice the 762 is lacking popularity and is handicapped on the market recent years particularly compared to the larger 763 variant which has vastly improved economics. Many 762 operators have withdrawn the type (UA, DL) while others like AA use it as a niche aircraft for a specific type of flying only.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineLN-MOW From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1909 posts, RR: 13
Reply 4, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 6748 times:

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 2):
Why? It has the same number of engines, roughly similar capacity etc.?

One word: Weight.

So you use less fuel, you have lower landing fees, ATC charges, cheaper ground handling .... It adds up to a considerable amount of $$$ ....
And no - cargo does not compensate. First of all it's a 4-day a week business, secondly the rates are too low to make much of a difference.



- I am LN-MOW, and I approve this message.
User currently offlineB4real From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 2661 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 6646 times:

As said above, the 767-200ER is a heavier bird. Instead of thinking 767-200 for filling the 757 space, think 737-8/9 series. Even though it clocks in less on standard range than the 757, but brings lower CASM - and that is why the 757 isn't here any more.


B4REAL, spelled like it sounds
User currently offlineMatt From Canada, joined May 1999, 700 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 6633 times:

It's interesting that Continental took delivery of 10 767-200ERs in between 2000 and 2002. They are the last airline to order passengers 767-200s (much later than other carries). They simultaneously ordered the larger 767-400ER as well. Does anyone know why they chose the -200 over the -300?


Next flights: YQM-YYZ-YOW v.v. / YQM-CUN v.v. / YQM-YUL-YWG v.v. / YSJ-YYZ-SEA-SFO / SFO-YYZ-YOW-YQM / YQM-YYZ-MUC-TXL /
User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5364 posts, RR: 22
Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 6600 times:

Quoting Matt (Reply 6):
Does anyone know why they chose the -200 over the -300?

Range. Mission. This is a different -200ER than the original.

[Edited 2006-06-10 23:08:01]

User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5364 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 6547 times:

Quoting B4real (Reply 5):
Instead of thinking 767-200 for filling the 757 space, think 737-8/9 series

I think you'll have a tough time making that work on transoceanic flying with any kind of "normal" passenger load from any "usual" departure city. It's no coincidence that Boeing draws its little "range chart" for the 73_ from *Boston*. Might as well do it from Gander.

Plus, the thing would be a lead sled, and you'd be kicking yourself as you were boinging along across the North Atlantic at some less-than-optimal altitude praying for the fuel to burn off so you can finally get above whatever is causing this roller-coaster ride. I read an article a while back on how certain captains make judgment calls about adding extra fuel on certain missions, and one guy who flies the 767 was talking about how he occasionally finds himself bouncing around the flight deck over the North Atlantic asking himself whether that extra X,000 pounds of fuel was *really* necessary -- and that's on the 76.


User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5947 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6334 times:

The 762 is costly to operate these days. Delta has parked all of theirs, AA has parked several (and written off another one recently, after an uncontained HPT failure and subsequent... inferno).
In Continental's recent 787-824 order press release, they say that the ten they ordered are for new routes and REPLACING INEFFICIENT AIRCRAFT, LIKE THE 767-200. Those are Larry's words, I believe. Not mine, anyway.

They both have two engines? Let's compare it to the obvious:
My Ford Contour has one engine.
My buddy's Chevy Tahoe also has one enging.
But they certainly don't cost the same to drive! Lucky me... Gas went up 20 cents a gallon this week alone.
And airlines are thinking the same thing- the 752 holds nearly as many people as the 762, yet burns a lot less. Lucky are the ones that have them.


User currently offlineBoeingBus From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1597 posts, RR: 17
Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6325 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 9):
The 762 is costly to operate these days.

OK... how about the A310? It's a rare bird but how would it stack up to the 757 and the 762?



Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5364 posts, RR: 22
Reply 11, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6291 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 9):
REPLACING INEFFICIENT AIRCRAFT, LIKE THE 767-200

Actually, the exact words are "less efficient widebody aircraft". It's a tautology, however, because the whole point of the 787 is to be at least 20% more fuel-efficient than current-generation widebodies. So the 767 is by definition "less efficient" than the 787. All things considered, the 762 isn't the most fuel-inefficient aircraft in the air, and everything is, of course, relative. If it's the right size and has the right flight characteristics (range, performance, etc.) to do the job, and it's available at the right capital cost (and remember that market price of an airframe is going to fluctuate based upon, among other things, it's fuel efficiency and the price of fuel), then it is hardly a dog.

As to Delta "parking" the 762s, that's not quite right. They sold them to ABX Air, which will convert them and run them as freighters. And guess what? As freighters, they are dramatically more efficient than what's presently being used by a lot of carriers, and ABX has them out on ACMI leases (for folks other than DHL) as fast as they can get them onto the property.

As a comparison, a 762 uses less fuel per hour than a 727. Is it as efficient as a 757? No. But is it a complete friggin' dog, particularly per asm? Nope. But if a 757 can do the mission, it is certainly going to do the mission on less fuel than a 767.


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3606 posts, RR: 66
Reply 12, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6268 times:

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 10):
OK... how about the A310? It's a rare bird but how would it stack up to the 757 and the 762?

Worse fuel burn per passenger than either the 757 or the 767



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineB4real From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 2661 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6205 times:

Quoting Matt (Reply 6):
It's interesting that Continental took delivery of 10 767-200ERs in between 2000 and 2002. They are the last airline to order passengers 767-200s (much later than other carries).

I think El Al ordered the frame after CO. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong...



B4REAL, spelled like it sounds
User currently offlineB4real From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 2661 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6200 times:

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 8):
I think you'll have a tough time making that work on transoceanic flying with any kind of "normal" passenger load from any "usual" departure city. It's no coincidence that Boeing draws its little "range chart" for the 73_ from *Boston*. Might as well do it from Gander.

I didn't offer it as a transoceanic application.



B4REAL, spelled like it sounds
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6186 times:

762 less efficient than the 752? Maybe in CASM, but I bet at the 762's optimal cruise weight it burns less fuel per lbs payload than the 752 does at its own. I.e. it's more suitable on longer ranged, higher payload routes, which is not applicable to the light US East coast-Western Europe market.

User currently offlineMatt From Canada, joined May 1999, 700 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6155 times:

Quoting B4real (Reply 13):
I think El Al ordered the frame after CO. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong...

I guess they could have ordered the frames before CO, but El Al's last 2 767-200ERs were delivered in 1999. Their four other 767s, two of which are ER models, were delivered in 1983 and 1984.



Next flights: YQM-YYZ-YOW v.v. / YQM-CUN v.v. / YQM-YUL-YWG v.v. / YSJ-YYZ-SEA-SFO / SFO-YYZ-YOW-YQM / YQM-YYZ-MUC-TXL /
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26815 posts, RR: 75
Reply 17, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6147 times:

Quoting Warreng24 (Thread starter):
It seems that these services are all point-to-point services that really stretch the range limits of the 757.

They don't particularly stretch the limits. This is particularly true of aircraft with with winglets.

Quoting Warreng24 (Thread starter):
Airliners.net data pages shows typical two class configuration of 18/198 for the 762 and 12/190 for the 752.

There are lies, damn lies and the Airliners.net data pages

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 2):
Why? It has the same number of engines, roughly similar capacity etc.? I am not arguing with you, I just genuinely want to know what makes two similar aircraft so different in CASM.

The 762 is a significantly heavier airplane and requires about 12,000 pounds more per side.

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 3):
The 762 requires engines that produce close to 60,000lbs thrust while the 752 is about 35-40,000lbs.

It is more like 55K to 43K

Quoting B4real (Reply 5):
and that is why the 757 isn't here any more.

The 757 has one of the best ratios of aircraft built to aircraft still flying. It just happens to have filled out its market.

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 10):
OK... how about the A310? It's a rare bird but how would it stack up to the 757 and the 762?

It kind of slots in between them in size but is a bit on the heavy side



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 18, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6147 times:

Quoting B4real (Reply 13):
I think El Al ordered the frame after CO. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong...

Actually LY's most recent 762ER deliveries (4X-EAE and 4X-EAF) were in 1999, but they are -27E/ERs, first delivered to Aéromaritime in 1990 as F-GHGD and F-GHGE respectively. The last 762 originally delivered to LY from Boeing as a -258ER is 4X-EAD (line number 89) and entered service in June 1984.

The other three were built in 1983 and 1984, and consist of 2 -258As and one -258ER respectively. So in fact, LY has 4 of the oldest 762s still flying. LY hasn't ordered any 767s directly from Boeing since the 80's. However you are right in CO not being the last to take delivery of a brandnew 762ER PAX. There is one that has been delivered in 2002, after the CO deliveries, to the government of Kazakhstan. That one is line number 861.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Johan Ljungdahl



User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5364 posts, RR: 22
Reply 19, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6088 times:

Quoting B4real (Reply 14):
I didn't offer it as a transoceanic application.

Ah. Okay then. But the genesis of this thread was:

Quoting Warreng24 (Thread starter):
We all have seen the topics for the 757 "renaissance" for the trans-atlantic point-to-point services from "non-hub" cities. It seems that these services are all point-to-point services that really stretch the range limits of the 757. The US legacy carriers are all jumping at this trans-atlantic point-to-point service because of the hopes of increased fares for international services. So, the question is... why not the 767-200? Or the 767-200ER?

So I thought that you were responding to that.


User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5364 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6064 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 17):
Quoting B4real (Reply 5):
and that is why the 757 isn't here any more.

The 757 has one of the best ratios of aircraft built to aircraft still flying. It just happens to have filled out its market.

I should have picked up on that comment as well. Arguably, over the last couple of years, a few more 757s could have been sold, particularly the 753 version. Maybe not another hundred. But certainly some more. It was just timing. Timing. Timing. When the 757 line shut down, it was still an open question whether pax were comfortable taking a 757 on longer/thinner Atlantic routes. And oil was $30/barrel.

One truly revealing thing about 757 demand, to pick up on N1120A's point, is that there are a number of folks set up to do cargo conversions on these birds, anticipating a significant demand (which came) and supply (which didn't). It's not only that they're still flying, but that they're still flying as passenger aircraft that is so interesting to me. And when they're done, folks like Pemco are just rarin' to go to turn them into cargo aircraft, where they'll fly for at least another 10 years after that.


User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2755 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4528 times:

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 7):
Range. Mission. This is a different -200ER than the original.

How is this -200ER different from the other -200ER? The only thing I can think of is the interior which has the Signature interior fro the B777.

I still wonder why Continental decided the -200ER where a better match for their network than the -300ER. Anyone know which airplane they replaced?



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3588 times:

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 21):
I still wonder why Continental decided the -200ER where a better match for their network than the -300ER.

CO's -200ERs have a relatively large business class cabin and are targeted at cities with heavy J-class traffic such as GVA.

This suggest to me that.....
  • They are not focused on Y-demand, which the 763ER would provide too much of.
  • Their low density would mean that the 763ER and 764ER would - in their configuration - have very similar capacity, ergo inflexible fleet.
I must admit i was initially suprised and skeptical to hear that they would be replaced by the 787 early, but i guess with fuel prices the way they are, this is justified.

She's a good looking bird though.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Joel Vogt



User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2755 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3516 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 22):
She's a good looking bird though.

I agree with you there. I was hoping that we could see some 767s on the EWR-OSL route, but all we get is the 757.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5364 posts, RR: 22
Reply 24, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3446 times:

My recollection is that at one time, the thought was that since the 762ER is capable of EWR-PEK, it might be useful in opening some relatively-long-range, thinner nonstop routes for CO. Remember that they were ordered in 1998. I think, however, that the CO pilot contract makes this difficult to do economically, with the bunk requirement beyond a certain distance. As pointed out by a CO pilot, they are not being used even remotely near the outer reaches of their range or MTOW.

25 EWRCabincrew : Unless it's an aircraft swap, it'll always be a 757. Just as LIS, ARN will be (to name a few). It's the perfect sized aircraft for the market to make
26 N1120A : The CO pilot contract is one of the most airline-friendly that exist. On such a long distance flight you are going to need a decent crew rest anyway,
27 Wjcandee : Not to be argumentative, but two crew rest seats in BF causes the same revenue hit as bunks? In any event, all I'm sayin' is that that was one of the
28 N1120A : Oh, I know that. The thing about those discussions is that they were happening at the same time as RJs were starting their incidious infection of the
29 Lrgt : Still taking up the cargo space would be the best idea (rather than J-class seats), as weight restrictions will mean the belly will not be filled any
30 Wjcandee : Agreed. It was a whole different view of the airline world.
31 N1120A : Except that adding a crew rest in the cargo area will add a lot of weight itself. That is the problem with looking at economics through a boom and bu
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...
Could CO 767 Fleet Be Better Utilized? posted Wed Mar 29 2006 16:24:37 by UPSMD11
Would DL Be Better Off Shutting Down Comair? posted Sat Apr 29 2006 22:59:57 by LawnDart
What Would Retired AA 767-200's Be Good For? posted Thu Jul 1 2004 06:10:00 by Upsmd11
Would The A333 Or A332 Be A Better Choice? posted Sun May 19 2002 07:35:52 by LanPeru
767-200ER Vs 767-200EM posted Tue Nov 7 2006 15:53:27 by AF022
767-200ER - Are They Still Making Them? posted Mon Aug 7 2006 03:22:52 by AF022
US Airways 767-200ER At CUN... posted Thu Jul 27 2006 06:50:26 by Thering
Would DL Have Been Better Keeping Their MD-11s posted Sun Jul 16 2006 15:50:23 by RobertS975
Does AC Use 767-200ER To SYD From YVR Via HNL? posted Thu Mar 2 2006 01:23:37 by AirCanada014
AC 767-200ER Polished A/C Result, When? posted Fri Feb 17 2006 08:41:17 by AirCanada014