Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boring And Slow 767s  
User currently offlineWingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2289 posts, RR: 5
Posted (15 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1039 times:

This forum generates a lot of bad press for the 767. I've asked why in previous posts, but the questions were buried in my usual long-winded speeches.

Why such negative feelings? I've flown this type countless times to Erope, South America, and trans-continental US destinations. Never a problem, always smooth, and a cruise speed of 955 kmh per this website. Is it just because it's old and boringly reliable? Is it because its looks don't give you that 'ol Viagra effect? I agree the 330 is a stunner, but hell, every new model jet outshines the oldies and goodies.

Someone recently descibed the 767 as "slow". I've looked for competing data on the 330 but neither Airliners nor Airbus has it. Anyone have data?

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTygue From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (15 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 967 times:

Wingman,
I have all the A330-200 data in front of me. The MMO is 0.86. VMO is 330kts.

Let me know if you'd like to know anything else.

I agree with you, the 767 is a very nice plane, but to be perfectly honest, I would much rather fly on or operate a 2 1/2 month old A330 than a 5-15 year old 767. Plus getting YVR - YYZ an hour earlier is a lot nicer  

Tygue


User currently offlineDash8 From New Zealand, joined Aug 2005, 2 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (15 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 963 times:

An A330 can never get one hour sooner to any destination compared to the 767. The A330 cruises at 0.82 and the 767 at -0.80. With the range of about 6000 nm of these to planes, one can never get there one hour quicker even at 6000 nm's.

Dash8


User currently offlineTygue From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (15 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 963 times:

Dash8,
From the information I was given, the Boeing 767-200's MMO is 0.76, meaning it would cruise at around .72. For a large Boeing Aircraft, I do find that a little hard to beleive, but that's the information that was given to me.

I fly between Vancouver and Toronto quite a bit on the 757, A320 and A330. The Boeing 757 is very simaler to the Boeing 767, so I am guessing they have simaler cruise speeds. When flying on the A330 the bunch of times I have been on it between YYZ-YVR, I notice at least 30-45 minutes off the flight time compared to the 757 flights.

Just from my experiences. I am not a Boeing 767 "god" by any means. I am not a Airbus A330 "god" by any means either. I just point and stare in quiet awe.

Tygue


User currently offlineAdam84 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 1400 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (15 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 962 times:

The time difference you noticed coulda depended on whether you were flying east or west, because recently this summer I flew from Newark, NJ-San Francisco and the same on the return, and on a 757, on the west bound trip it took 5 hours and 30 mins
on the east bound it took 4 hours and 45 mins, and it was the same flight and same type of aircraft....


User currently offlineTygue From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (15 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 959 times:

Nope...
This has occured both eastbound and westbound.

:o) I'm getting tired, so sorry for the brief response.
Tygue


User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8145 posts, RR: 54
Reply 6, posted (15 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 960 times:

Trans-Atlantic 767s take an hour longer than 747s. Part of this is attributable to the 767's requirement to remain within 120 / 180 / 207 / whatever single-engine minutes of a suitable diversion, but the other thing is that it is slower. Plus, it's not a very interesting plane to look at, and the interior design is bland. I know airlines etc choose colours and things (American MD80 / TWA 727-200 is the chap to speak to about that) but the shape of the cabin walls and overhead lockers aren't very sexy compared to Airbus. Plus, that 2-3-2 layout has always perplexed me. Why all the extra weight and width (therefore drag) to carry a whole second aisle, just for one extra seat per row compared to a narrow-body? Anyway, I have no real grudge against the aircraft, it's just the dullest airliner currently in the skies. And the slowest.


fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineCV990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (15 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 961 times:

Hi Wingman!

I reed your topic with a lot of interest and I give my personall opinion. Last year I had my chance to fly in several new aircraft to my list. Once of them was the 767, both 200 ( N601UA from LAX to JFK with United ) and the 300 ( G-BNWR from JFK to Gatwick with BA ), and I tell you, what a great airplane, the configuration is great 2-3-2, not a wide aircraft, it fits really nicely in a ggod flight, the 747 is big, its unpersonnal, the 767 was an excelent surprised and I was happy. Also I was travelling with my wife and kids and it was good to have the windows seats both, me with one of the kids and my wife with the other kid, so all together, and about the BA 767-300 flight, those RRoyce have a very great "singing" almost like Mozart to my ears!!!
Great plane, I'm fan of 767 too now!


User currently offlineDash8 From New Zealand, joined Aug 2005, 2 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (15 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 961 times:

Just to get a little more technical for a second, the B767 has an Mmo of 0.86. it cruises at mach 0.80 to 0.82. For example in the Boeing 767 AOM it even has a chart for cruise at mach 0.82, which would be the same as the A330. The only difference is that it won't get the range.
In standard conditions the 767-300 will consume between 10000 and 11000 pounds of fuel per hour.

Also remember the 767 when viewed from a performance point of view can not be compared with the A330. It should be compared to the A300/A310.
The 767's engines and airframe are one generation before the A330's.
The fact that we (aviation buffs) still compare it to newer aircraft, and it's popularity across the Atlantic is a tribute to it's amazing design.

Dash8


User currently offlineWingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2289 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (15 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 959 times:

Thanks for the info. Like I said, this airplane is not too exciting to look at, but it seems to get the job done. I think if airplanes were left in the capable hands of this forum, they'd be turbocharged, have momo wheels, and the colors of the old Flying Tigers with the snarling jaws at the front. Wait a second, this actually sounds like an idea, where's Phil's number...?

User currently offlineAA777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 2544 posts, RR: 28
Reply 10, posted (15 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 959 times:

I love the 767, the 300 is the best , but I still like the 200 alot also. I find them to be great aircraft. I dont see why flying on say a 757 is more "Exciting" than a 767. they are truly great planes.

AA777


User currently offlineWilliam From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1305 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (15 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 959 times:

The 2-3-2 configuration is very popular amongr "passengers" its very,very comfortable. On a 767,on one coach aisle,there are 2 window seats,just like evey other plane,but this the 767 kicker,it has 4 aisle seats,YES.YES,YES! To frequent flyers,its a blessing. And the 767 has only 1,yes 1 middle seat. That means 4 out 5 passengers on a 767 has a window or aisle seat. For a widebody and from a freqent flyer perspective,that an A+ in my book. Why make a big deal about the middleseat? When the last time you heard of someone "wanting" the middle seat.

Airbus went with the 2-4-2 seating,that means your chances of getting condemned to the middle seat increases. The 767 is a great aircraft that I wished was used more often,than its cousin the 757. When it first came out,many airlines used them on their domestic flights,and many cities recieved their first "widebody" service with the 767s,but some airline Bean counter figured out it was more efficient to use a 757 instead,relegating the 767s to international routes mostly.What a shame,maybe airline Bean counters need to fly more often. I would pick a 767 any day over a 757 when it comes to comfort. Like Ponitac says in their car commercials"wider is better".

Boeing had a midsize aircraft that was to replace the 727,it was called the 7J7, it had the cabin width and aisle configuration of a 767. One day Boeing may dust off the plans and build it. That will be a true "New Generation".
But for now, I love my 767s.


User currently offlineTullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1601 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (15 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 960 times:

Hi from Australia

Interestingly enough, here in Australia the 767 is primarily used on short haul domestic routes by both Ansett and Qantas. Each has in excess of 15 762's used basically on the busy east coast trunk routes of MEL-SYD and SYD-BNE. Qantas also uses a couple of 763's for the same purpose.

Qantas has a number of 763's on international duties to Asia and New Zealand whilst Ansett has one 763 in use primarily for its Sydney-Taipei flights though Ansett does use its domestic 762's on "back of clock" and weekend runs to Bali and Fiji.

Ansett is currently considering the replacement of its 767s and is rumoured to be considering the A330-200 though they are also rumoured to be thinking of not running large twins at all and instead moving to a fleet comprising solely of A320's, A319's and A321's. They would keep their 744's for their long haul Asian routes.

FYI, Some European charter airlines such as Britannia have their 767's confgured as 2-4-2.




717,721/2,732/3/4/5/7/8/9,742/3/4,752/3,762/3,772,W,310,320/1,332/3,388,DC9,DC10,F28,F100,142,143,E90,CR2,D82/3/4,SF3,AT
User currently offlineLauda 777 From Sweden, joined May 1999, 501 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (15 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 961 times:

I think the 767 is a cool aircraft and I likes it very much!

:-)



Joystick for flightsim. Yokes for real planes.
User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8145 posts, RR: 54
Reply 14, posted (15 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 962 times:

I realise that the 2-3-2 is popular with passengers, but since when did Boeing ever make passenger comfort a priority? They build planes for pilots, Airbus build planes for passengers (and not really for pilots).

I don't see how there is any difference between 2-3-2 and 2-4-2. The middle seat in the 767's 2-3-2 configuration necessitates climbing over one other passenger to get to the aisle, same as 2-4-2, you're never more than one seat from the aisle. The only difference is with 2-3-2 that middle seat is only one seat away from EITHER aisle, whereas with 2-4-2 you're going to be one seat away from one aisle and 2 away from the other. So I'm still not convinced that there is a meaningful advantage to 2-3-2. Plus, the narrower body means the 767 can't carry LD3 containers, whereas Airbus widebodies can. It's pretty arrogant to force the whole industry to come up with a new (smaller) container size just for the 767 (which is what had to happen).



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlinePhilly phlyer From United States of America, joined May 1999, 317 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (15 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 960 times:

I generally agree with your post with one exception, the A330 is not a completely new aircraft.

> New wings (yes)
> New engines (yes)
> New avionics (yes)
> Updated interior (yes)
> New airframe (No)

This is a stretch of the A300/310 airframe. If the A330 had been made by Boeing, it would have been named an A300NG.

This is very good marketing by airbus. It implies its A330 is an all new airplane while they can criticise Boeing for flying old technology. In truth, the 737NGs and the 767-400s incorporate as much new technology and improvements over their ancestors as the A330s do over theirs.



User currently offlineDash8 From New Zealand, joined Aug 2005, 2 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (15 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 967 times:

You're right on that one, but build a newer more efficient wing and newer engines and you can more than compensate for the older airframe design which probably couldn't have gotten that much of a face lift.

p.s. Here's my point of view on the cabin layout debacle. If Airbus builds it's aircraft around passenger needs then why would the raise the cabin floor so high up there. Look at the window line of an A340 then look at the 777's.
Also if Boeing built airplanes around pilots, then why would they be the first to employ a completely round fuselage?
Also on a layout 2-4-2 remember also that you will not be the only one having this seat jumping problem so is the one sitting next to you.

There is no way anyone can say that Airbus aircraft are better then Boeing aircraft. No one can say it's the other way around either. Both have superior planes and both have their weaknesses.
it all boils down to personal preference.

Dash8


User currently offlineAC183 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 1532 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (15 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 962 times:

I don't know that I've seen people down too much on the 767, but I really don't see what the big deal some people make about the 757 is. To me the seating arrangement is good in the 767, and wide body is a better choice for passengers any day. The 767 is very nice to fly, in my view, although maybe not as exciting as brand new 777's or the big 747's. Nonetheless, I would prefer it to a 757 any day. The way I see it the biggest drawback to 767's is the different sized container.

User currently offlineFLY777UAL From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4512 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (15 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 960 times:

Wow...I sure don't see how you can think that Boeing is arrogant about making the industry come up with the smaller LD-2, as the 767 was drawn up BEFORE standardized containers were around (according to Airbus, Boeing, and many other sources).

FLY777UAL


User currently offlineAmerican 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3875 posts, RR: 12
Reply 19, posted (15 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 961 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

All I have to say is that there is absolutely nothing to complain about the 767. It\'s a magnificient airliner. Quiet, fuel efficient, good safety record, reliable for ETOPS, it\'s one of the best aircraft Boeing has ever built. I haven\'t read any reply to this post yet but, I think that the 767 is an excellent aircraft for transatlantic flights. That\'s what I\'ve been on the most.

Ben Soriano
Brussels Belgium



Ben Soriano
User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8145 posts, RR: 54
Reply 20, posted (15 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 963 times:

Maybe I'm wrong about the LD2 being forced by the introduction of the 767. Maybe it existed as a standard before the 767.

I know the Airbus widebodies have quite a high cabin floor level but it doesn't seem to make the aircraft feel more crowded to me. Is the argument that the higher floor means cabin walls which lean in as opposed to the vertical Boeing cabin walls? I think that if one airliner can carry more underfloor cargo than another it'll make more money for the airline, enabling passenger ticket prices to be cheaper. The most efficient plane is the most passenger-friendly, in the most general sense of the term. The ticket has to be affordable and the airline has to be profitable (at least sometimes), otherwise it doesn't matter how vertical the cabin walls, how many seats abreast etc.



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineWilliam From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1305 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (15 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 970 times:

I know from my travels,that 767 domestic flights aren't always full,which means alot,excuse the majority if not all passengers have either aisle or window. That cannot be said of an 2-4-2 Airbus. Again,I am talking from a passenger point of view,not a pilot's or mechanics. Both 767 and Airbus 330/340s were certified by our government to be safe,so again its a personal thing.

I am not knocking the Airbus airframe. The fact that UPS and FEDEX uses the A300 (and 310 for FEDEX) shows the cargo capacity of the airframe. (Yes,I know,that UPS uses the 757 and the 767 too.)


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29805 posts, RR: 58
Reply 22, posted (15 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 970 times:

On the subject of specialized containers: A lot of manufactures manufacture flats, igloos and cans that a specialized for certain aircraft. When I was ramping for RAA we operated 727's (6 across) and L-188's(5 across). Plain flats could fit on either aircraft but because of the shape of the igloos a 727 and L-188 igloo where not interchangable on either aircraft. I went on Hawaiian airlines once and their had a specialized round bottomed can that went into the DC-8-60 that I was flying on. There are also companies that can build cans for 727,737,DC-9 ect, ect, ect.

On the 767-300 the front belly can be equipted with a larger door that allows the used of standard topside freight flats.

Also Airbus isn't exactly completly pure when it come to designing for use of standardized pallets. The A-320 does not use standard containers in it's lower belly. It has the same basic shape as an LD-3 but it about a foot shorter. So you can move an A-320 can onto an aircraft that accomodates LD-3's but you can't do the reverse.

Anyway I have flown on the 767 a number of times (Including two or three trips accross the pond). I never had any problems with space and on of the flights was a Dallas-Frankfort run, Not a short trip by any length of the imagination. I prefer narrower body aircraft anyway, so the smaller 767 fits me to a tee.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineSuperyoel2001 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (15 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 971 times:

I would rather fly a 767 than an A330. The seating is so much better. In a 2-3-2 configuration you can have a window seat while never being more than one seat from the aisle. The A330 does look better though.

User currently offlineSuperyoel2001 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (15 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 974 times:

With the seating arragement 2-4-2 in some 767s, I'm interested to know how wide the seats and aisles are. They had to make more room somewhere.

25 MD11 : On my recent trip to Thailand, i flew with Gulf Air 767-300 ER, and i can tell that it was one of teh best flights i had, much space in the plane, esp
26 Boeing757/767 : Wingman, the 767 is a fabulous aircraft. Despite being nearly 20 years old, the model is still among the best around. Fellow Forumists, you might be i
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...
2 Holers, Boring And All Look The Same posted Sat Apr 20 2002 14:41:22 by Galaxy5
Any Experience On KLM And Their 767s posted Thu Jul 19 2001 11:06:10 by ARN
AA 757 And 767s At MSP? posted Sat Apr 25 2009 18:26:50 by Cbphoto
Is Brussels Too Slow And Restrictive In Take-overs? posted Fri Feb 6 2009 02:43:56 by Beaucaire
What's The Reason For AZ And AUA To Be So Slow? posted Mon Oct 20 2008 23:34:39 by Beaucaire
BA Still Upgrading Its B 747-400s And B 767s? posted Thu Sep 27 2007 10:54:59 by United Airline
CO 757s And 767s In FLL posted Sat Feb 10 2007 14:41:43 by NADC10Fan
Why No Moving Map On AA's 767s And A300s? posted Sun Jan 28 2007 00:38:24 by SvenvdM
CX - Slow Climber And Latest To Retract Spoilers posted Fri Jan 5 2007 03:20:23 by KHKAIR
Delta 777s And 767s Into PHX posted Fri Dec 30 2005 11:04:00 by Thegooddoctor