Rdwootty From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 907 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 11316 times:
I suspect that it will actually be cheaper to operate a 767-200er than keep stopping and having to rebook all the connecting passengers. I am sure it is NOT about passenger numbers. In fact the Y seating is lower than on a 757.
Well, CO's 762ERs are newer than DL's 763ERs. They all feature the 777-style Boeing Signature Interior, and have PTVs (though not AVOD) in economy. However, DL has AVOD in BusinessElite on their 763ERs.
Also, Delta doesn't fly the 764ER on JFK-TXL. So the 764ER is irrelevant to this discussion.
[Edited 2008-10-06 14:16:19]
The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
Thorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 10953 times:
Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 8): Also, Delta doesn't fly the 764ER on JFK-TXL. So the 764ER is irrelevant to this discussion.
But maybe the need to counter CO's 762 with a 764, because of the PTVs in the 762. CO might respond with sending a 772. Sorry, I'm dreaming, but it would be nice if one of the two could generate enough demand for a regular 764.
WorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 10495 times:
I can give you one hint about what I'd rather see: I'd rather see a plane that has more profit potential. The 762 has almost identical costs except for FAs as the 763 but generates far less revenue. It also doesn't have anywhere near the cargo capacity - but even if it did it wouldn't matter much in TXL which isn't a big cargo market. We can look at the number of recent 762ERs that were ordered and built as evidence that the market sees little need for a plane that is shorter than the 763ER which can do everything the 762ER can do with far more profit potential. The only real advantage the 762ER has is range but DL flies its 763ERs on more longhaul routes than any other 767 operator... and you will soon see them pushing into new global regions.
Cory6188 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2733 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 10469 times:
Quoting CV880 (Reply 11): But what looks better rolling down the runway.......a stubby little 762 or a sleek 763?
And in all honesty, who cares? Do you think that airlines make their fleet allocation decisions based on "what looks better rolling down the runway"? If that were the case, and airlines made their decisions based upon airplane beauty, we'd have 744s shuttling back and forth everywhere.
FlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 10389 times:
I think that with the winter jetstream picking up, the EWR-TXL is hard to make for 752, and diversions are expensive. Additionally, I think CO has cultivated a good premium traffic market on the route, and the 762 allows for more premium seats and revenue.
Quoting CV880 (Reply 5):
Does this mean that we can expect some discussion on CO's 762ER vs DL's 763ER on this route? Smile
Pfff, there is no competition there. The DL 763ERs (esp. in Y) look like they right out of 1988, with all of the wear to prove it. The CO 762ER's have the signature interior, PTVs, and are all around fantastic. They can lift more weight in cargo than 763ER, also.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
CALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 3026 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 10248 times:
Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 13): I can give you one hint about what I'd rather see: I'd rather see a plane that has more profit potential.
I agree that 763 and 764 aircraft have more profit potential than 762 aircraft. As are 738 and 739 vs. 73G aircraft, which must be ordered for thinner or special situation markets. Surely similar cost vs. revenue is apparent with 737 as it is with 777 types.
But, the fact is that CO bought 762ER aircraft and are using them on routes that need the BF seats and cargo capacity. I'd think CO would love to part with them in light or fuel prices if they can find replacement aircraft. Pending the economy, they may go away when more 777 and 787 units come online.
To blow your argument TOTALLY out of proportion, why isn't every airline flying a 773ER or A346 on every route? As I understand, when full of reasonably high-yielding pax, there isn't a more profitable airplane in service anywhere...
Realistically, the 767-200ER is the toughest airplane to make money with in the CO fleet, because it does have a fairly high trip cost, not a lot of revenue seats, a hefty crew complement, and a rather rich configuration in terms of J/Y mix. However, on the right route, the aircraft can be a serious moneymaker. The Y cabin is small enough where yields can be protected (limited supply) but the J cabin is able to support strong premium loads, which is why you see the airplane in ZRH/GVA/EZE/GRU/LHR. If you can fill most of those 25 big seats with paying pax, the rest of the load becomes much less important.
We are in agreement that the 767-300ER is a more capable airplane and can do just about everything the 762 can, plus generate more revenue with its additional capacity. I'm still not entirely sure why CO went for the -200ER, when the SEC filings clearly indicate they knew what they were getting into with that airplane. Regardless, it's not quite the dog you make it out to be, but it's close!
From a passenger's perspective, though, the CO 762 is tough to beat. I love the 2-1-2 configuration up front. The airplane is a little hot rod too, has a similar 'rocket ship' effect to the 757-200, which is always a treat after spending most of my time with CO on much more sluggish 737-800/900s. On the inside, the Signature interior is great, the 32" pitch is excellent, and in the back, the B Zone mini cabin is a cool place to sit. With the smaller load, you don't have the same crowds at immigration (unless you're at LHR) and the boarding/deplaning process is very fast. Even though there's no AVOD, the IFE system is still better than what AA/DL/UA have in Y on most of their 767s, so I can't really complain about that.
I understand the economics of operating the 762 are not ideal, but as a passenger, I will be a little sad to see them go, hopefully later rather than sooner!
Vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 4362 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 10190 times:
While all the arguments about the -200 hold water, it remains a fact that CO ordered the -200 at a time when for many many years no other airline at all had ordered the -200 and the sub-type more or less had been dead as a pax aircraft. So they must have thought about their order for a minute or two unless Boeing threw them in for free.
CV880 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1204 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 10073 times:
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 15): Pfff, there is no competition there. The DL 763ERs (esp. in Y) look like they right out of 1988, with all of the wear to prove it. The CO 762ER's have the signature interior, PTVs, and are all around fantastic. They can lift more weight in cargo than 763ER, also.
Refurbished interiors on the 200's... and You don't really know (nor does anyone at this point) what DL intends to do with the coach cabin interiors on the 300ER for the long term. Your cargo capacity stats seem quite a bit off as the 300/300ER has 30 LD2 cargo positions, and the last time that I saw the interior of a 200, it had only 22 positions. Each LD2 has a capacity of about 2500lbs, or 20k more capacity for the 300, or the same for two additional P96 pallets.
You forget that DL did have 15 or 16 stubbies in the fleet, but they were 200's as opposed to 200ER's. The CO 762's don't hold any more pax than the 757's, so not exactly pulling in a greater amount of revenue as it's unlikely that the BF cabin is all revenue (unless it's LHR or another hot spot).
Columba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7182 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 9641 times:
As far as I know, CO will cancel the flight to Athen over the winter and the 767 that is been used on the Athens flight is being used for TXL instead.
This is just a temporarily solution over the winter. When CO begin to fly to Athens next Summer TXl will be a 757 again.
Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 8): Well, CO's 762ERs are newer than DL's 763ERs. They all feature the 777-style Boeing Signature Interior, and have PTVs (though not AVOD) in economy. However, DL has AVOD in BusinessElite on their 763ERs.
This might be a reason to fly to EWR over the winter
I am not a fan of flying a 757 over the pond and that is why I did not fly CO last year as I was flying to EWR.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong