Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is A New 767-200 Still Cost Effective?  
User currently offlineLPSHobby From Brazil, joined May 2007, 191 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 10815 times:

as there isn´t any new really replacement for 757-200, A310 and 767-200s, and considering that Boeing site still lists the 767-200ER as still in production, would a newly built 767-200ER cost effective, for routes where a A330-200 or 787 are too much bigger than the necessary?

63 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSmi0006 From Australia, joined Jan 2008, 1531 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 10785 times:

I think I remember someone here saying how they would be well suited for QF to use on some international services out of CBR, I like this idea I know it will never eventuate but would have been great to see!

User currently offlineLipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11429 posts, RR: 58
Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 10650 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR



Quoting LPSHobby (Thread starter):
as there isn´t any new really replacement for 757-200, A310 and 767-200s, and considering that Boeing site still lists the 767-200ER as still in production, would a newly built 767-200ER cost effective, for routes where a A330-200 or 787 are too much bigger than the necessary?

Yes, it is. If you're talking about routes with demand enough to produce 80% load on a 170 seats 2-class 762, it will be nice but we need to see how the city pair performs in terms of fares.



New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4395 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 10618 times:

In theory there may be some connections that indeed are more profitable on a 762ER than any other airliner. These are a few only, and they are still cheaper to fly on a used 762ER or 763ER, which are available no for purchase or lease, so I don't see it to generate new orders.

User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5407 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 10609 times:

Perhaps on the occasional long, premium-heavy route. The 762 has low trip costs for a widebody, but can't carry many pax, so CASM is high.

I think your question is best answered by 762 sales, though. Only 20 767-200ERs have been delivered in the last decade. If the aircraft were competitive, we would have seen more sales, especially since the bulk of used 762ERs are old and not as capable as new builds.

The 762 occupies a very, very narrow piece of ground between the 752 and 763, both of which offer considerably lower CASM on missions they can fly.

[Edited 2009-06-02 07:25:32]

User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10696 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 10579 times:

No,
that nobody has ordered one this decade I guess should answer the question exhaustively enough.

Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 4):
I think your question is best answered by 762 sales, though. Only 20 767-200ERs have been delivered in the last decade.

 checkmark 


User currently offlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5409 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 10514 times:



Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 4):
The 762 has low trip costs for a widebody, but can't carry many pax, so CASM is high.

That's the dilemma. So the plane will make money on routes that are too small to attract much competition flying passengers who are willing to pay relatively high fares. There aren't a whole lot of those routes.

I have wondered if a premium economy class (the BA version, not UA's) might improve profitability for this plane, but don't have enough data to conclude anything.



I love long German words like 'Freundschaftsbezeigungen'.
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16859 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 10507 times:

CO has the newest 767-200s out there, all are less than 9 years old. They are great for the long - thin routes where they need a lot of J seats, the problem is that CO's 767-200ERs have nearly the same capacity as their 737-900ERs albeit with a much higher CASM.


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8337 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 10494 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

When the 767-300ER came out in 1988 the 762 was almost turned obselete. The only new build 767-200ER were 10 for Continental for smaller routes to Europe. The 757 took that job so Continental has used the 762ER to Brazil & Argentina.

User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16859 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 10384 times:



Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 8):
The only new build 767-200ER were 10 for Continental for smaller routes to Europe. The 757 took that job so Continental has used the 762ER to Brazil & Argentina.

CO still flies several Trans-Atlantic routes with the 767-200s, while their 757-200s have the same capacity the 767-200s offer more J seats.

CO flies their 767-200s:

EWR-
AMS 1 daily - MAD 1 daily - MXP 1 daily - FCO 1 daily - GRU 1 daily - ZRH 1 daily-

IAH-
EZE 1 daily -



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineEghansen From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 10356 times:



Quoting LPSHobby (Thread starter):
would a newly built 767-200ER cost effective, for routes where a A330-200 or 787 are too much bigger than the necessary?

Not really. The 767-200 uses the same engines as the 767-300, so trip cost is about the same. Thus even if the 767-300 might be a bit too large for a route, there is no reason to not use the larger aircraft anyway because it does not cost any extra to run.


User currently offlineAA777223 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1245 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 10294 times:



Quoting STT757 (Reply 7):
CO has the newest 767-200s out there, all are less than 9 years old. They are great for the long - thin routes where they need a lot of J seats, the problem is that CO's 767-200ERs have nearly the same capacity as their 737-900ERs albeit with a much higher CASM.

...and much less range and cargo capacity.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 10):
Not really. The 767-200 uses the same engines as the 767-300, so trip cost is about the same. Thus even if the 767-300 might be a bit too large for a route, there is no reason to not use the larger aircraft anyway because it does not cost any extra to run.

Just because it has the same engines, doesn't mean it burns exactly the same amount of fuel. If this were true everyone would order A333, instead of A332 or 739 instead of 738. You have to carry more crew on a 763, and there are other greater expenses. Most importantly, regardless of if you have the same engines or not, when you fly a 763 where a 762 would do, you are hauling around more empty aircraft, decreasing range, and increasing fuel consumption.



Sic 'em bears
User currently offlineATA L1011 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1383 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 10201 times:

Your right AA777223, people always forget that the 762ER holds much more cargo has "much much much" more range than 752 or 739ER. it could open up routes that a 757 or 739 could only dream of in range if need be. Also the reason the 752 and 739 are close in capacity to it as CO has way more Seats in F etc, in "normal" seating arrangement it holds more than they do.


Treat others as you expect to be treated!
User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 10130 times:

Unfortunately, probably not anymore. Due to the improvements made in the 757-200 with the addition of winglets, and that carrying out 3,500nm+ flights, the 762ER market is just really really small. It costs significantly more to operate than a 752, and is really only good for a select few routes that prove to be too long for the 752. From a passenger stand point, the 762 is one hell of a nice plane to fly on, especially in J class!


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gerry Stegmeier




We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineAA777223 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1245 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 9971 times:

The 762 is a very long legged aircraft. People often forget that the 763 has a fairly healthy range on it. I think its even fairly capable of doing transpac work. The 762 has an even longer range. It would have had a similar role when first created in the early 80s to what the 788 will have in the future. Long, long routes that don't need passenger capacity of a 777, 748, A380, or A340. See the range map here.

http://boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_rc_losangeles.html



Sic 'em bears
User currently offlineLipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11429 posts, RR: 58
Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 9940 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR



Quoting STT757 (Reply 9):
IAH-
EZE 1 daily -

Soon GIG

CO uses the 762 on routes where competition is strong and using a 752 would not offer a good number of J seats. Also, they could use them on new routes.



New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
User currently offlinePnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2235 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 9879 times:

If AC's 762's weren't so long in the tooth and up for expensive maintenance I think there would still be a spot in the fleet for them. There is a big gap in seats between the 321's and the 763's. In some ways though frequency has lessened the need.

User currently offlineCchan From New Zealand, joined May 2003, 1759 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 9750 times:

Just a quick question: How many 762s are still flying in pax config? Thanks.

User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 9642 times:

Well according to Wikipedia (I know not always reliable) but there are still 168 in passenger service worldwide.

"A total of 168 767-200/-200ER aircraft were in airline service as of August 2008."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2012 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 9641 times:

The current 762ER is outdated, as it's 70s/80s technology. An NG 767 with GeNXs might be more interesting, though probably not worth the development cost sadly, as I presume the narrow fuselage will be more fuel efficient than the other fatter widebodies?


it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineDJ748 From Australia, joined Jul 2006, 355 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 9601 times:



Quoting Smi0006 (Reply 1):
I think I remember someone here saying how they would be well suited for QF to use on some international services out of CBR, I like this idea I know it will never eventuate but would have been great to see!

QF used to operate the 762, but retired them from service in late 2004. I highly doubt if QF will get any more.


User currently offlineLipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11429 posts, RR: 58
Reply 21, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 9442 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR



Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 19):
An NG 767 with GeNXs might be more interesting, though probably not worth the development cost sadly, as I presume the narrow fuselage will be more fuel efficient than the other fatter widebodies?

This would demand almost the same investment of a new plane. And as you mentioned very well, orders probably wont come in the same size of the investment made, unless they can sell the " 768 " for a very reasonable price, producing a better CASM, but this would at the same time, stole some 787 orders.



New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25154 posts, RR: 22
Reply 22, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 9404 times:



Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 4):
Only 20 767-200ERs have been delivered in the last decade. If the aircraft were competitive, we would have seen more sales,

And only 10 of those were delivered to just one airline (to CO in 2000/2001) plus one VIP aircraft to Kazakhstan. The others were all for military uses.


User currently offlineHeathrow From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 979 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8657 times:

I miss the old AC birds. Actually....no I don't. the 762 was great for it's time, but it's like airlines flying MD-11's, just not as nice to look at. I'm sure if they're paid for, they're worth it, but leasing one or buying one new would just seem a bit ridiculous with the amount of new jets out there.

User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2437 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8536 times:

787-800s will fill this niche quite nicely, even though it is a bit bigger.

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 14):
The 762 is a very long legged aircraft.

Indeed. 6,385 nm at the referenced range.



oh boy!!!
25 AirbusA6 : Significantly bigger, especially at 9 abreast, to almost be too much plane?
26 Akhristov : I thought it was 2-3-2 (7) and 2-4-2 (8)?
27 Pellegrine : It was supposed to be 8 across in economy. But the fuselage width is kind of ambiguous between fitting 8 and 9 across. So, greedy airlines are going
28 Akhristov : Way to cram the plane... I haven't seen that many airlines using 2-4-2 for the 767, even though it was an option.
29 Pellegrine : It'll still be "comfortable" in 3-3-3, much more so than 2-4-2 in a 767 which only some charter operators use. Apparently late in the design process
30 Akhristov : It would help if Boeing had charts on their site like they used to... For some reason I can't find them anymore. I like the 2-3-2 and 2-4-2 configura
31 AirbusA6 : I meant that a 9 abreast 787 would hold significantly more people than a 7 abreast 767, especially a 762, thus not making it a direct replacement fio
32 QFMel : Let's not forget AN, a notable 762 user. My first overseas trip was flown on an AN 762, MEL-DPS. Those were the days. A lovely aircraft. The bigger b
33 Brilondon : Sure. You charge enough money to your passengers and voila you make enough money to give yourself a decent return.
34 AA777223 : Indeed. From what I understand, size/capacity wise the 788 is closer to the 763, the 789 is closer to the 764/332/358, and the 7810 (should she ever
35 Jfk777 : Continental also does IAH to GRU daily, last I checked. I never said 762ER's didn't fly EWR to Europe, but Cal does use too many 757's. Of 3 daily fl
36 B737900er : The market doesnt think so.
37 STT757 : It's a 767-400 that continues on to GIG. Obviously people disagree, btw the other aircraft flying EWR-LHR is a 777-200ER. If CO had enough slots they
38 Avconsultant : People at Boeing told me the 762 constraint is passenger comfort regarding food. It can stay airborne for so long there is not enough room to store t
39 EddieDude : AM is now flying MEX-TIJ-NRT with the 762ER. It is a truly capable aircraft. It replaced AM's DC-10s and has been the backbone of its long-haul fleet
40 EA772LR : I bet SQ will run their 789s at 8 abreast.
41 Mandala499 : Short answer: No... U're better off with the 763ER. The 762ER is only 5-7 tons lighter than the 763ER... Has an MTOW of about 10 tons below the 763ER.
42 EA772LR : Mandala499, would you think CO would have been better off going with the 763ER vs. their 762ER? Or does the fact they have now downsized their Euro r
43 LipeGIG : But what's the difference in price ? When you can get the 762 and the 763 ? Remember that if the price is considerable lower, we're talking about low
44 DocLightning : If you manage it right, you could probably make money flying a DC-7 on certain routes, but it's not going to make it the best business choice. First o
45 Cchan : " target=_blank>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767 Thanks. It looks like there are not many 762s around these days. I am glad that I will be fly
46 Mandala499 : I for one have enjoyed being saved by a 762ER from several extra hours of delay due to extra ground stops if it were a 763ER (long story, let's just
47 DocLightning : It's called the 787-8.
48 Post contains links EA772LR : Thanks for the great post, and answering my questions Funny you mention this as I started a thread about this here: here
49 MasseyBrown : At the time of their order CO had a precise plan for 50-seat increments of capacity: 762, 764, 777. All very tidy, until they decided after a few yea
50 Stitch : The 787-8 is similar to the 767-400ER and A330-200 in passenger capacity. The 787-9 is similar to the A330-300 and A340-300 in passenger capacity. Th
51 ThegreatRDU : Are you sure? how can a 732 be more efficient than a 737 or a 738 on exactly the same sector......
52 Mandala499 : These are very short sectors, and the aircraft is free, that company only pays maintenance and insurance (in terms of the airframe that is) per hour
53 LipeGIG : And need to analize the specific situation of a route or airline. 100% correct.
54 Mandala499 : So the conclusion is... "Is a new 762 still cost effective?"... likely answer... no... "CAN a new 762 be cost effective"... yes... For those looking f
55 Brilondon : And many different shades for that matter.
56 STT757 : I think CO might find a creative use for the 767-200 fleet once the 787s start arriving, for instance they could convert them to an all BusinessFirst
57 MasseyBrown : You're probably right - I'm sure they'll try. The size of the fleet invites experimentation. This plane illustrates a problem (to me) in airline fina
58 LPSHobby : dear friends, When I started the topic I was thinking about an airline starting up flights from cities in Brazil, not Rio or São Paulo, for example B
59 AA777223 : Isn't that what UAs 762s were doing, when they were in service? Like the one that crashed on 9/11?
60 STT757 : UA had three class 767-200s in operation from JFK-LAX and SFO, but those were some of the earliest 767 models built and they were not in the new "PS"
61 Mandala499 : Understandard config, they did BKK-CPH and CPH-Sao Paolo for SAS... haven't been bothered to check the distances yet...
62 DocLightning : I'll just throw this out: Iran Air still flies 747-200's and 747-SP's, do they not?
63 Airxliban : Great example of this is Aloha's use of the 732 on short inter hawaiian hops where each sector was 30 minutes or less. They tried using 737-700s on t
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...
Is The 767-200 Still Being Produced? posted Thu Nov 20 2003 23:49:43 by BR715-A1-30
A New 767-200 Order For Boeing From SilverJet? posted Mon Oct 22 2007 15:01:15 by Gilesdavies
Is The 767-400 Still In Production? posted Mon Feb 9 2004 16:22:14 by Maiznblu_757
Are Boeing 767-200's Still In Production? posted Tue Aug 29 2000 16:41:39 by Aer Lingus
Does Air New Zealand Still Operate The B 767-200? posted Wed May 15 2002 21:37:16 by United Airline
Cost Effective To Switch To New Engines? posted Thu Apr 17 2008 14:17:33 by DL767captain
New Life For Retired United 767-200? posted Mon Apr 9 2007 13:53:38 by EDDL
TAG43 767-200 Into EWR. What Is This? posted Thu Feb 8 2007 16:12:55 by Tjwgrr
767-200 JAT Is Arriving posted Sun Mar 12 2006 00:48:22 by FCKC
New 767's For LAN -- 200's Or 300's? posted Thu Jun 30 2005 21:48:43 by Clickhappy