Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The 762 Vs 752  
User currently offlinedl767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 10669 times:

The 762ER and 752 seat roughly the same amount of people (I think it's about a 20 seat difference). What I'm wondering is if a reengined 762ER would be a good replacement to the 752. Now I know Boeing probably wouldn't do it but I'm just curious, if there was a small update to the 762ER, new engines would be about it, if it would be attractive for current 752 routes

42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinebrenintw From Taiwan, joined Jul 2006, 1569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 10575 times:

According to the Aircraft Data here, the difference is closer to 50 seats (or 20 - 25%).

757-200: 178 - 239
767-200: 226 - 290

But the important numbers would probably be in the weights:

(Quoting empty weights)
767-200: 168,800 lbs
757-200: 127,800 lbs

The 767 carries approximately 40,000 lbs more than the 757. The MTOW delta is even greater.

The 767 would be horribly uneconomical compared to the 757 on the same route). I'm not sure what kind of fuel efficiency and other improvements would be required to get the CASM down to the region of the 757's, but I simply don't see that being possible given how much extra weight the 767 is lugging around.

For the very few routes that the 757-200 can do that the A321 or 739ER can't do, it would simply be cost-prohibitive to put the 767-derivative on that you're proposing.



I'm tired of the A vs. B sniping. Neither make planes that shed wings randomly!
User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 6903 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 10433 times:

Quoting brenintw (Reply 1):
767-200: 226 - 290

We have 24/206 on a 763... 226+ on a 762 must be jamming them in...


User currently offlineSchorschNG From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 10301 times:

The Capacity of B757 and B767 are actually pretty close together. The additional weight comes from the much larger cross section of the B767, but also from the larger wing. Boeing did quite well in defining two types of aircraft, one retaining the very efficient legacy cross section and one using a new very comfortable "small twin aisle" cross section.


From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
User currently offlineeta unknown From Comoros, joined Jun 2001, 2051 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 10114 times:

Most airlines saw the comparason this way:

For a widebody, the 762 cargo capacity was very poor. On the 762-752 passenger side, you were basically flying an extra aisle for a few extra pax.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16694 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 10086 times:

In CO's configuration their 767-200s have one less seat than their 757-200s and only one more seat than their 737-900ERs.

737-900ER 20+153= 173

757-200 16+159= 175

767-200 25+149= 174



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2673 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 9922 times:

It is true that some airlines like CO have pretty close number of seats between their 752 and 762. But when you look closer you will realize that just lokking at those two numbers are a bit miseading.

In economy the seats on the CO 762 are wider, and has a 32" pitch instead of 31" Add to this that the CO airplane has more business class seats and we see that it is infair to state that the 767 and 757 is very close in capacity.

Let us say I wanted to start at lowfare airline, and wanted to offer oconomy only. Still with the wider seats and 32" pitch. I would end up with 242 seats in the 762. The 752 would offer about 220 seats with the same pitch, but more narrow seats. If I would go Ryanair style, I could go 8 abreast in the 767-200. So you see the seat differences between the 757 and 767 is more due to different configs.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineSchorschNG From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 9751 times:

The B767 allowed better comfort.
Nowadays comfort is not really of concern any more.
For many routes the B767 was a game changer.
There are a few characteristics that are not described by seat count alone.



From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
User currently offline2travel2know2 From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 2428 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 9689 times:

Talk about range, the B767-200ER has a far longer range than a B757-200.
Niche market for the B767-200ER these days: long-haul thin, but high-yield, non-stop routes. Those routes where a B777 will just be too much.
If the B787 deliveries are delayed, maybe some of those airlines waiting for the B787 may get a couple of brand-new B767-200ER at a discount courtesy of Boing to be used on B787 routes that are still within the B767-200ER range.



I'm not on CM's payroll.
User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9561 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 2):
We have 24/206 on a 763... 226 on a 762 must be jamming them in...

Yes, some do.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Kjell Nilsson



User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8206 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9509 times:

The 762 would never be competitive as a domestic airplane. The 763 domestic makes it but just barely, and only in odd mega-carrier circumstances (DL, UA). The 757 (or A321) is really big enough for any domestic job, these days. Even if not, the A330 is probably going to be more compelling than a 762, as a larger people hauler. If you really need to carry 250 people, rather than 180, remember those extra people probably paid low fares. Especially domestically.

The 762 today has a purpose for providing a business class experience at small scale, and having the range to cross oceans. It does these much more effectively than the 752.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12064 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9427 times:

Isn't the B-787-3 intended as the B-767-200non-ER/-300non-ER, B-757-200/-300, A-310-200, A-300-600R/B-2/B-4, DC-10-10, and L-1011-1 replacement (as well as a Japanese market large commuter plane)? Yes, I know Boeing moved the B-787-3 to the back burner, then it fell off the stove (like the A-380-800F). The B-787-3 cannot replace the B-767-200ER/-300ER/-400ER as it doesn't have the range needed.

The B-767-300ER/-400ER can be reengined, or offered as a NEO, with the GEnx-2B or a bleed air version of the RR Trent-1000 and be a true Boeing competitor to the A-330-200/-300. But such an offer could take sales, current and future, away from the B-787-8.

While I doubt the world's major airlines would be interested in a B-767NEO, the second tier airlines might be if it were to offer almost similar ranges as the B-788s and/or A-332s and should be cheaper to buy or lease.

I think Boeing made a major mistake in not recongnising the popularity of the B-757 among airlines since it began regular Trans-Atlantic service. Boeing could reopen the B-757 line if there was a big enough order for it (that is an improved and more efficent version of the B-757). Where they would have the capacity to build it is anyone's guess, perhaps their new B-787 plant in SC?


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4084 posts, RR: 19
Reply 12, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7913 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):


I think Boeing made a major mistake in not recongnising the popularity of the B-757 among airlines since it began regular Trans-Atlantic service. Boeing could reopen the B-757 line if there was a big enough order for it (that is an improved and more efficent version of the B-757). Where they would have the capacity to build it is anyone's guess, perhaps their new B-787 plant in SC?

I agree completely, that has been my point all along. The 752 is the epitome of the ideal Aircraft for long thin routes and could still be competitive for many more years with a significant update.



Amongst all the 7-Series Boeings only the 75 / 67 models were 'neglected' by their maker in terms of improving the product. The 767 was good enough to keep selling even today. The 75 could still be selling if Boeing had just stuck it out a little longer, especially if they had produced a 'NG' version.




The original 100 / 200 series 737 went through numerous major improvements to give us todays 737NG.


The 747 morphed into the -400 and then the -8 series.


The 777 Classic was developed into the 200LR and 300ER.




The 757 and 767 were never really developed to their full potential and are not that much different than the original models.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12064 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7630 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 12):
The 757 and 767 were never really developed to their full potential and are not that much different than the original models.

Neither were the B-707 (except went they went from tubro-jet engines to turbo-fan engines) and the B-727. But, in Boeing's defense, to date all of the 7 series jets have sold over 1,000 airplanes, except the B-787 and B-717.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4084 posts, RR: 19
Reply 14, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7379 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):

Neither were the B-707 (except went they went from tubro-jet engines to turbo-fan engines) and the B-727. But, in Boeing's defense, to date all of the 7 series jets have sold over 1,000 airplanes, except the B-787 and B-717.

Good point, and thats true.


I'm just saying, they could have sold a lot more, if they had held on..



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinelaca773 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 3945 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7364 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 762ER is a great plane for routes that are a long and thin and where the 757 with winglets won't make it in either direction and will have to many weight penalties for departure.

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24084 posts, RR: 22
Reply 16, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7138 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 12):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):


I think Boeing made a major mistake in not recongnising the popularity of the B-757 among airlines since it began regular Trans-Atlantic service. Boeing could reopen the B-757 line if there was a big enough order for it (that is an improved and more efficent version of the B-757). Where they would have the capacity to build it is anyone's guess, perhaps their new B-787 plant in SC?

I agree completely, that has been my point all along. The 752 is the epitome of the ideal Aircraft for long thin routes and could still be competitive for many more years with a significant update.

Disagree. Market demand is forecast to increase at least 10% a year through 2050. With airport and ATC constraints, that means the only way to meet the increased demand is with larger aircraft. There's no need for another 757. Look at the best-selling 737NG model, the -800, which carries about 50% more passengers than the 737-200 of the 1970s. Every new generation of aircraft is going to be larger than the aircraft it replaces.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
Quoting Max Q (Reply 12):
The 757 and 767 were never really developed to their full potential and are not that much different than the original models.

Neither were the B-707 (except went they went from tubro-jet engines to turbo-fan engines)

Also disagree with that. Compare the capabilities of the final and best-selling 707 model, the -320C, with the original 707-120. The -120 couldn't even reliably do LHR-JFK without a fuel stop, and even eastbound flights often needed a fuel stop, as did Pan Am's inaugural 707 flight IDL-LBG (Paris LeBourget) in October 1958. The -320C could handle nonstop routes over 5,000 miles with no problem, and a maximum payload weight almost 50% greater than the -120.


User currently offlinealangirvan From New Zealand, joined Nov 2000, 2106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7080 times:

The 767-200 was the original Boeing response to the need for a larger plane at slot constrained airports. When it was ordered in 78, people thought it was going to be LGA-ORD plane. People thought widebody was the way to go. Twin aisles were supposed to aid faster boarding/deboarding (has that been proved in practice?). During the early days of operation, UA was scheduling the 762 on DTW-ORD.

But the world wanted more frequency. And United decided they could buy three 737s for the cost of a 767 and fly to three more cities.


The 757 was meant to be a straight replacement for the 727-200, but it grew. Then the third main doors were replaced by over wing exits, so an extra row of seats could be added. Eastern's first 757s wer 16/162. Later 757s had higher seating densities than that.

A medium range widebody might still be justified if it makes best use of a slot. The twin aisle might make the difference between turning the plane in 60 minutes or 75 minutes.


User currently offlineGordomatic From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 93 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6576 times:

Quoting dl767captain (Thread starter):

According to the Aircraft Data here, the difference is closer to 50 seats (or 20 - 25%).

757-200: 178 - 239
767-200: 226 - 290

But the important numbers would probably be in the weights:

(Quoting empty weights)
767-200: 168,800 lbs
757-200: 127,800 lbs

Wouldn't the 753 would be a closer match to the 762? 280 pax in 1 class configuration. (yikes.)
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_300tech.html



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
I think Boeing made a major mistake in not recongnising the popularity of the B-757 among airlines since it began regular Trans-Atlantic service
Quoting Max Q (Reply 12):
The 752 is the epitome of the ideal Aircraft for long thin routes and could still be competitive for many more years with a significant upda
Quoting Max Q (Reply 14):
I'm just saying, they could have sold a lot more, if they had held on

  . I still don't understand why it wasn't selling when Boeing stopped 757 production Oct 2004. I read as many threads I could find on this. The consensus seems to be it was killed too early and that the 783 was going to be a suitable replacement. Boeing probably won't build the 783, so as of now, the 757 hasn't been properly replaced.

Off topic but worth noting: It just occurred to me a problem for Boeing to re-engine the 737 is it's inability to accommodate engines with larger fans due to ground clearance. Seems tragic to me the 757 wouldn't have this problem - however it is no longer in production.



We have clearance, Clarence. Roger, Roger. What's our vector, Victor?
User currently offlinetullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1427 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6283 times:

767s can do domestic services well. The 762, and now the 763, has long been the mainstay of the MEL-SYD route which is only a 55 minute flight but is the third busiest domestic route in the world behind Japanses routes served by 744Ds.

QF (and AN before it) loved the 767 as it was quick to turn around from both a pax and luggage point of view. QF has found the 763 superior to the A332 on MEL-SYD due to its ability to turnaround in around 35 minutes. The A332 is much preferred on longer routes such as MEL-PER where turnaround is less important and the higher cargo capacity of the A332 comes into play.

The plan is to eventually replace the 763s serving MEL-SYD with 787-8s but the constant delays means QF may have to acquire more A330s in the meantime as the 767s are getting pretty old with very high cycle counts and maintenance is getting increasingly expensive.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4084 posts, RR: 19
Reply 20, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 5659 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 16):


Disagree. Market demand is forecast to increase at least 10% a year through 2050. With airport and ATC constraints, that means the only way to meet the increased demand is with larger aircraft. There's no need for another 757. Look at the best-selling 737NG model, the -800, which carries about 50% more passengers than the 737-200 of the 1970s. Every new generation of aircraft is going to be larger than the aircraft it replaces.

That does not change the fact there will always be smaller markets that can be served profitably by a narrowbody with 757 or better performance. Big markets will grow, small markets will grow less but still need service. This is not a zero sum game.



Even in big markets a smaller Aircraft can serve a need during off peak times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 16):

Also disagree with that. Compare the capabilities of the final and best-selling 707 model, the -320C, with the original 707-120. The -120 couldn't even reliably do LHR-JFK without a fuel stop, and even eastbound flights often needed a fuel stop, as did Pan Am's inaugural 707 flight IDL-LBG (Paris LeBourget) in October 1958. The -320C could handle nonstop routes over 5,000 miles with no problem, and a maximum payload weight almost 50% greater than the -120.

While the improvements made on the 707 were significant they dont really compare with the evolution of the 737-100 into days NG or the 747-100 into the 400 series and now the -8.



What is under the skin of these Aircraft is simply a quantum leap in Technology, and not just a performance boost.

[Edited 2010-11-26 22:09:14]


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinebeeweel15 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1719 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 5540 times:

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 9):
Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 2):
We have 24/206 on a 763... 226 on a 762 must be jamming them in...

Yes, some do.

Those photos only show 2x3x2 set up.

how about this 2x4x2


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Darren Wilson
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © James Matthews



now that is tight


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4084 posts, RR: 19
Reply 22, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5346 times:

Looks pretty awful, especially with 'slip and slide' leather seats.


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5255 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 21):
Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 9):
Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 2):
We have 24/206 on a 763... 226 on a 762 must be jamming them in...

Yes, some do.

Those photos only show 2x3x2 set up.

how about this 2x4x2

You may not have noticed that one of your photos is of a 767-300.
I take your point--but the discussion is about various comparisons with the 767-200.


User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 6903 posts, RR: 13
Reply 24, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5232 times:

Quoting alangirvan (Reply 17):
Twin aisles were supposed to aid faster boarding/deboarding (has that been proved in practice?)

In my experience a 171 seat A320 airbus boards slower than a 230 seat 767. It is possible to consistently board a full 767 in under 15minutes, whereas it is proving to be a minimum of an 18-20 minute + board on the A320... some destinations take longer than others but still...


25 SchorschNG : Lufthansa has operated A320 Series and A300-600 on inner Germany routes, often like HAM-FRA (less than 300nm distance). The A300 performed significan
26 KC135TopBoom : Isn't that one of the Y-1 concepts Boeing is considering?
27 Flighty : Compared to the fuel involved, 5 extra minutes is really not a big deal. The consensus is more like this. The 757 sold well, and airlines got enough
28 Max Q : Not going to happen. The economics are not there for a twin aisle 'wannabe widebody' The 767 is the last twin Aisle Aircraft you will see built with
29 mayor : Just as an FYI, Delta originally took delivery of the 767-200 with 22F and 186 Coach.......not too long after operations started, DL removed one row o
30 beeweel15 : Would it be easy for Boeing to restart the 757 line. Weren't the 737 / 757 built side by side
31 FlyASAGuy2005 : The final config was 18 up front, no? Last time I rode on one was in 2006 I belive BOS-ATL up front. I don't remember was the configuration was. What
32 Max Q : I don't think so. Afaik all the jigs are gone, along with the manufacturing capability. The best that could be hoped for the 757 is a major 'relife'
33 JoeCanuck : From 1999 to 2003 inclusive, Boeing didn't get enough orders in any one year that would maximize its 4 planes per month production rate. In those 5 ye
34 OyKIE : I do not understand why Boeing did not do more to keep the 757 up to date. When Airbus launched the A321, it seems like Boeing just let the Boeing 75
35 mayor : Yes, the final configuration was 18/186. Working cargo in SLC, it used to irk us when the winter schedule came out. One of our JFK flights would go f
36 Post contains images par13del : I'm more inclined to believe that the reason the 783 fell flat was because it was too customized for the Japan market, another 1,000 even 500 miles r
37 SchorschNG : The B787-3 didn't sell because it simply was a de-rated B787-8 without any gains in empty weight. If you want to build a short-range widebody, you ha
38 mayor : Why would you need to when you could use an L-2 or L-8?
39 Post contains images beeweel15 : WIth all the talk about a replacement of the B757 . I remember years ago the following aircraft was offered from Tupolev . A version of the Tu-204 whi
40 DL_Mech : Most of the 757s were delivered from Boeing with 16F seats. These planes were modded in the early 90's to add a galley aft of 1R, 24F seats and a Vid
41 AirbusA6 : A 757NG would need heavily improved engines, as both the RB211-535 and PW2000 were fairly long in the tooth, not helped by the lack of incentive to de
42 N1120A : The aircraft data here is notoriously unreliable. The main difference is range and cargo floor strength. The 762 was a competitive domestic airplane
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...
The French Vs British/Germans And Americans? posted Tue Nov 3 2009 06:21:00 by XxElizabethxx
AA And The 787 Vs 777-200LR posted Wed Feb 20 2008 07:48:22 by Flavio340
Could The 762 Be The Next DC-9? posted Thu Oct 25 2007 14:12:36 by SirDeath
The E Jets VS. The Cseries posted Wed Aug 15 2007 17:30:27 by DL767captain
RRs On 744 Vs 752 -same Diameter Engines? posted Tue May 22 2007 22:11:33 by NA
What Is SK's Thoughts On The A340 Vs Their 767's? posted Sat May 5 2007 20:34:40 by Flybynight
Economics Of The 787-8 Vs 767-300ER posted Wed Jun 14 2006 02:49:25 by Baron95
The Train VS The Plane Within The UK posted Tue May 2 2006 16:32:42 by Ba757gla
Chances Of Airlines Ordering The 787 Vs. The A350 posted Fri Apr 21 2006 19:30:02 by 1337Delta764
How Is The CO Vs Jetblue In EWR Going? posted Mon Feb 6 2006 14:51:50 by Nwab787techops