Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AA Or US: Who Is Going To Keep The 762 Longer?  
User currently offlinec5load From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 917 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 8878 times:

Now that UA/CO is phasing out their 762s, that leaves AA and US as the only US pax operators of the 762 (or the world?)
SO , who do you guys think is going to keep the 762 on hand longer? AA has them on transcon routes, but also has the 763 and 777 as other widebodies. US uses them on international routes but only has the A330 as the only other widebody. In my opinion, I think US will hold onto them longer.


"But this airplane has 4 engines, it's an entirely different kind of flying! Altogether"
26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinejonathanxxxx From United States of America, joined Feb 2011, 673 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 8832 times:

Quoting c5load (Thread starter):
the only US pax operators of the 762 (or the world?)

Well from the top of my head I know 5L operates them... I'd have to research to find out who else...


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26175 posts, RR: 50
Reply 2, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 8822 times:

Prob AA.

In the US Q1 conference call is was mentioned several 767s have leases due up in 2012, and they would be making a decision on them by late 2011.

btw - CO opportunistically selling 1 762, does not quite = "phasing out".



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8517 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 8784 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

USair's are about 5 years newer then AA's. US's also have GE CF6-80C2 engines which are more capable then AA's CF6-80A2 engines, these were placed on earlier build 767's.

User currently offlineSevensixtyseven From United States of America, joined May 2011, 182 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 8763 times:

If US is going to send back several 767s, then there's going to be a few routes cut, as the A332s will be resuming delivery in 2013, and I'm assuming there will be A333s pulled out for the Envoy mods at various times, so I think they will have to keep the planes, or cut routes simply because they lack the aircraft.

Also, jfk777..I had heard on here that US' 767s were not the highest rated in thrust or MTOW, simply because Piedmont did not order them that way, because they were only going to fly East Coast-Europe.

[Edited 2011-06-04 18:44:04]


Will that ex-HP 752 get delayed...again?
User currently offlineSCL767 From Chile, joined Feb 2006, 8862 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 8746 times:

Quoting c5load (Thread starter):
pax operators of the 762 (or the world?)

Aeroméxico, Air Italy, Air Zimbabwe, EL AL, Kam Air, Transaero, Vision Airlines, etc. still operate the B767-200s.

[Edited 2011-06-04 19:07:59]

User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8517 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 8565 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Sevensixtyseven (Reply 4):
Also, jfk777..I had heard on here that US' 767s were not the highest rated in thrust or MTOW, simply because Piedmont did not order them that way, because they were only going to fly East Coast-Europe.

[Edited 2011-06-04 18:44:04]

That could be but why would Piedmont have ordered their 767's with inferior engines when the main GE engine in the late 1980's was the CF6-80C not the -80A version. Piedmont did not need a maxed out 767 so they operated them derated, many airlines do that.


User currently onlineUSAirALB From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 3180 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 8319 times:

Quoting Sevensixtyseven (Reply 4):
then there's going to be a few routes cut

Why would they launch new routes with the 762, only to cancel them when they retire the birds?

The 762s are a niche aircraft for US, like the DC9s/10s were for NW. US keeps them around because they like them.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 6):
That could be but why would Piedmont have ordered their 767's with inferior engines when the main GE engine in the late 1980's was the CF6-80C not the -80A version

Thats correct. Piedmont only needed range for CLT-Europe.



E135/E140/E145/E70/E75/E90/CR2/CR7/CR9/717/732/733/734/735/73G/738/739/752/753/762/772/319/320/321/333
User currently offlinecf6ppe From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 8189 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 6):
That could be but why would Piedmont have ordered their 767's with inferior engines when the main GE engine in the late 1980's was the CF6-80C not the -80A version. Piedmont did not need a maxed out 767 so they operated them derated, many airlines do that.

GE Aviation - Comparison Chart - Turbofans
http://www.geae.com/engines/commercial/comparison_turbofan.html

The former Piedmont, now USAIR B767-201(ER) and B767-2B7(ER) frames have CF6-80C2B2 engines rated at 52,000 lbs thrust. These engines are a low rated version of the approximately 60,000 lbs thrust CF6-80C2***.
*** is the various different engine sub models; see above link for list and interesting facts....

The CF6-80C2B2 engine has the parts for the higher rated engines but has the parasitic (i.e., cooling) air matched to the requirements of the lower rated engine. Especially hot section parts which should last longer in this lower rated model than in the higher rated models. Cutting down the parasitic air also helps lower the fuel burn. Both good things.

Again, another example of buying an airframe and powerplants to match the requirements of the route. At the time that Piemont acquired the initial airframes, their routes for the subject aircraft were US east coast to Europe.

Anyway, my two cents...


User currently offlinecschleic From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1306 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6013 times:

IIRC, the AA 762's are used primarily on JFK - SFO/LAX routes, with a specific three-class premium cabin and, given their age, are somewhat low cycle due to limited use on these routes.

User currently offlineflanker From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1661 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5958 times:

I hope US gets rid of them quickly. I just flew on one from Philly to Brussels and it was complete misery, compared to my normal travels on LH.

The seats were comfy though. I think it would be better if they actually had a decent IFE. The 12 inch tv from 1965 in the middle of the isle wont cut it.



Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist
User currently offlinegoblin211 From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 1209 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5590 times:

Quoting USAirALB (Reply 7):
Why would they launch new routes with the 762, only to cancel them when they retire the birds?

Maybe they won't cancel them and maybe put a replacement a/c on the routes.



From the airport with love
User currently offlineunited319 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 543 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4989 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flanker (Reply 10):
I hope US gets rid of them quickly. I just flew on one from Philly to Brussels and it was complete misery, compared to my normal travels on LH.

The seats were comfy though. I think

I don't consider LH's 744's IFE (or lack there of) much better. I flew on a US 762 PHL-AMS roundtrip in 2007. I flew in Envoy there and Economy back. While Envoy had not been redone at the time, I found Economy extremely comfortable.

Ill take a US 762 over an LH 744 anyday.



It's Time To Fly
User currently offlineSevensixtyseven From United States of America, joined May 2011, 182 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4306 times:

Quoting goblin211 (Reply 11):



But if they don't have the replacement aircraft available...then they'll have to axe the route or go less than daily, and route their remaining longhaul aircraft through different cities, for example, PHL-ATH-PHL-MUC-PHL, and the first day won't have MUC service, the next won't have ATH service.



Will that ex-HP 752 get delayed...again?
User currently offlineflanker From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1661 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3708 times:

Quoting united319 (Reply 12):
I don't consider LH's 744's IFE (or lack there of) much better. I flew on a US 762 PHL-AMS roundtrip in 2007. I flew in Envoy there and Economy back. While Envoy had not been redone at the time, I found Economy extremely comfortable.

Ill take a US 762 over an LH 744 anyday.

I'm usually on a 340 or a 330. I have maybe flown twice on a 747 with LH in the last 10 years.

And I wish I could've been on a US 330 but It didn't happen.



Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8778 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3679 times:

The 762 has some good qualities. It is cheap, reliable, very comfortable. Burns less fuel than other widebodies. These are all good things. Keep in mind, it is still offered as a new build... not that anyone will order it.

User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3364 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 15):
The 762 has some good qualities. It is cheap, reliable, very comfortable. Burns less fuel than other widebodies. These are all good things.

It burns less fuel than other widebodies because it is smaller than other widebodies. The 763 burns only slightly more fuel while carrying more passengers. On a fuel CASM basis, the 762 is amongst the least efficient widebodies still in passenger service. For AA and US the 762 is becoming more expensive as they are approaching then end of their normal lifespan and would require expensive heavy maintenance to keep operating. It is one of my favorite planes to fly in but it is considered to be a fuel hog.


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8517 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3323 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 16):
For AA and US the 762 is becoming more expensive as they are approaching then end of their normal lifespan and would require expensive heavy maintenance to keep operating. It is one of my favorite planes to fly in but it is considered to be a fuel hog

Depreciated and paid off fuel hogs.


User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3217 posts, RR: 16
Reply 18, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3299 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 3):
USair's are about 5 years newer then AA's. US's also have GE CF6-80C2 engines which are more capable then AA's CF6-80A2 engines, these were placed on earlier build 767's.

This is a totally irrelevant factor.

AA only operates theirs on transcons, the Caribbean, and occasional Hawaii subs. Considering none of these routes go north of 3000 miles, the smaller engines make no difference.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8778 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3207 times:

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 16):
The 763 burns only slightly more fuel while carrying more passengers.

It only matters if your 762 was overflowing with paying customers. The 763 also is more valuable so it costs more to have. Probably. In some cases the 762 comes out ahead, in some cases the 763 does. Certainly nobody will order new build 762. But on the used market....


User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7282 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2980 times:

Quoting cschleic (Reply 9):
IIRC, the AA 762's are used primarily on JFK - SFO/LAX routes, with a specific three-class premium cabin and, given their age, are somewhat low cycle due to limited use on these routes.


That's why I see them at AA longer. These are money making places with three class service flying a select few routes. JFK-SFO, JFK-LAX and MIA-LAX. They also fly MIA-JFK but only selling two classes. Still a popular flight for premium pax. The way US uses them they can replace them with more A330s. AA does not have a three class replacement for them. They are staying for a while I think. Unless they want to take the three class domestic flights out then that's a whole different story of course.

Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 18):
AA only operates theirs on trans-cons, the Caribbean, and occasional Hawaii subs


I don't remember the 762 going to the Caribbean much. At least not recently.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently onlineUSAirALB From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 3180 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2811 times:

I think if US could, they should try to get their hands on some of COs 762s. Those arent more than 10 years old.


E135/E140/E145/E70/E75/E90/CR2/CR7/CR9/717/732/733/734/735/73G/738/739/752/753/762/772/319/320/321/333
User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3217 posts, RR: 16
Reply 22, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2634 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 20):
I don't remember the 762 going to the Caribbean much. At least not recently.

It typically didn't. Recently it did operate JFK-BGI Sat-only service.

But to my original point, the routes it operates are in the 2000-3000 mile range - not even remotely close to requiring high engine thrust ratings as an earlier poster suggested.


User currently offlineLAX888 From Singapore, joined Oct 2010, 279 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2496 times:

I travelled ZRH-PHL-ZRH with US in Economy and Envoy. The plane is old and I found the leather seats to be hard after a few hours. However the cabin did not look as shabby as say AA's 763 which I flew from JFK-ZRH earlier this year. Envoy is not bad. The seat has a 170° recline and I slept for a few hours. Of course there are better products out there but if you compare the costs of US then it is not bad value for money. I think US will prob keep them for a bit longer until they can get the new A332.

User currently offlinen9801f From Samoa, joined Apr 2004, 347 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2167 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 19):
It only matters if your 762 was overflowing with paying customers. The 763 also is more valuable so it costs more to have. Probably. In some cases the 762 comes out ahead, in some cases the 763 does. Certainly nobody will order new build 762. But on the used market....

All true.

But if you work backwards and consider fuel cost per seat or fuel cost per ASM, then the 762 starts looking ugly.

Here's what I mean -

Take an airline with 2-class 763's (240 seats) and 2-class 762's (200 seats).

Since the 762 and 763 require the same total gallons for a flight ("x"), the fuel cost per seat is always 20% higher on the 762. (Because x / 200 is always 20% more than x / 240 , for any value of x.)

When fuel is cheap, you don't care so much. But when fuel is expensive, the 762 quickly falls out of solution.

Even the 763 is a marginal trans-Atlantic aircraft for many airlines - it's barely profitable. So a 762 at high fuel starts to be out of the question.


25 Flighty : I understand your perspective but I disagree with it. The 762 carries all your most expensive fares. You are wishing for an extra 30 seats to sell to
26 n9801f : Likewise, but we probably mostly agree. Sure, the trip cost is lower. But this only matters if you have a comparatively high-yield, low-volume route.
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...
Who Is Going To See The 773ER Tomorrow? posted Mon May 10 2004 04:07:43 by Rjpieces
Who Is Going To The Cleveland Airshow? posted Sat Aug 30 2003 05:14:59 by Dan2002
Who Is Going To Buy Alaska? posted Mon May 3 2010 08:09:56 by bahadir
So Who Is Going To AirVenture/Oshkosh posted Sun Jul 26 2009 19:11:58 by 2175301
Who Is Going To End Up With JM 343s? posted Thu Apr 3 2008 13:49:30 by TK787
Which Airline Is Going To Get The Rollout A380&787 posted Mon Sep 17 2007 21:03:45 by TrijetFan1
Who Is Going To Buy Air Canada Technical Services? posted Thu Jun 14 2007 20:31:45 by N43W79
Who Is Going To Replace Air Madrid? posted Mon Dec 18 2006 02:31:53 by Skyteam2000
Who Is Going To Start PVG-AKL First? posted Tue Sep 13 2005 00:50:42 by Chinaeastern
Who Is Going To Replace ACA For DL Connetion? posted Fri Oct 29 2004 21:46:34 by ATWZW170