Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UAL Out Of The 767-200 Business  
User currently offlinejetfixr757 From Jamaica, joined Jan 2006, 158 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 15671 times:

I guess slowly the 767-200 jets of UAL/CAL are being sold off, i see them next to the north hangar in MCO with the livery painted out of the vertical stab and the names and logos removed. Were they ER jets or ETOPS? Wonder who the lucky recipient is that's getting them?
Jet

40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineatcsundevil From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 1230 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 15577 times:

They have been out of service for at least six months or more. Some were stored at GYR. They were flown to MCO to exit the fleet and are being sold to UTAir. They were all 767-200ERs. I'm pretty sure all 767s are ETOPS -- if not all, then most of them are. These -ER birds were definitely ETOPS.

User currently offlineawacsooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1985 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 15436 times:

They're all ER versions and the last pax 762's off the line...most are barely a decade old.

Too bad, cause they're my favorite of the 767's.


User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3627 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 15052 times:

Why retire brand new aircraft when they continue to operate the 767?

Was the subfleet to expense to keep?


User currently offlineFSDan From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 759 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 15006 times:

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 3):
Why retire brand new aircraft when they continue to operate the 767?

The economics of 762s are inferior to the 763/764, and even to the 757 over comparable distances (although the 762 can be used on much longer missions). That's why AA will also be retiring their 762s in the near future.



SEA SFO SJC LAX ONT SAN DEN IAH DFW OMA FSD MSP MSN MKE ORD DTW CVG MEM JAN BHM RSW ATL CLT BWI PHL LGA JFK MEX LIM KEF
User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2989 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 14979 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm sure I'm wrong and UA right in terms of getting rid of them, but I can think of some routes I'd have liked to see them on; like EWR/GIG non-stop, and some destinations in EE.

Assuming that they could make NYC-Rio.



The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17827 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 14924 times:

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 3):
Why retire brand new aircraft when they continue to operate the 767?

They have basically the same number of seats as the 739 or 752. The math doesn't work.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinejetblastdubai From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 794 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 14868 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FSDan (Reply 4):
The economics of 762s are inferior to the 763/764, and even to the 757 over comparable distances (although the 762 can be used on much longer missions).

Since the planes have been retired for a while, this is a moot topic but you make a great point. Everyone is in agreement that UA is desperately lacking mainline capacity. If these 762s could be operated and at least NOT lose money, you'd think it might be worth keeping them until they could be replaced 1-for-1. Even if they only made $1 per flight after all costs, it' still be a positive. The longer Atlantic routes, that really stretch the 757 range at times, would have been a great place to use these aircraft.

I've given up on trying to figure out what UA does in the planning department sometimes so I'll just chalk this up as well.



A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is when you can re-use the aircraft.
User currently offlineAmerican 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4008 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 14845 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

It's interesting that the 767-200 was reintroduced after being phased out. The ones that just left the fleet are ex-CO 767-224ERs. Prior to the merger in 2011, the PMUA 767-222s were phased out in the middle of the 2000s.


Ben Soriano
User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4330 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 14501 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting American 767 (Reply 8):
Prior to the merger in 2011, the PMUA 767-222s were phased out in the middle of the 2000s.

I remember both AA and UA operated 762s from opposite ends of IAD for years. On the other hand, both UA and AC flew their 762s until they started to unpeel -- literally. Older models were parasitized to keep usable ones flying -- until even those needed D checks. I assume the old UA frames are still being parasitized to keep others flying.
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © JayDeeKay
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Feiruitao



User currently offlinelaca773 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 4065 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 13921 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 6):
They have basically the same number of seats as the 739 or 752. The math doesn't work.

If it could hold more cargo, would we have seen it in service longer?

The 762ER was good for long, thin markets across the Atlantic. JFK-BUD/WAW/LED. Fortunately, the 788s are very economical a/c for markets such as these.

I will miss the 762ERs. A very comfortable a/c.


User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17827 posts, RR: 46
Reply 11, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 13758 times:

Quoting laca773 (Reply 10):
The 762ER was good for long, thin markets across the Atlantic. JFK-BUD/WAW/LED.

It never was--where are all those flights now? The 762 was especially bad for Eastern Europe, where its high unit costs matched with terrible fares turned into a money pit.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinedesertjets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7811 posts, RR: 16
Reply 12, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 13758 times:

I always found it an odd choice that Continental chose the 767-200 when the updated their long haul in the late 90s. I get the progression in capacity from the 762 --> 764 --> 777.... but when almost every other US competitor had the 767-300ER as the backbone of the TATL fleet it always seemed like an odd choice.


Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlineFlyHossD From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 981 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 13599 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 6):
They have basically the same number of seats as the 739 or 752. The math doesn't work.

True enough. The first two 767-224ERs surplussed from CO went to Omni - who promptly installed more seats. In other words, CO, then UA, could have reconfigured the aircraft, but chose otherwise.

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 7):
The longer Atlantic routes, that really stretch the 757 range at times, would have been a great place to use these aircraft.

Yes, and in fact, they were used from Berlin to EWR during at least one winter.



They were great aircraft to fly and I was very happy to have a chance to do that before I retired. If I had Bill Gates money, I'd have a 762 for my personal ship.



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 14, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 12311 times:

Quoting atcsundevil (Reply 1):
I'm pretty sure all 767s are ETOPS -- if not all, then most of them are. These -ER birds were definitely ETOPS.

You're correct, all of the sCO B762's were ETOPS. I loved riding them, a true rocket with a comfortable BF cabin and great legs, miss them already when ever I see the sUA B763's.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineukoverlander From United Kingdom, joined May 2010, 385 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 12158 times:

I'm sad to see these 200's disappear. I always loved the 767-200 as a passenger, the nice twin aisle layout without the dense passenger cabins of the 777 or 747 - of course those are also reasons why they don't make money for the airlines!

I remember flying my first 767-2 ride from Mauritius to LHR back in 1993, and looking at the 767-200 next to the 747SP that Air Mauritius also operated at that time. We'd flown in on the 747SP 3 months ealier and I couldn't help thinking it seemed so small to be flying all the way back to London! Was a great experience though. Enjoyed it very much.


User currently offlinecalmsp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4050 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 11876 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Really gonna miss these birds. Really wish we could have kept these to run out of the EWR market.


okay, I'm waiting for the rich to spread the wealth around to me. Please mail your checks to my house.
User currently offlinecapitol8s From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 101 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 11423 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

There are currently 3 Boeing 767-200's sitting here on the CO/UA maintenance ramp in Orlando.


"Happiness is a flight on a Capitol Air DC-10"
User currently offlineonebadlt123 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 51 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 11084 times:

The 762 was my personal favorite plane to work with. It was an amazingly great performing aircraft, with great comfort. Unfortunately the economics just no longer worked. 175'ish seats just doesn't work with that large and now expensive fleet type to operate.

All sCO 762's were ER's
All were ETOPS
All had the powerful version of the CF6 engines
All were equipped with the best avionics of the fleet type
All were relatively low-tine and low cycle aircraft.

Best aircraft I ever worked with in my career. It was like a fat, powerful, comfortable sports car with all the bells and whistles.

[Edited 2013-11-07 12:04:16]

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13551 posts, RR: 100
Reply 19, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 10677 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Fine planes, but as their cost is too close to the 767-300ER, it doesn't stand a chance. Not when A333s, 788s, and soon 789s/A359s will be in the fleet. The CASM is too high.

Quoting FSDan (Reply 4):
The economics of 762s are inferior to the 763/764, and even to the 757 over comparable distances (although the 762 can be used on much longer missions). That's why AA will also be retiring their 762s in the near future.

   Many routes are now flyable with the 738/A320.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 6):
They have basically the same number of seats as the 739 or 752. The math doesn't work.

Interesting detail.

Quoting laca773 (Reply 10):
If it could hold more cargo, would we have seen it in service longer?

Stretches always have far more cargo volume. The 788 will carry about 4 tons more volume.

Quoting Reply 18):
Best aircraft I ever worked with in my career. It was like a fat, powerful, comfortable sports car with all the bells and whistles.

Great for a VIP fleet. But like a sports car, they don't carry enough for the costs. Airlines need a Van.  
Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 13):
If I had Bill Gates money, I'd have a 762 for my personal ship.

Not a bad idea...  


Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineonebadlt123 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 51 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 10421 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 19):
Great for a VIP fleet. But like a sports car, they don't carry enough for the costs. Airlines need a Van.

Exactly! Great airplane, impractical in today's market.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26021 posts, RR: 22
Reply 21, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 10170 times:

Quoting VC10er (Reply 5):

Assuming that they could make NYC-RIO

762ER has the longest range of all 767 models. LY used them on MIA-TLV, abpit 1,600 nm further than JFK-GIG.

Boeing payload-range charts show 762ER range with full passenger and baggage load (no cargo) as 6.600 nm, about 10% more than the 763ER. JFK-GIG is 4,159 nm..


User currently offlinetjcab From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 335 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5301 times:

Quoting VC10er (Reply 5):

Transbrasil JFK-GRU comes to mind...


User currently offlineUnited787 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4325 times:

Quoting desertjets (Reply 12):
I always found it an odd choice that Continental chose the 767-200 when the updated their long haul in the late 90s. I get the progression in capacity from the 762 --> 764 --> 777.... but when almost every other US competitor had the 767-300ER as the backbone of the TATL fleet it always seemed like an odd choice.

I would be curious as to why they chose the 762 at that point in time? Can anyone explain?


User currently offlinecalmsp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4050 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4131 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting United787 (Reply 23):

CO did order the 767-300, and a few of them were made, but never ended up flying in the fleet. These can be identified around the world as they have an L/R2 door. I believe 5 or 6 of them were made.



okay, I'm waiting for the rich to spread the wealth around to me. Please mail your checks to my house.
25 FlyHossD : 5 767-300s were ordered and all were built, but CO was in the midst of a major cash crunch then (late 1994 - early 1995, IIRC) and didn't take delive
26 william : Wow, I still remember the PMUA commercial when the 767 was first introduced into the fleet. The then CEO walking through the cabin showing off UA's ne
27 B757forever : DL acquired on of these 767-324 aircraft from Asiana. It is DL ship 1521.
28 Viscount724 : Thomson Airways has 3 and North American Airlines has the other one.
29 sq256 : One of the Thomson Airway's 324ERs was initially delivered to VN, and the NA 324ER was initially delivered to AN and served them until the 2002 liquid
30 klkla : How many 767-200ER's did CO have when they merged with United?
31 United1 : 10
32 olympic472 : Done! Not Bill Gates but Google. They have the 767-200s on their fleet. Based out of Moffett.
33 olympic472 : What are USAirways plans for their 767-200s?
34 av8ornta : 5 of the 10 CAL 767-224ERs are now flying for UTAir.....same config, however the 4 cabin crew rest seats have been taken out of the inventory...
35 av8ornta : Here's a photo of an ex CAL 767-224ER
36 AR385 : The route I flew the most on these ships was IAH-EZE. Nice, long, comfortable ride. I also flew on the AA, AM and LA 767-200ERs. My only complaint is
37 Kuja : Curious. The 767 does have one of the lowest cruise speeds of any widebody, at Mach 0.80, and normally cruises closer to 0.78 for economy. The A330 i
38 CALTECH : That decision was made in the late 1990s. To open new, thin routes. There were plans to keep buying widebodies, but then September 11th happened. Tra
39 SSTeve : Some Air Force could have gotten some choice planes for tanker conversion if UTair didn't grab these.
40 Viscount724 : The usual block time difference is much, much less than that. For example, BA scheduled 744 (the fastest widebody along with the A380) LHR-ORD is 8:2
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...
ATA Getting Out Of The Charter Business? posted Fri Apr 12 2002 07:55:50 by A/c dxer
UAL 767-200 Business Class posted Wed Feb 21 2001 06:45:52 by Early Air
What's Become Of The 767 Line? posted Tue Feb 19 2013 14:30:32 by c5load
Breaking News: Taca A321 Out Of The Runway At SJO posted Thu Oct 18 2012 15:31:53 by CRFLY
B6 Not Out Of The Question At DAB posted Mon Jun 11 2012 10:46:36 by JBAirwaysFan
Future Of The 767 & A330? posted Mon May 7 2012 17:30:00 by SWALUV
Pilot Out Of The Cockpit posted Tue Jan 12 2010 19:03:05 by Richiemo
Why Are So Many Planes Falling Out Of The Sky? posted Sat Aug 8 2009 01:38:16 by Planesailing
Are DL And CO The Only Operators Of The 767-400? posted Fri May 29 2009 13:54:17 by Flaps30
Which Out Of The 3 Bidders Should Get Gatwick? posted Tue Apr 28 2009 07:23:34 by BAfan