Futurepilot From United Arab Emirates, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0 Posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3711 times:
Just what the question says, and please, if possible, some good or bad experiences with it. Personally I have only been on it once from SFO-JFK aboard a TWA 767-300. Pretty smooth and I love watching the inboard ailerons. I sat about 5 rows behind the wing, right side. Over all on a scale of 1-10, I give it a 9.
Air Taiwan From Australia, joined Dec 1999, 1519 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3397 times:
I think the look is the best among all, compared to the A330/340 (too thin and too long), the 777 (too FAT!!) and it's cabin is very spacious.....
but the Business class is not as good as 777s and 340/330's....
Aa737 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 849 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3390 times:
I fly the 767 many times a year beween LHR/LGW and either ORD/DFW and a few times Miami. I always fly AA, and sit in business class (almost always seat 9A for some reason). I think it is a nice plane, betrter then some other types (DC-10/MD-11) I have flown across the atlantic. I would have to say that the 777 is way better then the 767. I thought both the BA and AA 777s I flew were much more comforatable and had more leg room/nicer seats.
I also fly a lot of BA 763s around Europe. They are much nicer then the A320/737/757s BA also uses around Europe.
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12738 posts, RR: 34
Reply 5, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3392 times:
LOVE IT, LOVE IT, LOVE IT!
I remember the very first issue of Flight I ever bought, the introductory issue (with cutaway) for the 767, in August 1991. I remember looking at it and saying, I want to fly in this airplane. I had to wait nine years - my first flight was with DAL (ship 108) in October '90, from ATL to ORD and I thought it was a wonderful aircraft. Since then, I've flown 767s with BA, Qantas Ansett, Gulf Air, Aer Lingus and ANA. Of course, it might seem old hat when compared with the 777 and A330/340, but I have always had the highest regard for it and always enjoy flying in it.
Best flight was from Bangkok to HK in May 1993, QF 78, my first jump seat into Kai Tak. What a memory!
Bpat777 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 463 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3373 times:
The 767 is my 2nd favorite aircraft.( after the 777 of course).. I flew from Lga to Tpa last weekend with a connection thru Atl and 3 of the 4 flts were on 767's..They are the perfect size...Not too big not too small..I love sitting behind the wing and hearing those engines kick in on take off...To bad twa got rid of a few of there's....
AC_A340 From Canada, joined Sep 1999, 2251 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3367 times:
I haven't been on one for a while, it was back when AC operated a 762 on the YWG-YYZ run. From what I can remember, I really enjoyed it. It was back when the aircraft was relatively new. I really enjoyed the seating configuration in coach. Nice aircraft. I not sure what it would be like on anything over 4 hours though.
CaymanCX From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 76 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3360 times:
I've flown on the 767 a few times, always the 300ER series.
I must say that I really do like the plane!! Having that 2-3-2 config
means you never are 'trapped' like in the middle of a DC10 for example.
I flew a short hop from JFK to Barbados on American, loved it! (Footrests to boot.) I have also flown a 10.5 hour flight on Delta from Athens to JFK,
it was likewise fabulous! The flight was barely booked and one could
take up the middle 3 seats and sleep to their heart's content!
My only quibble was that I was oringinally seated in the middle bulkhead, which wasn't so bad - a personal video screen, but I stand 6'2 or 3 and there was NO
leg room! Fortunately I was able to move and the flight seemed to take no
time at all!!
Jet Setter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3355 times:
I've only flown on BA 767-300s which are special because they have Rolls-Royce engines. Only BA and China Yunnan use this on the 767. I thought it was a very comfortable aircraft, I like the 2-3-2 comfig, it is wide bodied without just being too many seats crammed into a row which you could get suck in the middle of! I think the 767 looks good with RR engines, and the perdormance on takoff is usually good.
The only downside is the design of the cabin, to say it was designed around the time of the 757, they have nothing in common. The overheads are small and the cabin just looks "dated" I think the new 767-400 with the 777 cabin will be fantastic though! I wouldn't be surprised if Boeing decided to adopt this cabin as standard.
767 - Very good aircraft - 757 - THE BEST!!!!!
Futurepilot, I wonder where you got the idea for this posting ????? Hee Hee
Jderden777 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1760 posts, RR: 28
Reply 10, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3342 times:
I flew on a Delta 767-300 from DFW-ATL. I loved that plane, even though i sat at the VERY back. it was the biggest plane i had ever been on at the time, now the biggest is the 777...I would give the 767 a 10 for just taking me where i wanted to go.....i wouldn't really care what i flew on.....just as long as i could be up in the air....
Trent From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3354 times:
I love taking the 767 on transcontinental flights because they are both very spacious, quiet and faster than the narrow bodies which fly within the continent. I fly from Toronto to Phoenix and Los Angeles quite often on Air Canada's 767s and A320s--I must say, that it is much nicer to be on a wide bodied aircraft for a 4-5 hour flight and I find that the flight duration is shorter than on the A320 (could the 767 be that much faster?). Air Canada's 767-300ER's are the best! Although they don't employ PTV's, all of the economy class seats have footrests and they are incredibly spacious!
All of the 767NGs will have the updated interiors (like the 777) as an option so the 767 will continue a long-haul leader into the future. My favourite seat is the last row window so I can see the beautiful wing in front of me and look at the earth zooming underneath (I find it quieter back there too--not to mention closer to the lavatories).
Boeing757/767 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 2282 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3329 times:
2-3-2 seating. Enough said.
It's a first-rate aircraft all the way. I have flown it many times. I love it (and the 757) so much I've written a book about it. It's called "Boeing 757 and 767" by Crowood Press. Check it out on line or in aviation catalogues.
United747-400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3312 times:
I love the 767. I flew on an Alitalia 767-300ER from JFK- MXP. It was a 7 hour and 40 minute flight. In fact, the flight was so smooth and enjoyable, when we landed, I wished i could have gone on for another 7 hours and 40 minutes. I also agree that I too enjoy hearing the 767 power up on takeoff. Great plane!
UPS Pilot From United States of America, joined May 1999, 871 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3334 times:
Did you really write that book? I ordered it from Amazon on Friday and should have it Monday. It looks interesting. I'm a pilot on the 757-24apf. Carlos Borda who also works for UPS and is a contributor to Airliners.net photo page recommended it on his site. I'm looking forward to reading it.
Sorry to get off the point. I personally love the 767-34erf. For a widebody twin it is very smooth and agile. The stability of the aircraft is one of the main attributes of it. I'm curious to see how the A-300's can compare to it? Can anybody enlighten me on how the A-300 freighter compares to the 767-34erf.
Avratdwc From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 68 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 3295 times:
Well I agrre with you that they are cool airplanes, if you have flown in a 757 you pretty much have flown in a 767, I will agree with you thought that they are nice aircraft, especially the 300 series. I have flown on the wing alot and I always battle my girlfriend for the window. I know an F/O for American on the 75/76 and he enjoys flying them and much as I enjoy riding on them. All in all they are great aircraft. Just hope they stay around a little longer
Skystar From Australia, joined Jan 2000, 1363 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (15 years 1 month 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3275 times:
The topic is quite appropriate for the 767, but not necessarily for cruise speed.
The 762 is very slow with its Vspeeds. Takeoffs can be performed as low as 126kias for 1.5hr long flights. Typical landing speeds for 762s are 130kias.
In terms of its cruise speed, it is a bit slow compared to the 747. But you would need an 12hr sector for a 767 to be an hour slower than a 747 (M0.80 vs M0.85). It all depends on the airline as well, I've flown in Ansett 762s zoomin along at M0.84. (Out of interest, you would need a 17hr sector for an A340 to be an hour slower). Really, the jets are all comparable (apart from the BAe 146) and the differences are not particularly significant (the Concorde is a natural exception).
As a widebody, it's the most capable as a narrowbody replacement. It's performance is as close to a narrowbody as you'll get with widebodies and has better takeoff/landing performance over 733s. In short, it combines the best of the narrowbodies with the widebodies.
The 767 has an excellent cabin in terms of it's layout (7 abreast in Y) - airier than a narrowbody, but more "homely" than a 747 and quieter too. However, I do agree with a previous poster that the cabin amenities are looking a bit dated now, in the likes of the 777. Ansett has done up some of its elderly 16 yr old 762s, but the overhead lockers belie their age (they're not particularaly spacious).
My only quibble with the 767 is the landing gear design. Out of all the aircraft I have ever flown, the 767 is the aircraft which is most CONSTANTLY LANDED IN A ROUGH MANNER. The smoothest of 767 landings are never so silky as they sometimes can be in an A320 (greasers in a 320 can be bloody smooth, mind you they can be pretty tough sometimes).
Is this due to the landing gear design (the bogeys hang nose forward).
Seeing I haven't flown on a 777, it's my favourite Boeing widebody. I get the impression that people like the 777 because it's new, has nice TVs, etc - all these airline related issues. It's a great plane, but for cabin layout, you can't beat the 767.
TWA717_200 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (15 years 1 month 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3260 times:
Well...This posting has been answered so professionally that I don't think I can add anything. I did fly on the 767 once with TWA and thought that the layout was superb. 2-3-2, makes it comfortable for everyone.
D120Heavy From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 24 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (15 years 1 month 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3250 times:
Love the plane! First flew it,Nov. 1987,American JFK-SFO.My son has had a big , 5 foot cut-out of a Delta 767-200,on his wall for years.Beautiful plane, have fun flying it on flight simulator as well.United sure flies alot of them out of SFO.Also, you can't say enough of their safety record; having only lost one( Lauda, 1991) mechanically, in almost 20 years in the air.
Ilyushin96M From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 2609 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (15 years 1 month 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3238 times:
I've flown in 767s five times that I can remember. AA on the DFW-LGW return route in '87, SAS on the CPG-ORD route in 1996, and Aeroflot on the ORD-SVO return route in 1999.
AA was good...seemed pretty roomy, nice layout in the 767-200. I enjoyed that flight, especially the international service. SAS was not good at all. This was a 767-300 ER, and though it had the 2-3-2 layout, the seats were close together and the plane was PACKED. Very claustrophobic feeling. I didn't enjoy it, and I was in the middle row on the aisle. Though footrests for every passenger are a nice touch. Aeroflot's 767-300ER service was the best I've experienced; I sat just behind the third exit/emergency door, and had all the legroom I could handle, and the seats were wide and comfortable, even in coach.
Overall, I love the plane, and I can see why so many airlines have them. I'd rate it 8.5 in terms of overall comfort, though this totally depends on the airline and layout used.
Air Canada From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (15 years 1 month 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3230 times:
Well, to fly on the 767 is nice. I find they are comfortable, quiet (overall) and, the kick in the pants when the throttles are pushed to the max on takeoff is awesome.
However, from the ground handling side of things, the 767 can be a pain in the ass. There are way too many locks and different types of locks. They all have to be put up even if there is nothing in the cargo hold. When it is cold outside and it is snowing, your hands are frozen, it is really annoying to have to try to get each and every lock up. You sometimes have to use knives to get them up, they are'nt always easy to get up or down. The locking system is the downside of the plane, why could'nt they have put locks on the 767 like Airbus did on their widebodies. Airbus has I believe two different types of locks on the A330/A340, and they are very easy to operate.
Don't get me wrong, I love the 767, it is one of my favorite planes, I love working them, but I hate the locks.
: I think the 767 is a great plane. It is comfortable and roomy. It is quiet, too. I like both types, the -300 and the -200, the -300 being my favorite.
: I think they're very comfortable aircraft! Recently I flew a 767 on Delta from SLC-MCO (Salt Lake City/Orlando) and I was pleasantly surprised by the