FSPilot747 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 3599 posts, RR: 14 Posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3009 times:
The flightdeck of the 777 and the 764 are almost identical, if not, identical. The body is very similar. The 777 is slightly wider, yes, but in general, what is the difference? Why would, say, Delta by X number of 764s instead of 772s?
UGA777 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 122 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2978 times:
The 777-200 has more range than the 764. The 764 was designed mainly for high demand domestic routes in Delta's case. The 772 is meant more for international routes.
FSPilot747 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 3599 posts, RR: 14 Reply 5, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2720 times:
Alllllrighty then, lol...understood. Thanks for clearing that up.
VirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4502 posts, RR: 49 Reply 6, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2701 times:
The 767-400 does not have wingtip fences, it has raked winglets
V/F
"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
BA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11141 posts, RR: 61 Reply 7, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2698 times:
They're two entirely different aircraft.
Simply put, the 767-400 is a 767, and the 777 is well.....a 777.
Two different familes. Like everyone mentioned, they're also different type ratings.
Two completely different aircraft. Neither is derived from another.
The only things in common with the 777 and the 764 is a SIMILAR flight deck (not exactly the same, but similar) and a very similar cabin interior design.
However, the rest of the 767 series are now available with this "777 style" interior.
Regards
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
FSPilot747 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 3599 posts, RR: 14 Reply 8, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2685 times:
VirginFlyer: I know the difference in that sense.. What I meant was like economical difference. What I meant was what is the economical or practical application of a 767 over the 777..
VirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4502 posts, RR: 49 Reply 9, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2680 times:
FSPilot747 - oops, sorry I was ambiguous, I was actually refering to Donder10's post, not yours
V/F
"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
BA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11141 posts, RR: 61 Reply 10, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2680 times:
FSPilot747,
The 767-400 isn't exactly an excelent aircraft from an airline's perspective.
It does a job well done for high density domestic routes (like what Delta uses them for), but when it comes to long-haul transatlantic runs, that is when it's weaknesses start to really show up.
Compared to the A330-200, it's not much when it comes to transatlantic operations. One of the reasons is because it's a 767. Airlines love hauling as much cargo as they can on long-haul routes. The A300/A310/A330/A340 all have much larger cargo bays which are capable of carrying much more cargo than the narrower 767.
This is where the 767's biggest weakness takes its toll.
Another reason is economically, it's not as efficient as the A330-200. Range is also relatively limited on the 764. It can do transatlantic runs of course, but it can't do transpacific runs which is a big limitation.
Best example to show the 767's weakness is KLM. Currently KLM has many 767-300ERs. They operate an all Boeing fleet, no Airbuses. However recently they placed an order for 6 A330-200s. The reason for this is simply because the A330-200 is a better aircraft.
Even officials at Boeing admit that the A330-200 is a better aircraft and it truly is.
Now that doesn't mean the 767-400ER is a bad aircraft. It's still a great aircraft and it does an excelent job when it comes to high density domestic routes like how Delta uses them.
Continental uses them on long-haul routes, and they seem to be doing fine.
However, the biggest mistake Boeing did lately in my opinion is shelving the 767-400ERX which would have a fuel tank in the tail, which would boost it's range very close to the A330-200s.
Many airlines have expressed interest for this longer range 767-400, however Boeing decided to shelve it. Biggest mistake ever.
With the 767-400ERX, Boeing can steal a lot of A330 orders.
I am sure KLM would have waited for the 767-400ERX instead of the A330-200 if Boeing decided to continue with it.
There is still a chance that it might be developed though. Boeing simply shelved the project.
I'm assuming when the economy improves and air travel returns to normal, Boeign will go ahead and develop the 767-400ERX. This will be a big score for Boeing for sure.
There was a discussion about the 767-400ERX a couple days ago. You might want to search for it.
Regards
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 3599 posts, 
From Australia, joined Apr 2001, 1411 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11993 posts, 
From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6659 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4502 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
