Valorien From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 38 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4111 times:
According to Boeing's website http://www.newairplane.com , "The 767 family has the lowest operating cost per trip of any widebody airplane."
With this said, does this mean that it's the most fuel efficient too? For some reason I thought that the B777, B747 or A380 would be the most efficient, given their larger size and ability to generate more revenue per passenger.
I know that in the US, the B767 is the most common widebody aircraft hands down, but was wondering why "all the other airlines" don't order B767's if "efficiency" is the way to go nowadays?
Is Boeing being 100% accurate when they say it's the most efficient widebody aircraft out there? If so, then do other airlines order the A330, B777, etc. because of their more advanced features?
iceberg210 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 130 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4007 times:
Quoting Valorien (Thread starter): "The 767 family has the lowest operating cost per trip of any widebody airplane."
Note the unit of measurement "per trip" not per passenger per trip. The 767 also is the smallest widebody airplane out there, so it would really make sense for it to have the lowest operating cost per trip of any widebody. (If you could fly a 777 for the same price, why wouldn't you?) In fact if this wasn't true I'd doubt many airlines still fly them, as it wouldn't make any sense to if you could fly a larger aircraft for cheaper per flight.
Having said that the 767 still is a very efficient aircraft and there's a reason why the 300ER still is in high demand. But also to remember to take what Boeing and Airbus, and any other manufacture for that matter has to say with a helping of salt that would cause blood pressure problems in a dead person
Valorien From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 38 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3975 times:
Okay I am realizing that I may have missed the obvious...so for each takeoff and landing, the B767 has the lowest cost as a whole airplane, but when you compare it with the other widebody aircraft and "divide the cost per passenger", it may not have the lowest cost per passenger.
GCT64 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 867 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3975 times:
It does not say "most efficient", it says "the lowest operating cost per trip of any widebody airplane" - it also happens to be the smallest and lightest and carries the least, so it is no great surprise that it has a lower operating cost per trip.
iceberg210 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 130 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3839 times:
Quoting Valorien (Reply 2): Am I interpreting this correctly?
Exactly.
If I have a plane that costs 2 dollars a passenger per a certain trip, but there's only 100 passengers, the trip cost would be 200 dollars. However I could have a plane that has a cost of 1 dollar a passenger but carries 300 passengers with a trip cost of 300 dollars. Even though aircraft 2 is more efficient aircraft one has lower trip costs. GENERALLY (there are some exceptions) the smaller the aircraft the lower the trip costs. So it makes sense that the smallest widebody 767 has the lowest trip costs.
Daysleeper From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2009, 692 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3805 times:
Quoting iceberg210 (Reply 1): Having said that the 767 still is a very efficient aircraft and there's a reason why the 300ER still is in high demand
I’m not sure why everyone keeps saying that the 767 is in demand as its sales have been abysmal for years now. For the passenger version there have been;
2007 3
2008 24*
2009 7*
2010 1
2011 11
*This includes the frames given to JAL and ANA as compensation for the 787 delays.
I think that works out at roughly 8/9 frames a year for the last five years compared to an average 80/90 a year for its closest competitor. So I somehow doubt that it’s the most efficient widebody out there, and it certainly isn’t in demand.
To be fair though, it’s past its prime now and its replacement is already in production so you wouldn’t expect it to keep on selling. But in its day, it sold very well and has proven to be a very safe and reliable aircraft.
iceberg210 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 130 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3752 times:
Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 5): I’m not sure why everyone keeps saying that the 767 is in demand
Perhaps one needs to specify more, 200, 200ER, and 300 models, not so much in demand, but try finding a good 300ER on the used market. They aren't out there, the 300 ER is still in demand (yeah it's not selling off the charts) but there wouldn't be some 500+ planes flying around of that one model if it weren't in demand. Guess it's all relative to what you're comparing it against and where you see the plane in the market segment...
1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 5091 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3647 times:
Also, remember that the 764ER has lower operating costs than the A332 on routes within its range. Yes, I know that most Airbus fans will disagree, but this has been confirmed by DL. The A332 is selling better since it has more range and cargo capacity, but this doesn't change the fact that the 764ER will have a lower CASM and trip cost within its range envelope.
[Edited 2012-02-06 13:40:49]
The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
iceberg210 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 130 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3471 times:
Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 7): Also, remember that the 764ER has lower operating costs than the A332 on routes within its range
That's actually why I've always been surprised that no one has picked up a few 764ER's outside of Delta/CO. I mean it's got to be a great charter plane 753ish, trading range for passengers. I mean I never expected it to sell in big numbers, maybe 100 copies TOPS if they got lucky, but I was always surprised that a few airlines didn't pick up a few over the years. Oh well, perhaps everyone just wanted to stick with the known commodity the 763.
greasespot From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 3015 posts, RR: 26 Reply 9, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3449 times:
Ummm it is called A-D-V-E-R-T-I-S-I-N-G. All statistics can me massaged, read to support what the manufacture says. Do you really think a manufacture would sell a place by staying we are like the 3rd most efficient plane flying.
GS
Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 18467 posts, RR: 17 Reply 10, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3438 times:
Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 5): ut in its day, it sold very well and has proven to be a very safe and reliable aircraft.
And even after almost 30 years in service, the 767 is still by far the most passenger-friendly widebody in my opinion thanks to its 2-3-2 Y class seating. I go out of my way to fly on 767s whenever possible.
The 2-2-2 premium class seating that many 767 operators have used was always a second-rate product as it required narrower seats/armrests.The best carriers used a 5-abreast premium configuration on their 767s which permitted the same seats as on 747s/DC-10s/L-1011s. Of course, many 767 operators have now replaced those early reclining seats have now been replaced with the various types of flat-bed seats.
N243NW From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1321 posts, RR: 28 Reply 11, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3327 times:
Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 5): I’m not sure why everyone keeps saying that the 767 is in demand as its sales have been abysmal for years now.
I wouldn't call the sales numbers "abysmal" when one takes into account that this is in almost all regards the same 767 that was first designed and built 30 years ago. Very little has changed since the early 80s - way less than the 737, for example.
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 7621 posts, RR: 51 Reply 12, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3301 times:
Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 5): I think that works out at roughly 8/9 frames a year for the last five years compared to an average 80/90 a year for its closest competitor. So I somehow doubt that it’s the most efficient widebody out there, and it certainly isn’t in demand.
I am not sure why you ignored freighters since without them the line would nit be where it is at. Also it certainly is not in high demand but it is in demand. Boeing did just increase the production rate last year and may raise it again.
I think the original confusion of most efficient has been corrected. It is not the most efficient by common metrics but it does have the lowest trip costs of any widebody which can be useful for specific range and payload configurations. It is a mature design but still has 15 years of production left. I find it ironic that it will likely outlast it's newer competition due to it's versatility in being the base for passenger freighter and tanker.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
faro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1327 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2783 times:
Quoting Valorien (Thread starter): "The 767 family has the lowest operating cost per trip of any widebody airplane."
The 767 is the oldest and smallest widebody available today as a newbuild. That means that it is also the cheapest so that depreciation (which is an integral part of per-trip cost) is also the lowest of any newbuild widebody.
Combine low per-trip cash costs due to small size + low depreciation expense per trip and there is a fair chance that Boeing's affirmation is true.
brons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2927 posts, RR: 5 Reply 14, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2535 times:
Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 7): Also, remember that the 764ER has lower operating costs than the A332 on routes within its range. Yes, I know that most Airbus fans will disagree, but this has been confirmed by DL. The A332 is selling better since it has more range and cargo capacity, but this doesn't change the fact that the 764ER will have a lower CASM and trip cost within its range envelope.
The A332 has better revenue potential, and more operational flexibility. Clearly airlines didn't just look at CASM, they also looked at PRASM, and decided the A332 could make more money.
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 5091 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2502 times:
Quoting brons2 (Reply 14): The A332 has better revenue potential, and more operational flexibility. Clearly airlines didn't just look at CASM, they also looked at PRASM, and decided the A332 could make more money.
It seems that some tend to over-exaggerate the importance of cargo capacity. Cargo capacity isn't as big a deal to DL as it is to most airlines. The 764ER and A332 both fill important roles in DL's fleet, and neither is better in all aspects. Unless there is an official statement from DL stating all A332 routes make more money than their 764ER routes, sales numbers alone means nothing. In order for the A332 to make more money, the cargo hold would have to be full, which is never a guarantee on any flight. Lack of cargo capacity has been a non-issue to DL's 764ER flights.
[Edited 2012-02-08 19:27:54]
The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
BlueJuice From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 172 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2414 times:
The low 767 sales numbers over the last 5 years could be collateral damage from 787 delays. If operators knew the 787 would be so heavily delayed, I'm sure the 763 and 764 might have picked up more orders. Just speculation on my part.
Caryjack From United States of America, joined May 2007, 239 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (3 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1889 times:
Quoting Valorien (Thread starter): "The 767 family has the lowest operating cost per trip of any widebody airplane."
Yup, as explained by Iceberg210. The Boeing web site also claims that 767s have crossed the Atlantic Ocean more times than any other airliner. I can't think of any aircraft of any type that could have done it more.
Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 5): I’m not sure why everyone keeps saying that the 767 is in demand as its sales have been abysmal for years now.
Because the 767 is in demand and its sales haven't been abysmal. It is one of the very few widebodys with more than 1000 airliners delivered.
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 10): And even after almost 30 years in service, the 767 is still by far the most passenger-friendly widebody in my opinion thanks to its 2-3-2 Y class seating.
This gets my vote. The window is my IFE so on a 767 I'm in 1 of 2 seats.
Quoting brons2 (Reply 14): The A332 has better revenue potential, and more operational flexibility. Clearly airlines didn't just look at CASM, they also looked at PRASM, and decided the A332 could make more money.
The A-330 is clearly a more capable, newer airliner...just curious, what is PRASM? Potential RASM?
Thanks,
Cary
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 38 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 867 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 3015 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 18467 posts, 
From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1327 posts, 
I can't think of any aircraft of any type that could have done it more. 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
