747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3833
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

Is The 767 400 Really A Good Tristar Replacement.

Fri Aug 22, 2003 3:22 am

I read two topic on the 767 400 and I was think that the 767 400 is lacking compared to the Delta L1011 tristars or Continental DC10 they replaced. The 767 400 is slower than both. L1011 travels at 0.84 and a DC10 travels at 0.82. Also both the L1011 and the DC10 had 18 feet wide passenger friendly cabins. I think Delta and Continental should have looked into a shorter range 777 100, it would been a perfect replacement, it would had a 19ft 3in wide cabin given passengers more space it would have had the same 0.84 speed as a L1011 or 777 200 and would have been a improvement on the DC10 speed.
I herd the seats in a 767 400 or smaller and less conferrable, and that pilot do not like the rest area on it. Let be truthful it is not a good replace, but that is my opinion what do you think.
 
DeltaSFO
Posts: 2407
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2000 11:22 am

RE: Is The 767 400 Really A Good Tristar Replacement.

Fri Aug 22, 2003 3:29 am

I can't speak for Continental, but the 764 does its job well at Delta. A 777 shrink would have been too heavy and costly for domestic service (see UAL - 744s and 777s in domestic service), and indeed, there is no need for the 764 to fly international, as the 777s and 763ERs enable Delta to match capacity to demand, even if they have a few less 777s than they'd like.
It's a new day. Every moment matters. Now, more than ever.
 
Greg
Posts: 5539
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 1:11 am

RE: Is The 767 400 Really A Good Tristar Replacement.

Fri Aug 22, 2003 3:32 am

The entire 76X line is much more comfortable than the last iterations of either the DC-10 or L1011. Cabin width is of little importance when you cram the maximum seating allowed into the bird.

I'd take a 7-across 767 over a 9-across DC-10 anyday.
 
mav75
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2000 10:02 am

RE: Is The 767 400 Really A Good Tristar Replacement.

Fri Aug 22, 2003 3:44 am

I agree with DeltaSFO. I have recently flown on a Delta 764 and enjoyed my flight about as much as anyone could in coach. I enjoy the 2-3-2 seating config on a 764 as opposed to the dreaded 2-5-2 on an L10. Passengers (myself included) enjoy the 777 style cabin, which gives a better feeling of spaciousness. Continental offers PTV's in their 764 coach cabins, something Delta dropped the ball on. You won't see those on a D10 or an L10 either.

Regarding 747400sp's comments on the slower speed of the 764, that's going to happen anytime you go from a trijet to a twinjet configuration. Continental flies their 764s over the Atlantic and the Pacific where the load factor cannot justify a 777. The difference in speed is negligible when you factor in the fuel saved on a twin-engine 764 vs. a D10 or L10. If speed were really the critical factor for operations, the Concorde would still be flying today.
 
BeltwayBandit
Posts: 474
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 4:25 am

RE: Is The 767 400 Really A Good Tristar Replacement.

Fri Aug 22, 2003 3:47 am

The real-world difference between .82 and .84 is not really significant. To be an advantage, it has to translate into $$$. Nobody is going to favor one flight over another because it arrives a few minutes sooner; and nobody is going to pay more to go a bit faster.

Bottom line is that any 2 engine plane is going to be MUCH more efficient than a 3 engine plane when you factor in maintenance. Efficiency is $$$.
 
User avatar
ATA L1011
Posts: 1269
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 6:47 am

RE: Is The 767 400 Really A Good Tristar Replacement.

Fri Aug 22, 2003 3:57 am

Actually 747400Sp the Tristar is basically 19 feet internally here are the actual internal stats for both. Actaully

Tristar= 18ft 11inch internal width
DC-10= 18 ft 9inch
777= 19.3 inch honorable mention


[Edited 2003-08-21 21:03:31]
Treat others as you expect to be treated!
 
747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3833
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: Is The 767 400 Really A Good Tristar Replacement.

Fri Aug 22, 2003 3:58 am

A 777 is a twin jet that travel at 0.84. Also When I said a short range 777 100 that means a shorter 777 200A which would be at most 190 ft long a 500,000 lb which is about the same weight as a L1011 250/500 or a DC10 30 which was use on domestic routes also.
 
747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3833
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: Is The 767 400 Really A Good Tristar Replacement.

Fri Aug 22, 2003 4:02 am

ATAL1011

You are right a L1011 is basically 19ft.
 
User avatar
ATA L1011
Posts: 1269
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 6:47 am

RE: Is The 767 400 Really A Good Tristar Replacement.

Fri Aug 22, 2003 4:12 am

747400 the A Market 777 actaully grosses in less than DC-10-30 and Slighly less than L1011-250-500

777-200 A market= 504,000 gross
L1011-250/500= 510,000
DC-10-30= 580,000
DC-10-40= 572,000
777-200ER IGW or ER= 588,720 standard, 632,500 optional
As we can see thew standard 200ER weighs damn near the same the DC-10-30 but tis much more effecient.



[Edited 2003-08-21 21:14:59]
Treat others as you expect to be treated!
 
747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3833
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: Is The 767 400 Really A Good Tristar Replacement.

Fri Aug 22, 2003 4:26 am

Thank you ATAL1011


This could really help me get my point across. If they shorten a 777 200A to the length of 777 100 it would make a good L1011, DC10 replacement. It would be about the same weight same speed and same width and powered by twin engines. It also could get off the ground faster than a 767 400.
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Is The 767 400 Really A Good Tristar Replacement.

Fri Aug 22, 2003 4:27 am

747400sp,
the point remains that every single airline Boeing proposed a 771 to, turned their nose up at it. Which suggests that maybe, just maybe now.... they know something you dont-- which lead them to believe that the plane was not up to the performace they desired!  Laugh out loud
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
User avatar
ATA L1011
Posts: 1269
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 6:47 am

RE: Is The 767 400 Really A Good Tristar Replacement.

Fri Aug 22, 2003 4:34 am

NO prob 747400sp anything to help out, if they did shorten it to maybe 180ft-185ft or so it would weigh in probably about what the L1011-1/DC-10-10 would at about 430,000-440,000 GTW or slightly more 450-460,000.
Treat others as you expect to be treated!
 
trnswrld
Posts: 1064
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 2:19 am

RE: Is The 767 400 Really A Good Tristar Replacement.

Fri Aug 22, 2003 4:42 am

You guys are right! People on the boards act like the wider the cabin the better. WRONG, I must agree also that the 767 series aircraft are THE most comfortable jets for long hauls.

747400sp,

Have you ever sat in the middle of a 5 across section on a 777 or L1011??? If not, try it sometime maybe you will reconsider your "pasenger friendly" 19ft wide cabin cross section statement. On the 767 series aircraft there is only 1 seat in the 7 across seating where you have a person on each side of you. Doesnt get any better than that!!

 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Is The 767 400 Really A Good Tristar Replaceme

Fri Aug 22, 2003 5:42 am

I certainly think the 767-400 is a better replacement due to the cabin width. I'd rather 2-3-2 any day to 2-5-2 or 3-3-3.

However, I like the A300/10/30/40 fuse width best. 2-4-2 is a'ok by me, because it offers the same 1-seat-to-the-aisle coach as the 767, while ALSO giving you a roomier, airier cabin.

Either way... fine by me.

N
 
JBirdAV8r
Posts: 3454
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2001 4:44 am

RE: Is The 767 400 Really A Good Tristar Replacement.

Fri Aug 22, 2003 5:55 am

I agree with Greg.

IMHO, in its class, the comfort of the 764 can't be beat. Don't get me wrong, I love the L-1011 and enjoyed every trip I ever had on it, but the 764 is more comfortable. The revised interior is pleasant and the brightness of it seems to help out a lot too.
I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
 
User avatar
Aloha717200
Posts: 3738
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:50 am

RE: Is The 767 400 Really A Good Tristar Replacement.

Fri Aug 22, 2003 6:07 am

The 767-400 is a good plane, but it can never replace the Lockheed Tristar.  Big grin

Tristars Forever.  Big thumbs up
 
sllevin
Posts: 3312
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:57 pm

RE: Is The 767 400 Really A Good Tristar Replaceme

Fri Aug 22, 2003 6:10 am

IIRC, the higher cruise speeds of the Tristar and DC-10 were rarely used as the price of fuel got higher and higher. So it's not clear that in practical day-to-day use the operating speeds are different.

Steve
 
worldtraveler
Posts: 3417
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 6:18 am

RE: Is The 767 400 Really A Good Tristar Replacement.

Fri Aug 22, 2003 6:11 am

the 767 family fits in standard domestic gates. The A330/340 and 777 all require int'l gates. For Delta in ATL, that had to be a significant factor.
 
carduelis
Posts: 1388
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 8:24 pm

RE: Is The 767 400 Really A Good Tristar Replacement.

Fri Aug 22, 2003 6:12 am

The 767 is an excellent replacement to the 1011 - all the BA 1011/500s only flew commercially for a short time before being absorbed by the RAF as refuellers as part of BA's privatisation programme.



Don't know the origin of the picture, but acknowledged with thanks!


[Edited 2003-08-21 23:23:21]
Per Ardua ad Astra! ........ Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense!
 
User avatar
Aloha717200
Posts: 3738
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:50 am

RE: Is The 767 400 Really A Good Tristar Replacement.

Fri Aug 22, 2003 6:22 am

That's an interesting sight. Looks like a fake photo though.  Laugh out loud
 
777gk
Posts: 1488
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2000 3:04 am

RE: Is The 767 400 Really A Good Tristar Replacement.

Fri Aug 22, 2003 7:50 am

"18ft-wide passenger friendly cabins" sounds like a line straight out of some 1970s era Delta or United ad. The truth is the 767 cross-section is pretty damn friendly, as only one poor bastard per row has to suffer a middle seat.

Continental reserves a seat in the BusinessFirst cabin (7D) on all long-haul flights for crew rest. We take turns catching some shut-eye in it on a predetermined schedule on flights with additional crew members. The 767 economical cruise speed is .1-.2 Mach less than a DC-10 operating under similar conditions, but the fuel burn savings is significant, I would guess anywhere between 12-30% per sector based on a number of factors. As far as passenger capacity, the two aircraft are very similar. In Continental's Atlantic DC-10 configuration, we fit 38 BusinessFirst seats in with 204 Coach. The 764 in Atlantic configuration fits 35 BusinessFirst and 200 Coach, a loss of 3 premium and 4 coach seats. Our DC-10 Pacific configuration had 28 BusinessFirst and 254 Coach seats, while our 767 Pacific set has 20 BusinessFirst and 235 Coach, for a total of 8 premium and 19 coach seats lost. Capacity-wise, the 767-400 is very close to the DC-10.

A 777-100 wouldn't work because operating costs would remain very similar to its big brother, this combined with a large loss of seats to counteract the higher operating cost would make the cost of incorporating a new fleet outweigh any possible benefit. Stretches work, we've seen it over and over again, but in the airline industry, very rarely does a shortened plane pan out unless substantial weight savings can be gained (of course exceptions such as A319, 737-500, and A330-200 exist) . That's why the 747SP, A310, L1011-500, and 737-600 were either outright failures or never attracted the orders the manufacturers anticipated. Stretches work better because the ratio of revenue opportunities to operating cost is improved. The 767-300, A340-300, 737-800, 727-200, and DC-8-50/60 all were commercial success stories.
 
Bobs89irocz
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2003 4:52 am

RE: Is The 767 400 Really A Good Tristar Replacement.

Fri Aug 22, 2003 8:26 am

IMO: Even though im at tri jet lover (like most of us) im sure we all understand that $$$ makes the world go around. With the new jets coming out there is NO reason to still fly the tri jets when u have a bird like the 767.

Look at all the airlines that have replaced there DC-10/L-1011s/MD-11s with 762,763,764 or even the dreaded Scarbus A300/10/30

When you factor in the load factors and the # of seats to how much fuel is saved you make more money off the twins then you do the Tri jets. I am a fan of the 764 even though its a big wanna be 777 that needs alittle more power (im a power freak) but overal its a 767 and you CANT go wrong with one of those no matter what it replaces.

I think its a very smart move when you purchase a 767.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 9vswr, aerlingus747, AsiaTravel, billyp4850, FAST Enterprise [Crawler], FlyKev, KLA389, LCKip, Mortyman, MrHMSH, Nouflyer, SCQ83, UALWN, xiaotung and 258 guests