First of all, I want to say that my knowledge of the technical aspects of airplanes is very limited, so please be gentle with your answers. My doubt has to do with the fact that some Latin American carriers use 767's to Europe and, specifically, with whether a 767-300ER can complete, non-stop, certain routes without running out of fuel.
After doing a little research, I found that, currently, the routes between Latin America and Europe served with 767's are the following. I am also including the distance between each city pair quoted in the Great Circle Mapper website (I acknowledge the distance may not be 100% accurate):
5725 mi. 767-200ER*
5643 mi. 767-200ER*
5047 mi. 767-300ER
4992 mi. 767-300ER
I may have missed other routes but these are the only ones that I found.
has on very few occasions used the 767-300ER in these routes and, in accordance with many a.net threads, AM
uses the 767-200ER to Europe basically because of range issues.
's website mentions a non-stop flight to MAD
(I believe it is not a regularly scheduled flight, though) and I assume that they are planning to use their 767-300ER for that route. The website does not indicate if VVI is the departure city, but I assume that is the case and, according to the Great Circle Mapper, the distance between VVI and MAD
is 5531 mi.
Finally, in accordance with a.net, the 767-300ER has a range of 5505 mi. when equipped with CF6 engines and of 5875 mi. when equipped with P&W engines. The 767-200ER has evidently a bigger range.
The reason why AM
does not operate its 767-300ER to Europe is that MEx is a high above the sea level and this results in extra fuel being burnt, which circumstance can seriously compromise the completion of the flight (especially if the load factor is high). Is this correct? I am assuming AM
's 767-300ER is equipped with Pratt & Whitneys.
If the Great Circle Mapper's distances are accurate, PU
do not have a problem with getting from GIG
, respectively, to MAD
or viceversa using a 767-300ER because the distance in both cases is safely within the stated range (with any of the two available types of engines) and, in the case of PU
, because GIG
is hot but not high (0 meters above sea level). Correct?
Isn't it a risky business that LB
is considering (or has started) flying to MAD
from VVI (or elsewhere in Bolivia) using its 767-300ER (I take for granted that it is equipped with the P&W's)? I tend to think it is risky since the whole territory of Bolivia is high above the sea level (which is why, theoretically, AM
does not fly its 767-300ER to Europe from MEx). What do you make of it? Could it happen that LB
's 767-300ER run out of fuel before arriving to its destination?
just received an ex-SK 767-300ER which it is flying to EZE
(only 4548 mi. so no range problems there). According to a.net members, MX
will receive more 767-300ER's in the coming months and they will be used for new routes to European destinations. The routes that MX
may start most commonly mentioned here are MEx-LHR
(5541 mi.) and MEx-FRA
(5944 mi). If this indeed happens, how on Earth is MX
going to be able to complete these flights (especially the flight to FRA
) when the distance of MEx-FRA
is clearly beyond the stated range of the 767-300ER and when successfully completing MEx-LHR
non-stop can be seriously impaired by the fact that MEx is high above the sea level? I am missing something? Are these potential flights going to stop at some place for refueling? Is it really more 767-300's that MX
will be receiving, or is it actually 767-200ER's or other types of aircraft?
Thanks a lot for your help. I hope I was clear and not too confusing (or annoying) with all my questions.
[Edited 2004-03-11 03:08:54]
Next flights: MEX-LAX AM 738, LAX-PVG DL 77L, SHA-PEK CA 789, PEK-PVG CA A332, PVG-ORD MU 77W, ORD-MEX AM 738