cedarjet
Posts: 8130
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

Economics Of The 767

Thu Dec 29, 2005 2:58 am

Something I've never been able to figure out is, how can the 767 make money? The economics of dragging a second aisle and all the extra structure, just to accomodate one more seat per row makes no sense to me. Let's just think about that: it only has one more seat per row than a 737 or 767. How can it's operating costs (fuel) be covered by that one extra person? Why not make it wide enough for 2-4-2?

Anyone like to add some thoughts?
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
User avatar
1337Delta764
Posts: 5030
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

RE: Economics Of The 767

Thu Dec 29, 2005 3:15 am

Quoting Cedarjet (Thread starter):
Something I've never been able to figure out is, how can the 767 make money? The economics of dragging a second aisle and all the extra structure, just to accomodate one more seat per row makes no sense to me. Let's just think about that: it only has one more seat per row than a 737 or 767. How can it's operating costs (fuel) be covered by that one extra person? Why not make it wide enough for 2-4-2?

Actually, the 767 can support 2-4-2 in an ultra-high density configuration. North American is using this configuration.
Yes, I wear Fairy Tale Pink IZOD shirts. I am a real man.
 
JRadier
Posts: 3944
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 11:36 pm

RE: Economics Of The 767

Thu Dec 29, 2005 3:33 am

and don't forget the 767 can take a lot more freight, wich pays pretty well. It is not a fact RG does CDG-AMS-CDG (as an extention to their GRU-CDG flights) for the freight, any pax is a plus.
For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
 
User avatar
B742
Posts: 3568
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 12:48 am

RE: Economics Of The 767

Thu Dec 29, 2005 3:44 am

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 1):
Actually, the 767 can support 2-4-2 in an ultra-high density configuration. North American is using this configuration.

Yep, also are many European Charter airlines such as Thomsonfly and MyTravel!  Smile

Rob!  wave 
As smooth as silk
 
incitatus
Posts: 2808
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

RE: Economics Of The 767

Thu Dec 29, 2005 4:35 am

Quoting Cedarjet (Thread starter):
The economics of dragging a second aisle and all the extra structure, just to accomodate one more seat per row makes no sense to me.

Can you quantify the cost/revenue differential of an extra seat and an extra aisle? I am under the impression your statement is based on gut feel.

I've done many 757/767 economics comparisons. The 767 has triple the freight capacity. In routes where there is no freight demand and are under 3800 miles, the 757 wins hands down. But the 767 is almost the only choice for long thin routes, the other alternative being the A310-300.
Conservatives against Trump
 
SpeckSpot
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:01 pm

RE: Economics Of The 767

Thu Dec 29, 2005 4:36 am

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 1):
Actually, the 767 can support 2-4-2 in an ultra-high density configuration. North American is using this configuration.

What are the seat and aisle widths for a 767 in 2-4-2? I'm wondering how it
compares with a 737 and 757, which Boeing says have 17" seats with a 20" aisle.
 
AirBuffalo
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 1:20 pm

RE: Economics Of The 767

Thu Dec 29, 2005 4:44 am

I believe VERSATILITY is its biggest selling point over the 757.

The already-mentioned cargo space allows versatility in the airframe's range through additional fuel tanks in the cargo hold that still allow a moderate cargo load.

The extra aisle and width give much more versatility for premium passenger options, even though the difference in the coach cabin is only a 16% capacity increase. In domestic configurations, the first class capacity of the 767 increases by a whopping 50% (6 across vs 4 across) compared to the 757. This holds for many international 767 business classes, which are either 6 across (DL, KLM, US) or 5 (CO, AC) vs. 4 across for continental's international 757 (25-50% increase).

Finally, I would guess that widebody aircraft are the clear choice for international passengers. $400 round trip economy flyers may not care but the $5000, twice-per-month international business-class flyers notice.

While it may not seem to make much sense to use a 767 for high density, short, low-cargo domestic flying, it's clearly better for longer and international flying. With small exceptions (Delta ATL-MCO, TPA, etc), this is what it is used for.

BS
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Economics Of The 767

Thu Dec 29, 2005 4:59 am

Beyond the ability to fit in more premium seats and cargo, the 767 also has one major advantage over the 757. Range.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
SpeckSpot
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:01 pm

RE: Economics Of The 767

Thu Dec 29, 2005 5:02 am

Quoting SpeckSpot (Reply 5):
What are the seat and aisle widths for a 767 in 2-4-2? I'm wondering how it
compares with a 737 and 757, which Boeing says have 17" seats with a 20" aisle.

Still don't know the answer, but this table looks tight. The left value in each row is an arbitrary value (Aisle width) in inches, and the right value is the corresponding seat width, calculated as:

= ((18*7 + 2 * 19) - leftvalue *2)/8

The formula assumes that the seat width includes armrest widths.
The table is:

Aisle vs Seat Width
14.0 --- 17
14.5 --- 16.88
15.0 --- 16.75
15.5 --- 16.63
16.0 --- 16.5
16.5 --- 16.38
17.0 --- 16.25
17.5 --- 16.13
18.0 --- 16
18.5 --- 15.88
19.0 --- 15.75
19.5 --- 15.63
20.0 --- 15.5

[Edited 2005-12-28 21:08:00]
 
AirBuffalo
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 1:20 pm

RE: Economics Of The 767

Thu Dec 29, 2005 6:12 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 7):
Beyond the ability to fit in more premium seats and cargo, the 767 also has one major advantage over the 757. Range.

Not true, if you are comparing the non -ER versions of the 767 to the 757.

757 range: 3400-3900 nm (-300 vs -200)
767 range: 3100-4200 nm (-200 vs -300)

This data is according to the Boeing, Airliners.net, and various airline websites.

Interestingly, only the 767ER is listed as still in production on the boeing web site. Perhaps Boeing found the long range, low capacity market a better niche than the medium range high density domestic ones, especially with the rise of the stretched 737s and 320s (the 757's demise).

BS
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13876
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Economics Of The 767

Thu Dec 29, 2005 6:28 am

but very few non-ER versions of the 767 were sold as a whole, especially in the 200 version, and only the later versions of the 757 have the range quoted.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
AirBuffalo
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 1:20 pm

RE: Economics Of The 767

Thu Dec 29, 2005 7:24 am

I'm not sure about "very few" but you are correct that almost 75% of the 767s delivered to date are the -ER versions. However, less than 50% of the earliest -200 model were -ER. Given the overwhelming popularity of the 767-300ER and that there was never a 767-400 non -ER offered, it seems clear that the market decided that the 767 can't compete with 757 on medium range so concentrate on ER operations (i know the later had much to do with the DL and CO specs but still, it shows the market didn't want a 767-400 non ER).

On a sidenote, does anyone know how much more expensive an -ER version is to operate than the non-ER on medium-range routes? From the data I see, the ER versions are about 5% heavier (84.3 kkg vs 80.5 kkg for 767-300). Considering it's big news whenever the A380/787 is over/under target weight by anything more than 1000kg or so, could gulp a percent or two more petrol. This then leads to the question of how much money did delta burn away flying less-than capacity 767-400ERs domestically for all those years?

Ikramerica -- can you find a source that puts the 757-200 range below 2900nm?

BS

For reference, the Boeing website list the following for 767 deliveries:

767-200 128
767-200ER 116
767-300 104
767-300ER 506
767-400ER 37
--------------------
TOTAL 891
TOTAL -ER 659 (74%)
 
mandala499
Posts: 6461
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Economics Of The 767

Thu Dec 29, 2005 8:39 pm

One weakness of the 757 is that it can take only about 350 bags below... so, if you're on a 2 class 200 seats in holiday season, you're not gonna end up with much cargo space.

The plus for the 767 is that the 2 aisle means you can have a proper business class...

A wider cross section means you have better volume allocations for a set value... and the longer the tube by length in comparison to diameter, the less relative strength to volume it has.

However, it's not fair to just look at the dimensions...
Go to the performance figures and payload ranges tables and you'll see the economics there.

Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
kiwiandrew

RE: Economics Of The 767

Thu Dec 29, 2005 8:44 pm

Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 12):
The plus for the 767 is that the 2 aisle means you can have a proper business class...

if you go for 1-2-2 J class seating like QF - but most carriers seem to go for 2-2-2 which is a bit tight
 
persotvik
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 1999 12:38 am

RE: Economics Of The 767

Thu Dec 29, 2005 10:27 pm

Quoting JRadier (Reply 2):
and don't forget the 767 can take a lot more freight, wich pays pretty well. It is not a fact RG does CDG-AMS-CDG (as an extention to their GRU-CDG flights) for the freight, any pax is a plus.

This extension is operated by M11's. RG will stop this route in the end of January 06 Sad

I had the plesure of flying the Trijet beast on this route last summer. I enjoyed every minute!
Just love flying
 
Lemurs
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:13 am

RE: Economics Of The 767

Thu Dec 29, 2005 11:00 pm

Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 13):
if you go for 1-2-2 J class seating like QF - but most carriers seem to go for 2-2-2 which is a bit tight

The ones who do 5 across get rave reviews for their J cabin, however. CO is 2-1-2 in all 767's, AC is 1-2-2 on their 763's, and DL will be 2-1-2 on their 764's once they equip w/BE I think. CO and AC in particular seem to be blessed with good loads in J because of the superior product there, and that can make all the difference in keeping a flight profitable.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
 
kiwiandrew

RE: Economics Of The 767

Thu Dec 29, 2005 11:41 pm

Quoting Lemurs (Reply 15):
CO is 2-1-2 in all 767's

thanks Lemurs , that's really interesting I have never heard of 2-1-2 before ! to me it makes less sense than 1-2-2 . With the former layout only 3 out of 5 seats are aisle seats , with the latter 4 out of 5 are - does anyone here know why CO does it like that ?


regards

Andrew
 
JRadier
Posts: 3944
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 11:36 pm

RE: Economics Of The 767

Fri Dec 30, 2005 12:14 am

Quoting Persotvik (Reply 14):
This extension is operated by M11's. RG will stop this route in the end of January 06 Sad

I know it is operated by MD-11's (but thanks anyway), it merely was to point out the revenue of freight.
For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
 
Lemurs
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:13 am

RE: Economics Of The 767

Fri Dec 30, 2005 1:59 am

Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 16):
thanks Lemurs , that's really interesting I have never heard of 2-1-2 before ! to me it makes less sense than 1-2-2 . With the former layout only 3 out of 5 seats are aisle seats , with the latter 4 out of 5 are - does anyone here know why CO does it like that ?

Someone here mentioned that CO did a survey and found that the people who would prefer the 1 seat by itself were more likely to not care if it was a window or not, while many other people are more interested in a window than not having a neighbor or being trapped against the window (which is what they wanted). They decided that it made the largest number of people happy this way. Given how much CO frequent fliers compliment the cabin layout of the 767's, I'd say it's worked out for them. I don't think I've ever heard a complaint about the 2-1-2 to be honest.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
 
HanginOut
Posts: 522
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Economics Of The 767

Fri Dec 30, 2005 4:31 am

The benefit to having the business class seating as 1-2-2 on the 767 is that 4 people wind up having an aisle seat, whereas only 3 people will in the 2-1-2 layout.
Dreaming of the day I can work for an airline
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13876
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Economics Of The 767

Fri Dec 30, 2005 4:45 am

Quoting AirBuffalo (Reply 11):
Ikramerica -- can you find a source that puts the 757-200 range below 2900nm?

why? i was responding to this:

Quoting AirBuffalo (Reply 9):
757 range: 3400-3900 nm (-300 vs -200)

3900nm range came later in the 757 product cycle.

Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 16):
does anyone here know why CO does it like that ?

Well, beyond market research, it is a vestige of the 'standard' way other airlines equipped their 767s in the US when they did 5 across F. Even though CO's 767s came late to the game, they still follow the pattern of the previous carriers.

And while having access to the aisle may be nice, being smacked in the shoulders all the time by passersby or having your seat leaned on is a negative of having an aisle seat. I always prefer the window in F, as I get out from zero-2 times per flight depending on length, and like the privacy of being by the window away from the aisle.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
Lemurs
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:13 am

RE: Economics Of The 767

Fri Dec 30, 2005 5:13 am

Quoting HanginOut (Reply 19):
The benefit to having the business class seating as 1-2-2 on the 767 is that 4 people wind up having an aisle seat, whereas only 3 people will in the 2-1-2 layout.

I understand how it works. The difference is, the passengers who prefer window seats don't care if they're on an aisle or not, because they want a window. So you have 3 sets of seats, that are appealing to a specific group of customers:

W = Windows
S = Single Seat
A = Aisle

In a 1-2-2, you have combine one row of W and the entire group of S into the same seat. You have people who want W and want S fighting for the same limited number of seats. In 2-1-2, you have them separated. It's more likely that everyone will get what they want in the aircraft at any time. The "lowest" rung of course, is still an aisle seat, just with a neighbor.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8130
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: Economics Of The 767

Fri Dec 30, 2005 7:16 am

Thanks for da feedback. I remember USAir had a business class (with a naff brand name like "Senator's Class" or whathaveyou) in the early 90s on it's nightly runs from Baltimore / Charlotte / Philadelphia to London Gatwick. That was a nice operation they had there, the 767 (-200 in this case) was truly made for a market like BWI-LGW, and indeed CLT. Philly could have used something bigger but by keeping commonality with CLT and BWI, it ran full every night, nice earner. Then BA stepped in and completely fucked it, making US paint a few of their (5?) 767s in BA colours and generally confusing the hell out of everyone, losing a load of cash and then losing interest (and yes, I know it was nice to see a -200 in BA livery). I guess US still do Charlotte - London and tonnes more international routes (in the old days I'm lamenting, they just had those three LGW routes plus PHL-ORY and CLT-FRA) but they're losing hundreds of millions of $ a week, right?

Anyway interesting to learn a bit more about the 767 from you guys, I never really paid her that much attention, for more it's the most vanilla airliner out there. I must say I flew an AC A330 from LHR to YYZ recently and a 767 home, and although the A330 is prettier, faster and bigger, I found it kind of flimsy - and the rattle and vibration on takeoff was frankly alarming - whereas the 767 felt tougher and more likely to live a long life. Of course, many of them are approaching retirement age at airlines everywhere, and while I won't miss her for the looks or general sexiness, they proved a reliable breed, eh?
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos