Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
77H
Topic Author
Posts: 1570
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:27 pm

Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Sat Oct 22, 2016 11:22 pm

Aloha All,

Piggy-Backing the thread about the US 762's, a question I have often wondered about was UA's decision to get rid of the pmCO 762's.

The 8 CO 762's were very new as far as commercial aircraft go being 2000, 2001 build. I know that CO mostly used them on US East Coast-Thin European routes. In that configuration they were rather low density with only 174 seats (less than most 757's).

I can't help but think that UA could have used the 8 762's for hub-to-hub and HI routes. Imagine if you will a domestic config 762 with a small F/J cabin (12-18 seats) with a Y+/Y cabin between 190-200 seats. I understand that UA has placed its bets with the efficient 739ER for domestic use but the 762 has the added benefit of being a good cargo hauler whereas the 739ER struggles in both weight and volume.


UA Cargo is among the top 25 largest cargo carriers. Living in HI I know that when UA flew widebodies to the neighbor islands they used to make a killing on cargo. Moreover, there is huge demand for containerized cargo within CONUS. My two cents is that UA management let go of aircraft that could have been a diamond in the rough. I'm interested to hear your thoughts. My only ask is that we keep it civil and dignified. If you feel is a pointless thread, please move on.

Mahalo,
77H
 
UA444
Posts: 2997
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:03 am

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Sun Oct 23, 2016 12:01 am

The CASM was horrible and it was a mistake for CO to order them when they did when they should've ordered 763s.
 
User avatar
piedmont762
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 9:14 pm

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Sun Oct 23, 2016 12:11 am

UA444 wrote:
The CASM was horrible and it was a mistake for CO to order them when they did when they should've ordered 763s.


Correct - it was a short sighted decision to order these planes around 2000 when AA / UA retired them only a few years later. BTW with regard to previous poster, they had more than 8. I want to say around 10.

However, it should be noted that had the current management team kept the 762s in this current fuel environment, it could have helped them out. Flew them on EWR-LAX-EWR a few times back in 2004 and the 777 style interiors and IFE system was a plus.

Current day, I would think them on PS or long haul routes with limited J and Y pax. Routes like PMCO was using it like EWR-GRU/MXP for instance (lasted through 2012), but there are plenty of instances throughout the network where they could have used them out of the PMUA hubs. And we aren't even considering for fitting them with lie flats or slimlined Y seats with AVOD. A reconfiguration could have been a big league game changer.

All said and done, UA has made a lot of mistakes with regards to fleet planning since the merger. Dumping 80+ 757s was a big one (considering Delta is keeping over 100 752s) but the same goes for the 762s. They probably could have held onto the PMCO 735s a bit longer as well as most were delivered in 1994-1995.

All of these decisions were done under a Smisek / Rainey regime which big theme was cost cutting and not merging the flight attendants out of laziness. One has to wonder how things would be done under Muniz / Kirby control.

Finally, rumor has it that UA was looking to operate the 762 on SFO-TLV back in 2012. Never happened, but says a lot for the potential of this sub-fleet.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14127
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Sun Oct 23, 2016 12:25 am

There were 10, not 8, CO 762s (all built between 2000-2001). They were much different than the 762s AA, UA, DL and US were flying around. Better, more efficient engines, 777 style interiors, PTVs and modern glass cockpits. They however had two distinct problems that once oil spiked around 2008 became an issue:

1st issue, they had the same number of seats as their 752s but cost way more to operate, especially on Trans-Atlantic routes.

2nd, it had almost the same CASM, cost per seat to fly a mile, as their 763s and 764s but with less seats. They made absolutely no sense to fly them domestically as they had 753s with more seats that operate much more efficiently.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
User avatar
drerx7
Posts: 4402
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:19 am

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Sun Oct 23, 2016 1:00 am

I always wondered if there was a magic high density seat configuration that could have made casm more attractive.
HOUSTON, TEXAS
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4989
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Sun Oct 23, 2016 1:29 am

wasn't something I might have done since the engines ere interchangeable with the -400 Unlike the UA 762's which were NOT equipped with the PW4000's. Which was why UAL retired them. Had they been PW4050 series instead of the JT9D-7R4 it might have been another story..
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6313
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Sun Oct 23, 2016 1:35 am

STT757 wrote:
There were 10, not 8, CO 762s (all built between 2000-2001). They were much different than the 762s AA, UA, DL and US were flying around. Better, more efficient engines, 777 style interiors, PTVs and modern glass cockpits. They however had two distinct problems that once oil spiked around 2008 became an issue:

1st issue, they had the same number of seats as their 752s but cost way more to operate, especially on Trans-Atlantic routes.

2nd, it had almost the same CASM, cost per seat to fly a mile, as their 763s and 764s but with less seats. They made absolutely no sense to fly them domestically as they had 753s with more seats that operate much more efficiently.


That's not correct. CO's 767-200s had the standard 757/767 EFIS flight deck. The 767-400s had the more modern then-new more glass flight deck. Also, they had standard 767 engines. I'm pretty sure they GE CF6-80C-2 engines which are no more or less efficient than most other 767 engines.
 
User avatar
intotheair
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Sun Oct 23, 2016 1:45 am

Also important to consider the fleet of the combined carrier at the time. As part of retiring the 762s, UA also decided to increase the MTOW of the domestic 763s and convert them to 2-class international birds. That was probably a good decision considering how well those 763s are performing if what we're hearing about them is true. Those 763s ended up on a lot of the former 762 routes.

I do kind of miss the domestic 763s though. I remember flying them a lot on DEN-SFO/LAX and DEN-Hawaii. Soon though, UA will have a whole fleet of something similar again — the domestic 772A.
300 319 320 321 332 333 345 346 380 717 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77W 788 789 CR2 CR7 CR9 CRK Q400 E175 DC10 MD82 MD90
AA AF AS AY AZ B6 BA BR DL F9 FI GA HA KF LH MI QX SK SN SQ UA US VY WN
 
modesto2
Posts: 2728
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2000 3:44 am

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Sun Oct 23, 2016 2:05 am

BoeingGuy wrote:
STT757 wrote:
There were 10, not 8, CO 762s (all built between 2000-2001). They were much different than the 762s AA, UA, DL and US were flying around. Better, more efficient engines, 777 style interiors, PTVs and modern glass cockpits. They however had two distinct problems that once oil spiked around 2008 became an issue:

1st issue, they had the same number of seats as their 752s but cost way more to operate, especially on Trans-Atlantic routes.

2nd, it had almost the same CASM, cost per seat to fly a mile, as their 763s and 764s but with less seats. They made absolutely no sense to fly them domestically as they had 753s with more seats that operate much more efficiently.


That's not correct. CO's 767-200s had the standard 757/767 EFIS flight deck. The 767-400s had the more modern then-new more glass flight deck. Also, they had standard 767 engines. I'm pretty sure they GE CF6-80C-2 engines which are no more or less efficient than most other 767 engines.


As mentioned, the CO 762s had the standard 757/767 flight deck.

Also, the CASM was not the same - that was the problem. The total cost may have been similar but when divided over fewer seats, the CASM was definitely higher than desirable.
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Sun Oct 23, 2016 2:12 am

The other thing to keep in mind is the combined UA and CO fleets created a different dynamic than each airline had separately. UA had a big WB fleet and not enough NB while CO was the exact opposite. Each fleet filled a gap in the other fleet and thus less need for 762.

Additionally, it's easy to look at fuel prices now and second guess, but had they stayed high for longer UA might be getting criticized for the reverse. Hindsight is 20/20.

Finally, all the majors made promises to Wall Street on capacity discipline. Given the volumes of WBs on order, the 762 was a low hanging fruit.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Sun Oct 23, 2016 2:15 am

drerx7 wrote:
I always wondered if there was a magic high density seat configuration that could have made casm more attractive.


8 abreast (2-4-2) in Y in the 767 does exist.

However, I doubt many of UA's pax would have fit into the seats ;)
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Sun Oct 23, 2016 2:43 am

777Jet wrote:
drerx7 wrote:
I always wondered if there was a magic high density seat configuration that could have made casm more attractive.


8 abreast (2-4-2) in Y in the 767 does exist.

However, I doubt many of UA's pax would have fit into the seats ;)


8-abreast on a 767 is probably the worst of all widebody Y class configurations (while 7-abreast on the 767 is the best in my opinion). Only a few mostly European charter/leisure carriers have used 8-abreast on 767s.

 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Sun Oct 23, 2016 2:54 am

Viscount724 wrote:
777Jet wrote:
drerx7 wrote:
I always wondered if there was a magic high density seat configuration that could have made casm more attractive.


8 abreast (2-4-2) in Y in the 767 does exist.

However, I doubt many of UA's pax would have fit into the seats ;)


8-abreast on a 767 is probably the worst of all widebody Y class configurations (while 7-abreast on the 767 is the best in my opinion).


Agreed 100%

You can barely see the aisle in the pic on the left!
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7289
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Sun Oct 23, 2016 5:36 am

COs configuration was very low density and probably the highest ratio of J to Y seats they had at the merger. The high J configuration made them perfect out of EWR to the major financial cities in Europe. Also, it had a hefty cargo capacity, which, coupled with the high J config, made them regulars on IAH-deep South America.

I believe that with a tweet in the config, that UA could've had a great fleet to focus on Africa with, especially considering that the 788 is substantially larger than the 762.

Lastly, CO received the last 762ERs. Those planes were all PIPed out when they were delivered, and I believe the CF6s were more efficient and more powerful than earlier 200ERs, but I have no info to back that up. The 777 interior also went a long ways for pax comfort too. The 767 is my favorite UA plane to ride on in all classes. I'd choose it even over a 777 if given the choice.
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
jmchevallier
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 7:17 am

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Sun Oct 23, 2016 6:11 am

BoeingGuy wrote:
STT757 wrote:
There were 10, not 8, CO 762s (all built between 2000-2001). They were much different than the 762s AA, UA, DL and US were flying around. Better, more efficient engines, 777 style interiors, PTVs and modern glass cockpits. They however had two distinct problems that once oil spiked around 2008 became an issue:

1st issue, they had the same number of seats as their 752s but cost way more to operate, especially on Trans-Atlantic routes.

2nd, it had almost the same CASM, cost per seat to fly a mile, as their 763s and 764s but with less seats. They made absolutely no sense to fly them domestically as they had 753s with more seats that operate much more efficiently.


That's not correct. CO's 767-200s had the standard 757/767 EFIS flight deck. The 767-400s had the more modern then-new more glass flight deck. Also, they had standard 767 engines. I'm pretty sure they GE CF6-80C-2 engines which are no more or less efficient than most other 767 engines.


The 10 last CO 762 were ordered simultaneously with the 764. So they benefitted of the last cabin upgrade and engine PIP, but kept the standard 762/763 cockpit.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6313
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Sun Oct 23, 2016 10:09 am

jmchevallier wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
STT757 wrote:
There were 10, not 8, CO 762s (all built between 2000-2001). They were much different than the 762s AA, UA, DL and US were flying around. Better, more efficient engines, 777 style interiors, PTVs and modern glass cockpits. They however had two distinct problems that once oil spiked around 2008 became an issue:

1st issue, they had the same number of seats as their 752s but cost way more to operate, especially on Trans-Atlantic routes.

2nd, it had almost the same CASM, cost per seat to fly a mile, as their 763s and 764s but with less seats. They made absolutely no sense to fly them domestically as they had 753s with more seats that operate much more efficiently.


That's not correct. CO's 767-200s had the standard 757/767 EFIS flight deck. The 767-400s had the more modern then-new more glass flight deck. Also, they had standard 767 engines. I'm pretty sure they GE CF6-80C-2 engines which are no more or less efficient than most other 767 engines.


The 10 last CO 762 were ordered simultaneously with the 764. So they benefitted of the last cabin upgrade and engine PIP, but kept the standard 762/763 cockpit.


What you guys are referring to was called the "New Look Interior" by Boeing. It was a catalog option in the late 1990s and baseline by about 2001. In other words, every passenger 767 delivered since 2001, and some before it, had the same upgraded 777-like interior. Nothing special about CO's 767-200s at all relative to 767s built in that time period. They are newer than AA's, DL's, and pmUA's older 767-200s.

Nothing special about the CF6s either. They are FADEC but again, so are almost all 767 engines since before that time.

They have the updated Pegasus FMCs. Same story on those - catalog option by the late 1990s; baseline on all 767s (except the KC-46 has an FMC from the 737 FMC supplier instead) since about 2000 also.
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 1960
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Sun Oct 23, 2016 12:03 pm

STT757 wrote:
2nd, it had almost the same CASM, cost per seat to fly a mile, as their 763s and 764s but with less seats.


Could the same thing be said about the 788 versus the 789 as well?
 
Cointrin330
Posts: 2015
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:23 pm

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Sun Oct 23, 2016 12:11 pm

Co flew their 10 767-200ER's mostly out of EWR, to MXP, GVA, ZRH and subbed them around markets like FCO, MUC, and CDG and flew them from IAH to EZE and GIG. As others have mentioned these had a relatively low density configuration, which I suppose could have been remedied by increasing the capacity but the merger made them a small sub-fleet similar to what AA has now with the US A330-300's. The PMUA 767-300ER fleet, are slightly newer than their counter parts at AA and DL, having been built and delivered in two phases (early-mid 1990's and again in the early 2000s with a handful being 2002 builds). Converting them to 2-class cabins with new interiors was a smart enough decision, coupled with improved avionics to make them more dispatch reliable has also made the 762's (even if retired earlier than this project took off) appear to have been the right decision. The 787 deliveries have also helped pull 777's off many TPAC routes, allowing them to be operated on some domestic segments (hub to hub, for instance) and so the 762s if still around today would have been oddballs in the fleet.
 
User avatar
piedmont762
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 9:14 pm

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Sun Oct 23, 2016 4:54 pm

Cointrin330 wrote:
Co flew their 10 767-200ER's mostly out of EWR, to MXP, GVA, ZRH and subbed them around markets like FCO, MUC, and CDG and flew them from IAH to EZE and GIG. As others have mentioned these had a relatively low density configuration, which I suppose could have been remedied by increasing the capacity but the merger made them a small sub-fleet similar to what AA has now with the US A330-300's. The PMUA 767-300ER fleet, are slightly newer than their counter parts at AA and DL, having been built and delivered in two phases (early-mid 1990's and again in the early 2000s with a handful being 2002 builds). Converting them to 2-class cabins with new interiors was a smart enough decision, coupled with improved avionics to make them more dispatch reliable has also made the 762's (even if retired earlier than this project took off) appear to have been the right decision. The 787 deliveries have also helped pull 777's off many TPAC routes, allowing them to be operated on some domestic segments (hub to hub, for instance) and so the 762s if still around today would have been oddballs in the fleet.


With only 10 frames they could only do so much. I do recall EWR-MXP being a 762ER route well into the merger.

The 763s you mention did not have dispatch issues - they flew domestically and to Hawaii before conversion to international 2-class. While they did a nice job with the reconfiguration, the business class is still crammed and footing areas are too narrow.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Sun Oct 23, 2016 6:25 pm

STT757 wrote:
There were 10, not 8, CO 762s (all built between 2000-2001). They were much different than the 762s AA, UA, DL and US were flying around. Better, more efficient engines, 777 style interiors, PTVs and modern glass cockpits. They however had two distinct problems that once oil spiked around 2008 became an issue:

1st issue, they had the same number of seats as their 752s but cost way more to operate, especially on Trans-Atlantic routes.

2nd, it had almost the same CASM, cost per seat to fly a mile, as their 763s and 764s but with less seats. They made absolutely no sense to fly them domestically as they had 753s with more seats that operate much more efficiently.

A lot of this is inaccurate.

As mentioned, the flight deck was 757/767 standard, not 777
Also, they had LESS seats than their 752s.
And the 2nd part is completely wrong: they had similar trip costs, but the CASM was way worse due to dearth of seats and the space to add any.




BoeingGuy wrote:
What you guys are referring to was called the "New Look Interior" by Boeing.

I thought it was called "Signature"??
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
United1
Posts: 4164
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Sun Oct 23, 2016 6:35 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
What you guys are referring to was called the "New Look Interior" by Boeing.

I thought it was called "Signature"??


I believe Boeing called it the Signature interior so the 762/764s would have had that as they came from the factories that way. There was/is a retrofit kit from Heath Tecna that was called NuLook interior.

http://www.aircraftinteriorsexpo-us.com ... ents/14046
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
User avatar
FlyCaledonian
Posts: 1982
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 6:18 am

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:01 pm

Flew the CO 762 on EWR-LGW a couple of times and was fortunate enough both times to get in the small Y cabin (three rows I think) between BusinessFirst and the centre lavs,

I know that CO converted a number of their 767-424ER orders into additional 777-224ERs. It is a shame they didn't do similar with the 767-224ERs. Then again, CO did have five 767-324ERs that were never delivered to the airline in the early 1990s. However, even if they had taken 767-324ERs vice the 767-224ERs I still think there is a chance they could have been disposed of given that there would have only been ten with GE engines. I know Delta runs a mixed fleet of GE/PW 767-332ERs but UA would have had a much smaller fleet.
Let's Go British Caledonian!
 
User avatar
intotheair
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Sun Oct 23, 2016 10:02 pm

777Jet wrote:
drerx7 wrote:
I always wondered if there was a magic high density seat configuration that could have made casm more attractive.


8 abreast (2-4-2) in Y in the 767 does exist.

However, I doubt many of UA's pax would have fit into the seats ;)


As an aside, one of the UA "insiders" (can't remember whether it was on here or on FT) recently said that there are rumors of 2-4-2 showing up on the 763s when they go in for Polaris. I, however, would be very, very surprised if this actually happens. It sounds like someone made a riff on the 3-4-3 777 ("An extra seat on the 777? Imagine when they'll do the same to the 767!") and then it solidified into one of those notorious FA rumors.
300 319 320 321 332 333 345 346 380 717 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77W 788 789 CR2 CR7 CR9 CRK Q400 E175 DC10 MD82 MD90
AA AF AS AY AZ B6 BA BR DL F9 FI GA HA KF LH MI QX SK SN SQ UA US VY WN
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6313
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Mon Oct 24, 2016 1:35 am

United1 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
What you guys are referring to was called the "New Look Interior" by Boeing.

I thought it was called "Signature"??


I believe Boeing called it the Signature interior so the 762/764s would have had that as they came from the factories that way. There was/is a retrofit kit from Heath Tecna that was called NuLook interior.

http://www.aircraftinteriorsexpo-us.com ... ents/14046


Signature may have been a marketing term, but internally it was called the New Look Interior as I mentioned.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21842
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Mon Oct 24, 2016 2:58 am

For AA's transcontinental service, the A321 holds all of the F, all of the J, and 70% of the Y pax. For about 1/2 the trip fuel.

The 762 had similar trip costs to the 763 but in CO's configuration they carried less than the CO 752 (admittedly it was premium-heavy, so CASM must be balanced around RASM).
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
rta
Posts: 1414
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:01 am

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Mon Oct 24, 2016 3:06 am

piedmont762 wrote:
All said and done, UA has made a lot of mistakes with regards to fleet planning since the merger. Dumping 80+ 757s was a big one (considering Delta is keeping over 100 752s) but the same goes for the 762s.


UA dumping their 752s was a mistake just because DL didn't?

They're not weeping over it. Or the 762s, as this thread suggests.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21842
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Mon Oct 24, 2016 3:10 am

For AA's transcontinental service, the A321 holds all of the F, all of the J, and 70% of the Y pax. For about 1/2 the trip fuel.

The 762 had similar trip costs to the 763 but in CO's configuration they carried less than the CO 752 (admittedly it was premium-heavy, so CASM must be balanced against RASM). But anyway, per square meter of cabin space, the 762 is really inefficient. It was useful when it was first produced because it offered long range, but as happens in the industry, as larger variants got more capable and offered comparable trip costs...
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
blacksoviet
Posts: 1685
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:50 am

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Mon Oct 24, 2016 4:47 am

DocLightning wrote:
For AA's transcontinental service, the A321 holds all of the F, all of the J, and 70% of the Y pax. For about 1/2 the trip fuel.

The 762 had similar trip costs to the 763 but in CO's configuration they carried less than the CO 752 (admittedly it was premium-heavy, so CASM must be balanced against RASM). But anyway, per square meter of cabin space, the 762 is really inefficient. It was useful when it was first produced because it offered long range, but as happens in the industry, as larger variants got more capable and offered comparable trip costs...


Did early 767-300ERs offer less range than the later airplanes?
 
blacksoviet
Posts: 1685
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:50 am

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Mon Oct 24, 2016 4:51 am

piedmont762 wrote:
Cointrin330 wrote:
Co flew their 10 767-200ER's mostly out of EWR, to MXP, GVA, ZRH and subbed them around markets like FCO, MUC, and CDG and flew them from IAH to EZE and GIG. As others have mentioned these had a relatively low density configuration, which I suppose could have been remedied by increasing the capacity but the merger made them a small sub-fleet similar to what AA has now with the US A330-300's. The PMUA 767-300ER fleet, are slightly newer than their counter parts at AA and DL, having been built and delivered in two phases (early-mid 1990's and again in the early 2000s with a handful being 2002 builds). Converting them to 2-class cabins with new interiors was a smart enough decision, coupled with improved avionics to make them more dispatch reliable has also made the 762's (even if retired earlier than this project took off) appear to have been the right decision. The 787 deliveries have also helped pull 777's off many TPAC routes, allowing them to be operated on some domestic segments (hub to hub, for instance) and so the 762s if still around today would have been oddballs in the fleet.


With only 10 frames they could only do so much. I do recall EWR-MXP being a 762ER route well into the merger.

The 763s you mention did not have dispatch issues - they flew domestically and to Hawaii before conversion to international 2-class. While they did a nice job with the reconfiguration, the business class is still crammed and footing areas are too narrow.


Is EWR-MXP now flown with a 763? Do they ever fill the whole plane?
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21842
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Mon Oct 24, 2016 1:00 pm

blacksoviet wrote:
meter of cabin space, the 762 is really inefficient. It was useful when it was first produced because it offered long range, but as happens in the industry, as larger variants got more capable and offered comparable trip costs...


Did early 767-300ERs offer less range than the later airplanes?[/quote]

No, but the early 763 did. That's why the -ER model was offered. :)
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
oldannyboy
Posts: 2573
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:28 am

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Mon Oct 24, 2016 1:53 pm

I think it's fair to say that us enthusiasts have a morbid fascination with odd-balls and sub-fleets, not to mention rare, unsuccessful and forgotten aircrafts. I am one of them. Not so when it comes to CEOs and bean-counters.
I don't think any airline manager will ever lose sleep over those 762s, but it's sweet to think that our hearts would have missed a beat upon boarding one of those rarer birds... They were beautiful.
 
oldannyboy
Posts: 2573
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:28 am

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Mon Oct 24, 2016 1:57 pm

Viscount724 wrote:
777Jet wrote:
drerx7 wrote:
I always wondered if there was a magic high density seat configuration that could have made casm more attractive.


8 abreast (2-4-2) in Y in the 767 does exist.

However, I doubt many of UA's pax would have fit into the seats ;)


8-abreast on a 767 is probably the worst of all widebody Y class configurations (while 7-abreast on the 767 is the best in my opinion). Only a few mostly European charter/leisure carriers have used 8-abreast on 767s.



They are not any worse than an A-310/330 with 9 abreast, and probably better than a DC-10/MD-11 with 10-abreast.
With adequate legroom they would still offer a better ride than most single-aisle aircrafts.
It's not all about shoulder space when it comes to comfort folks.....
 
User avatar
kgaiflyer
Posts: 2741
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 3:22 am

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Mon Oct 24, 2016 3:05 pm

"Piggy-Backing the thread about the US 762's, a question I have often wondered about was UA's decision to get rid of the pmCO 762's."


Remember that pmUA was one of the first 762 operators (beginning 1982-83). Hard to believe that some of those ancient 762-222 frames are still flying with Gabon Airways - according to Planespotters.

I've flown both pmUA and pmAA 762s IAD - LAX.
 
User avatar
piedmont762
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 9:14 pm

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Mon Oct 24, 2016 4:04 pm

rta wrote:
piedmont762 wrote:
All said and done, UA has made a lot of mistakes with regards to fleet planning since the merger. Dumping 80+ 757s was a big one (considering Delta is keeping over 100 752s) but the same goes for the 762s.


UA dumping their 752s was a mistake just because DL didn't?

They're not weeping over it. Or the 762s, as this thread suggests.


They should be as Delta has an older fleet yet posts better numbers than United. I'm sure they don't care but those 739ERs with lousy seats and no IFE is complete garbage compared to Delta's.

"Is EWR-MXP now flown with a 763? Do they ever fill the whole plane?"

I believe it's now flown by a 3-class 777.
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Moderator
Posts: 2343
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Mon Oct 24, 2016 4:05 pm

This thread isn't about Delta, nor IFE, nor 737-900ERs.

Go start another thread if you want to discuss that.

As for this topic, it's hard to see why people are so worried about what UA did with 10 airplanes in a fleet of 700+, especially when these 10 didn't have any real capacity, range or efficiency benefits over other comparable types in the fleet.
I was raised by a cup of coffee.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10637
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Mon Oct 24, 2016 4:10 pm

piedmont762 wrote:
They should be as Delta has an older fleet yet posts better numbers than United.


DL also has its hubs in JFK/LGA, ATL, DTW, MSP, SEA, and SLC vs EWR, IAD, IAH, ORD, SFO, DEN. They also have different partners. They also have different fleets. They also pay their employees differently.

So in other words... you can't really compare the two and say since airline A operates airplane X while making more money airline B would also make more money flying airplane X. AA also does well and they are getting rid of domestic 757s left and right.
 
caverunner17
Posts: 267
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:50 pm

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Mon Oct 24, 2016 4:19 pm

hOMSaR wrote:
As for this topic, it's hard to see why people are so worried about what UA did with 10 airplanes in a fleet of 700+, especially when these 10 didn't have any real capacity, range or efficiency benefits over other comparable types in the fleet.

I agree with the bolded. The fact is that they are long gone and aren't coming back.

I do semi-disagree with the second point though -- they could have been used for Winter TATL hops that the 752 struggles on - markets like EWR-TXL where a 763 might be overkill on capacity and some central/south america runs for cargo reasons, especially if they had a small 15 or 20 pax BF cabin and a higher density Y cabin.
 
User avatar
piedmont762
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 9:14 pm

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Mon Oct 24, 2016 5:17 pm

hOMSaR wrote:
This thread isn't about Delta, nor IFE, nor 737-900ERs.

Go start another thread if you want to discuss that.

As for this topic, it's hard to see why people are so worried about what UA did with 10 airplanes in a fleet of 700+, especially when these 10 didn't have any real capacity, range or efficiency benefits over other comparable types in the fleet.


I already made a very informed comment at the start of the thread - if you choose to read it. Otherwise if you don't like what you see, you don't have to read it.

"DL also has its hubs in JFK/LGA, ATL, DTW, MSP, SEA, and SLC vs EWR, IAD, IAH, ORD, SFO, DEN. They also have different partners. They also have different fleets. They also pay their employees differently.

So in other words... you can't really compare the two and say since airline A operates airplane X while making more money airline B would also make more money flying airplane X. AA also does well and they are getting rid of domestic 757s left and right."

Delta and United are in the big 3 - see their earnings call from last week and they'll openly admit they aren't posting results as good as their competitors.

Dumping / Selling the 762 is just a symptom of UA's fleet strategy since the merger "need to be 737 or else, Airbus is inferior, Boeing will cut us an inside deal on dated aircraft, no IFE."
 
a380787
Posts: 4573
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:38 pm

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Mon Oct 24, 2016 5:24 pm

hOMSaR wrote:
This thread isn't about Delta, nor IFE, nor 737-900ERs.

Go start another thread if you want to discuss that.


Clearly some aren't doing their jobs here ......
 
User avatar
kgaiflyer
Posts: 2741
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 3:22 am

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Mon Oct 24, 2016 8:37 pm

"The 762 had similar trip costs to the 763 but in CO's configuration they carried less than the CO 752"

Comparing the pmCO, the pmAA, and the pmUS 762 frames, I believe the USAirways models had the most seats crammed in them. If I'm not mistaken, CO opted for more room, more business class seats, and more modern interiors. It would have been costly to strip the interiors and reconfigure the planes after the merger.

OTOH, pmUA flew most its old 762-222s until most of them couldn't pass a C check - even though their new 757s offered better economics with a similar passenger load.
 
User avatar
piedmont762
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 9:14 pm

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Mon Oct 24, 2016 9:08 pm

kgaiflyer wrote:
"The 762 had similar trip costs to the 763 but in CO's configuration they carried less than the CO 752"

Comparing the pmCO, the pmAA, and the pmUS 762 frames, I believe the USAirways models had the most seats crammed in them. If I'm not mistaken, CO opted for more room, more business class seats, and more modern interiors. It would have been costly to strip the interiors and reconfigure the planes after the merger.

OTOH, pmUA flew most its old 762-222s until most of them couldn't pass a C check - even though their new 757s offered better economics with a similar passenger load.


Most of the US 762s were ex-Piedmont machines delivered in the late 1980s (and a handful delivered in the early 90s to US.) CO didn't get theirs until around 2000 when the new interiors were offered.
 
CONTACREW
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Mon Oct 24, 2016 9:50 pm

piedmont762 wrote:
rta wrote:
piedmont762 wrote:
All said and done, UA has made a lot of mistakes with regards to fleet planning since the merger. Dumping 80+ 757s was a big one (considering Delta is keeping over 100 752s) but the same goes for the 762s.


UA dumping their 752s was a mistake just because DL didn't?

They're not weeping over it. Or the 762s, as this thread suggests.


They should be as Delta has an older fleet yet posts better numbers than United. I'm sure they don't care but those 739ERs with lousy seats and no IFE is complete garbage compared to Delta's.

"Is EWR-MXP now flown with a 763? Do they ever fill the whole plane?"

I believe it's now flown by a 3-class 777.


EWR-MXP is flown with the 2-cabin sub CO 777.
Flight Attendants prepare doors for departure, cross check verify straps standby for all call
 
User avatar
piedmont762
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 9:14 pm

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Mon Oct 24, 2016 10:19 pm

CONTACREW wrote:
piedmont762 wrote:
rta wrote:

UA dumping their 752s was a mistake just because DL didn't?

They're not weeping over it. Or the 762s, as this thread suggests.


They should be as Delta has an older fleet yet posts better numbers than United. I'm sure they don't care but those 739ERs with lousy seats and no IFE is complete garbage compared to Delta's.

"Is EWR-MXP now flown with a 763? Do they ever fill the whole plane?"

I believe it's now flown by a 3-class 777.


EWR-MXP is flown with the 2-cabin sub CO 777.


That's new. It was 3-class for a while over the summer.
 
CONTACREW
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Mon Oct 24, 2016 10:31 pm

piedmont762 wrote:
CONTACREW wrote:
piedmont762 wrote:

They should be as Delta has an older fleet yet posts better numbers than United. I'm sure they don't care but those 739ERs with lousy seats and no IFE is complete garbage compared to Delta's.

"Is EWR-MXP now flown with a 763? Do they ever fill the whole plane?"

I believe it's now flown by a 3-class 777.


EWR-MXP is flown with the 2-cabin sub CO 777.


That's new. It was 3-class for a while over the summer.


Not really the 2-cabin 777 flew that route earlier in the year. Route switches to the 764 next week.
Flight Attendants prepare doors for departure, cross check verify straps standby for all call
 
User avatar
piedmont762
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 9:14 pm

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Mon Oct 24, 2016 11:52 pm

CONTACREW wrote:
piedmont762 wrote:
CONTACREW wrote:

EWR-MXP is flown with the 2-cabin sub CO 777.


That's new. It was 3-class for a while over the summer.


Not really the 2-cabin 777 flew that route earlier in the year. Route switches to the 764 next week.


Check it again - it definitely had a 3-class 777 on the route at various times last year, this year.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Mon Oct 24, 2016 11:53 pm

oldannyboy wrote:
Viscount724 wrote:
777Jet wrote:

8 abreast (2-4-2) in Y in the 767 does exist.

However, I doubt many of UA's pax would have fit into the seats ;)


8-abreast on a 767 is probably the worst of all widebody Y class configurations (while 7-abreast on the 767 is the best in my opinion). Only a few mostly European charter/leisure carriers have used 8-abreast on 767s.



They are not any worse than an A-310/330 with 9 abreast, and probably better than a DC-10/MD-11 with 10-abreast.


Out of curiosity, have you experienced any of those configs?

oldannyboy wrote:
It's not all about shoulder space when it comes to comfort folks.....


The Airbus A350 XWB team would disagree with you ;)
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6488
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:41 am

How many passengers were in the B767-200 in an 8 abreast configuration?

Air Canada operated the B767-200 in an all Y configuration of 229 seats. It was 7 abreast at 31" seat pitch. Not far off today's Y standard. Certainly far more confortable than an 8 abreast B767!

By comparison, Air Canada also operated the B767-200 in a 169 seat configuration as well. F at 5 abreast, J at 6 abreast and Y at 7 abreast.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10637
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:51 am

longhauler wrote:
How many passengers were in the B767-200 in an 8 abreast configuration?

Probably ~250-260 in all Y with typical 31-32" pitch. I don't think there was ever an all Y 8 abreast 762.

Thomas Cook squeezes 326 seats in their all Y 763 (at 29-30" pitch), but a 762 would have 8-9 less rows.
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6488
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Tue Oct 25, 2016 1:16 am

Polot wrote:
Probably ~250-260 in all Y with typical 31-32" pitch. I don't think there was ever an all Y 8 abreast 762.

Thomas Cook squeezes 326 seats in their all Y 763 (at 29-30" pitch), but a 762 would have 8-9 less rows.

I believe Britannia Airways operated the B767-200 in an 8 abreast all Y configuration. That is why they had two overwing exits on each side. I just never knew how many people they carried.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

Re: Should UA have gotten rid of the 762?

Tue Oct 25, 2016 1:20 am

777Jet wrote:
oldannyboy wrote:
Viscount724 wrote:

8-abreast on a 767 is probably the worst of all widebody Y class configurations (while 7-abreast on the 767 is the best in my opinion). Only a few mostly European charter/leisure carriers have used 8-abreast on 767s.



They are not any worse than an A-310/330 with 9 abreast, and probably better than a DC-10/MD-11 with 10-abreast.


Out of curiosity, have you experienced any of those configs?



Never, wouldn't even consider it. I know someone who flew LGW-MLE (Maldives) some years ago on one of the British charter carriers that operated the 8-abreast configuration (probably combined with about 29 inch pitch). He's quite big and tall and said it was almost unbearable. That would be about a 10 hour flight. It may have made a fuel stop somewhere, can't recall.

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