Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
LY777
Topic Author
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:58 pm

Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:55 am

With its good capacity and moderate range, why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?
Flown:717,727,732,733,734,735,738,73H,742/744/748,752,753,762/2ER/763/3ER,772/77E/773/77W, 788, 789, DC8,DC10,E190,E195,MD83,MD88, L1011, A3B2,A319,A320-100/200,A321,A332/A333,A343,A388
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 3000
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:00 pm

Well the 2 airlines that operate it only use it TATL. Some might be going to South America.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2688
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:07 pm

LY777 wrote:
With its good capacity and moderate range, why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?


I'd batten down the hatches: you're in for a real storm! Suggesting the 764 may not be perfect is an extreme opinion to hold on here! :)

Without specific knowledge, my guess would be that for some airlines the 763 was sufficient (the US3 in particular), for others the A332 could do the same routes, but had a bit more range and thus flexibility on what routes could be flown, and so was selected instead and flown on TATL routes alongside others. On the European side most airlines tended to have larger planes doing the TATL runs.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10197
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:22 pm

LY777 wrote:
With its good capacity and moderate range, why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Look at the number of airlines that operate TATL flights, then look at the number of airlines that ordered the 764, and you'll have your answer.
Unless the question that you're really asking is: Why haven't more airlines ordered the 764?
I search on a.net can find you that answer. It has come up a few times.
 
User avatar
Channex757
Posts: 2416
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:07 am

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:41 pm

Airlines that could have used the 764 in their Boeing fleet had already bought the 763 or 772. Or instead bought Airbus products that were an even better fit than the 764.

That's it.
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3640
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:46 pm

It is used TATL by Delta and United, as well as sometimes Newark to Honolulu, along with to Brazil. Why it didn't sell more though is because it doesn't have the range of the Airbus A330-300. If its range had been extended to somewhere around 6,100 or 6,200 miles, then it would have sold more than just the 37 (+1 to the Bahrain government) to Delta and Continental (each of which configure their planes in the 240-seat range).
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10397
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:50 pm

So does anyone know if the 764 is used on TATL, my understanding is that is the question, not why the 764 was not purchased by more airlines.
Unless this is a stealth thread to ask just that question with the resulting answer that the A330 is god and the best thing since aviation was invented.
 
User avatar
LeCoqFrancais
Posts: 418
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:03 pm

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:53 pm

The Boeing 767-400 is not great, it dose not fly very high on TATL flights (mid FL300s) which make it consume more fuel than its rivals...
Sébastien C. Tourillon
 
VC10er
Posts: 4273
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:12 pm

I love the 767-400 in many ways. But I also have read why it wasn't the sales success that it "could" have been and those facts make sense.

I have also read a number of times that UA "loves" their 767-400's, and that, in the abstract, would love to have had even more of them. I have been aboard her to both Europe and Brazil, which I am sure represents the most optimal use for her given they have so few. Every time I have flown a 767-400 to GRU, that airplane is packed!
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
Bricktop
Posts: 1504
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:28 pm

I am also a fan of the plane, but it's because of 2-3-2. I doubt there will be another plane with that configuration though.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 6080
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:51 pm

Delta uses them TA all the time from JFK

as someone said the seating configuration is the best in coach

The plane suffered from bad timing. Had it been available 10 years sooner it would've sold gangbusters
 
cloudboy
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:38 pm

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:05 pm

I know the 764 keeps getting compared to the 332 and being shorter on range, but does the wider fuselage of the 332 mean more fuel burn, or does the latter technology and extra seat make up for that extra expense?
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
 
afcjets
Posts: 3530
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:06 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
Delta uses them TA all the time from JFK


Delta ordered the 764 as a replacement for the L10 (not L15) to use primarily on high density domestic US routes. IIRC it wasn't until several years later that they deployed them on TATL flights.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3642
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:19 pm

The 767-400 was built at the wrong time to capture the Transatlantic market. In the late 1980s, Boeing was looking at a larger twin to compete with the MD-11. At first a larger 767 was the most viable option. Boeing certainly could have invested in a larger 767 and had an entry into service in the early 1990s using a more powerful derivative of the CF6. I believe that hundreds would have been sold and it would have been a popular Transatlantic airplane.

Boeing was able to work with the engine manufacturers to get a new more powerful engine than just incremental thrust increases on CF6, PW4000, etc. This opened up the option to have a new 777 with far more range. The development of the 777 followed by the 737NG pretty much tied up all the resources for airplane development. The 767 was put on hold and the 767-400 development didnt start until 1997. Delta wanted a widebody to replace L1011s for domestic and Hawaii. Originally they had no intention of using it Transatlantic. At that point the airplane entered service one year before 9/11 and the global downturn in aviation which resulted in widebody orders especially for Transatlantic operators drying up. The A330 competition was also in the same market segment. The 777-200 and A330 getting built first left no room for the 767-400.
 
FSDan
Posts: 3340
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:21 pm

LY777 wrote:
With its good capacity and moderate range, why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?


It has actually been the most successful on TATL flights. Looking at planned routes for this summer:

764 routes that are not TATL
DL ATL-LIM
DL ATL-EZE
UA IAD-IAH
UA IAD-GRU
UA IAD-HNL

764 routes that are TATL
DL ATL-MAD
DL ATL-CDG
DL ATL-DUS
DL ATL-FRA
DL ATL-STR
DL ATL-MUC
DL ATL-ZRH
DL ATL-MXP
DL ATL-FCO
DL ATL-VCE
DL JFK-DUB
DL JFK-MAD
DL JFK-NCE
DL JFK-FRA
DL JFK-VCE
DL JFK-PRG
UA IAD-MAD
UA IAD-BCN
UA IAD-AMS
UA IAD-GVA
UA IAD-ZRH
UA IAD-FCO
UA EWR-BCN
UA EWR-TXL
UA EWR-ZRH
UA EWR-FCO
This is my signature until I think of a better one.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9428
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:42 pm

cloudboy wrote:
I know the 764 keeps getting compared to the 332 and being shorter on range, but does the wider fuselage of the 332 mean more fuel burn, or does the latter technology and extra seat make up for that extra expense?


this is overly simplistic but:
If you compare the payload derates for 1000nm on each type @ MTOW ( payload/range from ACAPS PW for both.)
[email protected] loses 9,75t/1000nm
[email protected] loses 10.425t/1000nm
~6% more fuel for the 767-400ER afaics

from the tanker discussion I seem to remember that the A332 used slightly more fuel than the offered 767 while
providing quite a bit higher payload.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7347
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:09 pm

My first ride on a 767 was a CO 764 IAH-CDG in BusinessFirst. What a plane to fly on!

I've also flown it in coach TATL and domestic and it is the best ride in the UA fleet. I'm sure similar can be said for the DL frames.
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:11 pm

Well, considering the 764 and the 332 both use exactly the same technology/fuel efficiency level engines (PW4000-94"/100" and CF6-80C2/E1) and the 332 engines are larger to carry the extra weight plus more drag from larger wings and fuselage, the 764 should (in theory, at least) wipe the floor with it on TATL sectors both in terms of fuel efficiency and passenger comfort (2-3-2).
 
ILNFlyer
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:34 pm

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 pm

The 767 takes it on the chin in terms of cargo capacity versus the A330. Fine plane though. Love the 76. Are there any operators that run it in a 3-2-3 layout?? Is that even possible in that aircraft?
 
azz767
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2016 9:08 am

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:28 pm

FSDan wrote:
LY777 wrote:
With its good capacity and moderate range, why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?


It has actually been the most successful on TATL flights. Looking at planned routes for this summer:

764 routes that are not TATL
DL ATL-LIM
DL ATL-EZE
UA IAD-IAH
UA IAD-GRU
UA IAD-HNL

764 routes that are TATL
DL ATL-MAD
DL ATL-CDG
DL ATL-DUS
DL ATL-FRA
DL ATL-STR
DL ATL-MUC
DL ATL-ZRH
DL ATL-MXP
DL ATL-FCO
DL ATL-VCE
DL JFK-DUB
DL JFK-MAD
DL JFK-NCE
DL JFK-FRA
DL JFK-VCE
DL JFK-PRG
UA IAD-MAD
UA IAD-BCN
UA IAD-AMS
UA IAD-GVA
UA IAD-ZRH
UA IAD-FCO
UA EWR-BCN
UA EWR-TXL
UA EWR-ZRH
UA EWR-FCO


not so long ago you'd see multiple DL 767-400's at LHR, they were operated from various hubs there, now as you have shown they are deployed elsewhere.
 
IADCA
Posts: 2194
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:31 pm

SCAT15F wrote:
Well, considering the 764 and the 332 both use exactly the same technology/fuel efficiency level engines (PW4000-94"/100" and CF6-80C2/E1) and the 332 engines are larger to carry the extra weight plus more drag from larger wings and fuselage, the 764 should (in theory, at least) wipe the floor with it on TATL sectors both in terms of fuel efficiency and passenger comfort (2-3-2).


It's not a revolutionary thought that stretches are generally more efficient than shrinks where they overlap in capacity, but it's not the full picture. Family commonality matters, with airlines who were operating or planned to operate 757/767 fleets long term perhaps more limited than airlines who were planning to operate 330/340 long term. And while it might (I don't have any information that would allow me to run the comparison directly) wipe the floor versus the 332 on TATL only, the 332 has a lot more mission flexibility due to its range advantage and the A330 model with the similar range to the 764 (the 333) has a lot more capacity, both passenger and cargo, to spread costs across.

That leaves a fairly small niche for the 764: airlines who wanted TATL or long US transcon or that approximate distance envelope, wanted something bigger than 763, and who wanted something smaller than a 333 while having no use for the extra range of the 332 (or didn't want to order from Airbus). There's also the issue of bumping up against the 772. That leaves pretty much the customers they ended up with. It's not a bad airplane, and there's nothing to suggest it's not very good at what it does. It's just that it's only the best within a fairly narrow range of missions.
 
User avatar
LeCoqFrancais
Posts: 418
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:03 pm

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:44 pm

cloudboy wrote:
I know the 764 keeps getting compared to the 332 and being shorter on range, but does the wider fuselage of the 332 mean more fuel burn, or does the latter technology and extra seat make up for that extra expense?

The higher cruising altitude on TATL flights of the Airbus A330-200 versus the Boeing 767-400 make that the A330 is more efficient.
Sébastien C. Tourillon
 
Robert1010
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2016 4:23 pm

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:55 pm

Also noticed DL 655 ATL-AUA is a 764!
 
FSDan
Posts: 3340
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:09 pm

Robert1010 wrote:
Also noticed DL 655 ATL-AUA is a 764!


For the winter season only. It goes back to a 757 for summer.
This is my signature until I think of a better one.
 
User avatar
adamblang
Posts: 1264
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:47 pm

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:11 pm

LeCoqFrancais wrote:
The Boeing 767-400 is not great, it dose not fly very high on TATL flights (mid FL300s) which make it consume more fuel than its rivals...


The service ceiling of the 767-400 is 43,100 feet...
 
WIederling
Posts: 9428
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:16 pm

adamblang wrote:
LeCoqFrancais wrote:
The Boeing 767-400 is not great, it dose not fly very high on TATL flights (mid FL300s) which make it consume more fuel than its rivals...


The service ceiling of the 767-400 is 43,100 feet...


no payload, dry tanks :-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3642
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:38 pm

LeCoqFrancais wrote:
cloudboy wrote:
I know the 764 keeps getting compared to the 332 and being shorter on range, but does the wider fuselage of the 332 mean more fuel burn, or does the latter technology and extra seat make up for that extra expense?

The higher cruising altitude on TATL flights of the Airbus A330-200 versus the Boeing 767-400 make that the A330 is more efficient.


The 767-400 cruises low and slow. It is common to see a 767-400 start a longer Transatlantic flight down at 30,000 feet before fuel burns off. However this doesn't necessarily mean it has higher fuel burn than the A330-200.

The 767-400 has a wing that is about 25% smaller, which results in lower cruise altitudes but the OEW of the plane is also 15 tons lighter than the A330-200. The A330-200 can carry about 20% more payload, hence higher OEW. While capacity is similar, the range and cargo potential of the A330-200 is higher. For a shorter Transatlantic flight, I would be surprised if trip fuel burn or per seat fuel burn is much lower with an A330-200. The A330-200 carries a lot more weight. It really depends on the route that an airline is using the plane on when judging which is more efficient.

The A330-200 is much more versatile and an airline like TAP or Iberia can fly to JFK and then turn around and fly to LAX with the same plane. The 767-400 is going to have trouble on a westbound Transatlantic flight all the way to California, so that is why I think the versatility of the A330-200 and A330-300 combination proved useful and more popular than a 767-300 and 767-400 fleet. I think an airline like Delta can take advantage of the 767-400s strength on shorter Transatlantic flights with the CASM typical of a stretched plane, but it is a niche plane.
Last edited by Newbiepilot on Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
lavalampluva
Posts: 1433
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:33 pm

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:46 pm

DL used a 767-4 on a MSP-FCO run last summer. It was unsuccessful. Possibly a 767-3 would have been better.
Remind me to send a thank you note to Mr. Boeing.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2650
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm

IADCA wrote:
SCAT15F wrote:
Well, considering the 764 and the 332 both use exactly the same technology/fuel efficiency level engines (PW4000-94"/100" and CF6-80C2/E1) and the 332 engines are larger to carry the extra weight plus more drag from larger wings and fuselage, the 764 should (in theory, at least) wipe the floor with it on TATL sectors both in terms of fuel efficiency and passenger comfort (2-3-2).


It's not a revolutionary thought that stretches are generally more efficient than shrinks where they overlap in capacity, but it's not the full picture. Family commonality matters, with airlines who were operating or planned to operate 757/767 fleets long term perhaps more limited than airlines who were planning to operate 330/340 long term. And while it might (I don't have any information that would allow me to run the comparison directly) wipe the floor versus the 332 on TATL only, the 332 has a lot more mission flexibility due to its range advantage and the A330 model with the similar range to the 764 (the 333) has a lot more capacity, both passenger and cargo, to spread costs across.

That leaves a fairly small niche for the 764: airlines who wanted TATL or long US transcon or that approximate distance envelope, wanted something bigger than 763, and who wanted something smaller than a 333 while having no use for the extra range of the 332 (or didn't want to order from Airbus). There's also the issue of bumping up against the 772. That leaves pretty much the customers they ended up with. It's not a bad airplane, and there's nothing to suggest it's not very good at what it does. It's just that it's only the best within a fairly narrow range of missions.


Boeing originally proposed a 771 for the niche, but neither DL nor CO liked the idea. It would have been too heavy and had too much range.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13340
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:58 pm

cloudboy wrote:
I know the 764 keeps getting compared to the 332 and being shorter on range, but does the wider fuselage of the 332 mean more fuel burn, or does the latter technology and extra seat make up for that extra expense?

A330's can take LD3 (common) cargo containers in tandem, 767's cannot. Marked disadvantage.



ILNFlyer wrote:
The 767 takes it on the chin in terms of cargo capacity versus the A330. Fine plane though. Love the 76. Are there any operators that run it in a 3-2-3 layout?? Is that even possible in that aircraft?

Has anyone in anything ever used that? Don't recall an 8abreast carrier that wasn't 2x4x2
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2650
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 6:08 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
cloudboy wrote:
I know the 764 keeps getting compared to the 332 and being shorter on range, but does the wider fuselage of the 332 mean more fuel burn, or does the latter technology and extra seat make up for that extra expense?

A330's can take LD3 (common) cargo containers in tandem, 767's cannot. Marked disadvantage.



ILNFlyer wrote:
The 767 takes it on the chin in terms of cargo capacity versus the A330. Fine plane though. Love the 76. Are there any operators that run it in a 3-2-3 layout?? Is that even possible in that aircraft?

Has anyone in anything ever used that? Don't recall an 8abreast carrier that wasn't 2x4x2


PS has an 8 abreast 767 configuration, but it's 2-4-2. Why anyone wants to fly on that configuration transatlantic, I can't understand.
 
User avatar
Boeing717200
Posts: 1926
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:26 pm

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 6:17 pm

par13del wrote:
So does anyone know if the 764 is used on TATL, my understanding is that is the question, not why the 764 was not purchased by more airlines.
Unless this is a stealth thread to ask just that question with the resulting answer that the A330 is god and the best thing since aviation was invented.


Are you trolling? There are 1,528 764 flights this month and 54% are TATL, another 20% or so go to Asia. A bunch of others serve one stop destinations as tag on segments to TATL markets on UA and DL
240 years and the top two candidates are named Dumb and Dumber. Stay classy!
 
airbazar
Posts: 10197
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 6:25 pm

SCAT15F wrote:
Well, considering the 764 and the 332 both use exactly the same technology/fuel efficiency level engines (PW4000-94"/100" and CF6-80C2/E1) and the 332 engines are larger to carry the extra weight plus more drag from larger wings and fuselage, the 764 should (in theory, at least) wipe the floor with it on TATL sectors both in terms of fuel efficiency and passenger comfort (2-3-2).

And yet it didn't sell. That in itself should tell you everything you need to know. The B764 was specially built for DL (or was it CO?) who wanted a larger aircraft for domestic high capacity routes. CO and DL needed a replacement for their DC-10's/L1011's but no money to buy the 777. In the late 90's both were heading towards bankruptcy. But they also had a very close relationship with Boeing, some called it an exclusivity agreement, so Boeing kinda had to help them out. Most other airlines had already decided to go with Airbus or the B772. In fact, CO eventually canceled their 764 options and ordered 772's instead.
The 767's biggest problem for airlines is that it adds an aisle for only 1 row of seats. That is a lot of wasted space and dead weight to fly around. Ironically that is what makes it a great aircraft for passengers, but we know that in the backwards world of the airline industry, what's good for passengers is bad for business.
 
777PHX
Posts: 962
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 4:36 am

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 6:46 pm

afcjets wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
Delta uses them TA all the time from JFK


Delta ordered the 764 as a replacement for the L10 (not L15) to use primarily on high density domestic US routes. IIRC it wasn't until several years later that they deployed them on TATL flights.


Correct. It flew mostly Hawaii and Florida flights(maybe some Carribean too?) in a high density configuration before they were retasked to international flying.

MrHMSH wrote:
I'd batten down the hatches: you're in for a real storm! Suggesting the 764 may not be perfect is an extreme opinion to hold on here!


Of all the idiocy I've seen on this website in the past 12 years, the child threatening to sue people for "defamation of character"(!) because they had a critical opinion of the 764 has to take the cake.
 
727LOVER
Posts: 8633
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 6:55 pm

FSDan wrote:

It has actually been the most successful on TATL flights. Looking at planned routes for this summer:

764 routes that are not TATL
DL ATL-LIM
DL ATL-EZE
UA IAD-IAH
UA IAD-GRU
UA IAD-HNL


Boeing717200 wrote:
Are you trolling? There are 1,528 764 flights this month and 54% are TATL, another 20% or so go to Asia. A bunch of others serve one stop destinations as tag on segments to TATL markets on UA and DL


OK, I'm confused :confused:

What is TATL? Doesn't that mean INTERNATIONAL ?
"We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
User avatar
Boeing717200
Posts: 1926
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:26 pm

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 7:00 pm

727LOVER wrote:
FSDan wrote:

It has actually been the most successful on TATL flights. Looking at planned routes for this summer:

764 routes that are not TATL
DL ATL-LIM
DL ATL-EZE
UA IAD-IAH
UA IAD-GRU
UA IAD-HNL


Boeing717200 wrote:
Are you trolling? There are 1,528 764 flights this month and 54% are TATL, another 20% or so go to Asia. A bunch of others serve one stop destinations as tag on segments to TATL markets on UA and DL


OK, I'm confused :confused:

What is TATL? Doesn't that mean INTERNATIONAL ?


TATL = Transatlantic
240 years and the top two candidates are named Dumb and Dumber. Stay classy!
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 3000
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 7:01 pm

727LOVER wrote:
FSDan wrote:

It has actually been the most successful on TATL flights. Looking at planned routes for this summer:

764 routes that are not TATL
DL ATL-LIM
DL ATL-EZE
UA IAD-IAH
UA IAD-GRU
UA IAD-HNL


Boeing717200 wrote:
Are you trolling? There are 1,528 764 flights this month and 54% are TATL, another 20% or so go to Asia. A bunch of others serve one stop destinations as tag on segments to TATL markets on UA and DL


OK, I'm confused :confused:

What is TATL? Doesn't that mean INTERNATIONAL ?


TATL =Transatlantic
 
727LOVER
Posts: 8633
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 7:12 pm

OK...thanx
"We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13340
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 8:33 pm

727LOVER wrote:
OK, I'm confused :confused:
What is TATL? Doesn't that mean INTERNATIONAL ?

No. It means TransAtlantic.

And there are transatlantic flights that are not international, so the two cannot be used interchangeably.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 2580
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 8:53 pm

FSDan wrote:
LY777 wrote:
With its good capacity and moderate range, why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?


It has actually been the most successful on TATL flights. Looking at planned routes for this summer:

764 routes that are not TATL
DL ATL-LIM
DL ATL-EZE
UA IAD-IAH
UA IAD-GRU
UA IAD-HNL

764 routes that are TATL
DL ATL-MAD
DL ATL-CDG
DL ATL-DUS
DL ATL-FRA
DL ATL-STR
DL ATL-MUC
DL ATL-ZRH
DL ATL-MXP
DL ATL-FCO
DL ATL-VCE
DL JFK-DUB
DL JFK-MAD
DL JFK-NCE
DL JFK-FRA
DL JFK-VCE
DL JFK-PRG
UA IAD-MAD
UA IAD-BCN
UA IAD-AMS
UA IAD-GVA
UA IAD-ZRH
UA IAD-FCO
UA EWR-BCN
UA EWR-TXL
UA EWR-ZRH
UA EWR-FCO


I think you need to add to the list at least seasonally if nothing else
BOS-AMS - 423 flights (combined direction) Sep15-Aug 16*
BOS-CDG - 328 flights (combined direction same period
BOS-LHR - 204 flights as above.

DL uses them to capture premium traffic on those routes as loads have been mixed to say the least especially on LHR, , but all those counts are much higher than the previous 12 month period.

* don't know why this one is an odd #, probably a cancellation somewhere, but you get the picture regardless.
That feeling when you sit at the end of a runway, brakes are released and the raw power takes over. Now that is a thing of beauty and it never gets old.
 
User avatar
FabDiva
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:42 pm

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 9:23 pm

777PHX wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:
I'd batten down the hatches: you're in for a real storm! Suggesting the 764 may not be perfect is an extreme opinion to hold on here!


Of all the idiocy I've seen on this website in the past 12 years, the child threatening to sue people for "defamation of character"(!) because they had a critical opinion of the 764 has to take the cake.


Is that the guy who was demanding his Senator/Congress representative intervene to prevent Delta ordering A350s/A330neos
 
User avatar
kjeld0d
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 9:21 pm

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 10:13 pm

Okay, wow, covered alot of new ground here. One question to add, maybe nobody has asked it before, I'm not sure. Why was the 764 not as successful as the 763?
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3642
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 10:35 pm

[photoid][/photoid]
kjeld0d wrote:
Okay, wow, covered alot of new ground here. One question to add, maybe nobody has asked it before, I'm not sure. Why was the 764 not as successful as the 763?


There was 12 years between the 767-300ER and 767-400ER. Engine technology developments and bigger planes like the 777 and A330 passed it by.
 
tjerome
Posts: 349
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2016 3:03 am

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 10:36 pm

VS4ever wrote:
FSDan wrote:
LY777 wrote:
With its good capacity and moderate range, why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?


It has actually been the most successful on TATL flights. Looking at planned routes for this summer:

764 routes that are not TATL
DL ATL-LIM
DL ATL-EZE
UA IAD-IAH
UA IAD-GRU
UA IAD-HNL

764 routes that are TATL
DL ATL-MAD
DL ATL-CDG
DL ATL-DUS
DL ATL-FRA
DL ATL-STR
DL ATL-MUC
DL ATL-ZRH
DL ATL-MXP
DL ATL-FCO
DL ATL-VCE
DL JFK-DUB
DL JFK-MAD
DL JFK-NCE
DL JFK-FRA
DL JFK-VCE
DL JFK-PRG
UA IAD-MAD
UA IAD-BCN
UA IAD-AMS
UA IAD-GVA
UA IAD-ZRH
UA IAD-FCO
UA EWR-BCN
UA EWR-TXL
UA EWR-ZRH
UA EWR-FCO


I think you need to add to the list at least seasonally if nothing else
BOS-AMS - 423 flights (combined direction) Sep15-Aug 16*
BOS-CDG - 328 flights (combined direction same period
BOS-LHR - 204 flights as above.

DL uses them to capture premium traffic on those routes as loads have been mixed to say the least especially on LHR, , but all those counts are much higher than the previous 12 month period.

* don't know why this one is an odd #, probably a cancellation somewhere, but you get the picture regardless.


BOS-AMS the 2nd daily summer seasonal flight was on a 764, this year it is a 333 (like the daily year round flight)
BOS-CDG is a 763 effective from this winter forward - was 764 this past summer and 752 winter 15-16. Will be 763 year round.
BOS-LHR was a 764 only for the winter 15-16. Has been a 763 since last year's summer schedule started.

DL also uses them on JFK-HNL and JFK-LAX at least this winter.

My first 764 ride was in 2008 ANC-ATL, and got on one again last year BOS-AMS up front. It definitely is a niche aircraft. Hope DL preserves one of theirs, it's more different than the 762/763 that a lot of other carriers have (had).
 
SeaDoo
Posts: 309
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 10:44 pm

LeCoqFrancais wrote:
The Boeing 767-400 is not great, it dose not fly very high on TATL flights (mid FL300s) which make it consume more fuel than its rivals...



Why does it only fly at this altitude?
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3642
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 10:55 pm

SeaDoo wrote:
LeCoqFrancais wrote:
The Boeing 767-400 is not great, it dose not fly very high on TATL flights (mid FL300s) which make it consume more fuel than its rivals...



Why does it only fly at this altitude?


The 767-400ER has a small wing for the weight of the plane. This makes the optimal cruise altitude lower. Not as good for engines since they burn a little more fuel at the lower altitudes. The lighter weight 767-200s and 767-300s can fly higher early on in a flight. For reference near MTOW the 747-400 and 777-300ER both cruise rather low early in flight so this is not unique to the 767-400. Sometimes the planes level off around 29,000 or 30,000 for a hour or two before they can get higher once the fuel burns off. The A330-200 can climb higher which helps efficiency in cruise even though the engines are similar. The A330-200 is also 15 tons heavier so carrying that extra weight counteracts benefits of a higher cruising altitude.
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:30 pm

flyingclrs727 wrote:
IADCA wrote:
SCAT15F wrote:
Well, considering the 764 and the 332 both use exactly the same technology/fuel efficiency level engines (PW4000-94"/100" and CF6-80C2/E1) and the 332 engines are larger to carry the extra weight plus more drag from larger wings and fuselage, the 764 should (in theory, at least) wipe the floor with it on TATL sectors both in terms of fuel efficiency and passenger comfort (2-3-2).


It's not a revolutionary thought that stretches are generally more efficient than shrinks where they overlap in capacity, but it's not the full picture. Family commonality matters, with airlines who were operating or planned to operate 757/767 fleets long term perhaps more limited than airlines who were planning to operate 330/340 long term. And while it might (I don't have any information that would allow me to run the comparison directly) wipe the floor versus the 332 on TATL only, the 332 has a lot more mission flexibility due to its range advantage and the A330 model with the similar range to the 764 (the 333) has a lot more capacity, both passenger and cargo, to spread costs across.

That leaves a fairly small niche for the 764: airlines who wanted TATL or long US transcon or that approximate distance envelope, wanted something bigger than 763, and who wanted something smaller than a 333 while having no use for the extra range of the 332 (or didn't want to order from Airbus). There's also the issue of bumping up against the 772. That leaves pretty much the customers they ended up with. It's not a bad airplane, and there's nothing to suggest it's not very good at what it does. It's just that it's only the best within a fairly narrow range of missions.


Boeing originally proposed a 771 for the niche, but neither DL nor CO liked the idea. It would have been too heavy and had too much range.


Yeah, I recall the 771 proposal- could you imagine the 771 fuselage with the 777X wings and engines? Hehe, a 777SP. Wouldn't be very efficient but takeoff performance and cruise altitude would be insane.
 
VC10er
Posts: 4273
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Sat Feb 25, 2017 12:48 am

I have asked these questions in before in other threads and never got an answer. Maybe because the answers are obvious but, I will take another run at it!

When does UNITED plan to refurbish their 767-400's with Polaris? Also, will it get the ONE single row in the middle of the Polaris cabin? (not that it's as attractive as the current layout because they are all aisle access seats even with the current (soon to be old) diamond seats. Do the 787-400's need a "life extension" package or not because they are a bit younger?

Last: if UNITED really does the the 767-300 & 400's with Polaris, will they ADD THE NEW BULKHEAD DESIGN AS THE 77W?, it will be one of the best premium cabins in 2-1-2 configuration. Anyone who knows, can you fill me in please?
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1145
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:59 am

The 764 has tail tanks. But the FAA was never satisfied with them for some reason, so they remain unused. 500 nm less range. Also, the 764s that were ordered have GE engines (neither DL or CO ordered Pratt) but the engine as delivered came up short on thrust.

The 764 fuel usage is just a little bit over a 763, which was shown from the tanker contest to use 1000 lb / hr less than A332F. So it's highly unlikely that a 764 is less fuel efficient than an A330. Payload is not an issue, the charts show 55 tons (50 metric tons). But range is an issue. The wings are an issue, the 767 optimal cruise is M0.8, versus M0.83 for the A330. And the 764 does not have a real big brother, which the A332 does.
 
ual777
Posts: 1642
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 6:18 am

Re: Why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:10 am

SeaDoo wrote:
LeCoqFrancais wrote:
The Boeing 767-400 is not great, it dose not fly very high on TATL flights (mid FL300s) which make it consume more fuel than its rivals...



Why does it only fly at this altitude?


As mentioned it's the wing. Not uncommon to start off at 27-29 and step climb up when near max gross weight. Routes like EWR-GRU and IAH-MUC are about the max of the envelope with a full load.
It is always darkest before the sun comes up.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 717atOGG, A320B737NGCapt, A330freak, CanukinUSA, David_itl, FGITD, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], JoshP1, KPDX, kriskim, LAX772LR, MrHMSH, Noshow, Oliver2020, qf789, seansasLCY, sparky35805, speedygonzales, spinotter, SRGVA67 and 163 guests

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