Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
A380MSN004
Topic Author
Posts: 793
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:07 am

B763 vs B738 / 4 - 5h routes

Thu Jul 06, 2017 5:19 pm

Hello everyone,

During peak season in Europe on some 4-5 hours routes we often see B763s competing again 738s

Even if it's not the same fuel consumption and capacity, I have no really idea what machine make the best numbers in terms of revenue ?

Do you guys have some ideas about that ?
 
Antarius
Posts: 2973
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: B763 vs B738 / 4 - 5h routes

Thu Jul 06, 2017 5:33 pm

The 763 adds one extra seat per row. It also adds another aisle and a much larger fuselage. IIRC, the CASM is higher, especially when compared to a newer 738.

That said, there are many variables. For example on a slot constrained airport like LHR, at peak times it makes sense to deploy a larger jet as one cannot send 2 smaller ones to meet demand. Also there is cargo.
Militant Centrist
Let's all just use some common sense
 
32andBelow
Posts: 5059
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: B763 vs B738 / 4 - 5h routes

Thu Jul 06, 2017 5:45 pm

Antarius wrote:
The 763 adds one extra seat per row. It also adds another aisle and a much larger fuselage. IIRC, the CASM is higher, especially when compared to a newer 738.

That said, there are many variables. For example on a slot constrained airport like LHR, at peak times it makes sense to deploy a larger jet as one cannot send 2 smaller ones to meet demand. Also there is cargo.

Yea but if you leave a few people but make more money why operate the bigger plane? Unless it is going onwards somewhere much further.
 
pasu129
Posts: 504
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 12:39 am

Re: B763 vs B738 / 4 - 5h routes

Thu Jul 06, 2017 6:01 pm

A lot of times are due to slot restriction. Airlines would not give up or add additional slots due to what's already assigned. There is no point of having 2 aircrafts if 1 would do, given the comparison of same seat amounts, same cost per seat with 2 planes vs 1 plane, only difference would be the cost of obtaining additional slots.
Viva Las Vegas
 
Jerry123
Posts: 321
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 9:58 pm

Re: B763 vs B738 / 4 - 5h routes

Thu Jul 06, 2017 6:11 pm

It's also used by airlines like Jet2 and TUI to increase capacity on certain routes without adding extra flights.
 
ASQ400
Posts: 342
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:21 am

Re: B763 vs B738 / 4 - 5h routes

Thu Jul 06, 2017 6:17 pm

32andBelow wrote:
Antarius wrote:
The 763 adds one extra seat per row. It also adds another aisle and a much larger fuselage. IIRC, the CASM is higher, especially when compared to a newer 738.

That said, there are many variables. For example on a slot constrained airport like LHR, at peak times it makes sense to deploy a larger jet as one cannot send 2 smaller ones to meet demand. Also there is cargo.

Yea but if you leave a few people but make more money why operate the bigger plane? Unless it is going onwards somewhere much further.

That isn't how it works out on routes where they use 763s as opposed to 738s. The added capacity and cargo make up for higher operating costs
TLV, BRU, ZRH, CDG, FRA, EWR, JFK, DEN, SFO, AUS, RNO, SEA, YYC, YYZ, IAH, ATL, IAD, DCA, ORD, SJC, SNA
 
Andy33
Posts: 2570
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:30 am

Re: B763 vs B738 / 4 - 5h routes

Thu Jul 06, 2017 7:32 pm

Could posters perhaps give examples of routes where 763s appear instead of 738s in high summer in Europe (as opposed to as well as)?

There aren't all that many European airlines that actually have both types in their fleet. Plenty of 738 operators of course, but the only 738 + 763 operators I can think of are the TUI group airlines, Meridiana, Blue Panorama, Neos, S7, Ukraine International and Azur. There are A320 + 763 operators which might be included to stretch a point.
 
ASQ400
Posts: 342
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:21 am

Re: B763 vs B738 / 4 - 5h routes

Thu Jul 06, 2017 8:31 pm

Andy33 wrote:
Could posters perhaps give examples of routes where 763s appear instead of 738s in high summer in Europe (as opposed to as well as)?

There aren't all that many European airlines that actually have both types in their fleet. Plenty of 738 operators of course, but the only 738 + 763 operators I can think of are the TUI group airlines, Meridiana, Blue Panorama, Neos, S7, Ukraine International and Azur. There are A320 + 763 operators which might be included to stretch a point.

I believe any 737NG or A32x a/c could fill the role of the 738 in this argument, while any 767 or A330 could fit the part of the 763.
I have no examples, though.
TLV, BRU, ZRH, CDG, FRA, EWR, JFK, DEN, SFO, AUS, RNO, SEA, YYC, YYZ, IAH, ATL, IAD, DCA, ORD, SJC, SNA
 
A380MSN004
Topic Author
Posts: 793
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:07 am

Re: B763 vs B738 / 4 - 5h routes

Thu Jul 06, 2017 9:02 pm

Paris - Tel Aviv for instance.
TO : 738
AF : 320
EI : 738
SE : 333
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: B763 vs B738 / 4 - 5h routes

Thu Jul 06, 2017 9:06 pm

If we look at Icelandair, of course no 737, but instead 757 that have also a better CASM than the 767, started the 767 instead of the 757 on slot controlled airports like LHR , JFK and AMS. It helps also that the 767 takes about 20t freight in the belly instead of the 5+ t of a 757.
The a 767 is mostly used to up gauge from the 757.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3642
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: B763 vs B738 / 4 - 5h routes

Thu Jul 06, 2017 9:30 pm

In a similar configuration, 767-300 has about 50% more seats than a 737-800. Fuel burn is about 55-60% higher on a 767-300ER than a 737-800 over the same distance. As far as fuel goes, it isn't that big of a difference in fuel burn per seat when in a similar density configuration. Crew, navigation and airport expenses are higher with the 767, but a single 767 is cheaper than two 737 flights.

The catch is that many 767-300 operators have business class seats with lie flat configurations that take up a lot of space whereas 737s don't so that means they usually only have about 25%-30% more seats. That really hurts fuel burn per seat and is why long haul airplanes aren't usually used on short haul flights. British Airways used 767s on regional flights and they were competive with the narrowbodies on economics. Similarly United had a lower CASM with their domestic high density 767-300ERs used for Hawaii and hub to hub than its narrowbodies.
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: B763 vs B738 / 4 - 5h routes

Thu Jul 06, 2017 10:10 pm

You also have to factor in factors like aircraft utilization, how many people booked a particular flight, and then do you have some cargo to ship them in too. To see which one give better revenue for a given route you really need to analyze them case by case start from what you have and how many demands are there.
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate. 求同存異. よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
(≧▽≦) Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan!
(≧▽≦) Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
You are now at your youngest moment in your remaining life.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: B763 vs B738 / 4 - 5h routes

Thu Jul 06, 2017 11:27 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
In a similar configuration, 767-300 has about 50% more seats than a 737-800. Fuel burn is about 55-60% higher on a 767-300ER than a 737-800 over the same distance. As far as fuel goes, it isn't that big of a difference in fuel burn per seat when in a similar density configuration. Crew, navigation and airport expenses are higher with the 767, but a single 767 is cheaper than two 737 flights..


I would challenge that. In similar configuration the 767-300ER has a higher fuel burn per seat than the 757-200 and a much higher fuel burn per seat than a 737-800 on a 5 hour trip. So every thing else being equal two 737-800 should do the job with less cost than a similar dense 767-300ER.

But than we come to different considerations, availability of frames, availability of crew and availability of slots on the origin airport and destination airport.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3642
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: B763 vs B738 / 4 - 5h routes

Fri Jul 07, 2017 12:29 am

mjoelnir wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
In a similar configuration, 767-300 has about 50% more seats than a 737-800. Fuel burn is about 55-60% higher on a 767-300ER than a 737-800 over the same distance. As far as fuel goes, it isn't that big of a difference in fuel burn per seat when in a similar density configuration. Crew, navigation and airport expenses are higher with the 767, but a single 767 is cheaper than two 737 flights..


I would challenge that. In similar configuration the 767-300ER has a higher fuel burn per seat than the 757-200 and a much higher fuel burn per seat than a 737-800 on a 5 hour trip. So every thing else being equal two 737-800 should do the job with less cost than a similar dense 767-300ER.

But than we come to different considerations, availability of frames, availability of crew and availability of slots on the origin airport and destination airport.


A 737-800 burns about 12 lbs per mile whereas a 767-300 burns about 19-20 lbs per mile. A 767-300 burns about 55-60% more fuel per hour while carrying about 50% more seats in a similar seating density. Fuel burn per seat isn't actually that different as long as there isn't a lie flat business class reducing the seat count on the 767. It really comes down to seating density and cabin configuration but yes a 737-800 does usually have a small fuel burn per seat advantage.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: B763 vs B738 / 4 - 5h routes

Fri Jul 07, 2017 8:47 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
In a similar configuration, 767-300 has about 50% more seats than a 737-800. Fuel burn is about 55-60% higher on a 767-300ER than a 737-800 over the same distance. As far as fuel goes, it isn't that big of a difference in fuel burn per seat when in a similar density configuration. Crew, navigation and airport expenses are higher with the 767, but a single 767 is cheaper than two 737 flights..


I would challenge that. In similar configuration the 767-300ER has a higher fuel burn per seat than the 757-200 and a much higher fuel burn per seat than a 737-800 on a 5 hour trip. So every thing else being equal two 737-800 should do the job with less cost than a similar dense 767-300ER.

But than we come to different considerations, availability of frames, availability of crew and availability of slots on the origin airport and destination airport.


A 737-800 burns about 12 lbs per mile whereas a 767-300 burns about 19-20 lbs per mile. A 767-300 burns about 55-60% more fuel per hour while carrying about 50% more seats in a similar seating density. Fuel burn per seat isn't actually that different as long as there isn't a lie flat business class reducing the seat count on the 767. It really comes down to seating density and cabin configuration but yes a 737-800 does usually have a small fuel burn per seat advantage.


I see that you have put up numbers, I just do not believe them. I know that the 757-200 has a fuel burn advantage per seat over the 767-300 ER, the 767-300ER with 260 seats and the 757-200 with 183 seats, that means comparable density. By interference that should mean, that if the 737-800 is only slightly better than the 767-300ER, it could hardly be much better in fuel burn per seat then the 757-200 and that goes against common knowledge.
 
User avatar
Channex757
Posts: 2419
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:07 am

Re: B763 vs B738 / 4 - 5h routes

Fri Jul 07, 2017 8:56 am

Eurocharter 763s take some beating for CASM. For instance the BY 763s, several of which have found their way to other charter/lowcost outfits. The high density ones have all-Y capacity of 328.

They are 2-4-2 layout and pretty tight so not a plane I'd want to spend more than 4 hours or so in. With a PE cabin this drops to 287 but the sardine can layout is the real money maker. Only the 788 does better on shorthaul.
 
User avatar
BawliBooch
Posts: 1539
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:24 am

Re: B763 vs B738 / 4 - 5h routes

Fri Jul 07, 2017 12:17 pm

On segments above 4h, a widebody beats a narrowbody from the passenger perspective. Flew on the Jet service to BOM-SIN multiple times when it was 77W, 332 and later when it was downgauged to a 737-800. While the soft product was good, huge difference in hard product.
Mr.Kapoor's favorite poodle!
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3642
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: B763 vs B738 / 4 - 5h routes

Fri Jul 07, 2017 12:40 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

I would challenge that. In similar configuration the 767-300ER has a higher fuel burn per seat than the 757-200 and a much higher fuel burn per seat than a 737-800 on a 5 hour trip. So every thing else being equal two 737-800 should do the job with less cost than a similar dense 767-300ER.

But than we come to different considerations, availability of frames, availability of crew and availability of slots on the origin airport and destination airport.


A 737-800 burns about 12 lbs per mile whereas a 767-300 burns about 19-20 lbs per mile. A 767-300 burns about 55-60% more fuel per hour while carrying about 50% more seats in a similar seating density. Fuel burn per seat isn't actually that different as long as there isn't a lie flat business class reducing the seat count on the 767. It really comes down to seating density and cabin configuration but yes a 737-800 does usually have a small fuel burn per seat advantage.


I see that you have put up numbers, I just do not believe them. I know that the 757-200 has a fuel burn advantage per seat over the 767-300 ER, the 767-300ER with 260 seats and the 757-200 with 183 seats, that means comparable density. By interference that should mean, that if the 737-800 is only slightly better than the 767-300ER, it could hardly be much better in fuel burn per seat then the 757-200 and that goes against common knowledge.


We both can be correct. It really depends on the weights for the 767-300. At MTOW a 767-300ER can be burning almost double the fuel that a 737-800 is at initial cruise. When flying light as on a shorter route without cargo, fuel burn rates are less. To switch units, a 737-800 might be burning 2400-2500 kgs per hour whereas a 767-300ER can be burning up to around 4800-5000kg per hour. The fuel burn on a 767 can vary 20% depending on payload and fuel load so it is really hard to come up with realistic comparisons.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: B763 vs B738 / 4 - 5h routes

Fri Jul 07, 2017 3:11 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:

A 737-800 burns about 12 lbs per mile whereas a 767-300 burns about 19-20 lbs per mile. A 767-300 burns about 55-60% more fuel per hour while carrying about 50% more seats in a similar seating density. Fuel burn per seat isn't actually that different as long as there isn't a lie flat business class reducing the seat count on the 767. It really comes down to seating density and cabin configuration but yes a 737-800 does usually have a small fuel burn per seat advantage.


I see that you have put up numbers, I just do not believe them. I know that the 757-200 has a fuel burn advantage per seat over the 767-300 ER, the 767-300ER with 260 seats and the 757-200 with 183 seats, that means comparable density. By interference that should mean, that if the 737-800 is only slightly better than the 767-300ER, it could hardly be much better in fuel burn per seat then the 757-200 and that goes against common knowledge.


We both can be correct. It really depends on the weights for the 767-300. At MTOW a 767-300ER can be burning almost double the fuel that a 737-800 is at initial cruise. When flying light as on a shorter route without cargo, fuel burn rates are less. To switch units, a 737-800 might be burning 2400-2500 kgs per hour whereas a 767-300ER can be burning up to around 4800-5000kg per hour. The fuel burn on a 767 can vary 20% depending on payload and fuel load so it is really hard to come up with realistic comparisons.


My information was from a guy at my home airline flying 767-300ER and the 757-200 on the same sectors with a similar density. I can not put up the numbers, just that the 757-200 has the lower burn per seat.
 
NYC2SFO
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2017 6:26 pm

Re: B763 vs B738 / 4 - 5h routes

Fri Jul 07, 2017 4:29 pm

quick question/point - wouldn't a B767-300 offer more cargo capacity, where cargo is important on specific O&Ds? We all know cargo is just as valuable, if not more, than pax.?
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: B763 vs B738 / 4 - 5h routes

Fri Jul 07, 2017 4:33 pm

NYC2SFO wrote:
quick question/point - wouldn't a B767-300 offer more cargo capacity, where cargo is important on specific O&Ds? We all know cargo is just as valuable, if not more, than pax.?


Yes the 767 takes a lot more cargo, but cargo is only more valuable than pax on certain routes.
 
Andy33
Posts: 2570
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:30 am

Re: B763 vs B738 / 4 - 5h routes

Fri Jul 07, 2017 5:11 pm

And in the main, any seasonal upgauges on longer shorthaul flights within Europe are to handle passengers in search of sea and sun. The cargo is there all year round, which is why you'll find some long-haul configured widebodies on routes like LHR-MAD and LHR-HEL all year round.

But I still wonder just how many of these seasonal upgauges there actually are. There are certainly flights to destinations like Rhodes and other Greek islands that utilise 744s, 763s, 788s, A330s and so on from various countries. but all of these are seasonal routes, they don't exist at all in the winter so there's no upgauging going on. Spanish destinations might be the most likely to have a winter service on 738/A320 and a summer service on something bigger.
 
User avatar
SuperTwin
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: B763 vs B738 / 4 - 5h routes

Sat Jul 08, 2017 2:13 am

1st post!

Cargo revenue per kilo on some routes where there is ample capacity is approaching the marginal cost of carrying it so that advantage may not even exist and would not benefit the 763 over the 738 in a material way.

I would add that on short haul routes either non-stop 4-5hr flight or 1stop with a 4-5hr flight, the 738 would have better economics. The point to consider about 763s with lieflats is that the person riding up-front may also be a connecting long haul int'l to short haul and paid a premium to fly lie-flat the whole way (This would cost more $ than a lazyboy business class). So the benefit to the airline cannot necessarily be looked at in isolation on a single 4-5hr route as the revenue this service brings in spread across an extended itinerary.

Eg. Air Canada. Int'l to YYZ to YVR. (4.5hrs)

SuperTwin
SuperTwin

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