Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
lahaina
Topic Author
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2000 1:51 am

767-300 EM: What is "EM"

Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:38 am

HA has listed their 767-300 non ER planes as 767-300 EM. What does the designation EM stand for?

Thanks
 
ha763
Posts: 3201
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 5:36 pm

RE: 767-300 EM:

Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:43 am

"Extra Maintenance"  Silly

Just kidding. I believe it signifies that it is an ETOPS certified and maintained pax aircraft. Just look at the list at the following link and you will find "EM" listed after all the 767ERs and some of the non-ERs.

http://www.aviationindustrygroup.com...boeing767industrydat-1005-1010.pdf
 
OB1504
Posts: 4010
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 5:10 am

RE: 767-300 EM:

Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:46 am

I don't think it's an official Boeing or FAA designation, though, sort of like the 757-200ET, which technically doesn't exist.
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9175
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: 767-300 EM:

Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:54 am

"Extra Maintenance"

Must be those ex-LTU birds Big grin
 
N593HA
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:45 pm

RE: 767-300 EM:

Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:55 pm

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 3):
Must be those ex-LTU birds

No, this can not be true as all of their ex-LTU birds are ER's. Yesterday I flew with N586HA (one of the ex-LTU birds) from PHX to HNL as HA035. HA does not send their non-ER's into PHX as this is a hot&high airport and it would not be the best idea to send them into this airport. HA uses their non-ER's for destinations on the California west-coast.
The starter of this topic is talking about the non-ER's, ex-DL birs (N594HA, N596HA and soon N597HA and N598HA) and not about the ex-LTU birds as these are ER's one.

But I'm sorry, I don't know what "EM" means in this case.

Aloha
N593HA
Next trip: KL+NW to HNL
 
User avatar
HA_DC9
Posts: 572
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 1999 3:16 pm

RE: 767-300 EM:

Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:18 pm

Could it also have something to do with the new interiors from Heath-Tecna that were/are being installed? Didn't the interiors require special certification or something like that?
 
Bluewave 707
Posts: 2794
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:21 am

RE: 767-300 EM:

Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:45 pm

"EM" stands for ETOPS Modified.

When HA bought the 4 763s from DL, they were not ETOPS capable. Thus when they went to be overhauled, and the new interiors installed, these 763s went through the ETOPS mod. Hence the designation 767-332EM.
"The best use of your life will be to so live your life, that the use of your life will outlive your life" -- D Severn
 
ACA77LFAN
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:35 am

RE: 767-300 EM:

Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:34 pm

Quoting Bluewave 707 (Reply 6):
"EM" stands for ETOPS Modified

Back in August I flew AC81 LIM-YYZ and the aircraft was definately a 767-200M. Does the sole "M" also indicate ETOPS modified? I'm a little confused on this one, as I'm not sure whether ETOPS is required on this route.
 
N770WD
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 10:50 am

RE: 767-300 EM:

Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:05 am

EM generally refers to an aircraft modified after production to ER capabilities, usually resulting in greater MTOW and fuel capacity. An ER refers to an aircraft built on the line with the higher MTOW and fuel capacity. In this case, modifications were also made to permit ETOPS/180 operations, although there were standard B767-200s flown ETOPS without EM modifications.
 
L.1011
Posts: 2172
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 7:46 am

RE: 767-300 EM:

Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:13 am

Quoting ACA77LFAN (Reply 7):
Back in August I flew AC81 LIM-YYZ and the aircraft was definately a 767-200M. Does the sole "M" also indicate ETOPS modified? I'm a little confused on this one, as I'm not sure whether ETOPS is required on this route.

M usually refers to a combi aircraft. Obviously, there's no such thing as a combi 762, and AC certainly doesn't fly them. In this case I have no idea what it refers to.
 
CPDC10-30
Posts: 4688
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 4:30 pm

RE: 767-300 EM:

Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:30 am

Quoting ACA77LFAN (Reply 7):
Back in August I flew AC81 LIM-YYZ and the aircraft was definately a 767-200M

I have also been on an AC 767-200ER with a safety card for B767M (C-GDSP). My guess is that it is an internal fleet designation for overwater/ER equipped aircraft - as it was definetley not modified to ER standards. It was an ER out of the factory. At the time AC also had many non-ER 762s but those numbers have dwindled considerably.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: 767-300 EM:

Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:35 am

Many airlines have internal codes for aircraft with non-standard seating configurations or other equipment differences.
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13725
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: 767-300 EM:

Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:40 am

Quoting N770WD (Reply 8):
EM generally refers to an aircraft modified after production to ER capabilities, usually resulting in greater MTOW and fuel capacity.

I'm not doubting you a bit, but I still find it hard to believe that aircraft can indeed be modified to ER standards post production. I was under the (probably false) impression that e.g. A model aircraft cannot be converted to B model specs.

What other modifications are done for converting an aircraft to an EM? And roughly how expensive are those mods?
Sometimes the only thing more dangerous than a question is an answer. - Ferengi Rule of Acquisition 208
 
geardown
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 6:01 am

RE: 767-300 EM:

Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:29 am

Since they are modified to be ETOPS compliant and have the new "777" interior, then shouldn't EM stands for Extreme Makeover?

[Edited 2007-03-30 01:30:37]
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13725
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: 767-300 EM:

Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:34 am

Quoting Geardown (Reply 13):
Since they are modified to be ETOPS compliant and have the new "777" interior, then shouldn't EM stands for Extreme Makeover?

It does mean Extreme Makeover, albeit indirectly.  Wink
Sometimes the only thing more dangerous than a question is an answer. - Ferengi Rule of Acquisition 208
 
HA767
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 3:39 pm

RE: Hawaii: $19 Fares Back With Launch Of Go!Express

Sat Mar 31, 2007 3:48 am

The Delta A/c were only modified to ETOPS standards. They still have the MTOW of 352K as compared to the other A/C in HAL's fleet at 409 and 415K I believe.

[Edited 2007-03-30 20:57:25]
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: 767-300 EM:

Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:56 am

Quoting Geardown (Reply 13):
Since they are modified to be ETOPS compliant and have the new "777" interior, then shouldn't EM stands for Extreme Makeover

Funny.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 12):
I'm not doubting you a bit, but I still find it hard to believe that aircraft can indeed be modified to ER standards post production. I was under the (probably false) impression that e.g. A model aircraft cannot be converted to B model specs

AA and TW converted a number of the early delivery 767-200 aircraft to 767-200ER standard. The ""converted ERs"" were almost but not quite as capable as 762ERs delivered from the factory. I wish I had more tech details but I dont....perhaps someone else can share more information about this. UA also upgraded a number of their 767-200s for longer range overwater operations but these aircraft were not considered 767-200ERs, those UA airplanes also carried an unsual EM or ET designation. The only conversions that I know of from A market to ER standard involve the 767-200.....as far as other types, say the 777, I am also of the understanding that A market aircraft cannot be upgraded to ER standard post production.
 
worldtraveler
Posts: 3417
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 6:18 am

RE: 767-300 EM:

Sat Mar 31, 2007 11:19 am

these are CF6-80A powered 763s, right?

what were the former DL ship numbers?
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13725
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: 767-300 EM:

Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:40 pm

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 17):
what were the former DL ship numbers?

Ship 116, 117, 118 and 119 (N116DL to N119DL) are now flying for HA.
Sometimes the only thing more dangerous than a question is an answer. - Ferengi Rule of Acquisition 208
 
User avatar
aloha73g
Posts: 1947
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 6:30 pm

RE: 767-300 EM:

Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:47 pm

N596HA left yesterday to be fitted with video screens (THANK GOD!!).

-Aloha!
Aloha Airlines - The Spirit Moves Us. Gone but NEVER Forgotten. Aloha, A Hui Hou!
 
lahaina
Topic Author
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2000 1:51 am

RE: 767-300 EM:

Sat Mar 31, 2007 3:50 pm

Does anyone know if these ex-DL planes had their range extended during overhaul?
 
HA767
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 3:39 pm

RE: 767-300 EM:

Sat Mar 31, 2007 5:02 pm

Quoting Lahaina (Reply 20):
Does anyone know if these ex-DL planes had their range extended during overhaul?

The range on the A/C are the same. The fuel config is 40 30 40 on the Delta birds for a total of 110K. The ER models have a fuel config of 40 80 40=160K.

The Delta birds are supposed to ment for routes like SFO/SMF/SJC/LAX. They have weight issues in other places like LAS/SAN/PHX. (runway length,temp etc.....)

[Edited 2007-03-31 10:04:49]
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6488
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: 767-300 EM:

Sat Mar 31, 2007 10:26 pm

Quoting CPDC10-30 (Reply 10):
I have also been on an AC 767-200ER with a safety card for B767M (C-GDSP). My guess is that it is an internal fleet designation for overwater/ER equipped aircraft - as it was definetley not modified to ER standards. It was an ER out of the factory. At the time AC also had many non-ER 762s but those numbers have dwindled considerably.

You are absolutely correct. The M designation on the safety card indicates that the aircraft is equipped with slide/rafts, as opposed to just slides. To the airline, this means the aircraft is equipped for overwater flying.

You will see this on any AC aircraft in which there are NON overwater equipped aircraft also in the fleet. Namely there are A319s and A319Ms, A320s and A320Ms and B767s and B767Ms. (This started with the B727M). On aircraft, where the entire fleet is overwater equipped, there is no M, designation. ie, B767-300, A330, A340, B777.

Hopefully, there will soon be an E190M.  Smile
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
lahaina
Topic Author
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2000 1:51 am

RE: 767-300 EM:

Sun Apr 01, 2007 6:53 am

When will the last of the 4 ex-DL bird show up in HA's fleet? When I last flew in December, one of the planes had a really old interior. The FAs told me that this plane will be refitted with the new interior. When will this happen?
 
HA767
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 3:39 pm

RE: 767-300 EM:

Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:03 am

Quoting Lahaina (Reply 23):
When will the last of the 4 ex-DL bird show up in HA's fleet? When I last flew in December, one of the planes had a really old interior. The FAs told me that this plane will be refitted with the new interior. When will this happen?

597HA is supposed to be ready in mid May, at that time they will send 594HA to Goodrich to install the new interior. That's the plan anyways.
 
CV880
Posts: 1005
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:56 am

RE: 767-300 EM:

Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:02 am

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 18):
Ship 116, 117, 118 and 119 (N116DL to N119DL) are now flying for HA.

These were the oldest of the 767-300/domestics and ships 101-115 were the 200's.
 
User avatar
aloha73g
Posts: 1947
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 6:30 pm

RE: 767-300 EM:

Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:32 am

Quoting HA767 (Reply 24):
597HA is supposed to be ready in mid May, at that time they will send 594HA to Goodrich to install the new interior. That's the plan anyways.

597 will indeed arrive in May (if all goes according to plan), but 594 will continue to fly with the "Old" DL interior until the fall when it will get the new interior. We need all the planes during the summer due to increased summer flying (SEA flights 27/28 go daily, LAX flight 3/4 go daily, extra PPG flights)

-Aloha!
Aloha Airlines - The Spirit Moves Us. Gone but NEVER Forgotten. Aloha, A Hui Hou!
 
User avatar
eta unknown
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 5:03 am

RE: 767-300 EM:

Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:54 am

Flew N598HA LAS-HNL (02:45 departure) last week- nice interior!
 
HAL
Posts: 1773
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 1:38 am

RE: 767-300 EM:

Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:06 am

Quoting ETA Unknown (Reply 27):
Flew N598HA LAS-HNL (02:45 departure) last week- nice interior!

I can't believe they put one of the ex-Delta birds on a LAS trip! We keep hearing how they'll only be used for our shortest trips (SFO & bay area flights), but somehow they keep showing up in places like LAS and SEA. I guess that's all right, but if I see one at the gate in PHX in July, I'll really be going  eyepopping . They'll make LAS-HNL OK, but can't carry much cargo. It's a shame if we have to lose revenue because of that decision. Oh well - I just get paid to fly, not make the 'big' decisions. Big grin

HAL
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26650
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: 767-300 EM:

Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:19 am

Quoting N593HA (Reply 4):
No, this can not be true as all of their ex-LTU birds are ER's.

He was joking about MX issues

Quoting HAL (Reply 28):
I guess that's all right, but if I see one at the gate in PHX in July, I'll really be going

Actually, I would venture to guess that LAS would have just as much of an issue as PHX given that it is only ever slightly cooler, if at all, and is about 1000 feet higher up.

Quoting HAL (Reply 28):
We keep hearing how they'll only be used for our shortest trips (SFO & bay area flights), but somehow they keep showing up in places like LAS and SEA.

SEA isn't particularly longer than LAX and will usually be marginally cooler.

I am surprised no one has noticed yet that these deployments are happening in the winter/spring. Las Vegas in the winter is much, much colder than anywhere on the West Coast.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
HAL
Posts: 1773
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 1:38 am

RE: 767-300 EM:

Fri Apr 20, 2007 2:01 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 29):
SEA isn't particularly longer than LAX and will usually be marginally cooler.

I am surprised no one has noticed yet that these deployments are happening in the winter/spring. Las Vegas in the winter is much, much colder than anywhere on the West Coast.

The temperatures aren't the main problem, but the distance is, although high temps do make the situation worse. As a pilot for Hawaiian, I can say that although the planes can fly to any of our current west coast cities, it becomes more difficult operationally to put the kind of loads we want on them at the more distant locations. The ex-Delta airplanes have lower power engines and smaller fuel tanks, and considerably lower max takeoff weights. This all conspires to reduce the amount of payload those planes can take, especially if they are coming out of someplace farther away like LAS or SEA.

For the record, our scheduled flight times out of SFO to HNL is 5:05, SEA to HNL is 5:45 (13% longer than SFO), LAS-HNL is 5:50 (15% longer), and PHX-HNL is 6:25 (26% longer). The winds can be much stronger out of places like SEA too - I've seen many flights well over 6:00 block time. On longer flights you have to load even more fuel than just that percentage, because the heavier loads require that much more fuel just to lift the additional range fuel. It's a vicious circle that quickly eats into any margin for payload. The ER's have plenty of margin, the EM's, not so much. The EM's have a nice niche for us in the shorter flights, but do pose a problem if they have to do longer ones.

HAL
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26650
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: 767-300 EM:

Fri Apr 20, 2007 2:22 am

Quoting HAL (Reply 30):
The temperatures aren't the main problem, but the distance is, although high temps do make the situation worse. As a pilot for Hawaiian, I can say that although the planes can fly to any of our current west coast cities, it becomes more difficult operationally to put the kind of loads we want on them at the more distant locations. The ex-Delta airplanes have lower power engines and smaller fuel tanks, and considerably lower max takeoff weights. This all conspires to reduce the amount of payload those planes can take, especially if they are coming out of someplace farther away like LAS or SEA.

SEA is really only marginally farther than LAx, so I don't see the issue. I definately see the issue with PHX and LAS because of the operational issues at both airports, even given that LAS has a >14,000 foot runway.

Quoting HAL (Reply 30):
The ER's have plenty of margin, the EM's, not so much. The EM's have a nice niche for us in the shorter flights, but do pose a problem if they have to do longer ones.

Question. How does the fuel burn compare? What percentage savings do you get on the EM?
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
HAL
Posts: 1773
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 1:38 am

RE: 767-300 EM:

Fri Apr 20, 2007 2:43 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 31):
SEA is really only marginally farther than LAx, so I don't see the issue. I definately see the issue with PHX and LAS because of the operational issues at both airports, even given that LAS has a >14,000 foot runway.

Again, the problem is the lack of payload capacity for the planes when fueled for the trips. They're already close to max gross weight on a normal flight out of SFO. When they fly out of SEA (15% farther, plus fuel to lift that extra 15%) the have to give up something - either it's carrying less paying cargo or fewer passengers. It may be only 'marginally farther' in your mind, but in reality, it makes a difference. Every penny counts, and when you have to start bumping $ off a flight just so the plane can make it, you have a problem.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 31):
Question. How does the fuel burn compare? What percentage savings do you get on the EM?

Sorry, I don't know the fuel burn numbers, but I don't think they're very far off from what the P&W engines burn on the ERs. The GE's on the ex-Delta planes are smaller and have less thrust, but have to work harder so IIRC, their burn is very close to that of the bigger planes.

HAL
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26650
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: 767-300 EM:

Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:01 am

Quoting HAL (Reply 32):
Sorry, I don't know the fuel burn numbers, but I don't think they're very far off from what the P&W engines burn on the ERs. The GE's on the ex-Delta planes are smaller and have less thrust, but have to work harder so IIRC, their burn is very close to that of the bigger planes.

Interesting. I guess the DL aircraft were more of an issue of getting viable frames on the cheap as opposed to exploiting lower burn numbers.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
CV880
Posts: 1005
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:56 am

RE: 767-300 EM:

Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:17 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 33):
Interesting. I guess the DL aircraft were more of an issue of getting viable frames on the cheap as opposed to exploiting lower burn numbers.

That wud have to be the case as these were the oldest 300's in the DL Fleet. Possibly in 'marriage', they could be returned.
 
HAL
Posts: 1773
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 1:38 am

RE: 767-300 EM:

Fri Apr 20, 2007 2:20 pm

Quoting CV880 (Reply 34):
Possibly in 'marriage', they could be returned.

No need for that. In their intended role (HNL to the Bay Area & LA area) they work fine. Most of the mechanical bugs have been ironed out, and the new interior looks great. It's just when the aircraft routers put them elsewhere that there sometimes is trouble. We need the planes, they run fine, and they do their job. There's not much more we could ask of them.

HAL
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
 
CV880
Posts: 1005
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:56 am

RE: 767-300 EM:

Sat Apr 21, 2007 1:44 am

Quoting HAL (Reply 35):
No need for that

Oh, well...been gone for a cpl yrs now, but I still enjoyed working your flights @ SFO, as well as the great in-flight svc.

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