The 767 Thread

Max Q · Tue Oct 09, 2012 5:08 am

This superb Aircraft has been in service for over 30 years now. The picture of the new LAN 767 on the home page started me thinking what an underated, barely noticed Aircraft this is but it's still going.

It may not be the most exotic Aircraft out there but it is universally liked and extremely popular with Pilots and passengers alike, another superb Boeing from the finest Aircraft manufacturer in the world (I am a little biased)

Such a shame it's smaller sister is no longer made.

Thoughts / opinions ?

[Edited 2012-10-08 22:08:49]

SCL767 · Tue Oct 09, 2012 5:35 am

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):
The picture of the new LAN 767 on the home page started me thinking what an underated, barely noticed Aircraft this is but it's still going.

For LAN, the B-767-300ER is a profitable airliner to operate on various routes. If it was not, LAN would not have placed two separate orders for them last year.

CC-BDI is the sixth new B-767-316ER to join LAN's fleet this year:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © A. Kwanten

Is this SCL or MIA?

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ricardo Morales - Aviation Photography of Mexico

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ricardo Morales - Aviation Photography of Mexico

Someone83 · Tue Oct 09, 2012 6:22 am

And it still rolls out about two aircraft each month.....quite similar to the A380

seabosdca · Tue Oct 09, 2012 6:32 am

If Boeing had been able to give it an A300-like cross section, there might never have been a need for the 787. But unfortunately engines at the time just weren't powerful enough to give a twin both a cross section that wide and true intercontinental range.

Max Q · Tue Oct 09, 2012 6:44 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 3):

If Boeing had been able to give it an A300-like cross section, there might never have been a need for the 787. But unfortunately engines at the time just weren't powerful enough to give a twin both a cross section that wide and true intercontinental range.

I don't think it was so much about power with the 767, it was more of a drag issue. The -ER versions with their narrower fuselage than the A310 had much better range than the Airbus product.

The freight capability was not the same but for most airlines, particularly the US based ones it didn't matter.

PHX787 · Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:02 am

Lets see....my 767 memories:

My first flight was on a 757 from CVG-FLL in 1992 but I was a baby then and don't remember anything at all...besides-oddly enough- me reaching for the flight attendant call button. It's strange I remember that.

I DO remember my first flight of my memory-era (from when I was past 5... I haven't flown from between ages 5 to 10) but when I flew to SRQ to visit my grandmother in 2002 it was my first flight that I could remember clearly. It was CVG-ATL-SRQ and the CVG-ATL flight was a 767- DL1963.

When I fly to Barcelona and back, I flew 767s across the pond on DL.
CVG-CDG 763ER, 61 people on board the first time. I had the entire row of seats to myself to stretch out and sleep.

Flying from BCN-JFK-CVG, BCN-JFK both times was on a 764. Huge aircraft. Jam-packed.

Oykie · Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:34 am

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):
It may not be the most exotic Aircraft out there but it is universally liked and extremely popular with Pilots and passengers alike, another superb Boeing from the finest Aircraft manufacturer in the world (I am a little biased)

I have enjoyed many Atlantic crossings in the 767 and have always appreciated the cross section. Almost always window seat or aisle seat. Even the middle seat is better than other widebodies.

I will always like the 767. Yes today's engineering has a lot of new features that the 767 will never get, but it was a pioneer of its time!

cchan · Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:35 am

The 767 is the type I have flown most. Can't beat 2-3-2 in economy.

dlramp4life · Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:17 am

From a rampers POV the 767 is a good airplane to work. Easy because of cans, fueling on the other side, bin door controls from the ground, pushback is easy. The only beef I have is when the cargo system is not working and you are inside the bin pushing a can on tracks hoping not to trip over a lock.

vaus77w · Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:32 am

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):

It may not be the most exotic Aircraft out there but it is universally liked and extremely popular with Pilots and passengers alike, another superb Boeing from the finest Aircraft manufacturer in the world (I am a little biased)

Agreed, it is a superb aircraft. It is extra special for me because my first flight (that I have memory of) was on a QF 767-300ER from SYD-BNE in 1998. My last flight 2 weeks ago, returning from MEL-SYD was also on a QF 767, nothing had really changed lol.

The one thing I love about flying on the 767 is the take-off. Don't know if it's just me but it feels more powerful than planes such as the 737/A320, you can really feel the seat pushing you forward. Makes take-off so much more exciting!

I have heard pilots talking on aviation podcasts about the 767 and they all said it's quite overpowered, with a high thrust to weight ratio due to only 2 engines.

Long live the 767!

GCPET · Tue Oct 09, 2012 11:27 am

Great Plane! Look's best with two RB211's! Here's a cockpit video of a BA 767 on my YouTube Channel!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Leo-d3USV98&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqAJQk_DPXA&feature=relmfu

Probably the one of the more rewarding Aircraft to do a good landing in with the way the main gear is set!

GCPET

neutronstar73 · Tue Oct 09, 2012 11:30 am

The 767 will always have a special place in my heart, because it is a pretty airplane, every trip on it was great, the 2-3-2 can't be beat, and when i was a kid, my dad got me the ability to get inside the cockpit when we were flying to Atlanta on Delta and that is always a fun memory.

I truly go out of my way to fly in the 767 if I can find it. It and the 757 are just class acts in the aviation world. The 757 is just bad-ass...I can't see how anyone can NOT like that bird.

Maybe it is because Boeing really designs some good gear....from the 707 on up, I don't think they make a bad plane at all. Guess I have to try out the 787....

zkojq · Tue Oct 09, 2012 11:49 am

I love the 767. My first flight (of which I can remember a substantial portion of) was in a Air New Zealand 767-200ER ZK-NBA (named Aotearoa V), flying across the Tasman. Air New Zealand's 767s are great for short hops (such as to Australia) or long haul flights (such as to Hong-Kong or Japan). Recently they updated the cabins of their 767s and installed winglets, making them nicer than most other aircraft types to travel on (and to look at).

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jonathan Rankin

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jonathan Rankin

Quoting cchan (Reply 7):
Can't beat 2-3-2 in economy.

Not only is the configuration nice, but it is also nice to have less other passengers to travel with (as compared with a 777 or A330).

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):
Such a shame it's smaller sister is no longer made.

It is a real pity that Boeing didn't do more with the 767-200. It would be nice if they had developed an upgraded version of the -200ER with:
- Lower OEW
- Higher MTOW
- More effecient engines (or at least a PIP)
- Winglets

for long, thin routes.

Someone83 · Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:22 pm

Just to list the 767 deliveries so far this year:

767-300ER: 10
ANA: 2
AZAL Azerbaijan Airlines: 1
LAN: 5
Uzbekistan Airlines: 2

767-300F: 10
Silk Way (Azerbaijan): 2
DHL: 1
UPS: 7

The two for Uzbekistan has PW engines, the rest GE

Next of the line is another 300ER for LAN

beechnut · Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:27 pm

Great aircraft, especially the 300! Air Canada make theirs work on transatlantic, transpacific, transcontinental, Caribbean holiday, and short-haul domestic (Rapidair) routes. Name me another widebody that can do all that and make a buck for its owner! A truly versatile aircraft. And from the aesthetic perspective, if it looks right, it probably flies right... it just seems to have great, well-proportioned lines, especially the 300. No frills, just a good-looking bird.

I too have many hours logged (as passenger) on them, on transatlantic, transpacific, transcontinental and domestic short-haul runs. Easily the most comfortable widebody with the fewest number of center seats.

Beech

FlyHossD · Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:44 pm

Great machines, the 767s, and that's what I last flew.

From this pilot's perspective, one of my favorite features was just how quiet the cockpit was compared to my prior airplanes (727, 737 and even compared to the 757).

"Last" may not be truly the last, though, as I'm considering an offer to fly again - yes, 767s again.

JAAlbert · Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:51 pm

I'll add to the positive reviews - always my favorite widebody. Comfortable and non-claustrophobic. The only thing that bothers me about the 767 of late are its windows. Those square-ish shapes seem small and terribly dated. Load 787 windows on the 787 and it'd be a beautiful bird to fly!

2travel2know2 · Tue Oct 09, 2012 3:03 pm

If an airline was to order B767 right now,
What'd be the delivery time?
Is it in weeks or months or years?

Luv767s · Tue Oct 09, 2012 3:44 pm

As my user name suggests, I absolutely love 767s. Every variant is aesthetically pleasing and doesn't look oddly proportioned like some other aircraft do.

I've been on every version of every US operator except for Hawaiian Airlines. Two of my most memorable flights were on 767s. The best sleep I ever had on a plane was an AF 763 from CVG to CDG in coach in 2002. Then in 2006, I was able to get a seat in first class on a DL 764 from JFK-MAN-JFK when they sold the whole plane as coach.

cargolex · Tue Oct 09, 2012 4:21 pm

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):
The picture of the new LAN 767 on the home page started me thinking what an underated, barely noticed Aircraft this is but it's still going.

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 1):
CC-BDI is the sixth new B-767-316ER to join LAN's fleet this year:

Thanks for the display.

I felt very fortunate to catch an unpainted pax 767 as there are not too many more in the pipeline. Plenty of freighters (I've missed two unpainted 767 freighters in a row by being in the wrong place on the field), but not so many passenger frames, left to go.

I've always liked the 767 and will go out of my way to fly on one, though I haven't flown on one lately (the last one I flew was a CO 764). My first 767 flight was a short hop between Orlando and Sarasota back in 1988. No idea why United chose to fly that aircraft on that route that day, that's just how it worked out.

I live in Seattle now and many years ago my first flight to Seattle was on a 767-200. I'm a loyal Alaska Airlines flyer, but if I book to Hawaii, I book on Hawaiian specifically because of the 767 (eventually I suppose it'll be an A332, but that's the future). I'd even like to try AA's SFO-JFK 762 service before it goes away.

It's a reliable and efficient aircraft, and I can see why airlines like them.

Quoting 2travel2know2 (Reply 17):
If an airline was to order B767 right now,
What'd be the delivery time?
Is it in weeks or months or years?

Air Astana ordered a few earlier this year and my guess is that they will get them in late 2013, so I'd say that you can get one within 24 months. However, with the large FedEx order coming up, that might actually be optimistic.

seabosdca · Tue Oct 09, 2012 4:29 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 4):
I don't think it was so much about power with the 767, it was more of a drag issue.

Two sides of the same coin... to add either weight or drag, you need more thrust or lift. And the amounts of thrust and lift were (more or less) fixed by the available engine and wing technology at the time. Within those constraints, Airbus chose to optimize for passenger and cargo capacity at short range, while Boeing chose to optimize for TATL range. Boeing's choice was the better one throughout the '80s. But then when the '90s came along with more powerful engines and new wing design techniques, Airbus profited from the better-optimized cross section it had developed, but previously been unable to carry over long distances.

[Edited 2012-10-09 09:29:33]

[Edited 2012-10-09 09:29:46]

HAL · Tue Oct 09, 2012 4:50 pm

I have more hours as pilot in the 763 than any other type, as I've been flying it exclusively for most of the last 10 years. It's honest, durable, and predictable. I've flown it as far west as MNL, and east to TPA. North to SEA, and south to SYD. It's been a great, reliable moneymaker for my airline, which means I get to keep my job and continue to progress through my career. I've moved on to the A330 recently, but I'm sure I'll be back in the 767 someday. Cheers to the 767: It's not flashy, but it gets its job done quietly & efficiently, which means it's doing exactly what it was designed to do.

HAL

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ben Wang

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tony Silgrim

YOWVIEWER · Tue Oct 09, 2012 4:50 pm

A favorite of mine as well. And don't forget the 767-200 became (I believe) the first major commercial jet to land successfully from 33,000 ft with zero engine power on AC143 back in 1983. Doesn't get much better than that !

fleabyte · Tue Oct 09, 2012 5:07 pm

back in 79 or 80, I got to ride on a new UA 767 from Stapleton to Ohara...that was cool

I was checking out the 767 lists on airlinelists.com and about 2 years ago, it was amazing how many, almost all of them were utilized, a few AA 200's had been scrapped and Air Canada and Ansett were stored.

Now, looking at the list, there are a whole bunch of aircraft scrapped and out of service, lots of -200s

so when was the inflection point reached for the 767 when more frames are being scrapped than are being built, I think it is somewhere around 2011. So then the total number of frames in service will start to decline for the first time since the program was launched 30+ years ago. finally....no just kidding, except im sick of those tired old AA birds from Sao Paulo, the 777 is so much nicer in First Class

FI642 · Tue Oct 09, 2012 5:08 pm

In the early 1980's I remember seeing UAL's "State of the Art" JT-9D powered 762's with the Saul Bass Livery at my local field. Too bad they didn't paint a 787 in that Livery!

Piedmont used to fly 762's back and forth from MCO to BWI. Lovely trip to experience.

DocLightning · Tue Oct 09, 2012 5:20 pm

Quoting HAL (Reply 21):
I've moved on to the A330 recently, but I'm sure I'll be back in the 767 someday.

Would you mind commenting on how these two compare from the pilot's POV?

SJCMSP · Tue Oct 09, 2012 6:10 pm

My first flight on a 767 was in 1987. It was a 767-200 SFO-ORD. The thing I remember most clearly about the trip was eating carrot cake for dessert. (I was 8 years old). The funny thing about that trip was that I had my last flight on a DC-8 on the way home.

floridaflyboy · Tue Oct 09, 2012 6:34 pm

I love the 767, personally. It was my very first widebody. My first 767 flight was in 1999, a DL 767-300 SLC-CVG. Since then, I've had 3 flights on the 767-200 on DL, US, and CO, 14 on the 767-300 on DL and UA, and 22 on the 767-400 (I used to fly between BIL and DAB for school and would always book my SLC-ATL portion on a 767-400

)

ggsm · Tue Oct 09, 2012 6:45 pm

If that LAN 763 is new why doesn't it have winglets?

cargolex · Tue Oct 09, 2012 6:48 pm

Quoting ggsm (Reply 28):
If that LAN 763 is new why doesn't it have winglets?

Winglets are not installed at the factory.

iFlyLOTs · Tue Oct 09, 2012 6:48 pm

The first time I was on a 767 was an AA flight from ORD to HNL and at the time I hated it (I was still bitter over AA dropping the DC-10, I should also note that I was only 8 at the time and I thought that the DC-10 would live forever...) but I have since grown to love the plane, I love how majestic it looks, especially with the winglets. I hope it's a sight that won't soon go away.

roseflyer · Tue Oct 09, 2012 6:51 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 4):
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 3):

If Boeing had been able to give it an A300-like cross section, there might never have been a need for the 787. But unfortunately engines at the time just weren't powerful enough to give a twin both a cross section that wide and true intercontinental range.

I don't think it was so much about power with the 767, it was more of a drag issue. The -ER versions with their narrower fuselage than the A310 had much better range than the Airbus product.

Boeing put the biggest engines they could on the 767 just as Airbus did with the A300. The initial 767 was much smaller than the A300, so Airbus chose capacity whereas Boeing chose range and payload. In the early 1980s, the GE CF6 was still a bit undersized to be put on a long range twin. The 300ER came out in the late 1980s with the payload increases that came from engine upgrades that increased power and led to the concurrent 747-400 and MD-11 development. The 767 was always limited based on engines. It wasn't until the 1990s when engines continued to get more powerful that the A330 and 777 started to make twins full transoceanic airplanes.

DocLightning · Tue Oct 09, 2012 6:51 pm

Quoting cargolex (Reply 29):

Winglets are not installed at the factory.

Can't they be installed there if the customer wants, though?

TR763 · Tue Oct 09, 2012 6:52 pm

I just love the 767 as it is the aircraft i've most flown in my life, with Transbrasil, American and United.
The first flight of my life was aboard a Transbrasil 767-200, in 1990, in a GRU-MIA sector.
And my nickname here was chosen in honor to this guy:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Daniel R.Carneiro

Stitch · Tue Oct 09, 2012 6:58 pm

I've done a handful of flights on the 767-200 and 767-300 families.

My first 767 flights were Business Class on TWA SEA-JFK and JFK-SEA in the Summer of 1985. Have to say what I remember the most was how loud it was compared to the L-1011 I'd flown from CDG-JFK.

I've also flown the 767-200 on UA between SFO-JFK-SFO and the three-class 767-300ER between SFO-ORD-SFO and IAD-SEA. I've also flown the 767-300ER two-class on UA between LAX and SEA.

cargolex · Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:10 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 32):

Can't they be installed there if the customer wants, though?

I'm not sure. I don't see why they couldn't be fit there - at least by ATS if not by Boeing, but for some reason they don't do it there. Several LAN 767s have flown directly to ATL for winglet installation by Delta TechOps or MEX for the same service from Mexicana MRO Services.

SCL767 · Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:23 pm

Quoting ggsm (Reply 28):
If that LAN 763 is new why doesn't it have winglets?

Delta Tech Ops and/or Mexicana MRO perform the winglet installation after the a/c is delivered to LAN:
LAN Becomes Largest Customer For 767 Winglets (by SCL767 Sep 26 2012 in Civil Aviation)

1337Delta764 · Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:25 pm

The earliest 767 flight I can remember (based on a past thread asking about it) was a DL 763 in the summer of 1992 on SFO-ATL. Of course, I might have flown a 767 earlier than that on a different airline, however, I can't remember the particular years and routes I flew on other airlines prior to 1992. My other two flights (HNL-SFO and ATL-SJU) were both L-1011s. I remember the SFO-ATL flight looking different inside, with the No Smoking/Fasten Seat Belt signs being symbols rather than words like on the L-1011s.

I know that I flew on AA, TWA, and US (and perhaps others) prior to my first trip on DL in 1992. One of the ones I know about (as told by my father) was HNL-STL on a 747. With AA, I think I might have flown on at least one DC-10. Totally not sure what I flew on with US (cannot remember the route). Some destinations that I know I have flown in/out of prior to 1992 include HNL, SJU, BQN, JFK, and STL; however, I am pretty sure there are other destinations that I missed.

[Edited 2012-10-09 12:28:50]

DocLightning · Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:26 pm

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 36):
Delta Tech Ops and/or Mexicana MRO perform the winglet installation after the a/c is delivered to LAN:

So for whatever reason, it's less expensive to fly the aircraft empty to ATL or MEX and then have the work done there than it is to have the work done at Boeing. Either that or Boeing simply doesn't offer the service, which strikes me as wasteful because that means that the wingtips installed at the factory must be discarded once they are removed at ATL or MEX. If it were done at the factory, the original wingtips would never even be installed.

Viscount724 · Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:38 pm

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):
started me thinking what an underated, barely noticed Aircraft this is

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. The 767 was the most heavily used type on transatlantic routes for years. Does anyone know if that's still true now?

Quoting oykie (Reply 6):
I have enjoyed many Atlantic crossings in the 767 and have always appreciated the cross section. Almost always window seat or aisle seat. Even the middle seat is better than other widebodies.

Agree. And the 767 is the only type flying that has to be at least 86% full before anyone has to sit in a middle seat.

Quoting GCPET (Reply 10):
Look's best with two RB211's

Unfortunately only 2 767 customers agreed.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 16):
The only thing that bothers me about the 767 of late are its windows. Those square-ish shapes seem small and terribly dated.

I like the Boeing windows. They're larger than Airbus windows and the rectangular shape makes better use of the window area. That's always been one thing that makes me prefer the 737 over the A320 family, including the fact that the Boeing windows are mounted somewhat lower and makes them easier to see out of than Airbus windows.

MSYtristar · Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:59 pm

One of my favorite airplanes hands down. Never had a bad flight on a 767. I've never experienced a smooth landing on one (don't think those exist), but hey, beggars can't be choosers. My first 767 flight was in June 1995 on DL. ORD-ATL flight #1941. It was a 767-300. Since then I've flown on around 40 767's of all variants. The shortest 767 flight I've taken would be ATL-MCO on a DL -400ER, and the longest being ATL-AMS on a DL -300ER.

This Friday I get to step back in time and pretend it's 2005 again when I get to fly a 763 from MSY to ATL and another 763 from ATL to BOS. And the following week on the way home, a 763 from ATL to MSY.

KPDX · Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:07 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 39):
I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. The 767 was the most heavily used type on transatlantic routes for years. Does anyone know if that's still true now?

Though it's popular among airlines, I'd say it is quite underrated among aviation enthusiasts.

GCPET · Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:20 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 39):
Unfortunately only 2 767 customers agreed.

Everyone else is missing out! Love going on BA 767's just for the sound of the RB211! BA and RR just go together! The 767 is very versatile and it can work well for both Short-Haul and Long-Haul. Still work's very well for BA after nearly 23 years of service. Well Done Boeing!

GCPET

hoons90 · Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:24 pm

I've flown on all variants of the 767 on various short, medium and long haul flights. Excellent aircraft. From my personal experience, LAN has the best 767 interiors followed by Delta on the 767-400ER. Gotta love the 777-style overhead bins and sidewalls!

DoubleDelta · Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:31 pm

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 16):
The only thing that bothers me about the 767 of late are its windows. Those square-ish shapes seem small and terribly dated. Load 787 windows on the 787 and it'd be a beautiful bird to fly!

IIRC, the 767-400ER features the updated windows from the 777 series.

Quoting MSYtristar (Reply 40):
I've never experienced a smooth landing on one (don't think those exist), but hey, beggars can't be choosers

I wonder if that has something to do with those atypical forward-tilting MLG??

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

Why no love for the 767-400ER?? I sure hope I don't get lambasted for my opinion, but I see to be the only comment that will go against the 767. I absolutely do not like that plane, purely based on exterior looks. I have never flown on one, and I will not try to contest how comfortable the interior is. I've just never found the 767 to be anywhere near beautiful on the outside. It looks weird and just aesthetically unappealing. I don't know how to describe it. I even find the nose section ugly on the 767, but I find that same nose beautiful on the 777. With a lot of 767-300ERs gaining the blended winglets, I'm now warming up to the 763. I can even find some close to 'beautiful.' However, I really do find the 764 to be attractive. The longer fuselage and raked wingtips really did wonders for the aircraft, not to mention the 777-styled interior.

jporterfi · Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:33 pm

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 1):

Are LA aircraft used to operate 4M, 4C, XL, and LP flights? Is that why there are 5 LAN aircraft in the photos? Combined, all of the LAN carriers operate flights to 7 destinations from MIA, whereas LA only flies to 4 destinations from MIA, so it would make a whole lot more sense if the aircraft were cross-utilized by all of the LAN carriers (or at least aircraft painted in the normal LA livery were used on other LAN carriers' flights).

1337Delta764 · Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:38 pm

Quoting DoubleDelta (Reply 44):
Why no love for the 767-400ER?? I sure hope I don't get lambasted for my opinion, but I see to be the only comment that will go against the 767. I absolutely do not like that plane, purely based on exterior looks. I have never flown on one, and I will not try to contest how comfortable the interior is. I've just never found the 767 to be anywhere near beautiful on the outside. It looks weird and just aesthetically unappealing. I don't know how to describe it. I even find the nose section ugly on the 767, but I find that same nose beautiful on the 777. With a lot of 767-300ERs gaining the blended winglets, I'm now warming up to the 763. I can even find some close to 'beautiful.' However, I really do find the 764 to be attractive. The longer fuselage and raked wingtips really did wonders for the aircraft, not to mention the 777-styled interior.

No way, the 764ER is sleek and beautiful like a beautiful woman. The 762, on the other hand, is stubby and ugly.

lasairlinerenth · Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:43 pm

In my 30-some odd years of flying as a passenger, I've only been on one 767 . . . and that was a BA 763 from PRG to LHR in the summer of 2011. When I booked the flight, it was scheduled to be an A320; but when I got to PRG, BA had substitued the 763 instead. I had paid for a seat toward the front of the A320 that translated to the 2-2-2 section on the 767; that was really nice instead of the very cramped economy section of the BA A320 (LHR to PRG was an A320 for me). The plane was a bit tatty on the inside, and it creaked and moaned all the way from PRG to LHR, but it was still a very cool ride. If there are no substitutions, my flight from BNE to PER in late November is scheduled to be a Qantas 767; it'll be only my second flight on a 767 and I'm really looking forward to it.

trnswrld · Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:44 pm

To the OP who stated this:
"what an underated, barely noticed Aircraft this is but it's still going."

Really? How is the 767 barely noticed and underated? Considering this airplane has probably logged more hours across the ponds than any other aircraft in history, IMO its the exact opoosite of what you said.

SCL767 · Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:48 pm

Quoting jporterfi (Reply 45):
Are LA aircraft used to operate 4M, 4C, XL, and LP flights? Is that why there are 5 LAN aircraft in the photos? Combined, all of the LAN carriers operate flights to 7 destinations from MIA, whereas LA only flies to 4 destinations from MIA, so it would make a whole lot more sense if the aircraft were cross-utilized by all of the LAN carriers (or at least aircraft painted in the normal LA livery were used on other LAN carriers' flights).

All LAN B763s now use Chilean registrations; except LAN Argentina's.
LAN Airlines:
SCL-MIA
SCL-CCS-MIA
SCL-CUN-MIA
SCL-PUJ-MIA
SCL-GYE-CCS-MIA
*SCL-GIG-MIA
LAN Perú:
LIM-MIA
LAN Ecuador:
UIO-MIA
LAN Argentina:
EZE-MIA
EZE-PUJ-MIA
LAN Colombia:
BOG-MIA A-320
*Starts next year.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net