I have flown on:
* Air New Zealand: 300ER
* Braathens S.A.F.E: 200 ( with two over exit wing doors )
* American Airlines: 200ER/300ER
* Delta: 300ER
* SAS: 767ER
* Lan Chile: 300ER
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
global2 wrote:What makes this question interesting is how many replies mention how few, yet the 767 was no doubt a very successful aircraft.
Yflyer wrote:global2 wrote:What makes this question interesting is how many replies mention how few, yet the 767 was no doubt a very successful aircraft.
I was thinking about that, too. I thought of a few possible reasons:
- Widebodies are used on long international routes more often than domestic routes. Most people probably fly domestically more often than they fly internationally.
- Where they are/were used domestically, you're still limited to relatively few airlines. In the US you'd be limited to a handful of legacy airlines, and I'd guess even fewer in other countries.
- While it was a successful plane, they are aging and are being replaced by the 787/A330/A350. So younger people probably had fewer chances to fly on them. Granted, you could say the same thing about the 747.
Yflyer wrote:global2 wrote:What makes this question interesting is how many replies mention how few, yet the 767 was no doubt a very successful aircraft.
I was thinking about that, too. I thought of a few possible reasons:
- Widebodies are used on long international routes more often than domestic routes. Most people probably fly domestically more often than they fly internationally.
- Where they are/were used domestically, you're still limited to relatively few airlines. In the US you'd be limited to a handful of legacy airlines, and I'd guess even fewer in other countries.
- While it was a successful plane, they are aging and are being replaced by the 787/A330/A350. So younger people probably had fewer chances to fly on them. Granted, you could say the same thing about the 747.
jb1087xna wrote:762ER: DL, US
763: DL
764ER: DL
jetwet1 wrote:TW
BA
UA
DL
AA
VS
AC
HA
OY
MY