aleknowak77
Topic Author
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2019 2:41 pm

767-300 (non-ER) Transatlantic

Tue Apr 23, 2019 1:32 pm

Good day everyone,

According to airfleets.net, Delta Airlines currently has two Boeing 767-300 (non-ER's) in their fleet. Lets say, for example, if a Boeing 767-300ER was going to fly a route from JFK-CDG, but that airplane was late or there was a mechanical problem with the aircraft, could a 767-300 non-ER perform the flight instead?

Thanks!
 
aleknowak77
Topic Author
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2019 2:41 pm

Re: 767-300 (non-ER) Transatlantic

Tue Apr 23, 2019 2:24 pm

*Edit: N140LL has flown to San Bernadino for possible storage :(
 
wernerga3
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:26 pm

Re: 767-300 (non-ER) Transatlantic

Tue Apr 23, 2019 2:27 pm

aleknowak77 wrote:
Good day everyone,

According to airfleets.net, Delta Airlines currently has two Boeing 767-300 (non-ER's) in their fleet. Lets say, for example, if a Boeing 767-300ER was going to fly a route from JFK-CDG, but that airplane was late or there was a mechanical problem with the aircraft, could a 767-300 non-ER perform the flight instead?

Thanks!


Is the 763 (non ER) ETOPS certified? If it is, I would think they could substitute it. If it is not, I would think they would put in another craft such as the 772 or 764.
 
aleknowak77
Topic Author
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2019 2:41 pm

Re: 767-300 (non-ER) Transatlantic

Tue Apr 23, 2019 2:29 pm

wernerga3 wrote:
aleknowak77 wrote:
Good day everyone,

According to airfleets.net, Delta Airlines currently has two Boeing 767-300 (non-ER's) in their fleet. Lets say, for example, if a Boeing 767-300ER was going to fly a route from JFK-CDG, but that airplane was late or there was a mechanical problem with the aircraft, could a 767-300 non-ER perform the flight instead?

Thanks!


I do not believe the 763 (non ER) is ETOPS certified- Therefore I would think they would substitute a different craft which is.


Hasn't the 763 non-ER flown LAX to HNL?
 
BravoOne
Posts: 3230
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: 767-300 (non-ER) Transatlantic

Tue Apr 23, 2019 2:33 pm

Simple answer is No, if at any point you would be beyond 60 minutes from a suitable airport. While the aircraft may be capable, it is probably not certified per the airlines OpsSpecs and thus cannot be used as such. As a side note, it probably does not have the required Nav Data Base loaded into the FMC.
 
Western727
Posts: 1599
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:38 pm

Re: 767-300 (non-ER) Transatlantic

Tue Apr 23, 2019 2:49 pm

BravoOne wrote:
Simple answer is No, if at any point you would be beyond 60 minutes from a suitable airport. While the aircraft may be capable, it is probably not certified per the airlines OpsSpecs and thus cannot be used as such. As a side note, it probably does not have the required Nav Data Base loaded into the FMC.


Am I mistaken, then, in thinking that the non-ERs have been used on DL's Hawaiian routes?
Jack @ AUS
 
aleknowak77
Topic Author
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2019 2:41 pm

Re: 767-300 (non-ER) Transatlantic

Tue Apr 23, 2019 2:54 pm

BravoOne wrote:
Simple answer is No, if at any point you would be beyond 60 minutes from a suitable airport. While the aircraft may be capable, it is probably not certified per the airlines OpsSpecs and thus cannot be used as such. As a side note, it probably does not have the required Nav Data Base loaded into the FMC.


Very interesting, thank you for the info!
 
unimproved
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 7:14 pm

Re: 767-300 (non-ER) Transatlantic

Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:22 pm

N140LL is ETOPS certified (small text under the "1401" on the nose gear door) so it should be able to do the route.

However on a route like CDG-JFK with many flights per day they'd rather cancel and rebook than have an oddball aircraft on the other side of the ocean.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 3230
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: 767-300 (non-ER) Transatlantic

Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:32 pm

unimproved wrote:
N140LL is ETOPS certified (small text under the "1401" on the nose gear door) so it should be able to do the route.

However on a route like CDG-JFK with many flights per day they'd rather cancel and rebook than have an oddball aircraft on the other side of the ocean.


Thta is interesting but I have to assume that is was upgraded to that config. I understood the OPs question to as if a non ETOPS aircraft from the domestic fleet could be used?
 
BravoOne
Posts: 3230
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: 767-300 (non-ER) Transatlantic

Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:35 pm

aleknowak77 wrote:
wernerga3 wrote:
aleknowak77 wrote:
Good day everyone,

According to airfleets.net, Delta Airlines currently has two Boeing 767-300 (non-ER's) in their fleet. Lets say, for example, if a Boeing 767-300ER was going to fly a route from JFK-CDG, but that airplane was late or there was a mechanical problem with the aircraft, could a 767-300 non-ER perform the flight instead?

Thanks!


I do not believe the 763 (non ER) is ETOPS certified- Therefore I would think they would substitute a different craft which is.


Hasn't the 763 non-ER flown LAX to HNL?



I'm confident that no non ETOPS aircraft has been used in a 121 operation for mainland to HNL, which would require a 180' ETOPS approval.
 
wernerga3
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:26 pm

Re: 767-300 (non-ER) Transatlantic

Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:40 pm

BravoOne wrote:
aleknowak77 wrote:
wernerga3 wrote:

I do not believe the 763 (non ER) is ETOPS certified- Therefore I would think they would substitute a different craft which is.


Hasn't the 763 non-ER flown LAX to HNL?



I'm confident that no non ETOPS aircraft has been used in a 121 operation for mainland to HNL, which would require a 180' ETOPS approval.


It's strange- I immediately noticed my error and edited my post- yet people have been quoting my old post after the fact. I call glitch.
 
Transpac787
Posts: 1380
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:47 pm

Re: 767-300 (non-ER) Transatlantic

Tue Apr 23, 2019 4:43 pm

Ships 1401-1404 are the only ETOPS non-ER 763’s that Delta operated.

No, they could not be substituted to Europe. The non-ER birds have a MGTOW of 351.0, whereas the ER birds have a MGTOW of either 408.0 or 412.0. There’s a considerable weight and range difference between the two. Additionally, none of the non-ER birds have the lay-flat Delta One seats.
 
User avatar
airportugal310
Posts: 3439
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 12:49 pm

Re: 767-300 (non-ER) Transatlantic

Tue Apr 23, 2019 5:01 pm

Western727 wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
Simple answer is No, if at any point you would be beyond 60 minutes from a suitable airport. While the aircraft may be capable, it is probably not certified per the airlines OpsSpecs and thus cannot be used as such. As a side note, it probably does not have the required Nav Data Base loaded into the FMC.


Am I mistaken, then, in thinking that the non-ERs have been used on DL's Hawaiian routes?


You were not mistaken. When they were still flying, you'd see them on SLC-HNL-SLC seasonally. FWIW, HA operated four non-ER 767-300's (594/596/597/598) on various route HNL-West Coast. They came from DL without ETOPS-180 but were modified to meet the spec. They are all retired now...
I sell airplanes and airplane accessories
 
BravoOne
Posts: 3230
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: 767-300 (non-ER) Transatlantic

Tue Apr 23, 2019 5:53 pm

So what you are saying is that they were delivered as non ER's, and then converted to a ER spec. For the record, there has never been a Non ER configured B767-300 used in mainland HNL service. Thye probably did not have ER weights and tankage, but for those ops they would notcome close to that requirement.
 
User avatar
XAM2175
Posts: 1142
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 2:25 pm

Re: 767-300 (non-ER) Transatlantic

Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:37 pm

BravoOne wrote:
So what you are saying is that they were delivered as non ER's, and then converted to a ER spec.


ER and ETOPS are not the same. ER (and LR, for the 772) is Boeing's way of indicating extended range (co-inciding with higher MTOW), but it has nothing to do with where that range takes it.

It is possible therefore to have standard 767-300s that are ETOPS-ready while also having non-ETOPS 763ERs.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 3230
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: 767-300 (non-ER) Transatlantic

Tue Apr 23, 2019 10:03 pm

XAM2175 wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
So what you are saying is that they were delivered as non ER's, and then converted to a ER spec.


ER and ETOPS are not the same. ER (and LR, for the 772) is Boeing's way of indicating extended range (co-inciding with higher MTOW), but it has nothing to do with where that range takes it.

It is possible therefore to have standard 767-300s that are ETOPS-ready while also having non-ETOPS 763ERs.


I was going write something really snarky but decided otherwise. Suffice to say I know where you are coming from but ER/LR are simply sales terms that someone thought up and even then they don't get it right. You will occasionally see a 757-200 marked as a 757-200ER, of which there is no such thing, while also seeing the airframe carrying the ETOPS markings, the only difference being the HMG along with some enhancements to the APU, etc. Obviously the 777-200ER and the 777-200LR have extended range beyond the vanilla 777 A models. They also have other enhancements that allow them to operate as an ETOPS flight.
 
Max Q
Posts: 7336
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: 767-300 (non-ER) Transatlantic

Wed Apr 24, 2019 4:35 am

Slightly off subject,


A few years ago I was the Captain on a scheduled 764 flight from EWR-FCO


We had a serious mechanical issue that could not be resolved and there were no spare 767’s that night so they rescheduled a 757


No problem eastbound and we had a light load so we didn’t leave anyone behind


Of course the westbound crew we delivered the aircraft to in Rome were not too happy


They had to stop for fuel in SNN on the way home making for a long day


I wrote a note and left it on the yoke clip for them ‘not my idea ! ‘
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
User avatar
fr8mech
Posts: 7582
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

Re: 767-300 (non-ER) Transatlantic

Wed Apr 24, 2019 5:59 am

Any reason that a non-ETOPS B767 couldn't make the trip flying a non-ETOPS route? We rarely do it, and we're certainly not fans of doing it, but we have done it in the past.
When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
Unless it's expressly prohibited, it's allowed.
You are not entitled to a public safe space.
Ego Bibere Capulus, Ut Aliis Sit Vivere
 
longhauler
Posts: 6163
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

Re: 767-300 (non-ER) Transatlantic

Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:19 pm

There are a few other issues as well, not mentioned.

It is not just the physical capabilities of the airframe. Depending on where the aircraft flies, it requires other equipment. Like HF radios, CPDLC/ADS, 8.33 KHz channel spacing. Some of this is for operations in New York/Gander/Shanwick Oceanic airspace, some for operating within the UK or Europe.

A domestic aircraft is not likely to have the necessary equipment.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
BravoOne
Posts: 3230
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: 767-300 (non-ER) Transatlantic

Wed Apr 24, 2019 2:09 pm

fr8mech wrote:
Any reason that a non-ETOPS B767 couldn't make the trip flying a non-ETOPS route? We rarely do it, and we're certainly not fans of doing it, but we have done it in the past.


Longhaulers comments are spot on so for all intent and purposes, it would not be done.
 
Tristarsteve
Posts: 3576
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:04 pm

Re: 767-300 (non-ER) Transatlantic

Wed Apr 24, 2019 3:29 pm

Obviously the 777-200ER and the 777-200LR have extended range beyond the vanilla 777 A models. They also have other enhancements that allow them to operate as an ETOPS flight.


BA operates B777-200 A models ETOPS to the USA. I thought all B777 were ETOPS built by Boeing.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 3230
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: 767-300 (non-ER) Transatlantic

Wed Apr 24, 2019 4:36 pm

Tristarsteve wrote:
Obviously the 777-200ER and the 777-200LR have extended range beyond the vanilla 777 A models. They also have other enhancements that allow them to operate as an ETOPS flight.


BA operates B777-200 A models ETOPS to the USA. I thought all B777 were ETOPS built by Boeing.



Yu are correct as they all came off the line set up for ETOPS. It's up to the operators get the necessary regulatory approvals for their respective ETOPS operations.
 
unimproved
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 7:14 pm

Re: 767-300 (non-ER) Transatlantic

Wed Apr 24, 2019 5:11 pm

Tristarsteve wrote:
Obviously the 777-200ER and the 777-200LR have extended range beyond the vanilla 777 A models. They also have other enhancements that allow them to operate as an ETOPS flight.


BA operates B777-200 A models ETOPS to the USA. I thought all B777 were ETOPS built by Boeing.

ETOPS is more about operator practices than about the frame itself.

Like in maintenance I can't do the same task on both engines/generators/etc. If I change a generator cable on engine #1, another person will have to do engine #2 in case I misunderstood the procedure.
 
User avatar
AirKevin
Posts: 284
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:18 am

Re: 767-300 (non-ER) Transatlantic

Wed Apr 24, 2019 5:16 pm

BravoOne wrote:
aleknowak77 wrote:
wernerga3 wrote:
I do not believe the 763 (non ER) is ETOPS certified- Therefore I would think they would substitute a different craft which is.

Hasn't the 763 non-ER flown LAX to HNL?

I'm confident that no non ETOPS aircraft has been used in a 121 operation for mainland to HNL, which would require a 180' ETOPS approval.

Tell that to American Airlines. They somehow managed to pull this off in 2015.

https://onemileatatime.com/oops-america ... to-hawaii/
Captain Kevin
 
BravoOne
Posts: 3230
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: 767-300 (non-ER) Transatlantic

Wed Apr 24, 2019 5:38 pm

AirKevin wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
aleknowak77 wrote:
Hasn't the 763 non-ER flown LAX to HNL?

I'm confident that no non ETOPS aircraft has been used in a 121 operation for mainland to HNL, which would require a 180' ETOPS approval.

Tell that to American Airlines. They somehow managed to pull this off in 2015.

https://onemileatatime.com/oops-america ... to-hawaii/



Yea I do recall that one. I bet they paid a significant fine for that one.
 
User avatar
fr8mech
Posts: 7582
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

Re: 767-300 (non-ER) Transatlantic

Wed Apr 24, 2019 5:53 pm

longhauler wrote:
There are a few other issues as well, not mentioned.

It is not just the physical capabilities of the airframe. Depending on where the aircraft flies, it requires other equipment. Like HF radios, CPDLC/ADS, 8.33 KHz channel spacing. Some of this is for operations in New York/Gander/Shanwick Oceanic airspace, some for operating within the UK or Europe.

A domestic aircraft is not likely to have the necessary equipment.


Didn’t think about that. The aircraft we’ve made the trip with have been restricted from ETOPS for maintenance reasons, but are otherwise capable.
When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
Unless it's expressly prohibited, it's allowed.
You are not entitled to a public safe space.
Ego Bibere Capulus, Ut Aliis Sit Vivere
 
User avatar
CARST
Posts: 1545
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:00 pm

Re: 767-300 (non-ER) Transatlantic

Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:38 am

Max Q wrote:
Slightly off subject,


A few years ago I was the Captain on a scheduled 764 flight from EWR-FCO


We had a serious mechanical issue that could not be resolved and there were no spare 767’s that night so they rescheduled a 757


No problem eastbound and we had a light load so we didn’t leave anyone behind


Of course the westbound crew we delivered the aircraft to in Rome were not too happy


They had to stop for fuel in SNN on the way home making for a long day


I wrote a note and left it on the yoke clip for them ‘not my idea ! ‘


At least you made them smile. ^^

And that stop shouldn't have added more than 90 minutes to the routing, right?
 
Dalmd88
Posts: 2878
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 3:19 am

Re: 767-300 (non-ER) Transatlantic

Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:52 pm

One point here, ER does not mean ETOPS. It means Extended Range. A 767-300 can be ETOPS, it just has less range than the ER model. Just like a 757-200 can be ETOPS.
 
slcguy
Posts: 315
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:09 pm

Re: 767-300 (non-ER) Transatlantic

Fri Apr 26, 2019 11:17 pm

Dalmd88 wrote:
One point here, ER does not mean ETOPS. It means Extended Range. A 767-300 can be ETOPS, it just has less range than the ER model. Just like a 757-200 can be ETOPS.


Yes that is correct. The reverse is true as well. An aircraft (-300, -300ER) even if built to ETOPS standards by Boeing goes to an operator that doesn't have an approved ETOPS program (maintenance, records etc.) it cannot be used for ETOPS operations.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 26 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