Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Quoting Tavong (Reply 1): i think the A340s are way too big to be a true B767 replacement |
Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 5): There are many 767s that are well less than 10 years which means they could easily have a dozen or more years of service. New 767s are still being built. |
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 8): How does the 340's fuel burn compare with the 767? |
Quoting Plairbus (Thread starter): With some airlines ending the realtionship with the 340 i was thinking, is it possible that the 340 is going to be a replacement for 767 coustomers? Some 767 are very old so second hand 340 will be there, but i have no idea if you can compare... |
Quoting Zeke (Reply 10): Enough 767s are available on the market if people what 767s, hardly any or no A340s available for lease at the moment. |
Quoting AustrianZRH (Reply 2): However, many airlines have replaced their 767s with A330s |
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 9): Also, are you talking per seat of per kilometer or...? You have to make the calculation for a specific route with specific loads. |
Quoting Flighty (Reply 11): There are very few 763ERs on the market. |
Quoting Flighty (Reply 11): They each have a role. In terms of operation cost, any 767 is cheaper to fly than any A340. Therefore, if you can do the job with a 767, you will save money by doing it. However, the 767 carries fewer passengers and less cargo. |
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 13): Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 9): Also, are you talking per seat of per kilometer or...? You have to make the calculation for a specific route with specific loads. I think per-seat on 3000 mile plus routes is probably the most apt comparison. |
Quoting Max Q (Reply 16): Have to take issue with the statement '767 not really a long range aircraft' It is, by any standard. Likewise, I would put the A340, and equivalent, or longer range aircraft in the 'Ultra long haul category' |
Quoting Max Q (Reply 16): There was a time, not so long ago, that, New York - London was considered the limit ! |
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 15): If the 767 has enough capacity for you and you're looking at, say, transatlantic to the East Coast, then the 767 might well be the better choice. |
Quoting PlaneWasted (Reply 20): I wonder how (in)efficient the 767 is per seat basis. It only has one extra seat per row compared to large narrow bodies, but alot of extra fuselage. If you consider the amount of 767s sold, it can't be that bad. |