# Passenger Love United 767s



## Swadian Hardcore (May 14, 2015)

United's venerable Boeing 767s score second-place on aircraft reviews by passengers: http://www.thestreet.com/story/13149550/1/united-passengers-rank-boeing-767-as-2nd-best-widebody-after-787.html?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO. 

The 767s were only beaten by the new 787s. In Economy, I would even take a 767 over a 787 due to the awesome 2-3-2 configuration. Airplane fans say the 767-300ER is more enjoyable to fly on than the 767-400ER due to the former having more lavatories.

United 767s primarily fly intercontinental routes to South America and Europe. Some fly to Pacific islands as well.


----------



## Amore (May 14, 2015)

_Passenger Love United_ 767? Does this have something to with the Mile High Club? :giggle:


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (May 14, 2015)

Denver, Colorado? Jeez!


----------



## AmtrakBlue (May 14, 2015)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Denver, Colorado? Jeez!


Huh, no.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (May 14, 2015)

Well, Denver is the Mile High City, isn't it? And it's a United hub, isn't it?


----------



## AmtrakBlue (May 14, 2015)

And the Mile High Club has nothing to do with Denver.


----------



## Ryan (May 14, 2015)

Mile High Club


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (May 14, 2015)

I already knew what it was. I didn't have to Google it, I was messing with you guys. :giggle:


----------



## xyzzy (May 15, 2015)

2-3-2 does work well, the lowest percentage of middle seats of any airliner with a range of 1500+ miles. I flew a 767 across the pond yesterday,

Alas, although cabins can be updated with the latest IFE etc, the 767-300 is in the latter half of its life-cycle and there won't be another 2-3-2 airliner. Relative to new aircraft the 767 is a fuel hog. What's saving the 767 in the near-term is the drop in fuel cost and (in the case of DL) the delay in getting A330neos and A350s as replacements. Last month UA changed some 787 orders to 777s (bargain pricing from Boeing, people say) and AA deferred some 787 deliveries. I doubt AA will retire the 767 entirely until 2023 when their "newest" 767 will be 20 years old.


----------



## Palmetto (May 15, 2015)

The saying went like this when they first came out: never more than one seat from an aisle.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 15, 2015)

Although I have flown the 767-300 and 767-400 those flights occurred well after fleet introduction and never really registered much of a reaction from me as a passenger. It wasn't as nimble as a 757 or as large as a 777 or as iconic as a 747. At first glance the 767 seemed a rather bland design with very little in the way of unique characteristics. Below the surface the 767 did have new designs and technology but it always felt rather dull to me. It's rather interesting that a vanilla aircraft like the 767 would be replaced by such a radical redesign as the 787. Over time I've come to enjoy the 787 more as I've become better acquainted with it. On the other hand the 787-800 has caused me more delays than either variant of the 767.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (May 16, 2015)

I love seeing old airline commercials. I wish airlines would still make commercials like this. As for the 767 being a fuel hog, I doubt it's that bad. The 767 was designed for fuel efficiency and, sure it's not as efficient as a 787, but with winglets, I'd expect it to beat the A340 and 747 on CASM, or almost as good as the current A330.


----------



## railiner (May 17, 2015)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Although I have flown the 767-300 and 767-400 those flights occurred well after fleet introduction and never really registered much of a reaction from me as a passenger. It wasn't as nimble as a 757 or as large as a 777 or as iconic as a 747. At first glance the 767 seemed a rather bland design with very little in the way of unique characteristics. Below the surface the 767 did have new designs and technology but it always felt rather dull to me. It's rather interesting that a vanilla aircraft like the 767 would be replaced by such a radical redesign as the 787. Over time I've come to enjoy the 787 more as I've become better acquainted with it. On the other hand the 787-800 has caused me more delays than either variant of the 767.


I remember that ad. very well...."...If you had a favorite airplane, this one's going to take its place".... Brilliant. And (at the time), true....


----------



## xyzzy (May 17, 2015)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> As for the 767 being a fuel hog, I doubt it's that bad. The 767 was designed for fuel efficiency and, sure it's not as efficient as a 787, but with winglets, I'd expect it to beat the A340 and 747 on CASM, or almost as good as the current A330.


All aircraft are designed for fuel efficiency -- in the decade in which they were designed. In the case of the 767, the fundamentals of the design are approaching 40 years old. Winglets go only so far; the wing is still the wing, and the engines are still the engines. Comparing the 767 to the A340 and 74x isn't the point. The comparison is against the 787, A330neo, and the A350 in the case of 764s. If oil were back at USD 120/barrel or more, airlines would be clamoring for 787s and A330neos as fast as Boeing and Airbus could get them off the line. 15% fuel difference doesn't sound like much but it adds up.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (May 17, 2015)

You missed my point. I just said it was not as efficient as the 787. Comparing brand-new designs to a 1980s design isn't fair. I'm just saying that the 767 isn't a "fuel hog" like you said it was. Also, a 20-year service life isn't anything out of the ordinary for an airliner. AA has some relatively new 767-300ERs. DL still has 1989 747s.


----------



## xyzzy (May 17, 2015)

So the 767 is more fuel-efficient than its design contemporaries.. who cares? No airline is considering replacing a 767 with an A310. What I said was "*Relative to new aircraft* the 767 is a fuel hog" (boldface added). You're the one who acts like the opening phrase isn't there. The airlines evaluate what they have against what's coming available on the market. 

Yes I know AA has 763s (nine, actually) delivered in 2003. I'm on them from time to time. Some of the active AA 763s were delivered as far back as 1988, but those will be gone soon; they're not being retrofitted with the new C cabin or repainted. And even for the aircraft delivered in 2003, it's still a late 1970s design. 

20 years is not long. I've been on DC-9s that were over 40. However, AA has been quick to purge aircraft less than 20 years that were no longer the right aircraft. All 74 of the surviving AA Fokker 100s were pulled at ages less than 20, and some of their AB6's didn't make it to 20, either.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (May 17, 2015)

I thought AA liked to keep old planes like the 757s and MD-82/83s. But I guess it all has to do with the cycles and hours. I still think the 767 isn't a "fuel hog" relative to new aircraft, but whatever. Let's just drop it.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 18, 2015)

xyzzy said:


> All aircraft are designed for fuel efficiency -- in the decade in which they were designed.


If fuel efficiency was a serious concern it's unlikely we would have gone down the route of replacing nearly every refined propeller aircraft with far less efficient jet aircraft. Early jet aircraft such as the 707 and the Concorde were so incredibly wasteful they appeared to mock the very idea of fuel efficiency. To this day I cannot think of a single military aircraft in the US arsenal that has taken fuel efficiency seriously. The 767 was designed to be moderately fuel efficient at introduction but the sister 757 was moderately overpowered compared to actual operational needs. Neither were anywhere near as efficient as the 747 which retained the mantel of lowest per seat fuel cost for multiple decades after introduction.


----------



## railiner (May 18, 2015)

Devil's Advocate said:


> xyzzy said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


That is why the "hot-rod" 757 is still the aircraft of choice, when flying in and out of mountain fields like Eagle, Hayden, Gunnison, and other ski resorts in the Rockies...


----------



## jis (May 18, 2015)

The 757s still soldier on mainly because there has not been a true replacement aircraft that can handle all the missions that the 757s can. They certainly are serious gas guzzlers compared some of the wimpier aircrafts that have come since.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (May 18, 2015)

I think Airbus' new A321LR will be able to finally replace the 757. It would also be a good replacement for the low-end 767 routes that the 787 would be too big for.


----------



## twa904 (May 21, 2015)

Any of the engine manufacturers (P&W, GE, RR or CFM Int'l) could produce newer engines for the 767's. Wasn't it CFM that came out with new engines for the 707 and DC8. Remember the DC-8-70

series. The -70 was the new engine. Remember to, the Air Force today still has over 400 KC-135's

(the military version of the 707) still flying and the youngest is probably 50 years old and they still will be flying for another 10 to 12 years or more.

You can tell from my user name who I think the best airline was. It a shame they aren't still around and the 747 is my favorite plane.


----------



## Bob Dylan (May 21, 2015)

Yep, Boeing and Douglas ( DC-3) really knew how to make planes that will fly forever!

My fave is still the 747 also, haven't seen anything like it since the glory days, but all of the Widebodies are good rides compared to the Regional jets, ie puddle jumpers!


----------



## rickycourtney (May 21, 2015)

After years of being stuck on turboprop planes I was thrilled that most carriers switched over to regional jets.

Plus, on an RJ you're never stuck in a middle seat!


----------



## jis (May 22, 2015)

jimhudson said:


> Yep, Boeing and Douglas ( DC-3) really knew how to make planes that will fly forever!
> 
> My fave is still the 747 also, haven't seen anything like it since the glory days, but all of the Widebodies are good rides compared to the Regional jets, ie puddle jumpers!


I think that the 747 is still the best looking plane, after the 707 of course  At least I somehow can never get over the 707. May have something to do with y first flight and all that. The 757 looks like a fierce charger, and is my favorite for an out of this world take off experience.

I have come to like the 777 and the 787. From the inside there is nothing like the A380. But from outside it is not that pretty .... Just me personal opinion. From the outside the A340 is pretty, almost like a larger 707, but its sloped floor in the tail section makes it less attractive than the 707 in my eyes. There is also something to be said about a new generation 737 with the scimitar winglets.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 22, 2015)

Personally I think the B747 is interesting and iconic but still kind of ugly. The A380 is even uglier and stubbier, but the interior experience is vastly improved over every 747 I've flown (200, 300, & 400). Early 737's through the 700 series are also pretty ugly but the 800 and 900 variants have much more attractive proportions. The DC-10 and L-1011 are kind of in the middle between pretty and ugly but also benefit from having a lot of unique character. I feel the same way about the 727 and DC-9/MD-80/717. I think the nose of the 757 is ugly but the 767 looks good to me, especially the 400 series. The 777-200 is a bit too stubby as well but the 300 is a well proportioned and nice looking aircraft. A bit too noisy on the inside though. The 787-8 and -9 look nice but the future 10 is likely to be the best proportioned. Personally, assuming money and conscience were no object, I'd own a VIP version of the A340-600. To me the A340-600 is the most attractive commercial aircraft ever manufactured.


----------



## jis (May 22, 2015)

I agree with the comments about proportion. As I said I think the A340 in general is an attractive plane, and yes the -600 is the best of them. Notice that for most models the stretch version has better proportions. I think that is true of the 747-8 too. But OTOH, I think Douglas carried it a bit too far with the final stretches of the DC-8. It sort of started looking more like a Dachshund!


----------



## railiner (May 22, 2015)

I like the A-340-600 because it reminds me of the Super DC-8-61 and 63......

I like the extra long fuselage with the relatively small tail. It almost looks like a train. especially if you happened to drive on I-70 tunneling beneath the old Denver Stapleton runway 35L/17R and its taxiway. Back when UAL had its older "cheat line" paint scheme's....


----------



## xyzzy (May 24, 2015)

Devil's Advocate said:


> If fuel efficiency was a serious concern it's unlikely we would have gone down the route of replacing nearly every refined propeller aircraft with far less efficient jet aircraft.


Yes, but many passengers had a visceral (if irrational) dislike of the ATRs, Saabs, EMB 110/120s, etc that were so common in the 1990s. The lower speed and climb rate of the turboprops didn't matter much on routes of 175 miles or less, but the airlines were determined to get rid of them regardless -- even though the ATR72 had more capacity that most of the aircraft that replaced it. When fuel became more expensive, the 35-seat and 40-seat ERJs were the first commuter jets to be grounded. Over time the commuter jets got larger and costs began to balance out.


----------



## xyzzy (May 24, 2015)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> I think Airbus' new A321LR will be able to finally replace the 757. It would also be a good replacement for the low-end 767 routes that the 787 would be too big for.


Some call it the A321neoLR and it won't fly until 2019 at the earliest, but yes it will be able to replace the 757 when used for long range. Don't know enough about it to say whether it can replace the 757 on runway-limited hot and high airports, however, and cargo 757s will be flying for a long long time. The A321neo is certainly not the answer for hot and high.

That said, the A321neoLR still won't have the range of the 767. The gap remains 4500-5500 nm range with seat capacity around 175, but the 757 could not do that either.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (May 24, 2015)

That gap could only have been filled with the 767-200ER, but I think the 787-8 will suffice for now.


----------



## twa904 (May 25, 2015)

http://www.whitehousemuseum.org/special/AF1/index.htm

Select Home then Air Force One, go all the way to the bottom. Seems in 2017 there will be a new Air Force One and it will be either a 747-8 or a 787.


----------



## Ryan (May 25, 2015)

Definitely 747:

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/562748/af-identifies-boeing-747-8-platform-for-next-air-force-one.aspx


----------



## jis (May 25, 2015)

It will be two 747-8s duly modified of course.


----------



## Ryan (May 25, 2015)

Stock 747-8's don't come off of the production line with in-flight refueling capability and anti-missile countermeasures?


----------



## Bob Dylan (May 25, 2015)

Ryan said:


> Stock 747-8's don't come off of the production line with in-flight refueling capability and anti-missile countermeasures?


Nor an escape pod like in the Movie of that name! 
Of course Harrison Ford also flew Air Force One, I don't think.any of the current candidates ( the usual suspects) can fly Heavy Jets! LOL

( John Travolta could, he's type rated on the 747 and several other jets!)


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (May 25, 2015)

D-ABYT does look amazing, though: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Lufthansa/Boeing-747-830/2646081/L/.


----------

