Tired 767s

[candoo]

Is it just me or are all the 767s getting a bit rough around the edges?

Who, apart from BA, still operates these dinosaurs?

[Maz11]

Lots of companies still use 76's. AA, Thomson, MyTravel, Monarch, First Choice to name but a few.

[PAXboy]

candoo Is it just me or are all the 767s getting a bit rough around the edges?No, it's just you. ;)

Whose 767s did you have in mind? Are they are a company that is in the process of refurbishing them and have not yet completed the fleet?

As I understand it, 767s are highly desirable and those that come up are happily repainted, refurbished and sent out to work.

The 767 first flew (it says here) in 1981 and is still in production.

[seacue]

Delta is equipping their 767-300ER fleet with blended winglets, a few at a time, so they must expect to keep them for a while.

A plane coming out of a major overhaul is generally pretty sparkling new inside and out. Might have been rather tatty going into the overhaul.

[Contacttower]

Who, apart from BA, still operates these dinosaurs?

Hardly dinosaurs, they are still very popular planes and form the backbone of many airline fleets. Companies still using the 737-200 or older I would consider to be using dinosaurs.

[Middle Seat]

American, Untied, USAirways, Continental, Delta, Air Canada. AeroMexico, Qantas, Air New Zealand, MaxJet, Silverjet, Aeroflot, LOT, Alitalia, all use 767s.

Properly maintained, a 767 (or a 737-200 for that matter) can remain in flying condition for quite a long time. From a pax perspective, a 767 beats a 757 every day in my book.

[Final 3 Greens]

Great pax aeroplane the 76'.

Will be remembered as the jet that made affordable transatlantic travel a reality for many people.

[WHBM]

The 767 is still being built. All Nippon, Japan Air Lines and LAN Chile have taken delivery of new ones in 2007.

As with all aircraft types it is entirely dependent on how well you keep them up. I remember that BA's final One-Elevens in 1992, after 25 years of service, were still in immaculate condition inside and out when they only had weeks left to go. A few years after this I went with Virgin Atlantic on one of their 747-400s, probably about 4 years old, and couldn't believe how tatty the cabin fittings had become on it.

Age has nothing to do with it.

I get the feeling that the original poster has been looking at the BA fleet. Interestingly it divides into two sub-fleets, European and Intercontinental, with different seating configurations. The Intercontinental ones were refitted ("dusked") in recent times and look fine. The European ones have not been touched for a good while, and show it.

[FlyerFoto]

Martinair?

http://paulcoulthread.fotopic.net/p43490602.html

http://paulcoulthread.fotopic.net/p43488850.html

http://paulcoulthread.fotopic.net/p42934938.html

Ethiopian - although that might just give the impression they are old planes!!

http://paulcoulthread.fotopic.net/p43892011.html

[Mr @ Spotty M]

Nice pics FlyerFoto, but why the first one, thread is about B767 and not A320.:p

[PAXboy]

Middle SeatFrom a pax perspective, a 767 beats a 757 every day in my book.I think you meant to say that from a carrier perspective it beats a 757 every day. :hmm:
For this pax the 767 is one I avoid. The 757 is pure magic from start to finish. :D

F3G
Great pax aeroplane the 76'. Will be remembered as the jet that made affordable transatlantic travel a reality for many people.Ah yes - by the way the carriers were able to squeeze the seats in and reduce the numbers of loos? The machine can lift a good load and take it long way at low cost, the later ER versions the more so. In the (scratch brain) four carriers with them that I can recall, I have just always found them to be large like barn, be it in Y or C. I cannot recall enjoying a trip in one. Longest trip was (scratch) four hours and I would certainly never take one long haul.

From the outside their ugliness is only topped by the Triple 7.

[blaggerman]

I'm a regular 767 passenger, I can't see why a 757 would be preferred over 767 for Y passengers. The 2-3-2 layout is much better than 3-3 because most passengers have an aisle or window seat. The gradual creep of 757s onto longer-haul flights is not good!

[drichard]

Sorry PAXboy, but both flights I've taken on 757's were more uncomforable that any I've taken on a 767 - and that despite the 757's having ~50% load factor and the 767's being almost standing room only.

Having said all that, I flew on an A330 recently, and was impressed with the comfort in cattle-class.

[WHBM]

I'm surprised at these comments here on PPRuNe. The comfort of an aircraft is little to do with the airframe type and everything to do with how the operator has set out the seats in terms of pitch and such like. The airframe just gives an airline an empty shell to play with.

There are some marginal issues, such as the A320 fuselage is 6" wider than the B737/757 fuselage, which gives just a fraction of extra room to everyone as you can only rig either of them up 6-across. Some operators don't even do this - Northwest for example puts the same seats in their A320 as in their B757, with just a wider aisle, in a triumph of spares holding costs over customer comfort.

[FlyerFoto]

oops! technical glitch there! :uhoh:

[Final 3 Greens]

The comfort of an aircraft is little to do with the airframe type and everything to do with how the operator has set out the seats in terms of pitch and such like

Good point WHBM.

Even the BA sub fleets on the 76 offer a completely different in experience in business class.

[Beer_n_Tabs]

UKIA have 767
I hear DHL maybe ordering some in cargo config, and I believe UPS still operate this type

[candoo]

OK - lots of good points, BA flew me to EWR on a particularly tired vessel, no complaints apart from airframe and age of.

Flew back on 777 not sure what I prefer, but that is being pedantic.

As a generic point I prefer Airbuses for their layout and familiarity, but that is just me!

[Pax Vobiscum]

Some of my best (or, at any rate, least worst) long-haul economy class flights have been in 767s. But that was with Air NZ, who don't seem to suffer from the "how many extra rows can we squeeze into this one?" mindset of some other carriers :ok:

[Mr @ Spotty M]

Sorry it is not just down to an operator fit, it is also down to airframe type.
The B767 has always had a 2x(3or4)x2 fit and it is the window seats which are the worst seats to sit in, unless you are in a 1st or business class cabin.
This is due to contour of the side wall trim panels and is a well know issue with anyone with good B767 knowledge.
I have flown on and worked on both B757 & B767 types since 1984 and enjoy flying on the B767 apart from said seats, in preference to the B757.:ok:

[apaddyinuk]

Candoo...

How long ago was this flight with BA??? The BA longhaul 767's have all recently undergone a major refurbishment and are now the only fleet with a working (dare I say it) AVOD IFE system with the 747's experiencing nothing but problems with it. The only problem with the BA 767's is the overhead locker space!!!!

Must admit, as someone who was hesitant to get licensed on the 767 it has slowly grown on me because of its smooth cruise, small neat cabins, built like a rock and small crewing levels making it rather easy to know your crew!!!!

And compare them to the BA 747's....now they look old and tatty!!!!

[drichard]

WHBM : The comfort of an aircraft is little to do with the airframe type and everything to do with how the operator has set out the seats in terms of pitch and such like

I think this is not entirely correct. Like many of those on here, I've travelled on many different aircraft, and I can definately say, that generally speaking, in my opinion as PAX, that the newer and larger the aircraft is, the more comfortable it tends to be (like for like - class, seat pitch etc).

This is from perception of space (such as headroom within the tube), smoothness of ride (more metal = smoother ride, compare a 757 and 747 for ride quality for example - this is why I'm looking forward to flying on the A380), and acoustically quieter (usually - although I still use noise-cancelling headphones).

I believe the tattiness of the interior has little to do with overall comfort (except where through use, the padding on the seat has squashed to paper thickness, leaving you feeling a little tender in the derriere after 5hrs), and any squeaks or rattles there may be. Having said that, when I get on a tired looking a/c, I subconsiously think about how much hard work the airframe and associated bits has done. Then I remember about maintenance schedules and the worries go away (except when the door won't close and a little man in a dayglo jacket has to come along with a toolbox and fix it whilst I sit there and wonder .........). Oddly enough, when I'm boarding an a/c, if it's clean outside - I tend to overlook tattiness more, I suppose it's just that first impression thing.

I agree that a good IFE helps occupy the mind and distracts you from some discomforts.

Blaggerman: I totally agree, seeing a 757 at the gate makes my heart sink.

(My longest on a 757 - 5.5 hrs, I couldn't stand the thought of crossing the pond in one, my longest on a 767, 11.5 hrs - LHR-LAX non-stop, not bad but totally sh*gged at the other end - another 5hrs onward on a MD-11 afterwards for good measure)

[MrSoft]

Drichard - I agree - with one exception. Whenever I am on the triple 7, it feels like a step back in time. Perhaps I was unlucky. Deafening, groaning engine start, and somewhat flimsy trim in economy. Try an Emirates 777 for a perfect example of this. Big Airbuses just get better and better for passenger comfort.

757 is exciting for short trips but like sitting on a seesaw, especially down the back. All 747's seem to look tired now but the trim is chunky and honest like an old Vlokswagen. I always enjoyed every flight I took on a 767 - smoothest cruise this side of an Il-86 in my opinion.

[smith]

flyglobespan have the 767 aswell

[Fargoo]

OK - lots of good points, BA flew me to EWR on a particularly tired vessel, no complaints apart from airframe and age of.

You're not too far off the mark, our longhaul 767's have been refreshed in what was known as the Dusk mod and now all have the AVOD system for IFE but the basic airframe and major interior decor is still well used and showing it in places.
Exterior wise they are cleaned a lot more often now but with the high use they get they can get grubby quite quickly. Interiors are a lot better too now but minor trim parts can be tricky to get hold of and on a long flight a bit of loose trim or a badly worn carpet can give the impression the whole aircraft is tired.
They are great to look after though and I can assure you that they are safe and well maintained, only the AVOD gives us real headaches but it is getting better.

[AUTOGLIDE]

Personally I've grown to hate the B767. I spent 10 years maintaining them and at that point had respect for them and the general solidity. Since I started to fly a lot on them I've come to associate it with constant flight cancellations and delays due to tech issues. Have now even started using airlines specifically because they don't fly them, or at least not on my route. This does of course beg the question of whether the issue is design or maintenance...

[TheProf]

First post on PPRUNE after many years as a lurker. In the past 3 months I've flown on 763s (admittedly in J class) on QF, NZ, LA & BA. They are great aircraft and, IMHO, much preferable to the 777 (but aren't most things?). Much depends on the carrier. LA's new and refurbished 763s are superb.

[Alex 009]

"LA's new and refurbished 763s are superb."

As is the newly refurbished QF 767-338. Has a very pleasant flight onboard and now want to see what the BA ones are now like

[amf1966]

Surely, all of this depneds on the airline, how well the fixtures and fittings are maintained, how well the airplane is maintained, what config it's in....................

This plane (whatever variant) is not "old"....I've flown on these and they are fine - but then again, it was a "scheduled" airline, not a "we're really cheap and we'll treat you like sh1t airline".

Chist, there are still 747s out there built in the early 70s, nothing wrong with them, if they've been maintained properly!

I don't think, as I believe you're suggesting, that the B767 deteriorates any faster than any other aircraft - but perhaps the engineering fraternity should comment here.....

[keltic]

Air Europa is another operator. Have to be in one of them soon.

[st7860]

air canada is spending millions of dollars refurbrishing their 763s with 777 style interiors.



http://www.contrailsphotography.com/trip5.html

[ERASER]

CANDOO

If you want to see dinosaurs, visit Africa........aviation enthusiast heaven…….

Here in Africa a lot of airlines still fly B767s, the backbone a/c of their operations. Its just a nice aircraft and the flight performance……..even in Johannesburg with the “hot and high” conditions I love to watch the B767 operators climbing out of Johannesburg like “home sick angels”.

E

[roll_over]

Flew on WO and WC to Ghana with BA. One of the nicest club cabins I think bar top deck. It was small with few seats with the only other difference being a more modern looking cabin ala 777. Didn't sound or feel any different. I've heard the euro fleet are pretty bad though, arm rests falling off etc..

Pilot didn't seem to like the cockpit much though, he was out of there quite a bit. :}