Tired 767s
Paxing All Over The World
candoo
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.
Is it just me or are all the 767s getting a bit rough around the edges?
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.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: 39N 77W
Posts: 1,630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who, apart from BA, still operates these dinosaurs?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Norwich, UK
Age: 71
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by FlyerFoto; 12th Sep 2007 at 11:23. Reason: because I am an idiot!!!
Paxing All Over The World
Middle Seat
I think you meant to say that from a carrier perspective it beats a 757 every day. 
For this pax the 767 is one I avoid. The 757 is pure magic from start to finish.
F3G
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.
From a pax perspective, a 767 beats a 757 every day in my book.
For this pax the 767 is one I avoid. The 757 is pure magic from start to finish.
F3G
Great pax aeroplane the 76'. Will be remembered as the jet that made affordable transatlantic travel a reality for many people.
From the outside their ugliness is only topped by the Triple 7.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Belt 7
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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.
Having said all that, I flew on an A330 recently, and was impressed with the comfort in cattle-class.
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
Good point WHBM.
Even the BA sub fleets on the 76 offer a completely different in experience in business class.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Hendon
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EGGW
Posts: 2,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.