Having just been on the MUC run on the old 767, I must say that these planes just plain suck compared to the Virgin A340 and 747's.

What is their timetable (or is there one?) to replace all of the long haul's to the 330's?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by rrz518:
Having just been on the MUC run on the old 767, I must say that these planes just plain suck compared to the Virgin A340 and 747's.</font>

Then fly a Virgin A340 or 747 to MUC ... oh wait, you can't ... that's like saying the 737 flying between CLT and GSO sucks compared to the A330 ... it's a meaningless argument since there A330 would probably never operate on that route, just like you'll never see a Virgin A340 or 747 flying PHL-MUC (even with a stop a London).

In a revised order with Airbus, they agreed to take more 330's, but the deliveries are pushed out several years. I recall 2005 or '06. In any case, not very soon. The 767 is a workhorse, but these are fairly old (the plane has been built for nearly 20 years). They have never been suited to 6 across premium seating, due to fuselage width. In fact, Piedmont originally configured them 2-1-2. You may have noticed from other threads that lately there has been some discussion about the condition of cabins in general, regardless of fleet type.
The 767's would probably fall in that category.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Beckles:
Then fly a Virgin A340 or 747 to MUC ... oh wait, you can't ... that's like saying the 737 flying between CLT and GSO sucks compared to the A330 ... it's a meaningless argument since there A330 would probably never operate on that route, just like you'll never see a Virgin A340 or 747 flying PHL-MUC (even with a stop a London).</font>

You know, just answering the question (as the next poster did) would be a lot more appropriate than your rant.... Thanks for the very unhelpful response!!!

Actually, the cabins were clean, but the 80's style projection TV system, limited entertainment, etc, just was so mediocre, it was a real letdown compared to the Virgin equipment. No powerport for the laptop either.

So, simply put, the plane sucked, comparatively that is. Service was good though, departures/arrivals in order, etc.

So if they are not going to upgrade that old plane, or put a new one on the route, given a choice, I would use another carrier with newer equipment, especially on the 9 hour daytime return.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by rrz518:
You know, just answering the question (as the next poster did) would be a lot more appropriate than your rant.... Thanks for the very unhelpful response!!!</font>

The information deelmakur provided is correct, however, just because US takes more A330's does not mean that they will fly to MUC with them or get rid of the 767's ... if US had only A330's I would expect that MUC wouldn't even be served, especially with the new LH partnership, US would probably leave MUC to them.

There have been rumors of US consolidating their Transatlantic fleet on a single type, but if they go with the A330, the problem becomes that they may not be able to serve all of the current 767 destinations profitably with the larger A330.

I don't know what DL, UA, and AA fly to MUC (I believe they all serve MUC), but I believe it is a similar situation to US ... it's their second-rate international equipment and not 777's and/or 747's (probably 767's, just like US, in all three cases).

I still think your original argument was ridiculous comparing the US product in that market to a product that does not serve that market. Some markets just can not support the larger more "premium" aircraft, like I pointed out, US is not the only carrier doing that to MUC. The choice for US is probably not A330 or B767, but B767 or no service. (although MUC is a somewhat unique situation among the B767 only destinations because of the new LH partnership, that could push thing either way for US' needs on that one route, but I'd lean towards US letting LH serve it and focusing on FRA for connecting people to LH).

What "inital argument"?

I said the plane "sucked", and I stand by that. I asked when it was going to be replaced. That has nothing to do with a domestic flight from CHARLOTTE. This is an international, 8 or 9 hour flight with an antique entertainment system.

It is your response that is "ridiculous", not my statement or question.

Plus, if it means taking a Lufthansa plane, (and in better condition, better IFE, etc.) so much the better! That US product is an embarassment not only to the carrier, but the USA, since it flies our flag.

Auf Wiedersehen.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by rrz518:
Plus, if it means taking a Lufthansa plane, (and in better condition, better IFE, etc.) so much the better! That US product is an embarassment not only to the carrier, but the USA, since it flies our flag.</font>

You would probably consider DL's product an embarassment too ... 767's similar to US' ...

Most certainly NOT their 767-400's.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by rrz518:
Most certainly NOT their 767-400's.</font>

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/confused.gif

The 767-400 is generally considered the worst plane in DL's entire fleet, the FC section is a joke and it is a domestic only (including Hawaii) plane. I was referring to DL's 767-300's with BizElite that are used Transatlantic, they are very similar in terms of amenities to US' 767-200's, the one advantage of DL's planes might be inseat power in BizElite (I think they might have it, don't recall, I haven't been on one in so long), but not in coach.

I think the future US deliveries of A330 will be the -200 variant, which is somewhat smaller than thte -300 variant in use, and is much closer in size to the existing 767 fleet. With any luck, they will be used as a one for one replacement.

Let's try to keep this thread civil, folks.

------------------
Don't feed the trolls.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ClueByFour:
I think the future US deliveries of A330 will be the -200 variant, which is somewhat smaller than thte -300 variant in use, and is much closer in size to the existing 767 fleet. With any luck, they will be used as a one for one replacement.

Let's try to keep this thread civil, folks.

</font>

Yeah, they will be A330-200s, many of which are scheduled not only for Europe but also very popular seasonal Caribbean service; San Juan, Nassau, and Bermuda. If I recall correctly, they are only "slightly" smaller than the 330-300, but have a longer range.

UA flies a CLEAN 767 on IAD-MUC. I would guess that UA's 767s are newer, but they also clean the cabins and update the seats. I don't really care if I am on a UA 767 or 777. The C seats on the 767 are a bit narrower -- that's the only drawback.

SAS's 767s are history by the end of this month and they are from 1989-90. However, they were also quite clean and provided a pleasant experience.

I spoke to the manager of cabin services at corporate (or some variant of that title) about a year ago when they were going through these issues. Refurbishing the 767-200 cabins to match the amenities, services and comfort of the A330 WAS a topic discussed among upper management. If that were to happen, then there wouldn't be a lot to complain about except that the coach seat pitch would probably still be less on the 767 vs. 330.

But, if they can squeeze a few more years out of the 767 before the new A330's come online, then maybe they are on their way out and we won't see any refurbishment.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ClueByFour:
I think the future US deliveries of A330 will be the -200 variant, which is somewhat smaller than thte -300 variant in use, and is much closer in size to the existing 767 fleet. With any luck, they will be used as a one for one replacement.

Let's try to keep this thread civil, folks.

</font>

The A330-200, while smaller than the A330-300, is still significantly larger than the current B767-200's US uses on the thinner European routes.

Note that the A330-200 is also a pig of a plane size-wise for its number of seats, meaning that it may be challenging to use it for more popular Caribbean destinations (note this was one of the biggest factors, according to the Air Force, why the A330-200 was not selected as a tanker aircraft, it takes up roughly 30% more real estate when on the ground compared to a B767).

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by gnaget:
UA flies a CLEAN 767 on IAD-MUC. </font>

The amenities are still pretty much the same as on US and DL 767's in coach though (no power, big screen IFE) ... meaning that they too would be a disgrace to the USA I guess ...

I have flown UA's 767-300's and they have a personal entertainment screen as well as laptop power ports in C and F.
http://www.seatguru.com/united/B763I.shtml

Nice planes, but not as nice as the A330.


But I do take issue with the assertion that somehow USAirways or any of the airlines represent the United States. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif USAirways does not even fly to 1/3 of the states in the Union.


<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Beckles:
The amenities are still pretty much the same as on US and DL 767's in coach though (no power, big screen IFE) ... meaning that they too would be a disgrace to the USA I guess ...</font>

Having flown the C class cabin on both the US Airways 767-200 and the DL 767-300 I have to say there is NO comparison. DL's BizElite's seats, IFE, and the newer feel of the cabin blow the US's 767-200 worn and tired Envoy cabin out of the water. I like the DL 767-300 BizElite as much as US's A-330 C cabin.

Neo, USAirways has "Flag Carrier" status, as does, for example, Continental, who are bigger in the International market, but don't fly to as many States as you might think, either. In fact, USAirways is the major carrier in the most heavily populated part of the country. Every time I see one of those USAir planes in a foreign airport, I think to myself how smart they look in what has to be one of the best looking liveries in the business. It sort of stands in stark contrast to all the useless decisions various managements have made, which has brought them to the brink of extinction.

Yes, they have a very limited presence in much of the country to be sure. HOWEVER...their name is USAirways (USA is sort of prominent in the name don't ya think). They have a patriotic livery. They are from the USA, etc.

Having said that, their (older)product reminds me of Amtrak's....BTW, I consider Amtrak a huge embarrasment to the USA as well. Compare Amtrak's product (old, lumbering, quaint) with that of the DB or the like. Even the notorious FS Italian railways puts them to shame.

Kind of like those old 767's that are so proudly flown overseas? So, YES, they are a national embarrasment, and shame on you for sticking your head in the sand and defending them against other superior products.

WOW...sounds like rz has a lot of issues. Although the 767 is not as nice as the 330, there are many carriers for him to chose that will offer something he might like. Another alternative to Amtrak is the highway..Happy travels.

[This message has been edited by USFLYER1 (edited November 11, 2003).]

NOT!!! I just said that compared to the A340 and 747, the US 767 was lame, particularly in regards to the IFE. (I think the newer part of their fleet is fine). I also said that the cabin was pretty clean and the service was good. I asked when I might expect to see this type of route replaced with newer better equipment.

How does that interpret to me having a lot of issues?

Danke Schoen.

Will the #7 Airline still have flag carrier status when it is a feeder for UA?

I don't draw upon airline marketing livery as a source of national pride or as a symbol of the US. Maybe Airforce One, but not US 14.

Don't get me wrong, I like USAirways livery as much or more than any other airline. I just don't see how a ratty 767 should be a source of national shame.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by deelmakur:
Neo, USAirways has "Flag Carrier" status, as does, for example, Continental, who are bigger in the International market, but don't fly to as many States as you might think, either. In fact, USAirways is the major carrier in the most heavily populated part of the country. Every time I see one of those USAir planes in a foreign airport, I think to myself how smart they look in what has to be one of the best looking liveries in the business. It sort of stands in stark contrast to all the useless decisions various managements have made, which has brought them to the brink of extinction.</font>

rrz, i'd love your opinion of NW's circa 1975 DC10's that are still chugging along just fine to AMS,LGW and CDG (trans pac too@)... but i think you've made your point on the US 767's... just don't fly 'em anymore and everyone will live happily ever after.

I can't help but think this horse must be dead by now! Can we agree to disagree and move along?!

Neo, I'm with you on the dirty planes, and all I said was they have a nice paint job. I don't want to salute them. As for "Flag Status", they even gave it to Frontier on Tuesday.

By my count, US (incl. Express) flies to at least 30 states...well above the 1/3 of 50 (which is about 17) that was previously mentioned...

N674UW

Well, my thoughts regarding the DC-10's is exactly the same; EXCEPT:

- They, as well as the 747-200's, are being phased out, and as the topic of the thread indicates, and replaced.

- There is no mention of the "USA" in NWA's name.

As the topic header indicates, I was simply wondering when these old things will go away, or, be upgraded to match the rest of their fleet.


And,yes this is a national pride issue. The worlds premiere military and economic power offers this product while other national carriers coming into our airspace are flying much more impressive equipment?

Trivia. Northwest was known for years (post WW2) as Northwest Orient, highlighting their presence as one of two US carriers authorized to fly to the Far East. They have recently become only the second US carrier to fly the A330. Unfortunately, they have never had very interesting paint schemes, and have managed to continue that phenomonon with their latest, which has the unfortunate coincidence of looking like an ad for the rap group of the same name (**** with Attitude). Oh well, at least they're hip.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by N674UW:
By my count, US (incl. Express) flies to at least 30 states...well above the 1/3 of 50 (which is about 17) that was previously mentioned...

N674UW</font>

Picky, but, it was said US does NOT even fly to 1/3 of the states. That IS true. It flies to almost 2/3 of the rest.