By By old gal.. 767-200 now all gone
May 9, 2014, 2:34 pm
#16
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Austin,TX (AUS)
Programs: AA, UA
Posts: 767
To me the 767 was a terrible fuselage diameter choice. Particularly for business class where most airlines would have 2-2-2 with a fuselage 2ft or so narrower than Airbus' equivalent. When I discussed it with a Boeing Fellow, he agreed that it was a bad fuselage diameter.
I will have no regret seeing them all gone.
I will have no regret seeing them all gone.
May 9, 2014, 3:00 pm
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: LFT
Programs: AA Plat, lots of AA, AS, DL, UA miles, former top level CO Elite (sigh...)
Posts: 10,795
And how time flies: I remember my first AA transcon in F roundtrip LAX-JFK. Airplane was a three class DC-10 which was eventually replaced with the B767-200......
Last edited by jlemon; May 9, 2014 at 4:09 pm Reason: wordsmithing....
May 9, 2014, 3:06 pm
#18
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,550
and in business the 1-2-2 layout on airlines I have used ( that AA used 2-2-2 doesn't mean that most did ) is nice. Even 2-2-2 is better than 2-3-2 that AA used in its 777s
May 9, 2014, 5:03 pm
#19
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SFO/OAK/SJC
Programs: AA LT PLT, 2.15 million miles; Priority Club PLT
Posts: 987
Back in the 90s, were there any other AA widebodies that also had a single "captain's chair" in First Class? I recall when I was new to flying (and frequent flying), I got upgraded a few times on AA52/53, ORD-GLA and sat in a single, middle seat covered in sheepskin. Was that a 762-200?? It would have been around 1995 or 1996.
May 9, 2014, 5:10 pm
#20
Join Date: Mar 2003
Programs: BA GGL; AA LT Gold; AS 100K; DL MM GM; Hyatt G*list, Hilton Diamond; SQ silver
Posts: 3,806
CO did 2-1-2 which was the only nice one in the US.
I also agree that 2-3-2 is terrible. But that's the reason the Airbus A300/310/330 and 340 fuselage have the perfect diameter. 2-2-2 with more space per seat than 767 on all airlines (with the exception on some EK aircraft where they had/have 2-3-2)
May 9, 2014, 5:57 pm
#21
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,550
DL did 2-2-2 UA did 2-2-2 AA did 2-2-2.
CO did 2-1-2 which was the only nice one in the US.
I also agree that 2-3-2 is terrible. But that's the reason the Airbus A300/310/330 and 340 fuselage have the perfect diameter. 2-2-2 with more space per seat than 767 on all airlines (with the exception on some EK aircraft where they had/have 2-3-2)
CO did 2-1-2 which was the only nice one in the US.
I also agree that 2-3-2 is terrible. But that's the reason the Airbus A300/310/330 and 340 fuselage have the perfect diameter. 2-2-2 with more space per seat than 767 on all airlines (with the exception on some EK aircraft where they had/have 2-3-2)
May 10, 2014, 12:01 am
#26
Join Date: Mar 2003
Programs: BA GGL; AA LT Gold; AS 100K; DL MM GM; Hyatt G*list, Hilton Diamond; SQ silver
Posts: 3,806
I agree with you, but I still disliked the 767 on any carrier. It felt like an A310 that had shrunk in the washer. Even when you had five abreast, the overheads were awful. The slight curvature of the fuselage in the first few rows and the stiffeners or other auxiliaries made for very bad overheads. It's like a schizophrenic airplane. Can't decide whether it is an overgrown narrow body or a shrunk wide body.
May 10, 2014, 12:08 am
#27
Join Date: Mar 2003
Programs: BA GGL; AA LT Gold; AS 100K; DL MM GM; Hyatt G*list, Hilton Diamond; SQ silver
Posts: 3,806
Comparing with http://www.qantas.com.au/infodetail/...63-25J204Y.pdf it looks like they have 4 aircraft with 1-2-2 and 9 with 2-2-2.
PS: Goes back the schizophrenia issue. Airlines wanted to give better premium seats but then thought 5 abreast was giving too much. Can't decide what kind of aircraft it was. Narrow body or wide body?
When I said a Boeing Fellow told me it was a bad fuselage diameter, I did not mean fellow as in bloke. I meant he was a main aerodynamics thinker at Boeing and had Fellow as his title.
Last edited by DeltaFlyingProf; May 10, 2014 at 12:16 am
May 10, 2014, 12:57 am
#28
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,550
Not all QF 767 are 1-2-2. They also have 2-2-2. See http://www.qantas.com.au/infodetail/...3-30J224Y2.pdf
Comparing with http://www.qantas.com.au/infodetail/...63-25J204Y.pdf it looks like they have 4 aircraft with 1-2-2 and 9 with 2-2-2.
Comparing with http://www.qantas.com.au/infodetail/...63-25J204Y.pdf it looks like they have 4 aircraft with 1-2-2 and 9 with 2-2-2.
May 10, 2014, 1:04 am
#29
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Los Gatos, CA
Programs: Hyatt Diamond, Marriott PLT, SPG PLT, AA EXP, Virgin Elevate
Posts: 293
May 10, 2014, 4:01 am
#30
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: JFK/LGA
Programs: AA EXP/5 MM, BA Blue Bayou, HH LT Diamond
Posts: 5,824
Back in the 90s, were there any other AA widebodies that also had a single "captain's chair" in First Class? I recall when I was new to flying (and frequent flying), I got upgraded a few times on AA52/53, ORD-GLA and sat in a single, middle seat covered in sheepskin. Was that a 762-200?? It would have been around 1995 or 1996.