Farewell 767s. Thanks for the memories
Jul 21, 2018, 2:51 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: South Glos, UK
Programs: BAEC Silver/OW Sapphire
Posts: 1,158
Farewell 767s. Thanks for the memories
I’m sure I am not the only one saddened by the passing of G-BNWA and the impending demise her 6 sisters.
I for one always sought out these lovely old girls when the alternative was a boring single aisle.
Row 27 was always the row of choice, but failing that, the leather seats up to row 18 never disappointed.
With the slow withdrawal of the 747s as well, flying just seems to be losing its zing.
Give me these noisy, rattling old rust buckets any day over the boring modern flying tubes.
I for one always sought out these lovely old girls when the alternative was a boring single aisle.
Row 27 was always the row of choice, but failing that, the leather seats up to row 18 never disappointed.
With the slow withdrawal of the 747s as well, flying just seems to be losing its zing.
Give me these noisy, rattling old rust buckets any day over the boring modern flying tubes.
Jul 21, 2018, 3:48 pm
#5
Join Date: Jul 2014
Programs: BAEC, Flying Blue, Eurobonus
Posts: 180
I know exactly what you mean. I had a Yak 40 from Tashkent to Samarkand. It looked a bit aged but I thought it looked OK, three turbofan engines at the rear, so I thought this won't take long.
We were on the runway for seemingly ages, eventually became aware we had actually lifted off rather than felt it, we climbed ever so slowly for a long time. There was no feeling of being pushed back in your seat for sure. So a little over 1 hour later we safely landed at Samarkand and I thought it was much further than I thought.
Three days later, flew back to Tashkent on an Antonov 24 turboprop and I thought this might take a while longer. 45 minutes later we were there.... I was confused why the Yak 40 took so long.
So I spoke to a colleague who lived in Tashkent about this anomaly. The reply was that it was likely that only one of the three engines was used on the Yak 40 either due to spare parts shortage or fuel saving. While I find this a little hard to believe I can't deny that 1 hour and 5 minutes for a 160 mile flight was a long time for a short distance, so who knows - maybe he was bang on correct.
We were on the runway for seemingly ages, eventually became aware we had actually lifted off rather than felt it, we climbed ever so slowly for a long time. There was no feeling of being pushed back in your seat for sure. So a little over 1 hour later we safely landed at Samarkand and I thought it was much further than I thought.
Three days later, flew back to Tashkent on an Antonov 24 turboprop and I thought this might take a while longer. 45 minutes later we were there.... I was confused why the Yak 40 took so long.
So I spoke to a colleague who lived in Tashkent about this anomaly. The reply was that it was likely that only one of the three engines was used on the Yak 40 either due to spare parts shortage or fuel saving. While I find this a little hard to believe I can't deny that 1 hour and 5 minutes for a 160 mile flight was a long time for a short distance, so who knows - maybe he was bang on correct.
Jul 22, 2018, 2:08 am
#7
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: London
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 2,221
Of late, I've been flying these every two weeks on BA902 to FRA. I love the fact that boarding is through door 2 and you turn left to get to CE. A far more pleasant experience than seeing people piling into an A321.
Jul 22, 2018, 2:12 am
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SE1, London
Posts: 23,444
Having done a lot of IST on these things, happy to see them go. Unreliable, the risk of a disco, flooding loos, a landing that feels more like a collision with the runway and the poorest CE seating arrangement of the LHR short haul fleet. It’s only the most recent iteration of CE seats on the Airbus that has made the 767 looking vaguely appealing.
Jul 22, 2018, 3:33 am
#9
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Programs: IC Hotels Spire, BA Gold
Posts: 8,669
I love the 767s on the SH network - such a feeling of space compared to the A32X series.
BA tried to offload some of the 767 fleet 10-15 years ago in conjunction with BAE Systems as they were bid for the future RAF airborne refuelling fleet (the contract went to Airbus and the A330). BAE at Filton would have done the refurb and conversion work, following on from the conversion they did of the former BA VC10 fleet to RAF tankers in the 1980s and 90s.
There were also attempts after 9/11 to sell part of the fleet to other operators but BA's 767s had one huge disadvantage when it comes to finding another home. Apart from 3 767s for China, the 30 or so BA frames are the only ones ever ordered with RR engines, all others were PW or GE powered. This virtually eliminated the second-hand market for them and in the end, some of the fleet were leased to QF for domestic operations. The RR power also meant BA could not retrofit the winglets that became available some years ago which apparently offers a reasonable fuel efficiency improvement over non-winglet frames.
Sad to see them all eventually go
BA tried to offload some of the 767 fleet 10-15 years ago in conjunction with BAE Systems as they were bid for the future RAF airborne refuelling fleet (the contract went to Airbus and the A330). BAE at Filton would have done the refurb and conversion work, following on from the conversion they did of the former BA VC10 fleet to RAF tankers in the 1980s and 90s.
There were also attempts after 9/11 to sell part of the fleet to other operators but BA's 767s had one huge disadvantage when it comes to finding another home. Apart from 3 767s for China, the 30 or so BA frames are the only ones ever ordered with RR engines, all others were PW or GE powered. This virtually eliminated the second-hand market for them and in the end, some of the fleet were leased to QF for domestic operations. The RR power also meant BA could not retrofit the winglets that became available some years ago which apparently offers a reasonable fuel efficiency improvement over non-winglet frames.
Sad to see them all eventually go
Jul 22, 2018, 5:21 am
#10
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2008
Programs: AA EXP/LTP, BA GGL/CCR/GfL, HH D/LTD, SPG/MR Plat/LTP
Posts: 10,076
Also, all CC serving Club are usually fond of these old birds, their working space in the galley is by far larger than other SH aircraft.
Jul 22, 2018, 5:22 am
#11
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 220
BA tried to offload some of the 767 fleet 10-15 years ago in conjunction with BAE Systems as they were bid for the future RAF airborne refuelling fleet (the contract went to Airbus and the A330). BAE at Filton would have done the refurb and conversion work, following on from the conversion they did of the former BA VC10 fleet to RAF tankers in the 1980s and 90s.
Last edited by Prospero; Jul 24, 2018 at 5:12 pm Reason: Repair quotation frame
Jul 22, 2018, 5:48 am
#12
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Programs: IC Hotels Spire, BA Gold
Posts: 8,669
BA tried to offload some of the 767 fleet 10-15 years ago in conjunction with BAE Systems as they were bid for the future RAF airborne refuelling fleet (the contract went to Airbus and the A330). BAE at Filton would have done the refurb and conversion work, following on from the conversion they did of the former BA VC10 fleet to RAF tankers in the 1980s and 90s.
I can't remember why the proposed site changed from Filton to Woodford at some point - possibly when BAE decided to also fully exit from the pax plane market after 9/11 and the 146 project and twin-engine follow-on was also canned. This had moved from Hatfield to Woodford some years before so no doubt freed up capacity at Woodford.
Last edited by Prospero; Jul 24, 2018 at 5:12 pm Reason: Repair quotation frames
Jul 22, 2018, 6:08 am
#13
Fontaine d'honneur du Flyertalk
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Morbihan, France
Programs: Reine des Muccis de Pucci; Foreign Elitist (according to others)
Posts: 19,180
Having done a lot of IST on these things, happy to see them go. Unreliable, the risk of a disco, flooding loos, a landing that feels more like a collision with the runway and the poorest CE seating arrangement of the LHR short haul fleet. It’s only the most recent iteration of CE seats on the Airbus that has made the 767 looking vaguely appealing.
Jul 22, 2018, 10:28 am
#15
Ambassador, British Airways; FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Leeds, UK
Programs: BA GGL/CCR, GfL, HH Diamond
Posts: 42,977
Unlike a few others I am not really a 767 fan. However, the one thing I do like is the engine sounds - partly because it is the same RB211 as on the 747 which I dearly love. Sadly one day that soundtrack will be no more, but for now I can still enjoy it