767's
 

Well, I admit that for some reason I'm a little more nervous about my flight across the Atlantic this time. I've usually flown on 777's, but now I'm booked on a 763 (which I understand is the same as a 767-300) for my trip later this month. I booked it through British Airways, not knowing that it's actually an American Airlines plane. Isn't this a lot smaller - and is it okay for crossing the Atlantic? Experienced flyers, would you fly on this aircraft? Thanks for any help in easing my unusual anxiety.

The 767 is an older plane than the 777. But it has an excellent safety record.

Prior to the 767, most aircraft that flew transatlantic were four engined. The 767 revolutionized long range twin engine operation, paving the way for later aircraft such as the A330, 777, 787. The 767-300ER has enough range to do west coast of the US to Europe, so flying it across the Atlantic isn't an issue.

Obviously, things vary based on how airlines decide on how to outfit the cabin, but I think that generally 767 is the comfiest airplane in economy class, which is a 2-3-2 seat arrangement - 85% of the seats are either aisle or window.

It's smaller, but not a small plane. I would personally not hesitate to fly it across the Atlantic. More importantly than size, it is a proven model - not ancient, so that you become concerned with maintenance, but not brand new, so it won't have "teething pains".

You might notice the turbulence a little more and the air handling system isn't as advanced - so you might land with dry sinuses. Otherwise, it's essentially the same.

What, in particular, is of concern to you?

No need to be concerned, the 767, while a smaller aircraft, is more than capable of making a routine TATL crossing. I've flown between the US and Europe many times on 767s of all types and have never had an issue. Seated in economy it offers the 2-3-2 seating as was stated above which IMO is preferable to 3-3-3 on the 777. In J or F it's a bit of a different story.

With that said, flying the AA 767 in regular economy is not a very pleasant experience. If you're in economy, I would highly suggest purchasing a Main Cabin Extra (economy+) seat. That will definitely improve your experience, just avoid row 20. Also, AA 767s do not have personal IFE, only overhead screens.

If you're seated in J, expect angle/flat seats. Only a few AA 767s have been refurbished with flat beds in J. These are flying typically JFK-ZRH/MXP and soon JFK-MAD/BCN.

Welcome to FlyerTalk!

The 767 is a perfectly fine, safe aircraft. It most definitely is well suited for the trip - otherwise the airline wouldn't use it...and the pilots wouldn't fly it (after all, they're inside the plane too!):)

It is smaller than a 777 but that's a relative thing. It's still a "large airliner", if that's a concern to you. Smaller aircraft than the 767 are used for transatlantic airline flights, in fact.

A google search will show you plenty of pictures of the 767 inside and out, maybe you'll feel better seeing for yourself.

Bottom line, relax and enjoy your trip!:)

Thanks, everyone! I think my three main worries were that it only has two engines (but you let me know that newer planes, including ones I've flown on, also only have two engines), that it's small for crossing the Atlantic (but you told me that even smaller planes go across), and that it's "old" (but you said that it's not TOO old). The most important thing is that you assured me that you've flown on 767's and survived! I feel much better about my trip now and really appreciate all your comments.

Welcome to Flyertalk!

I've probably spent more time on 767s than any other aircraft (well, possibly except the 747 and A320s). I have crossed the Atlantic hundreds of times in them, in all classes. For economy seating (as others have said) it is preferable to most others as it is 2-3-2, so you won't be more than one seat away from the aisle no matter where you are.

It is safe and reliable. A real workhorse. AC used to (probably still does) use them for the Vancouver to Sydney run (that's a lot of time over the Pacific.)

If you're heading over from the east coast, it's a fairly short flight - usually on the order of 7 hours. Some of the airlines are doing it in 757's, two engines and one less aisle! There's a whole thread about how unpleasant that experience is.

It's a twin-aisle plan so it feels much roomier inside than a single-aisle 757.

What might be helpful is if some of the more knowledgeable people on FT chime in with the usual trans-atlantic routing. Isn't it fairly close to land and diversion spots for much of the journey?

Welcome! Lots of 767s cross the Atlantic (and the Pacific) every day. Absolutely nothing to worry about.

There are smaller planes used for transatlantic service as well - AC flies Airbus A319s on its YYT-LHR route. Despite crossing an ocean, that flight is shorter in time and distance than LAX-JFK for example. BA operates A318s on LCY-JFK. And then you have a lot of small, private jets that cross as well

Not anymore. AC used to fly them YVR-HNL-SYD, but it went non-stop once they acquired 777s.

That just shows you how long it has been since I've set foot on an AC plane!

You'll be just fine. As already mentioned there are smaller commercial aircraft used. My personal favourite is BA's A318, affectionately known as the 'baby bus'. If it can get across safe and sound a 767 is a doddle.

H

If you want small, cross in an A318 (BA) or a B737 (AC)!

A large number of 763s and 752s make it across the pond every single day. 763ERs have a very long range and can make it across the pacific too.

Having said that, if I have a choice between a 763 and a 772, I'd rather take a 772, as it is much more comfortable in various respects (depends on the airline of course)

American's 767-300s have been crossing the Atlantic for about 25 years now without one single accident so far. So yes, no need to be worried at all.
The disadvantage to this is that they are showing their age. Don't expect the newest and greatest.
The "main cabin extra" economy seating on American's 763s is one of the best options out there for crossing the Atlantic as far as space and seat comfort is concerned (there's no seatback entertainment, though - so bring your own) and I actually prefer flying in them over the 777 when in economy.
Check out this thread and this one for more info about the seating than you ever wanted to know :D

You have nothing to worry about.

The majority of my transatlantic flights have been on 767's and I actually prefer them to the "bigger" planes due to the 2-3-2 seating layout. They have been around a long time but have an excellent safety record and there are thousands of them in the air every day.

Not sure if anybody has mentioned this, but the American Airlines 767's can look slightly dated on the inside. Don't let this fool you, they are very well maintained and perfectly safe.

Enjoy your flight and appreciate that you're not on a single aisle 757. I've done that a number of times and it really isn't pleasant! :p

AC has not had 737s for decades! I think you mean the St John's to LHR service that uses an A319.

Most of my trans-Atlantic trips have been on the 767. While it's a little smaller than other wide bodies, this is probably the most under-appreciated airplane Boeing has ever built. Aside from tiny overhead compartments, this is one airplane where Boeing got it right. Before the 767, trans-Atlantic flights were operated with three or four engine airplanes. The 767 proved ETOPS (extended twin engine operations) to be safe and successful.

Your over water time on most crossings is actually fairly short. The time spent on the North Atlantic tracks is only about 3.5 hours. Often trans Atlantic flights spend more time over Canada then they do over the ocean. ETOPS flights are designed so they stay a certain distance from diversion airports at all times. For example, most 767 flights are 180 minute ETOPS meaning they have to be no more than three hours from a diversion airport. You've got plenty of divert points along the Atlantic including a return to Ireland, Iceland, Greenland, and Canada. Maintenace checks are required on the engines prior to each crossing.

As far as the comfort of the 767, many prefer the 2-3-2 in economy. Premium cabins are a little tighter than the bigger 777 but not uncomfortable. Some of the airplanes are a little worn, but not un-safe. Delta did a major renovation on the 767 interiors where it looks like a brand new airplane. Many of the newer 767s have the 777 interior.

Most 767 pilots love the airplane. Many comment that it flies like a Cadillac. It has the largest cockpit of anything built by Boeing or Airbus. One thing to remember, no professional pilot will take an airplane if he or she feels it's un-safe or not fit for the flight. The 767 is still the most popular plane crossing the Atlantic.

767's
 

There are plenty of much smaller aircraft flying across the Atlantic, 757s, A318s, some 737s. Of course, there are plenty of even smaller corporate Jets that make the trip.

Yeah, unlike the squeeze on 777 and A380, I don't think anyone has tried to cram an eighth seat into Y on the 767.

Yes, 763 is a shorthand way to write 767-300.

The 767 was the first twin engine commercial jet airliner to be granted ETOPS across the Atlantic so there is some history to the 767 crossing.

The only issue is that you're going to be sorely disappointed flying American if you expecting a BA experience.

As everyone has already mostly mentioned, the 767 was designed to be used on transatlantic and transpacific flights. In fact, I believe the 767 was the first airliner with less than three engines to be allowed to fly extended periods overwater (ETOPS) way back in 1985. (FYI: ETOPS means Extended range Twin engine OPerationS... or my favourite Engines Turn Or People Swim).

Over 1000 have been delivered and most of them operate transatlantic or transpacific. Many flights are over 11 hours.

Also as mentioned, you will probably more notice the difference between AA & BA than the 777 versus the 767.

I stand corrected! Of course, it's the A319! :) Thanks!

I've flown Japan Airlines' 767-300ER's across the Pacific many times, and I like the aircraft very much! It's not as new as a 777, or 787, but I prefer the 2-3-2 configuration of the 767 vs the 2-4-2 or 3-3-3 configuration of the newer planes.

Perfectly safe aircraft!

And of course, this guy did it with only one engine :D

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...20/stlouis.jpg

(sorry I couldn't resist) :p

Thomas Cook and Thomson both have 763s in a 2-4-2 configuration. It's unusual, but not unheard of.

I've flown on AA's 767s a handful of times, all domestic. It's a novelty to fly an international jet on domestic midcons, especially if you can score the row 17 seats!

I've flown probably 50 TATL crossings on an AA 767 and we only turned back once for an engine failure, Chicago - London, turned round over Greenland and went back to New York. Search ETOPS and the be rest assured, they will fly well on one engine. Oh and there are some airlines flying 757's.
My main gripe with AA's 763' are they are old, they don't have individual airvents, the IFE is pure junk and they are one of the slowest widebodies in the fleet. But they will get you there, as long as you are not scoring points for style....

THIS (A318) is "a lot smaller..."

http://www.jaunted.com/files/98243/BAA380A318SNN.jpg

Both of these planes make it across the Atlantic just fine.

I hadn't seen this photo before, but I love it! :D

And to the OP, the 767 in its various variants have been traversing the Atlantic for 25+ years. The 2-3-2 is quite nice if you fly steerage like I do, because you are always going to be one seat from the aisle.

Thanks again for answering my questions, everyone. I have enjoyed reading all the comments and am now totally de-stressed (instead of distressed) about this flight. I got a chuckle from 84fiero's Lindbergh photo and am comforted that there is someone who actually has the username ILUV767. I'm still bummed that my eastbound flight is on AA and not BA, especially since I got burned on the airfare from booking so late, but I guess in the big picture it's all good.

Actually, the one on the right often has to make a technical stop at SNN when going westbound.

For the OP, the 767 is MUCH bigger than the one on the right...

Great pic, though. Thanks for sharing!

767's
 

The BA001 and 003 flights LCY-JFK ALWAYS stop in SNN as the runway at LCY is too short for takeoff with a full tank. This has the added benefit of US preclearance there so arrival at JFK is at a domestic gate.

I had also though that the LCY->JFK flight made the technical/preclearance stop at SNN for fuel loading limits, but I also remember reading somewhere that there was another issue. LCY isn't a base for BA mainline, so the pilots actually report to work at LHR or LGW due to union rules and are shuttled to LCY, so they being their duty day too early to fly all the way to JFK.

Can anyone who's been on this flight confirm that there is a crew cockpit crew change at SNN?

Didn't the A300 do this first or am I mistaken?

The A300 was the first twin engined wide body. I believe the 767 was the first plane to be ETOPS certified.

Not sure to which the previous poster was referring to.

The stop in SNN is because the runway at LCY is too short to fully load the aircraft with fuel.

It's not really a technical stop.

It needs to stop to take on fuel to complete the flight to its destination without the loading or offloading of passengers. Isn't that by definition, a technical stop?

(I know the passengers get off, go through pre-clearance then get back on, but I believe passengers do not get off an SNN or board at SNN, so the do not load of offload passengers)

And my immediate thought was, "And in the case of AA also without one single refurb or change of cabin crew, as well as the same meals and crappy 1980's IFE." :D


Why do I always get the broken seat and IFE tablet on AA 767's?! :confused: Mind you, it's a consistent earner on points compensation as a result. I think I'm averaging ~10k points on each flight in compensation for something that isn't working on the sodding things. :-/

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the 767 was the first twin engine wide bodied plane. You are correct that the A300 was first.

The A300 was the first ETOPS aircraft, but it was only certified for either 60 or 90 minutes(I can't remember which), which isn't useful. The A300 was never a significant trans-atlantic aircraft, but did become popular within Asia.

The 767 was first to be certified for 120mins ETOPS, which is what is necessary for viable trans-atlantic service. Later, 120+15% (138) was added to help handle the situation where diversion airports were closed due to weather.

A map of 60, 90, 120, and 138 minute ETOPS