would flying 767's TPAC work?

 
Old Mar 15, 11, 1:50 pm
  #1  
Suspended
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Programs: AAdvantage Gold
Posts: 1,615
would flying 767's TPAC work?

I was thinking about how travelers prefer frequency over aircraft size and was thinking of routes like SFO-PEK or SFO-PVG. Instead of flying a 747 most of the year, would flying 2x 767s work better for the passenger?

You'd still have 12 F suites, 52 C seats, and only lose 8 total Y seats, and plus double the number of Y+ seats and more importantly, have just a total of 42 middle Y seats and none in C. Currently, you have 118 middle seats in Y plus 6 more in C.

If it were 2x 767s, I wouldn't mind a later departure from SFO so I can land at night and go straight to bed and not spend an afternoon trying to figure out how to stay awake until night time.

I believe the 767 is even capable of flying SFO-HKG, i know Delta flies SFO-NRT on 767s and that's well within a 767's range. I think the furthest 767 can fly is about 7000 miles...

p.s. I know UA only has a limited number of 767s, I'm not concerned about that. I'm simply wondering if passengers would like double daily 767s over a single 747. The TPAC market really lacks frequency. You see multiple flights each day over the Atlantic but not much over the Pacific.

Last edited by bniu; Mar 15, 11 at 8:49 pm
bniu is offline  
Old Mar 15, 11, 1:55 pm
  #2  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The World! Home Base = DCA/IAD
Programs: HHonors, Hyatt GP, Marriott, Varying Levels w/ UA /LH /DL /SQ /TG /AA /QF
Posts: 2,564
Not sure the 767s could cover the range about which you're talking; looks like it'd be close - range chart here for LAX, prolly more doable from SFO. I hope they don't, as we don't wanna give anyone any bright ideas...

Personally, I'd rather have a larger plane for long trips, much more comfy and more room to stroll. I wish UA had A380s on the long hauls...

Btw, BA tried the smaller plane/higher frequency strategy about a decade ago...didn't work. Nor did the different colored tails, but that's for another thread...

Last edited by TravelinWilly; Mar 15, 11 at 2:01 pm Reason: Linky
TravelinWilly is offline  
Old Mar 15, 11, 2:35 pm
  #3  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Arlington, VA
Programs: United MP 1p, PC Ambassador, GP Platinum
Posts: 439
This kind of strategy is one of reason for the 787. The likely reason why BA's strategy mentioned above failed was due to 2 smaller planes costing to much compared to one 747. If the 787 meets it fuel efficiency goals then it should go a long way towards evening out that equation.
IADtoWhere is offline  
Old Mar 15, 11, 2:43 pm
  #4  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IAD/PIT
Programs: UA 2P
Posts: 129
I believe Delta flies some 767s TPAC on lower yield routes, such as PDX-NRT, so theoretically it could work. Part of the problem with the higher frequency, smaller plane strategy, is like mentioned above, it likely is more expensive to fly 2x 767 as opposed to 1x 747, and without a clamoring for increased frequency, there is little incentive to offer it at higher costs.
11800506 is offline  
Old Mar 15, 11, 2:49 pm
  #5  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: ONT, LAX
Programs: UA1k 2.5MM, AA Plt, peasant on everybody else, elite something or other at a bunch of hotels.
Posts: 4,527
What about the costs related to other factors, such as crew size (e.g. 2x pilots?), landing fees, etc? These could make it a tough comparison if revenues remain the same.
1kBill is offline  
Old Mar 15, 11, 3:01 pm
  #6  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: BOS and any place close to a lav
Programs: UA 1.6MM
Posts: 5,419
IIRC there is a restriction in the UA Pilot's agreement that prohibits flights beyond X hours on the 767. I don't know the flight time, but the X hours is less than the duration of the typical TPAC sector (save for HNL-NRT and SEA-NRT).
warreng24 is offline  
Old Mar 15, 11, 3:21 pm
  #7  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: COS
Programs: UA Gold/1.5MM (several years running now!), Marriott LTTE, Hertz Prez
Posts: 1,891
Originally Posted by 1kBill View Post
What about the costs related to other factors, such as crew size (e.g. 2x pilots?), landing fees, etc? These could make it a tough comparison if revenues remain the same.
And do US carriers enjoy that kind of freedom throughout Asia or are they restricted by landing slots?
CCIE_Flyer is offline  
Old Mar 15, 11, 3:26 pm
  #8  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kansas City Metro | MCI
Programs: UA *G, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott Plat., NEXUS, TSA Disparager Unobtanium
Posts: 20,275
Would there be any ETOPS issues with the 767 on a TPAC? As far as DL, are their 767s on TPAC, 763 or 764?
FriendlySkies is offline  
Old Mar 15, 11, 3:34 pm
  #9  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AUS
Programs: AA Exec Platinum/MM, DL Silver/MM, Hilton Diamond, Hertz 5* Gold
Posts: 6,068
DL uses 763s on SFO-NRT and PDX-NRT. It uses A330s on LAX-NRT and SEA-NRT.
Stripe is offline  
Old Mar 15, 11, 3:36 pm
  #10  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: YVR SFO EOF
Programs: UA 1K, VX S
Posts: 4,866
I would be in favor of this if they get the timing right -- one set leaves in the afternoon and arrives in the evening while the other set leaves around 11pm to 1am and arrives in the morning, ready for the workday.

This is one of the major advantages of flying BR or CI to TPE -- SFO-TPE arrives in the morning and you can go straight to the office.
unavaca is offline  
Old Mar 15, 11, 3:51 pm
  #11  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 316
There are a number of reasons against it. For the mentioned SFO-PEK/PVG there are some potential range issues. However, the main reason against the 763 is cargo. Cargo is important on flights from Asia and the 767s limited cargo capacity and its inability to efficiently carry LD3s are a major strike against it.

In addition, UA only has 21 3 class 763s and they are heavily used to Europe and South America. Per seat, the 763 is far less fuel efficient than the 772 and about equal to or even slightly behind the 747-400. Lastly there are slot restrictions and getting four good slot times is more difficult than getting two.
AADC10 is offline  
Old Mar 15, 11, 3:53 pm
  #12  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Programs: UA 1K, Marriott Gold, SPG Gold
Posts: 1,446
Originally Posted by unavaca View Post
I would be in favor of this if they get the timing right -- one set leaves in the afternoon and arrives in the evening while the other set leaves around 11pm to 1am and arrives in the morning, ready for the workday.

This is one of the major advantages of flying BR or CI to TPE -- SFO-TPE arrives in the morning and you can go straight to the office.
Those 1 AM flights to TPE seem awesome. I've always wanted to take them, but am pretty much married to UA.

Back on topic, I don't see why they don't put a 767 on SEA-NRT assuming there are no issues with crew hours, ETOPs, etc. Of all the flights to NRT, seems like the most likely candidates given that there's no hub traffic in SEA.
iceman77_7 is offline  
Old Mar 15, 11, 5:34 pm
  #13  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Seat 1A
Programs: DL; AA; UA; CO; LHLX; NZ; QR; EK; BA
Posts: 6,851
Originally Posted by FriendlySkies View Post
Would there be any ETOPS issues with the 767 on a TPAC? As far as DL, are their 767s on TPAC, 763 or 764?
DL uses the 763ERs on TPAC; the 763s actually have more range than the 764ERs...
Besides SFO-NRT and PDX-NRT, DL also uses the 763ERs on SEA-KIX, SEA-PEK, and one of the HNL-NRT frequencies.
ClipperDelta is offline  
Old Mar 15, 11, 6:00 pm
  #14  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: London & Sonoma CA
Programs: UA 1K(until 2022), MM *G for life, Hertz PC, BAEC Silver
Posts: 8,978
Maybe I'm wrong but it seems that UA has a shortage of international equipment at the moment - having to put a temporary 747 on the schedule last summer, dropping routes such as LHR-DEN which run consistently full because the equipment can make more money elsewhere etc. etc. If that is the case, then I cannot see that they would replace a 747 with two 767s, unless there's an equal and opposite swap elsewhere. As many of the 767s operate thin routes (eg IAD to smaller European cities), they won't want to put the 747 on that route.

I suppose that switching some 767s to 757s might do the trick, thus pulling some domestic capacity to international, but otherwise it's not going to happen.
lhrsfo is offline  
Old Mar 16, 11, 6:11 am
  #15  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: United Premier 1K 1MM; AA Plat; Hyatt Explorist; Marriott Titanium; Hertz Pres Cirlce
Posts: 2,375
CO uses a 767-400 on GUM routes. The longest route is GUM-HNL-GUM. It also flies up to NRT and other locations in Japan as determined by travel needs. But, I agree with previous posts, not sure the 767 could make the full TPAC journey. I could see increased 767s out of GUM to other Asian locations, especially if UA/CO starts up mainland (SFO or LAX) to GUM on a 747 or 777.
mh3265a is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: