Is it just me or are UA's 763's becoming clunkers?
Nov 15, 2004, 12:41 pm
#16
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicago, USA
Programs: UA 1MM Gold AA Gold NW Silver Marriott Plat. SPG Plat. Hilton Gold Hertz 5 Star
Posts: 3,218
Need to do the brain suck ST: 763MZs and 7E7-8s for the 763MDs???
MZs MDs?
help / lost in translation
MZs MDs?
help / lost in translation
Nov 15, 2004, 1:20 pm
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Programs: Bar Alliance Gold
Posts: 16,271
Originally Posted by chichow
Need to do the brain suck ST: 763MZs and 7E7-8s for the 763MDs?
767-MD - Three cabin 767-322ER
767-MZ - Two cabin 767-322ER
767-MT - Three cabin 767-222 (not-overwater)
767-MV - Three cabin 767-222 (overwater)
Last edited by SEA_Tigger; Nov 15, 2004 at 1:43 pm
Nov 16, 2004, 10:51 am
#18
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: OSL/IAH/ZRH (time, not preference)
Programs: UA1K, LH GM, AA EXP->GM
Posts: 38,265
Originally Posted by SEA_Tigger
7E7-3s for the 763MZs and 7E7-8s for the 763MDs, I imagine.
they would actually fit well.
fuselage width, length, and max. pax with 2 class config:
- 7E7-3 574cm, 56m, 289 pax
- A330-200 564cm, 59m, 293 pax
- 767-400 ~520cm 61.4m, 304 pax
I learnt to like Airbus when Qantas introducted the 330 (that is. I stopped
disliking them). Except for the few ongoing issues such as one engine not
turning off at the gate, this is a mighty fine plane. So I am looking forward to
sit in it's 7E7 competitor in a few years time.
Won't miss the 767 too much.
Nov 16, 2004, 10:58 am
#19
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 11,468
I appreciate the 2-2-2 seating in the 763 C-class, as there is no middle seat.
Not sure, if the A-330 is the same, as I flew it only twice a couple of years ago on US.
Not sure, if the A-330 is the same, as I flew it only twice a couple of years ago on US.
Last edited by cesco.g; Nov 16, 2004 at 11:02 am
Nov 16, 2004, 12:09 pm
#20
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
Posts: 19,523
One minor good thing about the 767...they sure are quiet at take-off when you're in First. Man...doesn't even sound like the engines are running! Just roll 'n climb.
Come to think about it...that takes some of the rush-fun out of flying!
So...never mind. There's nothing good about the 767.
Come to think about it...that takes some of the rush-fun out of flying!
So...never mind. There's nothing good about the 767.
Nov 16, 2004, 1:42 pm
#21
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Berkeley, CA
Programs: UA Gold, peon everywhere else
Posts: 989
Originally Posted by gumpfs
Engine warmup times are 5 minutes for the 757 and 8 minutes for the 767. No warmup is needed if the airplane has flown within the previous hour. About a year and a half ago, it was 5 minutes for the 767 and no required time for the 757, but the above times are the current ones.
Dan
Nov 18, 2004, 12:09 am
#22
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 583
Originally Posted by danM
What drove the change in warmup times? Is it more fuel efficient to warm them up?
Dan
Dan