767-ER
 

What does the ER stand for? Is a 767-ER different than a regular 767?

ER is for "extended range". From the UA website:

The first 767-200, designed to be the first wide-body aircraft to fly short and medium routes, was delivered to United in mid-1982. The larger 767-300 series was launched in 1983 and the first airplane was delivered to Japan Airlines in September of 1986. Following the release of both the 200 and 300 series, an extended range version of each was developed to allow the plane to service longer routes.

Interesting. Are the seats configured any differently? Are these three class planes as opposed to the regular domestic two-class 767-300?

Check out UA's website for seat configs at http://www.united.com/site/primary/0,10017,1076,00.html and you'll see four 767 layouts, two for 767-200 and two for 767-300.

But the only variations of the 767-300 listed there are "domestic" and "international" -- no ER. Does that mean that the ER designation is irrelevant to seating config?

The domestic 767-300ER is configured the same as the international 767-300.

I'm confirmed for a flight tomorrow JFK-SFO on a 767-300ER in C. The seat map on ual.com corresponds almost exactly to the international 767-300 seat map.

Unless it is a domestic two-class 767-300 such as those to Hawaii. I am not sure if these are ER or not.

The 767-300ER's used on domestic routes are also used internationally--e.g., the one from SFO to JFK then goes to South America.

Question--I'm about to fly on one of these 767-300s from Denver to Maui, stopping in LAX along the way. I'm considering upgrading, but it appears that there are only two classes of service, thus the business seats would not have the foot rests and extended recline. I'm guessing they're like the sort of seat you'd have flying a short domestic route in the US. Correct?

All of UA's 767-300s are ERs. There are 2 configurations, international and domestic.

The 3-class international seats are quite good (although F isn't as good as the FirstSuite on 777s and 747s), with C+, E+ and PTVs in every seat. F is 2-1-2, C is 2-2-2 and Y is 2-3-2.

The 2-class domestic seats are rather poor in F. They are the same seats you'd get on a 737 or 757 (2-2-2 config.) with pretty meager pitch and recline. There are no footrests nor PTVs. There is E+ in the same 2-3-2 config, but not PTVs.

If it is the two-class plane, I don't recommend you upgrade--space seems rather tight in that domestic F cabin.

If it is the three-class plane, on the other hand, I'd say go for it.

ER has to do with the way the aircraft comes from the factory. The internal configuration is entirely up to the airline.

UA's 767-200s are not -ERs. All of the -300s that UA has are -ERs, even the two-class ones.

Today Boeing only builds the -ER variants, the "standard" models have been discontinued a while ago.

The 777 also comes in regular and -ER variants, UA has both.

Actually UA might have some 767-200ERs, since these aircraft flew Trans-Atlantic, I believe.

As for First Class on the two-class 767-300ER, it is not worth the money. I have been in it as part of a longer itinerary and the seats, while the First Class design, are only one inch wider (19" vs. 18") then the Economy Class seats and pitch is 38" vs. 35" in Economy Plus or about 40" in the Exit Row.

I found the Exit Rows to be a much better value, especially 21ABHJ, though 20ABHJ is good, as well, just lacks some recline.

Some years back, I've crossed the North Atlantic 6-8 times in UA's 767-200's.

767-er
 

I was on a 767 from LHR to IAD a week ago with an upgrade to C. It was comfortable enough, but to my mind not as much C space as on a 777, and, of course, certainly not as much as on a 747-400. Also, 767 storage is very minimal in the overhead, no depth compared to 777 or 747.

Last month we were on a 767 SFO-OGG (Maui) in F, and it was about as comfortable (!) as F in 737. Don't know if E+ was available.

Flyer420 in Seattle