767-200 Discussion

[swiftus27]

I never have used this plane.  

I never knew why.  

So I just sat there and compared it to everything.

It sucks.  

It sucks badly.  

It is basically a 757-200 with 6 more seats... but those seats are filled with machines that suck down an extra 1000/kg of JetA per hour of flight.  It doesn't really go any further than the 752.  So why ever bother with this machine? 

The only positive I can think of is that Boeing anticipated building upon this architecture (it is, after all, the first 2 engine widebody in their fleet)...

[slither360]

It's cheap and readily available?

[RushmoreAir]

It's cheap and readily available?

Fleet Commonality.  I used the 762 for transatlantic in conjunction with the 763 and 763ER for transpacific in the first DOTM.  It was profitable and useful only not to add another fleet group.

[Bolier Dweller]

Im gonna have to go with swift on this one. They really are basically the same plane. I have used a mix of 757 and 767 before and my 757 did better overall on both domestic and international. The 57 has better turn time i believe too and it does burn less fuel. If your going to go for long range id buy into the 747 or the 777 or even the md-10 and 11.

[schro]

When the plane was initially launched, it was highly competitive compared to everything else that was available at the time. The ER version became more useful when that came out, and the 300 is far more economical. The initial range of the 757 was much more limited in the begining because the higher thrust engines weren't available - you were looking at transcon range tops for a 752 in the mid-80s compared to transatlantic range with a 762. This should become far more apparent once Sami gets the engine availability data loaded in :-).  They also operated with a common type rating and shared many parts.

There was also a huge market for smaller planes with more range in the post-deregulation era. Without regulated fares that guarenteed airlines profit even at a 50% load factor, they had to start adapting - an 80% full 762 is far more profitable than a half full DC-10...

There's also a  reason that you don't see many 762's flying around these days, and swiftus's analysis tells you exactly why. In the real world, the seat difference is more like 25-40 pax rather than the 6 modeled in the game. Very few carriers will pack 201 on a 752 - you typically will see 160-180 seats. The 753 is the true 762 replacement...

I could also go on my usual soapbox and state that the 757-200/300's are the best planes in this game, and the economics of just about any other plane don't stack up when comparing them.

[ArcherII]

If only the 767 and the 757 were a bit common in AWS...
The thing is that besides the pax capacity being similar to the 752, the area where the 762 stands on its own class is transcontinental cargo. But as long as AWS isn't coded to sustain it, I can't see any real use for it.  
IRL the 752 and the 762 cumpliment each other very well. They're the backbone of AA's fleet.

[knobbygb]

The 767 suffers from having only one extra seat-width despite being a "wide"-body. To some extent 7-abreast doesn't really justify the extra weight and size of the aircraft although I agree 100% that the extra cargo space must be a big plus.  In the UK in the late 80's and early 90's Britannia, and maybe some others, had several 767-200's in high density charter configuration.  The 8-abreast seating was a nightmare for passengers (in my opinion - I flew one overnight from Corfu to Manchester in October 1987) but greatly increased capacity over the 757 we're comparing it to - it held something like 290 iirc    I guess that made the a/c quite efficient for it's day.