Would it be cheaper to use a 757-200 or a 767-200ER to destinations like Tel Aviv or Cairo from JFK? If I use the 757-200 I would do a stopover in Shannon, Ireland or someplace like that.
Depends...
If you already have a 757 fleet and no 767 then stick to the 757. If you have both, then you should make sure you can fly the route daily with a single AC. if you can do it with a 767 but not with a 757... then I would advice to use a direct 676.
Do stopovers cost a lot more?
Quote from: futureflier757 on January 23, 2012, 12:05:52 AM
Do stopovers cost a lot more?
Cost isn't the issue, it's passenger preference (although fuel costs would be higher due to longer flight time if tech stop deviates from direct great circle route). Pax prefer direct flights to indirect, and also I think routes with tech stop have cheaper tickets by default.
I am flying IST-ATL both with and without a tech-stop, and my ticket prices (which are the default prices) are identical.
I think the 757 might be slightly cheaper, as the difference in fuel burn and cheaper landing costs will probably outweigh the slightly longer time spent in the air.
But the 767 carries more pax, and should be about 2 hours faster for the round trip.
The 767 is probably the slightly better choice, but only if you actually have them. The 757 will be fine to use if that's all you've got.
If AWS is modelled the way I believe (it makes calculations for time to top of climb, top of decent and etc), then a 767 should be cheaper as the 757 will need to make two TO and clims and two approaches, all of them take huge amounts of fuel. So at the end a 767 would use the same or even less fuel depending on the distance. This is completely rambled on by theory though.
Quote from: ArcherII on January 23, 2012, 02:10:41 AM
If AWS is modelled the way I believe (it makes calculations for time to top of climb, top of decent and etc), then a 767 should be cheaper as the 757 will need to make two TO and clims and two approaches, all of them take huge amounts of fuel. So at the end a 767 would use the same or even less fuel depending on the distance. This is completely rambled on by theory though.
Yeah you're right it does model it in that way, so the 757 "average fuel burn" may actually work out higher than 767 because of the extra takeoff where it's usually a high amount of the overall trip fuel needed, to get it airborne when it's at it's heaviest.
I think both aircraft are fit for purpose and many people have success with 757 nonstop and techstop, on the other hand 767 has a family of larger and longer range aircraft. So as Maarten says it depends on what you already have.