What's new

Fuel prices way high!

Have you got a link to those "Boeing" specs? I sure can't find them on the Boeing site.

The 767 is the first widebody jetliner to be stretched twice. The 767-300ER is 10 feet (3.1 m) longer than the 767-200ER; and the new 767-400ER is 11 feet (3.4 m) longer than the 767-300.

From 'Fun Facts'

# 767-200ER (extended range),
# 767-300ER -- approximately 10 feet (3.1 m) longer than the 767-200ER,
# 767-400ER -- approximately 11 feet (3.4 m) longer than the 767-300ER


From '767 Family'

767 Technical Specs - External

767-200ER Technical Specs - General: length 159' 2"

767-300ER Technical Specs - General: Length 180' 3"

767-400ER Technical Specs- General: Length 201' 4"

Jim

I was merely basing it off of the "FUN FACTS" link posted above. That link says the -300 is 10 feet longer than the -200, and the -400 another 11 feet versus the -300.

And right below it you provided the technical specs as per Boeing which indeed shows the -300 as being 21 feet longer than the -200 (159ft to 180)and the -400 being 21 feet longer than the -300, (180ft to 201)which gives you the 42 feet in additional length i mentioned earlier.
 
I dont know why someone keeps posting the 767 is not effiecent, you couldnt be more wrong.

And the same for you. The 762 is less fuel efficient than US' A330s; I recently posted fuel burn numbers in a different thread in support of that.

You cut and pasted parts of the Boeing website, yet none of it supports your allegation that the 762 is fuel efficient. Nearly all of it centers on 763s and 764s. Thank you. Come again.
 
Oil climbed to $108.21 on Monday and closed at $107.90 in New York. My prediction is that we see some more Ch 11 filings this year if this keeps up.
 
Oil climbed to $108.21 on Monday and closed at $107.90 in New York. My prediction is that we see some more Ch 11 filings this year if this keeps up.

At the very least, oil is trading $40/bbl too high based on the value of the USD against other world currencies which is causing a large bubble. GW and Govco have created this artificial increase with their agressive prime rate cuts which have basically killed the USD on the world market.

US Airways is in big trouble if the price keeps going up. Don't know about you, but I'm ready to go to war to steal all the oil we can get so that the price will plummet to where it should be.
 
I'm staying out of this one. :up: How did International Airlines make it in Europe in the '70s when fuel was over $4 a gallon?
 
I'm staying out of this one. :up: How did International Airlines make it in Europe in the '70s when fuel was over $4 a gallon?
In Europe, they have an excellent way of getting around, its called a train.
 
And putting gas in a car doesn't make one an expert on international jet fuel prices either....

Jim

Sorry Jim, but I lived in Italy in the early '70s. Gas or petrol or whatever was about $ 4 USA a gallon or over $1 a litre! So yes I am an expert on this one! :up:
 
Sorry Jim, but I lived in Italy in the early '70s. Gas or petrol or whatever was about $ 4 USA a gallon or over $1 a litre! So yes I am an expert on this one! :up:
Try again - you said European airlines were paying $4 a gallon. Like I said, putting gas in your car doesn't make you an expert on jet fuel prices. You're off by a factor of over 10.

Jim
 
Try again - you said European airlines were paying $4 a gallon. Like I said, putting gas in your car doesn't make you an expert on jet fuel prices. You're off by a factor of over 10.

Jim

You mean to say that the high European gasoline taxes weren't applied to jet fuel? 😀

In the early '70s, (pre-'73 embargo) wasn't jet fuel something like 12 to 15 cents a gallon? If it had been $4/gal in Italy (or anywhere else), I suspect airlines wouldn't fly there without tankering in enough to get back home.
 
And the same for you. The 762 is less fuel efficient than US' A330s; I recently posted fuel burn numbers in a different thread in support of that.

You cut and pasted parts of the Boeing website, yet none of it supports your allegation that the 762 is fuel efficient. Nearly all of it centers on 763s and 764s. Thank you. Come again.
St. Louis, January 14, 2008) -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] today released a 53-page study prepared by Conklin & de Decker Aviation Information showing that a commercial 767 airplane is substantially more fuel efficient than the larger Airbus 330.

The study conducted by the independent aviation research company, and funded by Boeing, used published data to calculate the fuel consumption of flying a fleet of 179 767-200ER and Airbus 330-200 airplanes over a 40-year service life. The purpose of the analysis was to provide a clear comparison between the KC-767 Advanced Tanker (AT), based on the 767, and its major competitor in the U.S. Air Force's KC-135 Tanker Replacement Program. The winner of the KC-X competition will begin recapitalizing the service's aging refueling inventory by building 179 next-generation tankers.

The study showed that the 767 fleet burned 24 percent less fuel than the A-330s and would save approximately $14.6 billion in fuel costs. That number is significant since the Air Force spent approximately $6.6 billion on aviation fuel costs in 2006.

"Senior Air Force leaders have said that when a barrel of oil increases by $10, it costs them about $600 million a year," said Mark McGraw, vice president, Boeing Tanker Programs. "So it is critical, especially with rising fuel prices, that the Air Force's next refueling tanker meet or exceed their requirements and be as efficient as possible. That aircraft is the right-sized KC-767 Advanced Tanker."

Source : Boeing
 

Latest posts

Back
Top