US Cut 2 widebody Boeing 767-201ERs?

[Diamondbacks2004]

Both MSNs 23897 (A/C N245AY) and 23898 (A/C N246AY) B767-201ERs are listed as available for dry lease on Boeing's website with an August 2008 availability. Does anyone at US know why?

Please check with Boeing Commercial Airplanes - Available Aircraft - Report generated of February 25, 2008.

Count
762 = 10 will reduce to 8 (after US begins to shut down their seasonal European service)
332 = 0 will increase to 2 ???? (unless if US will get lease 2 new 332s being leased from ILFC summer 2008 or whenever before start service in 2009?)

 

[airportman]

Both MSNs 23897 (A/C N245AY) and 23898 (A/C N246AY) B767-201ERs are listed as available for dry lease on Boeing's website with an August 2008 availability. Does anyone at US know why?

Please check with Boeing Commercial Airplanes - Available Aircraft - Report generated of February 25, 2008.

Count
762 = 10 will reduce to 8 (after US begins to shut down their seasonal European service)
332 = 0 will increase to 2 ???? (unless if US will get lease 2 new 332s being leased from ILFC summer 2008 or whenever before start service in 2009?)

THERES AN ERROR SOMEWHERE..............THAT COFIG DOES NOT MATCH THE OLD/NEW SEAT MAPS.

BESIDES THAT THE 767 DONT COME UP FOR 10 YEARS WITH THE LEASE BACK DONE IN BANKRUPTCY 2

 

[flyingcat]

THERES AN ERROR SOMEWHERE..............THAT COFIG DOES NOT MATCH THE OLD/NEW SEAT MAPS.

The site shows 18/179.

That is the new config seating so it is correct.

 

[FWAAA]

Given the terrible fuel economy of the 762s, I assume that US (and CO) will ground them one for one as soon as fuel efficient replacements are delivered. For US, that's as soon as new A330s are delivered. Over at CO, that means when their 787s are delivered.

 

[SegmentKing]

its unusual saying "boeing 767" and "not fuel efficient" in the same line of thought....

 

[Coffee_Tea_Or_Me]

I could be wrong, but I think the a couple of 330s are arriving THIS year, right? The company already stated they would be replacement aircraft to get rid of the 762, I think...

Somebody correct me if I am wrong. T H A N K S !

 

[etops1]

i was told the company is not certain yet on the return of these two 767's . they might work something out to keep them onboard . so no decision has been made yet wether or not they wil be returned to the lessor.

 

[FutureUScapt]

i was told the company is not certain yet on the return of these two 767's . they might work something out to keep them onboard . so no decision has been made yet wether or not they wil be returned to the lessor.

That make more sense because I would've thought it'd have been mentioned on the fleet outlook plans during the 4Q conference call if the plans were already set in stone. August is still high-season though as far as the seasonal European routes are concerned so I'd think they'd want them until atleast the end of Sept.

BTW, does anyone know when the first 2 A332s arrive (the ones from ILFC)? I've heard Oct., but maybe someone else knows for sure.

 

[john john]

they might work something out to keep them onboard .

MONEY

 

[DHG750R]

Given the terrible fuel economy of the 762s, I assume that US (and CO) will ground them one for one as soon as fuel efficient replacements are delivered...

Just out of curiocity , what exactly is your definition of "terrible fuel economy" ?

 

[cynic]

Just out of curiocity , what exactly is your definition of "terrible fuel economy" ?

Quick lookup shows:
757 (#1) 8/185
757 (#2) 12/167
767 18/186
333 29/259

The seat/mile costs of the 767 have to be significantly worse than the the 757, once you consider all of the extra weight the 767 is carrying around.

 

[FWAAA]

Just out of curiocity , what exactly is your definition of "terrible fuel economy" ?

In addition to cynic's good points, let's look at approximate fuel burn:

762ER burns about 1400 gal/hr. Let's say that airplane flies about 6,000 hours per year. That's two segments each day of about 8.5 hours or so - typical transatlantic flight for that airplane. 6,000 hours equals 8.4 million gallons, or about $24 million at today's spot prices.

As cynic mentioned, the 752 provides superior fuel economy: It burns about 1050 gal/hr and carries almost as many passengers.

I don't have fuel burn stats for the A330s, but gotta think they're more efficient than 762s. The A300-600 burns about 1700 gal/hr and seats at least 40% more passengers as the 762. The A330-300 is similar and can't burn any more fuel than the old AB6. So that would be about 41% more passengers for about 20% more fuel, based on USAir's seating configuration.

That's terrible fuel economy, if you ask me. And a problem now that jetA is flirting with $3/gal. You may disagree.

Boeing has been bragging that the 787 will burn 20% less fuel than comparably sized airplanes - that's significant, if achievable.

All in all, the 762 was a great airplane when introduced 30 years ago. Now? Not so efficient.

 

[Singleflyer]

But how much more cargo can a 767 carry over a 757, and isn't cargo more profitable over the pond than PAX?

 

[700UW]

Yes the cargo is, that is why there are more 767s going across the pond than 757s.

 

[rah757]

Yes the cargo is, that is why there are more 767s going across the pond than 757s.

There are more 767's because the 757's are not able to make it anywhere past BRU or AMS.....and those two destinations are very questionable for the summer months when they fly those routes.......