787 is gonna be late!

[littl_flier]

Keeping the old 767's around even longer won't be very popular. I hate travelling in those old rattlers.

I don't quite understand you distaste for the 767's YY? Each row has two windows, four aisle seats and only one middle seat, better than the 737's. It's easier to get out of seats mid flight, there are more bathrooms, twin aisle makes boarding easier, more business class seats so easier to get D seats on QF domestic services.....

I go out of my way to pick 767 services where I can, they feel better than the 737's running around. I'd just be interested to know your thoughts.

 

[pauly7]

I don't quite understand you distaste for the 767's YY? Each row has two windows, four aisle seats and only one middle seat, better than the 737's. It's easier to get out of seats mid flight, there are more bathrooms, twin aisle makes boarding easier, more business class seats so easier to get D seats on QF domestic services.....

I go out of my way to pick 767 services where I can, they feel better than the 737's running around. I'd just be interested to know your thoughts.

I completely agree!! - and I'll add it is much easier to get your carry on into the plentiful luggage bins on the 767 compared to the 737 & A320. Fighting the 100's of screaming families on DJ/JQ or the rabid business people on QF on the single aisle aircraft really annoys me.

The refurbished 767's (of which all will be over the coming year) look brand new on the inside now, newer than the DJ 737's and even Jetstars A320s which are both suffering bit of wear and tear.

Give me a 767 over a DJ or QF 73H or JQ 320 any day!! And like you I actively select flights that they operate on over the 737.

I suspect if Virgin were flying 767's YY wouldn't be so violently picketing them

 

[Commuter]

My order of preference would be:
767 > A320 > 737

I find that 767 bins are shallower than A320/737 bins though?

I dislike 737s (although not as much as I dislike flying sewer pipes* or other turboprops) as I find them somewhat claustrophobic. A320 is much better, but almost any widebodies would be even better.

I say 'almost' any widebodies, because I don't think I like L1011s much.


*Flying sewer pipes = Metroliners, for those who have been fortunate enough not to encounter them.

 

[littl_flier]

*Flying sewer pipes = Metroliners, for those who have been fortunate enough not to encounter them.

Hmm, the only aircraft I've ever thought I was going to be airsick in. Claustrophobic tin cans. Give me a 737 anyday there.

Also known as flying pencil/pointy adult toy.

 

[oz_mark]

My order of preference would be:
767 > A320 > 737

I find that 767 bins are shallower than A320/737 bins though?

I dislike 737s (although not as much as I dislike flying sewer pipes* or other turboprops) as I find them somewhat claustrophobic. A320 is much better, but almost any widebodies would be even better.

I say 'almost' any widebodies, because I don't think I like L1011s much.


*Flying sewer pipes = Metroliners, for those who have been fortunate enough not to encounter them.

I am certainly of the widebody preferring traveller mould Yes some of the 767's are getting a bit tatty, but I do search them out in preference to the 737.

...and I'd take an L1011 over a DC10 anyday

 

[Commuter]

Claustrophobic tin cans.

Claustrophobic, NOISY tin cans in which multiple pax around me were puking (I don't really get air sick, but still...). Not exactly nice, is it

 

[Commuter]

...and I'd take an L1011 over a DC10 anyday

I don't like 3-engine things... although if someone offered me a personal Falcon 900, I wouldn't refuse it.

 

[SeaWolf]

I've never flow in a Tri-jet, but I'm pretty sure the reason they exist was due to the old ETOPS requirements that placed very serious limits on where planes with only two engines could go. Current engines are much better and so the ETOPS limits let them go almost anywhere now, hence no more need for new tri-jets.

 

[serfty]

My preferences for Qantas/Oz flights:

1. 744
2. 333
3. 332
4. 743
5. 763-International configuration
6. 767-Domestic Configuration excluding the ex-BA VH-ZX*'s
7. 73H
8. 734
9. DH3/DH4/DH8
10. 733
11. Any JQ/DJ aircraft
12. 763: VH-ZX*'s

 

[oz_mark]

I've never flow in a Tri-jet, but I'm pretty sure the reason they exist was due to the old ETOPS requirements that placed very serious limits on where planes with only two engines could go. Current engines are much better and so the ETOPS limits let them go almost anywhere now, hence no more need for new tri-jets.

While that is true, I think the issue was more that there wasn't any suitable jets that would allow a plane of that size to only require 2. From memory, it wasn't till the A300/767 era that the larger twin jets could really be built.

 

[Yada Yada]

I don't quite understand you distaste for the 767's YY? Each row has two windows, four aisle seats and only one middle seat, better than the 737's. It's easier to get out of seats mid flight, there are more bathrooms, twin aisle makes boarding easier, more business class seats so easier to get D seats on QF domestic services.....

I go out of my way to pick 767 services where I can, they feel better than the 737's running around. I'd just be interested to know your thoughts.

I don't have anything against 767's, and in fact if you go back far enough on the forums here I am sure I've mentioned my preference for wide-bodies over single aisle jets.

My distaste is only for QF's old ex-BA 767's, the one's whose registrations are VH-Zxx as noted above. They are so worn inside that I hate travelling them in Y (although they are OK in J). The bulkheads move like they aren't attached to the ceiling, there is wadding or something stuffed into them in places, the seat material is old and frayed, some of the overhead lockers spontaneously open during landings, and I think some/all don't have personal air-con jets. They should be retired. QF's own 767's are fine, if a bit oldish.

My fav QF planes are 744 in J or F :mrgreen: followed by the A330, then 767 then whatever.

Gotta say though that VB's practice of boarding/unloading from front and back doors means that I get off my flights very quickly on their 737's, much quicker than QF's 767's. As has been discussed elsewhere here, it seems silly to be worried about quick exit on arrival but I am one of the hoard who loves to get up and get off quickly and beat the queue to the valet parking counter.

 

[codash1099]

I don't like 3-engine things... although if someone offered me a personal Falcon 900, I wouldn't refuse it.

I always found the 727 to be comfortable although I remember the seats as having much more room in those days - they seemed to get narrower as I got older .

One of the best flights I had was when I was bumped to F on an AN 727. They certainly were quiet when you sat in row 1!

 

[Yada Yada]

One of the best flights I had was when I was bumped to F on an AN 727. They certainly were quiet when you sat in row 1!

And they were so freaking loud in the back 5 rows! I sat back there quite a few times on AN (and as recently as 2002 on DL!). You needed earlplugs. :shock:

 

[JohnK]

I don't like 3-engine things... although if someone offered me a personal Falcon 900, I wouldn't refuse it.

Is the MD-11 a 3-engine aircraft? I prefer an MD-11 to many twin engine or 4 engine aircraft....

 

[Mal]

Qantas said today that they will be seeking (further?) compensation:

eg.
FT.com / Home UK / UK - Qantas to seek damages from Boeing

Geoff Dixon, Qantas chief executive said: "We will be discussing the issue of liquidated damages with Boeing in the coming weeks."

Maybe they should implement a delayed aircraft flying fee in that when you are forced on a 767 (in particular an ex-BA 767) or a 747-300 longhaul, then part of the Boeing compensation is paid back to to you

 

[Evan]

Is the MD-11 a 3-engine aircraft? I prefer an MD-11 to many twin engine or 4 engine aircraft....

Yes, and nice to fly in J on them, not very niosy at all.

AY are replacing all there MD-11's with A330's and A350's in the comming years, they have already started the retirement of them. (some also replaced by 2 or 3 A340's) The last will go in 2010.
They all go to Aeroflot freight as converted freighters where they are a very popular aircraft to stuff parcels into.

E

 

[straitman]

Is the MD-11 a 3-engine aircraft? I prefer an MD-11 to many twin engine or 4 engine aircraft....

The McDonnell Douglas MD-11 is an American three-engine medium to long-range widebody airliner, with two engines mounted on underwing pylons and a third engine at the base of the vertical stabilizer. It is based on the DC-10, but featuring a stretched fuselage, increased wingspan with winglets, refined aerofoils on the wing and tailplane, new engines and increased use of composite materials. It features an all-digital glass coughpit that decreases the crew to two from the three required on the DC-10.