767-400ER or just 767-400?

Maximilian_Jenius

Maximilian_Jenius

Super User
I got this new book the other day at Borders entitled Boeing Aircraft.
They talk about the 717,737NG's,757-300 and talk briefly bout the 767-400 and the 777-200,300.
My question is the 767-400 sounds like it was originally going to be an extended range version of the 767-300ER.
But then Boeing heard that airlines such as Delta were wanting to get rid of their L1011's and DC-10's.
So from the way the book makes it sound,sounds like it kinda was downgraded from an international plane to more of a transcon plane.
My question something the book really doesn't explain is that after Delta purchased the current model they fly they still refer to it as a 767-400ER.
When in fact from what I have heard from round these parts the 764 simply sounds like a fly more people airplane with a new wing and new engines.
So is it correct to call the 767-400 an ER since it has less range then a 767-300ER? Can it technically even be consider an ER?
Or is the plane an ER because it has more range then the basic 767-300?

...confused!?

Lastly...the book said that Delta ordered 21-24 orders for the 764 with a ton of options?
Did Delta exercise any of those options? How many 764's does Delta have/operate in there fleet?

-Matthew
 
The -ER designation has to do with certification for ETOPS operations, or extended overwater operations. All of the -400s are certified for ETOPS so they are all -ERs. They have good enough range to go east coast US to western Europe.
 
So the ER designation doesn't always mean Extended Range could stand for ETOPS as well or are they kinda synoumous?
I just re-read the chapter on the 767-400ER does it carry fuel in the tail as well as the wings?

-Matthew
 
I think there are 767-300's and 767-300ER's in the fleet I think. I might be wrong.
 
DAL has 21, CAL has 16. Those are the only two airlines that fly them as far as I can tell.

On a side note, it's by far the worst cattle car in the DAL fleet. First class was about as spacious as coach on their other aircraft.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I think there are 767-300's and 767-300ER's in the fleet I think. I might be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, that's correct. You're never wrong, remember?
wink.gif
 
Rumor has it that Boeing really didn't want to even build the jet!

But the guys that fly it, absolutely love it, except that they don't go to a lot of cities besides California, Florida and Hawaii.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Rumor has it that Boeing really didn't want to even build the jet!

But the guys that fly it, absolutely love it, except that they don't go to a lot of cities besides California, Florida and Hawaii.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ughhhh....that'd be boring. Think that I'd want to see more real estate then just those three states.
But I figure that the pilots who fly the 764 are so senior so they enjoy the limited schedules as a chance to be home or away from work.
Incidently I have seen the 767-400 in both CVG and SLC also heard that they fly into LGA.

-Matthew
 
Also some more 400 trivia. According to my 757/767 bud, the 767-400 requires an additional type rating for the person that is lets say 757/767 rated. As the 400 flight deck has more in common with the 777,,, ( to include other different procedure that is 400 specific? ) And yeah, not a super large number of them around are there? and probably won't be many more with 767 production about to dry up.
 
The 767-300ER's range has nothing to do with the 767-400ER's range. This is not fact for all the aircraft families in the boeing fleet but it holds for the 767. In fact the 200ER goes further than the 300ER, and the 300ER goes farther than the 400ER. The number 200, 300, 400, etc has to do with the payload, the 400 being able to carry more pax than the 300, etc. If you think about it, it makes sense, the smaller model variant has the longest range as it has the lesser payload in a comparative sense. This is because there was lesser differences in terms of engine power, etc, with the 767 family of airplanes. The 777 family is a bit different but take the 777-200LR as an example, the smallest of the 777 family but will have the longest range of the triple seven family. The ER designation just means the range is extended for that model number, so a 300ER travels further than a 300. I hope this makes sense.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The 777 family is a bit different but take the 777-200LR as an example, the smallest of the 777 family but will have the longest range of the triple seven family.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 777-200LR I believe is the same size as the basic 200 or 200ER model.

-Matthew
 
[ QUOTE ]
. . . except that they don't go to a lot of cities besides California, Florida and Hawaii.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like me, you're a victim of the California Public School System. Nevertheless, you were aware that those were states, right?
grin.gif
 
Hey, I was sitting in the sun and drinking beer when I typed that! Cut a brotha some slack, yo!
smile.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
The 777-200LR I believe is the same size as the basic 200 or 200ER model.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is definately correct, i should have phrased my statement as the 200 models are the smallest in the 777 family but the 200LR has the longest range. Sorry for not being clear.
 
[ QUOTE ]
So the ER designation doesn't always mean Extended Range could stand for ETOPS as well or are they kinda synoumous?
I just re-read the chapter on the 767-400ER does it carry fuel in the tail as well as the wings?

-Matthew

[/ QUOTE ]

ER is a Boeing term. ETOPS is an FAA term. Certain criteria have to be met to certify an airplane as ETOPS capable. It just happens that Boeing has built all the -400s ready for ETOPS. I don't think there is any fuel in the tail, but I don't know. From what I hear they are such dogs now that you wouldn't want to put any more fuel tanks on them.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
. . . except that they don't go to a lot of cities besides California, Florida and Hawaii.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like me, you're a victim of the California Public School System. Nevertheless, you were aware that those were states, right?
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, Doug, I guess your "Word" program wasn't turned on...
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Also some more 400 trivia. According to my 757/767 bud, the 767-400 requires an additional type rating for the person that is lets say 757/767 rated. As the 400 flight deck has more in common with the 777,,, ( to include other different procedure that is 400 specific? ) And yeah, not a super large number of them around are there? and probably won't be many more with 767 production about to dry up.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I worked as an intern with CAL, I worked with the 757/767/777 CP quite a bit and even flew with him a few times. The -400 doesn't require a different type rating. The 757/767 type rating includes all models. The -400 does require differences training and flights with a check airman. In fact, we took one to Hawaii for that very fact. We were checking a guy out in it. It's a cool airplane, but it's a dog. The -200 will blow the doors off of it any day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top