767 vs. 747

BigD

Well-Known Member
Just wanted to get some opinions.
I'm off to Europe for 3 weeks for some R&R. It'll be a long flight to CDG from LAX and I've got the option of flying on a 767 with Delta, or on a 747 with Air France. Which aircraft would you guys recommend and why?
 

I_Money

Moderator
Air France also operates the 777 on that route. Does the DL aircraft stop over somewhere on the way to CDG - I guess it does. That would be my main decision maker

To me one aircraft feels like another, so it is the likelyhood of one smelling.
 

Athena

New Member
Doesn't aire france have better seating and leg room accomodations for their puddle jumps than other carriers?
 

BigD

Well-Known Member
Iain,

Yes, AF does operate the 777 on that flight. However, for the flight times I have chosen the 747 will be the aircraft I would be on.
Delta connects through Atlanta on the way to CDG. My final destination is BCN so if I fly with the 747 on AF I'll have a longer wait at CDG than I would with Delta. However, I'll have to make a stop over in Atlanta if I go with Delta. So the total time will pretty much be the same. I guess I'm just trying to figure out which plane would be more comfortable.
 

Airwolf

New Member
Hi BigD,

There are 4 reasons why I would go with the 747 over the 767 when travelling over vast water.

The 4 reasons (in no particular order) are:

Engine 1
Engine 2
Engine 3
Engine 4



In terms of comfort, I believe that the AF747 will be a bit more roomy in coach. I have flown them in the past and they seem to have roominess similiar to what TWA used to have back in the 90's.
 

gay_pilot18

New Member
Actually 2 engine aircraft are probably more reliable for over seas flying then a 747. Which is prolly why the 767 is the number one choice for airlines when flying over seas.

Also I once heard a pliot say that yes a 747 has more engines but that also mean that theres more of a chance that you might incure more problems. Example "more money more problems. More engines possiblity of having more problems.

And besides 777 are in my humble opinion is better to fly and fly on then the 747.

But then that's just me.
 

Prospective_Pilot

New Member
4 engines 4 chances 4 long haul
2 engines 2 chances

The likelyhood of one engine going down is not very large let alone 2, 3 or even 4. While I don't believe having 4 engines is safer over 2 and 2 is safer over 4 I do believe having the extra 2 chances with 4 is a plus+. If you look on www.airdisaster.com or www.airsafetyonline.com I think you will find a few incidents where if you had been onboard those flights you would have wished the aircraft had had 4 engines. I just don't buy 2 engines are more reliable over 4 on overseas flights. In most cases the only reason an airline uses a 767 on an overseas flights is because they don't need the capacity of a 747 or 777 on that route.

And how do you know a 777 is "better" to fly than a 747? Have you flown both of the real aircrafts in real life to make such a statement? Also can you please define the word "better" cause I don't understand what that word means.
 

FL270

New Member
I would take Air France, not for the equipment but for the service. I've flown to Europe three times ... Continental (IAH-LGW and LGW-EWR on the DC-10 back in '98), US Airways (PIT-CDG, CDG-PIT, 767, 2000), and this past February on Lufthansa (JFK-FRA, FRA-JFK, 747-400 and A-340). The customer service on LH was head and shoulders above US carriers. Going long-haul on two engines doesn't bother me at all. If you go non-stop from LAX to CDG, make sure you stand up and walk around for a few minutes every couple of hours.

Enjoy the trip ... France is a wonderful place to visit. Food and wine are excellent, and the people are very friendly toward Americans ... most will humor your attempts to butcher their mother tongue and many speak English. Most restaurants (particularly in Paris and other tourist-heavy areas) have bilingual menus. The Metro is very simple and very cost-effective for getting around. The French government's distaste for the policies of our Government doesn't extend to the people ... individual French treat individual Americans very nicely by and large. I was there seven months ago and loved it.

FL270
 

av8rmsu

Well-Known Member
I've flown to Europe and back on a 767 (Delta) and Asia and back on a 747 (United). Not really bias to one over the other. The 747 seemed more comfortable, but the 767 seemed to have better service. I guess since there were less people and still a lot of flight attendants. The number of engines don't bother me personally. If it is your time it is your time. Can't fly all day and sit around worrying about the engines.
 

I_Money

Moderator
I have found the best service crossing the Atlantic on American or United. I am not sure if it is just a case of the service suites my needs, or the fact the flight attendants are very friendly towards me but with either carrier flying is a pleasure. The worst way accross the atlantic is definately Virgin - their employees need a moral boost, they really do not have a passion for what they do and it really shows - atleast that is my interpretation of it.

In regards to aircraft I think it depends on age. An old smelly anything is not nearly as nice as the new, clean fresh, latest gadgets aircraft. But how many seats are crammed into does make a difference.

Do you collect airmiles or travel a lot or could potentially travel a lot with one career? This is also top on the list of choosing airlines.
 

tonyw

Well-Known Member
My favorite airplane in the entire world is a 747, so I'd go with that. I don't know why I think it's so cool, but I think that plane is just beautiful.
 

sixpack

New Member
[ QUOTE ]

Actually 2 engine aircraft are probably more reliable for over seas flying then a 747. Which is prolly why the 767 is the number one choice for airlines when flying over seas.

Also I once heard a pliot say that yes a 747 has more engines but that also mean that theres more of a chance that you might incure more problems. Example "more money more problems. More engines possiblity of having more problems.


[/ QUOTE ] I don't buy this logic. I see it as more of a mathematically study...
Factor 1: Assuming independent failures, the probability that 4 of 4 engines would fail would be P to the 4th power (where P is the probability of one engine failing). The probability that 2 of 2 engines would fail is P squared. Assume (only hypothetical) that P=1/1000. Then, the proabably of a 4-engine jet losing all of its engines is 1 in one-trillion. The probability of a 2-engine jet losing all of its engines is 1 in one-million (much more likely).

Factor 2: Many engine failures are not independent. (bad fuel, idiot mechanic who systematically does wrong thing, explosion which takes out another engine, etc).

Factor 3: Engines can be hazardous to flight, even if you have spares. They can explode and catch fire. The more engines you have, the more potential there is for such hazards. The probability that one of the engines may create a hazard is proportional to the number of engines. P*N, where N is the number of engines. Assume engine hazards occur at a rate of 1/1000 (again, totally made up number for purposes of this example). Then a 4 engine plane will have a hazard rate of 1/250, whereas a 2 engine plane will have a hazard rate of only 1/500 (better).

Now that I've bored everybody with the numbers, I'll tell you that I don't really care if I'm on a 2 or 4 engine plane. They're both safe. I'd prefer the 747 because it's big, and looks really cool.
 

gay_pilot18

New Member
Well to respond to "Prospective Pilot" questions.

I work for Delta Airlines so I see and talk to 777 pilots alot and go on the planes when there at the gate.

Seeing as I work for Delta and have never been overseas (yet) I have never had the pleasure of flying on a 747.

I will admit tho that I have a personal bias toward the 747. As I prefer to be a domestic pilot doing long intercontinental flights in a 737-800, 757/767 in the 48 states vs. flying internationally.

So then naturally I prefer 2 engines to 4.

Also Bush and Ashcroft have yet to make free speech and opinions unconstitutional (but I hear there workin on it) so more or less that was an opinion and not fact. And everyone has an opinion.

So the word "better" to me is more or less an opinion.
 
Top