The 767-400 has only ever been used by 2 major US carriers ( United/Delta) with the exception of 1 or 2 VIP clients.
Do you think the USA frames will ever be sold on as second hand aircraft and perhaps who too ?
The 767-300 has proven to be an excellent choice with many airlines and in some examples frames are on 3rd / 4th operators from new and still flying well into 20 years plus on age?
Understandably maintanance plays a crucial role here but the 767-400's in question I would predict to be in good shape based on the owner!

Hey guys,
I see Delta and United using the 767-400ERs until the end of the planes' lifetimes.
However, if they decide to withdraw them earlier, I could see them being converted into freighters for FedEx and / or UPS and / or DHL and / or Prime Air. I remember reading a thread here years ago in which someone said that the -400ERs would be suitable freighters IF the cost of conversion and certification was reasonable.
Another option I can see is the USAF dusting off its E-10 plans and using cheap second-hand 767-400ERs frames to replace a range of specialised KC-135-type and E-3 Sentries...
Bahrain (the sole VIP user) will surely keep their VVIP 767-400ER for a long time! It is still relatively young.
Cheers,
Bunumuring.

Probably use them till they are 20years old and then they will go to the scrapper. Boeing 767 are on the way out in the passenger business. Perhaps some freighter will pick them up. Is it difficult to certify a p2f conversion for a subtype like this?

I've always wondered why this particular 767 version didn't sell more than the 40/50 units produced. Being a stretch of a very successful model (a la 321) I would expect more sales, specially in markets where seat numbers is the key like internal flights in Japan, among others.

Apparently it's proving to be an excellent machine for UA and Delta since none has plans (correct me if I'm wrong) to get rid of them and all units produced are still in use.
Anyone here can provide info on the economics of the model?

I see them ending their operational life with both carriers they're at right now, probably because none will be willing to sell them. IMHO

They are some of the youngest 767s out there, so there's plenty of life left in them.

As they are late build, it means all the continuous upgrades Boeing has made over the years are going to be present, and the engines will likewise be late build and more efficient. Both US carriers that operate them could easily have these as fleet backbone aircraft until the time they are ready for the boneyard. Their CASM numbers are also extremely good.

secondhand, their value would possibly be poor as they are "nonstandard" aircraft and other carriers might find financing and insurance difficult. As part of the fleet of two of the Big Three they are a much better proposition.

United&Delta will probably use them up to the point they will be retired for good. I have a question about the 764 on why it doesn't have winglets?

TheGeordielad wrote:

United&Delta will probably use them up to the point they will be retired for good. I have a question about the 764 on why it doesn't have winglets?

B764 has raked wingtips, same tip found on the 77W, 77L, 777F, 787s and 747-8.

TheGeordielad wrote:

United&Delta will probably use them up to the point they will be retired for good. I have a question about the 764 on why it doesn't have winglets?

Because it has raked wingtips.....77W style.

S

TheGeordielad wrote:

United&Delta will probably use them up to the point they will be retired for good. I have a question about the 764 on why it doesn't have winglets?

The 767-400 has raked wingtips like the 777-200LR/-300ER, 747-8, and 787.

IKolkyo,Sfuk & BoeingGuy thanks!

Dutchy wrote:

Probably use them till they are 20years old and then they will go to the scrapper. Boeing 767 are on the way out in the passenger business. Perhaps some freighter will pick them up. Is it difficult to certify a p2f conversion for a subtype like this?

The oldest was delivered in 2000, I doubt any will be retired in the next 3 years. I forsee a 30-35 year service life.

patineta89 wrote:

I've always wondered why this particular 767 version didn't sell more than the 40/50 units produced. Being a stretch of a very successful model (a la 321) I would expect more sales, specially in markets where seat numbers is the key like internal flights in Japan, among others.

My guess: Because when the 767-400 was introduced, the 767 wasn't exactly the newest aircraft around. So many airlines went for the newer A330-300 instead, which had the added benefit of accepting LD3-containers. Or, if capacity was important, the 777.

I think Delta and United will keep their 767-400's at least 10 to 15 more years. There are many threads here why the 767-400 didn't do well - debuted just before an economic downturn, should have debuted about 10 years earlier, superior performance of the 330-200, etc.

TheGeordielad wrote:

United&Delta will probably use them up to the point they will be retired for good.

An operator of a few 764s would lack DL and UA's economies of scale with the type. It would be hard to identify anybody with a better use for 764s (TATL and deep S America) than DL and UA.

If I remember, I thought there were several pilots on these birds who said they have a tendency to get 'funky' in crosswinds or on final approach

727200 wrote:

If I remember, I thought there were several pilots on these birds who said they have a tendency to get 'funky' in crosswinds or on final approach

I used to fly it. My complaint was that it was underpowered. I didn't find it squirrelly beyond that.

With the 787-10 on order for United I don't see the 767-400s lasting past 2025. The 787-10 will be a much better aircraft on TATL. The increased efficiency of the 787, larger cargo load and less cost per seat is way better for an airline. Although the PW4000s sound awesome, the GEnX is much more efficient.

What is the interior refurb story on 764? It would make sense to do a major one and then fly another 8-9 years IMO.

catiii wrote:

727200 wrote:

If I remember, I thought there were several pilots on these birds who said they have a tendency to get 'funky' in crosswinds or on final approach

I used to fly it. My complaint was that it was underpowered. I didn't find it squirrelly beyond that.

I think it was more "under-winged" than under powered. As I recall, the wing span was reduced in order to allow DL to fit it into certain gates.

And I flew it, too. Sweet airplane, one of my favorites. I don't remember anything about it being "funky" in crosswinds or on final approach - quite the contrary, actually.

Soda cans.

patineta89 wrote:

I've always wondered why this particular 767 version didn't sell more than the 40/50 units produced. Being a stretch of a very successful model (a la 321) I would expect more sales, specially in markets where seat numbers is the key like internal flights in Japan, among others.

Apparently it's proving to be an excellent machine for UA and Delta since none has plans (correct me if I'm wrong) to get rid of them and all units produced are still in use.
Anyone here can provide info on the economics of the model?

I see them ending their operational life with both carriers they're at right now, probably because none will be willing to sell them. IMHO

The short answer was that the 764 was a stretch without increased range over the 767-300ER (if additional tanks and an MTOW increase had been offered, it could have rivaled the Airbus A330-200). It's only a 187t MTOW plane. Delta has been a large 767 customer and needed to replace its TriStars but didn't need the full range of the TriStar. I don't get why Continental ordered the 764 when they had earlier canceled a 763 order and sold the slots instead to GECAS (one of the planes eventually ended up with Delta in a lease-to-own transaction). The CO order was for 762(ERs)s and 764s when they did get 767s. (It was Delta and Continental who were the two airline customers.) That said, I could see Delta flying its 767-400ERs until the late 2020s, as they are flying 767-300ERs until they're close to out of hours, as the lower MTOW saves on landing fees.

BTW, total production was 38...one went to the Government of Bahrain, 21 for Delta, and 16 for Continental (now United).

FlyHossD wrote:

catiii wrote:

727200 wrote:

If I remember, I thought there were several pilots on these birds who said they have a tendency to get 'funky' in crosswinds or on final approach

I used to fly it. My complaint was that it was underpowered. I didn't find it squirrelly beyond that.

I think it was more "under-winged" than under powered. As I recall, the wing span was reduced in order to allow DL to fit it into certain gates.

And I flew it, too. Sweet airplane, one of my favorites. I don't remember anything about it being "funky" in crosswinds or on final approach - quite the contrary, actually.

Agreed. Loved it. When DL ordered them (and full disclosure that's where I flew it for a spell in '03 before I took a bump because of the furlough) it was with the idea it would be an L10 replacement and go to LGA a bunch, thus its footprint. My third and fourth legs of my IOE were LGA turns.

patineta89 wrote:

Apparently it's proving to be an excellent machine for UA and Delta since none has plans (correct me if I'm wrong) to get rid of them and all units produced are still in use.
Anyone here can provide info on the economics of the model?

I think their economic life is heavily dependent on fuel prices. They are less fuel-efficient than the other choices, but already paid for. So if fuel stay cheap they could last a long time. But if fuel gets very expensive, they will have a short life.

catiii wrote:

FlyHossD wrote:

catiii wrote:

I used to fly it. My complaint was that it was underpowered. I didn't find it squirrelly beyond that.

I think it was more "under-winged" than under powered. As I recall, the wing span was reduced in order to allow DL to fit it into certain gates.

And I flew it, too. Sweet airplane, one of my favorites. I don't remember anything about it being "funky" in crosswinds or on final approach - quite the contrary, actually.

Agreed. Loved it. When DL ordered them (and full disclosure that's where I flew it for a spell in '03 before I took a bump because of the furlough) it was with the idea it would be an L10 replacement and go to LGA a bunch, thus its footprint. My third and fourth legs of my IOE were LGA turns.

LGA


764s actually did revenue service at LGA?

Bostrom wrote:

patineta89 wrote:

I've always wondered why this particular 767 version didn't sell more than the 40/50 units produced. Being a stretch of a very successful model (a la 321) I would expect more sales, specially in markets where seat numbers is the key like internal flights in Japan, among others.

My guess: Because when the 767-400 was introduced, the 767 wasn't exactly the newest aircraft around. So many airlines went for the newer A330-300 instead, which had the added benefit of accepting LD3-containers. Or, if capacity was important, the 777.

The 767-400 competed seat wise with the A330-200 not -300.

Delta 767-400ER has 246 pass seats, the A330-200 has 234 pass seats & the A330-300 has 293 seats.
So that is 12 fewer seats on an A330-200 & 47 more on an A330-300.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I don't get why Continental ordered the 764 when they had earlier canceled a 763 order and sold the slots instead to GECAS (one of the planes eventually ended up with Delta in a lease-to-own transaction). The CO order was for 762(ERs)s and 764s when they did get 767s..

As stated earlier, DL wanted the 764 to replace their L1011 fleet; CO saw a similar opportunity for the 764 as a DC-10-30 replacement.

If it would have been able to climb to high altitudes better, it would have sold better. As for the ones in service, I don't think they are going anywhere anytime soon.

jagraham wrote:

catiii wrote:

FlyHossD wrote:

I think it was more "under-winged" than under powered. As I recall, the wing span was reduced in order to allow DL to fit it into certain gates.

And I flew it, too. Sweet airplane, one of my favorites. I don't remember anything about it being "funky" in crosswinds or on final approach - quite the contrary, actually.

Agreed. Loved it. When DL ordered them (and full disclosure that's where I flew it for a spell in '03 before I took a bump because of the furlough) it was with the idea it would be an L10 replacement and go to LGA a bunch, thus its footprint. My third and fourth legs of my IOE were LGA turns.

LGA


764s actually did revenue service at LGA?

Yes I flew on a DL 764 at least 3x to and from ATL.

Very nice flying aircraft, plenty of thrust, really needed a bigger wing.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

BTW, total production was 38...one went to the Government of Bahrain, 21 for Delta, and 16 for Continental (now United).

I wonder if we'll see DL pick up UA's 767-400s sometime in the next 5 to 10 years?

aemoreira1981 wrote:

The short answer was that the 764 was a stretch without increased range over the 767-300ER (if additional tanks and an MTOW increase had been offered, it could have rivaled the Airbus A330-200).

It was offered. The 764ERX would've had increased span/area, and engines shared with the stretched 747 offering at the time.

Market rejected it. ET was the only one who ordered, but eventually converted to 77E.

jagraham wrote:

764s actually did revenue service at LGA?

Yup. They were domestic-only when originally in service for DL, and were basically used as shuttles from ATL to LGA, MCO, FLL, and LAX. Later Hawaii.

theSFOspotter wrote:

With the 787-10 on order for United I don't see the 767-400s lasting past 2025. The 787-10 will be a much better aircraft on TATL. The increased efficiency of the 787, larger cargo load and less cost per seat is way better for an airline. Although the PW4000s sound awesome, the GEnX is much more efficient.

What??
There isn't a single extant 767-400 with PW4000 engines.
And why does everyone keep spouting off about how great the 78J will be to replace this or that aircraft?
It's a bit large for that purpose... AND EXPENSIVE!
And the GENX is great, but hardly such an improvement as to warrant premature retirements of otherwise competent aircraft.

AA737-823 wrote:

theSFOspotter wrote:

With the 787-10 on order for United I don't see the 767-400s lasting past 2025. The 787-10 will be a much better aircraft on TATL. The increased efficiency of the 787, larger cargo load and less cost per seat is way better for an airline. Although the PW4000s sound awesome, the GEnX is much more efficient.

What??
There isn't a single extant 767-400 with PW4000 engines.
And why does everyone keep spouting off about how great the 78J will be to replace this or that aircraft?
It's a bit large for that purpose... AND EXPENSIVE!
And the GENX is great, but hardly such an improvement as to warrant premature retirements of otherwise competent aircraft.

Agreed - the 787-8 is more in line with the capacity of the 767-400ER; but is overbuilt for that purpose. The 764 is a mean transatlantic machine. The 789 is 772 sized; the 787-10 even bigger! No idea where people get the idea the 787-10 and 764 are anywhere near a similar size. A 787-9 Lite may be a better option.

Hey LAX7772LR,
Kenya Airways and Royal Air Maroc had some kind of sales agreements with Boeing at the time of the dropping of the 767-400ERX. Not sure about the status of Ethiopian's plans ... I
I vaguely recall a European charter airline had also expressed considerable interest in the -ERX and that Qantas had definitely looked at it but rejected it.
For those unaware, Qantas received a proposal from Boeing for a package of 747-400ERs (a model specifically developed for QF), 777s of various models and 767-400ERs for domestic and near Asia flights. Of that package, QF cherry picked the 747-400ER to go along with the Airbus offering of A330s and A380s. Geoff Dixon, then CEO of QF explained years later in 'Australian Aviation' magazine that while the 767-400ER was considered ideal for domestic and near Asia flights, and the 777 ideal for the Asia Pacific Europe flights, the A330 (offering one type for all missions and leading into the A380 / Airbus cockpit philosophy) was the better solution at the time for QF. Apparently the only 'definite' decision at the time was to order the A380 no matter what...
Cheers,
Bunumuring.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

patineta89 wrote:

I've always wondered why this particular 767 version didn't sell more than the 40/50 units produced. Being a stretch of a very successful model (a la 321) I would expect more sales, specially in markets where seat numbers is the key like internal flights in Japan, among others.

Apparently it's proving to be an excellent machine for UA and Delta since none has plans (correct me if I'm wrong) to get rid of them and all units produced are still in use.
Anyone here can provide info on the economics of the model?

I see them ending their operational life with both carriers they're at right now, probably because none will be willing to sell them. IMHO

The short answer was that the 764 was a stretch without increased range over the 767-300ER (if additional tanks and an MTOW increase had been offered, it could have rivaled the Airbus A330-200). It's only a 187t MTOW plane. Delta has been a large 767 customer and needed to replace its TriStars but didn't need the full range of the TriStar. I don't get why Continental ordered the 764 when they had earlier canceled a 763 order and sold the slots instead to GECAS (one of the planes eventually ended up with Delta in a lease-to-own transaction). The CO order was for 762(ERs)s and 764s when they did get 767s. (It was Delta and Continental who were the two airline customers.) That said, I could see Delta flying its 767-400ERs until the late 2020s, as they are flying 767-300ERs until they're close to out of hours, as the lower MTOW saves on landing fees.

BTW, total production was 38...one went to the Government of Bahrain, 21 for Delta, and 16 for Continental (now United).

No, according to many database, the 764 has a higher MTOW. It is a 204-ton airplane rather than 187 ton. Or you just can not get the near-763ER range performance. The 287kN CF6 vs. 265kN CF6/PW4/RB2 makes it has a T/W ratio same as the 763. The true killer of the 764 is the wing, same factor that killed the 753. The 764wing is 9 metres shorter than its length , making it has a wing load 40% higher than the original 767-200. Its truely underwinged. Wingtips only added a ignorable 7 sqm of area. They are not for extra lift, anyway. They are used to lower drag. It's doomed by Delta 's wingspan request . I guess thy really have high takeoff/landing speeds Makes sense that it has reinforced flaps.

Given that only two airlines are operating the type I guess they will be retained as long as it makes sense for them. As US airlines are flying their planes longer than most others do that could well mean another 10 or even 15 years. Chances are small that we will see these oddballs in the livery of another operator.

They will probably be around for sometime yet, however my guess is that will depend on how fast the 787-10 enters the UA fleet.

RL777 wrote:

They will probably be around for sometime yet, however my guess is that will depend on how fast the 787-10 enters the UA fleet.

And DL's interested in it.

theSFOspotter wrote:

With the 787-10 on order for United I don't see the 767-400s lasting past 2025. The 787-10 will be a much better aircraft on TATL. The increased efficiency of the 787, larger cargo load and less cost per seat is way better for an airline. Although the PW4000s sound awesome, the GEnX is much more efficient.

Only problem is that DL and UA B764s have CF6 engines.

It's a real shame that more airlines didn't pick up the 764. They are some of my favorite aircraft and without a doubt the best in the 767 family.

jagraham wrote:

catiii wrote:

FlyHossD wrote:

I think it was more "under-winged" than under powered. As I recall, the wing span was reduced in order to allow DL to fit it into certain gates.

And I flew it, too. Sweet airplane, one of my favorites. I don't remember anything about it being "funky" in crosswinds or on final approach - quite the contrary, actually.

Agreed. Loved it. When DL ordered them (and full disclosure that's where I flew it for a spell in '03 before I took a bump because of the furlough) it was with the idea it would be an L10 replacement and go to LGA a bunch, thus its footprint. My third and fourth legs of my IOE were LGA turns.

LGA


764s actually did revenue service at LGA?

Generally a handful of one-offs, such as for breast cancer awareness with ship 1821.

USAirKid wrote:

I wonder if we'll see DL pick up UA's 767-400s sometime in the next 5 to 10 years?

I don't think so I think UA will hold on to their 764's for a while and the reason is they need them. After the 744's the next aircraft UA needs to replace are the 21 older model 763's and as it stands right now there is no aircraft on order to replace these aircraft. UA seems reluctant to replace the 763's with the 788 so with UA scheduled to start taking delivery of 787-10 in the second half of 2018 I think those aircraft will allow UA to shuffle the fleet around and move some 764's onto routes previously flown by 763's and allow UA to start the retirement of some of the oldest 763's in our fleet, it will also give UA more time to study Boeing's MoM concept.

If DL wants UA's 764's in my opinion they are going to have to wait a lot longer than five years because I don't think UA will hold on to their oldest 763's past 2022.

pretty sure UA/DL will fly them till they cant fly anymore!!!

767 is one of the most comfortable planes IMO. Doesnt matter where you're seated, you are always no more then 1 seat away from the aisle.

patineta89 wrote:

Apparently it's proving to be an excellent machine for UA and Delta since none has plans (correct me if I'm wrong) to get rid of them and all units produced are still in use.

If that's the case I wish DL would at least update the interiors on their 400s. I fly about 200k miles a year with them and avoid booking any legs that involve a 764.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

jagraham wrote:

catiii wrote:

Agreed. Loved it. When DL ordered them (and full disclosure that's where I flew it for a spell in '03 before I took a bump because of the furlough) it was with the idea it would be an L10 replacement and go to LGA a bunch, thus its footprint. My third and fourth legs of my IOE were LGA turns.

LGA


764s actually did revenue service at LGA?

Generally a handful of one-offs, such as for breast cancer awareness with ship 1821.

The airplane was regularly scheduled into LGA. It wasn't a handful of one off experiences.

Agree with those who said they'll probably keep them. Not sure how overlap there is in accommodating the -300 and -400, but UA and DL have shown to keep their planes for a long time, and I think they have plenty newer -300 models as well.

AirCal737 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

patineta89 wrote:

I've always wondered why this particular 767 version didn't sell more than the 40/50 units produced. Being a stretch of a very successful model (a la 321) I would expect more sales, specially in markets where seat numbers is the key like internal flights in Japan, among others.

Apparently it's proving to be an excellent machine for UA and Delta since none has plans (correct me if I'm wrong) to get rid of them and all units produced are still in use.
Anyone here can provide info on the economics of the model?

I see them ending their operational life with both carriers they're at right now, probably because none will be willing to sell them. IMHO

The short answer was that the 764 was a stretch without increased range over the 767-300ER (if additional tanks and an MTOW increase had been offered, it could have rivaled the Airbus A330-200). It's only a 187t MTOW plane. Delta has been a large 767 customer and needed to replace its TriStars but didn't need the full range of the TriStar. I don't get why Continental ordered the 764 when they had earlier canceled a 763 order and sold the slots instead to GECAS (one of the planes eventually ended up with Delta in a lease-to-own transaction). The CO order was for 762(ERs)s and 764s when they did get 767s. (It was Delta and Continental who were the two airline customers.) That said, I could see Delta flying its 767-400ERs until the late 2020s, as they are flying 767-300ERs until they're close to out of hours, as the lower MTOW saves on landing fees.

BTW, total production was 38...one went to the Government of Bahrain, 21 for Delta, and 16 for Continental (now United).

No, according to many database, the 764 has a higher MTOW. It is a 204-ton airplane rather than 187 ton. Or you just can not get the near-763ER range performance. The 287kN CF6 vs. 265kN CF6/PW4/RB2 makes it has a T/W ratio same as the 763. The true killer of the 764 is the wing, same factor that killed the 753. The 764wing is 9 metres shorter than its length , making it has a wing load 40% higher than the original 767-200. Its truely underwinged. Wingtips only added a ignorable 7 sqm of area. They are not for extra lift, anyway. They are used to lower drag. It's doomed by Delta 's wingspan request . I guess thy really have high takeoff/landing speeds Makes sense that it has reinforced flaps.

Take off and landing speeds are fairly high but that's more for tail strike protection than a lack of lift, where the relatively small wing penalizes you is it's lack of altitude capability, especially when at max weight, lovely aircraft to fly though and the best looking 767 of them all with the taller gear.