Although I appreciate pragmatism, create thinking and the 767 (segment of the market), I do wonder how serious we are about the enviroment when we want to launch planes with 90's engine tech to fly well into the 2040's? I thought people had woken up and smelled the coffee? Climate change is real and each and every one of us has to take our responsibility.

I know I'm preaching to a sensitive crowd here, but seriously considering 90's engine tech for planes yet to be relaunched made possible/economical by current oil prices shows even more strongly that aviation is under taxed for it's enviromental footprint. We all know it.

I don't see this being MAXed out. I see it being an available aircraft within a short space of time (Jan 2018)Possibly adding some refinements that are already certified. If you talk about adding new this and that tech then you're spending money on development that could be spent on a new design. I see this as being part of a deal for a launch order of the 797.

Btblue wrote:

I don't see this being MAXed out. I see it being an available aircraft within a short space of time (Jan 2018)Possibly adding some refinements that are already certified. If you talk about adding new this and that tech then you're spending money on development that could be spent on a new design. I see this as being part of a deal for a launch order of the 797.

I think you are right. I cannot see them "reinventing" the 767, maybe a few tweaks here and there but IMHO as well, this is all about the bigger picture. The 797.

Here'a completely unsubstantiated rumor that was building up steam even before this news -

(Personally, I don't see it ever happening)

ytz wrote:

Stitch wrote:

ytz wrote:

So they are going to insist on offering yesterday's airplane tomorrow. Why?

Because it appears that customers are insisting to buy scores of them?

Scores? Really?

Actually the 767 is in VERY high demand.. this may be "airliners.net" and clearly everyone here is into airliners... but they forget that an airliner is just a facet of this... this is an aircraft with lots of applications... in this case the 767 has a HUGE advantage over the 787 and in an area the 787 isn't made yet... as a FREIGHTER... read into that "Amazon Prime" who is currently building a CVG sort facility to hold over 100 767's at a time.... in addition the 767 is the aircraft frame selected as the new US Gov arial refueling tanker... so the line will be around for a while to come... ALSO, while it is true that there are 767's going to the bone yard.. the vast majority of them are unusable to convert to freighters because of their high cycles.. their is a dwindling supply.. hence the FedEx and UPS new builds

flyingclrs727 wrote:

According to the Puget Sound Business Jounal, the 767 order might include:

The 767 might even be modernized with composite wings and new engines to improve fuel efficiency and lower operating costs, the sources said.

Unlikely to get that accomplished by 2020.

Recently all the Boeing talk has been about 'midrange ' (NMA) not NSA and not MOM.So yes I think they are seriously looking at it.As earlier writers have pointed out it's already an aircraft that is circa 30tons lighter than the next step up.
Four factors.
1.Price -tick
2.Availability-tick
3.Size -tick
4.Economics......Do they go to the expense of putting a Genx2 variant (saving 20% sfc) on it or just go for points 1,2&3?

The Genx is one hell of a good engine (now).Its taken quite a bit of sorting and only recently had some icing issues but it's now fully mature.
Whatever the price it feels somewhat obtuse to keep 1970 engines on it.Done correctly there really is no competition and if they can pull a couple of large orders in -why not?

It would buy them a whole bunch of time (that they need) to come back to the market when they are good and ready and launch a totally new aircraft in the 200-250 pax midrange market space.Perhaps with more mature technologies such as cold cure carbon, full laminar flow wings and next gen GTF engines etc.
Personally I think it might be a cracking decision.(but I'm biased as I love the 2x3x2 econ layout!)

ThePinnacleKid wrote:

ytz wrote:

Stitch wrote:

Because it appears that customers are insisting to buy scores of them?

Scores? Really?

Actually the 767 is in VERY high demand.. this may be "airliners.net" and clearly everyone here is into airliners... but they forget that an airliner is just a facet of this... this is an aircraft with lots of applications... in this case the 767 has a HUGE advantage over the 787 and in an area the 787 isn't made yet... as a FREIGHTER... read into that "Amazon Prime" who is currently building a CVG sort facility to hold over 100 767's at a time.... in addition the 767 is the aircraft frame selected as the new US Gov arial refueling tanker... so the line will be around for a while to come... ALSO, while it is true that there are 767's going to the bone yard.. the vast majority of them are unusable to convert to freighters because of their high cycles.. their is a dwindling supply.. hence the FedEx and UPS new builds

This whole thread however, is about a pax version.

They won't upgrade the 767.

Doing nothing they might sell 100 more aircraft.
Adding new engines they might sell 200 aircraft.
Adding a new wing they might sell 500 aircraft.

The more they spend on upgrades the more money they get in sales. But will either of them actually make a profit?

It is a strange discussion here. Boeing did not pull the 767-300ER of the market. It is for sale, but did not sell. What is to restart? The supplier line?

I assume the only reason to buy a 767-300ER is if it would be offered dirt cheap.

Changes like a new engine takes time and if Boeing would decide to neo or rather MAX the 767 frames could perhaps be delivered 2020 or 2021. Very unlikely to happen.

The 767 might even be modernized with composite wings and new engines to improve fuel efficiency and lower operating costs, the sources said.

Joe Diabolus:
The MOM is too far out ( like the NSA ) and Boeing preemptively tries
to bridge that gap from the get go with an offer for a 767 MAX.
( instead of being forced into the MAX acompanied by some loss of face.)

i.e. We will see a 767MAX ( even more expensive to do than the 737MAX but cheaper than 748
to compete with A321 and A330NEO and the MOM will be shoved over the horizon on the right
( Just like NMA ).

kmz wrote:

A B767MAX with new wings makes no sense, then they could just do a B787-3...

Quite correct, I think.

They would need to downsize it, i.e. reduce weight, at the expense of range, to separate it from 787 and create its niche.
I cannot see how they can do it effectively, as anything without a new wing may not be sufficient and a new wing is expensive.

Of course, if they foresee sales of 1000 instead of 100 it is a different case.

The way I read it is that they want to sell the 767 at cheap prices, not re-engine it.

Stitch wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

You’d think replacing the 737 would be a higher priority than the MoM

The 737 MAX is rapidly closing in on 4000 orders and should have many more thousand in her so there is no real urgency to replace it, especially now that the 737-10 is in the mix and finding strong interest from customers.

Managing to sell 4000 is only half the story. At what margins? If the product is so inferior that Boeing has to sell them at significantly marked down prices (or financing the operation of almost bankrupt airlines, or selling 73Gs to UA for 22 mil.), then 4000 sales would be almost worthless. Sure it keeps the money flowing through the company and the shareholders happy, but it doesn't save up money for the next plane. There is every indication that this has indeed been the case for a significant amount of the 737MAX orders. Airbus on the other hand has at the very least managed to shovel in profits from the A321.

wasn't the 787supposed to be the replacement of the 767?

Nope, never going to happen its just trying to distract the media from the hissy fit they threw over the Bombardier - Airbus tie up. Boeing have form on this think sonic cruiser.

Replacement of cf6 with genx was done pretty easily for the 748 so the pylon and engineering work to Boeing controls/interfaces can’t be that hard. Three years seems like the timeframe and ge would love to then snag the future freighter and tanker orders once it’s built. The partnership could also help them win more exclusivity on the 797 and relieve timeline crunches on that project I would think. 767max could be leased with intent to replace with 797 and converted by Boeing to freighter even, 7 years down the road.

I am more interested in a B757 Max or a MoM rather than a B767.

B767 is a big fuel guzzler, we have the B788 now which is the perfect for that kind of capacity, even the A330neo is great.

This was a good PR department move. Great attempt at trying to distract from what is negavtive, Boeing being the bad guy against Bombardier and Airbus stepping in getting a good state of the art plane design for free.
The 767 was a great plane in the early 1980ies.
It then lost to the A330 in the 1990ies and was declared dead in the 2000. It wont come back. Nor should it.

The engineers at Boeing are brilliant (so are the ones in Toulouse/Hamburg/Getafe/Filton). They can, given the resources easily come up with a plane alot better than a 767X would ever be. Just give them the resources too. And to be fair they would feel almost embarrassed to work on a new 767, they as well as anybody knows that its a plane that was made for an era long gone.

BoeingVista wrote:

Nope, never going to happen its just trying to distract the media from the hissy fit they threw over the Bombardier - Airbus tie up. Boeing have form on this think sonic cruiser.

These are leaks coming from the media, not Boeing announcements. Leeham specifically I don’t think would take the bait if was all merely a distraction. They are hearing things they believe are credible. Market intelligence = sources within airlines and Boeing.

Slash787 wrote:

I am more interested in a B757 Max or a MoM rather than a B767.

B767 is a big fuel guzzler, we have the B788 now which is the perfect for that kind of capacity, even the A330neo is great.

The 788/A338 are both much larger than the 763. Also the 767 isn’t a big fuel guzzler...it’s biggest issue came down to capability versus the A330 (range and cargo).

Polot wrote:

it’s biggest issue came down to capability versus the A330 (range and cargo).

True but at the moment it would be better to work on the MoM, I know a lot of money and hard work goes in all of this, but if they relaunch the b767, I don't think so they would get big orders, Airlines will still go with the A330neo or the B788 even if they have more passenger capacity.

Not going to happen. I'm sure Boeing could have made a 767MAX work ten years ago (assuming they had the right engine for it), but that ship has sailed. Even the A330neo was launched five years too late and A.net's resident Boeing fanboys love to remind us how well it's been selling. The real question here is what engine would power a 767max? The GEnx or RR Trent 7000 are surely too heavy (and expensive!) for an airframe of this size. The CF6 will be woefully uncompetitive in the 2020/2030s (it's not like the 767-2C where an open government cheque book is funding the fuel bill).

If the current 767-300ER pax version had a future, someone would have ordered one in the last five years.

MillwallSean wrote:

This was a good PR department move. Great attempt at trying to distract from what is negavtive, Boeing being the bad guy against Bombardier and Airbus stepping in getting a good state of the art plane design for free.

seabosdca wrote:

flee wrote:

We are not talking about a MAX or anything remotely close to a MAX. We are just talking about restarting the B767 passenger production. If a decision is made to go ahead, deliveries should begin in maybe about a year from the go ahead.

The joker in the pack is the price of oil - only works if oil stays below USD 100.

This is the only sensible comment in the thread.

There is no engine, no time, and no business case for a 767 MAX. If this happens it would be for new, low-maintenance TATL lift, available near-immediately, at rock-bottom prices. I doubt there would be any changes to the airframe or engines beyond incorporation of the latest continuous improvements and perhaps the rumored scimitar winglets.

It's worth emphasizing.

There is no existing engine that can serve as a 767MAX engine and no time or money or even interest in developing one. The 767 can't support a larger/heavier engine and all modern engines are larger and heavier.

This is a deal to keep Boeing's foot in the door at key customers mainly because they have no MOM like product.

It's very similar to what happened with DL. DL said it's time for new planes. BA said here's some end of line 777s to hold you over till the 787s you really do want become available. DL said no thanks. Perhaps UA will decide that 767s can bridge the gap till MOM is available.

What will be interesting to see are the terms. Maybe BA has to be the ones holding the leases on them, or maybe UA will buy them outright.

hma350 wrote:

wasn't the 787supposed to be the replacement of the 767?

talk. It was also supposed to best current generation craft by 20+%

The 787 was to be a spoon for the A330's soup.
i.e. as a squatter in that house ...

UA clearly has a defined role for the 767, as well as DL. If Boeing has an offer from Amazon for 100 and can couple 50 UA and 50 across other clients, a 200 aircraft order would be worth the effort on the PIP, Engines, etc. The wings are already tested on the 764, engines on the 747, etc. so it's a relatively quick turnaround as the 2020 ramp up suggests...just two years.

I believe UA is probably having these discussions, mostly because of the age of their 767's. If this goes through, it could be that Boeing is helping with the financing or buying them back in 10 years to convert to freighters or...to get UA into the next a/c they make. I'd say UA could get these for well under $100m a piece.

Inside, the 767 is great: 7 across, signature interior is very nice on current UA birds, etc. The only thing the PAX would really miss is the humidity / jet lag benefit of the 787.

Get the popcorn out, this will be fun to watch.

Just like the 757 a reengined variant would be the best. If they can do it for a 50 year old design they can for a 35 year old one. But that's never gonna happen.

I think the Boeing idea is because there is an RFQ out for a plane in that size around the MOM and the A330Neo is a candidate, but not a perfect one. Also Boeings offer off a 787 is tooo much and tooo expensive, but they don't want to lose this special MOM candidate, so they check for this alternative offer. Also this might Trigger followers as well.
In the following however I see the MOM at least being delayed, if not even cancelled.
The outcome might be like this:
The 767 really gets a 767 NEO + Upgrade - a bit more than the A330 NEO, but rightsized to cover the 230-270 seat market with reasonable Investment.
Then the real new development would be the new NSA Family to react to Airbus recent activities – in the mid-long range.
Flyglobal

ytz wrote:

Stitch wrote:

ytz wrote:

So they are going to insist on offering yesterday's airplane tomorrow. Why?

Because it appears that customers are insisting to buy scores of them?

Scores? Really?

60 = 3 score = scores

Taxi645 wrote:

Although I appreciate pragmatism, create thinking and the 767 (segment of the market), I do wonder how serious we are about the enviroment when we want to launch planes with 90's engine tech to fly well into the 2040's? I thought people had woken up and smelled the coffee? Climate change is real and each and every one of us has to take our responsibility.

I know I'm preaching to a sensitive crowd here, but seriously considering 90's engine tech for planes yet to be relaunched made possible/economical by current oil prices shows even more strongly that aviation is under taxed for it's enviromental footprint. We all know it.

Excellent point. I compleely agree. That this conversation is happening says a lot about environmental economics and climate regulation. (Much though I love the 767, having grown up taking short hops on TPA-ATL...)

I agree that the 787 is too similar to the 767 when it comes to attracting customers. the only attractive thing about at 767 would be a lower price and a used 767 would be even more attractive price wise - and there are plenty of/will be plenty more in five years.

They would have to apply some major upgrades but keep the price low to attract customers. I could see a "767-200MAX" appealing to 757 customers, bridging the gap temporarily between 737 and 787 until the MoM is ready. Something to appeal to transcon and tatl routes that a 787 would be wasted on?

On consideration,I really wonder if it could ever be worth a re-engine if all one is looking at is a 'US only' 200(max) combined order.
The aircraft would be orphans so who would ever want them later.Nah better to go for an absolute rock bottom price and use the existing ones methinks.It would keep their most important customers onside and that's not to be sniffed at.
A 'MAX version' would only be worth it if they felt they could genuinely market the plane globally as a 'quick fix' MOM for 5-10 years.

In the mean time...There seems to be an increasing emphasis with Airbus on the A321NEO LR "PLUS" as opposed to the 'plus/plus'

Leeham and others read the latter to be the carbon rewinged and engine (i.e. A major rebuild).Whereas they seem pretty certain that the 'plus' is all about extracting every possible extra mile of range from the existing wing/engine/fuse combo'.This makes the plane increasingly desirable tatl which may be why we are seeing this 767 fire sale.After all with a 767 you can also take luggage and cargo! As well as linking more cities.

The first flight of the B 767 was on the 26th of September 1981. So the basic design is 36 years old. The first flight of the A 330 was on the 2nd of November 1992, which makes it soon 25 years old. Of course over all these years there have been modifications on both planes but the A 330 is still 11 years younger and investing time and money in a, by comparison, young modell makes more sense to me.
If Boeing thinks that the MoM aircraft will be their next big thing they should focus all available capabilities in developing the B 7x7. Look to the future not the past.

Reheating cold pizza. This is a terrible idea at best. This screams unimaginative and if true is owing up to being 2nd fiddle. Right now it feels like Boeing is grasping at straws for everything. Making a MAX version of the 737 was the wrong decision. Clearly they should have started the NSA but this was the quick and easy version. Fast forward 5 years and they are trying to do the same game. Same song, same dance. Invest now in the MOM plane and don't look back. It feels like they are getting lapped by the competition and its hard to watch. And while they will garner sales from this, that's not the point, they should be moving forward with products not putting lipstick on pigs.

No - Boeing don't do it. The airliner storage facilities are almost full up and resemble used car lots. Seems like a lot of wasted tech to me for nothing.

Just remove a couple of sections, fancy electronics and derate engines of existing 787.

Don't sink few more $Billions trying to restart 767.

32andBelow wrote:

The already replaced the 767. It is the 787-8

Please stop this thread, this says is all

Boeingphan wrote:

Reheating cold pizza. This is a terrible idea at best. This screams unimaginative and if true is owing up to being 2nd fiddle. Right now it feels like Boeing is grasping at straws for everything. Making a MAX version of the 737 was the wrong decision. Clearly they should have started the NSA but this was the quick and easy version. Fast forward 5 years and they are trying to do the same game. Same song, same dance. Invest now in the MOM plane and don't look back. It feels like they are getting lapped by the competition and its hard to watch. And while they will garner sales from this, that's not the point, they should be moving forward with products not putting lipstick on pigs.

This mentality blows my mind. If a customer is asking for a product and you can make money while producing it, why wouldn't you?

The 767 line is open and producing airplanes. If you can get a purchase quantity worth your time, it's an easy home run.

mcsam18 wrote:

This mentality blows my mind. If a customer is asking for a product and you can make money while producing it, why wouldn't you?

The 767 line is open and producing airplanes. If you can get a purchase quantity worth your time, it's an easy home run.

Because people here are just seeing 767MAX and freaking out especially has it fits the current Boeing is adrift narrative. They are not actually reading what Boeing is looking at doing.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

PPVLC wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

How much difficulty would there be to certify the cockpit for the the 767-2C in the 767-300 or 767-400.

Also, would it be possible to thin the walls of the 767 enough to fit the same seats as the 9-abreast 787? An 8-abreast 767 with the same seats as a 787 would have better economics than existing 767's.

I wonder if Boeing could offer a winglet like the ones on the 737 Max on new build 767's?

Oh please, let the 767 be the most comfortable plane around, 7-abreast is just perfection for the passenger view point.

But from an airline POV with respect to carrying cargo, it needs its own ULD, the LD2. Widen it to 8-abreast as a narrower Dreamliner at 183" (basically permitting a 17.5" seat at 2-4-2 in Y) and one can then fit the LD3 ULD. One can then maximize cabin capacity by offering 4 doors or 3 doors (1 front and 2 aft) with 2 overwing exits. Also, the 767 is 1970s-era technology.

I get your point but I'm not an airline and I'd be insane to defend their astronomical profits instead of my own comfort

D]evilfish wrote:

It could borrow from the 747-8. In its discussions with GE about the MoM, it's plausible that Boeing had enquired about a less powerful or a derated GEnx2B.

Revelation wrote:

There is no existing engine that can serve as a 767MAX engine and no time or money or even interest in developing one. The 767 can't support a larger/heavier engine and all modern engines are larger and heavier.

As Revelation noted.

GEnX-2B is a 105" fan, while it could maybe fit under 767 wing(dont know what is the ground clerance), it is aproxx 1.5-2 t heavier then CF6-80c2, killing all further debate.

flee wrote:

We are not talking about a MAX or anything remotely close to a MAX. We are just talking about restarting the B767 passenger production. If a decision is made to go ahead, deliveries should begin in maybe about a year from the go ahead.

The joker in the pack is the price of oil - only works if oil stays below USD 100.

Yes, it's quite amazing that people can jump from the announcement that an extra 60 passenger models will be produced on a line still running for the KC46 to all sorts of developments GRAND-MOM-MAX with new cockpit, CFRP wings et al.

I mean the article uses the word "interim" for goodness' sake!

I'm not trying to be a blue meanie here, but this doesn't sound like anything more than chucking out a few more end-of-line examples for one or two carriers who have asked for it.

As mentioned earlier planned conversion to freighters could easily be part of the package - both those in passenger service now, and the new ones after X number of years. 767F demand seems almost unlimited.

Put a CF wing on it and how much weight have they saved? There is your answer.

Put a CF wing on it and how much weight have they saved? There is your answer.

ZEDZAG wrote:

D]evilfish wrote:

It could borrow from the 747-8. In its discussions with GE about the MoM, it's plausible that Boeing had enquired about a less powerful or a derated GEnx2B.

Revelation wrote:

There is no existing engine that can serve as a 767MAX engine and no time or money or even interest in developing one. The 767 can't support a larger/heavier engine and all modern engines are larger and heavier.

As Revelation noted.

GEnX-2B is a 105" fan, while it could maybe fit under 767 wing(dont know what is the ground clerance), it is aproxx 1.5-2 t heavier then CF6-80c2, killing all further debate.

The RB211 is also a ton or two heavier than the CF6. The GEnX-2B67 is 11 in larger than a PW4062 and the 764 has a 46cm longer MLG vs. 763. Should be fine.

mcsam18 wrote:

Boeingphan wrote:

Reheating cold pizza. This is a terrible idea at best. This screams unimaginative and if true is owing up to being 2nd fiddle. Right now it feels like Boeing is grasping at straws for everything. Making a MAX version of the 737 was the wrong decision. Clearly they should have started the NSA but this was the quick and easy version. Fast forward 5 years and they are trying to do the same game. Same song, same dance. Invest now in the MOM plane and don't look back. It feels like they are getting lapped by the competition and its hard to watch. And while they will garner sales from this, that's not the point, they should be moving forward with products not putting lipstick on pigs.

This mentality blows my mind. If a customer is asking for a product and you can make money while producing it, why wouldn't you?

The 767 line is open and producing airplanes. If you can get a purchase quantity worth your time, it's an easy home run.

Thank you, so much emotion and no rationality. A customer has approached Boeing about a product that is in production and, oh yeah, R&D paid for. And according to some on Anet Boeing is suppose to turn the customer away? Up sell the customer to a 787? As if Boeing would not had thought of that?

John Leahy must be smiling and shaking his head this morning as he reads this thread.

I think Boeing will do it.

they have long history of talking about new shiny aircrafts like 7E7, 7J7, sonic cruiser and all new narrow body before the MAX, and then in the end going with slightly warmed over design of the old metal like 757-300, 767-400, 747-8 and finally the MAX

Somehow the board always seems to go with low capital programs where they see quick returns over big long term investement.

FoxtrotSierra wrote:

CFM565A1 wrote:

FoxtrotSierra wrote:

Its definitely a possibility, the 767 is still in production and the 757 isn't.

I could see it happening.

Zero chance of a reprise of the 757. I agree because the tooling has all been scrapped for the 757.

757 fleets still need to maintained and still need spare parts, do you mean manufacturing elements for the 757 line have been scrapped?

The tooling for assembly in Renton is long gone.

Stitch wrote:

ytz wrote:

Stitch wrote:

Because it appears that customers are insisting to buy scores of them?

Scores? Really?

Leeham says upward of 50-60 and Puget Sound Business Journal says possibly even more.

Stitch wrote:

FoxtrotSierra wrote:

I cannot help but wonder about the timing of this proposed order coinciding with the A330NEO's first flight. Boeing trying to steal Airbus' thunder? Probably not, but still weird.

The reports are that one or more airlines are pushing Boeing to do this.

Stitch wrote:

It is still on the Price List, but it appears Boeing has internally stopped offering it so unless you will commit to a significant number, Boeing is not going to entertain an RFP.

If there is so much demand for the pax version, why did Boeing not sell them years earlier?

VSMUT wrote:

Managing to sell 4000 is only half the story. At what margins? If the product is so inferior that Boeing has to sell them at significantly marked down prices (or financing the operation of almost bankrupt airlines, or selling 73Gs to UA for 22 mil.), then 4000 sales would be almost worthless. There is every indication that this has indeed been the case for a significant amount of the 737MAX orders.

Well if Boeing's margins over the next few quarters crater as they start delivering MAX, we'll know, but I expect MAX margins are at least as strong as the NG (which has seen significant "cheap deals") and they have not hurt Boeing's margins.

KarelXWB wrote:

If there is so much demand for the pax version, why did Boeing not sell them years earlier?

Because Scott Kirby was not CEO of United years earlier? He seems to be the one pushing through UA's fleet replacement and modernization. He spearheaded the A350-900 order conversion and expansion to handle 777-200 replacement and per a January article in Flight Global, now he's looking at the 767 fleet. If MOM is a decade out, then fresh 767s might pencil in better for the missions UA is running them on then A350-900s or 787s.

RJMAZ wrote:

They won't upgrade the 767.

Doing nothing they might sell 100 more aircraft.
Adding new engines they might sell 200 aircraft.
Adding a new wing they might sell 500 aircraft.

The more they spend on upgrades the more money they get in sales. But will either of them actually make a profit?

The biggest bang for the buck would be new engines. A new wing would not give much in fuel savings as new engines would and I would think a wing upgrade would cost more than hanging new engines.