tjh8402 wrote:

I wonder how much of that is due to the 787s higher cruise speed (per hour fuel burn is similar but the dreamliner gets there 20 minutes quicker)

4.5% of transit time.

Devilfish wrote:

Well, Leeham completed theirs...and it seems to suggest that aggressive pricing is the only way Boeing could compensate for the 763ER vis-a-vis the more efficient 788, A332 or A338...

Such an analysis presumes that Boeing would be the one trying to sell airlines 767-300ERs as a stop-gap. What information has been reported to date implies that it is the airlines asking (as in requesting an RFP) Boeing to sell them 767-300ERs as a stop-gap.

I am sure said airlines would be expecting a "good deal", but as many of us have noted, there are costs involved to Boeing for re-starting production and Boeing is not going to want to be left holding the check for them if a customer ends up not taking their full order. As such, I expect Boeing has a minimum floor per frame they are offering and it will be up to the airline to decide if that floor is "aggressive" enough to sign a purchase contract.

Stitch wrote:

Devilfish wrote:

Well, Leeham completed theirs...and it seems to suggest that aggressive pricing is the only way Boeing could compensate for the 763ER vis-a-vis the more efficient 788, A332 or A338...

Such an analysis presumes that Boeing would be the one trying to sell airlines 767-300ERs as a stop-gap. What information has been reported to date implies that it is the airlines asking (as in requesting an RFP) Boeing to sell them 767-300ERs as a stop-gap.

I am sure said airlines would be expecting a "good deal", but as many of us have noted, there are costs involved to Boeing for re-starting production and Boeing is not going to want to be left holding the check for them if a customer ends up not taking their full order. As such, I expect Boeing has a minimum floor per frame they are offering and it will be up to the airline to decide if that floor is "aggressive" enough to sign a purchase contract.

Such an analyses works actually both ways, it tells us that for UA, to buy 767-300ER, stopgap or no stopgap, instead of A330 or 787 to make sense, the 767-300ER have to be dirt cheap. So the question from UA would be to Boeing, how low can you go.

mjoelnir wrote:

Such an analyses works actually both ways, it tells us that for UA, to buy 767-300ER, stopgap or no stopgap, instead of A330 or 787 to make sense, the 767-300ER have to be dirt cheap. So the question from UA would be to Boeing, how low can you go.

Fair point. We know from operators that on longer legs the latest 787-8 frame and engine combinations are surpassing the 20% lower fuel burn target vis-a-vis the 767-300ER. And UA's 787-8s are similar in capacity to their 767-300ERs (being a bit more premium-heavy in Business and Economy Plus) which probably improves RASM a bit.

32andBelow wrote:

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

The 767-300 is a much shorter range from & on Domestic services will probably be better fuel burn vs a 787 on a short run. 787 carries a lot of extra weight on a short 1500nm hop. If it is for UA they would know as they have all the fuel burn figured for both.

32andBelow wrote:

codc10 wrote:

2175301 wrote:

A new engine would make this very realistic... Can they someone to build one? It could also be retrofitted onto older aircraft as well...

Have a great day,

I wonder if the 763ER could be revamped with the 764 main gear, possibly allowing installation of the GEnx-2B67 (105" fan)?

32andBelow wrote:

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

The 787-8 is about 30t heavier than the 763ER, despite a similar configuration. A reengined 763ER (or even 764) would be very competitive with 787 economics on shorter hauls.

Ok but why have 2 subfleets if they are only competitive? Boeing pitched the 787-3 and no one wanted it.

The 783 was developed for the Japan market. They dropped it after the long delays due to well commented on development issues. It was a little too Japanese market optimized or others might have bitten.

rbavfan wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

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

The 767-300 is a much shorter range from & on Domestic services will probably be better fuel burn vs a 787 on a short run. 787 carries a lot of extra weight on a short 1500nm hop. If it is for UA they would know as they have all the fuel burn figured for both.

I posted this earlier in the thread but feel it bears repeating wrt the 787/767 fuel burns -

I found this posted in another part of the interweb by a UA320 pilot relating to this very subject. Obviously unverified, but it certainly passes the "sniff' test and is something I found telling wrt 767 vs 787 fuel burn on sectors @4000nm.

FYI, the "today" would have been Nov 8th -

Some real UAL examples from today courtesy of the HOWGOZIT.

The 767 from AMS versus the 787 from CDG, both going to IAD. Per great circle mapper the great circle distance difference is 5 miles. 3361nm for AMS and 3356nm for CDG.

UAL #947 767 took off with 107.2k lbs and landed with 13.1

Burn of 94.1 Flight time of 8:29

UAL #914 787-8 took off with 99.2 and landed with 15.5.

Burn of 83.7 Flight time of 8:06


Going eastbound tonight to those same destinations, the flight plans had:

946 to AMS 767. Burn of 73.2. Flight time 6:49

915 to CDG 787. Burn of 67.0. Flight time of 6:36

rbavfan wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

Ok but why have 2 subfleets if they are only competitive? Boeing pitched the 787-3 and no one wanted it.

The 783 was developed for the Japan market. They dropped it after the long delays due to well commented on development issues. It was a little too Japanese market optimized or others might have bitten.

It also suffered badly from Shrink Syndrome without actually being any smaller. Basically after all the various design revisions had upped the empty weight of the common 787 body most of the advantages the 787-3 offered were gone and prospective airlines were left with a 788 with a that could fit the Code D box and showed an MTOW ~58t lower... assuming they could actually get their hands on it because Boeing didn't actually have the time to build it.

If I remember the discussion at the time it was quite apparent that it was of no real use to anybody - the upfront cost was unjustifiable, the efficiency gain over the 788 disappeared once stage length exceeded something stupid like 400 mi (I've plotted that here for a few major centres), and in the end if you were still set on the 787 as an aircraft you just took the 788 and enjoyed having the range and cargo capacity flexibility - or waited for the 789.

This gap in capability between the high-capacity/long-range stretches of narrowbodies and the smallest widebodies exists in both the Boeing and Airbus ranges at the moment. It's why many airlines are using aircraft like the 763ER and A332 on all manner of routes that don't align with how we see those aircraft being marketed. Look at 767 operations in North America and TATL, for example, against QF using them for 439 mi SYD-MEL turns where they wanted passenger and freight capacity, not range, and where they're now deploying A332s for the same purpose.

It's also why, as far as I've read anyway, the general consensus is that the Boeing NMA (are we certain on it being the 797 yet?) is going to be aimed at producing an aircraft that can be sold into those markets as an evolution of the 767, and it's why my feeling on the topic of a 767 restart is that it is something Boeing will consider if it's possible to do and if it makes them a sale, but it will not be re-engined or updated in anyway beyond the bare minimum necessary because it is purely to tide the interested customers over until they can be offered the 797. And that's not even a new concept for Boeing - they were handing out 767s as delay compensation for the 787, after all, but this time there's no obligation, it's just another deal that may or may not be on the table.

mjoelnir wrote:

Such an analyses works actually both ways, it tells us that for UA, to buy 767-300ER, stopgap or no stopgap, instead of A330 or 787 to make sense, the 767-300ER have to be dirt cheap. So the question from UA would be to Boeing, how low can you go.

Plausible, but if I was Boeing under that theory then, I would look at it as: You (UA) already own and operate the B788. A.net says we (Boeing) don't want to make them any more, but our usual tactic of upselling you from there to the B789 is out of the question. It is going to be a PITA for us to restart the 763 line, so it's going to have to be really worth our while, if not on the B763 order but with a quid pro quo down the road. And finally, LOL on you going to the A330.

Bricktop wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Such an analyses works actually both ways, it tells us that for UA, to buy 767-300ER, stopgap or no stopgap, instead of A330 or 787 to make sense, the 767-300ER have to be dirt cheap. So the question from UA would be to Boeing, how low can you go.

Plausible, but if I was Boeing under that theory then, I would look at it as: You (UA) already own and operate the B788. A.net says we (Boeing) don't want to make them any more, but our usual tactic of upselling you from there to the B789 is out of the question. It is going to be a PITA for us to restart the 763 line, so it's going to have to be really worth our while, if not on the B763 order but with a quid pro quo down the road. And finally, LOL on you going to the A330.

I hardly imagine Boeing doing a LOL if UA goes to the A330 as the low CAPEX solution.

mjoelnir wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Such an analyses works actually both ways, it tells us that for UA, to buy 767-300ER, stopgap or no stopgap, instead of A330 or 787 to make sense, the 767-300ER have to be dirt cheap. So the question from UA would be to Boeing, how low can you go.

Plausible, but if I was Boeing under that theory then, I would look at it as: You (UA) already own and operate the B788. A.net says we (Boeing) don't want to make them any more, but our usual tactic of upselling you from there to the B789 is out of the question. It is going to be a PITA for us to restart the 763 line, so it's going to have to be really worth our while, if not on the B763 order but with a quid pro quo down the road. And finally, LOL on you going to the A330.

I hardly imagine Boeing doing a LOL if UA goes to the A330 as the low CAPEX solution.

You're right. Maybe the inquiry as to the B763 restart is just a courtesy to Boeing before they place an order for A330's. That would be ........ surprising.

Bricktop wrote:

You're right. Maybe the inquiry as to the B763 restart is just a courtesy to Boeing before they place an order for A330's. That would be ........ surprising.

The 767 inquiry is, I assume, rather serious. But if Boeing does not want to sell cheap 767 and the 787-8 for only little less than a 787-9, than I would not be astonished to see the A330.

Stitch wrote:

Boeing is not going to want to be left holding the check for them if a customer ends up not taking their full order. As such, I expect Boeing has a minimum floor per frame they are offering and it will be up to the airline to decide if that floor is "aggressive" enough to sign a purchase contract.

I guess Boeing will require a guaranteed upfront payment for the number of frames ordered at a given price.

mjoelnir wrote:

So the question from UA would be to Boeing, how low can you go.

And Boeing's answer would be "how badly do you need this plane?" It's clear that the 763ER fits the airlines' requirements (for now) best so they're inquiring about it. They have factored in the forecast fuel prices until the NMA comes along (or not) and figured they could still make money with the former. They just want to make more by driving a hard bargain.

XAM2175 wrote:

Boeing will consider if it's possible to do and if it makes them a sale, but it will not be re-engined or updated in anyway beyond the bare minimum necessary because it is purely to tide the interested customers over until they can be offered the 797. And that's not even a new concept for Boeing - they were handing out 767s as delay compensation for the 787, after all, but this time there's no obligation, it's just another deal that may or may not be on the table.

Excellent post.

mjoelnir wrote:

The 767 inquiry is, I assume, rather serious. But if Boeing does not want to sell cheap 767 and the 787-8 for only little less than a 787-9, than I would not be astonished to see the A330.

The airlines could continue abusing their 788s.....but if they need and put deposits on many more, is it too farfetched for Boeing to discount the now slow-moving 788 heavily to prevent the sale going to the A332 or A338?

Another factor I have not yet seen seriously discussed is that it's quite possible that their could be a significant number of 767 delivery slots available before other aircraft (787, etc) would be available. As such, pricing may not be the only issue...

Have a great day,

2175301 wrote:

Another factor I have not yet seen seriously discussed is that it's quite possible that their could be a significant number of 767 delivery slots available before other aircraft (787, etc) would be available.

The 767 line has recently increased to 2.5 per month to meet the current demand for freighters and tankers compared to moving to 14 787s per month by 2019. As such, I don't see too many open slots for the 767 as in addition to the United rumors for 50-100 frames, Amazon Prime Air is also said to be looking at an RFP for up to 100 frames. Boeing is said to be looking at the feasibility to increase 767 production to 4 per month to meet either or both of those RFPs.

Stitch wrote:

2175301 wrote:

Another factor I have not yet seen seriously discussed is that it's quite possible that their could be a significant number of 767 delivery slots available before other aircraft (787, etc) would be available.

The 767 line has recently increased to 2.5 per month to meet the current demand for freighters and tankers compared to moving to 14 787s per month by 2019. As such, I don't see too many open slots for the 767 as in addition to the United rumors for 50-100 frames, Amazon Prime Air is also said to be looking at an RFP for up to 100 frames. Boeing is said to be looking at the feasibility to increase 767 production to 4 per month to meet either or both of those RFPs.

4 per month is feasible. As exciting as a passenger RFP would be, I only expect new build Amazon. With their hub bypass strategy increasing hours, Amazon has reached the point where they would be ahead economically buying new (for the right price).

Lightsaber

2175301 wrote:

Another factor I have not yet seen seriously discussed is that it's quite possible that their could be a significant number of 767 delivery slots available before other aircraft (787, etc) would be available. As such, pricing may not be the only issue...

I am not sure if an operator who is looking at the B767 is also thinking of the B787/A350 - the more direct competitor would be the A330.

A330 and A330Neo slots are available - they are not sold out. So, this is not an issue. As such, any operator that wishes to buy these should not have to worry about waiting too long for delivery.

Can someone calculate the CASM and RASM of the 763 vs a 788? I'll have a shot.

Assuming:
1300nm average trip.
Lowish fuel price.
Two trips per day.
6.5 hours per day.
10 year life.
$133million vs $200million purchase price.
250 vs 300 domestic cabin seating.
10 year service life.
Equal $66 million resale value after 10 years.

My calculations has the 767-300ER winning in CASM by 5% and RASM by 10%.

Here is some info from Quantas for one of it's 767's.
Service: 29 years
Flight hours: 83,642
Flight cycles: 27,116
Average trip length: 1300nm
Average flight hours per day: 9.9

For the 787-8 to have an advantage I need to either:
1) Bring the flight hours per day above 10.
2) Bring the price of the 767 above $150m.
3) Put up fuel prices by 30%.
4) Increase service life to 15 years

Bricktop wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Such an analyses works actually both ways, it tells us that for UA, to buy 767-300ER, stopgap or no stopgap, instead of A330 or 787 to make sense, the 767-300ER have to be dirt cheap. So the question from UA would be to Boeing, how low can you go.

Plausible, but if I was Boeing under that theory then, I would look at it as: You (UA) already own and operate the B788. A.net says we (Boeing) don't want to make them any more, but our usual tactic of upselling you from there to the B789 is out of the question. It is going to be a PITA for us to restart the 763 line, so it's going to have to be really worth our while, if not on the B763 order but with a quid pro quo down the road. And finally, LOL on you going to the A330.

Having retired from United I can tell you this. United has a familiarity with the B767 that they Son't have with the A330. They also have the engineering talent and the maintenance expertise the maintain the B767 they Don't have with the A330. And?? We Own all the Special tools For the B767 and Not the A330
That is unledd Airbus is going to Supply the Special tools for the A330 for FREE! And? you already Know that's not going to happen. Also? Should there be a problem? Airbus could take up to 36 hours to come up with a solution. While Boeing is 12Hrs or Less. For a "workhorse" airplane like the B767. That's and eternity.
Better to choose to stay with Friends you know. United has a good relationship with Airbus But a BETTER one with Boeing. And?
Boeing is 900 Yards Away in downtown Chicago.

Looking at Barney Captain's fuel burn numbers, it appears that, at somewhere between 2 and 3 hours of flight time, is the cross-over point where the 787 starts to come out ahead in total fuel burn per flight. So, whoever is desiring a 767-300ER over a 787-8 is either planning to use routes that can't even come close to filling a 787-8, or have a lot of high load factor, but short distance routes that they need to support. With the high probability that Airbus is willing to sell you an A330-800 for a comparative song for TATL use that will definitely use less fuel than a 767-300ER for the same trip, I would dare say that whoever wants new 767s has domestic routes in mind.

Devilfish wrote:

Quote:
"It will be up to aggressive pricing to close the gap to the more capable and lower cost 787-8 or A330-200/-800, should Boeing restart the passenger 767 line."

This seems obvious. Beyond just "aggressive," I think the pricing would need to be "unprecedented."

There are persistent rumors that Airbus gave DL pricing of under $100 million per frame for its 25-plane 339 order. Assuming UA could get a similar deal for its likely 25-plane order, and given that the 339 will carry half again the number of passengers as a similarly configured 763 at only slightly higher trip cost, the 763 would start in a massive economic hole. I don't think the deal would have any hope of working unless the price were under about $60 million per frame. It's worth noting that $60 million would be a 70% discount from list price and the lowest price for a widebody that Boeing would have offered since the original 767 sales campaigns. Given the highly advanced new line and the number of aircraft produced, such an order might still be worth it, especially if the 787 were unable to compete with 339 pricing as it was for DL.

Maybe UA would like to start flying more widebodies from ORD. There are more 767 sized gates than 787/777.

LightningZ71 wrote:

Looking at Barney Captain's fuel burn numbers, it appears that, at somewhere between 2 and 3 hours of flight time, is the cross-over point where the 787 starts to come out ahead in total fuel burn per flight. So, whoever is desiring a 767-300ER over a 787-8 is either planning to use routes that can't even come close to filling a 787-8, or have a lot of high load factor, but short distance routes that they need to support. With the high probability that Airbus is willing to sell you an A330-800 for a comparative song for TATL use that will definitely use less fuel than a 767-300ER for the same trip, I would dare say that whoever wants new 767s has domestic routes in mind.

The point is that a 787-8 or perhaps a A330-800 could do the 2 hour flight at a similar trip cost. It does not really matter if you fill them up, you move the same amount of passengers for a similar cost. The situation gets near to the 737-7/A319neo against a 737-8/A320neo situation, with the added point of worsening comparison for the 767 as the trips are getting longer.
The main points will be CAPEX and airport gate usage, with both the 787 and A330 being code E sized and the 767 code D.

If you use a factory fresh frame for just 6,5 hours a day you are doing something wrong.

seabosdca wrote:

This seems obvious. Beyond just "aggressive," I think the pricing would need to be "unprecedented."

There are persistent rumors that Airbus gave DL pricing of under $100 million per frame for its 25-plane 339 order. Assuming UA could get a similar deal for its likely 25-plane order, and given that the 339 will carry half again the number of passengers as a similarly configured 763 at only slightly higher trip cost, the 763 would start in a massive economic hole. I don't think the deal would have any hope of working unless the price were under about $60 million per frame. It's worth noting that $60 million would be a 70% discount from list price and the lowest price for a widebody that Boeing would have offered since the original 767 sales campaigns. Given the highly advanced new line and the number of aircraft produced, such an order might still be worth it, especially if the 787 were unable to compete with 339 pricing as it was for DL.

I've seen rumours that the A330-300 build price is around $70-80m.

If that's true, while it'd be a big discount from list compared to industry norms of ~50%, Airbus would still have quite a bit of fat on that to get to $100m. At 70% discount, an A339 would be at under $90m, and that might still be giving you a $10m profit per frame.

seabosdca wrote:

There are persistent rumors that Airbus gave DL pricing of under $100 million per frame for its 25-plane 339 order. Assuming UA could get a similar deal for its likely 25-plane order, and given that the 339 will carry half again the number of passengers as a similarly configured 763 at only slightly higher trip cost, the 763 would start in a massive economic hole. I don't think the deal would have any hope of working unless the price were under about $60 million per frame.

Note that the A339 is a substantially bigger plane and has much advanced engines and various new enhancements than the 763ER. If Airbus could afford to sell the A339 for that low, imagine what Boeing could do to the old, plain vanilla 763ER with an active line, for a 50-frame firm order(s)? It's looking like it would be flying medium sectors at most, so its competitors' fuel burn advantage diminishes.

And a high impact factor just came to the fore...Boeing announces a slip of the 797 EIS to 2027.....

https://leehamnews.com/2017/12/04/boein ... 7-sources/

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... nited.html

No fire but there's heavy smoke indicating that the 767-300ER will be coming to an airline near you. I hope this does happen.

rotating14 wrote:

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2017/10/19/boeing-767-production-increase-everett-united.html

No fire but there's heavy smoke indicating that the 767-300ER will be coming to an airline near you. I hope this does happen.

That article was from October and was the premise of this entire thread.

rotating14 wrote:

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2017/10/19/boeing-767-production-increase-everett-united.html

No fire but there's heavy smoke indicating that the 767-300ER will be coming to an airline near you. I hope this does happen.

That story is from Oct 19th, btw...

The relevant piece is behind a paywall.....

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... ikely.html

Devilfish wrote:

The relevant piece is behind a paywall.....

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... ikely.html

Can’t read it if it’s behind the paywall

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... ikely.html

Here is the article. Seems like I copied the wrong link.

For those who can't access the pay wall.

Two bits of fresh news this week fueled speculation that Boeing will soon restart production of the passenger version of its 767 mid-sized jet in Everett.

Boeing Commercial Airplanes will name a new director of engineering for its 767 and 747 airplanes now that Corky Townsend has been promoted to vice president of customer service after eight months in her job.

Townsend noted the move with a LinkedIn update. Boeing declined to comment.

Boeing makes cargo freighters and military tankers using the 767 airframe, but hasn’t made the mid-sized passenger jet for years.

Boeing also reportedly delayed by two years its timeframe to design and produce the new mid-sized airplane (NMA) dubbed the 797.

Leeham analyst Scott Hamilton reported that the jet maker is now aiming for a 2027 service entry for the 797, writing that the new date gives “further impetus to the prospect of restarting the 767-300ER passenger production.”

Boeing’s “baseline plan of 2025 entry into service hasn’t changed,” Boeing spokesman Paul Bergman said. “Reports contrary to that are inaccurate.”

Boeing is expected to decide whether to restart 767 passenger jet manufacturing by the end of 2017. Boeing asked suppliers if they could meet demand if it doubled the 767 rate to win a major order from United. The airline recently confirmed 767 talks with Boeing to the Wall Street Journal.

Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg added to the speculation in October when he said the 767 line offered “growth opportunities” and a “great value proposition” for airlines.

A two-year 797 delay offers opportunity to Boeing and airlines with older 767s, said Analyst Dhierin Bechai of Aero Analysis in Rotterdam.

“It would make a 767 restart more viable, since it would basically mean another 10 years or so before the NMA enters service,” he said.

Airlines that want a bridge airplane until the 797 launch could lease new 767s, fly them hard for a decade or longer and return them to be converted into freighters when the 797 hits the market.

“Leases usually last 12 years (so) it is worth considering for airlines,” Bechai said.

He noted a 767 passenger airplane might work well for discount and charter airlines that don’t need the long range Dreamliners and can’t justify the jet’s higher sticker price.

But restarting 767 passenger jet production offers several challenges, not least that the 767 carries 30 fewer passengers than a Dreamliner or Airbus A330, Leeham aerospace analyst Bjorn Fehrm wrote in a recent report.

Its smaller size and lower weight would mean less expensive crew costs and airport landing fees, but not cheaper fuel costs than the more fuel-efficient aircraft, Fehrm added.

There’s also a lack of space at the Everett plant, Leeham noted, and it’s not clear whether the supply chain can produce the parts required or if Boeing will make the 767s with engine and technology upgrades, which would increase production costs.
By Andrew McIntosh
Staff Writer, Puget Sound Business Journal
Dec 8, 2017, 11:12am PST

The article sounds optimistic! I hope it does happen for the “Goldie Locks” airplane (“just right” is the 767 from a pax POV) and while they are a very old design- she’s aged well and I still love spotting them.
I would be a very happy seeing many of them fly alongside UA’s 787, 77W, 772 and A350 widebody fleets and see new routes open.

VC10er wrote:

The article sounds optimistic!

It's a click bait hiding behind a paywall. Just a collection of quotes we've already read elsewhere stitched together to make a story - and a poor one at that. The only thing new is the Boeing spokesman denying that the 797's EIS was moved to 2027.

The question is if airlines would be willing to order a new series of aircraft with engine technology dating back 30 years.

On the other side new engines add time to market, costs and weight. And 10-15% better fuel burn over 25 years.

A re-engined 767 seems unlikely & would push out new NMA plans.

keesje wrote:

The question is if airlines would be willing to order a new series of aircraft with engine technology dating back 30 years.

On the other side new engines add time to market, costs and weight. And 10-15% better fuel burn over 25 years.

A re-engined 767 seems unlikely & would push out new NMA plans.

Recall this is just a request by a customer to order new 767s AS IS. Boeing is in no way trying to sell a new version of the type.

UA relationship with Boeing goes back to its mail days. When co came in, they wanted no part of the Airbus in the fleet. They have grown to like it but their preference is for Boeing planes. The likelihood of the 330 ever being in UA colors is less than slim or none. Besides, the reality for those who have never been involved in negotiations for aircraft, is that Boeing is going to tie it in to another plane or order down the road that UA wants.

727200 wrote:

UA relationship with Boeing goes back to its mail days. When co came in, they wanted no part of the Airbus in the fleet. They have grown to like it but their preference is for Boeing planes. The likelihood of the 330 ever being in UA colors is less than slim or none. Besides, the reality for those who have never been involved in negotiations for aircraft, is that Boeing is going to tie it in to another plane or order down the road that UA wants.

If it gets them the 76s they need to tide them over to the next new thing, UA will be quite happy to make such a deal.

727200 wrote:

UA relationship with Boeing goes back to its mail days. When co came in, they wanted no part of the Airbus in the fleet. They have grown to like it but their preference is for Boeing planes. The likelihood of the 330 ever being in UA colors is less than slim or none. Besides, the reality for those who have never been involved in negotiations for aircraft, is that Boeing is going to tie it in to another plane or order down the road that UA wants.

I would also argue that UA has much more leverage with Boeing. As DL has shifted from a reliable Boeing customer to heavily buying both NB and WB aircraft from Airbus that Boeing realizes the value of having a secure WB and NB Customer in UA.

So UA did not just buy a bunch of Airbus wide body a/c???what am I missing that makes them a secure Boeing customer?

727200 wrote:

UA relationship with Boeing goes back to its mail days. When co came in, they wanted no part of the Airbus in the fleet.

Ummmm, didnt the original UA buy the A320/319 because B would only offer them 734s which were a joke, even to an always Boeing airline like United?? The CO guys may be running the store now but it was the UA guys who bought the Airbuses for a very good reason.

UA and Boeing have a connection going back to the time when they were 1 company. UA is heavily invested in the 737 Max, is a strong partner in the 797 build out and continues to have a massive fleet of 757/767s. All while cementing the 787 as the linchpin for expansion and success. Let's not forget the 737NG fleet which is the carrier's current backbone. Also, Boeing let UA order 737-700s not once but twice and walk away. The 777 soldiers on and keep in mind the connection to the 777 is ongoing with those recent 77W orders and deliveries.

This is not to say the A319/320 aren't performing for UA. It is just that the carrier, despite the recent daliance with the A350 is a Boeing stalwart.

I wish I could find the posts/info but the Airbus A350 order being pushed back had a hidden agenda. It was an opening for Boeing to step up with a possible in-lieu of solution.

trex8 wrote:

727200 wrote:

UA relationship with Boeing goes back to its mail days. When co came in, they wanted no part of the Airbus in the fleet.

Ummmm, didnt the original UA buy the A320/319 because B would only offer them 734s which were a joke, even to an always Boeing airline like United?? The CO guys may be running the store now but it was the UA guys who bought the Airbuses for a very good reason.

That was a long time ago in a Galaxy far, far away. Airbus as a narrowbody solution is in the past. The A350 may materialize but is a long way off. For now, UA is tremendously tied to the 737, 757/767, 777 and 787. This in addition to being mentioned as a launch customer for the 797 and asking Boeing to restart 767 pax production. Even if the A350 order occurs, the fleet will be heavily tilted for Boeing with only new Airbus widebodies in a fleet alongside ageing A319/320s which will eventually be replaced by 737s.

keesje wrote:

The question is if airlines would be willing to order a new series of aircraft with engine technology dating back 30 years.

Isn't that literally what the 737 is except change 30 years to 50 years?

trex8 wrote:

727200 wrote:

UA relationship with Boeing goes back to its mail days. When co came in, they wanted no part of the Airbus in the fleet.

Ummmm, didnt the original UA buy the A320/319 because B would only offer them 734s which were a joke, even to an always Boeing airline like United?? The CO guys may be running the store now but it was the UA guys who bought the Airbuses for a very good reason.

Trex, you are not in the airline industry and certainly do not know the true story behind the 320 at UA.

If you did, you wouldn't make such ignorant statements.

727200 wrote:

trex8 wrote:

727200 wrote:

UA relationship with Boeing goes back to its mail days. When co came in, they wanted no part of the Airbus in the fleet.

Ummmm, didnt the original UA buy the A320/319 because B would only offer them 734s which were a joke, even to an always Boeing airline like United?? The CO guys may be running the store now but it was the UA guys who bought the Airbuses for a very good reason.

Trex, you are not in the airline industry and certainly do not know the true story behind the 320 at UA.

If you did, you wouldn't make such ignorant statements.

Rather than berate the poster why not post what you believe to be the authoritative story?

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/09/busin ... nited.html

Stitch wrote:

2175301 wrote:

Amazon Prime Air is also said to be looking at an RFP for up to 100 frames.

That was pure conjecture, and I would be very surprised if any kind of order for new 767-300Fs came from Amazon within the next two years, if ever.

Right now, Amazon still has 9 more 767-300 converted freighters to place into service with Atlas. They have six 767-200s and 8 767-300s at ATI and six 767-200s at ABX. So they're only about 3/4 of the way to the full 767 fleet. In terms of replacing aircraft, the 767-200s were on 5 year leases, the ATI 767-300s are on 7 year leases, and the Atlas 767-300s are on 10 year leases. So we're not looking at a lot of replacement aircraft needs that would require a new-build order right now.

By the time they get to 20 767s flying all over, they will have largely picked the low-hanging fruit on major trunk routes. Their single daytime DHL-run sort is maxed out at CVG -- and DHL uses the facility at night , so they won't have much ability to do any more sorting unless and until they build the new facility they were talking about. (I suppose it's possible to do a second daytime bank at DHL/CVG, but I can't imagine that that's gonna be in any way optimal.)

For Peak, they have been doing a zillion point-to-point routes all through the day, getting 12-14 hour utilization of a few frames in the fleet, less on others.

I don't recall what the through-CVG versus point-to-point percentages are on the current Peak schedule, but let's say it's 50/50 for discussion's sake. Any expansion with the last 25 percent of their fleet is gonna have to come on non-CVG routes. After that, you're looking at somewhat-smaller aircraft for somewhat-smaller cities, which you really need a hub to make work efficiently.

And if you're not sorting at a hub, then you're organizing the departing packages somewhere else -- Distribution Center or Airport -- and arriving packages at the arrival airport. I don't know at what volume level that becomes inefficient or overly-capital-intensive to get done in a timely-manner, but I'm pretty sure at some point it does. ABX managed numerous ground hubs for themselves (Airborne) and the USPS that were low-tech, high-labor environments that actually ran very well, but I don't know how viable such operations would be today, and whether there is any tribal knowledge left about how to do it well. In that case, you basically only need bare warehouse space, a dumb conveyor system, and lots of people. Quick and low-cost to set up, relatively-easy to scale (although, again, it's going to have its limits), and easy to dispose of, but that doesn't strike me as an Amazon model.

Higher-levels of automation require high levels of capital expenditure. So there are some boundaries around the size of the currently-defined operation that don't incline me to think they're gonna get much bigger at the moment. I have said for two years that I thought they would get the current thing up and running through a couple of Peaks, step back, and see how happy they are with it: (1) from a reducing-cost perspective; and (2) from an increasing-reliability perspective. Then, I think they'll decide where they're going to go with it. And it still seems like that's the story, because we really haven't heard anything new from them in a year. I also haven't seen or heard anything about how reliable the thing is, or how expensive it is, in actual implementation. We have sat around here collectively scratching our heads when we see the occasional significant IROP such as an AOG here or there, wondering how they recover that freight to keep it on-time. And it may well be that the answer is that they don't. Given their obsession with delighting every customer and building their brand on reliability, that can't be something that makes them happy. OTOH, when the alternative is UPS not delivering on Christmas or some other major systemwide failure at a vendor, maybe the occasional IROP on a network that they can control is an important benefit that Prime Air provides, and it may well be, on average, better than the alternative.

I guess we'll find out when we find out, but I have been saying for at least 9 months that that 100-aircraft new-build 767-300F order was somebody's fantasy, or an early burst of over-enthusiasm from somebody somewhere in the decision matrix.

wjcandee wrote:

Stitch wrote:

2175301 wrote:

Amazon Prime Air is also said to be looking at an RFP for up to 100 frames.

Hey.... If you are going to edit Stitch's post where he quoted a different statement from me... Please do it correctly and don't make it sound like I said something Stitch said.

It should actually have been:

Stitch wrote:

Amazon Prime Air is also said to be looking at an RFP for up to 100 frames.

Have a great day,

People seem to forget that the United Board is full of Boeing people and vice versa