Thing is, 767 trip cost is the lowest available (still!) for anything greater than 3600ish miles. Even the 788 burns slightly more fuel on most sectors. The 767 problem has been ... and remains ... the A330 series (and now 788/789) only consume a small percentage more fuel for a significant revenue advantage with more floor space and range (especially 787/332). This revenue advantage only matters if it can be consistently filled and for many 767 routes of the US3, that is not always the case. Additionally, low oil pricing reduces the disadvantage of the 767 compared to newer competitors. Capital / aquisition costs and maintenance rates now make up larger overall percentage of total operating cost. Much as the case in the freighter market, many of these thin routes do not support daily service and frame utilization is lower, further discounting advantage of fuel burn of newer, more efficient frames.

Taken together with parcel freight market domination and associated future value, I think the business case is likely there for several market segments a bit unique to US3.

As for the airframe: as has been mentioned, despite the inefficient 7x cross section, it’s overall weight per pax ratio is actually quite good for long-haul class. This advantage is countered by worst SFC engines (oldest) available on a long-haul class airplane today. Additionally, it’s aero efficiency is quite poor relative to modern terms. Pull the throttles to idle and a 767 slows and sinks like a free-falling rock meanwhile the 787/A350 are so slippery they require extensive use of spoilers to decend and slow at the same time.

If there are to be improvements to the 767, and I think there will be some, they’ll focus on easily retrofitable aero cleanup and perhaps a PIP of a engine package. For aero, I would expect a new wing/body flaring which now is much easier to optimize thanks to large scale computing power enabled CFD. New flap canoes might be another cheap and easy component. Both should be pretty easy to retrofit to existing aircraft to further recoup investment and grow product line revenue. Wingtips probably have more headroom for further clean up but these can be bit tricky as they quickly begin to affect handling and require extensive testing and may require wing stiffening due to span-wise lift distribution changes affecting bending and shear stresses. I don’t see these being ready for 2020 deliveries. Also, these are not marketable to FX due to gate space restrictions, one of the frames staples for the next several decades.

Boeing has quietly completed several similiar aero tweaks on the 777 over the years including a 0.5% package that first flew commercially with UA’s first 77W delivery this year. I suspect a pretty easy and quick 1.5% gain is available on the 767 frame. It helps they have fully updated the models for the KC767 project. .

The other wildcard are engine PIP’s and how GE or PW have modeled the future. PW completed one for the KC project and UA operates PW-powered 300ER’s. However, the freight market has largely standardized around the lower repair cost CF6 that which UA also operates 16 such powered 767-400ER’s. In general I feel a CF6 PIP is more marketable with its higher percentage of private industry applications as it’s not reliant on the US Gov fleet which may never invest in further PW PIPs. If UA is indeed interested, I suspect CF6 powered 300ER’s will be acceptable despite current 300’s being PW powered as it’s completely compatible with the 400ER fleet which is already a bit on the small side. It brings the fleet’s scale of economics to the sweet spot. That said, a PW order would work too if PW offers competitive maintenance pricing (they’ve long been expensive relative to peers).

In short, for lower utilization routes combined with existing fleet support and low oil prices, the 767 has a competitive edge in a decent size mid range sector. Given the freighter market domination, don’t see much long term risk in new pax planes. The key question is if cost of production that was supposedly significantly reduced when transnationed to new line, is low enough compared to the market price for new build offering. Are the returns acceptable and what are the opportunity costs?

JHwk wrote:

Problem is the 321LR is also two-thirds the weight per passenger as the 762 for "similar" range. The 763 suffers the same issue relative to a potential 322 with a new wing and landing gear.

Its no where near two thirds on a short trip.

A321LR seats 228 at 51T = empty 223kg per passenger.
767-300ER seats 351 at 90T = empty 256kg per passenger.

That is 87% of the weight. It gets even closer once you add payloads.

Assuming 100kg per passenger. Payloads are 22,800kg and 35,100kg. Total weights without fuel is 74T and 125T. That's now 324kg and 351kg per passenger. The A321LR is only 92% the weight per passenger.

Even with fuel for a 3000nm trip it stays above 80%. That's a very small price to pay for upgauging. Then think of cargo revenue. The A321LR is fully maxed out weight wise above 3000nm. And the fuselage tanks take up a lot of cargo volume.

The 767 could carry 5-6 times the cargo weight on a 3000nm sector.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Strato2 wrote:

Stitch wrote:

I would not be surprised if Boeing is offering passenger 767s at near list price to discourage orders and shift customers to the 787-8. So far, it's been working since they have not sold a passenger 767 in almost six years compared to 60 787-8s.

Looks like a lot of trouble when they could just discontinue a model they don't want to sell.

Well, if they'd discontinued it, they wouldn't be able to get this sale, so it's probably a good thing. It's not exactly all that hard to list a plane for sale at a high price - I doubt it was much trouble. lol There might also be some sort of contractual issue with suppliers where they are required to retain tooling etc as long as the aircraft is available for sale. Doubtful, but who knows?

SFOtoORD wrote:

kanban wrote:

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2017/10/19/boeing-767-production-increase-everett-united.html?ana=yahoo&yptr=yahoo
so today the rumor is around 100 passenger models to United and another 100 freighters to Amazon..

But it doesn’t necessarily suggest 100 767 passenger orders:

The moves come amid rumors Boeing has secured or is close to securing a huge order for 767s from a major airline, possibly United Continental (NYSE: UAL). Between 50 and 100 jets are potentially involved, sources said.

To me that means 50-100 jets, but could be 20 767s, 40 more 737-10s and a 40 plane launch order for the 797. It really isn’t clear from that language.

Perhaps, but "huge" and "20" don't really go together all that well. I'm guessing the author substituted the word "jets" for "767s" to avoid repetition.

Let me say it another way. There is no way in hell anyone is ordering 100 763s. I could see multiple orders adding up to 50-100, but no one carrier needs that many 767.

KarelXWB wrote:

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.

Composite wings are a deal breaker unless they took the 787 wings and grafted them on. Which defeats the purpose.
But the engines . . the GEnx2 is light enough and small enough to fit on an existing 764 wing (the 763 landing gear is probably not tall enough).
However, that would put the 764 too close to the 788, I think. So I am not holding my breath

SFOtoORD wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Strato2 wrote:

Looks like a lot of trouble when they could just discontinue a model they don't want to sell.

Well, if they'd discontinued it, they wouldn't be able to get this sale, so it's probably a good thing. It's not exactly all that hard to list a plane for sale at a high price - I doubt it was much trouble. lol There might also be some sort of contractual issue with suppliers where they are required to retain tooling etc as long as the aircraft is available for sale. Doubtful, but who knows?

SFOtoORD wrote:

But it doesn’t necessarily suggest 100 767 passenger orders:



To me that means 50-100 jets, but could be 20 767s, 40 more 737-10s and a 40 plane launch order for the 797. It really isn’t clear from that language.

Perhaps, but "huge" and "20" don't really go together all that well. I'm guessing the author substituted the word "jets" for "767s" to avoid repetition.

Let me say it another way. There is no way in hell anyone is ordering 100 763s. I could see multiple orders adding up to 50-100, but no one carrier needs that many 767.

It seems like that'd be a huge order for an aging passenger airframe. It will have to be a decent order for Boeing and friends to jump through the hoops, but 100? Doubtful.

Why cant they just restart the B757 and B717/MD95 Line that wil be a perfect response the the A319/320/321 CS100/300 line

Because all of the tooling equipment for those airliners have long since been dismantled, how many times has that been mentioned on these forums so please STOP NOW!

beeweel15 wrote:

Why cant they just restart the B757 and B717/MD95 Line that wil be a perfect response the the A319/320/321 CS100/300 line

Two words: TOOLING DESTROYED

No chance of ever restarting these lines. Ever. Never. Won't happen.

And kinda off-topic, because the 717 would counter the losses to the regional market sizing up their planes. The 757 is too heavy compared to the A321. The 767 is the only real aternative, but it needs some tweaks I guess to make it a worth competitor.

Two days later... and everyone is still speculating about carbon wings and new engines and sidewalls and this and that.

Just checking in with your bi-daily reminder that none of that makes the slightest economic sense. If UA (or, less likely, NH or DL) orders some number of 767s, it's going to be the current product, produced side by side with massive numbers of freighters and KC-46s, maaaybe with an engine PIP and a few low-hanging aero improvements if the ordering airline is lucky.

CARST wrote:

beeweel15 wrote:

Why cant they just restart the B757 and B717/MD95 Line that wil be a perfect response the the A319/320/321 CS100/300 line

Two words: TOOLING DESTROYED

No chance of ever restarting these lines. Ever. Never. Won't happen.

And kinda off-topic, because the 717 would counter the losses to the regional market sizing up their planes. The 757 is too heavy compared to the A321. The 767 is the only real aternative, but it needs some tweaks I guess to make it a worth competitor.

How in earth is a 767 a competitor to the A321? It's a totally different aircraft. You need to fill it with more passengers for a start.

Is there any chance Hawaiian is the airline in question? They wouldn’t need that many but are obviously considering 358 alternatives.

Btblue wrote:

How in earth is a 767 a competitor to the A321? It's a totally different aircraft. You need to fill it with more passengers for a start.

I was referring to the A321LR in this context. We are talking about a niche here, the "middle of the market", something between the large widebodies and the narrowbodies.

The A321LR goes into that niche that so far has been covered by 757s (narrowbody) and old 767s (widebodies). The size difference isn't that big. And once you are at the decision point to deploy a narrowbody (which might not have enough range) or a 787/A330 (which might be too big), you come up with the choice between "very large narrowbody with a lot of range" (=A321LR) or smallest widebody available (=763).

Of course both aircraft don't have the exact same size, but this makes it so interesting if really an airline out there in 2017 says "the A321LR is too small and still too range limited and because their is no real 757 succesor and also no new MoM-plane, we go for the 767". Perhaps even leased from Boeing until the new MoM-plane comes out, then these planes could get turned into freighters. Interesting times ahead...

seabosdca wrote:

Two days later... and everyone is still speculating about carbon wings and new engines and sidewalls and this and that.

Just checking in with your bi-daily reminder that none of that makes the slightest economic sense. If UA (or, less likely, NH or DL) orders some number of 767s, it's going to be the current product, produced side by side with massive numbers of freighters and KC-46s, maaaybe with an engine PIP and a few low-hanging aero improvements if the ordering airline is lucky.

I don't know if it's overactive fantasy or rabid fanboyism or lack of reading comprehension or what, but it's really astonishing that the crazy talk continues despite the boring truth being pointed out many times over already. People are strange...

JHwk wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

To those who think the 787 is similar in size to the 767...

767-200 - empty 82T - cabin area 160m2
767-300 - empty 90T - cabin area 190m2
767-400 - empty 103T - cabin area 221m2

787-8 - empty 120T - cabin area 232m2
787-9 - empty 129T - cabin area 265m2
787-10 - empty 137T - cabin area 299m2

The 767 is two thirds the weight, size and price of the 787.

A321LR empty 51T cabin area 128m2.

Surprisingly the 767-200 is actually closer to the A321 in both size and weight than it is to the 787-8.

The 767 is actually exactly where this MOM market is meant to be. Add winglets and a 8 abreast cabin and it would be very competitive.

Problem is the 321LR is also two-thirds the weight per passenger as the 762 for "similar" range. The 763 suffers the same issue relative to a potential 322 with a new wing and landing gear.

Making a 767 8-abreast isn't exactly trivial...

There is no A322 with a new wing.

The A321 has less capacity, less range, less cargo capacity than the 762ER. It's just better at the routes it flies on because as you say it's lighter than the 762 per pax, and other larger, more modern, more efficient jets are more suitable for the longer range missions the 762 can do and the A321 can't.

There is no place for the 762ER in today's world. The 763 has enough additional capacity and ability that it's still useful and at the right price and for the right operator who already has investment in ld2, pilots and equipment, adding some on a 10 year basis may make sense. That's assuming they sign on for the MoM at favorable rates also, and it also uses LD2 and fits into 764 parking spaces (upturned wing tips or folding)

CARST wrote:

The A321LR goes into that niche that so far has been covered by 757s (narrowbody) and old 767s (widebodies). The size difference isn't that big. And once you are at the decision point to deploy a narrowbody (which might not have enough range) or a 787/A330 (which might be too big), you come up with the choice between "very large narrowbody with a lot of range" (=A321LR) or smallest widebody available (=763).

Of course both aircraft don't have the exact same size, but this makes it so interesting if really an airline out there in 2017 says "the A321LR is too small and still too range limited and because their is no real 757 succesor and also no new MoM-plane, we go for the 767".

Here is a prime example of a possible 767ER niche application. PR is due to start nonstop MNL-AKL service with ex-IB A340s. Those are quite worn, maintenance hogs which will be retired soon. The catch is those provide a nice balance of capacity and ample range for this route at negligible capital expense, albeit with the fuel burn of an older frame and 4 previous gen engines. Now, PR has all the aircraft it needs for the near term and will receive their A321LR shortly, but they may have to block a few more seats for it to make the range. This goes against revenue generation which demands the most number of paying bottoms to spread the trip costs across and make the long flight sustainable and profitable. PR could deploy their A330s there but would have to markedly cut frequency to avoid excess capacity, so it might not be very helpful for the route's viability nor be the best use for the equipment. It is not foreseen that traffic will grow much beyond what it is at present.

Enter the 767ER.....a proven blend of capacity and range - a known quantity and very well suited to PR's niche application. Question is if Boeing would make it available to other airlines without tying it to a future order of the NMA? And would the availability and price be near to what they would offer to their (re)launch customers? The 767ER may practically be an orphan even with the 77Ws in PR's fleet. But such a small airline is used to ordering in small batches and may swing a couple or so frames by itself, and keep them for a very long time...without asking for residual guarantees. So, short of the A321LR getting PIPed in the meantime to cover the range and capacity shortfalls, would Boeing step into the breach and offer a solution which offsets the 767ER's vintage and overlooks the "meagerness" of the potential order

Devilfish wrote:

So, short of the A321LR getting PIPed in the meantime to cover the range and capacity shortfalls, would Boeing step into the breach and offer a solution which offsets the 767ER's vintage and overlooks the "meagerness" of the potential order

I suspect the answer is "Yes" assuming that they restart production with a larger order. At that point additional frames are just more cash in pocket.

Have a great day,

The 767 lost out to the A330 on nearly every competition after the A330 became established; I expect that a 767MAX would fare the same against the A330NEO. WHILE PUTTING THE 748 engine on the 767 should be simple, since the 767 and 747 engines were interchangeable, the cost to certify it would likely not be worth it. If UA and maybe a couple of other 767 fans want some more, great. But I do not see a profitable future for a major improvement to the 767.

2175301 wrote:

I suspect the answer is "Yes" assuming that they restart production with a larger order. At that point additional frames are just more cash in pocket.

Have a great day,

Thanks.....I guess what remains is for PR to be interested.....their president was on record that they were no longer contemplating older technology aircraft.

jplatts wrote:

Is there a real need to continue to produce the 767-300, 767-300ER, and 767-400ER if Boeing already manufactures 787-8 and 787-9 planes that are similar in size to the 767-300, 767-300ER, and 767-400ER planes? If so, why is the need there to produce 767-300, 767-300ER, and/or 767-400ER planes?

There might not Be a demonstrated NEED so much as a desire to retain the familiar "workhorse" we already Know at United prior to the MoM airplane coming on line.
There's no real airplane to replace the B767 I know of as any other airplane would be a compromise.
We've got the A350 to come and unless it's a clearly superior airplane (in demonstrated performance and reliability) then the 45 on order might well be IT. But! Time will tell? And? We shall SEE!

Narfish641 wrote:

I know British Airways are gonna begin retiring their airframes next year.

No, British Airways are going to finish retiring their 767 airframes next year. They once had 28 of them, by now BA mainline is down to just 7, plus one at French subsidiary OpenSkies. The mainline examples are all short-haul configured and will leave between July and December 2018 as the A321neos that have been ordered to replace them arrive.
What happens to the solitary long-haul example at OpenSkies, I don't know.

This Flightglobal piece neatly sums up the situation.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ti-442561/

Quote:
"Something seems wrong with this scenario: an aircraft introduced nearly 30 years ago in a market segment now teeming with new technology could still make a comeback with the same engines and metal wing despite a nearly four-year break in production.

But that situation describes the unlikely status of the Boeing 767-300ER and the paradox that now lies at the heart of the small widebody market.

The 767-300ER’s revived sales prospects come despite billions invested by Boeing, and Airbus, to inject new technology into the size class over the past decade."


The most that might be added are the large displays and blended winglets. I wonder if the 764 wings with raked wingtips had been tested on a 763

Stupid question, if Boeing could manage a PIP to get 1-3% better efficiency out of the 767, does that translate to a 1-3% more range?

How does % gain in efficiency relate to % gain in range?

TWA772LR wrote:

Stupid question, if Boeing could manage a PIP to get 1-3% better efficiency out of the 767, does that translate to a 1-3% more range?

How does % gain in efficiency relate to % gain in range?

I was wondering the same thing. Thanks for asking.

Andy33 wrote:

Narfish641 wrote:

I know British Airways are gonna begin retiring their airframes next year.

No, British Airways are going to finish retiring their 767 airframes next year. They once had 28 of them, by now BA mainline is down to just 7, plus one at French subsidiary OpenSkies. The mainline examples are all short-haul configured and will leave between July and December 2018 as the A321neos that have been ordered to replace them arrive.
What happens to the solitary long-haul example at OpenSkies, I don't know.

I meant to say that they were gonna restart retiring them after a year since the last one (G-BNWY) was retired.

PPVRA wrote:

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

I think Boeing is on that path with the 737 MAX.

PPVRA wrote:

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

I think Boeing is on that path with the 737 MAX.

Narfish641 wrote:

Andy33 wrote:

Narfish641 wrote:

I know British Airways are gonna begin retiring their airframes next year.

No, British Airways are going to finish retiring their 767 airframes next year. They once had 28 of them, by now BA mainline is down to just 7, plus one at French subsidiary OpenSkies. The mainline examples are all short-haul configured and will leave between July and December 2018 as the A321neos that have been ordered to replace them arrive.
What happens to the solitary long-haul example at OpenSkies, I don't know.

I meant to say that they were gonna restart retiring them after a year since the last one (G-BNWY) was retired.

I see what you mean. The two configurations (long haul and Euro/domestic) have always been regarded as separate fleets, harking back to BA's origins as BOAC and BEA, though aircraft have been moved between the two occasionally. The long haul versions would have gone even earlier than they did had BA's earlier 787 orders actually arrived even remotely near the dates they had specified. Boeing is supposed to have paid for a life-extension package for some of the long-haul 767s in part compensation, and the surviving example with OpenSkies benefitted from this.

Devilfish wrote:

This Flightglobal piece neatly sums up the situation.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ti-442561/

Quote:
"Something seems wrong with this scenario: an aircraft introduced nearly 30 years ago in a market segment now teeming with new technology could still make a comeback with the same engines and metal wing despite a nearly four-year break in production.

But that situation describes the unlikely status of the Boeing 767-300ER and the paradox that now lies at the heart of the small widebody market.

The 767-300ER’s revived sales prospects come despite billions invested by Boeing, and Airbus, to inject new technology into the size class over the past decade."


The most that might be added are the large displays and blended winglets. I wonder if the 764 wings with raked wingtips had been tested on a 763

Why add the 20 year old wingtip devices of the 764 when a more modern alternative is available?

ikramerica wrote:

Devilfish wrote:

This Flightglobal piece neatly sums up the situation.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ti-442561/

Quote:
"Something seems wrong with this scenario: an aircraft introduced nearly 30 years ago in a market segment now teeming with new technology could still make a comeback with the same engines and metal wing despite a nearly four-year break in production.

But that situation describes the unlikely status of the Boeing 767-300ER and the paradox that now lies at the heart of the small widebody market.

The 767-300ER’s revived sales prospects come despite billions invested by Boeing, and Airbus, to inject new technology into the size class over the past decade."


The most that might be added are the large displays and blended winglets. I wonder if the 764 wings with raked wingtips had been tested on a 763

Why add the 20 year old wingtip devices of the 764 when a more modern alternative is available?

Since there are no split scimitars for the 767 available, then why not compare apples to apples? Raked wingtip is more efficient than blended winglet, the only issue is gate space concerns due to a longer wingspan.

I think looking at what BA have done to replace their 2 fleets of 767's shows precisely what the problem (for Boeing) is when looking to answer exactly the same problem for their 3 key US customers.

BA.
For shorter haul thin routes they went for the A321NEO
For longer haul thin routes they went for the 788

Now perceived wisdom here is that Boeing don't want to sell 788's and they simply don't have an A321NEO (at least not right now and what they will have in the future-737-10 is smaller and less capable).

Hence the need to offer MOM in future and the need for 767 interim lift in the short term.

Airbus already has a plane to be the NEO for that stop gap between teh A322 and the A339> Bring back with a all the new gizmos of today the A310NEO. There is that perfect size plane to do the job the 757 did and more. Sorry I have always thought this and sorry if someone else said it but I been saying this for years. Airbus has a plane that is the perfect size. All they have to do is modernize it and better engines and they can sit back and say Let the Good Times Fly.

parapente wrote:

I think looking at what BA have done to replace their 2 fleets of 767's shows precisely what the problem (for Boeing) is when looking to answer exactly the same problem for their 3 key US customers.

BA.
For shorter haul thin routes they went for the A321NEO
For longer haul thin routes they went for the 788

Now perceived wisdom here is that Boeing don't want to sell 788's and they simply don't have an A321NEO (at least not right now and what they will have in the future-737-10 is smaller and less capable).

Hence the need to offer MOM in future and the need for 767 interim lift in the short term.

Don't forget the 321NEO and the 767 both have containerised cargo ability - which BA uses, so there is a plus point against the 737-10 MAX that literally is the end of the 737 line and does not offer that ability.

BA use their 767s across europe for the freight capability, too. I believe that is why IB use their A346 from MAD to LHR daily on the IAG network.

Devilfish wrote:

This Flightglobal piece neatly sums up the situation.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ti-442561/

Quote:
"Something seems wrong with this scenario: an aircraft introduced nearly 30 years ago in a market segment now teeming with new technology could still make a comeback with the same engines and metal wing despite a nearly four-year break in production.

But that situation describes the unlikely status of the Boeing 767-300ER and the paradox that now lies at the heart of the small widebody market.

The 767-300ER’s revived sales prospects come despite billions invested by Boeing, and Airbus, to inject new technology into the size class over the past decade."


The most that might be added are the large displays and blended winglets. I wonder if the 764 wings with raked wingtips had been tested on a 763

You truncated the most important part:

[i]"But neither the 787-8, nor the Airbus A330-800, fill a gap for airlines hoping to replace aged aircraft with a near-200-seat capacity and 5,000nm (9,260km) range."

The only reason a restart of 767 passenger production is being considered is that there is NO ATLERNATIVE. Size matters. A lot. Enthusiasts on here who blithely state, for example, that airlines don't need the CSeries because of the 737-7 or A319 are flat out wrong. Similarly, the 767 fuselage is TWO FEET narrower than an A330 or B787, and FOUR FEET wider than a 737/757/A321. Airline executives (at least in the US) haven't forgotten the bankruptcies and other mistakes of the past (747/A380).........too much capacity is a deal breaker......big airplanes can't be split in half for seasonal market variations and they are expensive to operate......the 767 size is perfect for some markets and some times of the day.....the 767 OEW is 50,000 lbs less than the smallest A330 or 787. That huge. HUGE. YYYUUUGGGEEE.

I personally think that Boeing should do a GEnx version with new cockpit, but that would probably slow the project down too much. Existing engines and cockpit (with big navigation databases/GPS/ADS-B) would allow an inexpensive, quick and dirty, program. For example, no ETOPS proving flights/certification would be necessary with existing engines. Even if they only operate for 8-10 years (till MOM comes available in sufficient numbers), it would be a great program if the price was low enough for the airlines.

Let's face it MOM won't be available until 2025 at best, there are a bunch of old 767 that need to be replaced before then. Replace the retiring frames with new build as necessary, no new training program, no new maintenance program, no new simulators, no new parts inventory, the list goes on. Don't change anything, just build them and deliver them. Boeing benefits by increasing production to 3-4 frames per month for a few years while the KC46A enters service and production ramps up. DL and UA win (AA I'm not sure would take any) and Boeing wins!

kanban wrote:

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2017/10/19/boeing-767-production-increase-everett-united.html?ana=yahoo&yptr=yahoo
so today the rumor is around 100 passenger models to United and another 100 freighters to Amazon..

I do not believe either would order that many. 50+ options? OK. If Amazon is doing that, it means committing to multiple sorts per day as that is the only way to justify buying new 767Fs.

I could see an order for a hundred 767s +MOMs from UA, not 100 767s, unless Boeing is offering terms that are a steal.

Lightsaber

ikramerica wrote:

Why add the 20 year old wingtip devices of the 764 when a more modern alternative is available?

Designing and certifying a new one for the 763ER will entail additional costs, time and effort that could jack up the price which may not be worth it given the limited production run.

Spacepope wrote:

Since there are no split scimitars for the 767 available, then why not compare apples to apples? Raked wingtip is more efficient than blended winglet, the only issue is gate space concerns due to a longer wingspan.

The 764 has a ~52 m wingspan so still well within Code E gate limit. The KC-46 also has a raked wing...maybe Boeing already have data extrapolated between the 764 and 762 frames to come up with fairly accurate figures for the 763ER (I guess the tanker wings are stiffer and heavier due to its role, thus the combination might not behave the same aerodynamically).

parapente wrote:

Now perceived wisdom here is that Boeing don't want to sell 788's and they simply don't have an A321NEO (at least not right now and what they will have in the future-737-10 is smaller and less capable).

I'd say that Boeing would "prefer" selling the 789 if they could.

beertrucker wrote:

Airbus already has a plane to be the NEO for that stop gap between teh A322 and the A339> Bring back with a all the new gizmos of today the A310NEO.

That would be an even more "fraught" undertaking as the A310's had long been an inactive line.

SteelChair wrote:

You truncated the most important part:

Because it's abundantly clear that both aircraft would be overkill in terms of size, range and price for the mission at hand.

Devilfish wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

Since there are no split scimitars for the 767 available, then why not compare apples to apples? Raked wingtip is more efficient than blended winglet, the only issue is gate space concerns due to a longer wingspan.

The 764 has a ~52 m wingspan so still well within Code D gate limit. The KC-46 also has a raked wing...maybe Boeing already have data extrapolated between the 764 and 762 frames to come up with fairly accurate figures for the 763ER (I guess the tanker wings are stiffer and heavier due to its role, thus the combination might not behave the same aerodynamically).

I can't seem to find any image of an actual KC-46 with any wingtip devices, they are all Plain Jane. The P-8A has raked tips, but no tanker.

Spacepope wrote:

I can't seem to find any image of an actual KC-46 with any wingtip devices, they are all Plain Jane. The P-8A has raked tips, but no tanker.

Sorry, my bad. Often get confused now...that I edited Code E to D, then back to E.

Devilfish wrote:

ikramerica wrote:

Why add the 20 year old wingtip devices of the 764 when a more modern alternative is available?

Designing and certifying a new one for the 763ER will entail additional costs, time and effort that could jack up the price which may not be worth it given the limited production run.
.

There is a blended one approved for the 763. It's newer than the 764 wingtip which is not.

I would wager that the more modern winglet is as efficient as the 20 year old wingtip. Would a more modern wingtip be more efficient? Yes. But let's compare apples to apples. A new wingtip would not look like the one on the 764. It would be oriented differently, more pointed, more twisted.

SEPilot wrote:

The 767 lost out to the A330 on nearly every competition after the A330 became established; I expect that a 767MAX would fare the same against the A330NEO. WHILE PUTTING THE 748 engine on the 767 should be simple, since the 767 and 747 engines were interchangeable, the cost to certify it would likely not be worth it. If UA and maybe a couple of other 767 fans want some more, great. But I do not see a profitable future for a major improvement to the 767.

Yeah, umm, no. First of all, the A330neo is currently on life support. If HA pulls the order the 338 is completely dead, and if AirAsia X switches its order to the 359 then the 339 is essentially dead. Second, yes the 764 definitely lost out to the 332, but the 763 is a different category of plane. Just like it isn't fair to compare the 359 and 789 on capacity, same thing applies for this. And the 767 still got orders after the A330 was launched, and quite a few of them. The A330 was introduced in 1994, while the 763 in '88. The 332 was introduced in '98, and they both had about the same test periods, so I assume they had around the same time between launch and EIS. The 767 has gotten around 400 orders since 1998, while the 332 has 650. Considering the 332 had higher capacity, airlines prefered it. But the 763, again, is a different class plane. And a 767 MAX, like a 757 MAX, would quickly gather tons of orders, and definitely more than the A330neo. But they are never getting built, and we are getting a MoM instead.

ikramerica wrote:

There is a blended one approved for the 763. It's newer than the 764 wingtip which is not.

Which is why I said.....

Devilfish wrote:

The most that might be added are the large displays and blended winglets.

ikramerica wrote:

Would a more modern wingtip be more efficient? Yes. But let's compare apples to apples. A new wingtip would not look like the one on the 764. It would be oriented differently, more pointed, more twisted.

Probably. It would also cost dearly and come belatedly, which run counter to the proposed goal -- a quick and cheap stopgap.

Has anyone thought that maybe, just maybe, the 767 order might be tied to the MOM plane? I'm not saying it is, but lets just say the airlines have been hounding Boeing about building something new because their existing 767s might not make it or are not preferred to operate 25 years, so Boeing says, we can build a newer 767 on short term lease IF you take some of the MOMs as firms. Just throwing that out there for discussion.

727200 wrote:

Has anyone thought that maybe, just maybe, the 767 order might be tied to the MOM plane? I'm not saying it is, but lets just say the airlines have been hounding Boeing about building something new because their existing 767s might not make it or are not preferred to operate 25 years, so Boeing says, we can build a newer 767 on short term lease IF you take some of the MOMs as firms. Just throwing that out there for discussion.

I think your premise is dead on. We know UA wants the MoM and we’ve even heard that they’ll take 4 more 77Ws. Now the 767 fleet is getting old with no replacement. If Boeing could sell them maybe 20-25 763ERs that they’d take back after maybe 10 years and convert to freighters that could work. Still don’t know where the 100 comes from though.

727200 wrote:

Has anyone thought that maybe, just maybe, the 767 order might be tied to the MOM plane? I'm not saying it is, but lets just say the airlines have been hounding Boeing about building something new because their existing 767s might not make it or are not preferred to operate 25 years, so Boeing says, we can build a newer 767 on short term lease IF you take some of the MOMs as firms. Just throwing that out there for discussion.

If you read the thread you'd see this was proposed.

Boeing has a further win win because they would get the planes back with low enough utilization that they can be converted to F to fill the void in 767 conversions also looking.

SFOtoORD wrote:

727200 wrote:

Has anyone thought that maybe, just maybe, the 767 order might be tied to the MOM plane? I'm not saying it is, but lets just say the airlines have been hounding Boeing about building something new because their existing 767s might not make it or are not preferred to operate 25 years, so Boeing says, we can build a newer 767 on short term lease IF you take some of the MOMs as firms. Just throwing that out there for discussion.

I think your premise is dead on. We know UA wants the MoM and we’ve even heard that they’ll take 4 more 77Ws. Now the 767 fleet is getting old with no replacement. If Boeing could sell them maybe 20-25 763ERs that they’d take back after maybe 10 years and convert to freighters that could work. Still don’t know where the 100 comes from though.

This is exactly the plan. New 763s to replace their elderly siblings until cousin 797 flies into service...somewhere down the line.
There are four more 77Ws ordered... are you speaking of these, or perhaps four in addition for a total of eight beyond the curent 14 in service ?

iahcsr wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

727200 wrote:

Has anyone thought that maybe, just maybe, the 767 order might be tied to the MOM plane? I'm not saying it is, but lets just say the airlines have been hounding Boeing about building something new because their existing 767s might not make it or are not preferred to operate 25 years, so Boeing says, we can build a newer 767 on short term lease IF you take some of the MOMs as firms. Just throwing that out there for discussion.

I think your premise is dead on. We know UA wants the MoM and we’ve even heard that they’ll take 4 more 77Ws. Now the 767 fleet is getting old with no replacement. If Boeing could sell them maybe 20-25 763ERs that they’d take back after maybe 10 years and convert to freighters that could work. Still don’t know where the 100 comes from though.

This is exactly the plan. New 763s to replace their elderly siblings until cousin 797 flies into service...somewhere down the line.
There are four more 77Ws ordered... are you speaking of these, or perhaps four in addition for a total of eight beyond the curent 14 in service ?

I thought I’d heard speculation of a few more 77W beyond the 14 delivered and 4 on order.

VS11 wrote:

Stitch wrote:

VS11 wrote:

I wonder what kind of prices Boeing is willing to offer for the B767-300. At $201.4m list price, it is not exactly cheap. The 788 is only $28m more expensive.

I would not be surprised if Boeing is offering passenger 767s at near list price to discourage orders and shift customers to the 787-8. So far, it's been working since they have not sold a passenger 767 in almost six years compared to 60 787-8s.

I agree that the B763 list price is deliberately set to encourage 788 sales but many here expressed the view that Boeing would be pricing these potential sales to (presumably) United cheaper so I was just wondering how much cheaper...buy 2 get 1 free kinda deal (33% off)? 40% off? 50%?

According to Leeham, last passengers frame sold in 2012-2013 were at 70M. One was sold at 60M but it was included in a 787 deal.

What are the arguments for and against a 767-400 refresh, GEnx engine and 787 flight deck? A regional with commonality, instead of a stop gap a transitional with legs.

Discounting the cost of certification, it could make an interesting package freighter and nibble into the 332/8F

A380MSN004 wrote:

VS11 wrote:

Stitch wrote:

I would not be surprised if Boeing is offering passenger 767s at near list price to discourage orders and shift customers to the 787-8. So far, it's been working since they have not sold a passenger 767 in almost six years compared to 60 787-8s.

I agree that the B763 list price is deliberately set to encourage 788 sales but many here expressed the view that Boeing would be pricing these potential sales to (presumably) United cheaper so I was just wondering how much cheaper...buy 2 get 1 free kinda deal (33% off)? 40% off? 50%?

According to Leeham, last passengers frame sold in 2012-2013 were at 70M. One was sold at 60M but it was included in a 787 deal.

That's a pretty good price (65% off the current list price). No wonder there are still takers for the plane.

I understand that Boeing Capitol is generally a stopgap between a quick sale and longer term financing. That being said, could they be injected with the capitol to hold on to new 767s for a decade, selling them to freighters after?