User avatar
SQ22
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 1084
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:29 am

Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 01, 2019 7:05 am

Please continue to post your updates and to add your comments here.

Link to previous thread:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1382735
 
User avatar
BOEING777EK
Posts: 224
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 2:09 pm

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:50 pm

Will be interesting to see what will happen in 2019.
 
audidudi
Posts: 1941
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:35 pm

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Fri Jan 04, 2019 8:15 pm

I wonder what's next for this one?

Boeing 767‑223(F) 22319 112 C-FGAJ CargoJet Airways ferried 04 January 2019 YHM-PHX-GYR on return to lessor? ex N317AA
 
audidudi
Posts: 1941
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:35 pm

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:04 pm

Another Hawaiian Air B763 has been returned to the lessor:

Boeing 767-33A 25531 423 N583HA Hawaiian Airlines ferried 04 January 2019 HNL-GYR, on return to lessor, ex D-AMUP
 
hkcanadaexpat
Posts: 3633
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 3:33 am

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:58 pm

Hawaiian Airlines' final scheduled 763 passenger service is currently on its way to HNL right now (HA19 from SMF). HA has sent 3 frames to GYR over the last few days (N581HA, N582HA, N583HA). N594HA and N582HA should join them shortly.
 
User avatar
Narfish641
Posts: 463
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:14 pm

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:24 pm

First retirement of 2019 for American's 767-300ER (N389AA). Flown to TUL yesterday afternoon for it's transition to become a freighter.
Flew on:
SWA 737 738
 
wjcandee
Posts: 7584
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 08, 2019 12:15 am

Narfish641 wrote:
First retirement of 2019 for American's 767-300ER (N389AA). Flown to TUL yesterday afternoon for it's transition to become a freighter.


TUL probably isn't going to have much work to do with respect to that transition. In the past, some of these aircraft have made their way to BFM, while still on the AA certificate, to have VT spend a few months doing certain work prior to the aircraft being sold and then sent to ILN and then TLV. Others have taken a different route to conversion. Of course, it is also common for IAI/Bedek to do a heavy check as part of the conversion process. It's the kind of thing that would be negotiated and covered in agreements between AA, Jetran and CAM (ATSG). In other words, what specific condition is AA going to deliver the aircraft in? At a minimum, AA will gather and review the maintenance records and inspect and rectify certain discrepancies, if any are found.

After that, depending on the agreements, price, shop availability, and time frame in which the aircraft needs to be converted and on-line, pre-conversion heavy maintenance could be done anywhere, including BFM, ILN, TLV, of course, but also including other contractors, like at GSO, a shop that CAM has been known to use.

Anyway, it will be interesting to follow her.

I think 381AN was supposed to be going along with her. However, it looks like she's still doing revenue flying, at least for a couple more days.
 
User avatar
airportugal310
Posts: 3439
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 12:49 pm

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 08, 2019 12:26 am

hkcanadaexpat wrote:
Hawaiian Airlines' final scheduled 763 passenger service is currently on its way to HNL right now (HA19 from SMF). HA has sent 3 frames to GYR over the last few days (N581HA, N582HA, N583HA). N594HA and N582HA should join them shortly.


594 is not going to GYR
I sell airplanes and airplane accessories
 
audidudi
Posts: 1941
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:35 pm

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:26 am

hkcanadaexpat wrote:
Hawaiian Airlines' final scheduled 763 passenger service is currently on its way to HNL right now (HA19 from SMF). HA has sent 3 frames to GYR over the last few days (N581HA, N582HA, N583HA). N594HA and N582HA should join them shortly.

You wrote that N582HA has gone to GYR, and also that "N582HA should join them shortly"! It's possibly N592HA and it's already flown on to VCV.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n592ha
Last edited by audidudi on Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 974
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:38 am

It's disappointing that Hawaiian did nothing special for the 767 retirement.
 
juliuswong
Posts: 1566
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:22 am

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:28 am

I think three B767-300 are being scrapped in this photo:

Pity they never make it to freighter market.
- Life is a journey, travel it well -
 
juliuswong
Posts: 1566
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:22 am

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:02 am

juliuswong wrote:
I think three B767-300 are being scrapped in this photo:

Pity they never make it to freighter market.

The three I m referring to are on top, not the Shanghai Airlines.
- Life is a journey, travel it well -
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 2765
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:51 pm

At a minimum, AA will gather and review the maintenance records and inspect and rectify certain discrepancies, if any are found.


There have often been assumptions that if a plane is returned just about the time a major overhaul/heavy check is needed that the airline is responsible for paying for it. Wouldn't it be more common for leasing fees to be such that at the end of the lease the above quoted minimum be done. In most other sorts of leases you pay for a certain level of usage, and at the end of the lease you hand over a used but not misused nor overused piece of equipment and walk away.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17031
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:38 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
At a minimum, AA will gather and review the maintenance records and inspect and rectify certain discrepancies, if any are found.


There have often been assumptions that if a plane is returned just about the time a major overhaul/heavy check is needed that the airline is responsible for paying for it. Wouldn't it be more common for leasing fees to be such that at the end of the lease the above quoted minimum be done. In most other sorts of leases you pay for a certain level of usage, and at the end of the lease you hand over a used but not misused nor overused piece of equipment and walk away.

That depends on the lease terms.

There is always a fund to help pay for the next maintenance check and some residual for a heavy check/unknown. But some airlines accept the overhaul risk for better terms elsewhere (e.g., EK, not 767, just an example). Others do not (why JetBlue is rushing to retire E190s prior to wingspar inspections).

Lightsaber
You know nothing John Snow.
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 4168
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:15 pm

lightsaber wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
At a minimum, AA will gather and review the maintenance records and inspect and rectify certain discrepancies, if any are found.


There have often been assumptions that if a plane is returned just about the time a major overhaul/heavy check is needed that the airline is responsible for paying for it. Wouldn't it be more common for leasing fees to be such that at the end of the lease the above quoted minimum be done. In most other sorts of leases you pay for a certain level of usage, and at the end of the lease you hand over a used but not misused nor overused piece of equipment and walk away.

That depends on the lease terms.

There is always a fund to help pay for the next maintenance check and some residual for a heavy check/unknown. But some airlines accept the overhaul risk for better terms elsewhere (e.g., EK, not 767, just an example). Others do not (why JetBlue is rushing to retire E190s prior to wingspar inspections).

Lightsaber


It also depends on if the airframe is actually leased. If AA owns it outright, they can sell it as is, or in any configuration they like. It could be going for documentation in TUL, or they may be swapping out engines for other higher time ones, or they could be removing interior furnishings, or...

AA sold this one to Jetran as the broker, they wouldn't have done that if it were a simple lease return.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
wjcandee
Posts: 7584
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:15 pm

Like Lightsaber says, it all depends, and the possibilities are endless. And they may differ among different "identical" aircraft in the same fleet. It's all about cash flow and taxes and risk mitigation and a whole host of other calculations/bets that an airline CFO makes. An airline can buy the airframe or group of airframes outright, and finance it via a loan or equipment certificates (like bonds). It can buy the airframe, and then move it around on its balance sheet through a sale/leaseback arrangement with a third party. (Although so-called "finance leases", which are essentially loans with a balloon payment or agreed price at the return date, may need to be booked similarly to a loan.) The aircraft can be leased from a third party who initially acquires it. Maintenance can be the obligation of the lessor or the airline. Various terms may describe the condition in which the aircraft needs to be returned; obviously, this doesn't apply if the airframe is owned. The monthly charge can be for unlimited hours/cycles (or a high number), or the aircraft can be leased completely on a power-by-the-hour basis (you pay for the hours you use it). The hourly rate in that case is usually pretty-high. However, you have no expense if you don't operate the aircraft, so as a spare or an aircraft used for expansion only, that might be a valuable arrangement. The airline can purchase the aircraft from the lessor for whatever price they can negotiate, even during the lease term, if the lessor agrees to do so. The existing market for the airframe will determine what each party is willing to do. The "condition on return" clause can materially affect how the parties act.

Interesting illustrative anecdote: World Airways operated, among other things, nine MD11 aircraft, some of which were passenger birds, and a few of which were freighters. They had more military passenger business than they could handle at one point, and needed more aircraft. Delta Air Lines, on the other hand, had leased numerous MD11 aircraft to operate on its passenger routes. The leasing companies who did the transaction with Delta had solicited investors who indirectly then owned the aircraft, and some of those investors would surprise you. Several of the aircraft were owned by Northwestern Mutual Insurance (a life insurer -- life insurance companies often make stable long-term investments), and some were owned by Disney (which was investing some of its profits in diversified assets). Delta was making a fair-but-significant monthly lease payment on the aircraft, reflecting the fact that they had been acquired new from McD. When Delta decided that it no longer wished to fly the aircraft on its passenger routes, it still had a decade or so left on its finance leases for them. In the meantime, the resale market for these aircraft as passenger birds had cratered; they were worth something as freighters, but a lot less than the amortized original purchase price. Delta of course wanted to cut a deal to terminate the leases or otherwise do something with these parked assets. In the normal course, if there was a normal/good secondary market for them as passenger aircraft, such a deal would have been relatively-easy to arrange. However, that wasn't the case with the MD11. Disney and Northwestern Mutual had assets that were worth far less on the open market than the monthly revenue stream they were getting from Delta. The only market for them was as freighters, but the return clause in the leases required them to be returned in a specified condition as passenger aircraft. Most likely, the owner would approve a sublease, but they expressly stood on the return clause which made converting them for a freighter sublease impossible. As long as they could force then-profitable DL to continue to make monthly payments while putting zero time on the aircraft, the owners were in the best possible position by refusing to make a deal. Eventually, DL and World spoke about a sublease for a few of the aircraft, and the owners approved DL subleasing the aircraft to World for passenger use, albeit at a market rate, which was a much-lower monthly fee than DL was paying the owners. However, it was some revenue to offset the loss DL was taking by paying for aircraft it wasn't flying. (The aircraft were mothballed at, among other places, Mirabel, which I found interesting.) This arrangement was the best DL could get, given the "condition on return" clause in the lease. Eventually, DL declared bankruptcy and the very first leases that DL rejected in bankruptcy were the MD11 leases from the owners and the subleases to World. As soon as the leases were rejected, Disney and Northwestern sold their MD11s to Fedex and UPS for conversion to freighters. In other words, having benefitted as much as they could from the then-above-market monthly lease payments, they were now stuck with assets that had a lower market value, and immediately liquidated them for the best price they could, which was to UPS and Fedex as freighters. (UPS made a deal with World to put the aircraft World was using last in line for conversion, and leased them to World with like a 90-day termination provision. Later on, when the time came, they were converted.) So the "condition on return" clause in those MD11 leases was the thing that drove the whole life experience of those aircraft.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 2765
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:36 pm

Very much enjoyed reading the responses to my question about leases, esp. the Delta MD11 story. And it confirmed my suspicion that it could be complicated.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
Momo1435
Posts: 820
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:33 pm

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:02 pm

Boeing delivered the 1st 10 767-2C / KC-46 to the BDS USAF Tanker Program in the last week of 2018.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/#/orders-deliveries (click current year deliveries, or User Defined Reports)
 
smartplane
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:22 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
At a minimum, AA will gather and review the maintenance records and inspect and rectify certain discrepancies, if any are found.


There have often been assumptions that if a plane is returned just about the time a major overhaul/heavy check is needed that the airline is responsible for paying for it. Wouldn't it be more common for leasing fees to be such that at the end of the lease the above quoted minimum be done. In most other sorts of leases you pay for a certain level of usage, and at the end of the lease you hand over a used but not misused nor overused piece of equipment and walk away.

There is a difference between an aircraft leased from new, and leasing a used aircraft.

With a lease from new, the leasee (the airline) will always be responsible for the pro rata cost of maintenance and inspections, as well as interior refurbishment and external re-paint.

But sometimes part of this payment is paid upfront, hidden in a lower residual, or cash upfront, or in higher monthly lease charges, especially where the leasee credit assessment is not high, although sometimes the option is to minimise tax paid / maximise tax credits over the life of the lease.

Even where the leasee plans to purchase the aircraft at end of lease, these payments will be included and made at the end of the lease, after which there will be multiple ownership changes, with the aircraft eventually ending up with a company or trust associated with the leasee.

For leasee's with super buying power, when the end of lease approaches, they will negotiate a new lease on a new aircraft, and attempt to persuade the leasor of the original aircraft to discount or forgive part, or all of the end of lease payments, as compensation for leasing another new aircraft. Usually it's treated as a lease discount on the new aircraft, rather than a discount on the old lease, because otherwise it can create tax claw back issues. And on the new aircraft, it may appear as a refund, rebate or credit not directly linked to the lease, like for training, fitout or spares.

For airlines leasing a used aircraft, almost anything goes. If the leasor considers the lease to be the aircraft's last, it may not include clauses for re-paint, refurbish, and pro rata accrued maintenance and inspections. Or it may include payments, made to the leasor, which are not expended, and then later shared.

Remember not all leases are as commercial as may sometimes appear. The leasor, funding manager and / or participants may be related parties.
 
smartplane
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:48 pm

wjcandee wrote:
Like Lightsaber says, it all depends, and the possibilities are endless. And they may differ among different "identical" aircraft in the same fleet. It's all about cash flow and taxes and risk mitigation and a whole host of other calculations/bets that an airline CFO makes. An airline can buy the airframe or group of airframes outright, and finance it via a loan or equipment certificates (like bonds). It can buy the airframe, and then move it around on its balance sheet through a sale/leaseback arrangement with a third party. (Although so-called "finance leases", which are essentially loans with a balloon payment or agreed price at the return date, may need to be booked similarly to a loan.) The aircraft can be leased from a third party who initially acquires it. Maintenance can be the obligation of the lessor or the airline. Various terms may describe the condition in which the aircraft needs to be returned; obviously, this doesn't apply if the airframe is owned. The monthly charge can be for unlimited hours/cycles (or a high number), or the aircraft can be leased completely on a power-by-the-hour basis (you pay for the hours you use it). The hourly rate in that case is usually pretty-high. However, you have no expense if you don't operate the aircraft, so as a spare or an aircraft used for expansion only, that might be a valuable arrangement. The airline can purchase the aircraft from the lessor for whatever price they can negotiate, even during the lease term, if the lessor agrees to do so. The existing market for the airframe will determine what each party is willing to do. The "condition on return" clause can materially affect how the parties act.

Interesting illustrative anecdote: World Airways operated, among other things, nine MD11 aircraft, some of which were passenger birds, and a few of which were freighters. They had more military passenger business than they could handle at one point, and needed more aircraft. Delta Air Lines, on the other hand, had leased numerous MD11 aircraft to operate on its passenger routes. The leasing companies who did the transaction with Delta had solicited investors who indirectly then owned the aircraft, and some of those investors would surprise you. Several of the aircraft were owned by Northwestern Mutual Insurance (a life insurer -- life insurance companies often make stable long-term investments), and some were owned by Disney (which was investing some of its profits in diversified assets). Delta was making a fair-but-significant monthly lease payment on the aircraft, reflecting the fact that they had been acquired new from McD. When Delta decided that it no longer wished to fly the aircraft on its passenger routes, it still had a decade or so left on its finance leases for them. In the meantime, the resale market for these aircraft as passenger birds had cratered; they were worth something as freighters, but a lot less than the amortized original purchase price. Delta of course wanted to cut a deal to terminate the leases or otherwise do something with these parked assets. In the normal course, if there was a normal/good secondary market for them as passenger aircraft, such a deal would have been relatively-easy to arrange. However, that wasn't the case with the MD11. Disney and Northwestern Mutual had assets that were worth far less on the open market than the monthly revenue stream they were getting from Delta. The only market for them was as freighters, but the return clause in the leases required them to be returned in a specified condition as passenger aircraft. Most likely, the owner would approve a sublease, but they expressly stood on the return clause which made converting them for a freighter sublease impossible. As long as they could force then-profitable DL to continue to make monthly payments while putting zero time on the aircraft, the owners were in the best possible position by refusing to make a deal. Eventually, DL and World spoke about a sublease for a few of the aircraft, and the owners approved DL subleasing the aircraft to World for passenger use, albeit at a market rate, which was a much-lower monthly fee than DL was paying the owners. However, it was some revenue to offset the loss DL was taking by paying for aircraft it wasn't flying. (The aircraft were mothballed at, among other places, Mirabel, which I found interesting.) This arrangement was the best DL could get, given the "condition on return" clause in the lease. Eventually, DL declared bankruptcy and the very first leases that DL rejected in bankruptcy were the MD11 leases from the owners and the subleases to World. As soon as the leases were rejected, Disney and Northwestern sold their MD11s to Fedex and UPS for conversion to freighters. In other words, having benefitted as much as they could from the then-above-market monthly lease payments, they were now stuck with assets that had a lower market value, and immediately liquidated them for the best price they could, which was to UPS and Fedex as freighters. (UPS made a deal with World to put the aircraft World was using last in line for conversion, and leased them to World with like a 90-day termination provision. Later on, when the time came, they were converted.) So the "condition on return" clause in those MD11 leases was the thing that drove the whole life experience of those aircraft.

One of the issues with Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The debtor in possession / trustee will repudiate every aircraft lease, inviting leasor's to negotiate new leases with the new entity. Part of the reason we have seen higher upfront payments and lower residuals, as leasor's seek to reduce exposure.

If a leasee purchases the leased aircraft part way through a lease term, they purchase the going concern lease in the name of a related party company or trust, and continue making the original payments (effectively to themselves). Otherwise, the original lease can be reviewed, including the tax status of the leasor, leasee, funds manager and or funding participants.

There are IATA and accounting standards for leases, including arbitration, in the event of disputes.

Major airlines have their own purchase and lease templates, which OEM's and leasors attempt to modify. In contrast, smaller, and/or less financial airlines attempt to modify OEM and leasor templates. For example, leasor's and financiers (including EXIM) make it mandatory for WB engines to be on OEM maintenance plans (some exceptions), and increasingly for NB engines too.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26095
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:19 pm

Momo1435 wrote:
Boeing delivered the 1st 10 767-2C / KC-46 to the BDS USAF Tanker Program in the last week of 2018.


I am guessing this was a Contractual Delivery with physical deliveries taking place soon.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 2765
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:31 pm

smartplane - Outside the fact that the Leasor (lessor) is going to want to make a profit with a lease that does that and, and the Leasee (Lessee) wants payments as low as possible, and certain tax benefits, outside these two constants a lease can be constructed in almost infinite ways. We seldom get to see the details as they likely are proprietary. Leases may run hundreds of pages, and for those of us on the outside a simple declarative statement on page one may have dozens of exceptions and conditions in the following pages. I have been puzzled by posts asserting leases always ..... or never ... We don't know.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
wjcandee
Posts: 7584
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:25 pm

Smartplane: thanks for the really-detailed details. Yours are the kind of posts that make A.net fun!
 
hkcanadaexpat
Posts: 3633
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 3:33 am

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:00 pm

Stitch wrote:
Momo1435 wrote:
Boeing delivered the 1st 10 767-2C / KC-46 to the BDS USAF Tanker Program in the last week of 2018.
I am guessing this was a Contractual Delivery with physical deliveries taking place soon.

These were delivered to Boeing's Defense Department. Not to the Air Force. If you ask me, this is sketchy accounting to ensure deliveries cross the 800 threshold and that Boeing meets its revised target delivery date for the program. Airbus is known to do the same.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1233
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:20 pm

hkcanadaexpat wrote:
Stitch wrote:
Momo1435 wrote:
Boeing delivered the 1st 10 767-2C / KC-46 to the BDS USAF Tanker Program in the last week of 2018.
I am guessing this was a Contractual Delivery with physical deliveries taking place soon.

These were delivered to Boeing's Defense Department. Not to the Air Force. If you ask me, this is sketchy accounting to ensure deliveries cross the 800 threshold and that Boeing meets its revised target delivery date for the program. Airbus is known to do the same.


This is for only 10 if the 56 so far. Deliveries were expected in December, but actually 25 or more are already built. BDS can own, just like Boeing Capital can.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26095
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:05 pm

Momo1435 wrote:
Boeing delivered the 1st 10 767-2C / KC-46 to the BDS USAF Tanker Program in the last week of 2018.

Stitch wrote:
I am guessing this was a Contractual Delivery with physical deliveries taking place soon.

hkcanadaexpat wrote:
These were delivered to Boeing's Defense Department. Not to the Air Force. If you ask me, this is sketchy accounting to ensure deliveries cross the 800 threshold and that Boeing meets its revised target delivery date for the program. Airbus is known to do the same.


When the airframes are ordered, they are booked to BDS USAF Tanker Program and the 10 that were delivered were also booked to BDS USAF Tanker Program so it may be that this is how Boeing is going to track the orders and deliveries rather than to the USAF, directly.

The two KC-46A ordered by the JASDF have been booked to BDS Japan International Tanker whereas the original four KC-767J show as booked to Japan ASDF Tanker for delivery and the four E-767 show as booked to the ITOCHU Corporation (even ITOCHU also took delivery of at least two of the KC-767Js). And the four KC-767 which went to the Italian Air Force were booked to Italian Air Force Tanker. So there seems to be precedent.

And if Boeing is trying to "cook the numbers", why only book 10? Why not book all 19 from the first two tranches, as I believe they have at least that many ready.
 
hkcanadaexpat
Posts: 3633
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 3:33 am

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:33 pm

Stitch wrote:
When the airframes are ordered, they are booked to BDS USAF Tanker Program and the 10 that were delivered were also booked to BDS USAF Tanker Program so it may be that this is how Boeing is going to track the orders and deliveries rather than to the USAF, directly.
The two KC-46A ordered by the JASDF have been booked to BDS Japan International Tanker whereas the original four KC-767J show as booked to Japan ASDF Tanker for delivery and the four E-767 show as booked to the ITOCHU Corporation (even ITOCHU also took delivery of at least two of the KC-767Js). And the four KC-767 which went to the Italian Air Force were booked to Italian Air Force Tanker. So there seems to be precedent.
And if Boeing is trying to "cook the numbers", why only book 10? Why not book all 19 from the first two tranches, as I believe they have at least that many ready.

I'm not attempting to unearth a conspiracy here. The practice employed by Boeing here is par for the course of what it has done in the past and what Airbus does as well. All i was attempting to say (perhaps wrongly worded) is that, as far as I know, none have left Boeing hands and none are in possession of the Air Force on its own properties (aren't they all still in BFI/PAE?). So, as such, the number of planes "delivered" becomes semantics and probably negotiated between Boeing, its Defense Division and the Air Force on 12/31 at 11:59pm all in an attempt to help Boeing achieve a delivery target of over 800. Has the Air Force made its final payments or has Boeing's Defense Department simply transferred money laterally to Boeing Commercial? Why is it 10 and not 19? Again, take it with a grain of salt, but i do not believe all 19 have had customer acceptance flights. They probably drew the line in the sand of planes that are completed, have flown and even have flown with Air Force pilots on board.

Again no conspiracy theory here. just highlighting the fact that the planes are still in BFI/PAE. Same could be said for 2x 789s for Hainan Airlines that still sit in CHS despite having been "delivered" on 12/20. Given the state of financial affairs at HNA, i doubt they can afford to make final payments on two frames just to have then sit for 3 weeks in CHS. Could Boeing Capital have funded this temporarily to meet 2018 targets? Sure. Have they? I don't know.
 
bennett123
Posts: 8669
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:47 pm

Incidentally South Wales Aviation Group show F-HILU as scrapped at DGX this month.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26095
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:14 am

hkcanadaexpat wrote:
The practice employed by Boeing here is par for the course of what it has done in the past and what Airbus does as well. All i was attempting to say (perhaps wrongly worded) is that, as far as I know, none have left Boeing hands and none are in possession of the Air Force on its own properties (aren't they all still in BFI/PAE?). So, as such, the number of planes "delivered" becomes semantics and probably negotiated between Boeing, its Defense Division and the Air Force on 12/31 at 11:59pm all in an attempt to help Boeing achieve a delivery target of over 800.


Well there are "Contractual Deliveries" where a customer takes formal possession of the airframe from the OEM (Airbus, Boeing, etc.) but does not immediately fly it off the property. This could be for promotional reasons (wanting to have a formal hand-over and fly-away celebration), lack of available pilots to fly the frames out, lack of space at an outfitting station for things like IFE or WiFi, or whathaveyou. But in those situations, the airline (or their chosen financier) had made the final payments owed and formally held the title the same as if the customer had immediately flown the airframe off the property.



hkcanadaexpat wrote:
Has the Air Force made its final payments or has Boeing's Defense Department simply transferred money laterally to Boeing Commercial?


The "fine print" notes that "767 deliveries include the transfer of 10 767-2C aircraft to Boeing Defense, Space & Security for the U.S. Air Force KC-46 tanker program." If Boeing uses BDS USAF Tanker Program for future KC-46A deliveries to the USAF, then I would posit this is how Boeing and the USAF have decided on handling deliveries. If Boeing instead delivers all future KC-46As directly to the USAF and member uses BDS USAF Tanker Program again, then I would agree it was possibly a (legal) accounting shuffle to "juice" the numbers to hit their 2018 delivery targets.


hkcanadaexpat wrote:
Again no conspiracy theory here. just highlighting the fact that the planes are still in BFI/PAE. Same could be said for 2x 789s for Hainan Airlines that still sit in CHS despite having been "delivered" on 12/20. Given the state of financial affairs at HNA, i doubt they can afford to make final payments on two frames just to have then sit for 3 weeks in CHS.


Air India had 777s sit at PAE for the better part of six months or more after their contractual delivery. EK has also seen multi-week 777 fly-away delays in the past due to a lack of pilots available to take the frames home to Dubai, but they had paid the final bill and taken formal ownership of the frames.
 
smartplane
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:49 am

frmrCapCadet wrote:
smartplane - Outside the fact that the Leasor (lessor) is going to want to make a profit with a lease that does that and, and the Leasee (Lessee) wants payments as low as possible, and certain tax benefits, outside these two constants a lease can be constructed in almost infinite ways. We seldom get to see the details as they likely are proprietary. Leases may run hundreds of pages, and for those of us on the outside a simple declarative statement on page one may have dozens of exceptions and conditions in the following pages.

Off topic, but............ Twenty years ago, even 10 years ago, every lease was bespoke. Potentially an order for 10 identical aircraft, with the same leasor, delivered over 3 years, with perhaps 2-3 lead finance managers and different funding participants, might differ with each delivery, notwithstanding accounting, legal and tax changes require updates involving legal, accounting and tax specialists representing each interested party.

EK and LH were probably the first to move to a customer template for sale/purchase or lease, a great idea, because once agreed, it's updated for legislative and industry accounting, legal and tax purposes, and becomes a living document. Fill in the blanks and negotiate any variations to terms and conditions. Either the OEM, leasor or financier wants to do business using the template, or they don't. All major airlines and leasing companies (a few exceptions) use 'their' template contracts with air frame, engine and other high value suppliers.

Airbus started using templates for start-ups in the late 80's, and in the early 90's packaged with funding, then later rolled out to small / medium airlines and leasing companies. Boeing started the process later, but moved more quickly.

The move from bespoke to template contracts was strongly supported by EXIM's and IATA, and perhaps surprisingly, has resulted in a high degree of harmonisation, reflecting the adoption of 'World's best practice'.

We have a new industry which updates and peer reviews sale/purchase and lease templates, establishing and documenting best practice, including measuring the effort expended to update templates, conclude contract negotiations, and ID subsequent defects and omissions.
 
smartplane
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:04 am

Stitch wrote:
The "fine print" notes that "767 deliveries include the transfer of 10 767-2C aircraft to Boeing Defense, Space & Security for the U.S. Air Force KC-46 tanker program." If Boeing uses BDS USAF Tanker Program for future KC-46A deliveries to the USAF, then I would posit this is how Boeing and the USAF have decided on handling deliveries. If Boeing instead delivers all future KC-46As directly to the USAF and member uses BDS USAF Tanker Program again, then I would agree it was possibly a (legal) accounting shuffle to "juice" the numbers to hit their 2018 delivery targets.

Absolutely everything is done for a reason. Is 'Boeing Defense, Space & Security for the U.S. Air Force KC-46 tanker program' a military subset of Boeing Capital?
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 2765
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:22 pm

smartplane - thanks for the further explanation and history. I am speculating then that templates allow a great many options, but those options then always occur on the same page, so to speak, and neither side needs a raft of lawyers as to what the document specifies.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26095
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:46 pm

smartplane wrote:
Is 'Boeing Defense, Space & Security for the U.S. Air Force KC-46 tanker program' a military subset of Boeing Capital?


I believe it is to identify specific BDSS programs. The USAF KC-46A frames are accounted under BDS USAF Tanker Program whereas the JASDF KC-46A frames are accounted under BDS Japan International Tanker. The two 747-8's tasked to become VC-25Bs are accounted under USAF PAR Program (Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization). And the foreign P-8 Poseidon fleets are accounted for by their customer: Australia P-8, Indian Navy P-8I, UK P-8 and Defense, Space & Security - In (for Norway).

This applies to more recent past programs, as well. The JASDF KC-767J frames are accounted under Japan ASDF Tanker and the JASDF E-767s are accounted under ITOCHU Corporation (ITOCHU being a trading company). The Italian KC-767As are accounted under Italian Air Force Tanker.

Prior to the mid-2000's, Boeing accounted for specific frames by their actual service (United States Air Force, United States Navy, Republic of Iran Air Force). The USN's P-8 Poseidon fleet was also accounted for under United States Navy until 2017, when it switched to U.S. Navy (P-8A Poseidon), likely to match the other BDSS program accounting practices.
 
smartplane
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:50 pm

Stitch wrote:
smartplane wrote:
Is 'Boeing Defense, Space & Security for the U.S. Air Force KC-46 tanker program' a military subset of Boeing Capital?


I believe it is to identify specific BDSS programs. The USAF KC-46A frames are accounted under BDS USAF Tanker Program whereas the JASDF KC-46A frames are accounted under BDS Japan International Tanker. The two 747-8's tasked to become VC-25Bs are accounted under USAF PAR Program (Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization). And the foreign P-8 Poseidon fleets are accounted for by their customer: Australia P-8, Indian Navy P-8I, UK P-8 and Defense, Space & Security - In (for Norway).

This applies to more recent past programs, as well. The JASDF KC-767J frames are accounted under Japan ASDF Tanker and the JASDF E-767s are accounted under ITOCHU Corporation (ITOCHU being a trading company). The Italian KC-767As are accounted under Italian Air Force Tanker.

Prior to the mid-2000's, Boeing accounted for specific frames by their actual service (United States Air Force, United States Navy, Republic of Iran Air Force). The USN's P-8 Poseidon fleet was also accounted for under United States Navy until 2017, when it switched to U.S. Navy (P-8A Poseidon), likely to match the other BDSS program accounting practices.

Many thanks for the clarification.

If the change triggers a change in registration / ownership, then underlying reason is financial treatment and accounting status, in which case these are aircraft are on the equivalent of Boeing Capital - subset military database and balance sheet. If it's simply an internal nomenclature, then of no significance other than for employees and admin.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26095
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:36 pm

Official Boeing Press Release noting the first KC-46As have been delivered to the USAF: https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2019-01-10 ... r-Aircraft

I believe this confirms my speculation that these were Contractual Deliveries as the frames themselves will be flown to McConnell AFB "in the coming weeks". I believe that this also means BDS USAF Tanker Program will (continue to) be the "Customer of Record" for future KC-46A deliveries to the USAF (as opposed to United States Air Force as would have been the case pre-2000).
 
hkcanadaexpat
Posts: 3633
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 3:33 am

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:38 pm

Stitch wrote:
Official Boeing Press Release noting the first KC-46As have been delivered to the USAF: https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2019-01-10 ... r-Aircraft
I believe this confirms my speculation that these were Contractual Deliveries as the frames themselves will be flown to McConnell AFB "in the coming weeks". I believe that this also means BDS USAF Tanker Program will (continue to) be the "Customer of Record" for future KC-46A deliveries to the USAF (as opposed to United States Air Force as would have been the case pre-2000).

I'm not going to get into a debate with you but if you read Dominic Gates' article on the topic, you'll notice that 1) Air Force confirms taking delivery of first tanker this week and that such frame (all of 1 airplane) won't fly home for a few weeks and that the Air Force has withheld $28 million of that frame's final payment as it is not up to specs. That is a far cry from the Air Force having paid full payment and taken delivery of 10 frames by 12/31/18.

Again, yes 10 frames were "contractually" delivered to Boeing's Defense Division in 2018. But you'd be hard pressed to convince me that the Air Force paid full final payments and taken technical delivery of 10 tankers last year. More so in light of the Air Force's press release of today.
 
audidudi
Posts: 1941
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:35 pm

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:46 pm

airportugal310 wrote:
hkcanadaexpat wrote:
Hawaiian Airlines' final scheduled 763 passenger service is currently on its way to HNL right now (HA19 from SMF). HA has sent 3 frames to GYR over the last few days (N581HA, N582HA, N583HA). N594HA and N582HA should join them shortly.


594 is not going to GYR

But it does appear that it's going to be scrapped somewhere, at least according to skyliner-aviation.de!

Boeing 767-332 23275 136 N594HA Hawaiian Airlines last in svc 08-09 January 2019 HNL-SJC-HNL, prior ferry to? For part-out & scrap. ex N116DL
 
NG263
Posts: 198
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 3:10 pm

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:53 pm

audidudi wrote:
airportugal310 wrote:
hkcanadaexpat wrote:
Hawaiian Airlines' final scheduled 763 passenger service is currently on its way to HNL right now (HA19 from SMF). HA has sent 3 frames to GYR over the last few days (N581HA, N582HA, N583HA). N594HA and N582HA should join them shortly.


594 is not going to GYR

But it does appear that it's going to be scrapped somewhere, at least according to skyliner-aviation.de!

Boeing 767-332 23275 136 N594HA Hawaiian Airlines last in svc 08-09 January 2019 HNL-SJC-HNL, prior ferry to? For part-out & scrap. ex N116DL



All the non -ER`s were ferried to ROW so it might be possible that N594HA will join the sister ships there.
 
Camel22
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:03 pm

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:49 pm

Anybody can confirm or deny a rumour about N643GT and N644GT going back to an european operator?

Thanks!!
 
audidudi
Posts: 1941
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:35 pm

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:12 pm

Two updates from skyliner-aviation.de:

Boeing 767-281(F) 22790 69 A9C-DHQ DHL Int´l Aviation ME ferried 11-12 January 2019 ILN-EMA-BAH, prior return to svc, ex-N775AX

Boeing 767-332 23275 136 N594HA Hawaiian Airlines last in svc 11-12 January 2019 HNL-SJC-HNL, ferried 14 January 2019 HNL-MZJ for part-out & scrap, ex N116DL
 
juliuswong
Posts: 1566
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:22 am

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 23, 2019 2:17 am

Update 23 Jan 2019:
B767-3D6 24766 310 7T-VJG Air Algérie ferried 18/21jan19 ALG-SNN-YUL-PSM-BKV, basic cs, for part-out &scrap
B767‑323(F) 25449 489 C-GAAJ CargoJet Airways regd 17jan19, delivery 19jan19 BQK-YHM after paint ex N380AN
B767-323 27449 564 N389AA American Airlines ferried 20jan19 TUL-ROW for storage
B767-3Q8 27686 793 CN-ROV Royal Air Maroc ferried 17jan19 CMN-SNN on return to lessor ex N201LF
B767-3CB 33468 898 N686UA United Airlines ferried 17jan19 VCV-GYR after paint prior delivery ex N592HA
B767-3CB 33467 894 N685UA United Airlines ferried 17jan19 GYR-VCV for paint prior delivery ex N590HA
Source: https://www.skyliner-aviation.de/regdb. ... av4&page=3
- Life is a journey, travel it well -
 
User avatar
UnitedIsBae
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 2:39 am

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:47 am

Are the HA 767s going to UA or something else?
If it ain't Boeing I ain't going PERIOD
 
hkcanadaexpat
Posts: 3633
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 3:33 am

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 am

UnitedIsBae wrote:
Are the HA 767s going to UA or something else?

3 to UA, 3 to Unknown and 1 to scrap.
 
User avatar
UnitedIsBae
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 2:39 am

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:23 pm

hkcanadaexpat wrote:
UnitedIsBae wrote:
Are the HA 767s going to UA or something else?

3 to UA, 3 to Unknown and 1 to scrap.

Why is the lone 763 getting scrapped? High cycles? or unfavorable config?
If it ain't Boeing I ain't going PERIOD
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 575
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:51 pm

UnitedIsBae wrote:
hkcanadaexpat wrote:
UnitedIsBae wrote:
Are the HA 767s going to UA or something else?

3 to UA, 3 to Unknown and 1 to scrap.

Why is the lone 763 getting scrapped? High cycles? or unfavorable config?

Both, N594HA is a non-ER 763, ex-DL, basically an old bird that had an extensive domestic career (ie high cycles).

There is also no conversion program for non-ER 763s, so the only place for them if they don't get picked up by another pax carrier, is the boneyard.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 7584
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:35 pm

Lots of useful parts on that old 767-300.
 
juliuswong
Posts: 1566
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:22 am

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Fri Jan 25, 2019 5:58 am

Update 25 Jan 2019:
B767-3D6 24768 332 7T-VJI Air Algérie ferried 24jan19 ALG-SNN-PSM prior part-out & scrap
B767-33A 28141 853 N581HA WFBN ferried 22/24jan19 GYR-BGR-SAW prior delivery to?
Source: https://www.skyliner-aviation.de/regdb. ... av4&page=4
- Life is a journey, travel it well -
 
User avatar
UnitedIsBae
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 2:39 am

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Fri Jan 25, 2019 5:03 pm

wjcandee wrote:
Lots of useful parts on that old 767-300.

whats the technical difference between the 300 and the ER?
If it ain't Boeing I ain't going PERIOD
 
HPRamper
Posts: 4922
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 4:22 am

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Fri Jan 25, 2019 10:23 pm

FedEx is getting another one today, N172FE PAE-IND. Incidentally, taking delivery of a fresh 777F today as well, N896FD PAE-MEM. Good day for FX deliveries.
 
User avatar
airportugal310
Posts: 3439
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 12:49 pm

Re: Boeing 767 Production/Activity Thread - 2019

Fri Jan 25, 2019 10:34 pm

jeffrey0032j wrote:
UnitedIsBae wrote:
hkcanadaexpat wrote:
3 to UA, 3 to Unknown and 1 to scrap.

Why is the lone 763 getting scrapped? High cycles? or unfavorable config?

Both, N594HA is a non-ER 763, ex-DL, basically an old bird that had an extensive domestic career (ie high cycles).

There is also no conversion program for non-ER 763s, so the only place for them if they don't get picked up by another pax carrier, is the boneyard.


It's actually not high cycles at all. Or hours. I'd know...(hint: see my signature)

Also, I don't know how people seem to know that it's being parted? Only two people know the story, and I know the other guy ain't talking...
I sell airplanes and airplane accessories

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos