727glasair
Topic Author
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 3:51 am

Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 12:10 am

Due to relatively narrow fuselage, the 767 only seats 7 across (in economy). This is why SOME 757's have more seating capacity than SOME 767's. So my questions:

1) Is this the ONLY twin-aisle 7 across airplane?

2) In hindsight, would a slightly larger 8-across fuselage design have been smarter?
 
EBT
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 1:04 am

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 1:01 am

1) Not exclusively - some charter/holiday operators did squeeze in 2-4-2 seating in the 767. I never experienced it, but it seems it would be incredibly tight.

2) Going wider would have meant a larger airframe, which means more weight and drag. At the time the 767 and 757 were conceived (they were a dual development), 747s were seen as the large people haulers, while the two jets would offer transcon US range but offer step-downs in capacity. Why was that important? Well, deregulation meant that airline business models were changing, and the trend of route fragmentation (hub-busting) was kicking off, so not everyone needed a 747/L1011/DC-10, and the 737 and MD-80 were effectively regional jets. So, at the time, it met the bill.

Like a lot of products, what the 767 was conceived for and where it ended up flying turned out to be quite different. The development of the -300 became a game-changer, as did the ER variants, and arguably they paved the way towards the long-haul twins of today. But, given this is effectively a late 1970s design that has had a few tweaks over time, it was only inevitable that developments like the A330, and changes in the market that have favoured long-range narrowbodies would change the market for it. It's easy to sit here, nearly 40 years later, and speculate that they should have done the fuselage differently, but given the success of the aircraft in the market, I think you would have to also say that Boeing got it right.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 2805
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 1:08 am

767 was a great plane and sold well. It is just that the 8 across 330 was significantly better - and more capable.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
xxcr
Posts: 306
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:37 pm

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 1:33 am

The 767 is by far one of my favorite planes to fly on after the the 747 and 777. The comfort of the 2-3-2 in Y is great, only 1 middle seat per row!

767 was a workhorse for airlines! look at UA, they use them heavily on TATL flights and also South America.
The plane is small enough but just big enough for those thin routes.
 
DarthLobster
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 3:40 am

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 1:35 am

The 767 is still being produced, the 757 is not. The 767 has outsold the 757 by nearly 200 units. Why does everyone still act like the 757 is god's gift to aviation?
Last edited by DarthLobster on Wed May 08, 2019 1:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 1:36 am

The 757 ended production in 2004. The 767 is still being built and will continue production for many years to come. It’s turned into a great domestic freighter. I’m not sure whose profitability you are referring to, but the fact it outlived the 757 despite being of similar technology. 767-300ERs are highly sought after airplanes for freighter conversion. Their high value for freighter conversions for Amazon and others has accelerated passenger retirement.

The A300 and A310 were 8 abreast and cabin width didn’t make those planes great sellers.

I don’t know why A.net criticizes 7 abreast seating so often. I find the armchair structures engineers rather amusing.
Last edited by Weatherwatcher1 on Wed May 08, 2019 1:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
Max Q
Posts: 7411
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 1:36 am

Proof is in the numbers, the A310 was it’s direct competitor and it sold a fraction of the 767’s which outperformed it in every respect and is still being built


The narrower fuselage was never an issue for the airlines that have operated it, and passengers love the uncrowded 2-3-2 layout
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
UPS757Pilot
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 5:22 am

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 1:42 am

DarthLobster wrote:
The 767 is still being produced, the 757 is not. The 767 has outsold the 757 by nearly 200 units. Why does everyone still act like the 757 is god's gift to aviation?
I believe it is - all that power and sleek lines! Heavenly to fly!
 
JAAlbert
Posts: 1926
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:43 pm

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 1:44 am

frmrCapCadet wrote:
767 was a great plane and sold well. It is just that the 8 across 330 was significantly better - and more capable.


Which is why I am scratching my head wondering why Boeing is again considering a 7 across cabin. I've heard it will be substantially more efficient than the 767, but I still do not understand how a 7 across will ever be more efficient than a narrow body. Of course, it is easy for me not to understand such things as I am not an engineer ;)

All this being said, I agree the 767 is one of my favorite aircraft -- wide enough to ward off claustrophobia, but not too large. A very comfortable ride. With new, quieter engines, a pair of sexy wings, and 787/777X sized windows, it would be a great ride!
 
User avatar
September11
Posts: 3530
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 1:44 am

I guess future of 767 is bright

767-500
767-700
767-900
Airliners.net of the Future
 
1989worstyear
Posts: 521
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 1:54 am

frmrCapCadet wrote:
767 was a great plane and sold well. It is just that the 8 across 330 was significantly better - and more capable.


1988 EIS Factor in action.
Stuck at age 15 thanks to the certification date of the A320-200 and my parents' decision to postpone having a kid by 3 years. At least there's Dignitas...
 
B764er
Posts: 104
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2018 2:19 am

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 2:10 am

Boeing offered the airlines bigger variants: that's where the 767-400 (my favorite jetliner) came from. But the airlines wanted an all new design, and that's where the 777 came to be from. Then came the 787 Dreamliner. At that point the writing was on the wall for the 767. Now by 2028, the 767 must be completely retired from commercial service. The 787 is its true successor.
Last edited by B764er on Wed May 08, 2019 2:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 2:11 am

The 767 fuselage averages about 17' outside dimension. 757 size seats and a smaller cargo hold than the current 767 could be done at 15'-6", about a 10% savings in weight and drag. Then the wings and engines could be shrunk to 757 range, and quite possibly the 767 could match the 757 efficiency with twin aisle circulation and comfort.
Is there a logical reason for any seating between 3-3 and 3-4-3? Maybe not. But I think there is an optimum length for every seating.
3-2, 125'
3-3, 145'
2-2-2, 165'
2-3-2, 185'
2-4-2, 205'
3-3-3, 225'
3-4-3, 245'
 
1989worstyear
Posts: 521
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 2:27 am

B764er wrote:
Boeing offered the airlines bigger variants: that's where the 767-400 (my favorite jetliner) came from. But the airlines wanted an all new design, and that's where the 777 came to be from. Then came the 787 Dreamliner. At that point the writing was on the wall for the 767. Now by 2028, the 767 must be completely retired from commercial service. The 787 is its true successor.


I thought that was only for new builds?
Stuck at age 15 thanks to the certification date of the A320-200 and my parents' decision to postpone having a kid by 3 years. At least there's Dignitas...
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3666
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 2:32 am

UPS757Pilot wrote:
DarthLobster wrote:
The 767 is still being produced, the 757 is not. The 767 has outsold the 757 by nearly 200 units. Why does everyone still act like the 757 is god's gift to aviation?
I believe it is - all that power and sleek lines! Heavenly to fly!

No it is not being produced.
 
Ozair
Posts: 3786
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 2:39 am

1989worstyear wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
767 was a great plane and sold well. It is just that the 8 across 330 was significantly better - and more capable.


1988 EIS Factor in action.

Agree, it is easy to hit a market segment when you know it exists. The 767 essentially created the market segment that the A330 exploited and was optimised for.
 
planecane
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 3:06 am

1989worstyear wrote:
B764er wrote:
Boeing offered the airlines bigger variants: that's where the 767-400 (my favorite jetliner) came from. But the airlines wanted an all new design, and that's where the 777 came to be from. Then came the 787 Dreamliner. At that point the writing was on the wall for the 767. Now by 2028, the 767 must be completely retired from commercial service. The 787 is its true successor.


I thought that was only for new builds?

I'm pretty sure it is. I don't think FedEx, etc. would be ordering more if they can only use them for 9 years or less.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6368
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 3:38 am

The 767 is what it is because of the available engines of the time. The first widebody twins had to be designed around the level of thrust available from 747 Classic/DC-10/L-1011 engines.

An 8-abreast twin would have ended up as essentially a copy of the A300/A310, which were never able to develop true long-haul range (only the A310-300 was even comfortable on TATL). The potential for long-haul range (early 767-200ERs were not far behind 747-200s) with the available engines demanded a narrower fuselage at the time. Then we got more power in the late 1980s, enabling the 767-300ER, 747-400, and MD-11; and then we got yet more in the early 1990s, allowing for the A330 and eventually the 777.
 
airzona11
Posts: 1425
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 3:44 am

The 767 still operates hundreds of models, it was engineered for its size. It did not leave money on the table for airlines and certainly not for Boeing.

frmrCapCadet wrote:
767 was a great plane and sold well. It is just that the 8 across 330 was significantly better - and more capable.


The 767 is below the A330 size wise. 767s are still flying profitably for airlines. Unless you specifically mean the 764 vs A332, but 763s operate the near majority of the fleet. A330/767 combo is still working great for DL/AC/AA among others.
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3198
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 3:50 am

strfyr51 wrote:
UPS757Pilot wrote:
DarthLobster wrote:
The 767 is still being produced, the 757 is not. The 767 has outsold the 757 by nearly 200 units. Why does everyone still act like the 757 is god's gift to aviation?
I believe it is - all that power and sleek lines! Heavenly to fly!

No it is not being produced.


Yes, the 767 is still being produced.....

https://airlinerwatch.com/boeing-increa ... tion-rate/
The gun is a precious Symbol of Freedom
Criminals are the deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence of tyrants who disarm their citizens
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 2616
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 3:58 am

Not really, as the B763 has the same range, if not more, than most A330-300s on the market (only the 240 and 242t A333 and 238t and 242t A332s have significantly more range). That said, the main drawback against the B763 now is that the B763 cannot take two LD3 containers side-by-side, while the A330 can, and also the Boeing 767 program was launched 40 years ago.

As a freighter though, the B763 hits the sweet spot in terms of medium-haul duty and the ability to handle high cycles.
 
1989worstyear
Posts: 521
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 4:04 am

aemoreira1981 wrote:
Not really, as the B763 has the same range, if not more, than most A330-300s on the market (only the 240 and 242t A333 and 238t and 242t A332s have significantly more range). That said, the main drawback against the B763 now is that the B763 cannot take two LD3 containers side-by-side, while the A330 can, and also the Boeing 767 program was launched 40 years ago.

As a freighter though, the B763 hits the sweet spot in terms of medium-haul duty and the ability to handle high cycles.


Well, the A330 was launched in 1987, but is still competitive with the 787 32 years later.

Unless you're referring to the 1988 EIS Factor, which you seem to allude to in many of your posts regarding the 767.
Stuck at age 15 thanks to the certification date of the A320-200 and my parents' decision to postpone having a kid by 3 years. At least there's Dignitas...
 
9Patch
Posts: 186
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 4:38 am

UPS757Pilot wrote:
]I believe it is - all that power and sleek lines! Heavenly to fly!

The 767 is much better for passenger comfort.
 
Sokes
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 5:04 am

I agree with seabosdca. Available engine power at the time answers your question.
That apart: 7 abreast economy and 10 abreast economy both have 6 abreast business.
Somebody on a.net once mentioned that a plane with 17' eight abreast economy would make for good seven abreast premium economy and six abreast business.
Such a plane with low cargo capacity would make for an economic long range plane.
To my surprise Boeing wants mid range with low cargo capacity. But then I must admit I also belong to the armchair engineering department.
Maybe the NMA is designed for places like the US with dedicated over night freighter airlines?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
AZa346
Posts: 115
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 2:58 pm

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 5:31 am

Could an operator put in a 4 aisle 4 layout or that would be illegal?? Besides the obvious unconfort of when the window guy would have to get up! Just curious!
Of course this would also mean longer turnarounds as boarding wouldn't be as dlfast as in a twin aisle... but that may not be such an issue for a plane that does trans Atlantic flights, as that would mean a couple of rotations per day!
 
Antarius
Posts: 1412
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 5:45 am

AZa346 wrote:
Could an operator put in a 4 aisle 4 layout or that would be illegal?? Besides the obvious unconfort of when the window guy would have to get up! Just curious!
Of course this would also mean longer turnarounds as boarding wouldn't be as dlfast as in a twin aisle... but that may not be such an issue for a plane that does trans Atlantic flights, as that would mean a couple of rotations per day!


The question will be more about evacuation ability in the requisite time frame.
2019: SIN HKG NRT DFW IAH HOU CLT LGA JFK SFO SJC EWR SNA EYW MIA BOG LAX ORD DTW OAK PVG BOS DCA IAD ATL LAS BIS CUN PHX OAK SYD MEL DEN BLR MAA DEL KTM YYZ MEX
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 3552
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 5:47 am

DarthLobster wrote:
The 767 is still being produced, the 757 is not. The 767 has outsold the 757 by nearly 200 units. Why does everyone still act like the 757 is god's gift to aviation?


True, however today only 767 freighters are still in production. The production of passenger 767s has ceased long ago.

Freighters don't count in aisles, they count in floor space. And that's where the 767 outperforms the 757.

As a freighter, for a very long time the 767 was the best medium-sized aircraft on the market. It was small enough to be put on relatively thin routes where a larger aircraft would be too big. The A330 freighter was developed much later than the 767 and it was bigger, meaning more empty floor space on thin routes. Therefor with anything less than a full load the A330 was less economical than the 767. Same goes for the 777 freighter which is again one step newer and bigger than the A330. But it's easily too big, empty floor space doesn't make money.

As a passenger aircraft, the 757 was more economical than the 767. As a freighter, the 767 was more economical.
 
speedbird52
Posts: 687
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 5:30 am

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 5:58 am

I don't get why some people describe the 757 as if it poorly sold. Over a thousand airframes is not poor by any standard
 
wjcandee
Posts: 7621
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 6:10 am

B764er wrote:
Now by 2028, the 767 must be completely retired from commercial service.


I had not heard this, so am curious: Says who? Where? Why?
 
Max Q
Posts: 7411
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 8:53 am

wjcandee wrote:
B764er wrote:
Now by 2028, the 767 must be completely retired from commercial service.


I had not heard this, so am curious: Says who? Where? Why?



You’ve not heard it because it’s
nonsense
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1358
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 9:42 am

The 767 fuselage size INCREASED profitability.

The 767-300ER was the smallest aircraft that could fly 5500+nm. It opened up new long thin routes. As the engine size in the 1980's were limited had the 767 been 8ab it would not have been able to fly as far. So going with 7ab allowed it to sell in huge numbers as it was a truely unique aircraft opening up new long thin routes.

The 7ab fuselage size did reduce its long term potential. That is a big difference. Once engines could become bigger an 8ab aircraft that could fly 5500+nm would obviously have better economics. This was the A330 and it clearly dominated in passenger service.

However as a freighter the 767 worked out well. The 767F captured the market early and once the freight customers were set up for the 767 specific LD2's containers they found it easier to just keep buying 767's.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2010
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 12:17 pm

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
The A300 and A310 were 8 abreast and cabin width didn’t make those planes great sellers.


Quite a different market then to now. In terms of OEM acceptance, in terms of engine thrust, in terms of secondary airports use.


Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
I don’t know why A.net criticizes 7 abreast seating so often. I find the armchair structures engineers rather amusing.


Even for an amateur (I'm not), its not hard to work out - and its simple geometrics.

Assume a simple circular fuselage with floor going through centreline; if you work out wetted area per seat 7-abreast sits above both 6-abreast and 8-abreast (even allowing for slightly narrow aisles).

Its the same then for structure - you've more fuselage per seat for 7-abreast than 6 or 8.

Carrying more structural weight and also more zero-lift drag per seat typically does not make for a good starting point.

Yes, fuselages can be egg shaped rather than circular - but for the purposes of this approximating to a simple circle will do.
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 12:40 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
True, however today only 767 freighters are still in production. The production of passenger 767s has ceased long ago.
If you consider 5 years long ago, then yes. Even so, that is still over 10 years later than the 757.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8359
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 1:03 pm

Max Q wrote:
Proof is in the numbers, the A310 was it’s direct competitor and it sold a fraction of the 767’s which outperformed it in every respect and is still being built


A310 (255 built ) matches 767-200(ER) ( 128 + 121 = 249 )

for a startup vs "platzhirsch" thing not bad.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
PPVLC
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 12:07 pm

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 1:13 pm

Give me a 767 anyday, what a great plane, 7 abreast is paradise.
Cabin crew L188 707 727 737 767 A300 DC10 MD11 777 747
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 833
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 2:36 pm

1989worstyear wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
767 was a great plane and sold well. It is just that the 8 across 330 was significantly better - and more capable.


1988 EIS Factor in action.

What 1988 EIS??? The 767 entered into service in 1982 and the A330 in 1994.

Can you realize that there is life after 1988???
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 4995
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 2:42 pm

727glasair wrote:
Due to relatively narrow fuselage, the 767 only seats 7 across (in economy). This is why SOME 757's have more seating capacity than SOME 767's. So my questions:

1) Is this the ONLY twin-aisle 7 across airplane?

2) In hindsight, would a slightly larger 8-across fuselage design have been smarter?


How many do-overs from 1976 do you want to make? Did something better come along? Something always does...
 
1989worstyear
Posts: 521
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 2:46 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
1989worstyear wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
767 was a great plane and sold well. It is just that the 8 across 330 was significantly better - and more capable.


1988 EIS Factor in action.

What 1988 EIS??? The 767 entered into service in 1982 and the A330 in 1994.

Can you realize that there is life after 1988???


What I'm saying is, the post-1987 technology of the A330 ensured its success. The 767 was too early and that's why the orders dried up 20 years ago.
Stuck at age 15 thanks to the certification date of the A320-200 and my parents' decision to postpone having a kid by 3 years. At least there's Dignitas...
 
SteelChair
Posts: 877
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 2:47 pm

At the time, Boeing marketed the 767 as the smallest narrow body that was economically feasible/viable, and the 757 as the largest narrow body that was economically feasible/viable. Then they built the 764 and 753 years later.

I agree with the poster that said that the 767 increased profitability because it made new routes viable.

Its a shame they never offered newer generation engines on it. Boeing was focused on the too heavy, too much range 787.
 
1989worstyear
Posts: 521
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 2:49 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
727glasair wrote:
Due to relatively narrow fuselage, the 767 only seats 7 across (in economy). This is why SOME 757's have more seating capacity than SOME 767's. So my questions:

1) Is this the ONLY twin-aisle 7 across airplane?

2) In hindsight, would a slightly larger 8-across fuselage design have been smarter?


How many do-overs from 1976 do you want to make? Did something better come along? Something always does...


Launched in '78, actually.

...and no, in the case of the A330 nothing better did come along. We're still in the 1988-1994 technological era in this industry thanks to the A320 and A330/777.
Stuck at age 15 thanks to the certification date of the A320-200 and my parents' decision to postpone having a kid by 3 years. At least there's Dignitas...
 
SteelChair
Posts: 877
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 2:53 pm

1989worstyear wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
727glasair wrote:
Due to relatively narrow fuselage, the 767 only seats 7 across (in economy). This is why SOME 757's have more seating capacity than SOME 767's. So my questions:

1) Is this the ONLY twin-aisle 7 across airplane?

2) In hindsight, would a slightly larger 8-across fuselage design have been smarter?


How many do-overs from 1976 do you want to make? Did something better come along? Something always does...


Launched in '78, actually.

...and no, in the case of the A330 nothing better did come along. We're still in the 1988-1994 technological era in this industry thanks to the A320 and A330/777.


Imho we're still in the 1988-94 tech era because of hyper competition in the airline industry causing yields to fall so far that they can no longer support the cost of new development.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 833
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 3:03 pm

1989worstyear wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
1989worstyear wrote:

1988 EIS Factor in action.

What 1988 EIS??? The 767 entered into service in 1982 and the A330 in 1994.

Can you realize that there is life after 1988???


What I'm saying is, the post-1987 technology of the A330 ensured its success. The 767 was too early and that's why the orders dried up 20 years ago.

EIS: Entry Into Service.
That means when the very first aircraft of a type flies its first revenue service.
Neither had an EIS in 1988; the A320 reference is irrelevant to neither the 767 nor the A330.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 7621
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 4:09 pm

Max Q wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
B764er wrote:
Now by 2028, the 767 must be completely retired from commercial service.


I had not heard this, so am curious: Says who? Where? Why?



You’ve not heard it because it’s
nonsense


Could he be referring to the ICAO carbon-emission rules (makes me gag a little just saying that phrase; seems so silly)? I don't think they do that, but 2028 is/was their goal date... I'm not even sure if the US adopted them; doesn't seem very Trumpian.
 
EBiafore99
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:03 pm

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 4:17 pm

From a Y passenger perspective, I wish they could re-engine the 767 like other aircraft (I know...there's more to it than that). For TATL, I feel it is the most comfortable arrangement out there. DL and UA seem to like them as well.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17230
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 5:54 pm

I feel like one of the few posters here who isn't a 757 fan. It isn't produced anymore for easy to understand reasons that come down to costs.

Max Q wrote:
Proof is in the numbers, the A310 was it’s direct competitor and it sold a fraction of the 767’s which outperformed it in every respect and is still being built


The narrower fuselage was never an issue for the airlines that have operated it, and passengers love the uncrowded 2-3-2 layout

The 767 outsold expectations. Boeing/GE created a combination that was a money maker. At one time, half the TATL passengers were flying 767s. Not A310s, not 747s, not DC-10s or L1011s.

Airbus realized that the fusalage stretched, rewinged, and given lower maintenance subsystems was competitive. Enter the A330. But look at early 767 vs. A333 sales. The 7-across held until the MTOW increase that came in for the A332 (combined with significant engine PIPs). Suddenly, the A333 was far more competitive TATL. As the payload range curve broadened out nicely (5200nm full pax). Before then, the A333 just didn't have enough surplus range for volume sales.

Now the 777 did well TATL too. 10-across saved it's bacon. 9-across 787s, once in volume production, took the A330 sales away.

But that has left a cost per flight (as well as low enough per seat) on 4000nm to 5000nm (still air) routes. The marked for the NMA which, by having a much more optimal cross section, is believed to bring back 7-across.

My opinion is 6-across is the natural bulk of narrowbody sales.
Cargo pushes optimization to 9+ across for width for twin LD3s or pallets.

There is a market to cut costs if cargo is forfeited. The issue is 8-across costs will be too close to 9-across which has cargo revenue. I see a market for a small widebody if sales costs are low enough.

I still expect a NMA launch, just when?

Lightsaber
You know nothing John Snow.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2295
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 5:56 pm

EBiafore99 wrote:
From a Y passenger perspective, I wish they could re-engine the 767 like other aircraft (I know...there's more to it than that). For TATL, I feel it is the most comfortable arrangement out there. DL and UA seem to like them as well.


It would make more sense to get the updated 787-8's that have increased commonality with the -9 and -10 till the MoM enters service than to get new build 767's. Anyway the vendors for the passenger 767 only parts weren't interested in restarting production.
 
c933103
Posts: 3615
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 6:14 pm

AZa346 wrote:
Could an operator put in a 4 aisle 4 layout or that would be illegal?? Besides the obvious unconfort of when the window guy would have to get up! Just curious!
Of course this would also mean longer turnarounds as boarding wouldn't be as dlfast as in a twin aisle... but that may not be such an issue for a plane that does trans Atlantic flights, as that would mean a couple of rotations per day!

iirc things like Tu-114 in Soviet once used that?
This is a placeholder.
 
PSAatSAN4Ever
Posts: 666
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018 5:38 pm

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 6:23 pm

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the LD2 carriers in relation to the 767 yet.

The 767 is too narrow by a few inches to fit two of them in the cargo hold side-by-side. That obviously hasn't stopped it from becoming the workhorse in many cargo fleets, but it has been mentioned many times years ago here at a.net that had it been able to do this, it would have sold even more successfully.

If I recall correctly, Airbus designed the A330 and A340 to be wide enough for this task, which they do.

I doubt we will ever see a narrow "wide-body" like the 767 again, simply for this reason. However, in terms of comfort, either seven-across or eight-across is heaven - everything in two's.
 
airzona11
Posts: 1425
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 6:24 pm

1989worstyear wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
1989worstyear wrote:

1988 EIS Factor in action.

What 1988 EIS??? The 767 entered into service in 1982 and the A330 in 1994.

Can you realize that there is life after 1988???


What I'm saying is, the post-1987 technology of the A330 ensured its success. The 767 was too early and that's why the orders dried up 20 years ago.


The 767 is still successful. It owns the widebody market for its size. The A330 is larger and for different missions.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 833
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Boeing 767: Fuselage size always limited profitability??

Wed May 08, 2019 6:32 pm

c933103 wrote:
AZa346 wrote:
Could an operator put in a 4 aisle 4 layout or that would be illegal?? Besides the obvious unconfort of when the window guy would have to get up! Just curious!
Of course this would also mean longer turnarounds as boarding wouldn't be as dlfast as in a twin aisle... but that may not be such an issue for a plane that does trans Atlantic flights, as that would mean a couple of rotations per day!

iirc things like Tu-114 in Soviet once used that?

From memory, the FAA & EASA do not allow having to go over more than 2 seats to reach the aisle; hence the 3x3 layouts in narrowbodies, 3x3x3 or 2x5x2 or 3x4x3 in widebodies.
No more than 3 seats between aisle and window, no more than 5 seats between aisles.

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