Hi everyone,
On a recent thread (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1373935&p=19820217#p19820217) we were talking about the capabilities of the recent built B767-300ERs frames of LATAM.
Do Boeing promote the improvments of the last 767-300ERs in terms of acft technology, cabin confort, payload, max range? And if yes, what are they if we compare a 767-300ER 1995 built and a 767-300ER 2012 built?
Thanks for your feedback,
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
-
- peterinlisbon
- Posts: 2011
- Joined:
Re: Improvments of B767-300ERs
As far as comfort is concerned, as a passenger I found the 767-300 more comfortable than the 787. The reason being that the seat was wider and there were just 2 seats on the sides rather than 3, which makes it a lot cosier and more private for people travelling together. Sure, the PTV was a bit smaller but the system was the same.
Re: Improvments of B767-300ERs
Boeing doesn't promote the passeger version of the 767 anymore.
-
- juliuswong
- Posts: 2021
- Joined:
Re: Improvments of B767-300ERs
A380MSN004 wrote:Hi everyone,
On a recent thread (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1373935&p=19820217#p19820217) we were talking about the capabilities of the recent built B767-300ERs frames of LATAM.
Do Boeing promote the improvments of the last 767-300ERs in terms of acft technology, cabin confort, payload, max range? And if yes, what are they if we compare a 767-300ER 1995 built and a 767-300ER 2012 built?
Thanks for your feedback,
I can't say much in terms of aircraft technology, payload and max range, however starting from 2000, all those B767-300ER delivery came with the Boeing Signature cabin. Lauda Air of Austria was the first operator: http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2000-05-16- ... a-777-Feel
Air Astana received last three B767-300ER built for commercial use. You can see such photo at Air Astana website: https://airastana.com/ind/en-us/Experie ... nomy-Class
Apart from that, factory fresh B767-300ER did get a chance to be built with Blended Winglet. The blended winglet helps to improve the range by another 320 nautical miles and can reduce fuel burn by up to 500,000 gallons per aircraft per year, if I am not mistaken JAL was the first customer to inducted such factory fresh aircraft: https://eturbonews.com/67296/japan-airl ... et-systems
Re: Improvments of B767-300ERs
I can help with this question. Let me list some improvements between a 2012 767-300ER and a 1995 767-300ER. This is not a conclusive list, but just some bullet points.
1) All 767s now have the 777 style "New Look Interior"
2) All 767 engines are now FADEC (AA's 767s of 2003 were the last non-FADEC offered for commonality, and only because they are American Airlines)
3) Improved Avionics
a) EGPWS instead of GPWS
b) Predictive Windshear
c) Better WXR such as multi-scan.
d) Newer ACARS technologies available
4) Pegasus FMCs with GPS position inputs.
I'm sure there's more.
1) All 767s now have the 777 style "New Look Interior"
2) All 767 engines are now FADEC (AA's 767s of 2003 were the last non-FADEC offered for commonality, and only because they are American Airlines)
3) Improved Avionics
a) EGPWS instead of GPWS
b) Predictive Windshear
c) Better WXR such as multi-scan.
d) Newer ACARS technologies available
4) Pegasus FMCs with GPS position inputs.
I'm sure there's more.
Re: Improvments of B767-300ERs
There weren't all that many improvements made to the payload/range of the 763ER, which makes sense since doing so would likely have cut into Boeing's sales of 777s.
Re: Improvments of B767-300ERs
OA412 wrote:There weren't all that many improvements made to the payload/range of the 763ER, which makes sense since doing so would likely have cut into Boeing's sales of 777s.
Uh no. It's a 767-300ER. You don't just magically make payload/range improvements to an airplane. Nor does an airplanr company sit around and intentionally not make possible improvements to a model just so not to cut into sales of another model.
The 767-400 is a different story. Improvements could have been made to it. Unfortunately that airplane had its chance during the darkest days of the Harry Stonecypher and Phil Condit era when product improvements were only made if they had a short term 18 month return on investment. Sales wasn't a factor, just short-term cost savings.
-
- oldannyboy
- Posts: 3074
- Joined:
Re: Improvments of B767-300ERs
Not trying to turn this into the usual A vs B thing... simply as a side addendum to the discussion...
I think that it would be fair to say that the 767-300ER has been "improved/evolved/morphed" marginally less than what the A330 has... and the main reason is because the -300ER was already a very capable machine from day one, and also an already a proven and well-developed design.
Conversely the 330 started out mostly as short/medium-haul airliner and thanks to technological advancements has evolved and matured into the excellent all-rounder long-hauler we now know. This is something that does not really happens normally. The degree of improvement that the A330 has endured is beyond what I would call 'normal evolution' of the species.
The only somewhat missed opportunity in the 767 CV is the fact that the -400 has not been perfected and promoted enough. But probably it is fair to say that that could have actually eaten into the 777-200ER market...
I think that it would be fair to say that the 767-300ER has been "improved/evolved/morphed" marginally less than what the A330 has... and the main reason is because the -300ER was already a very capable machine from day one, and also an already a proven and well-developed design.
Conversely the 330 started out mostly as short/medium-haul airliner and thanks to technological advancements has evolved and matured into the excellent all-rounder long-hauler we now know. This is something that does not really happens normally. The degree of improvement that the A330 has endured is beyond what I would call 'normal evolution' of the species.
The only somewhat missed opportunity in the 767 CV is the fact that the -400 has not been perfected and promoted enough. But probably it is fair to say that that could have actually eaten into the 777-200ER market...
Re: Improvments of B767-300ERs
oldannyboy wrote:Not trying to turn this into the usual A vs B thing... simply as a side addendum to the discussion...
I think that it would be fair to say that the 767-300ER has been "improved/evolved/morphed" marginally less than what the A330 has... and the main reason is because the -300ER was already a very capable machine from day one, and also an already a proven and well-developed design.
Conversely the 330 started out mostly as short/medium-haul airliner and thanks to technological advancements has evolved and matured into the excellent all-rounder long-hauler we now know. This is something that does not really happens normally. The degree of improvement that the A330 has endured is beyond what I would call 'normal evolution' of the species.
The only somewhat missed opportunity in the 767 CV is the fact that the -400 has not been perfected and promoted enough. But probably it is fair to say that that could have actually eaten into the 777-200ER market...
I think a large part of the A330 improvement is actually due to inbuilt possibility from the common A340 structure. The initial variants of A330 were artificially compromised; low 200t MTOW; when the A340-200/300 died off in the early 2000's Airbus saw a market for upgraded A330 variants, especially the -300. Then with the NEO; they really opened the taps. There is now talk of a 251t version - thats early A340 weight territory, without the extra engines, plumbing and some structure. Quite a feat though!
I strongly suspect we may even see an A330 with the A340-300 center gear and weights up to the 260-270t range before the model is retired.
EDIT: On the 767 subject; the 300ER really is at the sweet spot for what it can do. It does not really need improvement. The -400ER, just was not given the attention it deserved. The 767 frame overall, however, was just too small to really progress beyond the -400ER economically.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: kabq737 and 35 guests