Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5873493/

Topic: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-09-18 13:03:12 and read 29148 times.

Looking at Boeing's latest pricing updates, the 767-200ER and 767-400ER are no longer listed, which implies they have been removed from offer (bad news for 1337Delta764).

Boeing also added the 767-2CFX, which is the commercial version of the 767-2C that forms the foundation of the USAF KC-46 tanker. There is no price listed and no information has yet been released by Boeing. In March 2012, Major General Peter Bogdan, the USAF's KC-46 Program Manager, expressed support for such a commercial version.

During the RFP stage, Boeing had floated the idea of a 767-200LRF commercial freighter version of their original KC-X proposal that would have employed the 767-200 fuselage, 767-300F undercarriage and 767-400ER wings.

[Edited 2013-09-18 13:06:25]

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: 1337Delta764
Posted 2013-09-18 13:25:31 and read 28847 times.

Quoting Stitch (Thread starter):
Looking at Boeing's latest pricing updates, the 767-200ER and 767-400ER are no longer listed, which implies they have been removed from offer (bad news for 1337Delta764).

Boeing also added the 767-2CFX, which is the commercial version of the 767-2C that forms the foundation of the USAF KC-46 tanker. There is no price listed and no information has yet been released by Boeing. In March 2012, Major General Peter Bogdan, the USAF's KC-46 Program Manager, expressed support for such a commercial version.

During the RFP stage, Boeing had floated the idea of a 767-200LRF commercial freighter version of their original KC-X proposal that would have employed the 767-200 fuselage, 767-300F undercarriage and 767-400ER wings.

Should anyone want new 764ERs (not saying it will happen), Boeing will be happy to restart production for it. Boeing initially did the same for the 762ER, but restarted its production later on at the request of CO.

[Edited 2013-09-18 13:25:57]

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: ODwyerPW
Posted 2013-09-18 13:26:56 and read 28798 times.

I noticed that the 737-600 is gone from the list, (bad news for WestJet736) as well as the 747-400 (equally bad for 7474Ever).

On a serious note:
The 767-2C has a fuselage that is longer than the 200, but shorter than the 300... correct? It's a slight stretch of the 200, no?

[Edited 2013-09-18 13:29:39]

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-18 13:28:45 and read 28720 times.

Quoting ODwyerPW (Reply 2):
I noticed that the 737-600 is gone from the list as well.

That one is gone since 2012.

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: 1337Delta764
Posted 2013-09-18 13:28:49 and read 28724 times.

Quoting ODwyerPW (Reply 2):
I noticed that the 737-600 is gone from the list as well.

The 736 I believe has been gone for at least a year as far as I know. Still, if anyone wants to order them (which is very unlikely), Boeing will happily honor their request.

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-09-18 13:34:02 and read 28588 times.

Quoting ODwyerPW (Reply 2):
The 767-2C has a fuselage that is longer than the 200, but shorter than the 300... correct? It's a slight stretch of the 200, no?

Yes, it is a 2m stretch (50.5m vs. 48.5m). The wingspan is the same (47.6m) as is the height (~16m).

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: BoeingGuy
Posted 2013-09-18 13:36:35 and read 28507 times.

Quoting ODwyerPW (Reply 2):
as well as the 747-400 (equally bad for 7474Ever).

The 747-400 has been gone for a long time. It was replaced by the 747-8.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 1):
Should anyone want new 764ERs (not saying it will happen), Boeing will be happy to restart production for it.

They couldn't make the 764ER in it's current form. The 767-400 display system could not longer be purchased due to component obsolescence.

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: ODwyerPW
Posted 2013-09-18 13:54:58 and read 28140 times.

My 736 and 744 comments were just jokes. OK, I don't tell very good jokes.

The two meter stretch is interesting. Puts it very close to the 767-300F at 54.9m. WIth just 4.4m seperating the two and the obviously higher MTOW of the proposed 2CFX... It will use the same 300F undercarriage.

Does this 2CFX become more of a shrunk 300F, rather than a stretched 200ER?

Peter

[Edited 2013-09-18 14:02:06]

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: Aesma
Posted 2013-09-18 14:55:36 and read 27394 times.

Does the general think it will reduce cost/risk for the program ? Does he hope for a joint civilian/military certification like the A400M ? Does he hope that will mean more spare parts in 30-40 years ?

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-09-18 14:57:46 and read 27382 times.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 10):
Does the general think it will reduce cost/risk for the program?

That would be my guess. He was thankful to FX for ordering the 767-300F because it allows Boeing to work out any bugs with the new FAL on their birds and not his.  

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: SXDFC
Posted 2013-09-18 15:31:30 and read 26730 times.

Does anyone have any pictures as to what a "Boeing 767-2CFX" would look like?

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2013-09-18 15:45:23 and read 26314 times.

Quoting SXDFC (Reply 12):
Does anyone have any pictures as to what a "Boeing 767-2CFX" would look like?

One assumes exactly like a shorter 767-300F with winglets.

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-09-18 16:01:10 and read 25867 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
Quoting ODwyerPW (Reply 2):
The 767-2C has a fuselage that is longer than the 200, but shorter than the 300... correct? It's a slight stretch of the 200, no?

Yes, it is a 2m stretch (50.5m vs. 48.5m). The wingspan is the same (47.6m) as is the height (~16m).

Are you sure the fuselage itself is 2m longer than the 762? I thought the KC-46 used the same fuselage as the 762 and the difference in overall length was only due to the refuelling boom that extends beyond the end of the fuselage when stowed. What source are you using for the KC-46 fuselage length, as opposed to the overall length? I couldn't find either in the Boeing website.

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-09-18 16:47:50 and read 24754 times.

http://rpdefense.over-blog.com/artic...ity-of-kc-46a-tanker-76019616.html

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 14):
Are you sure the fuselage itself is 2m longer than the 762? I thought the KC-46 used the same fuselage as the 762 and the difference in overall length was only due to the refuelling boom that extends beyond the end of the fuselage when stowed.

The KC-767A operated by the Italian Air Force has a refueling boom, yet the length for that model is given to be the same as the 767-200ER at 48.5m.



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 14):
What source are you using for the KC-46 fuselage length, as opposed to the overall length?

Boeing, as referenced in this Flight International article.

Quote:
Boeing describes the 767-2C as a "minor" variation of the 767-200ER platform, but it is clear that the company has made significant changes. The maximum take-off weight is increased by 9,070kg (20,000lb) to just over 188,000kg, making the freighter version of the -200ER model even heavier than the 767-300ER. The length of the -200ER is also increased by 2m (6.5ft) to 50.5m for the KC-46A.

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2013-09-18 17:23:11 and read 23931 times.

Outrageous. Boeing should sue Boeing for this

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 1):
Should anyone want new 764ERs (not saying it will happen), Boeing will be happy to restart production for it.

For a hefty price Boeing would do anything. RIP 764

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: 1337Delta764
Posted 2013-09-18 17:50:17 and read 23231 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 16):
For a hefty price Boeing would do anything. RIP 764

The 764ER shares the same tooling as the rest of the 767 line, and it wouldn't cost that much for Boeing to restart production should any airline be interested. Boeing did so for CO and the 762ER, and that cost Boeing almost nothing.

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-18 18:16:44 and read 22662 times.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 17):

Your predictability and consistency is admirable. Even if your unrealistic optimism is not. RIP 764. Will miss you.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: PEK777
Posted 2013-09-18 18:17:36 and read 22659 times.

If Boeing can stop production of a model only to restart it if demand arises, why couldn't they do the same for the 757?


     

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: 1337Delta764
Posted 2013-09-18 18:46:55 and read 21995 times.

Quoting PEK777 (Reply 19):
If Boeing can stop production of a model only to restart it if demand arises, why couldn't they do the same for the 757?

Because the 757 had its own tooling that was separate from the 737 line, which has since been destroyed and replaced by more tooling for the 737. The 764ER on the other hand shared its tooling with the other 767 variants.

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: Newark727
Posted 2013-09-18 18:55:38 and read 21841 times.

Kind of a shame, the 767-400ER is the coolest looking 767, but not exactly a surprise, since there are so many alternatives out there. Wonder if that one white tail that got sold to Bahrain will ever emerge again...

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: B2707SST
Posted 2013-09-18 19:59:52 and read 20616 times.

Any info on whether the 767-2C will get the 764's raked wingtips? I assume not since it's never been mentioned, but the extra span should be pretty useful given the MTOW bump. The -2C will be nearly as heavy as the 764, which apparently needs all the wing area it can get. I know Boeing was criticized for its "Frankentanker" proposal in the first KC-X round, but raked tips seem like low-hanging fruit; the P-8 even got them when they'd never been fitted on a 737 before.

Anyway, RIP 767-400ER - a beautiful airplane and a delight to fly on, but ultimately too little, too late against the mighty A330. Still, the futile 764 World Tour did give us one of the great special liveries of all time:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andrew Hunt - AirTeamImages
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Yama-p


-B2707SST

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: 1337Delta764
Posted 2013-09-18 20:04:32 and read 20502 times.

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 22):
Still, the futile 764 World Tour did give us one of the great special liveries of all time:

Now here is the most beautiful aircraft/livery combination of all time:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Maurits Vink
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Anthony Barrett

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2013-09-18 20:15:19 and read 20309 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 18):
Your predictability and consistency is admirable. Even if your unrealistic optimism is not. RIP 764. Will miss you.

But he is only stating a fact. And he is admitting that it's strikingly unlikely.

Boeing can still build 772's and 762's and 764's because they have the tooling for it. Much as they will talk you into ordering something else, if you really insist that you want a vintage 762 and fork over what they ask, it's not as if they're going to turn away money.

As for the 757, the specific tooling has been destroyed, as has the tooling for the 727, 707, and 737 Jurassic/Classic programs.

The 767 is a great plane for passengers, at least on mid-haul routes. The 2-3-2 seating is really passenger-friendly, and the wide-body architecture feels open, yet somehow intimate, not like these massive ballroom-sized cabins in the A380 and 747. With the new Signature Interior upgrade, they are even more passenger-friendly with larger bins and a more attractive overhead. And with some passenger 767's delivered just in the last few years, I'm happy to say that we'll all be flying 767's for years to come.  

The 767 is dead, long live the 767!

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: MLI717fan
Posted 2013-09-18 20:27:04 and read 20653 times.

I find it interesting that just recently DL announced their A330 order and now Boeing announces that that 764 is dead. It could just be a coincidence though.

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-18 20:31:39 and read 20459 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 24):

I agree.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: bkflyguy
Posted 2013-09-18 20:40:21 and read 20952 times.

I could be wrong, but I think an oft overlooked issued in terms of additional passenger 767s is incompatibility with LD3s, used by all other wide-body aircraft. I heard that is one reason why NW never ordered them. I would be curious to hear from anyone involved in ops about how big an issue this really is.

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: American 767
Posted 2013-09-18 20:51:41 and read 20736 times.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 4):
The 736 I believe has been gone for at least a year as far as I know. Still, if anyone wants to order them (which is very unlikely), Boeing will happily honor their request.

They will, as long as the other three models of the current NG family, the 700/800/900 Series, are still in production. But once Boeing shuts down the current NG production and continues to build only the MAX variants, the 600 will definitely be dead which means that if an airline wants to buy those Boeing will say no. There won't be a 737-6MAX. It's like ordering a meal at the restaurant when the kitchen closes.

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 22):
Anyway, RIP 767-400ER - a beautiful airplane and a delight to fly on, but ultimately too little, too late against the mighty A330. Still, the futile 764 World Tour did give us one of the great special liveries of all time:

It wouldn't surprise me if Delta picks up additional 764s from United. I see Delta as being the sole 764 operator in the world for a number of years to come, like they will soon be the sole operator of the 717 and the MD-90. Indeed, the A330 killed the 764.

Ben Soriano

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: Max Q
Posted 2013-09-18 20:54:05 and read 20777 times.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 21):
Kind of a shame, the 767-400ER is the coolest looking 767,

Couldn't agree more, and a delight to fly as well.

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-09-18 21:31:26 and read 20197 times.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 17):
The 764ER shares the same tooling as the rest of the 767 line, and it wouldn't cost that much for Boeing to restart production should any airline be interested. Boeing did so for CO and the 762ER, and that cost Boeing almost nothing.

To my knowledge the 767-400ER does have some unique parts and if the suppliers are now shut down (perhaps Boeing is no longer supporting them keeping their production capability intact), that might impact the ability for Boeing to continue to build the model.

I expect Boeing kept the 767-200ER alive for the KC-X program and have now retired it as they no longer need it - the 767-2C has a longer fuselage, a different cockpit and uses 767-300F landing gear.



Quoting B2707SST (Reply 22):
Any info on whether the 767-2C will get the 764's raked wingtips?

No. The span is the same as the 767-200ER.



Quoting MLI717fan (Reply 25):
I find it interesting that just recently DL announced their A330 order and now Boeing announces that that 764 is dead. It could just be a coincidence though.

Far more likely is FX ordering the 767-300F instead of Boeing's proposed 767-400ERF. At that point, Boeing knew they would not sell enough 767-400ERs to justify keeping the special parts in production.

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: BlueSky1976
Posted 2013-09-18 21:50:43 and read 19859 times.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 1):
Should anyone want new 764ERs (not saying it will happen), Boeing will be happy to restart production for it.

That is not correct. Once it is removed from pricing list, it is no longer on offer. 787-8 is the replacement for 767-400 and Boeing will be more than happy to sell this one instead, simplifying its civil airliner portfolio.

Same will happen for 767-300ER in due time, once backlog is cleared.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 1):
Boeing initially did the same for the 762ER, but restarted its production later on at the request of CO.

Again, incorrect.
767-200ER was still on offer at the time Continental opted to purchase it, with clear backlog though.

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-09-18 22:24:16 and read 19249 times.

I guess the good news is the -300ER/F is on the price list so FX and anyone else can still fill top-off orders...

Quoting Aesma (Reply 10):
Does the general think it will reduce cost/risk for the program ?

I don't think it's about de-risking the KC-46 program, it really was about winning the KC-46A program in the first place. The USAF put down some very specific criteria for that program after the KC-45 bid was overthrown. Boeing did what it needed to do to try to meet those very specific criteria, which presumably turns out to best be filled via a 50.5m fuse instead of 48.5m for the -200 or 54.9m for the -300. I imagine there were some frowns that it turned out to be that length, but it's all about winning the business first.

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: 1337Delta764
Posted 2013-09-18 22:53:03 and read 18850 times.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 31):
Again, incorrect.
767-200ER was still on offer at the time Continental opted to purchase it, with clear backlog though.

Not from what I heard; I have always heard that Boeing restarted production specifically for CO.

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2013-09-18 22:55:43 and read 18778 times.

Quoting American 767 (Reply 28):
like they will soon be the sole operator of the 717

You forget HA.

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-09-18 22:59:51 and read 18816 times.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 31):
767-200ER was still on offer at the time Continental opted to purchase it, with clear backlog though.
Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 33):
Not from what I heard; I have always heard that Boeing restarted production specifically for CO.

You heard incorrectly, then.

The last 767-200ER had been delivered about four years prior, however the plane was still on offer because Boeing was developing the KC-767 (which used the 767-200ER airframe) for the USAF, the Italian Air Force and the Japanese Air Force.

So the plane was available for CO to order, as it was for Kazakhstan Airlines, who ordered one after CO did and before the KC-767s started production.

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: columba
Posted 2013-09-18 23:07:56 and read 18620 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 30):
I expect Boeing kept the 767-200ER alive for the KC-X program and have now retired it as they no longer need it - the 767-2C has a longer fuselage, a different cockpit and uses 767-300F landing gear.

Frankenplane indeed  

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: DexSwart
Posted 2013-09-18 23:13:52 and read 18474 times.

Quoting American 767 (Reply 28):
like they will soon be the sole operator of the 717

You also forgot QantasLink.

But most of the 717 frames are surely not that old, are they?


Back on topic:

Is there really still a market for this? I thought the 787 filled this gap and made up for it's larger size with better fuel economy? Or have I got the cat by the wrong end again?

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: UALWN
Posted 2013-09-18 23:47:07 and read 17834 times.

Quoting DexSwart (Reply 37):
You also forgot QantasLink.

And Volotea.

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: XFSUgimpLB41X
Posted 2013-09-18 23:49:53 and read 18002 times.

Quoting American 767 (Reply 28):
It wouldn't surprise me if Delta picks up additional 764s from United. I see Delta as being the sole 764 operator in the world for a number of years to come, like they will soon be the sole operator of the 717 and the MD-90. Indeed, the A330 killed the 764.

The 764 is extremely efficient. UA loves theirs, DL loves theirs. There certainly won't be more orders, but I doubt either carrier will be parting with them any time soon.

You've been duly corrected on the 717.  

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-09-19 00:43:40 and read 17046 times.

Quoting columba (Reply 36):
Frankenplane indeed.    

That was more their earlier proposal for KC-X which used the 767-200ER fuselage, 767-400ER wings and 767-300F undercarriage (which is still necessary on the 767-2C / KC-46 to support the significantly higher MTOW compared to the 767-200ER).

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: aviaponcho
Posted 2013-09-19 00:46:43 and read 16937 times.

I'm really wondering if the KC46 will really have a 2 m stretch fuselage ?
No news of that since the outcome of the RFP ... and the length of the KC46 is necessarly a bit more than 767-200 because the boom protubes behind the tail cone...

So ?

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-09-19 03:40:25 and read 14883 times.

Quoting aviaponcho (Reply 41):
I'm really wondering if the KC46 will really have a 2 m stretch fuselage?

Boeing says it will and they should know.  

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: aviaponcho
Posted 2013-09-19 03:43:28 and read 14813 times.

They said it once

And the latest press release statede "based on 767-200ER"
So ?

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-09-19 03:50:35 and read 14753 times.

Quoting aviaponcho (Reply 43):
And the latest press release statede "based on 767-200ER"

Which is correct. It is based on a 767-200ER. But that does not mean it is identical to a 767-200ER (which it will not be).

We do have folks who work at PAE so once Boeing loads the first 767-2C into the FAL, one of them can run a tape measure and prove it once and for all.  

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: aviaponcho
Posted 2013-09-19 03:51:49 and read 14690 times.

All right

I think I will survive till then !
:d

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: N328KF
Posted 2013-09-19 06:24:17 and read 12403 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 16):
For a hefty price Boeing would do anything. RIP 764
Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 17):
The 764ER shares the same tooling as the rest of the 767 line, and it wouldn't cost that much for Boeing to restart production should any airline be interested. Boeing did so for CO and the 762ER, and that cost Boeing almost nothing.

As evidenced by the fact that they restarted 767-400ER production for the E-10 airframe, which was later sold for VVIP use.

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: BlueSky1976
Posted 2013-09-19 06:28:59 and read 12303 times.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 46):
As evidenced by the fact that they restarted 767-400ER production for the E-10 airframe, which was later sold for VVIP use.

If I remember correctly, the E-10 was built around the time final 767-400s were being delivered. Then it went to storage until VVIP decided to take it, due to E-10 programme cancellation.

So - again - the statement with "Boeing restarting production" is incorrect.

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-09-19 06:36:52 and read 12191 times.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 47):
If I remember correctly, the E-10 was built around the time final 767-400s were being delivered.

It was completed in 2008, about 6 years after the last CO 767-400ER rolled off the line.

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-19 07:12:21 and read 11494 times.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 29):
Same will happen for 767-300ER in due time, once backlog is cleared.

I think it will stay on offer as long as they have excess capacity on the 767 line. If the 76F, 2CFX/Tanker are filling capacity then you may see it retired but I think Boeing will want to have the valve at their disposal so they can run the line as optimally as possible. The end is certainly in sight but I don't think it is imminent.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: PC12Fan
Posted 2013-09-19 07:20:25 and read 11363 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 28):
Quoting B2707SST (Reply 22):
Any info on whether the 767-2C will get the 764's raked wingtips?

No. The span is the same as the 767-200ER.

Can anybody elaborate on why there won't be any type of wingtip device on the -2CFX? Doesn't make sense to me why any attempt to add efficiency would not be taken advantage of.

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-09-19 10:03:39 and read 8951 times.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 45):
If I remember correctly, the E-10 was built around the time final 767-400s were being delivered. Then it went to storage until VVIP decided to take it, due to E-10 programme cancellation.

So - again - the statement with "Boeing restarting production" is incorrect.

Indeed true, but it seems they must have had a plan to restart production should they have been awarded a contract for batches of E-10s, no?

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 48):
Can anybody elaborate on why there won't be any type of wingtip device on the -2CFX?
http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/...-wont-have-winglets-aviation-week/ says

Quote:

“Based on the USAF refueling requirements, the missions were not of sufficient duration nor conducted at altitudes that optimize the benefits derived from winglets,” Boeing told Aviation Week.

See also

Shady Boeing: No Winglets On KC-46A (by AirRyan Apr 7 2011 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: catiii
Posted 2013-09-19 10:29:43 and read 8561 times.

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 20):
Still, the futile 764 World Tour did give us one of the great special liveries of all time:

Presuming this specific 764 went to DL since it is a -432?

Quoting American 767 (Reply 26):
It wouldn't surprise me if Delta picks up additional 764s from United.

Not really sure I see that happening. UA gets good utilization from their 764s and not sure they'd want to send them across to their biggest competitor to use against them.

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2013-09-19 11:30:46 and read 7607 times.

Quoting catiii (Reply 50):
UA gets good utilization from their 764s and not sure they'd want to send them across to their biggest competitor to use against them.

I agree with the first part of your statement but not the second. It happens all the time. Where do you think ValuJet got their DC-9s (not sure if all, but a bunch)? Who is WN's biggest competitor at ATL? Where did their 717s go? Where did AA's ex-TW 757s go?

And are UA's 764s owned or leased? If they are leased, UA has absolutely no control where they go after they are returned. If it benefits UA to offload them, they will, even if DL gets them

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: bikerthai
Posted 2013-09-19 11:48:07 and read 7335 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 49):
Indeed true, but it seems they must have had a plan to restart production should they have been awarded a contract for batches of E-10s, no?

The E-10 program initially selected the -400 as a test bed for the radar. The airframe selection was not set in stone.

One factor on whether or not the -400 line could be restarted would be whether they can fit a -400 fuselage in the revamped 767 line.

Kanban, any insight?

bt

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2013-09-19 12:17:01 and read 6952 times.

The KC-46 will have the B-787 avionics. Is Boeing going to put the B-787 avionics into the B-767-2CF? I assume that since it is offered as a freighter, it will have the KC-46 features like a full cargo floor, cargo door, etc. I also assume it will have lower cargo compartments, like the B-767-300ERF. The KC-46 has no lower cargo compartments.

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: Kuja
Posted 2013-09-19 15:20:48 and read 5944 times.

A great many things can be made to happen if sufficient capital is presented.

It's quite possible that Boeing would start making 757s again, even...   
...but only if the customer covered the massive costs involved, which is to say recreating the tooling, creating a new line, paying the suppliers to make what they need, making and certifying any changes necessary, etc. And this business is about what makes economic sense, so of course it won't happen.

So restarting production of the 767-200ER or the 767-400ER would in all probability be possible if a customer was willing to pay for it. But it is extremely unlikely (to say the least) that any customer would do so as it would not be economically viable - let alone the fact that the end product, the planes themselves, have been superseded in the marketplace.

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-09-19 15:51:08 and read 5844 times.

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 48):
Can anybody elaborate on why there won't be any type of wingtip device on the -2CFX? Doesn't make sense to me why any attempt to add efficiency would not be taken advantage of.

I would guess it's partly because adding winglets increases the span. I recall that wingspan and related space needed for parking was an important issue. I have no idea but it's possible that winglets (or raked wingtips) could also have some wake vortex issues for aircraft being refuelled when they're in such close proximity.

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-09-20 05:33:29 and read 5274 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 53):
The KC-46 will have the B-787 avionics.

Most articles I read all say that it will have the 787 display units but not sure how much else of the avionics will come from the 787. Here's one reference:

Quote:

The new U.S. Air Force tanker is based on the 767-200ER airframe, but the flight deck includes four 15.1-inch liquid crystal displays modeled after those on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. Rockwell Collins is supplying a signal data concentrator network (SDCN) that will translate and route data between avionic components. The SDCN is an avionics, full-duplex, switched-Ethernet (AFDX) backbone based on the Arinc 664 specification. �That�s an AFDX backbone for mission integration,� Jones said. �Rockwell Collins provides to Boeing the network infrastructure and the tools required to perform mission integration of other systems and subsystems that Boeing acquires from other partners.� Rockwell Collins developed an Ethernet system more than a decade ago for the Boeing 767-400ER, and more recently has supplied AFDX system components for the Boeing 787, the Airbus A380 and A350XWB.

Ref: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...ns-provides-kc-46a-cockpit-details

I recall we had a Boeing insider posting here that said newer 767s (and 737MAX as well) would be using 787 display tech but definitely not the whole 787 avionics infra. I can't find the ref though.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 53):
Is Boeing going to put the B-787 avionics into the B-767-2CF?

I also thought I read here that at some pont FX's 767Fs will switch over to the 787 display system. I can't find the ref though. But given this, I think it's pretty clear that the newer airframes will all have the newer displays since they are cheaper to maintain. I doubt we'll see the situation where WN orders steam gauges just for backward compatibility.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 55):

I would guess it's partly because adding winglets increases the span. I recall that wingspan and related space needed for parking was an important issue.

It has to be some sort of factor, but according to Boeing it wasn't the primary one:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 49):
“Based on the USAF refueling requirements, the missions were not of sufficient duration nor conducted at altitudes that optimize the benefits derived from winglets,” Boeing told Aviation Week.

I read this as saying that even if they could have the larger span the a/c would still not get the winglets. Keep in mind the determing factor of the acquisition is price, and winglets cost a couple million a set. Boeing is saying that it doesn't need the winglets to hit the spec numbers, and the USAF by setting price as the determining factor is saying they don't want to pay for anything that isn't needed to hit the spec.

Keep in mind winglets add acquisition cost, maintenance cost, and weight to the airframe. Commercial aircraft fly often enough with flights with lots of cruise hours so the winglets earn their keep. Tankers don't fly as often, and do a large number of training flights because their crews don't stay in the pilot's seat till age 65 like commerical pilots do.

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: bikerthai
Posted 2013-09-20 06:38:32 and read 5143 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 56):
767s (and 737MAX as well) would be using 787 display

From a production logistics stand point, it just make sense to share the same display across all platform. If you can use anything that is used on the 737 series, you get your volume discount. More than enough to off-set any Engineering required to make it work.

bt

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: VC10er
Posted 2013-09-21 15:57:06 and read 4414 times.

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 37):

United loves their 767-400's? That is the first time I've heard that. I think that is great because I love the United 767-400's and I find myself on them often. In fact, this Tues I will be on one from Newark to São Paulo. They are perfect in BF: better than an sCO 777. Except for just 2 lavs.

They look as new and perfect as if it is an Asian airline.

Everything gets old sadly, including me. But I love all 767's.

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: VC10er
Posted 2013-09-21 15:58:30 and read 4413 times.

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 37):

United loves their 767-400's? That is the first time I've heard that. I think that is great because I love the United 767-400's and I find myself on them often. In fact, this Tues I will be on one from Newark to São Paulo. They are perfect in BF: better than an sCO 777. Except for just 2 lavs.

They look as new and perfect as if it is an Asian airline.

Everything gets old sadly, including me. But I love all 767's.

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: 1337Delta764
Posted 2013-09-21 16:33:34 and read 4347 times.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 58):
United loves their 767-400's? That is the first time I've heard that. I think that is great because I love the United 767-400's and I find myself on them often. In fact, this Tues I will be on one from Newark to São Paulo. They are perfect in BF: better than an sCO 777. Except for just 2 lavs.

They look as new and perfect as if it is an Asian airline.

Everything gets old sadly, including me. But I love all 767's.

Regardless of which airline loves their 764ERs more, I still think that UA will retire theirs before DL does, since it fits more with DL's fleet strategy of keeping older aircraft in service, vs. UA who goes for the latest and greatest aircraft from Boeing and Airbus.

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-09-21 16:37:42 and read 4323 times.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 60):

So that's why UA flies some of the oldest 757s, 747s, 767s, and A320s around?

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: 1337Delta764
Posted 2013-09-21 16:59:48 and read 4228 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 61):
So that's why UA flies some of the oldest 757s, 747s, 767s, and A320s around?

That was before CO management took over. The new UA under CO management will soon be phasing those aircraft out to replace them with 737 MAX's, 787s, and A350s.

[Edited 2013-09-21 17:00:22]

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: RyanairGuru
Posted 2013-09-21 18:21:51 and read 4044 times.

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 37):
The 764 is extremely efficient. UA loves theirs, DL loves theirs. There certainly won't be more orders, but I doubt either carrier will be parting with them any time soon.

  

Quoting VC10er (Reply 58):
United loves their 767-400's? That is the first time I've heard that. I think that is great because I love the United 767-400's and I find myself on them often

I think so

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 60):
I still think that UA will retire theirs before DL does

Probably, but not anytime soon. I would guess at around the end of the decade. At that point they would be roughly 20 years old. I'm not sure whether DL would want frames that old or not, especially as it coincides with the introduction of the 787.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 61):
So that's why UA flies some of the oldest 757s, 747s, 767s, and A320s around?

That's sUA, whereas sCO turns over aircraft much quicker. If you look at the buying spree that UA have gone on over the last few years it is clear that those aircraft will be turfed out soon enough.



This thread has been very civil and on-topic, well done everyone.

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: flyingclrs727
Posted 2013-09-21 20:16:43 and read 3796 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 55):
I would guess it's partly because adding winglets increases the span. I recall that wingspan and related space needed for parking was an important issue. I have no idea but it's possible that winglets (or raked wingtips) could also have some wake vortex issues for aircraft being refuelled when they're in such close proximity.

Part of the reason for using the 767 to replace the KC-135's was that 767's would be able to use the same hangars built for the KC-135's without modification.

Topic: RE: Boeing Drops 767-200ER / 767-400ER. Adds 767-2CFX
Username: flyingclrs727
Posted 2013-09-21 20:20:15 and read 3776 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 56):
I also thought I read here that at some pont FX's 767Fs will switch over to the 787 display system. I can't find the ref though. But given this, I think it's pretty clear that the newer airframes will all have the newer displays since they are cheaper to maintain. I doubt we'll see the situation where WN orders steam gauges just for backward compatibility.

Couldn't Boeing just emulate the look and layout of the steam gauges in the displays?


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/