Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What About The 767?!?  
User currently offlineBAJMowiec From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 99 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3059 times:

Hi,

I just found out that the 757 production will shut down soon. This got me worried for one of my favorite airplanes, the 767. Please, someone, tell me that the 767 will make it through and won't go out of production next year ! ! ! I would really hate for that airplane to leave !

Piotrek

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3031 times:

if the 762ER receives the Military lease contract, which it almost certainly will, then the 767 line will remain open for yeaaarrrss to come.

User currently offlineFlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2831 times:

Yep. As ConcordeBoy said, the 767 will be open for quite awhile yet due to USAF contract for 100 airframes, if not more. Ironically history repeat itself in a way. When the last commercial 707 was built, that line remain open for a few more years because the worldwide military still wanted the 707 platform for a number of uses. Even then the used 707s were being snapped up for spare parts & conversion into a military aircraft. The 767 is sticking around.  Wink/being sarcastic Regards.


"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
User currently offlineCitationX From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2760 times:

The USAF's lease-purchase of the KC-767s is not a done deal yet. There are powerful opponents of this program (Sen. John McCain of AZ, for instance) who are working to kill the program, drastically restructure it or stall the final approval until after the 2004 elections. The USAF is also being called on the carpet by Congress for sharing details of Airbus' proposal for the A-330 tanker with Boeing. I'd say the Congressional mindset is 50% in favor of the program, and 50% thinking the KC-767 program is pure pork and should be killed.

Without the KC-767, the civil 767 program's future is iffy since the backlog of open orders is drying up.

This opens up another can of worms that should be another thread - How much longer is Boeing going to be a viable competitor in the commercial airliner market? With backlogs for 717s, 747s, 767s, and 777s dwindling, and Boeing's core market (US major airlines) on "financial IR", will they eventually retreat to the guaranteed profits of military aerospace? It seems that Boeing management's recent decisions are more aimed at pleasing Wall Street than advancing the state-of-the-art of commercial aviation.


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7928 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2714 times:

I think what may happen is that the 767 program will end in the next 3-4 years.

What will happen is that as the 7E7 program is ramped up, it will take over the production space currently used by the 767 at Boeing's Everett production line.

That means besides the obviously large number of commercial orders for the 7E7, the new plane will form the basis for the true replacement to the rapidly-aging KC-135 fleet for the USAF and will also form the basis for the replacement for the AWACS/JSTARS and RC-135 ELINT/SIGINT platforms.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16689 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2607 times:

The 7E7 is not going to enter service with the USAF, they are already developing (they built one so far) EA-10 which is based on the 767-400. The EA-10 will replace the Joint Stars, Rivet Joint etc aircraft, the 767-400 will also (at some point) possibly take over the TACAMO, AWACS role.

The first initial order for KC-767s is 100, however this is a first step towards the replacement of the entire KC-135 fleet which numbers 550. It's not likely that 550 KC-767s will be built to replace KC-135s on a one for one basis becuase of the larger payload capability and higher dispatch rate of the 767, however the total number will most likely be around 400-450 frames which is substantial.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineBoingGoingGone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2544 times:

That would be in 2005. Right after things are completely shut down on the 757.

User currently offlineShenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1706 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2509 times:

Once the US Government figures out that England are going to pay 13 billion pounds to lease 20 A330 tankers, they will realize that 100 767s for the same price isn't such a bad deal.

767s will be produced in the military config for many many years, after the 7E7 is in commercial service.


User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2436 times:

Not only USAF wants the B767 tanker, Italy and Japan also want a few...


User currently offlineMotech722 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 211 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2251 times:

FlagshipAZ pointed out that "...used 707s were being snapped up for spare parts & conversion into a military aircraft". The question I have is how many B767s are currently parked? If history does in fact repeat itself, wouldn't it be less expensive to snap up used 767s and convert them instead of buying brand new ones from Boeing?

User currently offlineBluewave 707 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3152 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2170 times:

Japan is already using the 762 in an AWACS role.

The KC-135s that are on the chopping block are the "E" variants, the JT3D engined ones. The "R" models, the CFM engined, will be around for a while longer.

If the USAF picks up used 762s, they probably will want to get those who has low cycles, and use the high-cycled ones for parts.



"The best use of your life will be to so live your life, that the use of your life will outlive your life" -- D Severn
User currently offlineStarrion From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1122 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2168 times:

The USAF won't buy used airframes because they don't want a variety of engine types and avionics and mixed/uncertain maintenance histories. They will buy all new and keep them in ops for 30+ years.

The B52's may still be in service after their 75th year of operation....



Knowledge Replaces Fear
User currently offlineCancidas From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2084 times:

the 767 is a workhorse in many international airlines. until a viable replacement from boeing is in production, ie..7E7, the 767 will remain in production.


"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
User currently offlineCitationX From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2084 times:

Starrion,

You are right about the USAF preferring new A/C to used.

This begs a question, however: Why would the USAF want to go with an over-20-year-old design like the 767 for their tanker fleet if they intend to fly them for the next 45 years, like they are doing with the KC-135? It seems like the USAF could spend almost the same money on a tanker based on the 7E7 and start fresh with a state-of-the-art airplane.


User currently offlineCambrian From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 619 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days ago) and read 1985 times:

It always amazes me to see so many posts on this site eulogising the 767.

I always thought that in comparison, the A300 is much more elegant and certainly more comfortable to fly in.

I recently flew LHR- ATH in Business on an OA A300, and soon after, LHR- MXP on a BA767, and the A300 was steps above in all aspects.

So let's hear it for the A300!


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16689 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (10 years 6 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1888 times:

The KC-767 is designed as a "platform" to deliver fuel, it is not a front line aircraft and thus does not need to incorporate the newest (7E7) technology.

What's needed is a reliable aircraft to deliver fuel for the USAF for the next 35 years, the 7E7 has not even flown yet. The 767 is a proven platform, and Boeing has proven it's capability with regards to their boom technology.

Going with the 7E7 as the future refueler subjects them to possible development problems with the aircraft, as does going with the Airbus A330 tanker because of Airbus's lack of experience with boom technology.

The 767 is proven, as is the boom design of Boeing.

Plus the 767 is available immediately.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (10 years 6 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1879 times:

CitiationX, exactly my opinion as well (discussed in another thread),
but unfortunatly it´ll be leasing new B767 and buying surplus ones for parts...


User currently offlineHlywdCatft From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5321 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (10 years 6 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1819 times:

What i don't understand is, why is the USAF getting a tanker version of the 767-200? Why not the 767-300 or 400? Couldn't the 300 or 400 hold more fuel capacity?

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
TAM Receives 75th Airbus, But What About The MD11? posted Tue Jan 9 2007 18:27:46 by Jog
If DL Left SLC What About The Regionals? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 06:23:42 by IdaBoy
GA To Operate 763s? What About The A330s? posted Fri Sep 29 2006 20:51:25 by Mandala499
Oilprice Down - What About The Fuel Surcharges? posted Fri Sep 22 2006 23:41:18 by Chiguire
What About The Two DC-10s Which Crashlanded 2006? posted Sat Aug 12 2006 01:39:11 by NA
Canada Election'06-What About The Airports/airline posted Wed Jan 4 2006 20:02:15 by RicardoFG
What About The BRU - CDG Route? posted Wed Sep 21 2005 13:26:20 by SNBA
Cayman Airways: What About The Future? posted Tue Jul 26 2005 15:00:37 by Caymanair
If UA Go Bust...what About The Regional Carriers? posted Wed May 25 2005 23:06:20 by RootsAir
Long-Haul A/C Subs... What About The Crews? posted Wed Jan 5 2005 09:53:56 by QantasHeavy