UTA_FLYingHIGH From Tunisia, joined Oct 2001, 6495 posts, RR: 48 Posted (11 years 9 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4258 times:
The 767-400ER has seen limited commercial success with only DL and CO ordering the type. It looks like a rehash of old technlogy, albeit with recnt avionics, upgraded cockpit, etc.. doesn't cut it with airlines who prefer more recent aircraft (whether A or B).
So will Boeing pull the plug or on the contrary try to market it more agressively ?
Fly to live, live to fly - Air France/KLM Flying Blue Platinum, BMI Diamond Club Gold, Emirates Skywards
767-332ER From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2030 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (11 years 9 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4234 times:
The 767-400ER was designed by Boeing for the customers which ordered the a/c. The airliner was cheaper to make since it is consisted of only using technology which already existed with the 777 and putting a few plugs on the -300 fuselage. I think Boeing will keep it available for customers until the 7E7 moves forward to the point we can touch the a/c.
Twinjets...if one fails, work the other one twice as hard!!!
VSGirl From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 9 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4200 times:
I like the look of the Boeing 767-400 however I think a few years earlier and it would have been more successful.
As for its future, who knows!? Maybe Boeing will pitch her at European carriers? I know Britannia Airways has looked at the Boeing 767 series 400 more the once, but is yet to place any orders. Even if Britannia Airways did place an order for the type we would only be talking around six aircraft
Greaser From Bahamas, joined Jan 2004, 1101 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (11 years 9 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4155 times:
I hope not, I would trade a A333 or 332 for the 764ER anyday. But, for some reason the 764 is not popular to airlines beside DL and CO. Isn't the 764 a replacement for aging L-1011, DC-10-30 and A300 airplanes? And yet, no other airline has ordered it. Am I missing something??
Anyway, LCCs may want to use the 764 for high demand markets?? Hmm, maybe WN or AS will buy it. Then again, maybe not
TexAussie From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 142 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (11 years 9 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3998 times:
Thread was up on this two weeks ago. Someone posted an article about the 767-400 as a military command & control bird; they pasted a nice picture of it too. Proposed order was something like 50 air frames.
Boeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 9 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3866 times:
Interms of a commercial future, when the 7E7 shows up, the 767 is dead. The 7E7 in the configurations now being proposed, perfectly replaces the 763 and 764 in capacity. If given the choice I highly doubt that any airline would take the 76 over the 7E7.
Military versions however, have a p[otentially good future. The tanker deal and the STARS versions would keep the 767 line rolling for quite a long time. Which is something else I can't figure out. Why would the pentagon want older technology when they could go for the 7E7? Keeping the 767 line going just adds costs for Boeing. I just don't get it.
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 14479 posts, RR: 60
Reply 8, posted (11 years 9 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3774 times:
Keeping the 767 line going just adds costs for Boeing.
Once the 7E7 line is up and running, yes. But until then, the more airframes they produce, the lower the average cost per aircraft. It costs a lot of money to shut down a line, so there's no sense in doing so until absolutely necessary.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
Godbless From Sweden, joined Apr 2000, 2753 posts, RR: 15
Reply 12, posted (11 years 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3250 times:
Anyway, Boeing designed the plane specifically only for Delta and Continental and did not expect it to sell much.
If that was the case then Boeing would have not given the 764 the 777-style cockpit it has.
It was the same with the MD-95, while SK was launch customer MDD had the old MD-80/MD-90 cockpit in mind for the bird instead of the glass cockpit it has now.
So if there wouldn't have been any hopes of getting a few more airlines to buy the bird then you today would not see a diff between a 762/763 and a 764 flightdeck.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 17273 posts, RR: 50
Reply 15, posted (11 years 9 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3087 times:
"So will Boeing pull the plug or on the contrary try to market it more agressively"
No, as long as Boeing has the 767 assembly line open they can easily produce a 767-200, 767-300 or 767-400. The 767 line will be open for many years to come, even after production of the 7E7 has commenced.
"USAF buys them to 764Tanker? AWACÂ´s?"
The USAF tanker KC-767 is based on the 767-200 frame, there are 550 KC-135s that need to be replaced. There will likely be HUNDREDS of KC767s built over the next 15-20 years, however due to the KC-767s higher payload capability and better dispatch rate of the new aircraft the KC-135s would not have to be replaced on a "one for one" basis with new KC-767s to maintain current capability
what they are developing on the 767-400 frame is the EA-10A, Multi Sensor Command and Control aircraft.
The EA-10A is the future replacement for Joint Stars, Rivet Joints, Cobra Balls, TACAMO and possible AWACS aircraft in the USAF inventory. The E-10 is also being considered as a replacement for the US Navy's EP-3, they would utilize joint Air Force and Navy crews.
Possible number of EA-10A aircraft for the USAF, approximately 38.
Iflyatldl From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1936 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (11 years 9 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2997 times:
One thing we have to remember: The 764 was designed before 9-11 and all the "fall-out" which came as a result. It's a great concept, but with carriers postponing deliveries of most ordered a/c, it's not looking too good at the moment and that's a shame. I think the potential of the 764 won't truly be reconized until they shut the 76 line down altogether- I hope I'm wrong!
Ah, Summer, Fenway Park, Boston Red Sox and Beer.....
Asianguy767 From Singapore, joined Oct 2003, 263 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (11 years 9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2907 times:
Well, there arent many airlines operating L1011s or DC10s or M11s that havent already found a replacement. Some potential buyers that Boeing should pitch to would be, in my opinion, JAL, Biman, Thai, Air India, Qatar, to replace their aging DC10s, M11s, A300 and A310s. Though the latter few prefer Airbus equipment so far.
Godbless From Sweden, joined Apr 2000, 2753 posts, RR: 15
Reply 18, posted (11 years 9 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2773 times:
There's reasons. The glass cockpit is cheaper to make. If you're redesigning a plane, you go for cost savings wherever you can.
Then why did they leave the "old" 752 cockpit in the 753? Simply because they knew that no airline that does not operate the 752 will order the 753.