Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The 767-400ER - A Bleak Future?  
User currently offlineUTA_FLYingHIGH From Tunisia, joined Oct 2001, 6495 posts, RR: 51
Posted (10 years 3 months 6 days ago) and read 3757 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 ?
UTA


Fly to live, live to fly - Air France/KLM Flying Blue Platinum, BMI Diamond Club Gold, Emirates Skywards
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offline767-332ER From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2030 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (10 years 3 months 6 days ago) and read 3733 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!!!
User currently offlineVSGirl From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 3 months 6 days ago) and read 3699 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  Sad

Kimberly  Smile


User currently offlineGreaser From Bahamas, joined Jan 2004, 1092 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (10 years 3 months 6 days ago) and read 3654 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



Now you're really flying
User currently offline9V-SVE From Singapore, joined Nov 2001, 2066 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (10 years 3 months 6 days ago) and read 3616 times:

Two of the major drawbacks of the design are little cargo space - compared to its competitor the A330, and limited range.

Anyway, Boeing designed the plane specifically only for Delta and Continental and did not expect it to sell much.


User currently offlineUnited4ever From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 291 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (10 years 3 months 6 days ago) and read 3572 times:

Surely there's no reason to pull the plug on the -400 until 767 production ceases completely?

Mike


User currently offlineTexAussie From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 142 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (10 years 3 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3497 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.

User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 3 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3365 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?  Confused Keeping the 767 line going just adds costs for Boeing. I just don't get it.


User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13254 posts, RR: 62
Reply 8, posted (10 years 3 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3273 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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
User currently offlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7523 posts, RR: 43
Reply 9, posted (10 years 3 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3121 times:

There is another thread going on right now discussing the fate of the 764. You can find it at http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/1351955/


Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
User currently offlineTango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3788 posts, RR: 29
Reply 10, posted (10 years 3 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3050 times:

Bleak future for the 767-400ER? The more proper question to ask is what future?

User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2686 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (10 years 3 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2809 times:

Boeing is not likely to go much farther. The PW-powered 764ER may never get off the ground. Also, the 7E7 is likely to cease all 767 production within a few years.


Fly one thing; Fly it well
User currently offlineGodbless From Sweden, joined Apr 2000, 2752 posts, RR: 16
Reply 12, posted (10 years 3 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2749 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.

Max


User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 847 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (10 years 3 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2694 times:

USAF buys them to 764Tanker? AWAC´s?


Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 14, posted (10 years 3 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2588 times:

Why are there so many 764 threads today?

There is no such thing as a 764 tanker, and the 764 would make a poor tanker. The 762 is the best frame in the family for that job.

There's no need to pull the plug. Its built on the same line with the same parts. If they discontinue the 767 altogether, then the 764 will die too.

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.


There's reasons. The glass cockpit is cheaper to make. If you're redesigning a plane, you go for cost savings wherever you can.

N


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16691 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (10 years 3 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2586 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? AWAC´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.




Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineIflyatldl From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1936 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (10 years 3 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2496 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!  Smile


Ah, Summer, Fenway Park, Boston Red Sox and Beer.....
User currently offlineAsianguy767 From Singapore, joined Oct 2003, 263 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (10 years 3 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2406 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.

User currently offlineGodbless From Sweden, joined Apr 2000, 2752 posts, RR: 16
Reply 18, posted (10 years 3 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2272 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.

Max


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...
DL And CO The Only Two Operators Of The 767-400ER? posted Sun Feb 1 2004 00:25:08 by Jkw777
Possible Customers For The 767-400ER. posted Sun Sep 2 2001 22:09:41 by RJ_Delta
Will UAL Consider The B 767-400ER? posted Tue May 8 2001 16:07:10 by United Airline
Any Room For The B 767-400ER To Go International? posted Wed Apr 25 2001 06:37:01 by United Airline
Any More Airlines Ordering The 767-400ER? posted Tue Jun 27 2000 18:59:06 by Samurai 777
Who Is The Owner Of The Last 767-400ER On Order? posted Tue Feb 22 2005 01:33:51 by Luis777
Future Of The 767-400? posted Sat Jan 3 2004 05:49:46 by TexAussie
The Bleak Future Of The Tristar posted Mon Mar 19 2001 02:02:18 by TurboTristar
The Future Of The B 767-400 posted Fri Dec 22 2000 10:04:26 by United Airline
CO And The 767-300ER posted Fri Nov 3 2006 03:07:08 by TrijetFan1