GREATANSETT From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 506 posts, RR: 4 Posted (9 years 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4097 times:
Why didn't many airlines, besides Delta and CO, buy the 767-400? What is wrong with that aircraft? If it was launched at a different time ( ie early 1990's) would the aircraft have been as successful as earlier models like the 200's or 300's?
Futureualpilot From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 2561 posts, RR: 8 Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4046 times:
Because it was a niche aircraft, designed mainly to replace the L1011 in DL's fleet, and the DC-10s in CO's fleet.
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4041 times:
The 764 had two major shortcomings-
1. A range of only 5,600nm, while the A332 has a range of 6,600nm
2. The A332 has much greater cargo capcity
However, don't think the 764 isn't a good aircraft. It was perfect for CO and DL who would have been forced to add the A332 to their 762/763 fleets. The 764 has a much lighter structural weight than the A332 (it is a smaller aircraft after all) so it performs great on routes between 4000-5500nm.
Boeing probably intended to sell many more 764s than they did, but hey that's life. You take a risk and sometimes you loose. Maybe had it been launched in the early 90s it would have gained more orders, but niether CO or DL were looking for such an aircraft in the early 90s...
DeltaMD11 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 1698 posts, RR: 38 Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4028 times:
The projected market forecast for the 767-400 was never huge to begin with. It was mainly designed for DL and CO to replace their L1011's and DC-10's respectively. The 764 had relatively minimal design costs associated with it because the basic 767 airframe and associated systems were already developed. Nothing is wrong with the aircraft, it meets and/or exceeds it's design specifications. However, I do think that if the 767-400 was released earlier it may have had more potential customers due to the fact that it was aimed as a direct L1011/DC-10 replacement and those types were a little more prevalent 10 or so years ago then they are now.
Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
ScottysAir From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3728 times:
Is that still anything else with those airlines will any orders with new B764 aircraft yet? Sure, why not? I'm guess would be fine for make orders with the B764.
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3666 times:
As mentioned, the 764 was specifically developed to replace the DC10/1011s that were in Delta's and Continental's fleet. Its a good aircraft, but the A330-200 is more versatile, hauls more cargo and has more range: the A332 benefits from being the smallest member of the A330/340 family while the 764 is handicapped by being the largest member of the 767 family; simply a streched and updated version of the 763. While it preforms well for DL and CO, I think that the type would have sold better if it had about 1000 miles more in range: the 767-400ERX was planned to add range, but the program never really got off the ground. It is unfortunate for Boeing that quite a few 767 operators that required a larger aircraft opted for the A332 instead of the 764; as a Boeing fan, I think that they missed an opportunity with the 764.
Another issue is timing - the 764 became available just as many airlines were looking to downsize their widebody fleets. 9/11 of course did not help matters, and presently, the airlines that would be most interested in ordering the 764 (mainly the US carriers) cannot even consider additional aircraft purchases due to financial constraints.
MidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 16 Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3567 times:
Just to chime in with everybody else, this was one of those things where Boeing worked with the customer and really built the 767-400 for really Continental & Delta.
CanadianNorth From Canada, joined Aug 2002, 3371 posts, RR: 10 Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3477 times:
The A330 simply has the advantage of more range as well as room for an extra pile of cargo. The 767-400ER does offer a decent ammount of commonality with the 767-200 and -300 series, which the A330 does not, and from what i have heard performes a little better on the shorter routes. Most airlines would find more use out of the Airbus A330 series, however for 767 operators looking for something slightly bigger than the -300ER (such as Continental and Delta), the 767-400ER still overall is a great aircraft. If it was launched a few years earlier, it might have taken a slightly larger bite of the A330's market.
TexAussie From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 142 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (9 years 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3333 times:
Agree with CanadianNorth regarding timing of 764 release. Boeing let the A330 get into the market as a DC-10/Tristar replacement without moving with a larger 767 or 777-100 in time to capture orders when the industry was doing relatively well. Boeing did not take the gap between the 767 and 777 markets seriously enough. They seemed to dwell on looking smaller. B
Hindsight is 20/20, but Boeing senior management seemed to make a lot of bad decisions under Phil Conditt.
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (9 years 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3093 times:
Boeing let the A330 get into the market as a DC-10/Tristar replacement without moving with a larger 767 or 777-100 in time to capture orders when the industry was doing relatively well. Boeing did not take the gap between the 767 and 777 markets seriously enough. They seemed to dwell on looking smaller. B
Hindsight is 20/20, but Boeing senior management seemed to make a lot of bad decisions under Phil Conditt.
Rather unfair accusations, mostly due to ignorance of the situation.
First of all, the 777 was originally supposed to be the 767X.
Secondly, Boeing really didnt have much intention of building the 764, either proposed variant, at all: instead offering the 771 (which no airline wanted in either of its proposed variations) as well as the 772 (which both UA & AA took up as widebody trijet replacements, but DL & CO rejected)
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 506 posts, 
From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! 
, 2561 posts, 
From China, joined Apr 2004, 398 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2002, 3371 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
