Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
How Long Untill Boeing Close The 767?  
User currently offlineBurberry753 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 204 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3752 times:

Hi, just been on the boeing website and on the orders/deliveries page it says that 4 767 orders were cancelled/changed. Does anyone know or think that there will be any new orders for the 767 and if Boeing will decide to close the line before long? (sorry if this has been discussed before but couldnt find anything).
cheers  Smile

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3729 times:

Last week's edition of Flight International reported Shanghai Airlines was looking to order a few new 763s.

http://www.airliners.net/discussions...eral_aviation/read.main/2072435/6/

[Edited 2005-05-02 19:39:48]

User currently offlineJAM747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 550 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3699 times:

I think Boeing is going to wait to see how well they tanker refueling program. there is a plan to sell the Air Force some 767 re-fuelers to replace the old 707/KC-135 tankers. I think the Italian Air Force ordered a few already.

User currently offlineBurberry753 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 204 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3691 times:

Thanks alot Leelaw, I'm glad the 767 line may be seeing some action.

User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26812 posts, RR: 75
Reply 4, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3642 times:

Quoting JAM747 (Reply 2):
I think the Italian Air Force ordered a few already

Yep, they are getting the first

Quoting JAM747 (Reply 2):
I think Boeing is going to wait to see how well they tanker refueling program. there is a plan to sell the Air Force some 767 re-fuelers to replace the old 707/KC-135 tankers

Honestly, it is really only a matter of time a possibly Boeing having to take a bit less profit on the deal. With all that went on, Congress is making Boeing sweat a bit on the deal before going forward. The US government will not ever go with a non-US aircraft, including the A330 Tanker



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineIowa744fan From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 931 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3537 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 4):
Honestly, it is really only a matter of time a possibly Boeing having to take a bit less profit on the deal. With all that went on, Congress is making Boeing sweat a bit on the deal before going forward. The US government will not ever go with a non-US aircraft, including the A330 Tanker

I agree. I think that it is only a matter of time before the US Air Force purchases the KC767. As N1120A stated, it will likely be for a bit less, but it will still be at a profitable price for Boeing. Plus, the Air Force should be able to get their birds before too long without a large backlog of orders for the 767. Nothing against the performance or specs of the A330 Tanker, but I feel that there would be a large political uproar in the US if the Air Force went with Airbus. I know that a lot of Airbus aircraft components are made in the US, but the media war that would be pushed by Boeing supporters would try to minimize that and focus on the fact that the overall company is European. I think that a lot of the US citizens will listen to this latter part (and perhaps disregard the first comment) and be pissed.

As for the 4 cancelled 767s, I believe that those are from JAL and/or ANA and were actually orders that were converted to 773ERs. Hopefully, Shanghai will place an order that will tide Boeing over for the next year when they will hopefully be building KC767s.


User currently offlineAeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1610 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3388 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 1):
Last week's edition of Flight International reported Shanghai Airlines was looking to order a few new 763s.

Flight also reported that JAL is looking at buying some 767-300ER freighters.


User currently offlineJAM747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 550 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3351 times:

Remember that the 707 tanker version and maybe freighter was in production quite a while after the civilian version production ceased. If I am not mistaken the civilian version production ended in the late 70s and the last 707 tanker or air force version was built in 91 for the Royal Air Force. If the 767 becomes a tanker or a AWACS platform for air force sale its production might be around a while. It might be cheaper than other types which might warrant it being built or kept in demand.

User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3314 times:

Quoting JAM747 (Reply 7):
If the 767 becomes a tanker or a AWACS platform for air force sale its production might be around a while. It might be cheaper than other types which might warrant it being built or kept in demand.

Very true. The replacement for the 707/E-3 AWACS are E-10As, 767 platform. And yes, I agree, the KC767 tankers will be approved by Congress. The Air Force needs them, contrary to what some of the pin head watchdog groups say. Boeing made a mistake by selling the "leasing" idea.. Condit made many mistakes. Thank God he's gone. But I think the USAF will get the 767 tankers and the taxpayers will get a much better deal.



336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineCalAir From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 298 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3240 times:

Have there been any orders for the 767-200ER lately? Or have Boeing stopped that a/c option and only building the 300 and 400? IIRC CO ordered some not long back? Do they have the new look 777 style cabin or the older ones?


British Caledonian...we never forget, you have a choice
User currently offlineIowa744fan From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 931 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3195 times:

CalAir,

I think that they still offer the 762ER...at least they did a few years ago. They built some for Continental a few years back.


User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3196 times:

IIRC, CO was the last operator to order 762ERs and 10 were delivered in 2000-2001. Boeing hadn't delivered a 762 in many years prior to CO's order and I suppose this derivative will remain available until production is discontinued.

[Edited 2005-05-03 00:29:18]

[Edited 2005-05-03 00:30:16]

User currently offlineHa763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3671 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3193 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CalAir (Reply 9):
Have there been any orders for the 767-200ER lately? Or have Boeing stopped that a/c option and only building the 300 and 400? IIRC CO ordered some not long back? Do they have the new look 777 style cabin or the older ones?

All 767s are built on the same line and the KC767s are based on the -200 series. The Italian 767 tanker is also a -200.

The Boeing Signature interior has been standard on 767s ordered since 2000 and those ordered before, but not built could have it installed during contruction instead of the old interior. It also can be retrofitted into older aircraft.


User currently offlineKL911 From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2003, 5302 posts, RR: 15
Reply 13, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3169 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 4):
The US government will not ever go with a non-US aircraft, including the A330 Tanker

That's what I don't get. You normally would suspect that taxmoney is spend on the best deal possible, regardless of nationalist pride? I mean, Airbus is registered in The Netherlands, but our Airforce has 200 F-16's and KLM mainly flies Boeing aircraft... Our Tankers are KC-10...


User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2944 times:

Quoting KL911 (Reply 13):
That's what I don't get. You normally would suspect that taxmoney is spend on the best deal possible, regardless of nationalist pride? I mean, Airbus is registered in The Netherlands, but our Airforce has 200 F-16's and KLM mainly flies Boeing aircraft... Our Tankers are KC-10...

Firstly, the Air Force thinks the KC330 is simply too big. If they wanted something that big, an Air Force general was recently quoted as saying that he would have asked Boeing to propose a 777 based design.
The 767 tankers are already in production. I have yet to see the taker version A330. From what I understand, only the UK and Australia have ordered them.
Airbus would have to build a factory in the US or partner with a US company with existing facilities, to produce the aircraft. Remember, we're talking about 100 airframes.



336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineIADBGO From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 206 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2933 times:

I used to think that only Boeing would have a chance at the contract. But there are alot of American politicians that are very upset over the whole tanker procurement issue. There are some very angry people on Capitol Hill in Washington DC. Whether they think it is a better plane or not is irrelevant if they don't approve the money to buy them.

IADBGO


User currently offline4xRuv From Israel, joined Dec 2003, 388 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2905 times:

Hopefully, NEVER
I think I've been to most A and B flying crafts today, and the 76 is definitely my fav. Its so spacious and comfy...


User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2899 times:

Quoting IADBGO (Reply 15):
I used to think that only Boeing would have a chance at the contract. But there are alot of American politicians that are very upset over the whole tanker procurement issue. There are some very angry people on Capitol Hill in Washington DC. Whether they think it is a better plane or not is irrelevant if they don't approve the money to buy them.

IADBGO

I agree the contract will change, most likely for the better, but the Air Force does need to start replacing the KC-135s. Whether is in the next year or the next decade, is irrelevent, except to the taxpayer, of course. 10 years from now it'll be much more expensive



336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineMonteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 28
Reply 18, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2881 times:

Nah, the USAF should get the KC-380!  tongue 

It wouldn't be too big at all!

Does anyone see the line lasting any longer past the KC-767 orders? I don't really think so, I mean isn't that the point of the 787?



It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
User currently offlineDkny From Ethiopia, joined Mar 2004, 714 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2879 times:

Ethiopian's last 763 should be rolling off the line pretty soon as it is scheduled to be delivered in June

User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13200 posts, RR: 15
Reply 20, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2860 times:

A couple of related questions. How would the introduction of the 787 affect the continuing of the 767? Isn't the 787 production line taking over the 767 line at Everett? Could tankers or Freighters be done as conversions from used 767's?

User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2840 times:

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 20):
Isn't the 787 production line taking over the 767 line at Everett?

IIRC, the 787 assembly line will utilize a bay at the Everett, that was initially constructed for the 777 program but never fully utilized.


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8037 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2811 times:

I think right now the USAF may be quietly studying the possibility of converting the 787 into a tanker plane. If that can be done, the USAF would jump at a chance of a 787-8 tanker derivative, and Boeing would be able to amortize the cost of the 787 over an additional 100 (or WAY more) airframes from sales to the USAF.

It's truly high time that the KC-135 tanker fleet is slowly phased out; those planes have such high airframe hours that the cost of upgrades and rebuilds are getting extremely expensive, especially now that salvageable parts from retired civilian 707's are rapidly disappearing.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12965 posts, RR: 25
Reply 23, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2787 times:

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 8):
Very true. The replacement for the 707/E-3 AWACS are E-10As, 767 platform. And yes, I agree, the KC767 tankers will be approved by Congress. The Air Force needs them, contrary to what some of the pin head watchdog groups say. Boeing made a mistake by selling the "leasing" idea.. Condit made many mistakes. Thank God he's gone. But I think the USAF will get the 767 tankers and the taxpayers will get a much better deal.

You are entitled to your opinion, but IMHO the "pinheads" are the USAF who said they'd be flying KC135s till 2040, that is, until the whole leasing deal came into being. With leasing, they could have the KC767s without impacting F22 and F35. IMHO if you asked the Air Force if they'd rather have 10 F22s or 200 KC767s, they'd pick the 10 F22s.

Quoting KL911 (Reply 13):
That's what I don't get. You normally would suspect that taxmoney is spend on the best deal possible, regardless of nationalist pride? I mean, Airbus is registered in The Netherlands, but our Airforce has 200 F-16's and KLM mainly flies Boeing aircraft... Our Tankers are KC-10...

I agree, but suppose Fokker was up and running, and making a plane the size of the KC-10, do you think Dutch politicians would have the strength of their convictions to buy a cheaper KC-10 over the Dutch product?

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 17):
10 years from now it'll be much more expensive

And in 20 years we might find them parked in the desert and you sitting in the bunker with the joystick of your UAV in your hands.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2774 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 23):
You are entitled to your opinion, but IMHO the "pinheads" are the USAF who said they'd be flying KC135s till 2040, that is, until the whole leasing deal came into being. With leasing, they could have the KC767s without impacting F22 and F35. IMHO if you asked the Air Force if they'd rather have 10 F22s or 200 KC767s, they'd pick the 10 F22s.

Absolutely correct, but then if you'd ask the individual commands (ACC or AMC) they'd give you different answers. But I half agree with you. Personally, I'd like to see the purchase of 380+ FA-22s, AND, at least, 50 KC767As.
The whole leasing thing smelled funny to me, although I'm not a beancounter... My wife is.
I mean, honestly, who would believe that after the leasing term, the Air Force was going to return the aircraft to Boeing, AFTER they were returned to commerical quality. Basically it was "Creative Accounting" on both the Air Force and Boeing's part. That's what got them into trouble with the Senate Armed Services Commitee. You and I both know that wasn't going to happen.
Budgets the way they are, I think it's fair to say that the Air Force needs both.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 23):
And in 20 years we might find them parked in the desert and you sitting in the bunker with the joystick of your UAV in your hands

That would be too cool!  Wink

[Edited 2005-05-03 17:02:35]


336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
25 Airways6max : The 787 is seen as the successor to the 767. I expect production of the 767 to stop around 2010.
26 Leelaw : How do you reckon 2010? The civil backlog is currently less than 2 years production, any additional orders are likely to be minor. If the KC-762 and/
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...
With The 7E7, Will Boeing Close The 767 Line Soon? posted Sun May 23 2004 03:29:56 by A380900
How Long Until Boeing Plant Up To Speed On Orders posted Mon Sep 26 2005 18:39:46 by Gordonpageco
How Long Until Boeing Builds A Full Double-decker? posted Sat Jan 29 2005 20:54:28 by Thrust
How Long Will Malev Keep The F70? posted Wed Dec 3 2003 11:16:19 by Steph001
How Long Do Fares Stay The Same? posted Mon Nov 3 2003 04:45:00 by Ual747
How Long Will VS Operate The 340-600 To NY? posted Thu Oct 17 2002 22:34:11 by Qantas777
How Long Did UAL Use The DC-8? posted Fri Aug 9 2002 10:02:06 by Brons2
How Long Did Delta Have The A310 In The Fleet? posted Sat Mar 16 2002 04:58:37 by 777-200
Did Boeing Shelve The B 767-400LR As Well? posted Fri Mar 30 2001 15:26:12 by United Airline
How Long Will The A380 Last? posted Sat Sep 23 2006 05:50:16 by COIAH756CA