F4N From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (14 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2110 times:
To all: I was just reading a news release about the performance of Condor's 757-300's in the first year of
service. By all indications, the plane seems to have satisfied Condor's requirements very well and new orders for the plane are supposed to be announced shortly. Does anyone have any thoughts on who may be interested in this version outside of the existing customer base?
I was also looking at the announced orders for the 767-400. Despite all the hoopla about the plane's rollout, it does not (yet) seem to have found favor with many operators. Is this a/c intended to compete with the A330-300? If so, who might be interested in buying it?
DeltaAir From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1094 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (14 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1939 times:
I think the dispatch rate for the 757-300 was around 99.67% or some other incredible number. The world tour of the -300 probably attracted some orders, but I can't imagine it attracting that many. As for the 767-400ER, so far it is performing above what Boeing was predicting and is compared to the 757-200 on a takeoff. Should be an interesting next few years.
Sndp From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 553 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (14 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1869 times:
It is indeed very unlikely that Boeing will sell a lot of 757-300's. The 767-400 may become very popular on growing routes now flown by 767-300's but I don't think this is going to happen quickly. According to me, Boeing also does not accept to sell a lot of these aircraft. They are just trying to compose a whole family of airliners to be able to offer every customer what he wants. On the long term, this is the right way to do it. Look to what Airbus is doing with it's A330/A340-family. Within some years, we will have almost the same aircraft to operate seating from around 220 (A330-100) to 380 (A340-600) passengers.
Jet Setter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (14 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1850 times:
I think Boeing got the 767-400 wrong.
Many European airlines fly the 767-300 on long-haul routes, of up to 10 hours duration or more. I'm sure they would be very interested in the 767-400, with it's new cabin and flight deck - unforunately Boeing chose to use the same engines on the 767-400 as on the -300, and not increase the fuel capacity - the result is the aircraft's range falls well short of what most airlines want. Boeing are developing the 767-400ERX, but this won't be ready until 2004 - too late for most airlines. As far as I can see, the more powerful engines and extra fuel capacity should have been available from the start, if the plane is to have any real chance of success. Remember both ILFC and GECAS recently cancelled their 767-400 orders because "airlines were not interested" and instead ordered some more 767-300s - that should be telling Boeing something.
I don't know why the 757-300 isn't selling, its very reliable and efficient, but nobody seems to want it. The only thing I can think of is passenger appeal - the long thin tube effect and airlines thinking that to carry that many people you should really have a widebody. I do expect to see a tricle of orders soon once airlines that looked at it during the tour have had time to evaluate it.
F4N From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (14 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1823 times:
To all: My thanks for the varied and interesting responses. In reading through them, I get the impression that most feel that these a/c are essentially going to be niche a/c. While that may be entirely plausible, would Boeing actually have spent the time and money to develop a/c with relatively little potential?
As always, your thoughts and insights are appreciated.
Barnaby From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (14 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1817 times:
What were the development costs of stretched, updated versions of existing airframes? Certainly much less than the cost of an entirely new airframe.
The 753 and 764 allow Boeing to provide even more versatility in the aircraft market. While the 753 was always intended as a "niche aircraft", I believe the 764 will come to have much broader appeal. It has secured a decent number of orders thus far, and is just getting started in the marketplace. Give it time, the market for aircraft is slowing down a bit this year. IMHO, as the Asian economies heat up once again orders will pick up.
James, what do you mean by "too-late"? Most European airlines that fly/have flown the 76X have already committed to the A332. Those that haven't can afford to wait a few more years for a better 764. Besides, a 763 with full EFIS Glassies and new 777 style cabin is essentially a 764 anyway. Which airlines were you referring to specifically? Alitalia? Who else operates 767's on the Continent? BA?
Are you referring to the Charter boys?
Jet Setter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (14 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1815 times:
The main use of the 767 in Europe appears to be longhaul (I've listed the Euro 767 long-haul operators - for most airlines mentioned the 767 is a major long-haul type for them)
Of course the 767-300 with the 777 style improvements is essentially a 767-400 but it's smaller. For airlines looking to grow their long haul routes, the 767-400ER would be ideal, but it does not have the range and the 777 is for many too big. I know in the UK, both Air 2000 and Britannia wanted the 777, but it was just too large for them. The 767-400 just wouldn't provide the European airlines what they want - non-stop US West coast or Far Eastern flights. That's why they're turning to the A330 - I just feel Boeing should have put the 767-400ERX improvements in right from the start - at the moment the 767-400s appeal is limited to US Domestic and Asian trunk route operators.