Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A 767 Is Boeing's White Elephant (tanker)  
User currently offlineXkorpyoh From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 825 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 years 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3511 times:


One new, custom-built Boeing 767. Never flown. Needs engines. Asking $54
million ... or best offer.

Anyone in the market for a large, leftover airplane?

Built as a prototype for the lucrative but ill-fated Air Force tanker contract, the plane has sat mothballed in Boeing's Everett factory for the past year. Now the company is close to a decision on how to dispose of this not-ready-to-fly white elephant.

Boeing Commercial Airplanes is considering scrapping the airplane.

Or the company may donate it to a flight museum.

In the best-case scenario, it may sell the airplane for a song to the company's military division. But defense-side engineers are still considering whether they want it.

If it recoups the scrap value, Boeing's net loss on building this 767 will be $54 million. Development expenses incurred in producing the prototype bring the total loss to $275 million, according to its latest annual report.

Boeing considers the jet obsolete, because if the air-refueling tanker deal is resurrected, the company will offer a different, cheaper version of the airplane.

Unlike a conventional commercial 767, this one has strengthened floors, upgraded electrical systems and an added cargo door. That makes it a one-of-a-kind plane, lacking FAA certification to fly.

Boeing's dilemma is that it would cost more to complete the airplane, certify it and deliver it than a 767 could fetch on the market.

A detailed commercial-airplane division study of the costs of each of the options — scrap, donate or sell at a discount to the defense unit — was due to be completed this month, according to an internal Boeing document obtained by The Seattle Times.

The last option might seem the most logical. The defense unit has orders for four 767 air-refueling tankers for the Italian Air Force and three more for the Japanese Air Force. Only one, now in Italy, has been finished.

But those airplanes have various differences. Larry Whitley, Boeing's spokesman on the tanker program, said defense-unit engineers are still studying the leftover jet and deciding "if it makes sense to do anything with it."

Whitley said a decision is probable by the end of next month.

Even donating the airplane won't be straightforward.

Craig O'Neill, spokesman for the Museum of Flight, said the museum turned down an earlier offer from Boeing to accept the first 767 ever built. Aside from space constraints — the jet is as wide as a football field and more than half as long — the museum was wary of the considerable costs of looking after a large aircraft on display outdoors.

"It's difficult for me to imagine how we could take advantage of such an offer, much as we might like to," O'Neill said.

In 2001, Boeing was so confident of the original $23.5 billion deal to lease 100 air-refueling tankers to the Air Force that it funded initial development with its own money.

The tanker deal drew fire early on from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., for its alleged excessive cost to the taxpayer and lack of congressional oversight. Then in April 2004 Air Force procurement officer Darleen Druyun admitted in court that she had sweetened deals for Boeing. The tanker deal — which she had worked on — was killed.

Boeing suspended work on the prototype airplane at once. In January, the company announced an accounting charge to cover its full loss on the leftover jet.

The Pentagon is expected to reopen the tanker competition after the completion, scheduled for mid-August, of a Pentagon analysis of alternatives.

Boeing then may have to compete for the contract against Europe's EADS, parent company of Airbus, which plans to offer an Airbus jet that would be modified at a new plant in Charleston, S.C.

To reduce the cost to the Air Force, Boeing's new proposal envisions that mechanics will modify the commercial jets into military tankers on the production line in Everett. That would require turning it into an all-military line, complying with federal rules barring non-U.S. citizens from working on or visiting the production area.

Meanwhile, in the next bay over from the obsolete tanker in the huge Everett assembly building, Boeing continues to produce commercial 767s.

The current order backlog, after three new orders came in this month, is 21 jets. The program can keep going only if Boeing wins a new Air Force tanker deal before it has to close the line.

Boeing executives have said that they will decide by the end of the summer. If a deal is deemed unlikely or too far off, Boeing will close the line at the end of 2006.

There may not be many chances left to own a 767

lets all unite to receive this 767 from boeing as a grant   we could create a museum, or bar, or restaurant in the interior.. just a dreamy thought.

[Edited 2005-05-23 17:01:59]

4 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9823 posts, RR: 64
Reply 1, posted (11 years 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3459 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think the 767 should be donated by Boeing to Airliners.net, where it would fly around the world, packed full of LCD's and Plasma TV's, to different airshows, with a Connexion hook-up that will allow visitors to surf and experience A.net.

User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 6263 posts, RR: 24
Reply 2, posted (11 years 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3319 times:

Typical US Newspaper. "White elephant", "ill-fated" contract. What to do with this albatross? Oh, yeah, at the end they mention that with a few changes it could be a tanker for one of our EUROPEAN ALLIES that are on the verge of equipping THEIR air forces with this excellent tanker, while we let ours age. Idiots all around.

User currently onlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 3390 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (11 years 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3170 times:

This article makes no sense.

True, Boeing did construct one 762 for the USAF tanker program, and it has been stored in a hangar in Everett...

However, the cargo door and floor installation is handled in Wichita, KS. If the aircraft has no engines and was never flown, then it is impossible that these mods have already been carried out.

The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (11 years 6 days ago) and read 2983 times:

Unlike a conventional commercial 767, this one has strengthened floors, upgraded electrical systems and an added cargo door. That makes it a one-of-a-kind plane, lacking FAA certification to fly.

Duh, someone may fly it as a freighter then, eh?

And why not use it to be one of the tankers on order from Japan or Italy?

One Nation Under God
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...
Is KLIA(KUL) A White Elephant? posted Thu Oct 12 2000 13:59:30 by G-KIRAN
Why Is Boeing Confident On 787 posted Thu Nov 23 2006 20:22:08 by SJCRRPAX
Is Boeing Still #2? posted Fri Nov 10 2006 23:45:00 by DIA
Is Boeing Subsidized? posted Wed Oct 18 2006 07:08:01 by Slovacek747
Is Boeing Planning To Keep The 787s Cockpit Window posted Sun Mar 12 2006 05:17:16 by AirCanada014
Is Boeing Rebranding The 787? posted Mon Oct 3 2005 17:19:45 by Glom
Maxjet 767 Is Here! posted Sat Jul 23 2005 23:05:12 by Vasu
What Is Boeing's Annual Record? posted Thu Jun 16 2005 01:44:48 by Grantcv
Who Is Boeing's "Mystery Customer"? posted Thu Apr 7 2005 00:09:13 by DL021
Is Boeing Taking A Page From Airbus (commonality)? posted Wed Apr 6 2005 08:50:05 by Jacobin777