Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing 767 Line "Still Open For Business"  
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 7997 times:

Boeing could decide the future of the 767 programme this year, but denies reports that it has already decided to close the line in Everett, Washington.

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...ll+open+for+business%e2%80%99.html

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMX757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 628 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 7887 times:

It doesn't matter if Boeing closes the 767 line this year or in the next couple of years. It's days are numbered unfortunately. The article also states that deliveries are going to continue to 2008. That's the same year the 787 is scheduled to go into production.

Quote:
"It is possible we could make a decision [on closing the line] later this year," says Boeing. A key factor in the future of the model continues to be the long-running saga of the tanker requirement for the US Air Force. The 767 is still potentially in the frame for the revived USAF contest, although it will not be known to what extent it remains a realistic contender until the details of the forthcoming USAF tanker requirement are revealed.

The Air Force has already stated that it is not interested in the 767 tanker program. The airframe design and avionics package is to old. They would much prefer either the 777 or 787 offered in a tanker role.



Is it broke...? Yeah I'll fix it.
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 7872 times:

Quoting MX757 (Reply 1):
That's the same year the 787 is scheduled to go into production.

787 production is slated to begin in 2007. Boeing intends to stockpile airframes for immediate delivery upon 2008 certification. In a sense, Airbus has done this with the A380, though I don't believe to nearly the same degree.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 7872 times:

Quoting MX757 (Reply 1):
The Air Force has already stated that it is not interested in the 767 tanker program. The airframe design and avionics package is to old. They would much prefer either the 777 or 787 offered in a tanker role.

With repect can you provide a source for the statement that the U.S. Air Force no longer is interested in the 767 as an aerial tanker, because everything that I've read is to the contrary. At this point, the 767 is the odds on favorite, IMHO.

[Edited 2006-03-13 21:07:33]


336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineMX757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 628 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 7661 times:

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 3):
With repect can you provide a source for the statement that the U.S. Air Force no longer is interested in the 767 as an aerial tanker, because everything that I've read is to the contrary. At this point, the 767 is the odds on favorite, IMHO.

I've read a few articles in Aviation Week & Space Technology on this subject. Sorry I can't give exact dates but here's a link to their website:

http://www.aviationnow.com/

Were you ever stationed at Mac Dill in the early 90's? I knew a Sal when I was in. Blue section, 62nd AMU, 56th AGS .



Is it broke...? Yeah I'll fix it.
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30626 posts, RR: 84
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7395 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Even if the USAF decides to consider another Boeing model (777F) for their next tanker, the 767 platform underpins other USAF programs being considered, including the E-10 MC2A. It also forms the airframe for the the E-767 AWACS and KC-767 tanker programs used by Japan and Italy.

User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 7223 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
Even if the USAF decides to consider another Boeing model (777F) for their next tanker, the 767 platform underpins other USAF programs being considered, including the E-10 MC2A. It also forms the airframe for the the E-767 AWACS and KC-767 tanker programs used by Japan and Italy.

Despite noises emanating recently from Congress that a multi-role 777 is the better choice, I'd bet that in the end, the 767 still turns out to be the tanker platform. If the KC-10 was too big a platform to be succesful, I'm not sure why the 777 or even the A330 make sense in the tanker role?


User currently offlineAeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1607 posts, RR: 52
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 7187 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
Even if the USAF decides to consider another Boeing model (777F) for their next tanker, the 767 platform underpins other USAF programs being considered, including the E-10 MC2A.

The E-10 is dead. One has been ordered and that will become a testbed, waiting for more money to appear, which will allow the whole thing to be launched on a future platform.


User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6841 times:

Quoting MX757 (Reply 4):
Were you ever stationed at Mac Dill in the early 90's? I knew a Sal when I was in. Blue section, 62nd AMU, 56th AGS .

Thanks for asking that. Someone else asked me the same question. I was stationed at Seymore Johnson AFB, NC. during the early 90s.

 Smile



336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineMEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4304 posts, RR: 36
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6634 times:

There are 966 Boeing 767s ordered now. Maybe they try to reach 1000 orders before closing the line. It would be nice for them (but not worth selling them at a loss of course) to have all major jet programs of Boeing reach 1000 (Boeing 707: 1013, 727: 1832, 737classic: 3132, 737ng: 3000+, 747: 1400+, 757: 1050, 767: 966, 777 and 787 no doubt will reach 1000 as well).

[Edited 2006-03-14 15:10:48]


nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
User currently offlineMX757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 628 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6584 times:

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 8):
Thanks for asking that. Someone else asked me the same question. I was stationed at Seymore Johnson AFB, NC. during the early 90s.

Good old "Shady Jay", Is it still open?

Getting back to the subject. I was wondering where you had read that the KC-767 was still the odds on favorite. I work on the 767s from time to time here at CO and they are very reliable airframe when it comes to pax service. I believe they would make a superb tanker but don't you think a 777 or an A330 would be better because they utilize newer technology?



Is it broke...? Yeah I'll fix it.
User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5959 times:

Quoting MX757 (Reply 10):
Good old "Shady Jay", Is it still open?

Yep, still there and thriving from what I've heard. Think they're flying missions for NORTHCOM now.

Quoting MX757 (Reply 10):
Getting back to the subject. I was wondering where you had read that the KC-767 was still the odds on favorite. I work on the 767s from time to time here at CO and they are very reliable airframe when it comes to pax service. I believe they would make a superb tanker but don't you think a 777 or an A330 would be better because they utilize newer technology?

I fully agree with you. Check out the Military & Space forum for this being discussed ad nauseum. My own personal preference is for a KC-777, but Boeing has proven platform flying today for the Italians and soon for the JSDF.
After the Lease fiasco, I think that Boeing will offer the 767s again at much better terms. My gut tells me that whether the 767 or 777, Boeing will supply the entire fleet. EADS is frankly over confident. If they truly belive they'll get the whole contract or a major portion of it, then they really do not understand the political/industrial/commerical realites of the United States.



336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5914 times:

The pax 767 is essentially  tombstone . The only hope it has, outside of an occaisional single frame order, is the USAF tanker contract.


One Nation Under God
User currently offlineJohnny From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5788 times:

I think Boeing really should keep the line open until the B787 is certified.

The EIS in 2008 is more than unrealistic.Everybody knows that we have already march 2006, so the first flight would have to be in around 15 month to assure a delivery date of around december 2008...

The B787 uses a variety of new technologies which have to be tested in flight very carefully.That takes more time than usually.

Remember the sentence from Mr. Clark from Emirates which stated in an interview that both A and B should take their time and not hurry their A350 and B787-developments...

Remember my concerns in december 2008! Expect a delivery date of around march 2009!!!


User currently offline2travel2know From Panama, joined Apr 2005, 3580 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5751 times:

The B767-200ER - which could be more attractive due to aircraft price : aircraft range ratio - is no longer in production?


I don't work for COPA Airlines!
User currently offlineHamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2735 posts, RR: 58
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5558 times:

Quoting MX757 (Reply 1):
The Air Force has already stated that it is not interested in the 767 tanker program.

According to a report I read less than a week ago, the Air Force has made no such statement. OTOH, what they have said is that the 767 will now be in contention with other frames, despite being picked as the AF's choice in 2004. Apparently, there are many in the works that want either a 777 or A330-based tanker. Honestly, I don't think either would make as good a tanker as the 767, but that's just personal opinion.

Quoting MX757 (Reply 1):
They would much prefer either the 777 or 787 offered in a tanker role.

There will be no 787-based tanker. At least not for the next 20 years. The only way this will happen is if the Air Force really wants one, and Boeing contracts out to a third party another 787 assembly line solely devoted to the tanker program.

Quoting Johnny (Reply 13):
The EIS in 2008 is more than unrealistic.Everybody knows that we have already march 2006, so the first flight would have to be in around 15 month to assure a delivery date of around december 2008...

Delivery is still scheduled for April 2008 to ANA. As to the rest of you post, thanks for making me  laughing .


Regards,

Hamlet69



Honor the warriors, not the war.
User currently offlineDa man From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 887 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5194 times:

Quoting 2travel2know (Reply 14):
The B767-200ER - which could be more attractive due to aircraft price : aircraft range ratio - is no longer in production?

If you order it, Boeing will make it. That is the scenario that was the case when CO ordered their batch of ten, years after the pervious one had been produced. Since all 767s share the same production line, it is still possible, just like it is still possible to build an A310 on the A300 line.

da man



War Eagle!
User currently offlineFLALEFTY From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 445 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4903 times:

It is my understanding from well-placed (management) friends of mine at Northrop Grummman in Melbourne, FL, the USAF wants future JSTARS aircraft to be based on the 767 airframe and designs to do that are already underway. They also tell me that the USAF also wants the 767 airframe for future AWACS (which is not a NorGrum product).

While these may be small numbers in terms of airframes, they keep the 767's "foot-in-the-door" with the USAF for the inevitable, KC-135 replacement program. Once memories of procurement scandals caused Darlene, the "Dragon Lady of the Pentagon" fade, Boeing and the USAF will find a way to work things out for the 767 tanker program.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4615 times:

Quoting FLALEFTY (Reply 17):
It is my understanding from well-placed (management) friends of mine at Northrop Grummman in Melbourne, FL, the USAF wants future JSTARS aircraft to be based on the 767 airframe and designs to do that are already underway. They also tell me that the USAF also wants the 767 airframe for future AWACS (which is not a NorGrum product).

Where have you been? The plan is not for J-STARS to be a separate platform, but will be combined with the AWACS and battlefield management platform. That is the 767-400ER-based airframe, the E-10.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineOOer From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1464 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4572 times:

If the 767 is going to stick around they need to come up with a 767LR . Its range compared to the A330 or A340 is not very good, operators would probably choose one of those aircraft before a 767!

User currently offlineMX757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 628 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4530 times:

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 11):
My own personal preference is for a KC-777,

It's mine too. Not only would the 777 make a great tanker but it can carry alot of cargo to boot.

Thanks for the info Sal, welcome to my RU list.



Is it broke...? Yeah I'll fix it.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21476 posts, RR: 60
Reply 21, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4483 times:

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 6):
I'd bet that in the end, the 767 still turns out to be the tanker platform.

763 might be the most flexible size compared to a 332 or 772.

Quoting MX757 (Reply 10):
I believe they would make a superb tanker but don't you think a 777 or an A330 would be better because they utilize newer technology?

But if Boeing is going to make a 100 frame model paid for by government contracts, they should be able to incorporate the 777/787/748 cockpit, and newer, more efficient engines, as well as raked wingtipped wings with aero improvements.

Quoting Johnny (Reply 13):
Remember my concerns in december 2008! Expect a delivery date of around march 2009!!!

So the bar has now been lowered at all aircraft will be 8-9 months late from now on just because the A380 has had that fate?

I'll buy you a drink in germany if you are right. Which city are you from?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineFLALEFTY From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 445 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4393 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 18):
Where have you been? The plan is not for J-STARS to be a separate platform, but will be combined with the AWACS and battlefield management platform. That is the 767-400ER-based airframe, the E-10.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/e-767-mc2a.htm

I found this article that may help clear things up. For the time being, the E-10 is just a proof-of-principle testbed and faces strong operational, technical and cost challenges to grow beyond its single plane.

Besides interoperability issues (trying to integrate a variety of complex sensor suites into a single airframe), using the same plane (the E-10) for ground battle management and combat air patrol may result in one or both sensor suites having their effectivity compromised.

JSTARS, however, is still a viable program and design work is underway to integrate the existing battle management system into the 767 airframe. Furthermore, AWACS has already been integrated into 767s for JDF.

The first generation of JSTARS used converted civil 707 airframes, however, they are having a tough time finding ones in decent enough condition for conversion, hence the need to go to the 767.


User currently offlineMX757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 628 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4353 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 21):
But if Boeing is going to make a 100 frame model paid for by government contracts, they should be able to incorporate the 777/787/748 cockpit, and newer, more efficient engines, as well as raked wingtipped wings with aero improvements.

I agree with you, but if memory serves I believe Boeing was offering the KC-767 tanker with the old 80's technology.



Is it broke...? Yeah I'll fix it.
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4314 times:

Quoting FLALEFTY (Reply 22):
JSTARS, however, is still a viable program and design work is underway to integrate the existing battle management system into the 767 airframe. Furthermore, AWACS has already been integrated into 767s for JDF.

That article is old. The Japanese E-767 uses the existing AN/APY radar, while the E-10 is to use MESA, essentially scaled up from Wedgetail. This really belongs in the military forum.

Quoting MX757 (Reply 23):
I agree with you, but if memory serves I believe Boeing was offering the KC-767 tanker with the old 80's technology.

Sort of. The KC-767s would have the 777-ish cockpit from the 767-400ER.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
25 AeroWeanie : Funny, but the Paul Revere 707 (N404PA) was supposed to be the testbed for the E-10. So now the E-10 itself is going to be a testbed for something fu
26 Post contains links and images AeroWeanie : Now that the database is back up, here is picture of Paul Revere: View Large View MediumPhoto © Fabrice Nelson
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...
Boeing 767 Line - Why Still Open? posted Mon Jan 24 2005 12:03:36 by Rwylie77
Mulally: 767 Line To Remain Open posted Tue Jul 18 2006 16:31:50 by Leelaw
Kobe Airport Open For Business posted Thu Feb 16 2006 08:13:32 by Centrair
Maxjet Open For Business posted Wed Sep 28 2005 17:49:51 by 7of9
Boeing 767 Line To Close? posted Fri May 14 2004 13:56:01 by Joni
Brisbane Airport Calls For "Open Skies" Down Under posted Tue Jul 25 2006 17:35:31 by Singapore_Air
TPA-open House For "new" Airside C posted Thu Mar 31 2005 02:46:09 by 727LOVER
The "bbj Store" - Still Open? posted Tue Jul 1 2003 17:46:39 by Boeing nut
Man Open 737 Exit Door For "fresh Air" B4 T-o posted Sat Sep 14 2002 23:56:58 by Bigo747
Australia Seeks "Open Skies" Agreement With US posted Thu Aug 10 2006 08:21:19 by Biddleonia007