Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
DL CEO Says 764 Developed Specifically For Delta  
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 11418 times:


Hmmm, this should throw a lil' lighter-fluid onto an everlasting A.net flame....

Quote:
The history of the 767-400. That aircraft was developed specifically for Delta by Boeing.

CLICK HERE TO HEAR IT
(8minutes into speech)



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gregg Stansbery
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Phil Derner, Jr. - NYCAviation



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jay Piboontum
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Keith Wahamaki



49 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 11389 times:

Well a lot of people have figured as much for some time now. This has really been beaten to death, but I suppose it bears repeating. Boeing would have likely been more successful had the 767-400ER been developed:

1. Sooner, many other 767 customers had all the capacity they needed in the form of 763ER by the time the 764ER was available.

2. With longer payload/range. The legs on the 764ER were just short enough to prevent it from being an attractive intercontinental aircraft.

Focusing too much on DL's requirements and developing the 767-400ER rather than the -400ERX may have very well played into the limited "success" Boeing encountered with the model.


User currently offlineCory6188 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2686 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 11382 times:

Riiiiiiight. And CO, who specifically wanted a DC-10 replacement, had absolutely nothing to do with the development of the aircraft. They just happened to luck out insofar as the 764 served exactly what they wanted.

I think not.  sarcastic 


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 11373 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 1):
Boeing would have likely been more successful had the 767-400ER been developed:

...um, it was, cher  Wink

Guessing you meant the 767-400ERX?


User currently offlineIAHERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 677 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 11368 times:

Delta people think a lot of things in aviation revolve around Delta. That quote doesn't surprise me a bit. I fly the 767-400 for another carrier in the U.S. whose former CEO was the Renton Division(757/767 division of Boeing) leader for a good bit before his job leading our airline. I believe he had an opinion or two on the aircraft when he ordered a bunch to replace the DC-10's we were retiring. But, of course Delta, who used them almost exclusively for the first few years on domestic runs out of ATL to Florida was probably the brains behind the project.

Funny!!

IAHERJ



Actually flown: EMB-120 EMB-145 B717 B737 B757 B767
User currently offlineFXramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7298 posts, RR: 85
Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 11354 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Not to be a rash, but is this news?  confused 

Boeing is replacing the 764 with the 789.  airplane 

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 1):
limited "success"

How many total frames did they make (764)?


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 11343 times:

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 3):

nooOoOooOoo ... I meant the 767-400ER would be more successful had Boeing built the 764ER to the points listed below this little guy ( : )  Wink


User currently onlineSLCUT2777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 4056 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 11263 times:

Quoting Cory6188 (Reply 2):
Riiiiiiight. And CO, who specifically wanted a DC-10 replacement, had absolutely nothing to do with the development of the aircraft. They just happened to luck out insofar as the 764 served exactly what they wanted.

Their SkyTeam partner wanted a Tri-Star replacement, so the two both found something they both obviously like, even though it entered the game late for a 767 airframe, but late enough to benefit from some 777 technology. I like the 764ER, and will miss seeing them arrive here at SLC from HNL or OGG. I think this site below will become VERY rare in SLC:



DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 11251 times:

Oh yeah, Iknewthat Big grin

User currently offlineDeltaOwnsAll From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1173 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 11236 times:

Quoting IAHERJ (Reply 4):
Delta people think a lot of things in aviation revolve around Delta.

everything in aviation does revolve around Delta Air Lines though...right!?  Wink


User currently offlineMovingtin From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 183 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 10891 times:

Quoting IAHERJ (Reply 4):
Delta people think a lot of things in aviation revolve around Delta. That quote doesn't surprise me a bit. I fly the 767-400 for another carrier in the U.S. whose former CEO was the Renton Division(757/767 division of Boeing) leader for a good bit before his job leading our airline. I believe he had an opinion or two on the aircraft when he ordered a bunch to replace the DC-10's we were retiring. But, of course Delta, who used them almost exclusively for the first few years on domestic runs out of ATL to Florida was probably the brains behind the project.

Funny!!

From Boeing.com "The 767-400ER was launched April 28, 1997, when Atlanta-based Delta Air Lines announced its intent to order 21 airplanes.
Continental Airlines ordered 26 airplanes on Oct. 10, 1997. "

So, Delta waited around for 6 months while CO set the specs on a plane they already ordered? Wow, what power Bethune has!


User currently offlineFewsolarge From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 409 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 10871 times:

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 7):
Their SkyTeam partner wanted a Tri-Star replacement

... makes it sound like they were partners at the time they ordered. No doubt they at least liked each other more then  Wow!


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 10822 times:

Good article on the 767-400ER & 767-400ERX, dated 19/08/98:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...19/40856/stretching-a-stretch.html

Was the 767-400ER developed just for Delta? Sorry, but I just dont buy it. Theres no way the development costs could be covered by a Delta order for a start. Also, why did Boeing make several changes to the design, including a new cockpit, after both DL & CO had ordered it with the 767-300 cockpit??

Quote:

By this month, sales had reached 52 aircraft, with 26 orders for Continental, 21 for Delta and five for International Lease Finance. Although it has been static for some time, the orderbook is widely tipped to grow before the end of 1998. Queen says that there is "significant interest in the programme", and he adds that "-we still expect it to be a best seller".


User currently offlineDAL767400ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 10676 times:

Quoting Cory6188 (Reply 2):
Riiiiiiight. And CO, who specifically wanted a DC-10 replacement, had absolutely nothing to do with the development of the aircraft. They just happened to luck out insofar as the 764 served exactly what they wanted.

I think not

Well, if CO had had any say in the 764 development, then why did they cancel 10 of their intial 26 orders for the 764, citing the lack of sufficient range? One would think that CO would have demanded more range from Boeing if they were so interested in the 764.


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 10630 times:

Quoting DAL767400ER (Reply 13):
Quoting Cory6188 (Reply 2):
Riiiiiiight. And CO, who specifically wanted a DC-10 replacement, had absolutely nothing to do with the development of the aircraft. They just happened to luck out insofar as the 764 served exactly what they wanted.

I think not

Well, if CO had had any say in the 764 development, then why did they cancel 10 of their intial 26 orders for the 764, citing the lack of sufficient range? One would think that CO would have demanded more range from Boeing if they were so interested in the 764.

Boeing were planning the 767-400ERX, maybe that is what CO were really interested in.


User currently offlineTinPusher007 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 977 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 10376 times:

DL is and was the largest 767 operator int he world at the time the 764 was ordered. While it may not be 100% correct to say that it was made specifically for them , it was built to satisfy their requirements for a Tristar replacement as well as CO's replacement for the DC-10. One could say Boeing was satisfying both customers. Let us not forget Gordon Bethune used to work for Boeing.


"Flying isn't inherently dangerous...but very unforgiving of carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 10297 times:

Quoting Cory6188 (Reply 2):
Riiiiiiight. And CO, who specifically wanted a DC-10 replacement, had absolutely nothing to do with the development of the aircraft. They just happened to luck out insofar as the 764 served exactly what they wanted.

I think not.

The Delta haters on this site crack me up......

Just accept it people, it was two corporations washing each others hands, with a third thrown in for good measure.

Nothing new here. It is hard to understand how people cannot comprehend the opportunity costs of one US major that has always been primarily Boeing/MD to cross over to Airbus. 2 US majors is a no brainer. Boeing wanted to make a profit no doubt and they did, and they would have liked more sales which many fell thru, but the program did what it was intended to do, therefore it was a success.



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9633 posts, RR: 68
Reply 17, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 10273 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

I think you miss the point of the comments.

Boeing developed specific features of the aircraft around Deltas wishes, and as a result has carried those features, some of which are a pain in the butt, to all copies built.

The top off points for the three hydralic systems come to mind...


User currently offlineCory6188 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2686 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 10255 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 16):
The Delta haters on this site crack me up......

I'm not a DL hater in any way, shape, or form - in fact, if CO isn't an option, DL is my next choice of airline. However, I thought that the comment about the 764 was particularly absurd. If Larry Kellner were to go around saying that the 777 was developed "specifcally for Continental," then I'd have the same response...


User currently offlineDelta787 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 321 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 10188 times:

Quoting Cory6188 (Reply 18):
However, I thought that the comment about the 764 was particularly absurd. If Larry Kellner were to go around saying that the 777 was developed "specifcally for Continental," then I'd have the same response...

Yes, Larry Kellner would look pretty stupid if he said that the 777 was developed for Continental. Continental wasnt even on the airline comittee that helped designed the 777. Now on the other hand Delta was the launch customer for the 764. I would say they had significant input in the design of the plane. Your comparison doesnt make sense.



Fly Delta!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30978 posts, RR: 86
Reply 20, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 10123 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I do not for one minute believe Boeing built the plane just for DL and CO - this is just what essentially happened. And if Boeing knew then what they knew now, they'd have just offered 772As to DL and CO at deeper discounts and never launched the 767-400ER. They expected it to sell in the triple digits, but the A330-200 was the better plane if you needed capacity and the 767-300ER was the better plane if you didn't, so it was essentially nullified at both ends and languished accordingly. No different then the A340-200, which was squeezed by the A340-300 at the top and the A330-200 at the bottom and also sold poorly.

User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17493 posts, RR: 45
Reply 21, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 10109 times:

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Thread starter):
Hmmm, this should throw a lil' lighter-fluid onto an everlasting A.net flame....

Are you kidding me with this? People actually care?



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1884 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 10110 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 16):
Boeing wanted to make a profit no doubt and they did, and they would have liked more sales which many fell thru, but the program did what it was intended to do, therefore it was a success.

Financial success, yes, commercial success - far from it. 767-400 lacked the range and cargo capacity. It lost just about every sales campaign against A330-200 except for DL and CO, which - at the time, along with AA - had exclusive supplier clause signed with Boeing.



STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offline777gk From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1641 posts, RR: 18
Reply 23, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 10059 times:

Continental was quite closely involved in the development of the 767-400ER. However, it was Delta's specification that the aircraft fit within the footprint of the existing 767-300ER and L-1011, which limited range by forcing the Boeing to use a modified 767 wing. CO pushed for a new wing and/or additional fuel tanks, which made the airplane heavier than DL wanted. Boeing compromised by offering the possibility of the 767-400ERX, which CO would have converted orders for.

Quoting DAL767400ER (Reply 13):

Well, if CO had had any say in the 764 development, then why did they cancel 10 of their intial 26 orders for the 764, citing the lack of sufficient range?

The cancellation of the 10 orders came shortly after 9/11 due to capacity reductions. We received our last 767 in May 2002 (066). Although we could have used more range, it wasn't the reason we canceled the deliveries. If anything, that's the reason we never ordered any more.


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 10042 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 16):
Nothing new here. It is hard to understand how people cannot comprehend the opportunity costs of one US major that has always been primarily Boeing/MD to cross over to Airbus.

This was not going to happen! The Boeing/Delta/American/Contintal relationship goes deeper than the 767-400, they were not going to order A330s. The A330-200 has won every other RFP against the 767-400 since.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 16):
Boeing wanted to make a profit no doubt and they did



Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 16):
the program did what it was intended to do, therefore it was a success.

Selling it to DL & CO was only one of the programmes intentions. The 767-400 was a direct answer to the A330-200. It was obvious that Boeing was hoping for much more orders.

Quote:

Queen says that there is "significant interest in the programme", and he adds that "-we still expect it to be a best seller".

I also doubt your assumption that the 767-400 made a profit. Why? The Airbus A340-500/600 programme cost nearly $3b, and the changes on the 767-400 are just as extensive. So lets say that the 767-400 cost $1.5b. If we divide this by the the total in service (16+22), we get a direct development cost of $39.5m per aircraft. Also assume that as launch customers, they paid launch customer prices, say $90m per frame. And no this is not a dig at the aircraft itself which is among my all time favs (have a look at my profile + pics).


25 EI321 : I think the A340-200 sold poorly because it had crap CASMs compared to even the A340-300. Like the A318/A319, it has almost the same operating cost a
26 Jetlanta : Sure, Gerry just made this up. Boeing absolutely DID design the 764 to meet Delta's requirements. Some of you may have missed it at the time because y
27 DeltaDC9 : I dont believe Boeing did not know, they certainly are smarter than that! All of those airlines have ordered planes from other manufacturers. It is a
28 EI321 : I believe the 'agreements' cover planes over approx 100 seats, and came about in the late 90s.
29 DeltaDC9 : And they are completely unenforcable due to the fact that the written ones were sacrificed. It is simply an handshake kind of thing now. They would n
30 Floridaflyboy : That's one opinion on this. I strongly believe the opposite, that Boeing only ever counted on selling the aircraft to DL and CO, and that any orders
31 Post contains images CFTOA : You just had to get them going, didn't you? Cheers.
32 ConcordeBoy : True, though there should be a slight correction in the title: This is actually Uncle Eddie saying this, not Grandpa Grinstein.
33 Post contains images B2707SST : Not even close: the A340NGs had a new wing root plug, a center wing box stretch, completely new and much more powerful engines (RR instead of CFM), a
34 Fridgmus : Could one of you please tell me the difference between the 767-400ER and the ERX? Was is it kind of like an LR? Thank you, Marc
35 DeltaDC9 : They also used 777 landing gear because of the weight increase IIRC. Still, much more similar to the 748 but not even as extensive as that seeing tha
36 EI321 : Very close actually! I'll list the changes in both that I cant tink of off hand (feel free to make additions to the lists) A340-500/600 Fuselage Stre
37 ConcordeBoy : Sorta. Basically, the -ERX would've had a modified wing, increased tankage, higher MTOW, longer range, and engines developed in accord with the propo
38 EI321 : I was surprised to find this, but theres actually very little parts commonality between the 767-400 & 767-300 wings, as almost everything from spars
39 Post contains links Ulfinator : Fair Use Except: Seems Delta did have quite a bit of input http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2001/q2/news_release_010501a.html
40 Srbmod : The stretch of the fuselage is what really led to the 777 landing gear being used on the 764. The 763 landing gear were too short to be used on the 7
41 DeltaDC9 : Thanks, I guess I DNRC (Did Not Recall Correctly) ! Not sure where I got that, but I never did understand what was wrong with the existing gear. make
42 EI321 : The gear was lengthened to allow a better rotation angle and it was also strengthened
43 ConcordeBoy : the likelihood of tailstrike (among other issues) during rotation/landing were decreased by using the taller gear--- same reason the 752 was eventual
44 1337Delta764 : Also, many have pointed out the new interior. All new 767s currently produced feature the Boeing Signature (777-style) Interior, not just the 767-400.
45 OldAeroGuy : The folks in Everett will be shocked to find out that the 767 is being (or was ever) built in Renton. Even Gordon didn't know that.
46 OldAeroGuy : Funny, I never saw a 764ER with a six wheel main gear ala the 777. While the list sounds similar, the 345/6 wing changes were much more extensive and
47 Post contains links B2707SST : The number of changes may be similar, but the magnitude of those changes is very different. For example, the 767-400ER's MTOW increased 12.5% over th
48 ConcordeBoy : ...the aircraft retains a 4-truck bogie, but its gear platform is longer than that of other 767s, thus keeping it higher off the ground.
49 EI321 : They looked at using six wheel 767 bogies, but went for a four wheel 767 bogie layout with 777 derived wheels & brakes.
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...
JetBlue CEO On The US Bid For DL posted Thu Jan 4 2007 23:20:46 by QXatFAT
Delta CEO Mullin Has Harsh Words For US Airways posted Tue Jul 2 2002 02:49:09 by DeltaSFO
Delta CEO Says Airlines Still Hurting posted Thu Jun 13 2002 19:34:20 by Hartsfieldboy
Airbus CEO Sees 20 New Orders For A380 This Year 2 posted Sun Apr 1 2007 21:36:29 by ANCFlyer
Airbus CEO Sees 20 New Orders For A380 This Year posted Fri Mar 30 2007 08:59:19 by Columba
Boeing CEO Says 787 Halfway To Weight Reduction posted Tue Feb 6 2007 17:43:27 by NYC777
Frontier CEO Says California Route Has Been Slow posted Mon Jan 29 2007 22:17:10 by Laxintl
2007 For Delta posted Fri Jan 12 2007 03:16:40 by SlcDeltaRUmd11
DL (Comair) To Run DAB-LGA For The Holidays posted Tue Dec 19 2006 21:26:00 by PVD757
Fedex CEO Says It May Buy Airbus A380s In Future posted Mon Dec 11 2006 10:58:09 by Columba