Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Could Boeing Bring Back The 767 Using The 767AT  
User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 7849 times:

Since Boeing didn't get the USAF contract and the 787 is getting delayed, could Boeing start up 767 production again using technologies from the 767AT. This would allow customers of the 787 to fill time with a newer plane, the 767AT brought new technologies to make the plane more efficient and would allow for airlines to flill the gap with a plane that some may already have.

38 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStarrion From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1126 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 7781 times:

 Confused


The 767AT is not built yet. So Boeing would have to find customers, build it, flight test it, then get it certified. All while taking up resources that could be devoted to either the 787 or 748.

Not going to happen.



Knowledge Replaces Fear
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 7714 times:

The development time would be at least a couple of years, but I suppose, in theory, the 767 could take the GEnx-2 engines of the 748 and the flight deck of the 787 and replace the 787-3. 5500nm still range using the 763 body and blended winglets to fit into tighter airports. And with the 787 line now sold out through 2014-2015 due to the delays, there's a 5 year window for "interim lift" and for airlines who just don't need the 787-8 range. A true A300 replacement? Sell it to AA, DL, China and Japan.

But I think Boeing has their hands full as it is, and investing in a 25 year old airframe, even if it might make market sense, is not going to happen.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7387 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I don't believe there will be any strong commercial interest in the 767-200LR or 767-200LRF.

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7374 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
I don't believe there will be any strong commercial interest in the 767-200LR or 767-200LRF.

I'm not sure anyone is talking about a 762LR. "Technology from the 767AT" doesn't have to mean it is a 762.

But I agree that the market wouldn't justify the resources Boeing would need to expend, especially in this time of trouble for them.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineYULYMX From Canada, joined May 2006, 977 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7374 times:

Could a 767 new replace those AA A300???

User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7228 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7314 times:

I would put it another way, Boeing needs to increase production of the existing B-767 that they are still producing to provide interim lift for customers shorted by the B-787 delay, maybe that is what the OP means to imply. The B-767 is still in production, much easier to ramp up than to complete the updates proposed for the tanker bid.

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7276 times:



Quoting Par13del (Reply 6):
I would put it another way, Boeing needs to increase production of the existing B-767 that they are still producing to provide interim lift for customers shorted by the B-787 delay, maybe that is what the OP means to imply. The B-767 is still in production, much easier to ramp up than to complete the updates proposed for the tanker bid.

But there is no demand for the 767 as is. It would have to be improved. It could be "fast tracked" because the engines are going to be certified (GEnx-2) as are the blended winglets (thanks to AA and others), but Boeing is already short of resources. There would need to be other changes made, flight testing at a time they don't have anybody to do it, and money spent. In theory, because the 763 is lighter than the A330 and 787, a reengined and updated 763 has a market, but in practice, it's not worth it to Boeing even with the 787 delays and being sold out for 7 years now (assuming no cancelations).



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25338 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6975 times:



Quoting YULYMX (Reply 5):
Could a 767 new replace those AA A300???

767 can't carry the LD3 cargo containers that the A300 can handle. I think that's a major reason why AA operates the A300. They can interchange the same containers with their 777s and accommodate much more cargo than a 767 can handle.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6906 times:

In theory you can pack the LD2 in a denser configuration and load them onto the 767 and the 777 both, so as long as they plan, it's not always so much of an issue as it's made out to be (similar to interchanging 777F and 747F main deck cargo, with different top contours). In practice of course, some cargo is bulky but not dense, and the smaller dimensions of an LD2 clearly hamper cargo ability when put in an LD3 space when the limit is volumetric and not weight.


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 6743 times:



Quoting Starrion (Reply 1):
The 767AT is not built yet. So Boeing would have to find customers, build it, flight test it, then get it certified

Well there were already a couple tankers made for the Japan air force, i don't know if it was the 767AT version or not.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
The development time would be at least a couple of years, but I suppose, in theory, the 767 could take the GEnx-2 engines of the 748 and the flight deck of the 787 and replace the 787-3. 5500nm still range using the 763 body and blended winglets to fit into tighter airports. And with the 787 line now sold out through 2014-2015 due to the delays, there's a 5 year window for "interim lift" and for airlines who just don't need the 787-8 range. A true A300 replacement? Sell it to AA, DL, China and Japan.

That's what i was thinking, airlines like DL who won't be taking the 787 for a while (as i heard in one of their press releases). A 767NG so to speak with new engines and 787 cockpit (or close to it) and blended winglets would allow a 767NG to replace the 783 and to compete better with the A330. The 783 just kind of sucks in an airlines perspective and is just too heavy with not enough range. For airlines like DL and AA who use wide bodies on domestic routes would love a 767NG that could offer maybe a little more range and better fuel economy. The 767 line will still be open while the 787 is being made so they could continue to offer a 767 much like Airbus will continue offering A330s for a while as an interim option until 787s can arrive.

Quoting YULYMX (Reply 5):
Could a 767 new replace those AA A300???

Probably but i think cargo would be an issue since A300 can handle LD3s side by side which 767s can't, but fuel savings could make up for that.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
But there is no demand for the 767 as is. It would have to be improved. It could be "fast tracked" because the engines are going to be certified (GEnx-2) as are the blended winglets (thanks to AA and others), but Boeing is already short of resources. There would need to be other changes made, flight testing at a time they don't have anybody to do it, and money spent. In theory, because the 763 is lighter than the A330 and 787, a reengined and updated 763 has a market, but in practice, it's not worth it to Boeing even with the 787 delays and being sold out for 7 years now (assuming no cancelations).



Yes the 787 is sold out for 7 years but some of those could start to slip if the 787 keeps getting delayed, but more importantly some airlines are going to need an NG aircraft to fill in until the 787s arrive


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9105 posts, RR: 75
Reply 11, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 6715 times:



Quoting DL767captain (Thread starter):
could Boeing start up 767 production again using technologies from the 767AT

The 767 is still in production, a very slow production rate, could they ramp that production rate up, sure. But it would come at the expense of the 777, they are using about half of the 767 space for 777 production at the moment.

Quoting DL767captain (Thread starter):
the 767AT brought new technologies to make the plane more efficient and would allow for airlines to flill the gap with a plane that some may already have.

The KC-767AT/767-200LRF did not provide any "new technology", it was a combination of existing 767s put together.




We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 84
Reply 12, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6648 times:

I concur. There's nothing to the 767AT that would accelerate it in the market.

NS


User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4329 posts, RR: 28
Reply 13, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6566 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
It would have to be improved. It could be "fast tracked" because the engines are going to be certified (GEnx-2) as are the blended winglets (thanks to AA and others), but Boeing is already short of resources.

I wonder what the potential would be to license the airframe to another country? In theory, could it could be built on the cheap and sold cheaply at low production rates and, at the same time, allow the licensee country to foster an indigenous aviation base? If the airframe price is low enough, I imagine another 50 new-production airframes could find homes. A relatively small number in comparison to what the Goliaths Airbus and Boeing sell and deliver, but certainly valuable to a nation or geography looking to break out of the aviation backwaters.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 14, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 6479 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 13):
I wonder what the potential would be to license the airframe to another country?

Japan builds a good deal of it now, so I suppose Boeing could sell them the license to build it. It would allow them to become a competitor to Boeing and Airbus that much quicker.  duck 


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10036 posts, RR: 96
Reply 15, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6344 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
The development time would be at least a couple of years, but I suppose, in theory, the 767 could take the GEnx-2 engines of the 748

IIRC GE offered the old A350's bleed-air GEnx for the A330F, but Airbus and GE subsequently concluded that re-engineering the interface was way too expensive. Its possible that this would also be the case for the 767.
In any case, spending that sort of money when they're up to their balls in development work....... scratchchin 

Quoting Par13del (Reply 6):
Boeing needs to increase production of the existing B-767 that they are still producing to provide interim lift for customers shorted by the B-787 delay

Just an opinion, but I reckon that any interim lift for late 787's will be provided by 777's (772ER presumably)..

Regards


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 16, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6296 times:

Boeing are not going to invest in 767 development on a speculative basis. If an airline were to approach Boeing for several dozen 767s with GEnx engines, then Boeing would probably build them.

User currently offlineMalaysia From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 3352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6289 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 8):
767 can't carry the LD3 cargo containers

Yes it can carry LD3, but only per row, you adjust the rails and locks for LD3 loading, but cannot put two side by side.



There Are Those Who Believe That There May Yet Be Other Airlines Who Even Now Fight To Survive Beyond The Heavens
User currently offlineDougbr2006 From Brazil, joined Oct 2006, 392 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6104 times:



Quoting Starrion (Reply 1):
The 767AT is not built yet. So Boeing would have to find customers, build it, flight test it, then get it certified. All while taking up resources that could be devoted to either the 787 or 748.

That's why i can't understand Boeing contesting the tanker deal, the tanker being delivered to the Japanese and Italians is a completely different beast to the one proposed to the USAF. At least the A330 tanker is flying in the config that the USAF will take, along with three units on the production line in Europe to help accelerate the programme.

Boeing has to redesign build a prototype, as well as rwmp up a almost static production line. Even B767 suppliers would have great difficulty ramping up for the KC767 production, some would even prefer the B767 to stop production so that they can concentrate on newer technology.

Why don't Boeing just concentrate on the B787 and maybe they can have a shot at the second round tanker to replace the KC10 perhaps with a B787 tanker variant, food for thought.


User currently offlineMEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4328 posts, RR: 35
Reply 19, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6065 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 8):
767 can't carry the LD3 cargo containers that the A300 can handle. I think that's a major reason why AA operates the A300.

Maybe they could make the 767AT with a slightly wider fuselage so it can take LD3s, make more use of fabric materials, use the GEnx engines, the 787 cockpit and, oh we have a 787.



nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 20, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6048 times:



Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 18):
Why don't Boeing just concentrate on the B787 and maybe they can have a shot at the second round tanker to replace the KC10 perhaps with a B787 tanker variant, food for thought.

Boeing would need to develop a 787F before they can offer a 787-based tanker. Right now and for the foreseeable future, 787 development resources will be focused on the 787-8 and 787-9. After that then the 787-3 and the 787-10. A freighter could only be developed after that. I expect a 787F is at least a decade away.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9105 posts, RR: 75
Reply 21, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5889 times:



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 20):
Boeing would need to develop a 787F before they can offer a 787-based tanker.

Why ? the A330-MRTT and KC-45 are not freighter airframes.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineDougbr2006 From Brazil, joined Oct 2006, 392 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5763 times:



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 20):
Boeing would need to develop a 787F before they can offer a 787-based tanker. Right now and for the foreseeable future, 787 development resources will be focused on the 787-8 and 787-9. After that then the 787-3 and the 787-10. A freighter could only be developed after that. I expect a 787F is at least a decade away.

Normal production philosophy.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 21):
Why ? the A330-MRTT and KC-45 are not freighter airframes.

Correct, but I believe Zvezda was looking at historical evolution in the industry, pax version, then freighter, then tanker.

Examples: B707 - KC135; DC10 - KC10A


User currently offlineRobK From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 3947 posts, RR: 18
Reply 23, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5659 times:

The 767 is dead. 'Bout time people woke up to it.  sarcastic 

R


User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4329 posts, RR: 28
Reply 24, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3815 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
Japan builds a good deal of it now, so I suppose Boeing could sell them the license to build it. It would allow them to become a competitor to Boeing and Airbus that much quicker.

The 767 incorporates older technologies and is a full generation behind what Boeing and Airbus are currently building. Indeed, the Japanese are working on current technology aircraft with Boeing as it is and they have a very robust industrial base, so I don't think building the 767 under license would give them any kind of advantage or special skills. Besides, I think China poses a far larger threat to the Airbus-Boeing duopoly than Japan ever will.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
25 Viscount724 : The KC-135 (which is not a 707) was delivered in June 1957, more than a year before the first passenger 707.[Edited 2008-04-10 14:36:53]
26 BAW716 : Once again, I agree with Ikramerica. As wonderful an airplane as the 767 is, the reality is that to upgrade it is going to require an investment that
27 Zeke : Would the GEnx-67B actually physically fit on the 767 ? A little bit too much thrust for it as well I would think.
28 Par13del : The B-787 is delayed, carriers who bought it are going to either continue with what they have, new customers for long haul have to get interim lift f
29 Stitch : I would think not, since most 767 engines seem to be around ~93" in fan diameter and the GEnx2B-67 is 104". However, the GP72000 was supposed to work
30 KC135TopBoom : That is correct. The B-767-200LRF/KC-767AT are made up from the B-767-200ERF fuselage, the B-767-300ERF wings and landing gear, and the B-767-400ER/B
31 Zeke : Interesting, maybe GE/PW were also cut the fan size down on that one like the did for the 748.
32 KC135TopBoom : I thought the B-747-8 GEnx engines had a 102" fan. Is that not correct?
33 Stitch : Something around 94" would have worked for the 767-400ERX as well as the 747-500X and 747-600X programs, so that sounds very plausible.
34 KC135TopBoom : Isn't the B-747-8I/F on slightly taller landing gear, because the fuselege is longer? That will allow for an increase in the fan diameter.
35 Gigneil : They are. But the regular GEnx fan is much bigger. The GP7200 would have had the right size fan if hung from the 767, but I doubt it would have been
36 KC135TopBoom : During the rotation flair, the taller gear gives more tail clearance. Since the B-747-8 is suppose to fly like the B-747-400, with minimal training,
37 SeaBosDca : I think the issue is that, using the current tube-with-wings model and the constraints of existing cargo operations, the 767 or A300 size is simply i
38 Zeke : If you use the same technique I would guarantee you you will get a tail strike. You get tail/pod strikes on 744s as it is now. The best way to avoid
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...
Would Boeing Bring Back 727? posted Thu Aug 19 1999 07:11:37 by ATL Traveller
Bring Back The Boeing Testing Journal posted Sat Jun 10 2006 10:56:01 by KhenleyDIA
Could The 767 Be The Next 'Hot' Used Aircraft? posted Sat Nov 24 2007 08:00:55 by JAM747
When Will Boeing Launch The 767-200LRF? posted Mon Jul 2 2007 01:33:02 by EI321
Bombardier: Bring Back The BRJ-X Project! posted Fri May 11 2007 21:55:54 by OyKIE
Will DL Bring Back The Pillows? posted Thu Mar 29 2007 19:10:23 by Avi8tir
Could Airbus Bring The A389-schedule Forward? posted Wed Nov 8 2006 00:48:37 by Johnny
Bring Back The Meals In North America! posted Sun Jan 22 2006 11:14:59 by Ppostro
Bring Back The Hamilton Airshow..... posted Mon Jun 6 2005 19:17:43 by Fubar37
How Long Untill Boeing Close The 767? posted Mon May 2 2005 19:27:40 by Burberry753