777kicksass From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2000, 668 posts, RR: 0 Posted (12 years 2 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 808 times:
Couldn't Boeing just sshrink the 777 (width-wise aswell to make it a 2-3-2 or a bit more) and incorperate the curvy roof and fly-by-wire and flight deck??
BA747-436 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 1259 posts, RR: 18 Reply 2, posted (12 years 2 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 733 times:
What exactley would the point be? Why not just use the 767-400? I don't think they could be arsed to tell you the truth, that bit of the market is already filled by the 777-200 and the smaller 767-400. Why make another aircraft? This would be a time waster and non-profitable project.
Ikarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (12 years 2 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 716 times:
Once you shrink the diameter of a plane, it is quite sure to become a major new development: That is why all planes are stretched / shrunk lengthwise: To get a smaller width (diameter) you need a completely new set of tools, assembly line, in short: A completely new design. Sorry, but this idea is a bit odd
Trvlr From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4430 posts, RR: 24 Reply 5, posted (12 years 2 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 714 times:
Wasn't the "Yellowstone" project designed to be 767-sized? IIRC it is Boeing's design for a new plane that would travel close to Mach .95. Perhaps this could be an option?
King767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (12 years 2 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 678 times:
The 767 avionics are common with the 777, with the exception of a few systems that were left out to offer commonality with existing 767, something that design customers stressed. Pilots can be qualified for both 767 and 777, and only includes a transitioning session. The reason why pilots have to take such a session is the reason is that the 777 is the only Boeing to incorporate FBW, which contributes to a different feel to the aircraft.
-Tom
DeltAirlines From United States of America, joined May 1999, 8770 posts, RR: 13 Reply 11, posted (12 years 2 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 664 times:
Boeing has the 763 and 764 going in full force, and CO is getting new 762s. All have the new technology, and I think Boeing could make good money by reopening the 762 line.
GodBless From Sweden, joined Apr 2000, 2751 posts, RR: 18 Reply 12, posted (12 years 2 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 660 times:
I believe that Boeing shouldn't have just developed the 767-400 but a new 767-family. The 767 was developed over 20 years ago so an upgrade wouldn't be too bad... So if Boeing would have offered the -200 and -300 with the new stuff they put into the -400 they would be all right. So they should replace the 767 with a "new" 767-family. The same goes for the 757. with the 757-300 the should have offerd the 737-NG cockpit in both the -200 and -300.
King767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (12 years 2 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 654 times:
TWA, great talking to you too
GodBless, Boeing makes decisions on customer prefences, and customers want as much commonality as possible. Again, there is nothing "old" about the 767 design, and just because it does not have FBW, does not make it a "dated" design. Also, the new cockpit is already an option on the 757, but no airline has ordered it with it yet. Anyway, really if you look at it GodBless, not much has changed since then and the 767 has been quietly, steadily upgraded over the course of those 20 years.
-Tom
Patches From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 280 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (12 years 2 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 641 times:
what ever happened to the 777-100? If you want a 767 replacement that would be the only way to go. I bought a book about the 777 development and they talk about the 777-100 alot in this book. They made it sound like it was supposed to come out last year. But like most of you said in this thread we really don't need a 767 replacement.
Boing&AirbR From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (12 years 2 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 627 times:
Maybe an A330-200 !Too large?
Why are we talking about a B767 replacement if airlines like continental are still ordering the B762???New projects are dictated by market rules.If B767 is still doing well why Boeing should consider a new project?Even more, manufacturers have their priorities...Airbus is not also very worried about an A300/310 replacement.They are busy with their new planes such as the A380 and A346.(Is Boeing preparing a big surprise for us, aviation fans?! ). But I'm still convinced that an A330-200 wouldn't be a bad choice !!!
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7693 posts, RR: 5 Reply 18, posted (12 years 2 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 595 times:
I don't think there will be a 767 replacement for at least 10-15 years.
What I do see is the possibility of the 767 getting an all-new, more efficient wing. This will allow the 767 to have lower fuel burn and very likely longer range.
777kicksass From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2000, 668 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (12 years 2 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 568 times:
Maybe upgrade should be a better word!! I think Boeing should think about using the 764 wing, avionics and cabin in a 762/763 modernisation. They could offer the original versions aswell for commonality.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2000, 668 posts, 
I don't think they could be arsed to tell you the truth, that bit of the market is already filled by the 777-200 and the smaller 767-400. Why make another aircraft? This would be a time waster and non-profitable project.
From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6659 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4430 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Iran, joined Sep 2010, 0 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Apr 2000, 2751 posts, 
). But I'm still convinced that an A330-200 wouldn't be a bad choice 
Printer friendly format 
