BA747-436 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 1259 posts, RR: 12 Reply 2, posted (12 years 9 months 3 hours ago) and read 981 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 9 months 3 hours ago) and read 964 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
King767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (12 years 9 months 1 hour ago) and read 926 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.
GodBless From Sweden, joined Apr 2000, 2752 posts, RR: 17 Reply 12, posted (12 years 9 months ago) and read 908 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 9 months ago) and read 902 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.
Patches From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 280 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (12 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 889 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 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 875 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 !!!
777kicksass From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2000, 668 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (12 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 816 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.