The 767 is much lighter then the A330/787 and fits more gates (ICAO Cat D). An up-to-date 777 style cockpit & Signature interior are already available from the 767-400ER. New winglets are being introduced.
A new engine would be key IMO. It won't be just hanging new GE/RR engines under them, but it's IMO doable to introduce significant better engines.
Quick wins could be accomplished be introducing all lessons learned from existing fleets / programs.
Little competition (A330 is way bigger), proven technology & a 17% better fuel efficiency might tempt some airlines. (Leisure carriers, transcontinental, intra Asia, etc). The global support organization & an iddle production line are existing.
The 767-200 might be inefficient but 767-300 and -400NG's might be feasible.
OEW 767-300ER : ~80t and it fits the gates
OEW 787-8 : ~120t and it doesn't fit the gates
MogandoCI From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 1814 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 33583 times:
Since the GEnx / Trent 1000 is rated at 64,000 lb for the 787-8 and 53K lbs for the 787-3, can Boeing do a super cheap job of a 767-300-sized "767-800" with a simple engine update, thus bringing fuel economics to *near* today standards while minimizing development costs, and create a real competition in short-haul high density realm against the 333 ?
I can probably imagine such an updated plane to be comparable against any "787-3" that might come out (since that plane is too optimized for ULR to being with)
Ronaldo747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 245 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 33517 times:
Quoting MogandoCI (Reply 1): Boeing do a super cheap job of a 767-300-sized "767-800" with a simple engine update, thus bringing fuel economics to *near* today standards while minimizing development costs, and create a real competition in short-haul high density realm against the 333 ?
It also opens an option for re-engine some later 767-frames to next-gen ones. But I highly doubt that a 767-NG is an option for many operators, especially former A300-operators like Lufthansa, unless Boeing is able to solve the cargo-bay incompatibilities ...
BrianDromey From Ireland, joined Dec 2006, 3739 posts, RR: 11 Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 33496 times:
This is quite an interesting idea. A 748-i style 767 upgrade could be very interesting for Boeing and for domestic US and Japanese airlines, for which the 787 is not really ideal. But a 767-8 and 767-9 (based on the 300 and 400) could be attractive. A "new" 747-8 style wing, 787 engines, cockpit, systems, cabin and increased use of composites would almost certainly have a market. Potentially as a 757 replacement too, if it were light enough.
Quoting MogandoCI (Reply 1): thus bringing fuel economics to *near* today standards while minimizing development costs, and create a real competition in short-haul high density realm against the 333 ?
I think it would be mainly against the 332. The 332 is more 772 sized, alebit shorter legged. But as I said above, a 767-8 family would probably end up replacing 767/757 in the main, ideal for high-density shorter sectors.
Brian.
Next flights: MAN-ORK-LHR(EI)-MAN(BD); MAN-LHR(BD)-ORK (EI); DUB-ZRH-LAX (LX) LAX-YYZ (AC) YYZ-YHZ-LHR(AC)-DUB(BD)
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 33467 times:
Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 3): A "new" 747-8 style wing, .. cockpit, systems, cabin and increased use of composites would almost certainly have a market.
.. and probably cost additional billions, years and risk while existing 777 style late nineties interiors/cockpits are just fine IMO. 2-4-2 could be optional though just like on current 767's.
A new wing ? I would be carefull, maybe some minor finetuning..
Saab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1551 posts, RR: 11 Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 33305 times:
Let it happen! The 767 is my favorite ride on transatlantic flights. I love the 2-3-2 seating. I'm surprised Boeing didn't do this five years ago, but I suppose they didn't want to undermine the 787.
Candid76 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 700 posts, RR: 5 Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 33199 times:
Such a "stop gap" product is only likely to sell in small numbers, in my opinion it isn't worth it, better to concentrate on producing a new family using 787 technology to fulfil the 737NG, 757 and 767 markets. Incremental improvements yes, but a full scale NG version no.
One possible exception is that if Boeing were to design a "NG" 767 for the USAF tanker requirement then a passenger version of that could be justified.
Parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1209 posts, RR: 10 Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 33121 times:
Re above - I believe that this is what is being suggested.ie that if the Boeing proposal for the "767" Tanker is chosen then de facto there will be a GEn-X engine available.If not then no they would not go to such huge expense for "leftovers".
PS Is the above 767 interior a photoshop rendition on how a 767 could look?
SeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 3748 posts, RR: 4 Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 33122 times:
There is definitely no point in doing anything with the 764. It's the same size as the A332 and 787-8 but not as flexible, especially in terms of premium seating and cargo.
The 763 at least is not sized like anything else in the market, but I still don't think there's much point in further development on a widebody that uses floor space so inefficiently and can't carry LD3 containers.
We all spend a lot of time thinking about the "donut hole" between A321-sized and A332-sized aircraft, but that hole exists for a reason: no "in-between" fuselage width is as efficient.
If something eventually covers the short-range, 220+-seat space, it will be a longer narrowbody.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
SeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 3748 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 33085 times:
Quoting Parapente (Reply 9): PS Is the above 767 interior a photoshop rendition on how a 767 could look?
No, that's the Boeing Signature Interior, installed on most passenger 767s produced in the 2000s, including all 764s.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
Frigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1033 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 33040 times:
Quoting Keesje (Thread starter): Leeham thinks it might be worth considering. After the 787-3s were removed from the order book there's a new situation.
Interestingly enough, A-net member Oykie suggested this earlier that day in this thread: The Boeing 787-3, Gone Or Winter Sleep? (by Keesje Jan 8 2010 in Civil Aviation)? In reply 20. See also my reaction in reply 26 and Oykie's in reply 27.
Well, if Boeing wins the tanker contract with a GEnX engined 767, a pax derivative might be worth considering. Additional development costs would be relatively limited. However, I fear the A330 (especially a re-engined version) will do the same to it as the A380 did to the 748i.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 5): Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 3):
A "new" 747-8 style wing, .. cockpit, systems, cabin and increased use of composites would almost certainly have a market.
.. and probably cost additional billions, years and risk while existing 777 style late nineties interiors/cockpits are just fine IMO. 2-4-2 could be optional though just like on current 767's.
Exactly. Considering the very real possibility that Airbus will only have to re-engine the A330 to thrash a 767NG just like the A330-200 did with the 767-400, it would be foolish to spend too many resources on a possible 767NG.
Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 3): The 332 is more 772 sized, alebit shorter legged.
No, it's other way around. The 332 is now very close to the 77E in range, but it's a lot smaller.
BrianDromey From Ireland, joined Dec 2006, 3739 posts, RR: 11 Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 32855 times:
Quoting Frigatebird (Reply 12): No, it's other way around. The 332 is now very close to the 77E in range, but it's a lot smaller.
What I ment to say was the 330-300 is similar in PAX capacity to the 777-200 (although I think the 777 can haul more cargo). The 777 has much superior range than the 333. If you want 777-type legs on a 330 it has to be the -200 series.
Although, as the majority of 330s earn their keep flying over the atlantic the requirement and/or advantage for any extra legs over the 777 is probably not all that great.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 5): .. and probably cost additional billions, years and risk while existing 777 style late nineties interiors/cockpits are just fine IMO.
I think any 767NG would have to have some sort of Tanker and/or Cargo programme to justify it. If they could justify that level of investment in the 748i, I think the 767NG would be a lot easier to justify. Of course Boeing do run the risk of the A350 Mk 1 coming back and thrashing the 767NG, but if optimized for 787-3 and current US domestic requirements it could work.
Next flights: MAN-ORK-LHR(EI)-MAN(BD); MAN-LHR(BD)-ORK (EI); DUB-ZRH-LAX (LX) LAX-YYZ (AC) YYZ-YHZ-LHR(AC)-DUB(BD)
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 32829 times:
I think such a 767 NG would not be aimed at long haul markets but
Quoting Keesje (Thread starter): Leisure carriers, transcontinental, intra Asia, etc
where Cargo is less important amd the a330/787 are seriously overweight (120 t). Focus would be at lean capasity/ efficiency etc. rather then boosting payload /range, there's no need for that.
Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 10): It's the same size as the A332 and 787-8 but not as flexible,
Quoting Frigatebird (Reply 12): , I fear the A330 (especially a re-engined version) will do the same to it as the A380 did to the 748i.
Quoting Keesje (Thread starter): OEW 767-300ER : ~80t and it fits the gates
OEW 787-8 : ~120t and it doesn't fit the gates
I think the A330 is a 120t long haul aircraft. A 33% lighter 767NG would be superior on shorter stretches, fitting existing airport infrastructure the A330/787 doesn't fit. (the reason to chop the wings for the 787-3)
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 5908 posts, RR: 39 Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 32733 times:
Anything Boeing can do to the 767 Airbus can do to the A330; the A330 has soundly trounced the 767 in the market, and will likely continue to do so. This is probably the reason Boeing made the 787 the size that they did. The 767 appears to answer a question nobody is asking any more.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 32677 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 16): Anything Boeing can do to the 767 Airbus can do to the A330; the A330 has soundly trounced the 767 in the market, and will likely continue to do so.
Chopping off the wings to fit Cat D gates & reduce OEW by 33% to operate shorter flights with domestic 265 seat configurations? look at it as a very big 737
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23613 posts, RR: 79 Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 32030 times:
I just don't see a market for it, to be honest.
A 767-300ER already burns less fuel than an A330-200. If that was all that airlines cared about, they would buy 767-300ERs.
But they are not buying 767-300ERs because fuel burn is not all they care about. The larger cabin, larger cargo volume and higher payload weight of the A330-200 are all important to airlines, as well. And in the end, they make the A330-200 the airplane to buy.
So I don't see how investing a couple of billion dollars into the 767-300ER will result in hundreds of new orders - all of them at transaction prices significantly higher than current 767-300ER transaction prices.
Voltage From United States of America, joined May 2007, 108 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 31360 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 18): I don't see how investing a couple of billion dollars into the 767-300ER will result in hundreds of new orders
I'm confused. I think I've seen 2 different proposals in this thread:
1) replacing the wing and engines similar to the 747-8 program
2) just hanging GENx's under the existing wings.
I assume your cost is for the 1st case? How much would the 2nd case be? Or would the GENx automatically require a new wing?
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 31197 times:
Cat D gates, 80t vs 120t, big 737, -17% fuel, short trips, Cat D gates, 80t vs 120t, big 737, -17% fuel, short trips, Cat D gates, 80t vs 120t, big 737, -17% fuel, short trips, Cat D gates, 80t vs 120t, big 737, -17% fuel, short trips, Cat D gates, 80t vs 120t, big 737, -17% fuel, short trips...
Â
to state it more directly :
The A330 specially with a new engines is great, but still Stinks for Short Flights.
It's like shopping around a city with a Jeep Commander, it's possible but its capabilities are not required but still dragged along & quick parking is an issue.
We are talking the 757/767/A300/A310/Tu154 segment here. Not the A330/787/A350 segment. Cargo often goes by truck door to door short haul.
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 8610 posts, RR: 96 Reply 21, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 30890 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 17): Chopping off the wings to fit Cat D gates & reduce OEW by 33% to operate shorter flights with domestic 265 seat configurations?
Trouble with chopping the wings is it may reduce OEW, but it harms drag quite a lot. And drag is there all the time, long haul OR short haul.
Meaning that more fuel has to be carried, so
a) overall weights don't change nearly as much, and
b) the plane burns more fuel
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23613 posts, RR: 79 Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 30856 times:
Quoting Voltage (Reply 19): I assume your cost is for the 1st case? How much would the 2nd case be? Or would the GENx automatically require a new wing?
Well if GE is willing to build a smaller diameter fan - the "GEnx3B" - then they could fit it under the existing 767, but otherwise a new nacelle mounting or extended undercarriage is probably going to be needed.
But even if GE is willing to create a "GEnx3B" for the 767, Boeing will still need to spend money and engineering resources to hang it off the plane and then certify the package. And that will at least be in the scores of millions of dollars. Plus GE needs to be convinced to do it, and that means they are going to want hundreds of sales at a per unit price higher than they are getting for the CF6-80.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 20): We are talking the 757/767/A300/A310/Tu154 segment here.
And yet none of those aircraft are still in production (well, the 767 and Tu-154 are, but both are well into their "Twilight Years").
And this is even though all of those planes do not have a direct competitor. The A321-200 and 737-900ER are able to handle most of the 757's, TU-154's and A300's missions while the A330-200 and 787-8 are able to handle all of the 767's missions so a direct competitor is not necessary.
The need for new-build 757s, 767s, Tu-154s and A300s is so low that it's not cost-effective to continue to build them. If not for the hope of a large KC-X order, Boeing would have cancelled the 767 program by now because the cost of building 9-12 a year (including production infrastructure) has to be close to the sale price (if not even more than the sale price).
Blueman87 From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 503 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 30759 times:
Aloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4330 posts, RR: 18 Reply 24, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 30759 times:
My concern is would airlines flying older 767 airframes just re-engine them and not go for the 787-8? Perhaps even cancel some orders? I wonder if it could be detrimental to the program at large.
25 Keesje: An A330/787 weighs more then 2x as much as an A321/739. Dimensions are equally different. Boeing didn't call it a day on the 737 after twenty years.
26 SEPilot: Very doubtful; hull maintenance costs rise as airframes age, and at some point become uneconomic to maintain. Even with new engines, I doubt that a r
27 DLPMMM: OMG!! I actually agree with Keesje on a point! There might be a market niche in Japan, Asia short haul, USA short haul for a re-engined 767-300. No c
28 VictorKilo: For land routes, yes - but one of the advantages of the A300 for AA was cargo capability on a route like MIA-PAP, which is under 800 miles long. I'm
29 DLPMMM: Japan's routes are passenger-centric. They already use alot of 767s for short-haul intra-Japan flights.
30 Stitch: Which is why I said the A321-200 and 737-900ER handle the missions formally undertaken by the 757, A300 and Tu-154 while the 787 and A332 handle the
31 DocLightning: 2-4-2 is patented by Airbus, I think. Either way, at the very least the interior should be 787-style. There is no disadvantage to updating it to curr
32 SeaBosDca: Plenty of 2-4-2 767s are already running around with charter operators. And how can you patent a number of seats? This doesn't make sense. The 787 an
33 Stitch: And yet both are often held up (at least by Airbus Aficionados) as examples of market failures and wastes of Boeing resources. The Boeing of the Cond
34 OB1504: With regard to the issue of gate space, doesn't the addition of blended winglets significantly increase the ground footprint of the 767? At MIA, we ha
35 DL767captain: If boeing can make a lighter and more efficient 767 without too much investment i think it would be the perfect solution for airlines like UA and DL w
36 Keesje: I think 7e7 was what the airlines asked iso the Sonic Cruiser, an even more efficient A330. And that is what they got. Typical seatcounts are for mar
37 A342: Wait a second. The A380 (wingspan 80m) is CAT F, a wingspan of up to 65m gives CAT E and up to 52m would be CAT D. Therefore even the 764ER's wingspa
38 Steeler83: What is the range like on an A333? I'm just curious. US has quite a few A333s in their fleet, but they don't seem to have a big range. Are there A333
39 Jambrain: Why would DoD want a tanker based on such old tech? I think without wings it may struggle or are you suggesting a lift fan like the JSF?
40 Kappel: 5,850 nm according to Airbus. http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfam.../a330a340/a330-300/specifications/ The link below also has a nice chart that sho
41 Stitch: And I know first-hand that when those dimensions are being developed, airlines do look at how many of their seats they can put into the plane. And th
42 A342: Ha, that's nice! I remember that less than a year ago, it was 5600-5650nm/10500km. And the added range was achieved without increasing MTOW. So have
43 Viscount724: Remember that manufacturer range figures don't consider winds, high temeratures/elevations, or cargo. You have to reduce those numbers by up to 15% t
44 Stitch: If the Piano-X simulations are accurate, when it reaches MWE and SFC targets, the 787-8 will burn almost 20% less fuel than an A330-200 on missions u
45 Planemaker: So true... so true!! It seems that actual airline ops economics is a rare sight on this site.
46 Keesje: That sounds a bit arrogant for someone who contributed 0 to this thread IMO..
47 Packcheer: Could a shorter wide body (762NG or 763NG with some modifications) be optimized to fill the 757 market? Give it power and fuel savings of new engines,
48 Stitch: I would expect the economics of such would not balance out against current large narrowbodies (A321-200 / 737-900ER), much less the next generation o
49 Manfredj: That would considerably lessen the market for the 767NG, wouldn't it? Very interesting! It would certainly retain the "niche" the 767 enjoys with its
50 Alias1024: I had the same thought. It could possibly be another useful niche aircraft like the 767-400 was for Boeing. If some minor aerodynamic tweaks and new
51 Stitch: Well the 767-400ER did (and 767-400ERX would have) incorporate(d) new technology, and yet they didn't generate much interest. I know I keep repeating
52 EBJ1248650: Wouldn't this negate any thoughts of trying to breath new life into the 767? Are the development costs worth the few sales that might result from a 7
53 Stitch: That is certainly what I feel. Boeing even pitched a "short body 777-100X" in 1996 to replace the A300-600R, A310-300 and 767-200ER without success.
54 PlunaCRJ: You are talking about seat numbers there, and the point of a 767NG in my opinion would be range instead. I think a 767NG would be an excellent altern
55 Stitch: The 787-3 was planned to be ten tons lighter than the 787-8, and yet was widely panned on this board as being a PoS with no market desirability becau
56 DAL1044: I wouldn't kill the KC-767 Program just yet. Boeing delivered the 4th KC to Japan on the 8th.
57 FlyLKU: It sounds good but in the eyes of the certificating authorities this is really a new airplane with new airplane development costs. For A.net members
58 Ikramerica: No it is not. It would be a derivative, using already certified technologies other than a reshaped wing. One issue is that current 767 customers have
59 VC10er: Speaking purely as a passenger I love the feeling of a 767. There is an unexplainable comfort to the tube especially with the wavy scluptured ceiling.
60 Keesje: Somehow I fail to get the message over this 767 NG would be pitched at shorter flights with more passengers. People keep bringing in how much extra ra
61 Burkhard: The 767-300ER has an OEW of 94ons, the 767-400 of 104 tons and the 787-800 110 tons.( A332 120 tons ). With same engines, I fail to see how the heavy
62 RJ111: 763: 90t 764: 103-104t 788: 115t (Last time i heard)
63 Keesje: At a.net I see empty weight of about 80 t for the 767-300 and about 120t for the A330. http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=104 I thin
64 SeaBosDca: What changes do you think would be feasible, other than certification at lower weight? The passenger market has never, ever liked widebodies with thi
65 Panais: The boys at Airbus are for once relieved that Keesje's tireless pounding and numerous posts to convince them through A.net to build the same type of
66 Pellegrine: This idea is a moot point, because Boeing isn't about to do it. It would require an investment from $500M-$2B+ depending on whether B just wanted to m
67 SeaBosDca: For an airline, yes. As a passenger, I agree, as long as the 767 has the signature interior. 2-3-2 is the best possible widebody seating configuratio
68 Stitch: Because the A330-200 and 787-8 are larger and more capable platforms than the 767-300ER. As others have said, if there was a demand for this type of
69 Burkhard: I'm sure that Boeing has done some engineering on such potential models, a bit further than this engineering group could do :lol: and spoken to large
70 Keesje: It depends on useage/flight profiles. For short haul operators CASM would go up for the A330, its not build for that (gate limitation) Look at this R
71 Ikramerica: True. Airlines want a medium range widebody, not an SR. Again, a large customer base for such an aircraft would be USA, where westbound East coast to
72 Stitch: To my knowledge US flies their A330-200 and 767-200ERs on TATL missions. In that dataset, for the A330-200 the average flight length was 12 hours and
73 Keesje: Casm would go down if seatcounts go up for the domestic regional services, small premium sections, 8 abreast? The 40t weight advantage would do the r
74 Stitch: I suppose it's just another example of how the world's airlines continue to miss the boat. If they only listened to us here on a.net, they might be ma
75 Keesje: Non sense. Those ranges connect a ton of big city pairs. From DFW all of the US, from Ganghzou all of China, From FRA all of Europe etc. What are you
76 XT6Wagon: Funny that they can get a medium range widebody out of a 788 by either loading it max payload or leaving fuel that isn't required behind. The 767 can
77 Ikramerica: That's a silly argument. A342s could be used for that purpose too. If fuel burn didn't matter, and being overbuilt and overweight was not a concern,
78 XT6Wagon: Well the market has spoken and its said that the 783 with its shorter wingspan is not wanted. The arguments for making a new version of the 767 are i
79 Travelhound: A couple of years ago I came across some CASM data for a particular type of aircraft flown by different US operators. There were substantial differen
80 Thegeek: Exactly. If you modify XT6Wagon's post to "Funny that they can get an efficient medium range widebody ..." and that rebuttal becomes invalid. I think
81 Pellegrine: Well we can disagree on this. I just believe based on current trends in the industry that for short-haul flights, airlines prefer to use narrowbodies
82 MoltenRock: I guess I'm missing something here, because I've seen a number of posters say that they think Boeing should make a 767NG with new engines, and "minor"
83 DocLightning: OMG, look at those seats! If it can't reliably do US Transcons, nobody will buy it. The only market that likes widebodies with such short range is Ja
84 JoeCanuck: Perhaps similar things that have led to the resurgence of the A330. It was a plane which was to have been put to pasture with the advent of the 787,
85 Keesje: Being optimized doesn't mean it can't fly further (3000nm). If we look at the past a few thousand A300/A310/767/757/tu154 operate(d) short / medium h
86 Stitch: And yet they could have purchased new-build 767-300ERs at any time. Heck, they could do so today, if they wished. A 767-300ER is a better plane for t
87 TISTPAA727: They already made their choice for the upper end of that segment and all signs point away from Boeing for the narrowbody selection. LOL!!! I would lo
88 Ikramerica: No, then it just demonstrates why the A330 continues to sell. Because it's better at it than the 788 is...
89 Thegeek: In fact, of the 5 mid sized wide body sub types available today, the A332 is the second worst for the SYD-MEL/BNE mission. The 764, 763 and A333 woul
90 Keesje: Because the 767-300ER has engines that were very advanced and efficient 25 years ago? If traffic further grows adding additional dozens of narrowbodi
91 Stitch: They still appear to burn less fuel than the engines on an A330-200... Especially for short-haul missions like QF domestic operations..
92 PlunaCRJ: The need for a short ranged, light widebody aircraft is not in discussion: Boeing recognized it with the 787-3 Dreamliner concept. The real question h
93 BoeingVista: Maybe but why would Boeing want to start an upgrade war? A would have to counter and both companies would be forced to pour money into programs with
94 Ikramerica: That's a good point, too. Boeing market research did show that customers wanted something like this. But they made it TOO limited in use, and too hea
95 Stitch: The 787-3 was indeed a "quick and dirty" model, but then so was the 747-100SR, the 747-300SR and the 747-400D. And all of them were only ordered and/o
96 SeaBosDca: Agreed on the bottom half of that list... I think the disappearance of the 763A, 772A, and 773A had more to do with the introduction of their respect
97 Thegeek: Why would the 764's cockpit not be common with other 767s? Regarding the lack of range, the 764ER easily outranges the 212t MTOW A333s bought at abou
98 MoltenRock: Question for you. I remember when the specs on the 787-3 came out and I could never figure out how Boeing thought it would ever actually sell. As I r
99 BoeingVista: Because unlike all other 767's it has a glass cockpit I don't agree with your comparison, the 767-400ER is an A330-200 sized aircraft but the A330-20
100 Thegeek: According to this thread: 767-400 And Cockpit Type Ratings (by MPDPilot Feb 8 2007 in Tech Ops) Note Reply 3 especially, the 764 can have the glass c
101 Rwessel: All the 767s have glass cockpits. In the older models, it's actually CRT displays. The -400 has the much more sophisticated system from the 777, whic
102 Stitch: It's because it was tailored to the Japanese domestic market. It still should have worked for the North American and European domestic markets, as we
103 Revelation: Interesting, but most of us purchase automobiles with capabilities that we don't use on a daily basis, mainly because the initial and ongoing costs o
104 Keesje: IMO a real good new narrowbody to replace the 737 and HGW 787 versions to match the A350XWB have more priority..
105 Baroque: To judge from last year, if B would declare itself bankrupt, that problem would be solved at a stroke. Wonder what transport would be acceptable for
106 Astuteman: Why ask for that when you already have a program that gives them money for free? Rgds
107 Revelation: I don't know, things don't seem to be so rosy at GM, do they? LOL, yes, a "french" A32x would do just fine. Why not both, just like their competitor?
108 Astuteman: Yeah. But to be fair Tupolev are probably a special case.. Rgds
109 FlyLKU: Indeed, but an aircraft is a system. Make a change to a part of it and all of the integration points to the associated systems must be validated. Der
110 AvObserver: Good point and that was a big handicap for the 767 as cargo revenue became more important. Its inability to carry LD-3 containers in tandem was a big
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 1814 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Dec 2006, 3739 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 3977 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1551 posts, 
Exactly. Considering the very real possibility that Airbus will only have to re-engine the A330 to thrash a 767NG just like the A330-200 did with the 767-400, it would be foolish to spend too many resources on a possible 767NG.
From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
