Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
767 LN 718 - Why Not Built?  
User currently offlineFlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2048 posts, RR: 3
Posted (4 years 2 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3623 times:

Why was 767 LN 718 not built? It's unusual for Boeing to have a gap in LNs like this.


Let's Go British Caledonian!
5 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBmiBaby737 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1784 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (4 years 2 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3520 times:

It does seem very unusual; it appears it should have been a Boeing 767-38E for Asiana Airlines CN 25755

User currently offlineFlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2048 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (4 years 2 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3513 times:

Thanks BmiBaby737 - where did you find out who the customer should have been?

It's a shame there is no way of knowing which airlines all those gaps in Boeing msn's belong to. Some you can work out, such as that 25816 was likely an unbuilt 747-436, and that 25827/830/833 appear to be unbuilt 767-336ERs - I'm guessing options never taken up, or cancelled orders?



Let's Go British Caledonian!
User currently offlineBmiBaby737 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1784 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (4 years 2 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3502 times:

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 2):
Thanks BmiBaby737 - where did you find out who the customer should have been?


You're welcome, Planespotters and Airlinerlist

According to Airliner List, major parts had been assembled hence why the LN would not have been taken by another frame.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24075 posts, RR: 22
Reply 4, posted (4 years 2 months 8 hours ago) and read 2898 times:

It's explained in this 1999 thread.
767 Line Number 718 Solution (by Martin Baumann May 17 1999 in Civil Aviation)


User currently offlineFlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2048 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2493 times:

I wonder if Boeing never completed the aircraft because it was a non-ER model? Could they have completed it as an ER model, or is it likely construction was so far advanced that it wasn't possible to do this?


Let's Go British Caledonian!
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...
NW And The 767: Why Not? posted Wed Aug 24 2005 08:32:13 by Centrair
Why Not A Big 767 Fleet In Am? posted Thu Sep 16 2004 02:08:01 by RCS763av
AA Replacing TW 767's, Why Not 757's? posted Thu Jun 21 2001 01:05:51 by Boeing nut
Why Not 767 For Nwa? posted Mon Jan 22 2001 03:56:27 by Dandy_don
Why Not More EK DXB-America Flights? posted Sat Feb 6 2010 15:37:51 by Aeolus
Why Not Many Aircraft Graveyards? posted Wed Jan 20 2010 12:31:04 by Lxmd11
CFM56-7BE - Question Why Not -5X Upgrade? posted Wed Jan 13 2010 11:14:09 by Brucek
PER To PEK/PVG: Why Not Direct? posted Tue Jan 12 2010 19:11:14 by Ben175
Why Not A 2x2x2 NB For A320/B737 Replacement? posted Wed Jan 6 2010 18:39:55 by Morrisond
EK Or QR- Why Not DTW? posted Sun Jan 3 2010 17:19:13 by Caleb1