Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Not A New 767?  
User currently offlineRG787 From Brazil, joined Nov 2010, 114 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 13024 times:

Looking at the dimensions and capabilities of the 767-400ER and the 787-8 I figured that they are mostly the same plane, I mean, most of their dimensions are near to equal and the 764 is actually lighter. The 764 with modified wings looking like those on the 787 and new engines would be an amazing plane in my opinion and boeing would benefit from a known name and an running factory for the 767. What I'm thinking is not that boeing could do a new 767 now, because it would be a competitor to the 787 but why didn't boeing call the 787 a 767 and just use the 764 as the base model for some modifications? What do you thing?

42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29686 posts, RR: 84
Reply 1, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 13013 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 767 has too small of a cross-section to be an effective people and cargo carrier.

User currently offlinedl767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 13002 times:

Ive wondered why they don't keep the 767 (well an updated version) around as a replacement for domestic routes and Hawaii flights. I'm guessing boeing figured they could keep enough 787s around to be used on domestic routes eventually. I think they would do better now with a 757 with updated engines

User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6110 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 12803 times:

Apparently customers (airlines and lessors) don't want better planes, they want BETTER planes, so an upgraded 764 wouldn't have been a success (the 764 wasn't one either).

The same argument has been made many times by many including me about the A330. Airbus did in fact launch an upgraded A330 called the A350, but customers wanted better and so the A350XWB was born.

Now, customers have been waiting for years for the 787, and will bill waiting years still for the A350WXB, while you could bet an improved 767 could already be in service, and the A350 in flight testing.

Meanwhile the A330 is selling like hot cakes and even being improved, albeit only slightly.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineisitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 12680 times:

Quoting RG787 (Thread starter):
Why Not A New 767?

I always thought Boeing is working on one. They call it the 787.
Goes to show you what I know...............duhhh
safe



If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
User currently offlineRG787 From Brazil, joined Nov 2010, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 12647 times:

Quoting isitsafenow (Reply 4):
I always thought Boeing is working on one. They call it the 787.
Goes to show you what I know...............duhhh
safe

And I said this on my original post. What I meant is that the 787 has very similar characteristics to the 767 at least in the charts and the question I made was: If there is that similarity, why didn't boeing call the 787 a 767-500 or something like that? I know, there is that old story about asian carriers being superstitious and having something with the "8" number but to me, it would be better to continue with an already known name, the 767. They could have done what they did with the 747-8I and pretty much updated the airplane to todays standards, with composite, new wings, engines, cockpit and systems. Yes, after that it would be a whole new aircraft but the 748 looks a lot different from the 744 in many aspects. Just explaining my post  


User currently offlineHAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2529 posts, RR: 53
Reply 6, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 12570 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
The 767 has too small of a cross-section to be an effective people and cargo carrier.

Yeah, that's why it never did well in the marketplace, and no airline has made money with it for the last 29 years.  

HAL



One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
User currently offlinebeeweel15 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1719 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 12406 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
The 767 has too small of a cross-section to be an effective people and cargo carrier.

One of the main reasons why the A330 is still selling strong


User currently offlinedl767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 12366 times:

Quoting RG787 (Thread starter):

I remember Boeing floated a 767 EX or something like that, basically an upgraded 767 and the airlines didn't go for it. Much like the original A350 was just an upgraded A330. Airlines wanted something that was New, not upgraded. That's why Boeing went with the 787 and Airbus created the A350XWB. I do love the 767, it's such a great plane to fly in, it's so comfortable. Many times I'll pick the flight that has the 767 but that's getting increasingly difficult and sometimes impossible at SAN now. Hopefully DL and some other airlines will get some 787s for domestic flights


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2539 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 12322 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting RG787 (Reply 5):
What I meant is that the 787 has very similar characteristics to the 767 at least in the charts and the question I made was: If there is that similarity, why didn't boeing call the 787 a 767-500 or something like that? I know, there is that old story about asian carriers being superstitious and having something with the "8" number but to me, it would be better to continue with an already known name, the 767. They could have done what they did with the 747-8I and pretty much updated the airplane to todays standards, with composite, new wings, engines, cockpit and systems.


The 787 is an entirely new plane, while the 747-8i is not. That's why the 747-8i does not have a new model designation because it is still a 747, albeit upgraded with new systems, whereas the 787 is an entirely new plane with nothing in common with the 767.

As for updating the 767 to today's standards, like Stitch said, the major flaw with the 767 is that it does not have a wide enough cross section. One major difference between the 767 and the 787 is that the 787 is significantly wider. A '767-8' would probably not be a success.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18699 posts, RR: 58
Reply 10, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 12247 times:

In fact, in another thread recently, a poster showed a "767 replacement" of a sort. It's a 7-abreast 2-3-2 layout with an elliptical hull design with a horizontal long axis. It would use 2G CFRP materials (some technobabble about a honeycomb, maybe?). This cross-section is far more space-efficient than that of the 767 but offers similar capacity in terms of usable space.

A-ha! Found it!

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/222521.asp

The design is from 2005, but it's interesting, nonetheless. I have a feeling that this design could very well cover a wide range of sizes, from the large 737/757 range to the 763 range. I think that Boeing understands that airlines and airports aren't ready for radical new designs that are going to need new infrastructure (like BWB's and canards). But this design captures some of the space efficiency of the BWB by providing the first fuselage that is wider than it is tall.


User currently offlineCMB56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 230 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 11586 times:

Quoting Stitch: "The 767 has too small of a cross-section to be an effective people and cargo carrier."

I think UPS would disagree. They will have 59 -300 ERFs if they don't order more.

Airbus proposed a very similar evolution of the 330 and was soundly shelled by both the market place and Boeing's PR department. So the original A350 which would have been a fabulous plane and would likely be in service right now was dropped in favor of a clean sheet design. Even the current 767-(300/400) with winglets added and NG engines along with an avionics upgrade would be a great aircraft and would have been a safe bet. But Boeing has a history of betting the company on the next new aircraft. Historically it has always worked and will probably work here as well.

Boeing will continue to build 767s as long as they have orders. Airbus would have continued to build A300s but the orders simply stopped even for the freighter. The final assembly line has been reorganized to allow more 787 production space but still allow the 767 to be produced either for commercial customers or military. There will likely be some upgrades available but a new wing / engines is out of the question no matter how many problems the 787 might have finishing certification.


User currently offlineRG787 From Brazil, joined Nov 2010, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 10916 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 9):
One major difference between the 767 and the 787 is that the 787 is significantly wider.

I don't think it is that wider... Looking at the charts, the 764 has a 16 ft and 6 (5,03m) in fuselage width and the 788 has 18 ft and 11 in (5,77m). Is that difference sufficient for a seat?


User currently offlineSchorschNG From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 10847 times:

Airlines didn't like the B767 for many reasons.
Limited options in both economy and business class. To put it simply: It is hard to put attractive yet effective economy and business class cabins into the B767. The A330/330/340 cross section is the smallest that allows all the hey-do of modern long range air transport:
2-4-2 economy, 2-2-2 business, 1-2-1 first, LD3-containers, good monuments (including lower deck facilities).

The B767 was and still is a good aircraft, but airlines have opted for something different. The shift from the A330 towards the A350XWB is maybe caused by the "technology-fever" that has dominated the last years: suddenly everything made of aluminum was "yesterday's aircraft". This was aggregated by Boeing aggressive marketing of the B787.
Today this must be looked at with a grain of salt: the B787 has so far produced nothing but disappointments, Airbus struggles with the A350-XWB and CFRP is in many ways less attractive than previously thought (the achieved weight savings are quite pitiful).

I think a "new" B767 is possible, but it has to be optimized for short to medium routes (up to 4500nm). The "old" B767 is too heavy and the fuselage is dimensioned to keep a pretty austere container size and a (good) 2-3-2 economy, but retains the size to cramp in a 2-4-2 economy (which only very few airlines want).
A "new" B767 needs to be positioned well below the B787-8 in terms of average passenger load and range, and trade this lower range-payload for lower empty weight and arrive at figures of single aisle aircraft.



From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
User currently offlineexFATboy From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2974 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 10816 times:

Quoting RG787 (Reply 5):
If there is that similarity, why didn't boeing call the 787 a 767-500 or something like that? I know, there is that old story about asian carriers being superstitious and having something with the "8" number but to me, it would be better to continue with an already known name, the 767.

From a marketing perspective, I can see where Boeing would want to differentiate the 787 from the 767 - it's an entirely new plane, made with new techniques and supposedly intended to delivery a substantially better performance. It's the same in other industries - for example, car manufacturers only reuse names these days if the new car is considered a true "update" of a classic, after some name reuse where the new car didn't even come close to living up to the heritage of the name. (We're running out of car names, which is why we have abominations like the "Chevy Cruze" popping up everywhere.)

As for the "787" designation, it was the next number available in the traditional Boeing sequence, although some people said the MD-95 actually should have been the "787" rather than being re-designated the 717, but 717 had only been used internally at Boeing before that so it was available, and it made sense for Boeing to use a "smaller" number for a smaller plane, particularly a smaller plane they didn't believe in. If one really wanted to get picky, even if 717 was available, either the MD-95 or the MD-11 should have been "787", but Boeing had even less faith in the MD-11 program and didn't want to waste a number on it.

Boeing would, however, shamelessly pander to the supposed cultural sensitivities of certain markets (and I say "supposed" because I have trouble believing anyone would ever make multi-billion dollar decisions on such a basis) by designating the base model of the 787 the "787-8" instead of "787-100", and the "747-8" instead of "747-500". Airbus did it too with the A380.


User currently offlineTSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 3048 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 10734 times:

Quoting RG787 (Reply 12):
Looking at the charts, the 764 has a 16 ft and 6 (5,03m) in fuselage width and the 788 has 18 ft and 11 in (5,77m). Is that difference sufficient for a seat?

29 inches is a more than sufficient increase in width for an extra seat. Figure a relatively generous 18 inches for a "Y" seat plus three inches for one additional armrest and you've still got 8 inches left over to spend on wider aisles.



Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
User currently offlineJohnJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 10525 times:

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 13):
Airlines didn't like the B767 for many reasons.
Limited options in both economy and business class. To put it simply: It is hard to put attractive yet effective economy and business class cabins into the B767. The A330/330/340 cross section is the smallest that allows all the hey-do of modern long range air transport:
2-4-2 economy, 2-2-2 business, 1-2-1 first, LD3-containers, good monuments (including lower deck facilities).

Yes, airlines did not like the 767 for the reasons stated here and that's why there are a measly 900 of them that have been delivered and more than 1000 ordered.

[Edited 2010-11-27 07:43:42]



[Edited 2010-11-27 07:45:02]

User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11929 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 10334 times:

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 11):
Quoting Stitch: "The 767 has too small of a cross-section to be an effective people and cargo carrier."

I think UPS would disagree. They will have 59 -300 ERFs if they don't order more.

But we don't know if UPS would have preferred the A330F since it was not on offer when UPS went with 767F.

A330F already has 69 orders in the books, and its work has made it possible for Airbus to also offer increased MTOW on A332 and A333.

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 11):
Airbus proposed a very similar evolution of the 330 and was soundly shelled by both the market place and Boeing's PR department. So the original A350 which would have been a fabulous plane and would likely be in service right now was dropped in favor of a clean sheet design.

And it's been a wonderfully fortuitous thing for Airbus that things turned out that way. Right now they have a choke hold on the low end of the wide body market (A330) and are using the money they would have spent on A350 Mk 1 to go after the 777 market (something the A350 Mk 1 could not do). The continuous improvements in both the A330 airframe and its engines as well as the lack of a direct competitor have positioned it very well for future sales.

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 11):
Even the current 767-(300/400) with winglets added and NG engines along with an avionics upgrade would be a great aircraft and would have been a safe bet.

Not really. It could easily have been the A340-[56]00 of its time: throwing good money after bad using a design not suited for the task. In the case of the A340, it was trying to make a four engine aircraft compete with a two engine aircraft on a mission within the two engine's capabilities, and for the 767 it's trying to make the 767 cross section compete with the A330 cross section.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9378 posts, RR: 52
Reply 18, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 9965 times:

Boeing product development tried to improve the 767 and do a significant refresh on it twice.

The first version was the 767-X. That plane grew as airlines wanted more capacity and more range and it became impossible to still use the basic 767 platform. The result was the 777.

The second attempt was to take some of the technology that was being developed for the sonic cruiser and put it into the 767. The trade studies went the way they did and Boeing went again for an all new design in the 787.

The 767 is a great airplane, but Boeing has tried twice to refresh it with a new wing and new engines, but both times the engineers and analysts have found that it is more economical to start fresh with a clean sheet.

The 767 has quite a bit of older generation technology in it. It is a cable controlled airplane with mostly 1970s technology in it. The 767 brought the concept of a glass cockpit to reality and was a pioneer in ETOPS operations. Although the 737 and 747 are older, both have been enhanced and modernized. The 767 platform is not quite as flexible to enhancements as the 737 design. The 737 basic platform has been modernized to product one of the most efficient airplanes out there. However going for a new wing and engines like the 747-8 is unlikely on the 767. Its market has been killed off by the 777 and 787 within the Boeing lineup and the A330 as well. Re-engine and re-wing will not get the efficiency high enough to compete with those other planes. It might get a few orders, but no where near enough to justify the development costs. Boeing is more focused on improving the 737 and 777.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineshankly From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 1528 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 9790 times:

Quoting dl767captain (Reply 2):
Ive wondered why they don't keep the 767 (well an updated version) around as a replacement for domestic routes and Hawaii flights

Because when Boeing (or anybody else for that matter) starts developing aircraft solely for US domestic "and Hawaiian" flights that is when you know you are just about to see their last ever production aeroplane before going TU

My boy, the world is a whole lot bigger than you may think

A very fine aeroplane in its day, but now wholly outclassed by current (A330) and future (787) products



L1011 - P F M
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5105 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 9756 times:

A 764 modified to have the range of the 787 would be way heavier than the 787. And it would still be cursed with the seven-across, too small for side-by-side LD3s cross section, which turned out in hindsight to be a poor decision on Boeing's part. Airbus really got the midsize widebody cross section right with the A330/A340, which is why Boeing adopted a very similar cross section (just enough wider to squeeze in 9Y at 17.2") for the 787.


Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29686 posts, RR: 84
Reply 21, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 9756 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 11):
Quoting Stitch: "The 767 has too small of a cross-section to be an effective people and cargo carrier."

I think UPS would disagree. They will have 59 -300 ERFs if they don't order more.

I was specifically referring to the underfloor holds for passenger operators, but I should have been more specific.


User currently offlineHBGDS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 9725 times:

There is a new 767. It's the KC-X competitor. If they do win, but also iron out the giaranteed kinks that will come with this hybrid, then they can at least have a valid 767F to offer on the market, too...

User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5318 posts, RR: 30
Reply 23, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 9684 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 18):
It might get a few orders, but no where near enough

Which is really too bad considering the 767 has the best Y seating arrangement of the wide bodies. 2-3-2 really can't be beaten.



What the...?
User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4058 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 9557 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
The 767 has too small of a cross-section to be an effective people and cargo carrier.

Yeah, and that is why the 767 never did well and is just had a small number of sales in the last 30 years.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
25 Post contains images Stitch : That was then. This is now. The competitive environment in 2010 is a very different place than it was in 1980.
26 Post contains links and images keesje : Boeing moved ahead with the 767-400ER and proposed an even more advanced version the ERX with GP7000 engines. 2 factors that played a role were IMO th
27 Post contains images RG787 : That would probably be the 797
28 SchorschNG : One thing rarely mentioned when it comes to A350-XWB or B787: they are significantly more costly to build. A low-cost option might be feasible if Boei
29 JoeCanuck : I was under the impression that the 787 and 350 were designed to be less costly to build, as well as maintain...of course, that was before the delays
30 Post contains images etherealsky : As has been mentioned: totally different airplane... it's about more than just the wing and engines The systems architecture of the 787 is based off
31 Stitch : I can't speak for the A350, but Boeing believed they could significantly reduce the production cost of the 787 compared to the 777, which is a very e
32 dl767captain : Well I didn't say the plane was only for the US and no one else. I'm just going from my perspective that the 767 has been used a lot here in the US o
33 luckyone : Not to nitpick, but the cross section of the A330/340 is the same as the original A300.
34 Post contains links skyhawk62507 : If only Boeing has listened two years ago... http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?C...f24754-574a-40b8-b685-941f878de0fd
35 YULWinterSkies : It is currently sold by Airbus and made in Toulouse under the name A330, sorry to say... There, the A330 seems to do just fine also, if you look at wh
36 dl767captain : I just booked a flight between FCO and LHR and it was labeled as a 767, that could change by may though I was really surprised that HA went with the
37 ORDnHKG : Well that's why 747-8 doesn't sell. And since 767-400ER doesn't sell as well as the earlier 300ER version, there is no point to offering another veri
38 KFlyer : Simple. Airlines wanted a clean a sheet design. And Boeing chose that way for better marketing purposes.
39 PlaneWasted : The 767 was a great success and did not have "the wrong cross-section". There is a reason why almost 1000 767 has been built.
40 Revelation : Boeing has said the plane they are bidding in the current round is not a "hybrid", it's more or less the current KC-767A based on the Boeing 767-200E
41 SchorschNG : The B767 had the right cross section for the market of 80ies and 90ies. Today things are different and airlines are more picky. In the mid/late 1980i
42 ETinCaribe : I would think marketing has something to do here, as the 737 for example has kept the same numbering even though the current gen has nothing to do wi
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...
Why Not A New PAN Am? posted Sun Jul 4 2004 23:48:44 by Njdevilsin03
767 LN 718 - Why Not Built? posted Fri Feb 19 2010 01:35:44 by FlyCaledonian
Why Brand New Lie-Flat Seats Not Horizontal? posted Sat May 23 2009 23:10:28 by SSTsomeday
Lufthansa A300 ... Why Not Ordered New 3 Years Ago posted Mon May 4 2009 03:43:29 by LH526
IB 767's, Why Not Kept? posted Sun May 21 2006 10:13:37 by 767-332ER
NW And The 767: Why Not? posted Wed Aug 24 2005 08:32:13 by Centrair
Why No New BF Seats On CO 767-400/-200? posted Tue Dec 30 2003 18:15:59 by Transtar
Why Not MH And SQ To New York Via Syria Or Lebanon posted Sat Jun 14 2003 16:31:51 by Airmale
Looking For A New Home, Why Not Buy A B727? posted Thu Feb 6 2003 02:29:43 by AC_B777
Boeing,Lockheed Teaming Up For New Jet - Why Not? posted Fri Jan 18 2002 05:01:43 by 747-600X