Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Celebrates Final Assembly Of 1,000th 767  
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2727 posts, RR: 4
Posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 16158 times:

Quote:
Landmark airplane is last to be built before assembly line moves

EVERETT, Wash., Jan. 10, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- Final assembly started today on the 1,000th Boeing (NYSE: BA) 767 airplane. Workers marked the milestone with a celebration at the Everett, Wash. factory.

"This milestone is a credit to every employee who had a hand in building 767s over the past 30 years," said Kim Pastega, vice president and general manager of the 767 program, Boeing Commercial Airplanes. "It is a testament to engineering a high-quality product that continues to improve through the years."

Final assembly is the last step of the production process before the airplane rolls out of the factory on its way to the paint hangar and the Everett Delivery Center for ground and flight tests. The 1,000th airplane – a 767-300ER (extended range) passenger model for ANA (All Nippon Airways) – is the last 767 to complete final assembly in its current home. Beginning with line number 1001 – also a 767-300ER for ANA – all future 767s will complete that step in a new, smaller bay where production is scheduled to increase in 2011.

The complete press release is available here: http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1579




Congratulations to Boeing and the 767. IMO a very beautiful widebody!      


Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
63 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12411 posts, RR: 37
Reply 1, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 16124 times:

I'm so glad that the 767 made it to the 1,000 mark; it's a well deserved milestone for one of the most significant aircraft of our time. To many, used to A330s, 777s and other more modern types, the 767 might seem "old hat" now, but let's never forget that if the 767 had not been as rock solidly reliable as it has been, ETOPS - which was effectively built on the reliability of the 767 - would not be as commonplace as it is today.

I remember the very first edition of Flight International I ever bought, back in August 1981 - yes, nearly 30 years ago; it was the introductory issue of the 767, with cutaway and all. I was fascinated by it from then on. I remember LY, TW and AC being the pioneers of t/a ETOPS, back in 1985 and I had many wonderful flights on this aircraft, with at least ten different airlines, all comfortable, safe and reliable.

Well done, good and faithful servant of the skies!


User currently offlineHAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2558 posts, RR: 53
Reply 2, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 15808 times:

The 767 is definitely my favorite large aircraft as a pilot. Lots of performance, and a joy to handle. Even as it begins the last stages of its career, it'll remain a favorite of mine forever. Thanks Boeing for building such a wonderful aircraft.

HAL



One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
User currently offlinenasula From Finland, joined Sep 2010, 47 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 15515 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 1):
ETOPS - which was effectively built on the reliability of the 767 - would not be as commonplace as it is today

Hmm. According to wiki: "In 1977, the A300B4 became the first ETOPS compliant aircraft – its high performance and safety standards qualified it for Extended Twin Engine Operations over water, providing operators with more versatility in routing." and then: "Prior to the 767, the FAA restricted twin-engine aircraft to over-water flights of 90 minutes or less distance from diversion airports."

This leads to a technical question on that one that a friend of mine claimed (was taught to him by his airline pilot father):

The claim was (I'm not stating it's true, don't shoot the messenger) threefold:

1) The A300 could technically do 120 minute ETOPS-type filghts, but the FAA didn't want to allow it as the american counterparts of the time (B747, DC-10) were not two engine planes and they could use this to cripple the sales of the A300, which had some benefits over the american competition (2-engines->lower maintenance costs, 2-cockpit crew etc.)

2) The propability of a single engine failure on a 4 or 3 engine plane is higher than on a 2-engine plane (clearly the case)

3) The DC-10 couldn't maintain cruising altitude with only two engines, but A300 could with one engine and B747 can with three. This means that the DC-10 would be less safe than an A300 on TATL-flights.

If 2&3 are true, then it makes 1 a plausible scenario, but the question is, was there any technical reason why the A300 couldn't have been certified as ETOPS-120 prior to the B767?


User currently offline330Guy From Ireland, joined Nov 2010, 453 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 15467 times:

Quoting nasula (Reply 3):

This is exactly what I heard also.

further to it ETOPS 120 was to be granted by the FAA to the A300 but they wanted to wait until the 767 was flying and grant ETOPS on that first hence it being advertised as the "First ETOPS twin" as soon as the 76 got ETOPS the A300 followed. Im not saying its true but thats my understanding of the politics involved



Aircraft flown: a300/10/20/21/30/40, b727/37/47/57/67/, DC9, MD80-90, l1011, f50, atr42/72, shorts360, pc12
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5333 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 15405 times:

Quoting nasula (Reply 3):
was there any technical reason why the A300 couldn't have been certified as ETOPS-120 prior to the B767?

I don't know. But it wouldn't have affected the market situation of the two aircraft in the end.

The 767 had a huge effect on the market because it was able to splinter the big transatlantic routes and bring on point-to-point service in the transatlantic market. The A300 did not have enough range to fly any transatlantic routes (except outliers like BOS-SNN) until the arrival of the A300-600R, which came out several years after the 767 (and at the same time as the 767-300ER). Even the A300-600R could not have broadly served the TATL market the way the 767's ER variants did, because it didn't have enough range.

The first Airbus that could replicate the 767's role was the A332.


User currently offlinekl911 From Ireland, joined Jul 2003, 5120 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 15380 times:

Wow, I honestly didnt realise that the 767 is still being build. What is the backlog, and for which airlines?


Next trip : DUB-AUH-CGK-DPS-KUL-AUH-CDG-ORK :-)
User currently offlineCharlieNoble From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 15337 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 5):
I don't know. But it wouldn't have affected the market situation of the two aircraft in the end.

Agreed. It's a moot point whether the FAA "sandbagged" the A300 in terms of ETOPS because it didn't really have the legs for it.

To be fair, TATL wasn't the role Airbus initially designed the A300 for.

I'd like to believe that the FAA wouldn't abuse their authority like that, but governments "are what they are".


User currently offlinebahadir From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 1772 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 15302 times:

Quoting kl911 (Reply 6):

Wow, I honestly didnt realise that the 767 is still being build. What is the backlog, and for which airlines?

Don't be surprised if that line still stays open because of Boeing's inability to deliver 787s.



Earthbound misfit I
User currently offlineCharlieNoble From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 15296 times:

Quoting bahadir (Reply 8):
Don't be surprised if that line still stays open because of Boeing's inability to deliver 787s.

True, and pending the outcome of the 'tanker war' LOL


User currently offlinebj87 From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 448 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 15088 times:

Quoting bahadir (Reply 8):
Don't be surprised if that line still stays open because of Boeing's inability to deliver 787s.
Quoting CharlieNoble (Reply 9):
True, and pending the outcome of the 'tanker war' LOL

The 767 is like a cockroach every time you step on one they build 20 more. Every 787 problem is another step as will be the tanker order (when and if they get it). After that it will probably be game over for the 767.


User currently offlineFlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2072 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 14915 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 5):
The 767 had a huge effect on the market because it was able to splinter the big transatlantic routes and bring on point-to-point service in the transatlantic market. The A300 did not have enough range to fly any transatlantic routes (except outliers like BOS-SNN) until the arrival of the A300-600R, which came out several years after the 767 (and at the same time as the 767-300ER). Even the A300-600R could not have broadly served the TATL market the way the 767's ER variants did, because it didn't have enough range.

Isn't this where the A310, and in particular the A310-300, came in? LH, SR, TP and PA amongst others all used the A310-300 on TATL flights. The A300B4-600R came after the A310, adopting the same rear fuselage as the A310 if I recall.



Let's Go British Caledonian!
User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1556 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 14816 times:

I remember an a-net discussion a few years back speculating on whether the 767 would ever reach the 1000 mark. The consensus as I recall was that it would fall short of the milestone.

I agree with HAL (well I've never piloted one of course), the 767 has always been a favorite of mine. A widebody, but not too wide, the isle never more than a seat away. A very comfortable cabin for the time, particularly on international flights. I wish it would have worked for Boeing to update it with the larger windows and other amenities that the 787 will bring, but progress dictated otherwise!


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30641 posts, RR: 84
Reply 13, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 14769 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CharlieNoble (Reply 7):
I'd like to believe that the FAA wouldn't abuse their authority like that, but governments "are what they are".

The JAA didn't accept the 777's ETOPS-180 certification from the FAA for European operators, but instead only allowed ETOPS-120 until an operator showed one year of trouble-free operations at that level, at which point they could apply for ETOPS-180. One could conspiratorially argue that was to protect sales of the A340-300.

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 11):
Isn't this where the A310, and in particular the A310-300, came in?

The A310-200 had a range a bit under 7000km, so it was more a trans-continental plane than a trans-Atantic one. The 310-300's 9600km range allowed true TATL ops, though both the 767-200ER and 767-300ER could fly a few thousand kilometers farther (offering trans-Pacific performance).


User currently offlineNorthwest727 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 491 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 14698 times:

Its too bad the 767 prototype was scrapped. As far as I know, it is the only 7x7 prototype of Boeing that is not alive today, whether in a museum/on display or currently in service.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 12):
I wish it would have worked for Boeing to update it with the larger windows and other amenities that the 787 will bring, but progress dictated otherwise!

Like the DC-8 and the DC-10, any sort of major update is not/will not happen. This is simply because the 787 is the 767's replacement, any 'nice' upgrades to the 767 would make it nearly competing with Boeing's flagship, the 787, at a much friendlier price.


User currently offline330Guy From Ireland, joined Nov 2010, 453 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 14683 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
The JAA didn't accept the 777's ETOPS-180 certification from the FAA for European operators, but instead only allowed ETOPS-120 until an operator showed one year of trouble-free operations at that level, at which point they could apply for ETOPS-180. One could conspiratorially argue that was to protect sales of the A340-300.

That may be true, and just as likely to be true as the FAA ETOPS one too. Any countriy (or Union) will do what they can to protect exports, and aircraft are a huge export... I remember hearing that at one point the 747 was the USA's single biggest export in terms of revenue and jobs generated. Im not an expert in exorts/imports so dont know how true it is



Aircraft flown: a300/10/20/21/30/40, b727/37/47/57/67/, DC9, MD80-90, l1011, f50, atr42/72, shorts360, pc12
User currently offlinebonusonus From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 14625 times:

Quoting 330Guy (Reply 15):
I remember hearing that at one point the 747 was the USA's single biggest export in terms of revenue and jobs generated. Im not an expert in exorts/imports so dont know how true it is

I believe Boeing is still the United States' #1 exporter.


User currently offlinedimik747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 51 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 14529 times:

A great milestone for a great aircraft. I have flown 767s transatlantic and on domestic routes and they always feel solid as a rock.

User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5333 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 14528 times:

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 11):
Isn't this where the A310, and in particular the A310-300, came in?

The A310, as a shrink, faced economic hurdles from the start. It ended up having operational costs comparable to the 767-200ER, but with range that could not match the ER variants of the 767. In the absence of the 767, it could have had much the same effect on the TATL market, but the 767 (particularly the -300ER, once it appeared) was just the better aircraft for most operators.


User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1593 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 14418 times:

Congrats to Boeing for this great milestone. Every time I hear news or other tidbits about the 767 production line I am amazed about the fact it is still in production!

Although I had many good flights in a 767 (except that flight from Hell with Alitalia), to me it is one of the most boring looking twins ever. It's not very big (compared to the triple-7), it doesn't have very distinctive features (like the 757 just looks like a fighter and the A380's "forehead" and huge gull-wings) and it isn't known for many records like speed, distance or height (I'll be gladly corrected if I am wrong here   ). To me it is the pinnacle of the boring twin, medium sized in all aspects.

When it comes to beauty my vote(s) goes to the 777, 757, A330 , the 744 and yes, really, absolutely the A380 (but just because of the head-on view of the wings).

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 12):
A widebody, but not too wide, the isle never more than a seat away.

Indeed!

Also, taking into account the age of the airframe it is one of the safest ever;

http://www.boeing.com/aboutus/govt_o..._accidents_statistical_summary.pdf (p. 22)



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlineTan Flyr From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1904 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 14246 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 12):
I agree with HAL (well I've never piloted one of course), the 767 has always been a favorite of mine. A widebody, but not too wide, the isle never more than a seat away. A very comfortable cabin for the time, particularly on international flights. I wish it would have worked for Boeing to update it with the larger windows and other amenities that the 787 will bring, but progress dictated otherwise!

Agreed... great reliablity .. range, etc. Also a long time favorite. I wish several others had ordered the 764 ( AA & UA for starters) I failed to understand why they did not believe it could perform some key core route missions more profitably.

Quoting bonusonus (Reply 16):
I believe Boeing is still the United States' #1 exporter.

IIRC, that point was made in a Wall Street Journal article last fall also.


User currently offlinekl911 From Ireland, joined Jul 2003, 5120 posts, RR: 12
Reply 21, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 14203 times:

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 19):
Although I had many good flights in a 767 (except that flight from Hell with Alitalia), to me it is one of the most boring looking twins ever. It's not very big (compared to the triple-7), it doesn't have very distinctive features (like the 757 just looks like a fighter and the A380's "forehead" and huge gull-wings)

True, the 777 looks much better, and the A330 even more in my opinion, but ofcourse that's just looks... 

And i have to add that I thought the A330 had replaced the 767 by now, being more modern and fuel efficient. For example, why would ANA order 767's when the A330 is available as well? Is it a special domestic high density version of the 767? I guess the newly build 767 still dont have FBW do they?



Next trip : DUB-AUH-CGK-DPS-KUL-AUH-CDG-ORK :-)
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12411 posts, RR: 37
Reply 22, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 13965 times:

Quoting kl911 (Reply 21):
For example, why would ANA order 767's when the A330 is available as well?

Largely because they have nearly 30 years experience with 767s; their maintenance bases are tooled for them, engineers and pilots are used to them and since 767s are only a stopgap, why complicate things with a new type. The A330 is a great aircraft, no doubt about it, but you don't want too many types in your fleet.

Incidentally, I can remember my own first 767 flight; it was with Delta from ATL to ORD in October 1990. It was just after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and all the carriers had cheap deals. I think I got a trip from ORD to GSO (where I had rellies) for about $160. Being me, I planned my trip carefully. I had three choices and if I flew DL, it had to be on a 767. So, on the way back, I got an earlier flight from GSO to ATL and the check in agent asked if I wanted an earlier flight to ORD ... Oh no! It had to be the 767. I got it anyway ... it was either 108 or 109 (can't remember exactly), although I do remember being very impressed with it. Had many superb 767 flights since, including my first arrival into my favourite airport (see my username!), courtesy of Qantas.

And I got to fly on an Ansett 767 ... and meet the guy with the easiest job in the world (the flight engineer!)


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5333 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 13937 times:

Quoting kl911 (Reply 21):
And i have to add that I thought the A330 had replaced the 767 by now, being more modern and fuel efficient.

The A330 won most sales campaigns against the 767 starting around 1998-2000, when the A332 came out and the A333 began to seriously improve from its original form (which was almost as range-limited as the A300). But it's not so much better that existing 767 operators can always justify adding a new type to their fleets. And the A330 is more expensive to fly on an absolute basis, because it's bigger and heavier. Finally, the addition of winglets to the 763ER has narrowed some of the gap.

Both Japanese airlines and LAN have continued to add 767 frames -- LAN in spite of already operating A340s. And Delta, which has both, is making heavy investments in its 767 fleet, not seeking to replace it with A330s (or any newer type).

[Edited 2011-01-11 10:35:03]

User currently offlineseachaz From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 220 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 13593 times:

Not mentioned in the Boeing article but in the Seattle Times article:

"A new door has been constructed at the back of the giant building through which the 1001st 767 will exit from the new assembly area onto the Paine Field flight line."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...echnology/2013897114_boeing11.html

Anyone know if this is just confusion by the media or will they actually roll completed planes out the back? If so how exactly do they get them around to the front of the building - down the perimeter road?


25 macsog6 : I remember back in my Boeing days that the speculation was that we could maybe build 500 767's if we had good luck. And about the same time I was told
26 A388 : To put it simple, the reason is the 787 delays. Congratulations to Boeing and their 767, a great aircraft and as has been stated the pioneer of ETOPS
27 Stitch : The forward section of the 767 bay is being converted to a 787 outfitting station for the "production surge" planned. 767s will now be sent out the b
28 Aloha717200 : Just out of curiosity, how many units has the A330 (all various) sold?
29 Post contains images Hamlet69 : Because it is one of the greatest A.net myths that the A330 is more fuel efficient. It's not. Per seat, the 767-300ER burns slightly less fuel than t
30 ikramerica : The A332 (now) has more range by far than the 763ER, and can handle the routes that many 772s were needed for in the past. It's still not an amazingl
31 Post contains images rwy04lga : AA 767-223 7 times mostly LGA-ORD-DFW 1984/85 NZ 767-219 once CHC-MEL 1986 AV 767-300 once CLO-JFK 2003 DL 767-232/300/432 countless times to many pla
32 Post contains images PositiveClimb : What else to say than: CONGRATULATIONS Well, working for the A380 programme, i am an Airbus guy all the way, but for sure this is a great achievement
33 A388 : Not amazingly efficient based on what? A388
34 MD-90 : Were there any US airlines operating A300s at that time that would've wanted/needed ETOPS 120 for any of their routes? Eastern the only one that I ca
35 Post contains images EPA001 : That is my experience on the B767 as well. A very fine aircraft to fly on, especially since the aisle is never far away. . Congratulations to all inv
36 rwy04lga : Delta even fits more passengers into their 333s than their 777s!
37 captainsimon : Is this the first twin engine widebody to surpass the 1000 mark?[Edited 2011-01-11 14:20:17]
38 ikramerica : It's sold more copies than I thought it had. For all the talk of the A333 being such an efficient plane, the A332 is still outselling it and has a la
39 Post contains images seabosdca : Watch out. This will start the great A330/A340 debate: one type or two? If you count only A330s produced (which I think is valid, since we're talking
40 Viscount724 : Shouldn't the 1000th 767 actually be line number 1001, since there was no 767 delivered with line number 718? I think that one was cancelled at an ea
41 Stitch : Yes. The A300 and A310 together delivered less than 1000 frames and to date, the A330 family is also below 1000 orders, much less deliveries.
42 Viscount724 : Sorry, wrong. Airbus website shows A330 orders as follows (through November 30, 2010 so it may have changed slightly by now): A330-200 - 574 A330-200
43 ikramerica : At the rate Airbus is producing A330s, it should reach 1000 in only a few years.
44 Stitch : I stand corrected.
45 UATulipfan : What's the backlog for the 767 broken down for passenger models and cargo? And is there still a chance we'll see even more passenger models ordered fo
46 Stitch : 25 each for the 767-300F and 767-300ER.
47 UATulipfan : Stitch, thanks for that. Do you know who they are all allocated to and how many they have remaining on order?
48 NZ2 : Ordered, not built. Need to deal with facts
49 Max Q : The 767 is such a plain jane common Aircraft it is easy to overlook. Despite this, as a Pilot I cannot say enough nice things about it (except for the
50 tdscanuck : Correct. Whenever the IAM goes on strike, the US trade deficit undergoes and immediate and non-trivial step-change. Tom.
51 SCL767 : LAN Airlines will incorporate 3 new B767-316ERs into the fleet this year as part of a compensation package from Boeing due to the B787 delays. LAN Ca
52 nasula : He did. Please read Reply 42 again.
53 HAL : Answers as best as I can explain here: 1) The biggest reason the A300 didn't do ETOPS flights early on was that nobody had done it before, and the re
54 EK413 : Excuse my ignorance but why is NH taking on delivery of brand NEW B763ER aircraft when they will be taking on B787s? Is this part of BOEING compensat
55 Post contains images RobK : Line # 1000 due to roll out Jan27 and deliver to All Nippon on Feb22. VS967 40567/1000 767-381ER JA622A
56 CharlieNoble : Kind of like the "10 year old Toyota Camry" of the aviation world. You'd kind of like to trade it in for something else but the damn thing starts eve
57 330Guy : Honest answer, I dont think so... But im not 100% sure (Some might blame this on it not being ETOPS, others will say thats why it was never granted w
58 bj87 : Yes, they need the 767's to do some of the routes the 787 was supposed to fly. Boeing gave them a good deal on them to help them fill the gap with Bo
59 nasula : Thanks. Best answer I guess we can get. Much appreciated. Since 2-engine planes suffer a larger loss, they have to have overdimensioned engines for t
60 saab2000 : 767 is my favorite wide-body. I've made the TATL crossing dozens of times on them and love the 2-3-2 seating. Frankly, I'd like to have seen Boeing to
61 CharlieNoble : Mostly true...from what I have read on here, I think that there are some scenarios (high temp/high altitude airports) where in order to guarantee the
62 Post contains images EPA001 : I think Viscount replied correctly. The statement was about the number of orders on the A330 program, see the quote below. Not about the number of de
63 Viscount724 : I was only correcting the post quoted in my reply which said the A330 had not yet reached 1000 orders which it has.
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...
Boeing Starts Final Assembly Of 1st 737-700ER posted Wed Dec 13 2006 21:19:05 by NYC777
Final Assembly Of A319 posted Mon Jan 21 2008 12:46:31 by B6flyboy
Final Assembly Of This Airplane Was Completed In . posted Tue Apr 3 2007 20:42:10 by Zeke
Boeing Celebrates Second Anniversary Of Dreamliner posted Thu Apr 27 2006 12:55:16 by Sangas
Final Assembly Of This Aircraft Was Completed In.. posted Thu Apr 13 2006 06:09:28 by Cubsrule
"Final Assembly Of This Aircraft Was In..." posted Tue Feb 1 2005 22:34:34 by SafetyDude
Boeing Begins Major Assembly Of World's Longest-Ra posted Mon Sep 27 2004 19:04:35 by Jakob77
Final Assembly Of First A318 Started Today (Aug 9) posted Thu Aug 9 2001 19:47:31 by Airsicknessbag
Assembly Of The First Boeing 777 Freighter (video) posted Tue Feb 24 2009 10:20:07 by McSteve
First Boeing 777F Enters Final Assembly‏ posted Thu Apr 10 2008 12:53:59 by 777ER