Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No 767MAX?  
User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2866 posts, RR: 10
Posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 8192 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

No doubt over the past 20 years the 767 has been a very popular aircraft with airlines and passengers alike. However it has certainly run out of steam. Why no 767 with a new wing (perhaps the swept wing of the 767-400) and re-engined? Is that just too close to a 787? Or would it not garner the same efficiencies as a mostly composite aircraft?

Given how many are sold, I would assume it's aerodynamics and safety record and size could have appeal? So aside from a 787 or an overhaul of the 747 and 737, why not the 767?


The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 891 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 8222 times:

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
Is that just too close to a 787?

There's your answer.

It'd be like if Boeing went clean-sheet to replace the 738, 739, and 752, 753. And then continued on with the 737MAX.



Fly Delta Jets
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9503 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 8160 times:

This has come up many times, so a search in the archives should help.

In general, Boeing tried to improve the 767, but airlines eventually pushed Boeing to the 787.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8871 posts, RR: 75
Reply 3, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 8127 times:

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
Why no 767 with a new wing (perhaps the swept wing of the 767-400) and re-engined?

A new wing and engines is a significant investment, it would also provide a significant improvement. A new aircraft is also a significant improvement, however the efficiency gain between the two is not that great.

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
Or would it not garner the same efficiencies as a mostly composite aircraft?

A new composite wing an new engines would result in a very efficient aircraft. In terms of manufacturing and production, I would see them being able to push more of them out the door than 787s if they had started both projects at the same time.

As it is at the moment, the 787 is heavier than the 767.

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
So aside from a 787 or an overhaul of the 747 and 737, why not the 767?

I suspect the under floor cargo capacity was one of the drivers for the 787, it was aiming at competing with the A330, not just replacing existing 767s.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinerjm777ual From UK - England, joined Nov 2011, 246 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 8016 times:

The 767, unlike the 737, is an older model, with the last update being the 767-400ER some 5 or 6 or however many years ago. The 737 however, is a VERY popular model and has more variants, the last being the -900ER which was fairly recent.


Greetings from Dulles!
User currently offlineSEA From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 8002 times:

There is a 767 MAX, it's the 787 :/

User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11214 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7983 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 3):
A new wing and engines is a significant investment, it would also provide a significant improvement. A new aircraft is also a significant improvement, however the efficiency gain between the two is not that great.

I heard one aero student when I was younger say that building a new wing and applying new engines is 90% of the way to making a new plane, with less expense. Would you agree with that statement?



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinerjm777ual From UK - England, joined Nov 2011, 246 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7828 times:

Somebody might confuse a B767-400ER with a 787 due to blended wingtips, but it seems unlikely.


Greetings from Dulles!
User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3535 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 7369 times:

Quoting rjm777ual (Reply 4):
The 767, unlike the 737, is an older model, with the last update being the 767-400ER some 5 or 6 or however many years ago.

Surely some mistake ? The 737 is a plane with its roots back in the 1960's and its last major update was the NG in 1997, meanwhile the 767 has a basic design more than a decade newer, and the last major upgrade was the 764 about 10 years ago.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30584 posts, RR: 84
Reply 9, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7194 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SEA (Reply 5):
There is a 767 MAX, it's the 787 :/

Exactly.

It's the same reason we're very likely not going to see an A330neo, because the A350 fills that role.

I expect what is really driving the A320neo and 737MAX is not immaturity of technology or lack of financial and/or engineering resources, but what rjm777ual alluded to: both the A320 and 737 are very popular models and neither OEM wants to have a development or production snafu of any kind because of the impact it would have due to the volume.

Three years late in EIS on the 787 means Boeing is probably 200-250 deliveries behind where they planned.

Three years late in EIS on the NSA or A30X would mean Boeing/Airbus could be over 1500 deliveries behind where they planned.      


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5314 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7190 times:

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 8):
The 737 is a plane with its roots back in the 1960's and its last major update was the NG in 1997, meanwhile the 767 has a basic design more than a decade newer, and the last major upgrade was the 764 about 10 years ago.

The 737 had a near-total redo in the late 1990s, including new engines, new wing, new cabin, and many new systems.

The 767-400ER changes were hardly enough to qualify as an "update" -- only raked wingtips, new cockpit instrumentation, and a new cabin. They didn't fundamentally change the plane the way the 737NG makeover did.

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
Why No 767MAX?

Because the 767's too-narrow cross section is a fundamental limitation that prevents the 767 from being fully competitive today, no matter how up-to-date you make everything else.


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8284 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7187 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 2):
In general, Boeing tried to improve the 767, but airlines eventually pushed Boeing to the 787

AS one executive put it, "it is one derivative too many". Airbus was pushing the A330 which is why Qantas purchased A330 and no more 767's.

The 737 is a short haul plane and many of the "savings" from a new design can be achieved with a derivative at much less cost.


User currently offlineflyglobal From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 572 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 7095 times:

to some extend the 787 = 767XWB MAX.

Good that Boeing went with a clean sheet design.

Regards

Flyglobal


User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3501 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 7048 times:

Well, the 787 was design to replace the 767, so a 767 MAX, would be like having an A330 NEO, it do not make since.

User currently offlineExtra300 From Sweden, joined Sep 2011, 84 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 6358 times:

For me it´s still kind of surprising that Boeing leaves the market "typical 7 abreast". The 787 is bigger and hevier than the 767. OK, the 767 is still in production, but only in small numbers.

The A310, 757 and 767 togehter had it´s own market space between A330/787 and A321 / 739. We still don´t know what will happen the the A330, but probably Airbus will let it die a few years after the bigger A350 is in the air.

This makes me believe there is market for a A332neo, or 763max. But probably neither A or B has the engineering capacity at the moment.


User currently onlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12899 posts, RR: 100
Reply 15, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5772 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The main issue with the 767 is the 7-across seating in Y. Back when the plane was new, that was all the JT9Ds could lift up. 8-across was not an option. Recall this was a time to market scenario versus the A300. Boeing 'rushed to market' the 757 and the 767 to kill off the A300/A310. It was a success as the A300/A310 were simply not initially designed for long haul but as rather a large 'regional trunk-line' airframe whose range was extended.

So Airbus went back to the drawing board and created the A333 with the later A332 derivative. With 5700nm range, the 8-across (in Y) A333 kills the economics of the 763ER.   If more range is required, the A332, utilizing the under-utilized space of the extra gear of the A343, opened up new markets. The A330 forced boeing to respond, in particular on longer range routes. A 767MAX wouldn't have 787 range (ok, 787 range of frame 90 onward).

So Boeing went to the drawing board and created a competitive 8 across 787 that can be a 9-across 787. In effect, giving airlines the option to do to the A333 what the A333 did to the 767 (much lower CASM on 5000nm missions).

The 767 also has too small of a cargo hold. In particular, the hold needs to be wider and a little bit taller. Which is why:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 10):
Because the 767's too-narrow cross section is a fundamental limitation that prevents the 767 from being fully competitive today, no matter how up-to-date you make everything else.

  

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 2):
In general, Boeing tried to improve the 767, but airlines eventually pushed Boeing to the 787.

Exactly. While the 767 was 'great in its day,' the DC-10/MD-11/777/A330/744/A380 all pushed the market to a more standardized cargo hold. This leaves, for cargo, the 767 in a 'low population' middle ground between the narrow bodies and the 'big widebodies.' The 7-across Y is also a waste of weight. Oh, it made the initial TATL market possible. But then Airbus figured out how to make their 8-across economical TATL and then it has been a steady loss of sales for the 767.

Quoting Extra300 (Reply 14):
This makes me believe there is market for a A332neo,

Much more of a market for an A333NEO. However customers spoke and airbus went back and is designing the 9-across A350.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 2992 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5725 times:

Quoting rjm777ual (Reply 4):
with the last update being the 767-400ER some 5 or 6 or however many years ago

The 767-400 entered service in 2000. Try 11+ years ago.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30584 posts, RR: 84
Reply 17, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4987 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Extra300 (Reply 14):
The A310, 757 and 767 togehter had it´s own market space between A330/787 and A321 / 739. We still don´t know what will happen the the A330, but probably Airbus will let it die a few years after the bigger A350 is in the air.

This makes me believe there is market for a A332neo, or 763max. But probably neither A or B has the engineering capacity at the moment.

The 737-900ER and A321-200 can perform most of the missions of the 757-200 at better trip costs. The extra capacity the 757-200 offers is not enough to offset it's higher trip costs. So the 757-200 doesn't make as much profit as the smaller planes.

The A350-800 and 787-8 will both have better trip costs than the A330-200 and 767-300ER/767-400ER. And they're larger airframes with more seating and cargo volume. So if an airline can sell those extra seats, it's pure profit.And if they cannot, well it cost them less to send the A350/787 instead of the A330 or 767 so why not do so?

Hence why I am convinced why both the 757 and 767 won't be replaced with something similar and why Airbus won't launch an A330neo.


User currently offlinepnd100 From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 343 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4761 times:

  

I also have wondered about the replacements for the A310, B757 & B767.
Based on research & conversations, the many reasons that have been cited above are most common & valid.

One other reason I have learned is due the evolution of the air travel market.
Back in the 1980s there was a market for the size / range combination of the A310, B757 & B767.
That same market has grown or evolved today. There hasn't been enough emerging markets filling in the old slot.

Let's take the B763 & B764 out of this comparison as the A332 seems to be a very capable replacement for these models both in terms of range & capacity. The B788 will also serve as a replacement for these models. As discussed earlier, both the A330 & 787 are capable of flying 8 across with standard cargo holds which also serve as an improvement from the B763 & B764.

This leaves us with the A310, B757 & B762. What models can replace this market? In exact terms there may not be a replacement. There are no in-production aircraft that offer the capacity / range combination that those pioneers had. But there is a combination of capacity & frequency that will continue to serve the markets that were once visited by these aircraft.

For example, the market that was served in 1985 with a daily 175 seat (at 34" pitch) B762 surely has developed since then. Today that same city may have a lot more demand & therefore flying a daily B777 will be needed. Alternatively perhaps the market dynamics have changed & travelers demand more frequency. If within range, flying 2x daily A320 will suffice now.

The cities that are emerging as the "new" A310/B757/B762 markets today do not yet have enough demand to warrant a like for like replacement yet. They will in time but that time will be in the next generation, maybe 25 years from now. That is my prediction.


User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2866 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3960 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Wow, guys & gals,

Interesting stuff. The number 1 reason I even asked the question was that I have spent much of my flying life on a 767 and you become attached sentimentally. Then, with the A320 and the 737 getting so much attention (NEO & MAX) and the 757 out of production entirely I was wondering from a 4 sizes standpoint (each being close but different enough portfolio of high performance aircraft) why not a 767ERMAX, 787, 777 and even a new 747. As I wrote it dawned on me that a 767ERMAX was probably too close to the 787 to make sense.

Also...How many pax orders are there for the 767? I know the is the military order to keep the line running. But with 787 orders so backed up, will they convert the 767 line to 787's once the military order is complete OR is the 767 tanker order so large that the 767 line will be cranking for a long time?

More: I have been on one of the very new ANA 767's in business and it's clear vs an old 767 that NEW is always NEW and she was a beauty inside and out for such an old model. I wish I could look that new and fresh at my age  

Do airlines like ANA and LAN speak highly of them and how they perform under today's unique pressures or do they complain about them because they were supposed to be 787's?



The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2195 posts, RR: 25
Reply 20, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3880 times:

The 777 was the 767MAX.


UNITED We Stand
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30584 posts, RR: 84
Reply 21, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3691 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting VC10er (Reply 19):
How many pax orders are there for the 767?

As of end of November, 22 767-300ER airframe remained to be delivered, along with 20 767-300Fs.


User currently offlineSCL767 From Chile, joined Feb 2006, 8752 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3618 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting VC10er (Reply 19):
Do airlines like ANA and LAN speak highly of them and how they perform under today's unique pressures or do they complain about them because they were supposed to be 787's?

LAN loves the B-767-300ERs since it operates profitably on the various routes that they are deployed. This year, LAN placed two separate orders for the B-767-316ERs with options on top of a previous order. The three new B-767-316ERs that LAN recently received were from a previous order. Next year, LAN will receive 7 new B-767-316ERs and during 2013, LAN will receive 4 new B-767-316ERs with options for more B-767-316ERs all for delivery during 2013. The new B-767-316ERs will enable LAN to renew its fleet of B-763s thus lowering operational costs, and will allow LAN to expand its operations. Some of the older B-763s will be phased out starting next year. For example, one carrier will lease two 16 year old B763s from LAN next year. The B-787-8s will eventually operate many of the same routes that the B-763s currently operate, i.e. GYE-LIM, MAD-LIM, SCL-MEX, SCL-JFK, routes into both LAX and SFO, etc. which will free up additional B-763s providing more flexibility for LAN. As of today, LAN has a fleet of 43 B767s including 31 B763s and 12 B763Fs.


User currently offlineabbamd From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 15 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3310 times:

There was a 767 MAX.




     


User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 411 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2293 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Love the threads and comments! I remember the documentary (1 hr and 5 hr versions) about the 777 creation and Boeing specifically mentioning that they tried several different "renditions" of the 767 and variants of what could be...which became the 777. So, the 767 which is a very reliable workhorse, has seen it's limits in production and capabilities, sadly. However, I am very glad that it will be living on as the new USAF Tanker Transport!

25 lightsaber : The issue is that so much of the various markets has been filled 'otherwise.' The 757 was once the smallest TCON airframe and once had the lowest CAS
26 zeke : I think most of the design work is in the detail design and systems, I would not agree with the 90% comment.
27 Post contains images pnd100 : I think it was a great question & I often wondered about the replacements myself! LOL, love the Maxjet 767! Agreed. That's what I meant to convey
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 No Non-stops From Asia To GRU? (plus) posted Sun Nov 20 2011 17:53:17 by VC10er
Why No Continental Wide Body On LAX-HNL posted Wed Nov 16 2011 02:29:09 by DID747
Why No 747, A380 Or A340 For Air Canada? posted Sun Nov 13 2011 09:00:48 by kl692
Why No Codeshare Between Taag And TAM/GOL? posted Sat Nov 12 2011 16:26:59 by Byrdluvs747
Why No Winter ORD-EGE On AA? posted Fri Nov 11 2011 14:11:50 by ckfred
Why No BA 777LRs? posted Mon Oct 24 2011 17:20:31 by HNLsurfer
Why No DL Cargo, UA Cargo Etc Operations posted Wed Oct 19 2011 09:23:47 by jfritz
Why No MIA-Africa? posted Sun Oct 16 2011 17:06:19 by jonathanxxxx
Why No 772 LR For Air France? posted Sun Oct 16 2011 07:13:44 by canadiantree
Why No Emirates To LAS posted Tue Oct 11 2011 20:38:49 by my235
Why No Continental Wide Body On LAX-HNL posted Wed Nov 16 2011 02:29:09 by DID747
Why No 747, A380 Or A340 For Air Canada? posted Sun Nov 13 2011 09:00:48 by kl692
Why No Codeshare Between Taag And TAM/GOL? posted Sat Nov 12 2011 16:26:59 by Byrdluvs747
Why No Winter ORD-EGE On AA? posted Fri Nov 11 2011 14:11:50 by ckfred
Why No BA 777LRs? posted Mon Oct 24 2011 17:20:31 by HNLsurfer
Why No DL Cargo, UA Cargo Etc Operations posted Wed Oct 19 2011 09:23:47 by jfritz
Why No MIA-Africa? posted Sun Oct 16 2011 17:06:19 by jonathanxxxx
Why No 772 LR For Air France? posted Sun Oct 16 2011 07:13:44 by canadiantree
Why No Emirates To LAS posted Tue Oct 11 2011 20:38:49 by my235