Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing 767 New Orders - Why?  
User currently offlineAn225 From Israel, joined May 2005, 189 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 26741 times:

When I looked a few minutes ago in the Boeing 767 page in Wikipedia I was surprised to see that in 2011 and 2012 new orders were placed for this great aircraft. According to the O&D table (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767#Orders_and_deliveries):
2011: 42 frames
2012: 19 frames
At current production rates, and given the backlog of 78 frames, it means that the line will be still open for the next 5 years or so.

Now, as much as I love this aircraft, this is a almost 35 years old design. I am not sure if Airbus has something similar still in production. On the other hand, Boeing has updated the design several times during its production period, so this not the same aircraft anymore.

So now for the questions:
1. Why should an airline place orders for an older design when it has newer options (e.g. 787, A330, 777)?
2. Which airlines place orders? cargo airlines of passenger airlines as well?
3. Did the delays in development of the A350 and 787 diverted orders to the 767?
4. In light of the future production of the KC767, will Boeing increase civil frames production rates and at the same time stop accepting new orders in order to concentrate on the KC production?
5. Is it still profitable for Boeing to continue production and development of the 767 in light of current rate of production of this model?

Long live the 767!

Thanks,


An225

43 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7145 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 26717 times:

Quoting An225 (Thread starter):
Why should an airline place orders for an older design when it has newer options

If they need capacity immediately, and if they can negotiate a competitive price.

Quoting An225 (Thread starter):
3. Did the delays in development of the A350 and 787 diverted orders to the 767?

My feeling is that no it didn't divert many orders, but it did create additional need for the 763 as a stopgap. NH was ordering 763s anyway because even with the 787 in service the 763 still performs well in the niche they want it for.

Quoting An225 (Thread starter):
. Is it still profitable for Boeing to continue production and development of the 767 in light of current rate of production of this model?

Boeing would not be doing it if it wasn't. They are a business first of all.


User currently offlineAn225 From Israel, joined May 2005, 189 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 26666 times:

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 1):
Boeing would not be doing it if it wasn't. They are a business first of all.

Not if they still need to deliver the backlog and keep the line till kik-starting the KC production

An225


User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1357 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 26529 times:

Quoting An225 (Thread starter):
1. Why should an airline place orders for an older design when it has newer options (e.g. 787, A330, 777)?

The airline will make more money with the 767.

Could be that with 787 averaging 1 plane a month a new order will be delivered in approximately a very long time. 777's are much bigger. Fleet commonality. FedEx needs volume, not weight. Boeing cutting deals on 787 penalties and wanting to keep the 767 line hot for the Air Force orders.

Quote:
2. Which airlines place orders? cargo airlines of passenger airlines as well?

LAN (10)
BDS USAF Tanker (4)
MIAT Mongolian Airlines (1)
FedEx (42)
Air Astana (4)

I think all but the USAF and FedEx are passenger.

Quote:
3. Did the delays in development of the A350 and 787 diverted orders to the 767?

Yes.

Quote:
4. In light of the future production of the KC767, will Boeing increase civil frames production rates and at the same time stop accepting new orders in order to concentrate on the KC production?

Not sure. Boeing is taking a bath on the first order of KC-46s and need to keep the line up. Obviously once the KC-46 is in production that will probably take precedence in production sequence. Boeing has to deliver 18 by 2017. At 2/month that is 9 months of the line. And most of those will be built delivered in 2016 and 2017.

Quote:

5. Is it still profitable for Boeing to continue production and development of the 767 in light of current rate of production of this model?

Yes. AF plans on 15 deliveries per year (that is adjustable), so at the current 2/month rate an average of 9 civilian (or foreign KC-46s) could be built.

Of course the KC-46 line is an ITAR line. The P-8 line is also ITAR and Boeing could build civilian 737s there, but has chosen not to. So it would look like civilian 767s sales will come to an end, but there is no real reason that can't keep the 767 building.


User currently offlineredrooster3 From United States of America, joined Oct 2010, 229 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 26517 times:

Quoting An225 (Thread starter):
new orders were placed for this great aircraft.

You answered half your question, it's a great plane, very comfortable plane for passengers, and great efficiency. Though, I do agree with you that it is a old design. Don't forget USAF's KC767 order last year, expect to see KC767's till 2050+?

Quoting An225 (Thread starter):
something similar still in production

The A320 is a late 70's early 80's design. Still going very strong.

Quoting An225 (Thread starter):
Why should an airline place orders for an older design when it has newer options

Well it is a great aircraft, keep in mind. Very quiet, and availability. You can get one in six years, versus the 787 of....God...I have know idea.

Quoting An225 (Thread starter):
Which airlines place orders? cargo airlines of passenger airlines as well?

UPS, FX, Lan Airlines, Air Astana, Azerbaijan Airlines, USAF. All have ordered the 767 within the past three years.

Quoting An225 (Thread starter):
Did the delays in development of the A350 and 787 diverted orders to the 767?

None were diverted, but NH did get some compensation for the delays, they ordered a few 767's because of the delays. I think JL did, but im not too sure.


I feel the 767 has the highest chance of breaching the 100 year mile stone of flight, and still being active.



The only thing you should change about a woman is her last name.
User currently offlineLafite82 From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2012, 41 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 26507 times:

Air Astana, ANA, LAN and Uzbeskistan Airways are airlines who have ordered new B767-300ER... with deliveries finishing by 2014. The military version KC-46A will not be delivered to the air force till 2017.

User currently offlineSCL767 From Chile, joined Feb 2006, 8748 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 26389 times:

Quoting An225 (Thread starter):
2. Which airlines place orders? cargo airlines of passenger airlines as well?

LAN Airlines placed two separate orders for the B-767-300ERs last year. During 2011, LAN received 3 new B-767-316ERs. This year, LAN will receive 9 new B-767-316ERs. During 2013, LAN will receive 4 new B-767-316ERs.

Here is LAN's newest B-767-316ER, (CC-BDF) at KPAE:
http://paineairport.com/kpae5218.htm

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 1):
Quoting An225 (Thread starter):
Why should an airline place orders for an older design when it has newer options

If they need capacity immediately, and if they can negotiate a competitive price.

Quite accurate; especially for a fast growing airline such as LAN which already operates a size-able fleet of B-767-300ERs and B-767-300ER/Fs.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 1):
My feeling is that no it didn't divert many orders, but it did create additional need for the 763 as a stopgap. NH was ordering 763s anyway because even with the 787 in service the 763 still performs well in the niche they want it for.

Similarly, the B-767-300ERs continue to perform very well for LAN on various routes where LAN deploys the B-763s and is a profitable airliner for LAN's operations. Also, it is part of LAN's fleet renewal program.

Quoting An225 (Thread starter):
1. Why should an airline place orders for an older design when it has newer options (e.g. 787, A330, 777)?

In the case of LAN, it's for the reasons I stated above. Also, LAN needed to acquire additional widebody passenger aircraft during 2011-2013 to offset the delays associated with Boeing 787 deliveries.
LAN may acquire more 767s as 787s are delayed


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8189 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 25394 times:

Quoting An225 (Thread starter):
1. Why should an airline place orders for an older design when it has newer options (e.g. 787, A330, 777)?

All of those are much bigger planes. There's a huge gap between the largest narrowbody and the smallest widebody, if you don't include the 767. In addition, the 767 is available much sooner than the 788/358 and costs a lot less.


User currently offlinespiritair97 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 1231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 24995 times:

Quoting An225 (Thread starter):

Many airlines still favor fleet commonality, rather than dropping a bunch of money for a new type, then having to train employees, groundcrews, and others to work with the plane. For some airlines it's cheaper to go with what they know works.


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10631 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 24921 times:

The 767 is much cheaper than a 787, and available much faster. On the other hand it has the same propulsion than the 744, which some say is old technology. If the 744 is old, the 767 is older. I think that 767s built now will have an extreme depreciation and will have a short service life. I doubt many of the post-2010 built frames will see more than 15 years of flying. They´ll end up as spares for the USAF tankers like the late-built 707s did in the 80s.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30532 posts, RR: 84
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 22387 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The new 767 FAL has significantly reduced both the time and the cost of building a 767 and this appears to have generated new interest in the type due to greater availability (the line now builds 2 per month and can go to 3) and better pricing (the cheaper Boeing can produce the plane, the lower the average sales price while still keeping margins strong).

I expect passenger sales will start to dry up, but the freighter's prospects look good. UPS will need another 50 to replace their remaining A300-600RFs and FedEx will need well over a hundred more to complete replacement of their A300-600RF, A310F and MD-10F fleets.



Quoting An225 (Reply 2):
Not if they still need to deliver the backlog and keep the line till kik-starting the KC production

The original 100-frame lease deal was killed in December 2003. Since January 2004, Boeing has sold 161 commercial 767s and this is almost as many as the 179 KC-46s that are slated to be delivered in the RFP.

As such, I am somewhat puzzled with the belief that Boeing would have sold commercial 767s at production cost (or even a loss) just to keep the line open for military frames. I am guessing people believe that Boeing will sell those at a 200% or higher markup and therefore make up all the lost revenues from those commercial birds.

The problem with that line of thinking is that Boeing won the KC-X RFP due to the KC-767 being cheaper than the Airbus KC-30B. So unless Airbus was planning to sell the USAF KC-30Bs at a 250% markup...

With Boeing already having to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into the KC-46A program and with the very real possibility of having to invest even more, those 161 commercial 767s may very well be better for Boeing's bottom line than those 179 KC-46As.

[Edited 2012-07-10 09:47:58]

User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12331 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 21641 times:

Quoting An225 (Reply 2):
Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 1):
Boeing would not be doing it if it wasn't. They are a business first of all.

Not if they still need to deliver the backlog and keep the line till kik-starting the KC production

There's no evidence that they are losing money on the current 767 orders.

Keep in mind the tanker competition was primarily based on price, and was intensely fought over, so there's very little fat in that contract.

Boeing has admitted they are currently spending more than anticipated developing the tanker, therefore I don't think they can plan to lose money on the UPS and FedEx orders to make it up later on tankers.

Some of the orders that are due to 787 delays (ANA, LAN) presumably are underwritten by the 787 program.

I'm sure the recent freighter orders were attractively priced, but it seems the purchasers find they will make more money with these airframes than their older ones (mostly A300/A310) and the competition (A330, which has a huge backlog and thus no availability and no incentive to bargain).

I'm also sure that the USAF purchase gives the customers confidence that the frame will be supported long into the future.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 411 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 21065 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting redrooster3 (Reply 4):


I feel the 767 has the highest chance of breaching the 100 year mile stone of flight, and still being active.

That would be awesome, and just like the KC-135 some of them are replacing will be a great workhorse in the meantime!

Also, as was mentioned earlier, the 767 has seen an amazing amount of upgrades in improvements and is much better than the original birds!

Fleet commonality is a good thing for many airlines, for many reasons, so if you buy brand new birds that are the same/similar to what you already have, you save so much money for your bottom line and can maintain profitability.

[Edited 2012-07-10 10:05:08]

User currently offlinedcaviation From United States of America, joined Aug 2011, 195 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 21013 times:

Quoting An225 (Thread starter):
new orders were placed for this great aircraft.

There's your answer.


User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8189 posts, RR: 24
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 20715 times:

The 767 is still a viable airplane, especially for cargo. FedEx holds the majority of those 767 orders, I believe. Keep in mind Airbus was still selling the A300 new-build to UPS and FedEx right up until a few years ago.


This Website Censors Me
User currently offlinekl911 From Ireland, joined Jul 2003, 5119 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 20573 times:

Quoting N766UA (Reply 14):
The 767 is still a viable airplane, especially for cargo.

But imo a very ugly plane. I can never understand that between the sexy 757 and the powerhorse 777 they designed this ugly bird.



Next trip : DUB-AUH-CGK-DPS-KUL-AUH-CDG-ORK :-)
User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 411 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 20276 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kl911 (Reply 15):
But imo a very ugly plane. I can never understand that between the sexy 757 and the powerhorse 777 they designed this ugly bird.

HAHA!!! It's [767] always been a "generic" looking bird to me... I always hated the look of the 757 until a few years back, and remember that the main reason the cockpit slopes down on it was to have cockpit (internal) commonality with the 767 which it was simultaneously produced. But, the 757 has such a distinct look and could for so many years be easily identified.


User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6431 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 20177 times:

Quoting kl911 (Reply 15):
But imo a very ugly plane. I can never understand that between the sexy 757 and the powerhorse 777 they designed this ugly bird.

I can see what you mean with the 762, but the 764ER is a sleek and beautiful aircraft:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © T Silgrim
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Patrick Kane



The 763 doesn't look ugly either.

[Edited 2012-07-10 10:22:47]


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8189 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 20171 times:

Quoting 135mech (Reply 16):
It's [767] always been a "generic" looking bird to me.

Yeah, it's certainly boring, but I would never call it ugly. If anything, it's far cleaner looking than the A300; its multitude of flap track fairings and blocky wing fences don't help it to look any less pudgy.



This Website Censors Me
User currently offlineflaps30 From United States of America, joined May 2009, 283 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 20103 times:

Quoting An225 (Thread starter):
2011: 42 frames
2012: 19 frames

Do all new production 767's roll off the assembly line with blended winglets as a basic feature now?



every day is a good day to fly
User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 19992 times:

Quoting An225 (Thread starter):
1. Why should an airline place orders for an older design when it has newer options (e.g. 787, A330, 777)?

"Older" does not necessarily mean obsolete or uncompetitive. Nor should one assume that the airframes being built today are the same as those flying when first introduced. The 767 is a wonderful design and has stood the test of time, IMHO.



336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 411 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 19371 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting N766UA (Reply 18):
Quoting 135mech (Reply 16):
It's [767] always been a "generic" looking bird to me.

Yeah, it's certainly boring, but I would never call it ugly. If anything, it's far cleaner looking than the A300; its multitude of flap track fairings and blocky wing fences don't help it to look any less pudgy.

LOL sooo true! To me the A300 was more pudgy/fugly than any other bird...even Antonov's!

[Edited 2012-07-10 10:57:30]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30532 posts, RR: 84
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 19249 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flaps30 (Reply 19):
Do all new production 767's roll off the assembly line with blended winglets as a basic feature now?

No. The winglets are added after delivery at other facilities.


User currently offlinecargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1259 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 18904 times:

Quoting flaps30 (Reply 19):
Do all new production 767's roll off the assembly line with blended winglets as a basic feature now?

No. Winglets are not added on the assembly line. They're a post-delivery mod.


User currently offlineirelayer From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 1073 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 18851 times:

Also consider this...767 acquisition and maintenance cost is probably significantly lower than the 787 at this point in time. Parts are cheaper and more abundant, supply chains are well established, accurate performance data is there, and you probably do get a good discount from Boeing even in smaller quantities. It's kind of like if you want to buy a car and look at lifetime cost of operation between a Prius and a small car. Prius is twice the price so it would take you X number of years to realize the cost savings vs. a cheaper car with good gas mileage. I realize the analogy isn't perfect but it is just for illustration purposes. In other words, a perfect starter aircraft for poorer airlines that might want an efficient long range aircraft on the cheap.

-IR


25 Aesma : Some of those A300 are from 2007 ! I doubt they'll be replaced soon. That's also my answer to the OP. The A300 was still being build as a cargo plane
26 nomadic : A while back I remember reading an 'alternate history' novel about a future America following an economic collapse, set in 2070 or so. The main chara
27 captainstefan : Delta's TOC at ATL is currently hosting 4K-AZ82 while winglets are added. Sharp looking bird (sitting adjacent to "Janet" 737-66N N319BD).
28 ghifty : That sounds interesting, alt history novels are always fun reads.. any chance you can remember the name? Nope. A better analogy would be if you have
29 Post contains images GCPET : The 767 is still a very good plane and has a wide range of routes it's profitable on! An example would be BA's SH and LH 767's. It's very profitable t
30 Viscount724 : And winglets aren't certified for the 767 freighter which accounts for most recent 767 deliveries.
31 tdscanuck : It's all in the eye of the beholder; I like the look of the 767. It looks like an airliner should. The 757, on the other hand, is the ugliest commerc
32 KC135TopBoom : No, the first of 4 SDD KC-46s is due for delivery in 2015, and all four flying flight testing by 2016. The remaining 14 KC-46As have not been ordered
33 jeffry747 : Agreed. I love the look of the 757, 762, 763, and 772. But I can't stand the overly stretched look of the 753, 764, and especially the 773. They REAL
34 Roseflyer : The 767 has a big advantage because it is the lowest trip cost widebody. The A330-200 or 787-8 will never beat the 767-300 on trip costs. The A330 and
35 1337Delta764 : And actually, the 764ER has a lower CASM than the A332. The reason why the A332 outsells it isn't because of lower CASM, but more range and cargo cap
36 Post contains links and images s.p.a.s. : Not certified on freighters, hun? I see ... View Large View MediumPhoto © Andrés Contador - AirTeamImagesView Large View MediumPhoto © DacmOneView
37 Viscount724 : Thanks. That was the case at one time. I guess someone agreed to pay for the certification costs.
38 YYCspotter : That or the 737 Since when does LH operate 767s? (besides the condor lease of D-ABUA in 1994-1995 and the short lease in 2004 (i think)
39 flightsimer : Actually, The first freighter received the winglets just a few months after the first passenger winglets installation...
40 DeltaMD90 : Any chance of seeing more 764s? Or is that water under a bridge?
41 Stitch : Very unlikely any more will be built. Boeing floated a 767-400ER freighter to FedEx, but they decided to take the standard 767-300 freighter model.
42 tdscanuck : This got beat to death on another thread; the 787-8 actually drops below the 767-300 on trip fuel at a surprisingly short range...estimates very beca
43 Post contains images GCPET : I mean't Longhaul Aircraft (LH) as oppose to Lufthansa sorry for the confusion GCPET
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 Receive 104 New Orders posted Thu Oct 7 2010 14:39:54 by PanAm_DC10
Boeing 767 Moves Towards New Leaner Future posted Mon Aug 2 2010 13:51:01 by propilot83
Why No New Orders On New Generation Airliners? posted Mon Jul 26 2010 18:56:43 by SandroMag
Boeing 767 orders- current, pending and otherwise posted Sat Nov 29 2008 15:08:12 by OyKIE
Boeing O&D Update 72 New Orders Sales Record posted Wed Nov 21 2007 18:31:55 by PanAm_DC10
New Boeing 767-200LRF posted Tue Feb 13 2007 15:20:21 by CX747
Why A Boeing 767? posted Thu Mar 30 2006 05:05:18 by JetBlueGuy2006
LAN Orders 3 Boeing 767-300 posted Wed Mar 29 2006 22:21:22 by Flyfirst
Boeing : 29 New 737 Orders Listed On Website Today posted Thu Feb 2 2006 17:44:37 by Tifoso
767 Going Strong 7 New Orders, Who For? posted Fri Jul 29 2005 09:09:17 by Iwok