Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Did Fed Ex Not Order The 764F's?  
User currently offlineTC957 From UK - England, joined May 2012, 1029 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 11327 times:

I see the forthcoming Fed Ex 763F's have been allocated c/n's and regs now ( N101FE upwards ).
It was often mentioned here on A.net threads that Fed Ex flights are maxed out with volume before weight, so if this is the case why did they not get the 764F's instead ? I would have thought they would be closer to the volume offered by the MD-10's they are presumably replacing.

61 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7089 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 11319 times:

Because there is no 767-400F on offer, only the 767-300.


It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offline817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2593 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 11312 times:

A freighter version of the 764 doesn't exist, Nor are there any 764 available for conversion to freighters...


Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently offlinecmb56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 233 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 11182 times:

The most likely answer is that FedEx has a timeline to meet for when they want the aircraft in service and at what rate they want them delivered. A 767-400F would have to be developed at great cost and time which FX probably doesn't have and Boeing doesn't want to invest. 767-300Fs are standard units coming off the line right now. UPS has 5 left to take and all those are in build right now. The -300F can have at least some of the new technology from the tanker program incorporated, I have heard that after the 5-7 delivery they will be built with 787 displays in the cockpit for example. A 767-400F would have 4 more container positions on the main deck, a nice boost to capacity but not worth the cost or wait to get it. I would also hazard a guess that the A330F was not an option due to too few slots available within the FX time frame. Don't forget the 757s replacing 727s is a capacity increase there so they may be adjusting their route structure as well.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31387 posts, RR: 85
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10776 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Boeing and FedEx did discuss the possibility of a 767-400ERF, but as the 767-300F will offer over 90% of the volume of an MD-10 and more volume than the A300-600F, A310-200F and A310-300F, it was decided as being sufficient to win the RFP.

User currently offlineburnsie28 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 7564 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 9660 times:

The 764 is somewhat a weak aircraft, there are a lot of places that they go payload restricted.


"Some People Just Know How To Fly"- Best slogan ever, RIP NW 1926-2009
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 9556 times:

Quoting burnsie28 (Reply 5):

A.net myth. The 764ER works flawlessly at least for DL, and if UA were to retire their 764s, DL would snatch them in a flash.

Also, for cargo carriers, volume is more important than payload, since most dedicated cargo flights get full well below max payload. The 764ER has a larger cargo volume than the DC-10, and thus would have been perfectly sufficient for FX.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25983 posts, RR: 22
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 9341 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 6):
The 764ER works flawlessly at least for DL, and if UA were to retire their 764s, DL would snatch them in a flash.

The "at least for DL" is significant. They apparently didn't work flawlessly for dozens of other carriers around the world or the 764 would have had more than 2 customers.

I expect a major reason was that the 763ER was more flexible on long-range routes where the 764 would probably be payload-restricted.

[Edited 2013-03-31 17:07:43]

User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 9223 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 7):

Doubt it. I agree with cmb56's reasoning, since the 764ER also has more range than the DC-10-30. It appears you just want an excuse to bash the 764ER for no reason at all.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25983 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 9188 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 8):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 7):

Doubt it. I agree with cmb56's reasoning, since the 764ER also has more range than the DC-10-30.

cmb56 is referring to freighters. I was talking about the 764 in general. How do you explain the fact that only 2 carriers ordered the 764?


User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 9146 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 9):

Because it was designed as a niche aircraft to meed the specifications of DL and CO, REGARDLESS of overall sales. That was the aircraft's primary mission, no matter what you want to believe. Yes, Boeing would have liked a few more sales, however, the aircraft accomplished its primary mission of keeping DL and CO exclusive Boeing customers. It could have been worse if Boeing said no to the 764ER, since DL and CO were unwilling to accept the 763ER or 772ER as an L-1011 or DC-10 replacement, with no exceptions or leeway whatsoever, thus forcing them to order A332s.

[Edited 2013-03-31 17:35:35]


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineFlyHossD From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 975 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 9046 times:

UA routinely operates full 764s between EWR and HNL, so I don't see a payload problem.


My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 8985 times:

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 11):
UA routinely operates full 764s between EWR and HNL, so I don't see a payload problem.

Yep, and DL once flew ATL-HNL on the 764ER (IN A HIGH DENSITY DOMESTIC LAYOUT), and never had any such issue with payload. These claims of payload issues seem like total horse hockey, since neither DL nor UA/CO have ever said anything negative about the 764ER.

[Edited 2013-03-31 17:39:49]


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4778 posts, RR: 19
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 8934 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 12):

Yep, and DL once flew ATL-HNL on the 764ER (IN A HIGH DENSITY DOMESTIC LAYOUT), and never had any such issue with payload. These claims of payload issues seem like total horse hockey.

Absolutely correct, and this 'weak Aircraft' just as an example on a RIO-NYC leg where it replaced the DC10 WOULD burn 30,000 pounds less fuel.


Just on that one leg and do it on two engines with no Flight Engineer.I have flown it all over the world and on the missions it was designed for it is a superb Aircraft.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 891 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 8896 times:

It seems like there is a business case for a freighter variant of the 767-400 at FX.. right now the MD-10/DC-10 are positioned between the 763 and 772, but those will be retired soon. FX could just end up ordering the A330-200F..?

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 9):
How do you explain the fact that only 2 carriers ordered the 764?

The A330-200?

DL and UA were looking for an aircraft that could replace the DC-10, and that's exactly what they got. The problem is, other carriers would've liked a more capable 767-400ER (Boeing later proposed the ERX).. Boeing didn't make one. Airbus did.

An ERX would've been interesting to see. The OEW of the 764 is about 45,000lbs less than the A332 yet it only carries 35,000lbs less than the A332, when each frame is at MTOW. If Boeing matched the A330's range, I suspect we would've seen more frames sold.. especially since they would've been re-engined with more efficient engines (and supposedly, DL's A332 and B764 burn the same amount of fuel over some metric..). But that's a digression.



Fly Delta Jets
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 8876 times:

Quoting ghifty (Reply 14):
(and supposedly, DL's A332 and B764 burn the same amount of fuel over some metric..). But that's a digression.

In fact, the 764ER burns less fuel than the A332 on many of DL's routes, and is considered to be DL's second most efficient widebody behind the A333.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31387 posts, RR: 85
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 8566 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 9):
How do you explain the fact that only 2 carriers ordered the 764?

Time to market. The 767-300ER had been on offer for over a decade and was in operation with a significant number of carriers. And those who wanted something bigger were ordering the A330-200, which had launched two years prior.

As noted above, DL and CO wanted an L-1011 | DC-10 replacement that could operate out of FAA Design Group IV facilities. The 777 was a Design Group V plane so Boeing pitched folding wingtips to make it fit in Group IV gates, but the 777 was a major step up in size. The A330-200 was also a Design Group V plane, but it was a closer fit to the DC-10.

Boeing subsequently offered the 767-400ER - it had capacity similar to the A330-200, but fit in a Group IV gate. With the A330-200 being new herself, Boeing hoped to sell the aircraft to other carriers and sent it on a world tour. However, the A330-200 offered better performance and European and Asian operators were flying equipment needing Group V gates (747, A330-300, A340-300) so the A330-200 was the way they went.


User currently offlineanfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 476 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 7888 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 10):
Because it was designed as a niche aircraft to meed the specifications of DL and CO, REGARDLESS of overall sales. That was the aircraft's primary mission, no matter what you want to believe. Yes, Boeing would have liked a few more sales, however, the aircraft accomplished its primary mission of keeping DL and CO exclusive Boeing customers. It could have been worse if Boeing said no to the 764ER, since DL and CO were unwilling to accept the 763ER or 772ER as an L-1011 and DC-10 replacement, with no exceptions or leeway whatsoever, thus forcing them to order A332s.

I've read the "Only designed to meet CO's and DL's specifications, no further sales really necessary" argument a few times here on a.net, but never saw any proof to go with it.
At the time, Boeing actually tried very hard to get additional customers, even sending one specially painted -400ER on a World Tour of 17 cities under the tagline "Leading the Way".

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Craig Murray


The cities visited give you an idea of whom they were targeting:
Vienna, Hannover and Frankfurt in Germany, Warsaw, Prague, Larnaca, Cyprus, and Luton and Gatwick in England. The airplane will make four stops in China (in Urumqi, Haikou, Shanghai and Beijing) before traveling on to Tokyo, Taipei, Bangkok, Singapore and Seoul.
(Source.)

This promotional effort made sense, as Boeing had put a lot of technical effort into the -400ER already. New flight deck layout, new brakes, a taller main gear, new hydraulic tail skid, raked wingtips (and associated structural changes to the wing, leaving it with few common parts to the -300ER)...
(Source I.)
(Source II.)
Sorry, but that's not the sort of effort and money you spend if you're content with just under 40 orders from your two initial customers. And in August 1998, the project's chief engineer said there was "significant interest in the programme", and added that "we still expect it to be a best seller". (source)

Yes, DL's TriStar replacement, where Airbus was pushing its A330-200, was the RFP that got things going for the 767-400ER - which was based on a study first presented in 1995. But Boeing's efforts at the time were clearly not aimed at just appeasing two customers that ordered fewer than 40 between them. They wanted to take on the A330-200 in more RFPs. Don't take my word for it. Look at what Boeing said when they launched the type.. Also, the changed flight deck for instance was not even introduced until after CO and DL had already placed their orders. Boeing had further consulted with all airlines that sat on the advisory board for the 400ER and followed their recommendation to create commonality with the 777 to broaden its appeal (source).
Boeing then pitched the 400ER on their world tour, and it was proposed to AF in 1999, US in 1997/98, and BMI in 1999/2000.
That's just those larger RFPs that I could find references for in a limited amount of time. I'm sure there were more sales campaigns going on at the time.
In interviews at the time, Boeing did mention that they had an airline advisory group during development, and they did develop some options based on that feedback - which were not actually picked by CO or DL, i.e. it was not those two that suggested these options to begin with - which in turn means that Boeing were very well talking to a few more airlines during development than just CO and DL. This also goes completely against the "designed to CO's and DL's specifications" myth.

Then there was the proposition of a -400ERX, which was supposed to remove the rather limited range of the -400ER in comparison to the A330-200. I know you wrote in previous threads that the ERX was intended as a niche aircraft for Kenya Airways. However, the very first mention of an extended-range 400ER that I can find even pre-dates CO's 767-400ER order by a few weeks. And the name mentioned in this context is Condor Flugdienst, LH's charter subsidiary.. The next mention I can find is about 9 months later (June 1998). And again, the target carrier mentioned is a European charter airline - Britannia. Kenya Airways only came into the picture in the year and a half following that before placing an order for 3 of the type. All of this shows that the ERX variant was very much part of active discussions back when the 400ER was initially launched and pitched, not just an after-though that was added at the behest of a single airline. And it wasn't Kenya Airways' cancellation that dealt the death-blow to the ERX - it was Boeing pulling the plug on that variant at the time of the unveiling of the Sonic Cruiser. The fact that they had only sold 3 of them may have influenced that decision.

Quoting ghifty (Reply 14):
DL and UA were looking for an aircraft that could replace the DC-10, and that's exactly what they got. The problem is, other carriers would've liked a more capable 767-400ER (Boeing later proposed the ERX).. Boeing didn't make one.

See above - this turns chronology on its head. Boeing was in discussions with customers about the ERX right from the start, even before CO placed their order. But they sold even fewer of them than of the regular 400ER, so they ended up quietly nixing the ERX in July 2001, with the sole customer switching to 777 instead.

None of the above indicates that Boeing primarily designed the 400ER for DL and CO, with additional orders just being a "nice to have". None of Boeing's actions or words backs up that theory. They put a lot of technical effort into it, sent it round the world at significant expense, and were actively pitching it at other customers even before CO had placed their order. They even proposed an extended range version to make the plane more attractive, particularly for European charter airlines.
Sure, DL and CO may have given Boeing the impetus to launch the -400ER - but to spin that into saying the plane was only designed for them is about as accurate as suggesting that Boeing designed the 737MAX only to keep AA happy.

[Edited 2013-03-31 20:00:50]


Flown on: A300B4, A310-200/-300, A319, A320-100/-200, A321-200, A330-200, A340-500/-600, A380-800, An-24, An-26, ATR42,
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 7843 times:

Quoting anfromme (Reply 17):
Sure, DL and CO may have given Boeing the impetus to launch the -400ER - but to spin that into saying the plane was only designed for them is about as accurate as suggesting that Boeing designed the 737MAX only to keep AA happy.

I never said "only", I said primarily. Sure, Boeing was going for more orders, but don't let that overshadow the aircraft's primary mission, which is referenced by almost all reliable scholarly sources. Cherry-picking sources to prove the contrary just makes you unfairly biased. Had the sole mission been to compete with the A332, the 764ERX would have been the only variant offered.

By your logic, Boeing should have screwed DL and CO and let them order the A332, thus lose them as exclusive customers, which would have allowed more Airbus orders down the road. Not losing these two key customers to Airbus was FAR more important to Boeing than selling the 764ER in mass quantities.

[Edited 2013-03-31 20:13:47]


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineanfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 476 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 7609 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 18):
but don't let that overshadow the aircraft's primary mission, which is referenced by almost all reliable scholarly sources.

Care to reference or present any of those?
I'd be interested as all the sources I found - some of which I linked to in my previous post do not support your hypothesis. And they particularly refute your allegation that the ERX was only conceived as a niche aircraft for Kenya Airways.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 18):
Had the sole mission been to compete with the A332, the 764ERX would have been the only variant offered.

I don't understand that logic, to be honest.
The ERX was offered, so it was part of the whole 767-400 project and thus part of the justification for that project. But the ERX got even fewer orders than the ER.
As for taking on the A330-200 - even at DL, the 400ER, was competing against the A332. I also never said that the 767-400's sole mission was to take on the A332. But they did try to position it heavily that way - see the various articles I linked in my previous post.

Sorry, I have absolutely nothing against the 767-400ER(X), but Boeing undertaking the work they did for that project just for two airlines is in my eyes one of those a.net myths with all proof in the real world pointing the other way.



Flown on: A300B4, A310-200/-300, A319, A320-100/-200, A321-200, A330-200, A340-500/-600, A380-800, An-24, An-26, ATR42,
User currently offlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4229 posts, RR: 37
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 7605 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 7):
The "at least for DL" is significant. They apparently didn't work flawlessly for dozens of other carriers around the world or the 764 would have had more than 2 customers.

UA loves their 764s... they are extremely efficient and lift heavy a long ways.



Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 7582 times:

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 20):
UA loves their 764s... they are extremely efficient and lift heavy a long ways.

And DL loves them just as much (if not more than) UA loves theirs. I'd probably say that DL will continue to operate them well after UA retires theirs.

[Edited 2013-03-31 20:27:38]


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlinemadviking From Canada, joined Jul 2003, 197 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6965 times:

If the ERX was sold, the basic difference from the ER was that it would have an additional tail fuel tank to provide the extra range?

User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6909 times:

Quoting madviking (Reply 22):
If the ERX was sold, the basic difference from the ER was that it would have an additional tail fuel tank to provide the extra range?

No, the engines were supposed to be different as well (it was supposed to use the same engines as the 747X).



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlinemadviking From Canada, joined Jul 2003, 197 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 6612 times:

Thanks 1337Delta764.

Last dumb question, if DL or UA or any other carrier wished to purchase a 764 tomorrow, is it still available to purchase? LAN and ANA were till recently buying new pax 763ERs so if they or anyone else for that matter wanted the extra capacity could they still purchase one?

And finally, hind sight is 20/20, but if anyone could have foreseen the delays and obstacles that the 787 has suffered, and it's entry into full service still stalled I'm sure the 764 may have had a better sales record as if one had known they may be waiting until 2013 and beyond for their 787s they may have opted to purchase 764s in the interim and possibly giving life to the ERX.

I suppose Boeing itself was laying all bets on the 787 game changer so applying valuable resources on trickling 764 sales when clearly the focus was on the 787 would be a waste of money.


25 columba : Oh, come on. Boeing was hoping to get more than two customers and if a company build a niche aircraft regardless of overall sales I don´t want to be
26 ghifty : How I see it: -Boeing started to begin work on the 767-400ER in November of '95. -In March '97 DL placed their 764 orders. CO followed in October of
27 columba : I agree with you here on some extend, because you should not forget that the 747-8 also comes with a freighter version and joint sales of the 747-8F
28 TC957 : Thanks for your answers, guys. The conclusion I see is that the 764ER is well loved by CO & UA and would have made an excellent freighter. But som
29 Stitch : The main changes were: - Increase in MTOW from 450,000 to 465,000 pounds - Increase in range of 525nm to 6100nm - Increase in fuel volume of 2145 gal
30 SEPilot : Not having any inside information, I would agree with this. Certainly Boeing must have been bothered by the success of the A332, and would have wante
31 Post contains images Viscount724 : 38, not 40, according to Boeing orders/deliveries data. DL - 21 CO -16 Plus one built on speculation as a prototype for the cancelled USAF E-10 progr
32 cv880 : I beg to differ....there have been many times when cargo pallets, forward, have to be offloaded due to inability to offset the heavy weights with hea
33 Post contains images speedygonzales : I did a search of threads from the time when Boeing was actively trying, and failing, to sell the 767-400 some time ago, and I didn't find a single m
34 Viscount724 : Please ignore my reply 31 above. I thought you were referring to the 764 since it was the subject of this thread, but I now see you were talking abou
35 SSTeve : ^ Of course it is. It would be like retroactively arguing that the A345/A346 were just "to keep customers happy" and didn't really hope for more sales
36 msp747 : Obviously they were trying to sell more of them, but that doesn't mean they weren't designed for exactly what CO and DL had in mind. They were the la
37 cv880 : Pax wise, the 764 was a good choice and for DL a good replacement for the L10, as in the domestic version, the 764 held almost as many pax, and had m
38 1337Delta764 : In fact, prior to introducing the 764ER, Boeing heavily pushed DL and CO to order more 772s to replace their L-1011s and DC-10s. Obviously DL and CO
39 Viscount724 : The question is whether, in hindsight, it would have made more economic sense for Boeing to let DL and CO buy 37 A332s rather than incur the heavy de
40 Stitch : Yes it did, since in the end those costs and revenues are all effectively pooled together under the 767 program.
41 OneBadLT123 : Ok, let me clear up a lot of misinformation here in this thread. At my carrier, the 764 is a great money making aircraft. (Like the 753) We practicall
42 Post contains images msp747 : Heavy development costs? Let's not get carried away here. This was an update to an existing frame, not an entirely new model. The 764 didn't really b
43 msp747 : Another point is the fact that they kept two Boeing customers loyal to Boeing. Sure it would have only been 37 orders for Airbus, but it would have l
44 Post contains images 1337Delta764 : Exactly what I have been pointing out the whole time. Unfortunately, Airbus fans will never accept it.
45 Viscount724 : 764 had quite a few significant changes including completely new main landing gear, rerouted hydraulic lines in the new wheelwells, structural change
46 1337Delta764 : Also, I forgot to point out, in an Investor Day conference in 2006 or 2007, Ed Bastian formally stated that the 764ER was made for DL. Ed Bastian woul
47 SSTeve : Which can be completely true while saying absolutely nothing about whether Boeing expected to sell more of them to more carriers. Boeing doubtless ha
48 1337Delta764 : Well, as long as the 764ER accomplished its primary mission (keeping DL and CO exclusive Boeing customers), it cannot be considered a failure. It cou
49 msp747 : I didn't mean that big changes weren't made, but the things you mention are pretty minimal in the grand scheme of designing an airplane. The 764 upgr
50 HPRamper : This thread has been quite off-topic for a long time. The last post of relevance in this thread was reply 14. DL, UA and passenger use have nothing to
51 vfw614 : Why was Boeing so concerned about DL or CO buying 16 or 21 Airbus A330-200? Realistically Boeing could not reasonably expect that DL/CO would not loo
52 TC957 : So can we conclude then, that issues with load balancing as mentioned on reply 41 is perhaps a reason Boeing didn't push for a cargo version of the 76
53 JerseyFlyer : They spent more than they needed if that was all they wanted to achieve - new windows different from 763 for example
54 Deltal1011man : I didn't want to jump into this stupid pissing match but the 400ER regularly had problems on the DKR-JNB-JNB legs when they did those routes. I know
55 SEPilot : I have to go with the 764-designed-for-DL/CO crowd on this one. From what I have read DL/CO clearly wanted something bigger than the 763 and didn't n
56 1337Delta764 : Nope, the threat to order A332s was indeed real. DL clearly wanted an aircraft that would be a near exact replacement for the L-1011s, and the 763ER
57 onebadlt123 : While a lot of planning problems do exist, overall the aircraft does make money for us. It's just one of the hardest planes to plan for properly, and
58 1337Delta764 : Not sure if I would agree with that. The passenger 764ER already has more range and total cargo capacity (in terms of volume) than the DC-10-30, so i
59 Viscount724 : But the 767 is less flexible since it can't handle standard-size cargo containers and pallets.[Edited 2013-04-08 16:22:20]
60 1337Delta764 : True, but the 763 isn't any different from the 764 in this case. In DL's case, considering that DL already operated a large 767 fleet, DL already had
61 Post contains images cv880 : Just how many 764's have You done load plans for at max weight? If the 764F as a true freighter existed with full pallet capability throughout, there
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 Did TAM Pass On Ordering The 787? posted Sun Oct 7 2012 13:34:14 by VC10er
Why Did Mesaba Get Rid Of The Dash 8s? posted Wed Nov 24 2010 20:20:39 by KGRB
Why Did EA Leave 757 On The Tail? posted Sat Jul 17 2010 12:44:33 by jetpixx
Why Did Aeroflot Get Rid Of The 777? posted Fri Apr 9 2010 16:41:19 by c5load
Why Did Air Jamaica Stop Using The A340? posted Mon Aug 18 2008 15:19:44 by 747400sp
Why Did NWA Choose RR For The 787? posted Wed Nov 1 2006 05:45:22 by Scouse
If Delta Does NOT Order The 787-3... posted Fri Aug 4 2006 18:06:44 by 1337Delta764
Why Would Fed Ex Fly OAK To SFO? posted Thu Mar 9 2006 15:09:22 by Dc10heaven
Why Did JetBlue/AA/Delta Take The Huge! Risk posted Fri Jan 28 2005 17:06:42 by BMI701EGCC
Why Did Passenger Flow Plummit In The Early '70s? posted Fri Mar 19 2004 20:15:12 by Thrust