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, 1051 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 9 months 23 hours ago) and read 11354 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, 7091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 23 hours ago) and read 11346 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, 2612 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 23 hours ago) and read 11339 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 9 months 22 hours ago) and read 11209 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, 31437 posts, RR: 85
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 18 hours ago) and read 10803 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, 7566 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 10 hours ago) and read 9687 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, 6649 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 10 hours ago) and read 9583 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 onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26022 posts, RR: 22
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 10 hours ago) and read 9368 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, 6649 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 10 hours ago) and read 9250 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 onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26022 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 10 hours ago) and read 9215 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, 6649 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 9 hours ago) and read 9173 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, 981 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 9 hours ago) and read 9073 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, 6649 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 9 hours ago) and read 9012 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, 4786 posts, RR: 19
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 9 hours ago) and read 8961 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 9 months 9 hours ago) and read 8923 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, 6649 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 9 hours ago) and read 8903 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, 31437 posts, RR: 85
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 9 hours ago) and read 8593 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, 478 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 7 hours ago) and read 7915 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, 6649 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 7 hours ago) and read 7870 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, 478 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 6 hours ago) and read 7636 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 9 months 6 hours ago) and read 7632 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, 6649 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 6 hours ago) and read 7609 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 9 months 5 hours ago) and read 6992 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, 6649 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 4 hours ago) and read 6936 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 9 months 3 hours ago) and read 6639 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.


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 25, posted (1 year 9 months 3 hours ago) and read 6874 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.

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 the CEO explaining that to the shareholders.
I remember a worldtour trying to sell the 767-400 worldwide. Boeing send it to FRA and LH was offered shortly looking at it as an A300 replacement, just as they did with the 757-300.

The 767-400ER is a great aircraft, for me it is the best looking 767 version but it came too late. The A330 was the better aircraft and did not leave the 767-400 a chance, just as the 777-300ER killed the A340-600.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 891 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 9 months 2 hours ago) and read 6794 times:

Quoting anfromme (Reply 19):
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.

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 that same year.
-Boeing continued development with 26 CO orders and 21 DL orders. 47 total.


-Boeing formally offered the 747-8i in November of '05.
-LH placed an order for 748s in December of '06.
-Boeing continued development with just LH's order.. though currently 40 748s have been built.

My sentiment, and that of some people on this forum, is that Boeing created the 747-8i "for" Lufthansa since they had firm orders.. and they continued production in the hopes of securing more orders after airlines saw "how good it is."

The situation is pretty similar to the 767-400ER's:
The 747-8i goes up against the A380-800 in a pretty similar way to how the 767-400ER went up against the A332 (and indirectly the A333).. how I see it: Boeing continued producing both the 764 and 748 because they secured orders and hoped for later success (that would never come).

So I'm not saying Boeing designed the 764 exclusively *for* CO/DL. I'm simply saying that Boeing *continued* production because CO/DL already placed orders.



Fly Delta Jets
User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 27, posted (1 year 9 months 2 hours ago) and read 6815 times:

Quoting ghifty (Reply 26):
-Boeing formally offered the 747-8i in November of '05.
-LH placed an order for 748s in December of '06.
-Boeing continued development with just LH's order.. though currently 40 748s have been built.

My sentiment, and that of some people on this forum, is that Boeing created the 747-8i "for" Lufthansa since they had firm orders.. and they continued production in the hopes of securing more orders after airlines saw "how good it is."

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 and 747-8I are much higher than the 767-400 sales.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineTC957 From UK - England, joined May 2012, 1051 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 9 months ago) and read 6315 times:

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 somehow Boeing missed the opportunity to develop the 764F at the time of the 764ER and it's too late now. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, I'm sure had Boeing realized the potential back then the 764F it would have sold very well and probably become the standard 767F varient for the big package carriers.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31437 posts, RR: 85
Reply 29, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5898 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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?

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 gallons via a stabilizer fuel tank
- Reduced takeoff field length (9650 feet)

Quoting madviking (Reply 24):
Last dumb question, if DL or UA or any other carrier wished to purchase a 764 tomorrow, is it still available to purchase?

Yes.



Quoting TC957 (Reply 28):
The conclusion I see is that the 764ER is well loved by CO & UA and would have made an excellent freighter. But somehow Boeing missed the opportunity to develop the 764F at the time of the 764ER and it's too late now. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, I'm sure had Boeing realized the potential back then the 764F it would have sold very well and probably become the standard 767F varient for the big package carriers.

The 767-300F is a very flexible platform for package carriers as it offers more volume and more range than the A300-600RF | A310-200F | A310-300F. It also offers over 90% of the volume of the DC-10F | MD-10F and greater range. I believe this is why FX decided to order the 767-300F rather than have Boeing develop a 767-400F, which would have been an even larger step up from the A300 and A310.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7201 posts, RR: 50
Reply 30, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5664 times:

Quoting anfromme (Reply 19):
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.

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 wanted something to steal its thunder, and thought that the 764 would be the ticket. Unfortunately, it did not prove to be the case. Whether deserved or not, all but two airlines decided that the A332 was superior; whether they were right or wrong can only be decided by DL, which I believe is the only airline that has ever flown both types. The only way to know which they really prefer would be if they ordered more of either, which I don't believe that they have, as they have ordered 787's instead.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26022 posts, RR: 22
Reply 31, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5399 times:

Quoting ghifty (Reply 26):
.. though currently 40 748s have been built.

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 program to replace the 707-based E-3 AWACS and E-8 J-STARS radar surveillance aircraft. That airframe (photos below) was sold to the Bahrain government for conversion to a VIP aircraft.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Royal S King
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Lars Hentschel



User currently offlinecv880 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1137 posts, RR: 2
Reply 32, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5105 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, since neither DL nor UA/CO have ever said anything negative about the 764ER.

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 heavy aft cargo and restrictive weights in the aft positions of the aircraft. I believe that this still holds true when the 764 is used to SCL, when nonrevs are left behind in favor of heavier cargo weights forward. The 763ER is a much easier aircraft to deal with when it comes to heavy payloads and weight/balance issues. The 764 (on DL) is probably not used on routes these days where dense cargo (like pallets of produce) are a factor. In places like SCL where heavy cargo is the norm, the A332 is a much better aircraft.


User currently offlinespeedygonzales From Norway, joined Sep 2007, 745 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5038 times:

Quoting anfromme (Reply 17):
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.

   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 mention of this argument then. So I agree with you that this is a later invention by Boeing and/or DL/CO fanboys to excuse the failure of the 767-400 to compete with the A330.



Las Malvinas son Argentinas
User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26022 posts, RR: 22
Reply 34, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5009 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 31):
Quoting ghifty (Reply 26):
.. though currently 40 748s have been built.

38, not 40, according to Boeing orders/deliveries data.

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 about the 748.

[Edited 2013-04-01 15:20:57]

User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 738 posts, RR: 2
Reply 35, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4999 times:

^ 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. Ditto things like the 736. They're just basically market flops, although flops that may work very well for their owners.

User currently offlinemsp747 From United States of America, joined May 2010, 334 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4971 times:

Quoting speedygonzales (Reply 33):
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 mention of this argument then. So I agree with you that this is a later invention by Boeing and/or DL/CO fanboys to excuse the failure of the 767-400 to compete with the A330

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 launch customers. Launch customers get to have extensive feedback into the development of a plane. Did Boeing wish they had sold more? I'm sure. But how many 763 customers bailed on the 767 for the A332 or A333, instead of buying the 764? Honestly, I think they could have sold a lot more of them if they had put the plane on the market sooner and tried harder to sell it. If they really wanted to boost sales figures for the model, they could have convinced FX to wait for the 764 cargo version. But I bet they realized it was cheaper to just sell them the 763, and they convinced FX this was the way to go.


User currently offlinecv880 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1137 posts, RR: 2
Reply 37, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4926 times:

Quoting speedygonzales (Reply 33):
So I agree with you that this is a later invention by Boeing and/or DL/CO fanboys to excuse the failure of the 767-400 to compete with the A330.

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 much more cargo capacity. The aircraft does have some loading limitations when fully loaded, where heavy palletized cargo in the forward hold cannot be offset by the weight restricted aft cargo. In those few cases, the A330 is better.


User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6649 posts, RR: 2
Reply 38, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4893 times:

Quoting msp747 (Reply 36):
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 launch customers. Launch customers get to have extensive feedback into the development of a plane. Did Boeing wish they had sold more? I'm sure. But how many 763 customers bailed on the 767 for the A332 or A333, instead of buying the 764? Honestly, I think they could have sold a lot more of them if they had put the plane on the market sooner and tried harder to sell it. If they really wanted to boost sales figures for the model, they could have convinced FX to wait for the 764 cargo version. But I bet they realized it was cheaper to just sell them the 763, and they convinced FX this was the way to go.

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 said no, so Boeing then proposed them a 771. The 771 was rejected due to its high CASM and poor economics compared to the 772. Thus Boeing gave them the 764ER as their best and final offer.

Fact is, what the Airbus fans refuse to accept is that had Boeing not offered DL and CO the 764ER, they would have lost two important exclusive customers to Airbus. No, they wouldn't have ordered the 763ER or 772(ER), they would have ordered the A332 since they wanted a near exact replacement for the L-1011 and DC-10 in terms of capacity, with no exceptions whatsoever.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26022 posts, RR: 22
Reply 39, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4858 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 38):
Fact is, what the Airbus fans refuse to accept is that had Boeing not offered DL and CO the 764ER, they would have lost two important exclusive customers to Airbus. No, they wouldn't have ordered the 763ER or 772(ER), they would have ordered the A332 since they wanted a near exact replacement for the L-1011 and DC-10 in terms of capacity,

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 development costs of the 764 which they probably didn't recover with only 37 sales. Boeing had more than enough demand for the 763 and other models to keep their assembly lines at full capacity without the 764s.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31437 posts, RR: 85
Reply 40, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4851 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 39):
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 development costs of the 764 which they probably didn't recover with only 37 sales.

Yes it did, since in the end those costs and revenues are all effectively pooled together under the 767 program.


User currently offlineOneBadLT123 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 51 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4818 times:

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 practically mint money with these planes as they are very good on the routes selected.

However...

This plane is an absolute nightmare sometimes when it comes to payload and performance. Some of the cities we fly are heavily restricted and many, many times we leave THOUSANDS of pound of payload behind simply because we just can not get the lift out. (GRU, GIG an example) When the payloads are high, that's when we run into problems. The aircraft is very hard to balance properly and takes a lot of tweaking from the dispatcher (me) and load planners to get this bird in the air. At times, we leave with only 1500 lbs of extra fuel above minimum required because we just don't want to leave the payload behind. 1500 Lbs on a 764 goes QUICK. Heck, my IAD to HNL flight just the other day was restricted by 6000 lbs because of the high winds and ETOPS add fuel.

There is a joke in the office about the 764 and that is if you see it above FL340 then it is empty.

The 763 is a much more capable aircraft, I would say its closer to the 762 than the -400. (762, my favorite plane to dispatch ever)


User currently offlinemsp747 From United States of America, joined May 2010, 334 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4771 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 39):
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 development costs of the 764 which they probably didn't recover with only 37 sales. Boeing had more than enough demand for the 763 and other models to keep their assembly lines at full capacity without the 764s.

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 break new ground, it just updated an existing frame with technology already available in other Boeing models, like the 777 interior, wing tips, and cockpit. I doubt the 764 cost Boeing much to develop at all. That's not to say they made money or lost money. No one on A.Net really knows, we just all like to think we know 


User currently offlinemsp747 From United States of America, joined May 2010, 334 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4703 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 39):
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 development costs of the 764 which they probably didn't recover with only 37 sales.

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 let Airbus inside at two carriers that didn't own any Airbus planes at the time. That would have made them more likely to consider other Airbus models, which in the end would have cost Boeing more than just 37 sales


User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6649 posts, RR: 2
Reply 44, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4650 times:

Quoting msp747 (Reply 43):
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 let Airbus inside at two carriers that didn't own any Airbus planes at the time. That would have made them more likely to consider other Airbus models, which in the end would have cost Boeing more than just 37 sales

         Exactly what I have been pointing out the whole time. Unfortunately, Airbus fans will never accept it.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26022 posts, RR: 22
Reply 45, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 4239 times:

Quoting msp747 (Reply 42):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 39):
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 development costs of the 764 which they probably didn't recover with only 37 sales. Boeing had more than enough demand for the 763 and other models to keep their assembly lines at full capacity without the 764s.

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 break new ground, it just updated an existing frame with technology already available in other Boeing models, like the 777 interior, wing tips, and cockpit. I doubt the 764 cost Boeing much to develop at all. That's not to say they made money or lost money. No one on A.Net really knows, we just all like to think we know

764 had quite a few significant changes including completely new main landing gear, rerouted hydraulic lines in the new wheelwells, structural changes to the fuselage similar to the 777 including the 777 windows, changes to the air conditioning and bleed-air system, longer escape slides due to the taller landing gear, new APU and changes to the electrical system used for passenger services (IFE etc.), changes to cockpit instrumentation, raked wingtips, among other things.


User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6649 posts, RR: 2
Reply 46, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 4202 times:

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 would NEVER lie about something that is public record like that.

[Edited 2013-04-02 14:37:41]


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 738 posts, RR: 2
Reply 47, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 4156 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 46):
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.

Which can be completely true while saying absolutely nothing about whether Boeing expected to sell more of them to more carriers. Boeing doubtless had forecasts and market surveys and confidence intervals that made it a reasonable financial decision to launch the variant. Whether DL drove the specs changes nothing about whether total sales to this point have fallen into what was then a worst-case forecast. And sure, perhaps the program was a financial wash, and Boeing projected that was a possibility. But that does not make this the scenario Boeing thought most likely.


User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6649 posts, RR: 2
Reply 48, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4134 times:

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 47):

Which can be completely true while saying absolutely nothing about whether Boeing expected to sell more of them to more carriers. Boeing doubtless had forecasts and market surveys and confidence intervals that made it a reasonable financial decision to launch the variant. Whether DL drove the specs changes nothing about whether total sales to this point have fallen into what was then a worst-case forecast. And sure, perhaps the program was a financial wash, and Boeing projected that was a possibility. But that does not make this the scenario Boeing thought most likely.

Well, as long as the 764ER accomplished its primary mission (keeping DL and CO exclusive Boeing customers), it cannot be considered a failure. It could have been worse if Boeing said no, since one Airbus order would have a domino effect that leads to more Airbus orders from both carriers, which means more losses for Boeing, well exceeding 764ER development costs.

[Edited 2013-04-02 15:33:23]


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlinemsp747 From United States of America, joined May 2010, 334 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3819 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 45):
764 had quite a few significant changes including completely new main landing gear, rerouted hydraulic lines in the new wheelwells, structural changes to the fuselage similar to the 777 including the 777 windows, changes to the air conditioning and bleed-air system, longer escape slides due to the taller landing gear, new APU and changes to the electrical system used for passenger services (IFE etc.), changes to cockpit instrumentation, raked wingtips, among other things

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 upgrade was similar to what Boeing is dealing with today with the 737MAX (and to a lesser extent, Airbus with the NEO). Using technology from the 777 to upgrade a 767 isn't something that was going to break the bank, especially since the expense of designing and testing the new equipment was already paid for. And the 764 did not have any MAJOR design changes, like say the entirely new wings designed for the 737NG or 748. That's where things start getting really expensive. Adding a wingtip to an existing wing design is a fairly cheap modification.


User currently offlineHPRamper From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4152 posts, RR: 8
Reply 50, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3594 times:

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 do with the topic at hand.

User currently offlinevfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 4062 posts, RR: 5
Reply 51, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3365 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 48):

Well, as long as the 764ER accomplished its primary mission (keeping DL and CO exclusive Boeing customers), it cannot be considered a failure. It could have been worse if Boeing said no, since one Airbus order would have a domino effect that leads to more Airbus orders from both carriers, which means more losses for Boeing, well exceeding 764ER development costs.

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 look at any Airbus offerings for the next century only because they built them a few 767-400s. I could see the point if we were talking about a potential order for 100 airframes for each company, but 16 and 21 is really a small number. Did Boeing really expect that CO and DL would order hundreds of Airbus NBs only because of a handful of A330-200s acting as a door-opener? If so, they must have been really worried about the quality of their NB product and its capability to compete on a stand-alone basis with the A32X.


User currently offlineTC957 From UK - England, joined May 2012, 1051 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3307 times:

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 764 ?
Interesting that " a great money making aircraft " is " a nightmare for payload and performance ".
To me, that is a strange contradictory statement !


User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 677 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3284 times:

Quoting anfromme (Reply 17):
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.

They spent more than they needed if that was all they wanted to achieve - new windows different from 763 for example


User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9700 posts, RR: 15
Reply 54, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3266 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, since neither DL nor UA/CO have ever said anything negative about the 764ER.

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 a ton of Non-revs that get to spend extra time in JNB or find other ways home because of weight issues.

Quoting cv880 (Reply 32):
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 heavy aft cargo and restrictive weights in the aft positions of the aircraft. I believe that this still holds true when the 764 is used to SCL, when nonrevs are left behind in favor of heavier cargo weights forward. The 763ER is a much easier aircraft to deal with when it comes to heavy payloads and weight/balance issues. The 764 (on DL) is probably not used on routes these days where dense cargo (like pallets of produce) are a factor. In places like SCL where heavy cargo is the norm, the A332 is a much better aircraft.

This. 1337 needs to chill. the 764 isn't some god like airplane. It does a good job on east coast to Europe. IMHO the 330 will replace the 764 to South America once they get the lie-flat mods.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 38):
Fact is, what the Airbus fans refuse to accept is that had Boeing not offered DL and CO the 764ER, they would have lost two important exclusive customers to Airbus. No, they wouldn't have ordered the 763ER or 772(ER), they would have ordered the A332 since they wanted a near exact replacement for the L-1011 and DC-10 in terms of capacity, with no exceptions whatsoever.

You don't know that at all. It is highly unlikely at the time Delta would have added the cost of yet another type. (a big reason they were trying to replace the L10s in teh first place)

They weren't going to by 330s (a heavier aircraft) to run ATL-TPA/MCO/FLL/HNL. More than likely a mix of 777/763 aircraft would have been ordered.



yep.
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7201 posts, RR: 50
Reply 55, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3124 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 54):
You don't know that at all. It is highly unlikely at the time Delta would have added the cost of yet another type. (a big reason they were trying to replace the L10s in teh first place)

They weren't going to by 330s (a heavier aircraft) to run ATL-TPA/MCO/FLL/HNL. More than likely a mix of 777/763 aircraft would have been ordered.

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 need the size or range of the 777; if the threat to buy the A330 wasn't real I doubt Boeing would have built the 764. Yes, they sincerely hoped and believed that it would attract other customers, but they had to know that the chance that it wouldn't was real-they can do the numbers just as well as the airlines. It was clearly outclassed by the A330, and Boeing had to know it.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6649 posts, RR: 2
Reply 56, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3070 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 8):
Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 54):
You don't know that at all. It is highly unlikely at the time Delta would have added the cost of yet another type. (a big reason they were trying to replace the L10s in teh first place)

They weren't going to by 330s (a heavier aircraft) to run ATL-TPA/MCO/FLL/HNL. More than likely a mix of 777/763 aircraft would have been ordered.

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 or 772(ER) were not the aircraft for the job. Boeing wouldn't have come up with the 764ER had there been no such threat.

[Edited 2013-04-04 09:10:49]


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineonebadlt123 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 51 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2750 times:

Quoting TC957 (Reply 52):
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 764 ?
Interesting that " a great money making aircraft " is " a nightmare for payload and performance ".
To me, that is a strange contradictory statement !

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 usually this type takes a little bit more work across the board than lets say a 762/763/772. The 753 is the same as a 764 at times as well. GREAT planes on the right routes, but it can be absolute nightmares on the wrong ones.

Overall I like the 764 as it is a reliable workhorse for us. It's just there are sometimes where I absolutely hate it as well. (same for the 753)

I guess what I want to say in relation to this thread is that aside from there being no 400F option, the 764 would be very limited in FedEx's route structure. It isn't a plane to just put anywhere and run a service. It's a very specific plane built for specific routes

[Edited 2013-04-08 16:10:46]

User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6649 posts, RR: 2
Reply 58, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2750 times:

Quoting Reply 57):
I guess what I want to say in relation to this thread is that aside from there being no 400F option, the 764 would be very limited in FedEx's route structure. It isn't a plane to just put anywhere and run a service. It's a very specific plane built for specific routes

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 it would be safe to assume that a 764F would also have more range and total cargo capacity than the DC-10-30F/MD-10.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26022 posts, RR: 22
Reply 59, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2734 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 58):
The passenger 764ER already has more range and total cargo capacity (in terms of volume) than the DC-10-30, so it would be safe to assume that a 764F would also have more range and total cargo capacity than the DC-10-30F/MD-10.

But the 767 is less flexible since it can't handle standard-size cargo containers and pallets.

[Edited 2013-04-08 16:22:20]

User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6649 posts, RR: 2
Reply 60, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2718 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 59):
But the 767 is less flexible since it can't handle standard-size cargo containers and pallets.

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 plenty of LD2 containers available where this was a non-issue.

[Edited 2013-04-08 16:26:35]


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlinecv880 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1137 posts, RR: 2
Reply 61, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2671 times:

Quoting Reply 57):
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 usually this type takes a little bit more work across the board than lets say a 762/763/772. The 753 is the same as a 764 at times as well. GREAT planes on the right routes, but it can be absolute nightmares on the wrong ones.

  

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 58):
Quoting Reply 57):
I guess what I want to say in relation to this thread is that aside from there being no 400F option, the 764 would be very limited in FedEx's route structure. It isn't a plane to just put anywhere and run a service. It's a very specific plane built for specific routes

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 it would be safe to assume that a 764F would also have more range and total cargo capacity than the DC-10-30F/MD-10.

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 would be no need for discussion, but in it's present state, there are limitations when fully loaded with both pax and cargo, and the problem is usually balance.


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