2cn From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 648 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2167 times:
There is no reason for them to give it up. The 764 cost very little to develope, and is not costing them anything extra to continue offering it. It uses the same production line as the rest of the 767 line. I think the 764, more or less, is a niche aircraft. It has served two of their largest customers (Continental and Delta), maintaining them as customers instead of them going to Airbus for a replacement or adition to their fleet. The plane is great, and I hope both airlines continue to buy more.. along with others in the future. I love flying on it with Delta.
Udo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2125 times:
I think the B764 will get significant future orders, most likely from American carriers. But I don't see a good future for it in Europe or somewhere else. As a pure long haul aircraft it cannot compete with the A332 which offers more range and larger cargo space. Qantas, LTU, Air France and others, including many holiday carriers, have shown that with their A332 decisions. KLM will replace the B763 by B777s and A332, Alitalia will also most likely choose the A332 as it already flies with Eurofly.
Greg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1993 times:
Actually, the 764 wasn't all that inexpensive to develop since the modification to the wing and the new window line on the fuselage (rounded windows) required specific new tooling to run in parallel with the 762/763 line.
They missed the boat by not giving the bird an extra 1000 miles in range. Although, I'm not sure how they would have done that.
Clearly they have expected more sales than those recorded. It will be interesting to see who else will pick it up....
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1974 times:
Nonetheless, since the 764 is a derivative it was cheaper than a new model. Boeing incurred costs which will bring the company some long term benefits in the form of an expanded product line and future sales. AA was interested at one time. I wonder if they will take another look.
HlywdCatft From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5321 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1956 times:
It's a great plane, I flew on it with Delta between ATL and MCO.
I think it is slow to catch on. ATA could be a great candidate to use it as a replacement for the L1011 since the 753 isnt big enough to do so, although it would only be able to use the IND hub and not MDW, or do charters from other airports.
It could also be a good transcon for AA someday on high density routes from BOS to LAX or something.
I wouldnt be surprised if it got a few orders from the Asian airlines which have been loyal Boeing customers for high density short range routes.
LMP737 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 4719 posts, RR: 22
Reply 7, posted (12 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1628 times:
Boeing hasn't thrown in the towel, they just have to get their act together. I just hope that Boeing does not end up like MD. The main reason MD lost the commercial market was that they never designed a new plane. They took old designs did some changes and tried to compete with planes designed on a clean sheet of paper. My fear is that the old MD management that now has high positions in Boeing will do just this.
Areopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1376 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (12 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1584 times:
LMP737, that is a concern, but I think Boeing is more committed to compete than McDonnell (as opposed to Douglas) was. Airpower magazine's Jan. 2002 article on the DC-10 has this to say:
"By 1974, the Douglas old guard had either retired or moved on to different companies and the McDonnell family now dominated the company's executive committee. They mandated that no new design work would commence on any derivative airplanes until the DC-10 Program broke even.
" Although both of these designs [Twin-10 and 380-passenger DC-10 Stretch to challenge the 747] generated a fair amount of interest from prospective airline customers, various limitations in Douglas's manpower and production resources, coupled with the continuous restrictions from the St. Louis corporate headquarters, made it impossible to proceed. Regarding these strategic decisions, it was admitted by the McDonnell family in later years that they never really understood the intricacies of the commercial airplane market, and never really listened to any of the Long Beach people who did, thus the Douglas half of the company was bound to suffer."
So, I'm hopeful that the Boeing management has learned the lessons of Douglas's bitter strangulation at the hands of McDonnell.
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2478 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (12 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1433 times:
Boeing did have a planned 767-400ERX with a larger fuel capacity and more powerful engines to recover the range lost from the 767-300ER. The engines, however, were tied to the 747X program and when Boeing suspended that, the 767-400ERX effort was also put on hold. Without this variant, I doubt the -400 can truly be competitive with the A330-200. The raked wingtips are a great innovation to increase performance while maintaining DC-10/L1011 gate commonality but the aircraft is too short on range and cargo space for too many carriers. I'd like to think, however, that it still has a future.