Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Where Does The Boeing 767-400 Go From Here?  
User currently offlineBizJets From France, joined Jun 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5606 times:

I have been thinking about this for a while.

With relatively low sales and only 2 customers (that I know of), the Boeing 767-400 has to be considered more or less a failure. While I think it is a very nice looking aircraft with great characteristics, the market just does not seem to want them. Will Boeing end the 767-400 program any time soon or do they have any planes for it?

Thanks for the info in advance.

BizJets  Smile


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © PixAir



38 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKjet12 From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 975 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5527 times:

I don't think it will end anytime soon. If history serves me correctly, many airplanes have had a slow start. The 757-300, A330, and 717 to name a few. But the orders for those planes has gone up. I think Boeing is going to wait a while to see if it picks up a bit.

Kris



AA - Doing what we do best.
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16862 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5514 times:

There's also the possibility of large sales to the USAF to replace their ageing AWACS etc.


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineJessman From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1506 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5510 times:

The caption indicates that it goes to EWR Big grin

User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 4, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5488 times:

Let's see, Probably the currently two best performing airlines in america are both happily using them, so I don't see there being too much of a problem. No airplane is going to fit into every airlines fleet plan. This airplane works for Delta and Continental, but at the moment, not for the others. The same as the 747 works for many airlines, but not a lot of the US carriers. In time, more will order this plane. As mentioned in previous posts, the development costs for this plane were very low, so almost any orders are a profit.

Many people say that the A330 is a stronger airplane in this dept, this may well be true, but Delta and Continental are not going to order airbus. Most airlines feel that the 737ng aircraft is better performing than the airbus that jetblue uses, but you are not going to see jetblue ordering from Boeing. It is just the way it works

Jeremy


User currently offlineJhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6204 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5362 times:

If I understand correctly, the 767-400 had relatively low R&D costs since they already had the basic framework for the plane, so it wasn't as costly to develop as say the 747 or 777. So even with few sales, I wouldn't consider the project a failure.


Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
User currently offlineHkgspotter1 From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5342 times:

A friend of mine flew on a Delta 764 a few weeks ago in the US and thought it was horrible (in terms of seating and space). I should mention this guy's an aviation nut and has flown on many, many types. In fact he loves planes so much he started his own model plane company, its one of the biggest in the business !!

User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 7, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5326 times:

A friend of mine flew on a Delta 764 a few weeks ago in the US and thought it was horrible

I have flown on more or less every airbus and boeing plane, and found it to be an excellent plane, I had many reviews on here that have said more or less the same as me.

Jeremy


User currently offlineJhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6204 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5318 times:

The first class seats are good.


Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
User currently offlineSean-SAN- From United States of America, joined Aug 2002, 769 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5256 times:

Coach in any DL plane is horrible. No fault of the 764. I'ver heard CO's are quite nice actually.

-Sean


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16248 posts, RR: 56
Reply 10, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5177 times:

AA, UA, JL, ANA are all prime candidates for the 764...once the economy picks up and their financials improve.




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5164 times:

That is what happens when you try to introduce a new type right before the economy heads south.


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineVarig md-11 From France, joined Jul 2000, 1594 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5150 times:

Yyz717

correct me if I'm wrong but All Nippon ordered recently (and oddly?) new 767-300 instead of 400...
maybe their 300 fleet being large they didn't want to introduce a new type



AF TW AA NW DL UA CO BA U2 TP UX LH SK AZ MP KL SN VY HV LS SS TK SQ PC RG IW SE
User currently offlineCLL777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day ago) and read 5128 times:

If the 767-400 had better range then maybe sales would be higher and this point in its existence. The airlines that have an almost all Boeing fleet like AA, would have a much cheaper time using the 767-400 instead of going to the A330. Just give it time, the 757 never caught on until later in its existence, and there are just a few of the flying around.

User currently offlineDvk From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1058 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (11 years 12 months 23 hours ago) and read 5069 times:

I believe the 764 was developed at the request of Delta and Continental. Boeing reopened the 762 production line at Continental's request, so they are clearly willing to do things that are not outrageously expensive to accommodate good customers. From that standpoint, the 764 is not a failure.


I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless information.
User currently offlineContinentalFan From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 357 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (11 years 12 months 22 hours ago) and read 5023 times:

Dvk,

I think there isn't a 762 specific production line. I think it's all one production line for all 767s, only a matter of whether you want a small, medium or large 767. You will probably be able to order any size as long as the line stays open, even if nobody really orders 762s anymore. I would imagine that it wasn't too expensive to retrofit the new interior into the 762, either.

Mike.


User currently offlineCF-CPI From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 1056 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (11 years 12 months 20 hours ago) and read 4941 times:

Most commentary on the 767-400's characteristics (flying, reliability, etc.) have been very favourable. On the one hand, it is probably hurting in the market vis-a-vis the A330-200 which was designed with higher weights for longer range ops, but then on the other hand DL isn't hauling around a lot of dead weight from ATL to Florida, for example. CO is using them transatlantic from EWR and to Latin America so I suppose they're getting their money's worth.
The DL configuration is for high-density leisure routes, as an L-1011 replacement. Quite frankly, I think the First class section on DL is herded together, definitely a comedown from the Tristar, but economy is probably equal or better than its predecessor. CO has 5-across in the front cabin and from the pics is a helluva lot more civilized.


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16248 posts, RR: 56
Reply 17, posted (11 years 12 months 20 hours ago) and read 4915 times:

You have a point Varig MD-11, but it is easy for any 763 customer to step up to the 764 if market conditions warrant.

Regards
Neil



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineBWIA 772 From Barbados, joined May 2002, 2200 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (11 years 12 months 20 hours ago) and read 4882 times:



Upon reading the stats on the 767-400 it is the ideal aircraft for small airliners who operate long haul routes that dont have avarge loads of 300+ passengers. The problem however is that the 767-400 is to expensive for airlines like those mentioned above to buy and although it is a good concept i think that Boeing should try to recapture the 767/A330 size market with a 777 derivative. Thus after 20 years the NG 767s should have commonality with the triple 7.



Eagles Soar!
User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 19, posted (11 years 12 months 19 hours ago) and read 4827 times:

I believe that the A330 was only listed as being a stronger aircraft than the 764 due to its ability to fly further and carry more pax. It is possible that if CO /DL don't carry much cargo on the routes, and I believe don't have the loads to justify the extra capacity. If you don't need the extra seats or the extra range then what is the point of having it ? For non-airbus customers, you end up with no fleet commonality, needing to train mechanics, pilots, fa's etc etc

Jeremy


User currently offlineCrosswind From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 2598 posts, RR: 58
Reply 20, posted (11 years 12 months 18 hours ago) and read 4801 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Unfortunately, I think the cancellation of the 764ERX sealed the success of the A330-200 and the fate of the B767-400, and handed this market segment to Airbus. Since it's launch the 767-400 has had no customers, and the likes ILFC and Kenya Airways have cancelled. Whatever the economic climate, an aircraft that has a negative net sales total in its first 2 years of airline service clearly has problems. The A330-200 has enjoyed continued success in the same timeframe, no doubt aided by the lack of direct competition from Boeing.

I think Boeing may have fallen into the same trap British aircraft makers in the late 1950s/early 1960s, when the VC-10 was designed to meet BOAC requirements and the Trident was designed for BEA. Because these aircraft were so airline-specific, their sales records to other carriers was abysmal. In the same way the 767-400 was designed to stop Continental/Delta defecting to Airbus and meet the needs of US Domestic carriers to replace their DC-10/L1011 fleets. It meets those requiements well but the cancellation of the 764ERX, which would have made the 764 very attractive to potential customers, means the 767-400 is never going to have much appeal outside the US. Potential customers who evaluate ordering the B767-400 usually select the A330, B777 or stick to the existing B767-300 with it's slightly lower capacity but superior range. Range oftnen seems to be the reason protential 764 customers look elswhere; Continental's EWR-HNL route appears to be at the limits of the 764s range.

Shame really, I flew on a Delta B767-400 last year, and it was a very nice aircraft, certainly from a passenger perspective the new cabin is a considerable improvement over the old B767-2/300.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © PeachAir


Regards
CROSSWIND


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9628 posts, RR: 68
Reply 21, posted (11 years 12 months 16 hours ago) and read 4707 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

didn't Kenya order the 764?

User currently offlineRickb From United Kingdom, joined May 2003, 243 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (11 years 12 months 16 hours ago) and read 4693 times:

Clickhappy - no Kenya cancelled as did ILFC as Crosswind said !!

RickB


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (11 years 12 months 15 hours ago) and read 4667 times:

They cancelled and ordered 777 instead.

User currently offlineCLL777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (11 years 12 months 15 hours ago) and read 4614 times:

Its only been a little while since the aircraft came out. I am glad that we are giving up on the aircraft, because we all know that the 757s should have been scraped after the first year. Who would try and have fait in an aircraft so young.

25 Manni : Yyz717, ANA has recently confirmed that they ordered 9 767-300 and 5 777-200 aircraft. I doubt they're after the 767-400.
26 Manni : make it 5 777-300 aircraft,
27 Crosswind : Its only been a little while since the aircraft came out. I am glad that we are giving up on the aircraft, because we all know that the 757s should ha
28 Artsyman : OK. Lets compare the 757s early order record with that of the 764. How can you compare the 764 with the 757, why not compare the 757 with the 767, the
29 Big777jet : >>>>>>>Coach in any DL plane is horrible. No fault of the 764. I'ver heard CO's are quite nice actually. -Sean
30 Post contains images 777gk : Just for clarification, we currently operate 16 767-424/ER models, in addition to 10 767-224/ER aircraft, with 4 remaining orders to be delivered from
31 Cba : 777gk, what routes would CO use the 763 for? Wouldn't the 763 overlap the current 762 and 764 markets?
32 STT757 : AA is a strong canidate for the 767-400 to replace their A-300s and their oldest 767s, but not untill the economy recovers. With AA a order of 35 or s
33 AKelley728 : Cba:I'm sure the 767-300 would be used in markets that have 'outgrown' the 767-200, but can't quite support the 767-400. The 737-700/800/900 is used i
34 DCA-ROCguy : I've heard from one employee of a company that operates the 764 that it is "too much aircraft for the wing" and thus does not peform well fuel-wise. C
35 Artsyman : I've heard from one employee of a company that operates the 764 that it is "too much aircraft for the wing" and thus does not peform well fuel-wise. C
36 UPS Pilot : My guess, the main reason is the poor balance sheets of most airlines.
37 Brons2 : I've heard from one employee of a company that operates the 764 that it is "too much aircraft for the wing" and thus does not peform well fuel-wise. C
38 Keesje : IMO it's not unlikely Delta, United and possibly BA will order A330-200 to replace 767. It makes more sense then replacing 20 yr old 767's by basicall
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...
The Boeing 767-400 posted Mon Jun 19 2006 00:14:33 by DID747
Where Does The Water Cannon Salute Come From? posted Sat Sep 2 2000 18:35:15 by DesertJets
Where Do Boeing Go From Here? posted Sat Jun 30 2001 09:39:16 by SA365C1
Where Does The Canadian Y Come From? posted Wed Apr 19 2006 01:28:24 by Airevents
Where Does The Capacity Go posted Fri Apr 14 2006 17:44:26 by LV
Where Does The Swiss LX Come From posted Tue Oct 18 2005 15:01:00 by RootsAir
Where Does The Name "Narita" Come From? posted Wed Apr 6 2005 06:56:02 by GoBoeing
Where Does The Airbus Efficiency Come From? posted Fri Dec 3 2004 23:50:24 by Ruscoe
LAX - Where Does The "X" Come From? posted Sat Dec 29 2001 22:14:45 by Blackened
Where Does The Fuel Come From posted Thu Jul 5 2001 23:15:01 by 456