BizJets From France, joined Jun 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0 Posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2737 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?
Kjet12 From United States, joined Mar 2001, 955 posts, RR: 11 Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2658 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.
Artsyman From United States, joined Feb 2001, 4736 posts, RR: 58 Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2619 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
Jhooper From United States, joined Dec 2001, 6123 posts, RR: 18 Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2493 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.
Hkgspotter1 From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Nov 2005, 0 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2473 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 !!
Artsyman From United States, joined Feb 2001, 4736 posts, RR: 58 Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2457 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.
Varig md-11 From France, joined Jul 2000, 1250 posts, RR: 11 Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2281 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 BA U2 TP UX LH SK AZ MP KL SN VY HV LS SS TK SQ RG
CLL777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2259 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.
Dvk From United States, joined Jun 2000, 1058 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2200 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.
ContinentalFan From United States, joined Oct 2000, 348 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2154 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.
CF-CPI From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 617 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2072 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.
BWIA 772 From United States, joined May 2002, 2037 posts, RR: 3 Reply 18, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2013 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.
Artsyman From United States, joined Feb 2001, 4736 posts, RR: 58 Reply 19, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1958 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
Crosswind From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 2484 posts, RR: 61 Reply 20, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1932 times:
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.
CLL777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1745 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.
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 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
Sponsor Message: 
From France, joined Jun 2005, 0 posts, 
From United States, joined Mar 2001, 955 posts, 
From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Nov 2005, 0 posts, 
From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15049 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 2484 posts, 
From Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4220 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
