Spacepope From Vatican City State (Holy See), joined Dec 1999, 1928 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1945 times:
The 767-400 looks like it is going to likely get an order for 4 more airframes. The USAF is pushing congress to allow them to order them this year to replace some 707 series aircraft in its inventory. 4 isn't a large order, but in todays industry, you take what you can get.
Ual747-600 From United States, joined Sep 1999, 457 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1906 times:
USAF aircraft will have inflight refueling capability so range isn't an issue. If they have their way, all USAF 707 special op's aircraft will be replaced with 767-400's. Then consider the USAF tank replacement needs (767-200's) and the future looks bright for the 767 line.
Spacepope From Vatican City State (Holy See), joined Dec 1999, 1928 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1888 times:
Tedski you didn't say what kind of engines those 767-300s would be using. You're losing your touch! In any case, when all the equipment that you're hauling requires the space of a 767-400 fuselage, I can hardly see where they would be better off flying the -300. That is unless you just leave some behind on the ground....
HlywdCatft From United States, joined Jan 2001, 5321 posts, RR: 11 Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1887 times:
I'm surprised Southwest didn't order the 737-600 for a 737-500 replacement.
I thought Turkish flew 736s too.
I thought that the 767-400 is a really nice airplane, I flew on Delta's between ATL and MCO. It has the 777 style interior, has a great takeoff, its a nice looking plane. I was impressed by it. What like everyone else said that is killing it is its lack of range.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1860 times:
Actually the 342 is a bigger failure than even the 764. The 764 operators are keeping their aircraft. The 342 has been or is being dumped by most of its operators.
FlagshipAZ From United States, joined Jan 2001, 3408 posts, RR: 19 Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1806 times:
It's ironic. The past is repeating itself here, in a way. Boeing sold 37 707-420s, and the 767-400 has sold exactly 37 airframes as well. Just an observation. Regards.
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
Sllevin From United States, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 9 Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1745 times:
I don't think you can judge much of anything by orders right now. The 767-400 and the 737-600 both were minimal cost aircraft to develop, and in the upcoming years I suspect that both aircraft will receive significant orders.
The role of the 767-400 is largely to keep existing 767 customers buying Boeing rather than considering A330's. While those customers are placing small orders now, 10 years from now that may change, especially if it's true that airliners will be moving to larger capacity aircraft for domestic trunk routes.
GD727 From United States, joined Mar 2002, 925 posts, RR: 19 Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1630 times:
The 767-400 is not a failure, it is an excellant airplane! I flew on one from TPA-ATL, and even though it was only a 58 minute flight, I enjoyed it's excellant take-off and climb power, as well as it's great looks and comfort. Also, I don't know what's up with this "It can't fly that far" bullsh*t, according to Boeing's website, the 767-400ER can fly JFK-HNL non-stop, any route longer than that should be flown by a larger aircraft like a 777.
Triple Seven From United States, joined Apr 2000, 514 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1535 times:
The 767-400 isn't a failure. It did what it was suppose to do. Provide Boeing with an aircraft that can bridge the gap between the 767-300 and 777-200. I don't think Boeing expects huge orders for it. The same goes for the 737-600.
Backfire From Germany, joined Oct 2006, 0 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1532 times:
Like it or not an aircraft's success is measured by a simple formula:
Amount of money made exclusively by developing the aircraft
divided by
Amount spent exclusively on its development, from all sources
That's commercial reality. Neither Boeing nor Airbus build these things for charity or from the goodness of their hearts. An aircraft doesn't become a success because it looks pretty - and that includes Concorde.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1503 times:
Backfire and Triple Seven have got it right. As Backfire states, the additional revenue generated by the 764 must exceed the costs of its development. The 764 probably did not cost a lot to develop. Some of the feature of this aircraft were borrowed from the 777 (windows, cockpit, cabin design) thus further reducing the cost. Some of the technologies developed specifically for the 764 like raked wingtips will now be applied to future aircraft (772LR/773ER) and thus generate additional benefit for Boeing. From a purely financial perspective, the 764 is a non-event right now. Not a failure but nothing to brag about. When the economy turns around, things could be different for the 764.
Setting the financials aside for a moment, the 764 must be looked at from a product marketing perspective. What was the aircraft designed for? As far as I know, Boeing built this plane (using an existing platform) to replace D10s and L1011 and to fill the space between the 763 and 772. As a D10/L1011 replacement, its a winner for its customers. As a gap filler between the 763 and 772, it is less successful because of the 332 but it still does the job for Boeing operators.
Na and others love to rip the 764 and its slow sales as a harbinger of Boeing's future. But none of them have responded to my point about the 342. From a financial perspective, it was developed along with the 343,333, and 332 so it cost little to develop. However, does the 342 fulfill its mission? That is a lower capacity 340 for ultra-long haul meant to compete with the 777ER(?). The answer seems to be a resounding, no. It does not do the job it was built for and airlines are dumping them. In other words, it has failed to accomplish its stated purpose.
Look for 342s serving as VIP transports and not airliners.
0A340 From United States, joined Nov 2000, 259 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1457 times:
The 342 is a shrink, while the 764 is a stretch (double stretch). Shrinks are uneconomical by having too little payload for their large range. The 342 in particular was made irrelevant by the 343 when the latter achieved the 275 T payload capability.
On the other hand, the 764(albeit is called ER) is a slightly modified 763 body with more seats, and thus limited to only US-domestic type of missions (and some short transatlantic ones). Unfortunately, only Kenya placed an order for 764ER (true ER). In another world, with no 332 competition, things would have looked much better...
Afitch7881 From United States, joined Aug 2000, 804 posts, RR: 2 Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1456 times:
I Flew on a CO 767-400 from EW-DUB and it was a great fligh! Hardly any engine noise, powerfull takes offs, and CO had the interrior in a very nice decoration. Can't have any complaints at all.
TP313 From Portugal, joined Nov 2001, 146 posts, RR: 0 Reply 25, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1431 times:
N9969, get your facts straight.
You stated:
"That is a lower capacity 340 for ultra-long haul meant to compete with the 777ER(?)"
How was the A342 meant to compete with the 772ER, when the 342 project was launched
in 1987 and the 772 project was launched in 1990?
As a matter of fact the 342 first flight occured about an year and a half
later than the launching of the 777 project.
OA340, there are far more diferences between the 764 and its older brothers
than between the 762 and the 763.
The 764 is not simply a "stretch + winglets job".
Changes include a taller and stronger landing gear and a new APU,
among others...
26 FutureFO: I don;t care what anyone thinks the B767-400ER is a great airplane. It though should be renamed as the 777-100SR. I hope Boeing does not shelve the pr
27 TP313: FutureFO, nobody is saying that the 764 is not a good airplane. It's not a quality problem. The problem is that the Airbus offers a plane (the 332) th
28 Flyf15: I'm going to have to echo what some previous posters have said... It doesn't matter what you thought of the plane or if you personally think it should
29 EA CO AS: Let's be realistic, here. The B-767-400 was basically designed by Boeing specifically for Continental Airlines and Delta Air Lines at those airlines'
30 TP313: EA CO AS, if I recall correctly the first of these "controversial" threads was titled "Is the A343 a failure". No doubt it was also the work of the "t
31 PSU.DTW.SCE: Once again....are any airplanes selling right now?????? Bad times across the board. Wait for more stability and growth in the industry before writing
32 Crosswind: Once again....are any airplanes selling right now?????? Bad times across the board. Wait for more stability and growth in the industry before writing
33 The Coachman: Nobody has pointed out what is another failure on probably more of a scale than the 764, and that is the 739...
34 TEDSKI: Spacepope, being in the USAF I already know what engine (GE CF6), they will select for their 767-400 tankers. They have them on the KC-10 tanker, Air
35 N79969: TP313, I don't understand your point. So what if the 342 was launched earlier than the 772? It still was (a) longer-legged version of the 340 and (b)
36 Crosswind: N79969, The A340-200 was intended to be the longer-range version of the A340-300. However, the A340-300 exceeded it's planned performance targets, to
37 Hkgspotter1: VERY BAD ======== 767-400 737-600 717-200 A318
38 TransSwede: As I said above, In my opinion Boeing needed the B767-400ERX to give it better market appeal. If Boeing were to revive that model the B767-400 would s
39 Crosswind: The B737-600 and B737-900 are just a simple shrink/strech of the extremely successful B737-700 and -800. As such the costs to develop them with have b
40 Aerosol: Let's take a look at the a.net economical indicators: -it performs a powerful take off -there are aircraft that are more floppish (342,736) -airlines
42 TP313: N79969, It's me that doesn't get what you are saying. In 1987, when the 342 project was launched, there was no such thing as a 777 project. In fact I'
43 N79969: TP313, See Crosswind's post regarding the 342 above. He explains the point I was attempting to make pretty well. Actually better than I had stated it.
44 TP313: Oh, now I get it, N79969! In 1990, right after Boeing revealed the 777 program, Airbus executives got so worried that they TRAVELED BACK IN TIME to 19
45 TP313: N79969, excuse the sarcasm of the post above, but I hadn't read yet your LATEST post. Now it's clear.
46 L.1011: I think AA is a probable customer for A300 replacement. I know they aren't old, but they don't match with the rest of the fleet. In AA service, the 76
47 Yyz717: What Boeing can perhaps be faulted for is waiting so long to bring out the 764. The 763 entered serive in 1987. The 764 SHOULD have been developed in
48 AvObserver: Unfortunately for the -400 program, the engine development for the ERX version was tied to the 747X and when that program was shelved, so was the ERX.
Sponsor Message: 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2002, 409 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 2662 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 1999, 4639 posts, 
.gif){kind=small}
From Vatican City State (Holy See), joined Dec 1999, 1928 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Singapore, joined Nov 2001, 2066 posts, 
From United States, joined Sep 1999, 457 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Sep 2000, 541 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 4337 posts, 
From Portugal, joined Nov 2001, 146 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
