AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2430 posts, RR: 10 Reply 1, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3466 times:
Inadequate range and cargo capacity compared to its' main competitor, the A330-200. With only about 5200nm range compared to the A332's 6400nm and a narrower cross-section limiting its below deck payload, this aircraft just doesn't appeal to enough operators. It was ideal for Continental's and Delta's domestic routes, replacing similar-range trijets but doesn't have the legs for most transoceanic runs. Boeing really needed to have the -ERX version with more powerful engines and fuel capacity to bring it back to 763 range but that version's engines were tied to the aborted 747X development so it was cancelled, as well. The smaller 170' wingspan also hurts compared to the A332's more substantial span. In designing it too much to be a domestic DC-10/L-1011 replacement, Boeing crippled it's chances with most carriers who wanted more. Saleswise, so far, I'd have to say that, yes, it's a failure, at least compared to the A332. A case of too little, too late for Boeing. Delta and Continental are very happy with theirs, if that's any consolation.
BR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3380 times:
I think that Noel Forgeard has what it takes. It SEEMS like all of the airlines are dumping their boeings for airbuses. Airbus even wants to bring themselves to the states. The reason I would disagree with that is it would put Americans out of work, and I don't want that.
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2430 posts, RR: 10 Reply 6, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3372 times:
"The airlines of TUI (including Britannia, Hapag Lloyd and Corsair) are in the process of evaluating a fleet renewal, with an order for over 50 aircraft expected in the next 5 to 8 months.
The current contenders are a "group-wide" A320/A321/A332 fleet, or a 737NG/764ER fleet.
Whilst the Airbus is rumoured to be the current favoured option, we can always hope that Boeing may win."
Thanks for the news.. This would be a badly needed boost for the 767 program, if it happens. On the downside, you mean Hapag Lloyd, a significant operator of 737-800s, is also considering going Airbus?
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2744 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3327 times:
The U.S. military will likely order at least 10 764s in the near future as the new airframe for its j-stars and AWACS programs. Originally both jobs were to be done by one airframe, but recent tests show that two fleets are still needed, and that the 764 is the right sized plane for the jobs. Though it is a small order, I'm sure Boeing will welcome it.
Artsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4741 posts, RR: 42 Reply 9, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3294 times:
I have flown the 764 from EWR > GIG, it was 10+ hours, I do not consider this to be limited range. I agree for airlines that want the plane to fly their main longhauls, the a330 is a better solution, but for airlines that are already all boeing, and have 777's etc, the 764 is perfect.
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2430 posts, RR: 10 Reply 10, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3268 times:
This doesn't sound bad though you didn't say how many miles (can we assume over 500mph cruise speed?). I got my 5200nm range spec from a reference on Boeing I have. If it's wrong, please chime in. It's worth Boeing keeping it in the catalog while other type 767 operators mull fleet renewal. With the promise of the additional orders mentioned above, it may yet turn out to be more than a flop.
Artsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4741 posts, RR: 42 Reply 11, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3251 times:
For Continental, the 764 flies amongst other routes:
EWR > HNL
IAH > HNL
EWR > GIG
IAH > GIG
EWR > MANY EUROPEAN CITIES
For US carriers, the only routes that the 764 would fly that it cannot fly are ASIA routes, and maybe West coast > deep into Europe flights, which are normally filling 777's, so there isnt really a problem.
There is no doubt that based on range and cargo, the A330 is a stronger plane, but for the route structures of many of the US carriers, they do not really need that extra capability enough to operate a mixed fleet.
KFRG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2999 times:
Look at it this way, really, the A330 is seen as too "heavy" and carries too much "capacity" for many of the US Domestic routes. I know operators like DL also operates a/c like the 777 and MD-11 on such routes as MCO-ATL (A very popular one for large a/c), but these aircraft are only operating for the purpose of transit. Look at the East Cost-West Coast sector. You don't see many flights larger than a B767, and the majority of those are operated by smaller -200 series. Frequency rather than size is what customers really want.
HlywdCatft From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5321 posts, RR: 7 Reply 19, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2973 times:
I flew a 767-400 on the ATL- MCO route with Delta. I thought it was a really nice place and it is a rocket on takeoff.
AA could be a future candidate for it and possibly some Asian airlines who would run domestic services like Japan Airlines from say Tokyo to Nagoya etc where the route might not be big enough for the 747-400D
GE From Singapore, joined Mar 2000, 320 posts, RR: 7 Reply 22, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2936 times:
Yes, you're right in saying the B764 is underpowered compared to the b763er. However I think it is only underpowered at high gross weights. ATL-MCO is about 400-500nm, well within the range of the b764er's 5645 nm. It would surely be a rocket at takeoff because it is much lighter with less fuel. Twins have to be able to maintain altitude/climb even at MTOW with 1 engine out, so naturally, when less than MTOW, it would perform better.
Most planes are 'rockets' at takeoff when they are light, even the A343.