JBLUA320
Topic Author
Posts: 2997
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 8:51 am

Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Sun Dec 01, 2002 1:18 am

It seems that only two airlines operate the type (CO and DL). If there are more, do inform me.

With that said, is it fair to say that this project was a flop? Why didnt airlines buy?

JBLU
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2422
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Sun Dec 01, 2002 1:35 am

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.
 
JBLUA320
Topic Author
Posts: 2997
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 8:51 am

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Sun Dec 01, 2002 1:36 am

I see!

Thanks a lot, that clears it up!

JBLU
 
Rick767
Posts: 2613
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2000 8:11 pm

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Sun Dec 01, 2002 2:41 am

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 Big grin
I used to love the smell of Jet-A in the morning...
 
BR715-A1-30
Posts: 6525
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 9:30 am

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Sun Dec 01, 2002 2:51 am

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.
Puhdiddle
 
Rick767
Posts: 2613
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2000 8:11 pm

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Sun Dec 01, 2002 2:55 am

"it would put Americans out of work"

Why? Not challenging you just interested, I think if Airbus expanded in the US it would only create jobs for Americans?
I used to love the smell of Jet-A in the morning...
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2422
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Sun Dec 01, 2002 2:56 am

Username: Rick767

"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
Posts: 3156
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Sun Dec 01, 2002 3:07 am

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.

T.J.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
flyingbronco05
Posts: 3484
Joined: Fri May 10, 2002 11:43 am

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Sun Dec 01, 2002 3:20 am

Airlines that currently operate the 767-2's and 3's my look at the 4 in the near future to replace the aging 2's and 3's. The airlines with 777's may also look at the 4 due to the cockpit commonality.
Never Trust Your Fuel Gauge
 
artsyman
Posts: 4516
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Sun Dec 01, 2002 3:23 am

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.

Jeremy
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2422
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Sun Dec 01, 2002 3:51 am

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
Posts: 4516
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Sun Dec 01, 2002 4:09 am

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.

Jeremy
 
jhooper
Posts: 5560
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 8:27 pm

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:16 am

Hmmm. The longer I've been a member of A.net, the more I realize topics tend to repeat themselves. Here are two links to earlier threads with this same topic:

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/919918/

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/936782/4/

Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:23 am

I'm a big A330 fan but there is one advantage the 764 has...

The A330 requires "large" aircraft gates, just like the 777 and 747.

The 764 can fit into normal sized gates, like the 76[2,3], L-1011, and DC-10 can/could.

When I sit around thinking about my dream fleet, I'd really want to use A330s extensively for high-load domestic routes but sometimes I wonder about gate availability at all those airports.

N
 
KFRG
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 10:37 am

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Sun Dec 01, 2002 1:55 pm

Gigneil,
Im not usre if you would have great success on many US domestic routes operating A330's.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Sun Dec 01, 2002 1:57 pm

Heh, no not in general, but if I were Delta or CO or UA, I'd have just as much success with the A330 as they do with the 764 or domestic 777s, wouldn't I?

N
 
KFRG
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 10:37 am

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Sun Dec 01, 2002 3:15 pm

Gigneil,
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.

-Tom
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Sun Dec 01, 2002 3:50 pm

KFRG,

Thx for the info.

N
 
Dash8King
Posts: 2657
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2001 8:45 am

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Sun Dec 01, 2002 4:17 pm

Well most airlines aren't having success with large aircraft on domestic routes at the time. Most are going to an international destination after the domestic stop.
 
HlywdCatft
Posts: 5232
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:21 am

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Sun Dec 01, 2002 4:25 pm

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
 
jhooper
Posts: 5560
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 8:27 pm

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Sun Dec 01, 2002 4:49 pm

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.

I could be wrong, but it seems like the 764 is a bit underpowered as compared to the 763, esp. the 763ER.
Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
 
flyingbronco05
Posts: 3484
Joined: Fri May 10, 2002 11:43 am

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Sun Dec 01, 2002 5:16 pm

One advantage of the 764 is that it has the seating capacity near that of the -200, but range of the -300.
Never Trust Your Fuel Gauge
 
GE
Posts: 312
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2000 5:01 pm

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Sun Dec 01, 2002 5:28 pm

Hi Jhooper:

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.

Regards,
Russell J.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Sun Dec 01, 2002 5:56 pm

Flyingbronco05-

What?

N
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:29 pm

Flying Bronco, go around.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
Rafabozzolla
Posts: 968
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2000 1:27 pm

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Sun Dec 01, 2002 10:13 pm

Actually Jeremy CO nonstops to Brazil are IAH-GRU and EWR-GRU, GIG is served one stop out of GRU.
 
aamd11
Posts: 863
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2001 11:54 am

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Mon Dec 02, 2002 1:40 am

Maybe Flying Bronco was comparing the 764 to the A330 family, seating of the -200 range of the -300.
Doesnt make sense otherwise.
Seating of a 200 range of a 300???
Don't we call that the 767-200ER???

Regards,
A^A MD-11
 
JBLUA320
Topic Author
Posts: 2997
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 8:51 am

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Mon Dec 02, 2002 3:12 am

Thanks guys!

JBLU
 
artsyman
Posts: 4516
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Mon Dec 02, 2002 3:30 am

Rafabozzolla

I flew nonstop from EWR>GIG, it is just due to loads that the route now stops in Sao Paolo first.

Flyingbronco

The 764 has a much, much larger seating capacity than the
762. For Continental, the 200 seats 174, the 764 has two configs:

Pacific (20 + 235 = 255)
Domestic + Transatlantic (35 + 200 = 235)

This is a lot more than the 200 series

Jeremy
 
fritzi
Posts: 2598
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 2:34 am

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Mon Dec 02, 2002 4:46 am

ROTFLMAO Cedarjet!

Flyingbronco05, either you must have been smoking up or your tired because its probably waaay past your bed time.  Nuts
 
hkgspotter1
Posts: 5750
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:43 pm

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Mon Dec 02, 2002 2:28 pm

Flop or total flop is the question. Same can be said for the 753 and the 736.
 
JBLUA320
Topic Author
Posts: 2997
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 8:51 am

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Mon Dec 02, 2002 2:33 pm

Do you think Boeing is trying to fill in EVERY single gap available to them against Airbus?

In other words, we know Boeing is losing a huge amount of business to Airbus. Is it possible Boeing is trying to offer a more varied product in greater quantities than Airbus to try and win back customers? (Obviously,they have failed at this should it be the case)

Anyway.. thanks for responding!
JBLU
 
artsyman
Posts: 4516
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Mon Dec 02, 2002 2:35 pm

Flop or total flop is the question

This is where it becomes contentious, the 764 was requested by Delta and Continental, and was made for them. The program was profitable within those orders, and anything that comes in the future is a bonus. The 753 I believe will be a good seller over the next few years and will make these threads seem silly. Delta, American and Continental are in the top 6 airlines in the world for size and are primarily Boeing customers. If the economy wasnt so dire for the US airlines, I think you would see and eventually will see decent orders for these planes

Jeremy
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Mon Dec 02, 2002 11:15 pm

The 764 is a bigger success than the 342. 764 operators are keeping their planes; 342 operators are not.
 
RickB
Posts: 807
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 3:11 am

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Tue Dec 03, 2002 12:53 am

I dont think its fair to say the 764 is a flop, it was a niche aircraft aimed at 2 airlines (Delta and Continental) with those two carriers it has achieved its goals nicely and I dont see any complaints from them about the 764. As has already been mentioned, it didn't cost a whole lot to develop anyway so anything is a bonus from now on for Boeing.

If or when other airlines require replacement aircraft in that specific niche, then the 764 will be the ideal aircraft - its more economic over short range flights than an A332 and it's lack of cargo capacity wont be such an issue for all operators.

Sadly with the current state of airlines around the world, its unlikely to pick up more orders in the near future. The ideal market for it is the domestic US routes and unfortunately, these are the carriers who have been hit the hardest post economic downturn. However, give it a few years until the economy has picked up and I can see it making a comeback. My only concern would be Boeing and Airbus blowing it out of the water in the next 5 - 7 years with a replacement aircraft in this market space with far greater efficiency.

N79969 - what is it with the need to attack Airbus all the time ?

RickB
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Tue Dec 03, 2002 1:05 am

RickB,

Actually I was not aiming at Airbus per se. Many of the guys who like to sneer about the 764s poor sales are loath to speak about the 342. I actually have nothing against Airbus aircraft themselves....in fact, I have paid many compliments to the 319/320/332 as they are fine aircraft.
 
RickB
Posts: 807
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 3:11 am

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Tue Dec 03, 2002 1:07 am

N79969 - everyone including aircraft manufacturers drops a clanger once in a while  Wink/being sarcastic

RickB
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Tue Dec 03, 2002 1:08 am

Interestingly enough, the 764 is identical in almost every way to the original 777. Boeing offered a stretched 763 to everyone and they all said NO, WE WANT A NEW DESIGN. Eventually Boeing woke up and smelt the coffee, and built the 777. The planet rejoiced and even Air France bought loads. But Boeing were obviously attached to the stretched 763 concept, because lo and and behold they eventually did it as well, and true to their word, none of the airlines bought it (OK, except the ever-loyal CO and DL).

Thank you Fritzi
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 13441
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Tue Dec 03, 2002 1:43 am

Why do Airbus fans constantly feel the need to start these "Is Boeing's (insert plane here) a flop?" threads?  Insane

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Tue Dec 03, 2002 1:53 am

As far as economics go, you have to look whether the incremental revenues of developing the 764 (from an existing platform) exceeded the incremental costs. I suspect the costs were not that high since they retained so much from earlier 767s. I do not know the value of the sales to CO and DL.

I think some of the incremental revenues from the aircraft might hard to determine. Some of the technology developed for the 764 (like the raked wingtips) will be applied on other aircraft. Further, the availability of the 764 enhances their product range thus adding value to other Boeing aircraft in the same fashion that Airbus aircraft are part of the same family. This latter effect is speculative and probably somewhat difficult to quantify.
 
RickB
Posts: 807
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 3:11 am

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Tue Dec 03, 2002 2:02 am

The only downside to the 764 I can see (and I could well be wrong here) is that I was under the impression that it had a different cockpit to previous 767's - more like a 777 - I take it that means it doesn't have a similar type rating to previous 767's or the 777 ?

In which case existing customers of older 767's have a reduced benefit from buying 764's.

I still like it though - with the exception of the 744 (favourite aircraft by far) i think the 764 is Boeing's best looking aircraft !!

RickB
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Tue Dec 03, 2002 2:14 am

RickB,

Actually I think the 764 has a common-type rating with the other 767s and not the 777. The LCD layout is also present in the 737NG. I think the LCD cockpit can be adapted to any Boeing type without affecting the type rating of the aircraft.
 
artsyman
Posts: 4516
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Tue Dec 03, 2002 2:24 am

Actually I think the 764 has a common-type rating with the other 767s

No, it is on its own. 757 and 767 share ratings, the 777 has its own rating and the 764 has its own rating. In hindsight, this was probably stupid not to match it with the 777

Jeremy
 
Rick767
Posts: 2613
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2000 8:11 pm

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Tue Dec 03, 2002 2:34 am

Artsyman,

That is not quite the case, the 767-400 can be added as an endorsement to a 757/767 type rating and pilots can then fly all those types. Continental do this.

The rating is not interchangeable with the 777, of course. Type ratings eh, this is one area I must admit Airbus definately got it right.
I used to love the smell of Jet-A in the morning...
 
artsyman
Posts: 4516
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Tue Dec 03, 2002 3:30 am

RickB, my mistake, I was sure that I had read Gene (777gk) saying that is was a different rating, but I went back to read the thread at:

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/965132/6/

and found that as you said, it is more of an amendment to the original rating. If this is the case, I would be curious to know how long of an amendment. The reason for this is that Airbus while offering commonality doesnt mean that all pilots are type rated on all planes, there is still need for training, just not as much, therefore if it is only a few hours on the 764, then in truth there is cockpit commonality

Jeremy
 
Rick767
Posts: 2613
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2000 8:11 pm

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Tue Dec 03, 2002 3:50 am

Jeremy,

Not sure of the "conversion" requirement. I know with the Airbus once you have A320 you've got the 319/320/321 automatically. The 330/340 are only operated by completion of a cross-crew qualification course (since the aircraft cannot hold the same type rating due to the vastly different weights involved). I know that an A320 pilot can learn to fly an A330 in about 7 days - a much cheaper alternative than a 737 pilot learning to fly a 777.

Monarch, MyTravel and JMC in the UK all use A320/A321 pilots to fly their A330s and it is a great tool to be able to allow that flexibility.

Of course you can also be rated to fly a 757 and not a 767, or vice versa. There does exist a 757 type rating which involves less training than the 757/767 type rating (in the UK at least). Though in this case a differences course to add the 76 is only a couple of days.
I used to love the smell of Jet-A in the morning...
 
BWIA 772
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:33 am

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Tue Dec 03, 2002 7:51 am


I think that the 767 market should be replaced with planes that arepart of the 777 family. I dont that much about engineering and stuff like that but isn't it possible to make 777 variants that will be the modern eqiviliants to the 767 family using Trent 500s etc.
Eagles Soar!
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Tue Dec 03, 2002 7:59 am

Any such 777 derivative planes would be too heavy... thy have substantially more wingspan than would be needed, and are a tough squeeze into 767 size gates.

I read a good article on it on Air Transport Business...

N
 
BWIA 772
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:33 am

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Tue Dec 03, 2002 8:27 am


Ok thanx so is it possible to build an aircraft that has similar flight deck and other systems common to that of the 777 or even the 737NG fo rthe 767 market.
Eagles Soar!
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: Was The 767-400 A Flop?

Tue Dec 03, 2002 8:44 am

As I recall correctly, the 764 was intended to replace the aging jumbo trijets that dominated that part of the market, why and if it really was a 'flop' is beyond me.

IMO, more of Boeing's economic sense...just like SC...oooh did I say that?  Innocent
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.