|Quoting N1120A (Reply 2):|
because it really did not cost that much to develop the 764
I wouldn't be so sure! I don't think the B764 was a straightforward stretch of the B763. It has a new cockpit (yes, taken mainly from the B777, but still they had to fit it into the B767), raked wingtips, and, if I remember well from the top of my head, different landing gear (it's larger, but they added mechanisms so that it fits into same-sized bays; please correct me if I got this wrong). In contrast, the B753 was a very straightforward (and probably cheaper) stretch of the B752.
If I had to guess, Boeing gambled on the B764LR (basically a B764ER but with engines designed for the then proposed B747 stretches) selling a few more, as it had better range than the B764ER and would have been in a slightly better position to compete with the A330. But, the B747 stretches never materialised, hence the engines never materialised, hence the B764LR never materialised (and the only order from Kenya Airways was converted to B772s).
Of course, you are right in that Boeing managed to keep DL
as Boeing customers and the B764ER might have been worth just for that. But, if I had to bet money, I'd say that they were hoping to sell a few more than they did.
So, according to WhiteHatter's post, I was not all that far off about the landing gear. Good.
Let's not forget that Boeing might be able to sell a few more B764ER frames to the US Air Force as the E-10. I think the current requirement is for quite a lot (several 10s at least), but apparently it's not clear whether the Air Force will go ahead with it, or cancel it.
[Edited 2005-04-14 23:34:42]
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.