Lemurs
Topic Author
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:13 am

History Of The 767-400

Fri Apr 15, 2005 5:55 am

Does anyone know of any good links with a more comprehensive history of the 767-400? I'm curious about this aircraft in particular, given the whole A330/787/A350 timeline.

I know it was a disappointment from Boeing's standpoint, but I can't for the life of me figure out if they lost their shirt on it or not. How much development went into it, how many units they might have needed to break even, what kind of performance operators are seeing out of it. I know Continental seems happy with it, but the 400 club is pretty small...

This is one of those cases where Google is failing me.  irked 
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
 
777STL
Posts: 2770
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:22 am

RE: History Of The 767-400

Fri Apr 15, 2005 6:04 am

From a marketing standpoint, the 764 wasn't a failure. Boeing designed the 764 solely for CO and DL to replace their Tri-jets. Any other airline(s) who bought the 764 was icing on the cake. Boeing went into the development of the 764 knowing they weren't going to sell 1,000 of them.

If you look at it from the standpoint that Boeing kept a pair of valued customers from buying Airbusses no matter what amount of money lost, then in the end it is a success.
PHX based
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: History Of The 767-400

Fri Apr 15, 2005 6:08 am

Quoting 777STL (Reply 1):
If you look at it from the standpoint that Boeing kept a pair of valued customers from buying Airbusses no matter what amount of money lost, then in the end it is a success.

They likely made money on the deal, because it really did not cost that much to develop the 764
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Lemurs
Topic Author
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:13 am

RE: History Of The 767-400

Fri Apr 15, 2005 6:17 am

Quoting 777STL (Reply 1):
From a marketing standpoint, the 764 wasn't a failure. Boeing designed the 764 solely for CO and DL to replace their Tri-jets. Any other airline(s) who bought the 764 was icing on the cake. Boeing went into the development of the 764 knowing they weren't going to sell 1,000 of them.

I knew about that, which is why I used 'disappointment' rather than 'failure'. I can't imagine they weren't hoping to be able to get a few more sales once the board approved the plane.

They must have at least tried to get some other airlines onboard, right? I mean, there were lots of customers they wanted to keep away from the A330 for as much as possible...so it has to be a minor disappointment. They did more than just stretch it, with the wingtips, new flightdeck, new engines...it couldn't have been dirt-cheap to create.

Anyway, this is why I am searching for a link. I'd love to read a book, but people don't write books about boring but effective people-movers.  Smile
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: History Of The 767-400

Fri Apr 15, 2005 6:19 am

Boeing lost a lot of money on it as it was effectively a new aircraft and required substantial testing and engineering. The 764 landing gear assemblies alone are not common with earlier variants as they need to be taller to accomodate the extended rear fuselage and provide rotation clearance.

Not that it was at all a bad aircraft, just one hopelessly out of time. It should have been developed much earlier in the 767 life cycle. The charter carriers Boeing shopped it to were impressed but had already committed to either their 763 or A330 fleets.

It also did nothing to address the 767 flaw in that it could not carry standard LD3 containers.

The 753 was another example, again far too late to market to make an impact. Both would have generated Boeing additional revenues in that the 752 and 763 aircraft sales displaced would have been at a higher ticket, and maybe even impacted on some Airbus sales. Carriers like BY who were shopped the 764 could have used it, but they already had taken the 763 by then. If offered early then their fleet mix may well have included the 764.
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: History Of The 767-400

Fri Apr 15, 2005 6:22 am

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 4):
It also did nothing to address the 767 flaw in that it could not carry standard LD3 containers.

side by side. The 767 can carry LD3s, just not side by side

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 4):
The 753 was another example, again far too late to market to make an impact.

I would say the 753 did pretty well. Would have likely garnered more orders had the line not been shut down
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
777STL
Posts: 2770
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:22 am

RE: History Of The 767-400

Fri Apr 15, 2005 6:23 am

I don't believe it was a disappointment. I'm sure they wanted and hoped for more sales but the 764 accomplished what it was set out to do, to keep CO and DL flying Boeing products. Also, the tanker deal has yet to be decided so that could contribute some additional orders as well.

Did you try Boeing's website?
PHX based
 
SNATH
Posts: 3049
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:23 am

RE: History Of The 767-400

Fri Apr 15, 2005 6:25 am

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 and CO 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.

Tony

PS So, according to WhiteHatter's post, I was not all that far off about the landing gear. Good.

PPS 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.
 
CALMSP
Posts: 2895
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 3:18 am

RE: History Of The 767-400

Fri Apr 15, 2005 6:33 am

i absolutely love working with the 764.....although whenever i designate someone to work the aft cargo compartment i get a little woried that they forget the guid on the loader and may run the container into the left side of the doorway. Does anyone know why BA's 777 aft cargo door is about the same size as a 767?
 
aeroweanie
Posts: 1577
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:33 pm

RE: History Of The 767-400

Fri Apr 15, 2005 12:50 pm

The 767-400 also has a completely different window belt than the -200 or -300. The windows are shaped more like they are on the 777. My take is that it was a fairly expensive stretch. The 757-300 was a cheap stretch.

The USAF has recently announced that they will only buy one 767-400 for the E-10A program. This will be used as testbed and the platform for the E-10A is to be decided in the future.
 
ha763
Posts: 3168
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 5:36 pm

RE: History Of The 767-400

Fri Apr 15, 2005 3:29 pm

Quoting CALMSP (Reply 8):
Does anyone know why BA's 777 aft cargo door is about the same size as a 767?

BA opted for the small cargo door instead of the large cargo door and it is the same size as the 767 door, 70 in wide x 67 in tall.