Avalon
Topic Author
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 6:36 pm

B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Fri Jun 10, 2005 6:43 pm

The B767-400 does not seem to have much of a future. Today, its competition would seem to be from other Boeing planes, the 777 & 787 families, as much as from the A330/350's.

I am wondering whether Boeing could reasonably have assumed at the development time of the 767-400 that the action was or had already moved on from the 767 to the 777 (assuming the 787 was still too far into the future at the time).

Therefore, did Boeing waste time & money in developing the 767-400, or is there still a future for it?
 
lazyshaun
Posts: 550
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 5:50 am

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Fri Jun 10, 2005 6:52 pm

I personly don't like they 764, and I think if you want and aircraft with the cappacity of a 764, buy a 777-200!!! They have the same (roughly) capacity and are much nicer looking!!!
I can't see much of a great future for the 764...
I came. I saw. I conquered
 
Maersk737
Posts: 654
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 3:37 am

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Fri Jun 10, 2005 7:03 pm

No future Smile

But it was not a waste of money though.

Cheers

Peter
I'm not proud to be a Viking, just thankfull
 
VHXLR8
Posts: 487
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:58 pm

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Fri Jun 10, 2005 7:04 pm

Quoting Avalon (Thread starter):
I am wondering whether Boeing could reasonably have assumed at the development time of the 767-400 that the action was or had already moved on from the 767 to the 777

I think that is a fairly broad statement in regards to the 767. Sure, a lot of airlines have replaced their 767s with 777s (as well as A330s etc); but there are still a lot of 767s out there operating routes which are not viable for a 777 to operate. Indeed, while the world's airlines and aircraft companies seem to be focusing their new found efforts on 'long-thin' routes; 'short-fat' routes (high frequency ones at least) seem to have been forgotten.
A lot of people are quick to talk up the 777 or A330 (I shall leave out the 787 for the sake that it is too new to be properly compared to the two previously mentioned) as replacements for the 767, but are just as quick to forget that one of the markets that made the 767 such a success was that of the high-frequency-short-fat market.

For an example, I shall use Qantas. On it's MEL-SYD flights (one of the busiest routes in the world), the 767s are the perfect aircraft. They have the capacity, and yet their 'not too big' size makes them perfect for quick turnarounds for very short flights. The A330 200, which QF originally purchased with MEL-SYD in mind, realistically was too big for the turnarounds, and has found it's niche with MEL/SYD-PER flights. Hence, QF are now stuck with the ageing fleet of 763s because they can't afford anything smaller on their lucrative MEL-SYD route, yet nothing else has come along to replace it for a reasonable cost.
When I say reasonable cost; herein lies the problem, the cost of the 764 was deemed by too many airlines to be excessive for what it was. In the end, only two airlines operate it; making it even more unattractive for other potential customers.
In the end, beautiful aircraft; bad timing/marketing/economics.
"sigh", ok, I'm finished  Smile
 
DAL767400ER
Posts: 5084
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:47 am

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Fri Jun 10, 2005 7:04 pm

I would say it in a different way, Boeing did not spend enough money on the 764. The 764 was launched based on orders by DL for 21 (all taken), 26 for CO (down to 16), and 5 IIRC from ILFC (cancelled). Due to this small number of interested carriers, Boeing put alot of focus on building the plane based on the needs of the airlines. DL wanted a high-density L1011 replacement above the 763 on domestic routes, including to Hawaii, and CO wanted a DC-10 replacement for European and South American flights. Due to the fact that these routes were all rather short in international terms, Boeing came up with a range of only 5,645nm, vs the 763ER's 6,105nm range. While this was appropriate for the operations CO and especially DL wanted to use the 764 on, it made for a large disadvantage for other airlines that would have potentially been interested. Not to mention it was also a disadvantage with regards to the A333. That's why Boeing wanted to launch the 764ERX, but it was only a half-hearted attempt. Kenya Airways placed an order for 3 examples, but seeing as how Boeing didn't really care about the 764 anymore, Kenya went with the 772. And it's not like there was no interest for the 764, alot of European charter airlines expressed interest in the 764 if Boeing would decide to significantly improve the range. It could also be speculated that, had Boeing increased range, CO might not have cancelled their 10 orders for more 772s.
It is sad to see the 764 being such a bastard like the 743, but Boeing screwed up here, and the 764 production line is essentially history, with even the USAF order anything but clear.
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Fri Jun 10, 2005 7:04 pm

The B767-400 was basically built by Boeing to satisfy the specific needs of Continental and Delta for a domestic DC-10 / L-1011 replacement respectively.

Boeing did not have a suitable product to offer the carriers as its 767-300 was too small, while the B777 was too large. Boeing did not want to simply hand over orders to Airbus with its A330 and instead countered with the enlarged and slight modernized B767 version.

If not for 9/11 it would have been likely both carriers would have placed additional follow on orders for the 767-400, along with potentially additional US and foreign orders. The B767-400 from an cost and operating point of view is a formidable aircraft and fit the niche very well for the two US airlines.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
MidnightMike
Posts: 2810
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:07 am

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Fri Jun 10, 2005 7:20 pm

The 767-400 was not a waste of money, it was an aircraft that was built to take care of long time Boeing customers, Delta & Continental, as several other airliners.net members have said.

As far as money, the 767 line was a very profitable aircraft for Boeing, so the actual R&D that went into the 767 did not result in a loss for Boeing.
NO URLS in signature
 
jrlander
Posts: 1025
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 1999 3:47 am

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Fri Jun 10, 2005 7:21 pm

Having flown both Delta and Continental's planes, I like them from as a passenger. The coach seating in the 2-3-2 is quite comfortable. They do have significantly less capacity than a 777. Delta's do not, but only because they have much higher capacity configuration with a domestic first class product. I do think that if Boeing had either improved the range of the product, or instead launched a shorter 777 and not this plane, sales would have been better.
 
Avalon
Topic Author
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 6:36 pm

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Fri Jun 10, 2005 7:22 pm

Quoting VHXLR8 (Reply 3):
Hence, QF are now stuck with the ageing fleet of 763s because they can't afford anything smaller on their lucrative MEL-SYD route, yet nothing else has come along to replace it for a reasonable cost.

Would you say, then, that the 764 would be a good replacement for QF on its short, fat routes such as MEL-SYD - if not for the purchase price?

Do you think its fuel efficiency, turnaround time, size at gates (at Mel, Syd) is all otherwise ok?

One of the reasons I began this thread is that I contantly marvel at how the 763 looks like it is going to go down in history as a real success - a real survivor - yet the 764, rather than carrying on this success, seems to be a dud.
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Fri Jun 10, 2005 7:26 pm

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 5):
The B767-400 was basically built by Boeing to satisfy the specific needs of Continental and Delta for a domestic DC-10 / L-1011 replacement respectively.

Partly.

They also took it on the World Tour and showed it to a lot of prospective buyers. All turned them down because

1. The A330 killed it on cargo (the LD3 versus LD2 issue again)
2. Far too late to market (clients like Britannia looked, smiled and said sorry, we've already bought the 763)
3. Lack of range, although the 767-400ERX was proposed. That further development was not considered worth the outlay after poor reception of the base model. Only one airline expressed solid interest and then converted their order to the 772.

If the 767-400ER had come to market earlier then Boeing could have picked up converted 763 orders and benefitted from the price point difference, or even stolen some A330 business where freight wasn't as critical an issue but capacity was.

The same broadly applies to the 753, again too late to market. The 752 engines and wing were designed from the outset with a stretch in mind, but Boeing declined to offer the variant until far too late in the product cycle.

neither plane is remotely a bad aircraft, just a case of the right plane at the wrong time.
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
tinpusher007
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:03 am

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Fri Jun 10, 2005 7:28 pm

Quoting Lazyshaun (Reply 1):
I personly don't like they 764, and I think if you want and aircraft with the capacity of a 764, buy a 777-200!!! They have the same (roughly) capacity and are much nicer looking!!!
I can't see much of a great future for the 764...

Its a good thing you're not an airline executive with a statement like that one. The 777 and 764 do not have the same capacity. The 777 holds much more pax AND cargo. The 777 is also more expensive and heavier. These aircraft were built for different missions in mind with 764 being all but custom built for CO and DL as mentioned before. No airline orders an airplane based on how they look. But while we're at it the 764 is a very aesthetically pleasing aircraft...I don't know what you see when you look at one.
"Flying isn't inherently dangerous...but very unforgiving of carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
 
DeltaWings
Posts: 1234
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 4:06 am

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Fri Jun 10, 2005 8:30 pm

Although its economics are great, airlines didnt seem to want it, which is sad. So i guess when DL And CO retire their 764s one day, they will be scrapped straight away because no airline likes it.
Homer: Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Fri Jun 10, 2005 9:29 pm

The 764, as pointed out, was built specifically for the needs of CO (as a DC10 replacement) an DL (as an L1011 replacement).....it was not a costly variant to develop. Did Boeing hope to sell more? Of course it did, but that did not work out for a few reasons - the 764 lacked the range some airlines were looking for, the cargo issue has always been a problem for the 767 family, and the A332 had come on to the market which gave the 767 family (and the 764 is particular) a new updated and more advanced competitor. There is a reason why Boeing is now developing the 787. In certain ways, the A332 benefited from being the smallest member of the larger A330/340 family, while the 764 was limited by being the largest member of the 757/767 family.

Also, dont forget that the timing was all wrong for the 764 (and the 753)....sales of the types were hurt by the downturn in the world economy, and the tailspin that airlines went into after 9/11.

I think that Boeing made a mistake by tailoring the 764 to the needs of DL and CO - the aircraft did not have wide enough appeal.
 
MidnightMike
Posts: 2810
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:07 am

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Fri Jun 10, 2005 9:40 pm

Quoting DeltaWings (Reply 12):
Although its economics are great, airlines didnt seem to want it, which is sad. So i guess when DL And CO retire their 764s one day, they will be scrapped straight away because no airline likes it.

You are looking at a long time before the 767-400 is retired & as far as being scrapped, the answer would be no, the 767-400 would be an idea for a charter airline of some sort.
NO URLS in signature
 
tockeyhockey
Posts: 880
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:57 pm

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Fri Jun 10, 2005 9:45 pm

what version of the 767 is the new tanker based on?
 
Avalon
Topic Author
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 6:36 pm

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Fri Jun 10, 2005 9:57 pm

I take the point, made by many, how the 767-400 was a replacement for L1011's & DC10's - but was the 767-400 not also designed to be a replacement for the 767-300?

I do not know whether it was or was not - but I would be very interested to know!

I ask this because there are so many 767-300s still around, largely (it would seem) because they are well suited to the high-frequency, short, fat sectors such as Mel-Syd - and there seems to be no replacement from either A or B for a high density/quick turnaround jet that is not so wide that it cannot fit into existing domestic gates.

Qantas tried to replace its 767-300s on the busiest domestic sectors with A330's (332's, I believe), but it did not work because (according to many persons here) they were too big for the domestic gates & took too long to turn around. Cargo was not the issue - the speedy dispatch of masses of passengers was.

Why then, has the 767-400 not been taken up as the natural successor to the 767-300 on these high frequency, fast-turnaround, short, fat routes?
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3150
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Fri Jun 10, 2005 10:04 pm

Quoting Tockeyhockey (Reply 15):
what version of the 767 is the new tanker based on?

The new tanker, like the AWACS, is based on the 762, however the USAF has ordered one 764 airframe for its testbed platform of the new E-10. In theory there could be orders from the USAF to replace the entire JSTARS, Rivet Joint and E-3 fleet.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
BestWestern
Posts: 7039
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Fri Jun 10, 2005 10:14 pm

As yields fall, and low cost competition increases short fat routes are increasingly flown with A321/738 equipment.

Aircraft like the A300/763 on short haul routes are increasingly being replaced by 738,752 and 321's and not by new wide bodied aircraft. The era of the short haul wide bodied market is diminishing rapidly - with the exception of Japan. Even medium haul routes are getting the same treatment (NYC - California for example).

For this reason, the expected rush of domestic 330, 764 and 787 orders has not happened.
You are 100 times more likely to catch a cold on a flight than an average person!
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Fri Jun 10, 2005 11:14 pm

Quoting Avalon (Reply 16):
but was the 767-400 not also designed to be a replacement for the 767-300?

No, it wasn't. The 767-400 and the 767-300 are not the same size aircraft. They're members of the same family and cover different market applications.

N
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8572
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Fri Jun 10, 2005 11:21 pm

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 13):

Also, dont forget that the timing was all wrong for the 764 (and the 753)....sales of the types were hurt by the downturn in the world economy, and the tailspin that airlines went into after 9/11.

I think that Boeing made a mistake by tailoring the 764 to the needs of DL and CO - the aircraft did not have wide enough appeal.

Among other reasons:

- Airbus had tremendous momentum with the A332 that was impossible to reverse.

- The payload/range (or lackthereof) issue

- Late offering. Boeing probably would have gotten a few more customers had they offered the 764ER in the late-80s early-90s.
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Fri Jun 10, 2005 11:26 pm

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 10):
neither plane is remotely a bad aircraft, just a case of the right plane at the wrong time.

Well said for both the 764 and 753. Good airplanes, but development came far too late into the game for them to be a huge success.

I hope Boeing does not make the same mistake with the 787-10 or the 772 replacement.
One Nation Under God
 
Avalon
Topic Author
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 6:36 pm

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Fri Jun 10, 2005 11:53 pm

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 18):
The era of the short haul wide bodied market is diminishing rapidly - with the exception of Japan.

If this is the case, add Australia to the list of exceptions.

The short haul wide bodied market is not diminishing here. There are LCCs here operating B738s & A320s between Syd & Melb - but the QF flight schedule from Melb-Syd has not diminished as a result of these entrants (including its own Jetstar) and continue to be mostly 763s, which are usually full, often at half hour frequencies.

As mentioned, A330s are also used between Mel-Syd and they are criticised not for carrying too many passengers, but for not turning around quickly enough for the return trip.
 
gearup
Posts: 514
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 9:23 am

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Fri Jun 10, 2005 11:55 pm

If 9/11 never had happened, I think the 764 would have sold better. I was fully expecting many more orders for this airplane once it went into revenue service. Such a pity, it's a really good aircraft!

GU
I have no memory of this place.
 
BestWestern
Posts: 7039
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:06 am

Quoting Avalon (Reply 22):
- but the QF flight schedule from Melb-Syd has not diminished as a result of these entrants (including its own Jetstar) and continue to be mostly 763s, which are usually full, often at half hour frequencies.

One route doesnt make a theory. For example, how many intra european routes are flown with wide bodies these days? What age are these widebodies? Even the longest intra - european routes (LHR-ATH) are increasingly flown by single aisle equipment.

Of the successful operators, probably only LH and BA operate widebodies intra-europe, and these airlines are operating aircraft approaching the end of their inservice life. They will be replaced with 321 aircraft. The same is happening in the US. Routes that were operated by 767's are increasingly flown with single aisle equipment, such as the 737 / 757, in future the only exception will be intercontinental add-ons or flights between intercontinental services (DL at ATL)
You are 100 times more likely to catch a cold on a flight than an average person!
 
MD80Nut
Posts: 972
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 6:43 am

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:54 am

I agree with those who say one principal reason for the 764's lack of success was it's timing. I believe had it come out years earlier, before the A332 and 777, it would have sold better.

However, I don't think it was a waste of money. Since it was a development of an existing family, it's development costs were not as high as those for a brand new model. Also, it proved the raked wingtip concept we see used in the 773ER and 772LR today.

Cheers, Ralph
Fly Douglas Jets DC-8 / DC-9 / DC-10 / MD80 / MD11 / MD90 / 717
 
Avalon
Topic Author
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 6:36 pm

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Sat Jun 11, 2005 1:28 am

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 24):
One route doesnt make a theory.

I stated that the Australian situation should be included as one of the exceptions you listed (the other being Japan) - no theory is being asserted.
The demand here (Mel-Syd at least) is for bigger planes, not smaller; despite competition from LCCs such as VirginBlue who operate 738s on the route.

As is well known, QF have their own, very successful LCC (Jetstar); yet QF, one of the most profitable airlines in the world is trying to put bigger planes in its shorthaul domestic routes, not smaller.
 
PBIflyguy
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 1:47 am

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Sat Jun 11, 2005 1:38 am

Seems to me we are defining success strictly by the number of deliveries.

As has been made clear, the 764 was built to replace the aging L-1011's and DC-10's operated by DL and CO respectively. I think it is safe to say that no Excecutve at Boeing expected to deliver hundred and hundreds of 764's. DL and CO love the aircraft and fly it "packed to the gills" on many city pairs.

Personally I think the 764 program is a success. They kept two BIG customers very happy. I think Boeing practiced good business and gave two huge supporters what they wanted. The intangible benefit to Boeing is that DL and CO know that Boeing will work with them when needed. Would it have been smarter to not offer it and give Airbus a chance to get a piece of DL's and CO's business? I'd say not.

It made not have made tons of money, or sold hundreds of units, but to truly judge the success of the program you have to look at the BIG picture.

Also, as for the 764 line being "closed" It was my undertsanding that as long as the 767 line is in production, the 764 can still be built. I'm open for corrections, but save the "slams" Thanks All!

Safy FLying.....

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

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Sat Jun 11, 2005 1:45 am

I think MD80nut hit it on the head here. As it was a stretch of an existing airplane, Boeing really did not have to invest enormous resources to develop the airplane. The 764 also served as a testbed for the raked wingtip which is now paying itself on the 772LR/773ER as well as the US Navy P-8 aircraft.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Sat Jun 11, 2005 1:55 am

Honestly, I think the 767-400 would have been the right choice for Qantas.

The plane has a heritage of short-haul high frequency operations, would have brought modern cabins to the CityFlyer (something QF really wanted), would have fit into available gates, and is better optimized for the short turn (but still, would not have yielded turns as short as a 763).

The thing about the 764 is that it really ISN'T a good aircraft. Its underpowered, has a constrained wing geometry, the same cargo problem as the rest of the 767s, has a different set of systems and avionics compared to the rest of the 767 fleet, and its uplift just isn't great.

Its an airplane for very specific applications, and that's what its doing at CO and DL, and I think would have done well at QF.

N
 
srbmod
Posts: 15446
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:32 pm

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Sat Jun 11, 2005 1:59 am

In a way, perhaps Boeing waiting a little to late to develop this version. By the early 1990s, many airlines were beginning to retire or were looking into retiring their DC-10s and L-1011. But at the time, Boeing was deep in the development of the 777 (some of the things that went into the design of the 772 ended up in the 764) and the 737NG (called the 737X at that time), so a new variant of the 767 probably wasn't too high on the priority list, as they were positioning the 772 as a replacement for the DC-10 and L-1011 in some applications. Some airlines pulled those types from international service and replaced them with 763s and 772s, and put the old trijets on domestic runs. Probably one of the reasons why Boeing didn't see any other DC-10 or L-1011 operators looking at the type is because in some cases, they didn't fly the 767 at all (Northwest and Lufthansa come to mind) or had switched to the MD-11 (American, who later dropped them) as a DC-10 replacement.
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Sat Jun 11, 2005 2:29 am

Quoting Srbmod (Reply 29):
In a way, perhaps Boeing waiting a little to late to develop this version. By the early 1990s, many airlines were beginning to retire or were looking into retiring their DC-10s and L-1011. But at the time, Boeing was deep in the development of the 777 (some of the things that went into the design of the 772 ended up in the 764) and the 737NG (called the 737X at that time), so a new variant of the 767 probably wasn't too high on the priority list, as they were positioning the 772 as a replacement for the DC-10 and L-1011 in some applications. Some airlines pulled those types from international service and replaced them with 763s and 772s, and put the old trijets on domestic runs. Probably one of the reasons why Boeing didn't see any other DC-10 or L-1011 operators looking at the type is because in some cases, they didn't fly the 767 at all (Northwest and Lufthansa come to mind) or had switched to the MD-11 (American, who later dropped them) as a DC-10 replacement.

Good point - Boeing also went back and forth between offering a 777-100 variant and the 767-400 variant to cover this mission. CO and DL determined that the 771 would have been too much aircraft for missions that they (especially DL) had in mind, and Boeing went with the 764. Would Boeing have done better with the 771 - who knows? In any case, I agree that Boeing was late in getting the 764 to the market.

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 28):
Honestly, I think the 767-400 would have been the right choice for Qantas.

The plane has a heritage of short-haul high frequency operations, would have brought modern cabins to the CityFlyer (something QF really wanted), would have fit into available gates, and is better optimized for the short turn (but still, would not have yielded turns as short as a 763).

The thing about the 764 is that it really ISN'T a good aircraft. Its underpowered, has a constrained wing geometry, the same cargo problem as the rest of the 767s, has a different set of systems and avionics compared to the rest of the 767 fleet, and its uplift just isn't great.

Its an airplane for very specific applications, and that's what its doing at CO and DL, and I think would have done well at QF.

N

The 764 probably would have worked very well at QF, it would have been well suited for domestic Australian and trans-Tasman operations, as well as some regional flights - the A332/333s that QF bought dont seem very well suited for the some of the short haul segments that they fly. But the QF A330 deal was done in connection with its A380 purchase and it is reported that QF got a great deal on the A330s, so I am not certain that the 764 would have ever had a chance.

I disagree with your comments about the performance of the 764.....while the simple strech approach taken by Boeing did limit some performance parameters, and the 764 is not an over performer like many Boeing products are, it has no problems with the missions assigned to it. CO flies the 764 on rather long segments, such as IAH-GRU and IAH-AMS without any issues and DL uses the 764 for its longhaul ATL-HNL route. And, dont forget that the economics of the this aircraft are quite good.
 
SFOerik
Posts: 103
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 11:17 pm

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Sat Jun 11, 2005 2:50 am

The 764's were developed for DL and CO to replace their L-1011's and DC-10's. It accomplished exactly that.

It is a very comfortable plane, quiet , and I love the Triple-7 style interiors. Coach is quite comfy,too.

els
I will no longer stress about upgrades!
 
September11
Posts: 3293
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:49 am

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Sat Jun 11, 2005 3:01 am

767-400 is like an enlarged 757-300 to me... Funny is that 764 is popular but only DL and CO fly them.
Airliners.net of the Future
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Sat Jun 11, 2005 3:30 am

The 764 was the right aircraft at the wrong time. It should have been launched in say 1992 when most 763 carriers were still adding 767's. The 764 would have been a natural addition.

Same problem with the 753....good aircraft launched too late.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Sat Jun 11, 2005 3:53 am

Hmm, in the recurring mantra of "built for DL and CO" many of you seem to have forgotten (or at least, not mentioned) that Boeing actually built the plane to the specification of three USA airlines:
Delta had undoubtedly the most sway, yet not only CO but *AA* also had a lot of say in the bird's configuration. At one point, the rollout 764ER even wore and AA sticker alongside the DL/CO stickers on its flank (there's a pic of that somewhere in either this or JetPhotos' database). AA however, decided to preplace its DC10-30s with additional 656K 772ERs (a 1up on UA).


Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 9):
They also took it on the World Tour and showed it to a lot of prospective buyers. All turned them down

Not true, they did score a (later modified) order in Africa.

Quoting TinPusher007 (Reply 10):
The 777 holds much more pax AND cargo.

Usually, but not always. Ever compared seat count in DL's 764ERs vs. their 772ERs?  Wink
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13760
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:18 am

Quoting MD80Nut (Reply 24):
Also, it proved the raked wingtip concept we see used in the 773ER and 772LR today.

you beat me to it. it also demonstrated the 777 interior features (carried to other 76x models), flight deck, etc. and added a second loading door for international flights. I would also assume the shorter range was intended to free up cargo space, which CO uses extensively.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 30):
DL uses the 764 for its longhaul ATL-HNL route.

don't forget CO EWR-HNL

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 34):
Ever compared seat count in DL's 764ERs vs. their 772ERs?

not really relevant. CO's 753 has 222, 764 has 235. Doesn't make them interchangeable.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
bigb
Posts: 727
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:32 am

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 34):
Delta had undoubtedly the most sway, yet not only CO but *AA* also had a lot of say in the bird's configuration. At one point, the rollout 764ER even wore and AA sticker alongside the DL/CO stickers on its flank (there's a pic of that somewhere in either this or JetPhotos' database). AA however, decided to preplace its DC10-30s with additional 656K 772ERs (a 1up on UA).

Actually, it was AA that was in the driver seat for the design of the 764. CO/DL were back seat riders.
ETSN Baber, USN
 
LY4XELD
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 5:14 am

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:38 am

When I interned at Boeing in 2001, the engineer next to me said something along the lines of "That airplane was the dumbest airplane we ever built. No one bought it!" And I tend to agree...just my  twocents 
That's why we're here.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13760
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:42 am

Maybe he wanted his ideas used instead? Or he would have rather worked on something else, or he didn't get to work on that one, or blah blah blah. Why people have opinions is not always based on reality, even engineers.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
777STL
Posts: 2770
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:22 am

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Sat Jun 11, 2005 5:03 am

Quoting LY4XELD (Reply 37):
When I interned at Boeing in 2001, the engineer next to me said something along the lines of "That airplane was the dumbest airplane we ever built. No one bought it!" And I tend to agree...just my   

Leave it to an engineer to say something like that. From a business standpoint the 764 was genius because it was worth any loss Boeing took on it purely because it kept DL and CO in the fold. Boeing had no illusions that they were going to sell 1,000 of them.

Take care of your customers and they'll take care of you. DL has something like 121 767s, who do you think they're going to look to for replacements(787)? Not Airbus. Same goes for CO.
PHX based
 
dan2002
Posts: 2024
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2002 7:11 am

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Sat Jun 11, 2005 5:13 am

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 34):
Delta had undoubtedly the most sway, yet not only CO but *AA* also had a lot of say in the bird's configuration. At one point, the rollout 764ER even wore and AA sticker alongside the DL/CO stickers on its flank (there's a pic of that somewhere in either this or JetPhotos' database). AA however, decided to preplace its DC10-30s with additional 656K 772ERs (a 1up on UA).





-Dan
A guy asks 'What's Punk?'. I kick over a trash can and its punk. He knocks over a trash can and its trendy.
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Sat Jun 11, 2005 5:19 am

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 34):
Usually, but not always. Ever compared seat count in DL's 764ERs vs. their 772ERs?

But one has an International BizE section and the other just has a smaller than usual domestic first class product. A passenger comparison is just not fair.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Sat Jun 11, 2005 6:24 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 35):
not really relevant. CO's 753 has 222, 764 has 235. Doesn't make them interchangeable.



Quoting Pope (Reply 41):
A passenger comparison is just not fair.

...curious: whom here said anything about interchangeability, or a like comparison vis-a-vis 772ER operations?????
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Sat Jun 11, 2005 7:51 am

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 34):

Not true, they did score a (later modified) order in Africa.

If you mean the Kenya Airways order which later became a deal for the 772ER, then yes and no. Kenya wanted the higher gross weight and longer range derivative, the 767-400ERX, which Boeing eventually canned due to not being financially desirable without orders or prospects.

A shame really, but the market decided otherwise. Boeing was under the Condit Curse at the time and should have gone straight on to a new product, namely an earlier launch for the 787 which had been on their drawing board for a long time alongside the Sonic Disaster. The technology and market pressure was already there (hence the A330 doing good business at the same time).
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13760
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Sat Jun 11, 2005 7:57 am

Get off it.

You can't try to compare apples to oranges and then claim you didn't specifically do so. And I think asking if we ever compared them does ask us to compare them...

So I'll just compare CO's fleet of International BF fleet:

777 48/235 = 283
764 20/236 = 256 (extra economy seating)
764 35/200 = 235
762 25/149 = 174
752 16/156 = 172

The 764 sure looks to have a real niche there compared to the 772 in the fleet of a carrier who uses a Boeing fleet. Plus all those planes but the 762 have two boarding doors for easier international ops.

[Edited 2005-06-11 01:03:24]
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Sat Jun 11, 2005 9:04 am

Quoting Lazyshaun (Reply 1):
I personly don't like they 764, and I think if you want and aircraft with the cappacity of a 764, buy a 777-200!!!

The 772 has much more capacity in a similar configuration to the 764, as well as range (if you are talking about the ER model). It is also much heavier and uses much larger, thirstier engines. The 764, for its range mission, is excellent at what it does

Quoting Avalon (Reply 8):
Would you say, then, that the 764 would be a good replacement for QF on its short, fat routes such as MEL-SYD - if not for the purchase price?

It would have been the ideal choice, especially considering all the MX problems QF has had with the A330

Quoting DeltaWings (Reply 11):
So i guess when DL And CO retire their 764s one day, they will be scrapped straight away because no airline likes it.

Nope, some carrier will like them because of their low cost, low operating cost and commonality with nearly 2000 other airplanes

Quoting Avalon (Reply 15):
Qantas tried to replace its 767-300s on the busiest domestic sectors with A330's (332's, I believe), but it did not work because (according to many persons here) they were too big for the domestic gates & took too long to turn around.

Don't forget the major maintainance issues

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 28):
has a different set of systems and avionics compared to the rest of the 767 fleet

It has full type commonality with the rest of the 767/757 fleet.

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 34):
Usually, but not always. Ever compared seat count in DL's 764ERs vs. their 772ERs?

That is a bad comparison, and you know it Freddie. The DL 764ERs are flown in a much higher density configuration than their 772ERs

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 33):
Same problem with the 753....good aircraft launched too late.

The 753 is a much better aircraft for its mission than the 764ER
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
socal
Posts: 464
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:20 pm

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Sat Jun 11, 2005 9:40 am

The Boeing 767-400's are not a waste of time/money. This aircraft has its purpose in the domestic routes, yeah it only has 2 operators but these aircrafts are one of their best workhorses. The 767-400 is great addition to the 767 fleet and Boeing. I cant wait to fly in one..............  Smile
I Love HNL.............
 
malaysia
Posts: 2615
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 1999 3:26 am

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Sat Jun 11, 2005 9:49 am

The Boeing 767-400 is the greatest jetliner ever made second to the L-1011, hence it being the DL replacement.

I flew on them probably 30+ from LAX-HNL

and a few times on LAX-ATL/LAS-ATL

It is a true replacement for the A330 as well.

I think A330 feel like A300 especially some interiors, this has a sweet
777 style interior and the lovely raked wings.
There Are Those Who Believe That There May Yet Be Other Airlines Who Even Now Fight To Survive Beyond The Heavens
 
SpinalTap
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 7:18 pm

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Sat Jun 11, 2005 10:35 am

The only way Boeing conceivably didn't screw up is if they stopped Delta (and Continental - unlikely with their CEO at the time) from ordering A330s. I think it was a good wake up call as well that they had to develop something new, the 787, and this has turned out to be their most successful new plane ever in terms of pre-production orders!
"I get what they call a stipend, a stipend is like money but its such as small amount they don't really call it money"
 
laca773
Posts: 2033
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:10 am

RE: B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money?

Sat Jun 11, 2005 10:59 am

Why didn't AA or UA take any 764s? It seems like it would have been a good fit for them as well?

Who is online