africawings
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:47 am

Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:45 pm

Fellow A.netters. This questions was originally asked almost 10 years ago but the responses back then were simply musings.

I finally flew on a 767-400 last week from Atlanta to LA. I really liked it. But how does it compare in terms of performance against the A330-200 (I know the A330 300 is bigger and has more range but...). Does the 764 hold up against the A332 or is there simply no contest in terms of airline economics and performance between the two.

Thoughts?
 
User avatar
1337Delta764
Posts: 4891
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:48 pm

Quoting Africawings (Thread starter):
Fellow A.netters. This questions was originally asked almost 10 years ago but the responses back then were simply musings.

I finally flew on a 767-400 last week from Atlanta to LA. I really liked it. But how does it compare in terms of performance against the A330-200 (I know the A330 300 is bigger and has more range but...). Does the 764 hold up against the A332 or is there simply no contest in terms of airline economics and performance between the two.



Quoting Africawings (Thread starter):
Fellow A.netters. This questions was originally asked almost 10 years ago but the responses back then were simply musings.

I finally flew on a 767-400 last week from Atlanta to LA. I really liked it. But how does it compare in terms of performance against the A330-200 (I know the A330 300 is bigger and has more range but...). Does the 764 hold up against the A332 or is there simply no contest in terms of airline economics and performance between the two.

The A330 has more range and cargo space, while the 767-400 has slightly less fuel burn. The 767-400 was mostly made as a niche aircraft for Delta and Continental to replace their L-1011s and DC-10s. It wasn't really expected to sell much, and cost Boeing little money to develop.
The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
 
LY777
Posts: 2268
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:58 pm

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:49 pm

The 764 is by the way the first a/c to display raked wingtip

[Edited 2007-02-16 15:51:42]
Flown:A3B2,A320,A321,A332,A343,A388,717,727,732,734,735,738,73W,742/744/748,752,762/2ER/763/3ER,772/77E/773/77W,D8,D10,L
 
trex8
Posts: 4576
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:14 am

from Airline Empires, FY2005Q2
NW A333/2 CASM 4.05, cost per block hr 5276, fuel per block hr 1864
US A333 4.11, 5104, 1872
DL 764 4.03, 4984, 1645
CO 764 3.99, 4576, 1739
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5005
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:14 am

Niche a/c for DL n CO???

Why did Boeing fly the 764 around the world on a Charm Tour, maybe trying to sell more frames?

Micke//  Yeah sure
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:19 am

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 4):
Why did Boeing fly the 764 around the world on a Charm Tour, maybe trying to sell more frames?

Of course. Why wouldn't they?
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:20 am

What did you expect them to do, Solnabo? Lock it in a closet and tell other airlines they couldn't buy one, even if they wanted to?

They also use such flights for testing purposes. After all, one can only do so many PAE-EWR and PAE-ATL trips Big grin
 
zschocheimages
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:21 am

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:23 am

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 4):
Niche a/c for DL n CO???

Why did Boeing fly the 764 around the world on a Charm Tour, maybe trying to sell more frames?

It was created as a niche, but Boeing had hopes that it could possibly catch on elsewhere. By the time that it finally hit the market the 330 had gained major momentum. Personally, I prefer the 764.
Why fly with 2 engines when you can have 3?
 
keesje
Posts: 8594
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:26 am

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 1):
The 767-400 was mostly made as a niche aircraft for Delta and Continental to replace their L-1011s and DC-10s. It wasn't really expected to sell much, and cost Boeing little money to develop.

I think it became a niche plane, it was not made to. It was intended to sell a lot, being a significant upgrade from the previous 767's. It has stretched wing wing, increased takeoff weight capability, a brand new interior, a new flight deck, an all-new main landing gear, structural.modifications etc. I just see no reason why it costed Boeing little..

IMO it (partly) had bad luck, 9-11 came & prevented AA and UA and other domestic carriers to order the significant numbers that were hoped for. The better A332 sealed it's destiny internationally.

http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/767worldtour/index.html

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:33 am

Keesje would be correct.

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsourc...21IH2I&date=20000914&query=767-400

With Boeing's longer-range version, dubbed the 767-400ERX, Boeing has a shot at evenly splitting orders for medium-size planes (those carrying 200 to 300 people) with Airbus, Aboulafia said.

Missed it by THAT much.

Lol.
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:41 am

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 6):
What did you expect them to do, Solnabo? Lock it in a closet and tell other airlines they couldn't buy one, even if they wanted to?

I think he's pointing to the notion that the 767-400ER was not as big a seller as Boeing had hoped, which is being masked by an a.net myth that it was produced only to sell about 40 of them to DL & CO. Boeing would not have incorporated that many changes to the 767 (inc a redesigned cockpit) if they intended only to sell it to two airlines that already used the 763 as the workhorse of their widebody fleet. I remember a superb special in Flight Internation from the time, Ive long since lost the magazine though, it had a cutaway aswell.
 
User avatar
1337Delta764
Posts: 4891
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:49 am

Rembmer that before Boeing made the 767-400, they wanted Delta and Continental to order the 777-200ER to replace their L-1011s and DC-10s. They both considered the 777-200ER too large, and then offered the 777-100. The 777-100 would have been too heavy, and would have had operating costs that were barely any lower than the 777-200(ER). That is why Boeing made the 767-400. Delta and Continental had specified that it should feature a more advanced cockpit than the tradtitional 777 cockpit. The 767-400 was also used as a test platform for the raked wingtips used on almost all new Boeing widebodies.
The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
 
SEPilot
Posts: 4914
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:54 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
I think it became a niche plane, it was not made to. It was intended to sell a lot, being a significant upgrade from the previous 767's. It has stretched wing wing, increased takeoff weight capability, a brand new interior, a new flight deck, an all-new main landing gear, structural.modifications etc. I just see no reason why it costed Boeing little..

I would agree; I think Boeing wanted to sell a bunch of them but the A330 outclassed it, just as the 777 has outclassed the A340, giving both Keesje and me something to be happy about.
 Big grin
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
KL808
Posts: 1534
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 3:49 am

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:58 am

At one time or another KQ actually ordered some if Im not mistaken. But it was cancelled and changed to B777's.

Drew
AMS-LAX-MNL
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:07 am

Well, I think Boeing had hoped to sell to more customers (duh) but there were very specific things about the 767-400 that were developed specifically for both Delta and Continental.

The 767-400 was intended as a replacement for aging McDonnell Douglas DC-10s and Lockheed L-1011s.

The wingspan issue was a key point, and what drove the design on the wingtips, Delta wanted a plane that would fit in existing gates at Laguardia.

A fact I have thrown out there before, the engineer who designed the 764 wingtips went on to design golf balls

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/52560_golf29.shtml

Looks like I misspoke above, the 767-400ERX was never launched.
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:16 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 12):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
I think it became a niche plane, it was not made to. It was intended to sell a lot, being a significant upgrade from the previous 767's. It has stretched wing wing, increased takeoff weight capability, a brand new interior, a new flight deck, an all-new main landing gear, structural.modifications etc. I just see no reason why it costed Boeing little..

I would agree; I think Boeing wanted to sell a bunch of them but the A330 outclassed it, just as the 777 has outclassed the A340, giving both Keesje and me something to be happy about.

Boeing also proposed the 777-100 'against' the A332 before deciding on the 767-400ER. There was also a tri engined 777 design concept from Boeing around 1997 (probably envisaged as a replacement for the L1011 & DC10), although it never got off the ground. This area of boeings line will finally be filled well by the 787.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:21 am

Quoting LY777 (Reply 2):
The 764 is by the way the first a/c to display raked wingtip

No, it is not.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
COEI2007
Posts: 837
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 1:33 am

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:22 am

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 4):
Niche a/c for DL n CO???

Why did Boeing fly the 764 around the world on a Charm Tour, maybe trying to sell more frames?

Micke//

It was developed for DL and CO. Other a.net-ers have saisd they wouldnt develop it, unless they wanted to sell to more than just DL and CO, but it was developed to keep two of Boeings's larger customers, loyal!
 
slz396
Posts: 1883
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 7:01 am

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:23 am

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 9):
With Boeing's longer-range version, dubbed the 767-400ER, Boeing has a shot at evenly splitting orders for medium-size planes (those carrying 200 to 300 people) with Airbus, Aboulafia said.

ROTFL-

We have to frame this one!

Definitely one of the more 'remarkable prophecies of Aboulafia' for sure: Not a single 764 was ever exported and Boeing lost almost a decade because of its reluctance to give up on the relatively new 767.

For a man who calls himself an aviation analyst, it should have been clear where the true advantage of the A330 over the 767 lays. It is not so much in its range, or its seating capacity, it is in its cabin width, which allows for a more efficient seating configuration and the side by side loading of standard containers. Since the 764 didn't tackle any of these, it is remarkable at least to see him predict -completely in error as history has shown- that this plane could turn the tide....

[Edited 2007-02-16 17:38:08]
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:35 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 15):
There was also a tri engined 777 design concept from Boeing around 1997

The third engine was an oversized APU that could generate thrust for takeoff. The idea was scratched when the main engines proved capable of sufficient thrust growth. But back in the 70s, a long range 767 variant with a third engine mounted DC-10 style was seriously considered, and it was called 777 at the time.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18834
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:38 am

Quoting KL808 (Reply 13):
At one time or another KQ actually ordered some if Im not mistaken. But it was cancelled and changed to B777's.

Yes I was just going to mention that when I saw your post. KQ is the only other carrier I recall that either ordered or came close to ordering the 764.
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:40 am

Kenya ordered the 767-400ERX, which was never launched, and they switched to the 772ER

The were however 7 orders from an unnamed leasing company at the launch of the 764ER, but these disapeared and I don't think we will ever know why they were for.
 
cubastar
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:48 pm

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:47 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 16):
No, it is not.

What was the first? No flame, just would like to know. Thanks.
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:48 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 20):
KQ is the only other carrier I recall that either ordered or came close to ordering the 764.

I heard a roumer that LOT considered it. Not sure on its reliability though.

Its a bit strange that even though it obviously has good CASMs, its cargo capacity is stated as its main down fall. Then why did do many charter carriers whom already had the 767 go for the A330 instead, presuming they dont need large cargo capabilities.
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:14 am

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 4):
Niche a/c for DL n CO???

Why did Boeing fly the 764 around the world on a Charm Tour, maybe trying to sell more frames?

I believe Keesje nailed this one on the spot. I think the same thing can be said about the "flopped" 753. According to Wikipedia, 764 production is to be closed sometime this year (2007)

Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
I think it became a niche plane, it was not made to. It was intended to sell a lot, being a significant upgrade from the previous 767's. It has stretched wing wing, increased takeoff weight capability, a brand new interior, a new flight deck, an all-new main landing gear, structural.modifications etc. I just see no reason why it costed Boeing little..

IMO it (partly) had bad luck, 9-11 came & prevented AA and UA and other domestic carriers to order the significant numbers that were hoped for. The better A332 sealed it's destiny internationally.
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:21 am

I wonder could the 764ER potentially be a useful bridging tool for the likes of AA, DL, etc if the 787-9 and -10 waiting list gets much longer, like the A330-300 is proving to be for the A350XWB. A few big discounts could gain some orders that could further help to extend the life of the 767 line.

[Edited 2007-02-16 18:29:59]
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:41 am

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 18):
Definitely one of the more 'remarkable prophecies of Aboulafia' for sure: Not a single 764 was ever exported and Boeing lost almost a decade because of its reluctance to give up on the relatively new 767.

What could they have done a decade ago except produce a me too version of the A330? As things turned out they ended up with the 787, which appears to be timed perfectly.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 18):
it is remarkable at least to see him predict -completely in error as history has shown- that this plane could turn the tide....

But he was completely accurate in predicting the A380 would flop...
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:46 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 26):
What could they have done a decade ago except produce a me too version of the A330?

Do what airbus is doing now, an all new design. Not cheap but the best long term answer. Boeing had a market leading plane in the 767 which was bettered by the A330 which has been bettered by the 787 in response to which Airbus is deleloping the A350..
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:59 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 27):
Do what airbus is doing now, an all new design. Not cheap but the best long term answer.

If they had done a whole new plane then they wouldn't be doing the 787 now.

They couldn't have done monolithic composite fuselage barrels 10 years ago.
Heck, Airbus can't even do it today.
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22931
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 3:09 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
I think it became a niche plane, it was not made to.

 checkmark 

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 18):
For a man who calls himself an aviation analyst, it should have been clear where the true advantage of the A330 over the 767 lays. It is not so much in its range, or its seating capacity, it is in its cabin width, which allows for a more efficient seating configuration and the side by side loading of standard containers. Since the 764 didn't tackle any of these, it is remarkable at least to see him predict -completely in error as history has shown- that this plane could turn the tide....

While I agree he muffed it, and I agree the A332 continued to have advantages over the 767-400ER, I believe a big part was the 777's superiority over the 767 which drove many customers Boeing was hoping would buy the 767-400ER to instead buy the 777-200A and 777-200ER. CO and DL didn't need the capacity of the 777-200 for the domestic missions they chose the 767-400ER for, though I imagine they're wishing they had bought the 777-200 now that those planes are now being used on international missions.
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 3:14 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 29):
I believe a big part was the 777's superiority over the 767 which drove many customers Boeing was hoping would buy the 767-400ER to instead buy the 777-200A and 777-200ER.

Wasent the 777 already available?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22931
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 3:21 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 30):
Wasent the 777 already available?

Yes it was, but DL and CO didn't want something as big as a 777-200 for every mission, yet wanted something bigger then the 767-300. So they were looking at the Airbus A330-200, but Boeing agreed to develop the 767-400ER.

I don't believe they did this just for DL and CO (as some believe/claim), as it would have been cheaper to just sell them some 777-200As at a greatly-reduced price. The 777-200A never sold very well, anyway, so not like Boeing could not have used some extra orders.

Instead, I believe Boeing felt that is DL and CO wanted something larger then their 767-300s and smaller then a 777-200, then it stood to reason other airlines would, as well.

Alas, they were wrong. Airlines who wanted something larger then their 767-300s wanted the 777-200 or they wanted the A330-200.
 
User avatar
United787
Posts: 2188
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:20 pm

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 3:39 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 27):
Do what airbus is doing now, an all new design. Not cheap but the best long term answer. Boeing had a market leading plane in the 767 which was bettered by the A330 which has been bettered by the 787 in response to which Airbus is deleloping the A350..

The A350 is not in response to the 787, they are in a different class. The A350 is in response to the 777.

I don't understand why so many A-Netters think that the A350 and 787 are competing.

With a typical 3-class layout, the 787 capacity is 223-259 whereas the A350 capacity is 270-350 and the 777 is 305-365.
 
slz396
Posts: 1883
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 7:01 am

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 3:52 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 26):
What could they have done a decade ago except produce a me too version of the A330? As things turned out they ended up with the 787, which appears to be timed perfectly.

Are you saying that when a competitor comes out with a new product, the best thing to do is to do nothing for ten years before coming with something better...  crazy 

Have you already filled your application form to join the ranks of aviation consultancy agencies? Your view definitely is refreshing to say the least!

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 26):
He was completely accurate on the A380.

Whether or not he will be right on the A380 will be judged in 10 years from now, when the plane is in active service and the aviation boom in the east will (or will not) have caused the surge in demand for VLA's both Airbus and Boeing predicted in their most recent market outlook.
 
User avatar
United787
Posts: 2188
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:20 pm

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 3:57 am

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 33):
Are you saying that when a competitor comes out with a new product, the best thing to do is to do nothing for ten years before coming with something better...

Maybe not 10 years (e.g. A350 is too late a reaction to the 777), but it has seemed to work for the industry that instead of trying to develop a new product as a knee jerk reaction to a competitor, wait a couple years for the technology to improve, evaluate the market and then come out with a BETTER product then your competitor.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22931
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 4:39 am

Quoting United787 (Reply 32):
The A350 is not in response to the 787, they are in a different class. The A350 is in response to the 777. I don't understand why so many A-Netters think that the A350 and 787 are competing.

Because they do. If Airbus didn't care about the 787, they would not have offered the A350XWB-800.

Look beyond just raw seat counts - especially manufacturer-spec raw seat counts which generally have little relation to what an airline customer will configure their plane.

Instead, look to payload (passenger and underfloor cargo). Look to range. Look to payload over range. You will see overlap across the A330, A350, 777 and 787 families which brings them all into competition with each other on RFPs, be it one on one or two on two.
 
floridaflyboy
Posts: 1496
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 3:26 pm

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 4:43 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 25):
I wonder could the 764ER potentially be a useful bridging tool for the likes of AA, DL, etc if the 787-9 and -10 waiting list gets much longer, like the A330-300 is proving to be for the A350XWB.

Absolutely, and I would not be at all surprised to see this happen. As delivery slots are getting further and further away, I could definitely see the airlines looking for a stop-gap airplane, and the 764 would be perfect, as these carriers already operate 767 family planes.

Personally, I prefer the 764 over the A330 from a passenger standpoint, but they are both phenominal planes!
Good goes around!
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 5:44 am

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 9):
With Boeing's longer-range version, dubbed the 767-400ERX, Boeing has a shot at evenly splitting orders for medium-size planes (those carrying 200 to 300 people) with Airbus, Aboulafia said.

Missed it by THAT much.

I'm no fan of R.A. but to be fair your quote is incomplete and your statement that he missed the prediction is incorrect.

The complete quote in the alticle is:
-------
One reason for the 767's dismal showing is that it fell short--literally--against the competing model from Airbus, the 253-seat A330-200. The existing 767-400ER, which has comparable passenger capacity, couldn't fly as far.

So Boeing has decided to extend the 767-400ER's maximum range by about 600 miles, to 7,080 miles, by putting fuel in the plane's horizontal tail. The extended range will enable airlines to link different city pairs, such as Los Angeles and Rome, instead of just Los Angeles and London.

Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst with the Teal Group, said the A330-200 until now has been trouncing the 767-400ER with its greater range. (Airbus does not break out sales figures for the model.) With Boeing's longer-range version, dubbed the 767-400ERX, Boeing has a shot at evenly splitting orders for medium-size planes (those carrying 200 to 300 people) with Airbus, Aboulafia said.
--------
He may very well have been right (I personally don't believe so). Had the 767-400ERX (X being the key) been launched with the additional 600 nm range, things could have been more evenly split.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 5:49 am

Well, here are the facts...the 764ERX wasn't launched, and the 767 has been more than eclipsed by the A330-family.

So, I guess you can spin that any way you want, but nets not confuse personal opinion with the actual results...
 
laca773
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:10 am

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 5:50 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 25):
I wonder could the 764ER potentially be a useful bridging tool for the likes of AA, DL, etc if the 787-9 and -10 waiting list gets much longer, like the A330-300 is proving to be for the A350XWB. A few big discounts could gain some orders that could further help to extend the life of the 767 line.

[Edited 2007-02-16 18:29:59]

I was just thinking the same thing again and have been for quite sometime. I think Boeing could really do well using the 764 as a "bridge" AC until it's more appropriate for some to purchase the 78X AC {AA, UA, HA etc..}.

LACA773
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 5:55 am

Quoting Cubastar (Reply 22):
What was the first?

This little bird already had them in the early eighties:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © S.L. Tsai



Followed by its bigger and faster brother in the nineties:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John Yu

Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
columba
Posts: 5043
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 5:59 am

Quoting United787 (Reply 32):
I don't understand why so many A-Netters think that the A350 and 787 are competing.

Because the airlines evaluate if they order the 787 or the A350.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
ScottB
Posts: 5413
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 6:07 am

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 33):
Are you saying that when a competitor comes out with a new product, the best thing to do is to do nothing for ten years before coming with something better...

Well, let's see. Boeing announced the 7E7 in 2004, and it appears that the A350 will enter service some time in 2013 or 2014. Looks like about ten years to me. Oh wait, Airbus seems to have found it appropriate to call the 787 a "cheap" "Chinese copy" of the A330 -- or, at least, they did until having their butts kicked unceremoniously in the market. They had to essentially buy the largest A350 order from US Airways with bankruptcy emergence financing. Oh yeah, and they flailed around with close to half a dozen different design iterations of their product, with an EIS that went from 2010 to optimistically 2013. Maybe that's the best thing to do!

Quoting EI321 (Reply 10):
if they intended only to sell it to two airlines that already used the 763 as the workhorse of their widebody fleet.

CO has never operated the 767-300, and the 767-200's CO operates were ordered as part of the 767-400 order. Boeing made the 762's especially for CO since they had largely been dropped from the product catalog.
 
warreng24
Posts: 573
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:38 am

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 6:41 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 16):
No, it is not.

Can you not be so negative, and enlighten those of us who would like to know what the first aircraft to feature a raked wingtip is?
 
slz396
Posts: 1883
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 7:01 am

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 6:47 am

Quoting ScottB (Reply 43):
Boeing announced the 7E7 in 2004 and it appears that the A350 will enter service some time in 2013 or 2014.

Let's use the same datum as reference: the 787-9 will EIS by 2010, with the A350 about 3 years later...

Merely 3 years will separate these 2 planes and everybody in the industry is talking about Airbus loosing the widebody market and yet you are suggesting a 10 year gap is perfectly okay to accept for any manufacturer???

Reality is that in a duopoly a 3 to 4 year gap between competing models is about the maximum still acceptable. If it gets bigger than that, the reluctant manufacturer quickly starts loosing market share: just look at the 767, or the 737SG.

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 37):
Well that's what Boeing has done, and the strategy seems to be working as they are kicking Airbus' butt in the widebody market.

The strategy- if we may call indecisiveness a strategy- certainly didn't pay off for most of those 10 years, in which Boeing was dwarfed by Airbus time after time again and I can't say Boeing have been kicking other than some settled dust this year if we may go by the 2007 sales figures....

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 37):
Far better to wait for a real leap in technology, like the 787.

So you think Boeing was well managed during the time they wasted their time and money on the 767-400, the 757-300 and the Sonic Cruiser then??? I am pretty confident you'll find proof the market does not agree with you, hence Boeing's shares are listed much higher now than they were back then...
 
floridaflyboy
Posts: 1496
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 3:26 pm

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:03 am

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 44):
So you think Boeing was well managed during the time they wasted their time and money on the 767-400, the 757-300 and the Sonic Cruiser then???

Although I agree that the Sonic Cruiser was a stupid waste of money, and proof of Boeing's poor management during the period, I would never call the 764 or 753 a failure. They had very minimal R&D costs, and therefore, I guarantee both models made money, which never makes a failure.
Good goes around!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22931
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:05 am

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 38):
Well, here are the facts...the 764ERX wasn't launched, and the 767 has been more than eclipsed by the A330-family.

The 767 has still held her own relatively well since the launch of the A330-200, with 286 sold between February 1996 (the month the A330-200 recorded her first order) and the end of last month versus 393 for the A332 during the same period.
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:29 am

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 18):
We have to frame this one!

Be sure to frame this one too:

Quote:
If Boeing does end up developing the super-efficient plane, he added, it will "fly circles" around the A380.

"It will be a cost-driven fragmentation machine," Aboulafia said.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/100543_sonic19.shtml
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 8:42 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 46):
Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 38):
Well, here are the facts...the 764ERX wasn't launched, and the 767 has been more than eclipsed by the A330-family.

The 767 has still held her own relatively well since the launch of the A330-200, with 286 sold between February 1996 (the month the A330-200 recorded her first order) and the end of last month versus 393 for the A332 during the same period.

I'm glad you cleared that typical myth on A.net Stich...

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 44):
So you think Boeing was well managed during the time they wasted their time and money on the 767-400, the 757-300 and the Sonic Cruiser then???

The B767-400 ported a lot of technologies from the B777 series (cockpit, etc)...the majour increase (and not very much at that) was production.....

The same goes for the B757-300, which was even cheaper to develop and manufacture....

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 44):
Quoting ScottB (Reply 43):
Boeing announced the 7E7 in 2004 and it appears that the A350 will enter service some time in 2013 or 2014.

Let's use the same datum as reference: the 787-9 will EIS by 2010, with the A350 about 3 years later...

Merely 3 years will separate these 2 planes and everybody in the industry is talking about Airbus loosing the widebody market and yet you are suggesting a 10 year gap is perfectly okay to accept for any manufacturer???

With the first B787 flying for carriers in 2008, and the the first A350 coming no sooner than 2014, that's a good 6 years...not to mention, I'm curious as to how much better the A350 will be....maybe it will, maybe it won't, but the B787 is certainly going to be saving carriers a lot of $$$$ in sooner rather than later (as well as open up new routes).....that's 5-7 years of profits (hopefully)....

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 44):
Reality is that in a duopoly a 3 to 4 year gap between competing models is about the maximum still acceptable. If it gets bigger than that, the reluctant manufacturer quickly starts loosing market share: just look at the 767, or the 737SG.

..you can also add the A345/A346 versus the B777-200LR/B777-300ER to that' mix... Wink
"Up the Irons!"
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: Updated 767 400 VS A330-300

Sat Feb 17, 2007 9:06 am

So we are comparing the entire 767 line to just one Airbus model, the A332?

Come on!

As much of a Boeing cheerleader as I am, and the fact that I enjoy a professional relationship with them, I have to laugh at your reasoning. How can you compare 3 models vs. 1?

Why not compare deliveries for the entire family between the same time frame. Boeing is currently producing what, 1 frame a month? And Airbus? Anyone?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ADent, aw70, Baidu [Spider], BreninTW, bwest, CHCalfonzo, Cipango, deltal1011man, dmorbust, echster, Google [Bot], nikeson13, qf2220, qvb222, RalXWB, SCQ83, StTim, Zaf, zkncj and 262 guests