Sangas
Topic Author
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 8:52 pm

Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 2:04 am

Quote:
It�s been a whirlwind year or so for an airplane program that many observers had not too long ago left for dead.

And I remember myself telling reporters about two years ago that we had about six months of leeway before making a decision on whether to end the 767 line...

...So, the 767 line in Everett is going to be humming - with 62 unfilled orders for 767s as of the end of February...

http://boeingblogs.com/randy/

IIRC, the current production rate is at a bare minimum of 9-12 aircraft annually, does anyone know precisely what the plans are for ramping-up production on this assembly line?

[Edited 2007-03-07 18:13:35]
A camel only sees the other camels' humps
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 2:37 am

Unreal that it has 62 unfilled orders.
One Nation Under God
 
WINGS
Posts: 2312
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 1:36 am

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 2:40 am

People tend to forget that the 767 is the most popular widebody airplane overall after the 747. We've sold more than 1,000 to date (three times more than the competing model - A330-200).

http://boeingblogs.com/randy/

Mr Randy tends to be a first class idiot when he wants. Why is it that Mr Randy has no problem in comparing the sales of the B767 vs the A330-200, but fails to mention that the B767-200/ER/300/ER/F also competes directly with the A300 and A310?

If Mr Randy wants to be taken seriously then maybe he should have referred the following numbers that correspond to the the direct competitor of the A330-200.

A330-200 ( 399 frames) vs B767-400 ( 38 frames sold)

Ohhhh by the way, here are the sales figures for the following aircraft that also competed directly with the B767.

A300 = 561 frames sold
A310 = 255 frames sold.

It is with out a doubt that the A300/A310/A330/A340 fuselage cross section is in fact the best sold widebody in history (1900+) and not the B747-100/200/SP/300/400/800 like Mr Randy referred.

Regards,
Wings

[Edited 2007-03-07 18:41:59]
Aviation Is A Passion.
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 2:41 am

Mostly freighters I would assume, although the 763 is still the perfect aircraft for some routes.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2639
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 2:55 am

Quoting WINGS (Reply 2):
Regards,
Wings

Well, The 767 no longer competes with the A300/A310 as a new build aircraft since you can no longer buy a A300 or A310

More over, lumping all of a given "cross section" together to make a number is silly. Are you compensating for something? Worried that you need to stuff another gym-sock down there or you won't get the ladies? If you want to use this I might point out that boeing has a single cross section that has outsold the total production of Airbus, since Airbus was started.... by a good margin.

The A300 and A310 alone are two different aircraft. Oh and no matter what you say the A330 and A340 while sharing a very nice level of commonality, ARE NOT THE SAME FAMILY. Certainly not by the time you get to the A340NG which stupidly isn't even that common with the old A340.
 
mpdpilot
Posts: 695
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 6:44 am

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:07 am

Quoting WINGS (Reply 2):
It is with out a doubt that the A300/A310/A330/A340 fuselage cross section is in fact the best sold widebody in history (1900+) and not the B747-100/200/SP/300/400/800 like Mr Randy referred.

But that isn't what he said. He said that the 767 is the most popular widebody AIRPLANE currently which is correct no other widebody has sold that many. Now there maybe 4 airbus models that combined sold more but that isn't what he said. I will also add that if you include the a300 with the a340 you should also include the 777 with the 747 or perhapps even the 787 in which boeing leads even without the 787 at 2408. I don't think randy was lying here like you claim I will say that he definately fudges the facts nothing that is untrue.
One mile of highway gets you one mile, one mile of runway gets you anywhere.
 
airways45
Posts: 282
Joined: Wed May 10, 2000 1:26 am

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:11 am

Quoting Sangas (Thread starter):
...So, the 767 line in Everett is going to be humming - with 62 unfilled orders for 767s as of the end of February...

It's amazing what discounting an airplane can do for your production line...!  Wink

Airways45
 
WINGS
Posts: 2312
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 1:36 am

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:15 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 4):

Well, The 767 no longer competes with the A300/A310 as a new build aircraft since you can no longer buy a A300 or A310

When was the last B767-200/ER sold? It does not make any difference as he clearly failed to mention the clear facts.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 4):
More over, lumping all of a given "cross section" together to make a number is silly

Yet it wasn't silly for Mr Randy to group the sales of the B747-100/200/SP/300/400/800.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 4):
f you want to use this I might point out that boeing has a single cross section that has outsold the total production of Airbus, since Airbus was started.... by a good margin.

I clearly mentioned Wide Body cross section. You may not know this but the A320-200 series is actually the best sold frame in aviation history.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 4):
The A300 and A310 alone are two different aircraft.

Really? And the B767-200/ER/300/ER/400 are what?

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 4):
Oh and no matter what you say the A330 and A340 while sharing a very nice level of commonality, ARE NOT THE SAME FAMILY.

I consider the A332/A333/A342/A343 a remarkable achievement. With one nearly identical, fuselage/wings they managed to serve two different markets. Many people around here don't give Airbus the credit that they truly deserve for this achievement.

Regards,
Wings
Aviation Is A Passion.
 
flyorski
Posts: 725
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 8:23 am

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:20 am

Wings, your next tribute should be the 767, it is a great plane...... And with 62 unfilled orders after this many years, it is truly remarkable.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved, than those who falsly believe they are free" -Goethe
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23214
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:23 am

Quoting WINGS (Reply 2):
Mr Randy tends to be a first class idiot when he wants.

Or he's just being a first class salesman and marketer.  Wink

Quoting WINGS (Reply 2):
Why is it that Mr Randy has no problem in comparing the sales of the B767 vs the A330-200, but fails to mention that the B767-200/ER/300/ER/F also competes directly with the A300 and A310? If Mr Randy wants to be taken seriously then maybe he should have referred the following numbers that correspond to the the direct competitor of the A330-200: A330-200 ( 399 frames ) vs B767-400 ( 38 frames sold )

Yet airlines that flew 767-200s and 767-300s started ordering A330-200s before the 767-400 was launched. It's true the 767-400 best matches the A330-200 in terms of internal space and capacity, but I know that you know that airlines do not solely base their purchase decisions on capacity. The A330-200 offered them more range, more capacity, and more payload then the 767-200ER and 767-300ER did so that is why airlines started to buy it instead of just staying with the 767 family.

The 20 747-8I's LH bought are 20 A388s they won't, even if LH ends up taking every A388 option they have. And the 19 A388's SQ bought are 19 748-I's they won't, even if they do end up adding 747-8I's to their fleet. The two do not directly compare in seating, but they both address the same mission profile - moving lots of people long distances - so when they buy one, they are making a conscious decision not to buy the other. Such was the situation with the 767 vs. the A330 - and the 777 vs. the A340 and the 737 vs. the A320 and the DC-10/L-1011 vs. the A330/A310.

Quoting WINGS (Reply 2):
It is with out a doubt that the A300/A310/A330/A340 fuselage cross section is in fact the best sold widebody in history (1900+) and not the B747-100/200/SP/300/400/800 like Mr Randy referred.

Okay, but by that logic one can combine every 707, 727, 737 and 757 sold which comes to over 10719 frames and makes it the unquestioned narrobody leader by an order of magnitude and makes the A320 family's sales accomplishment look absolutely lame in comparison.

Yet the A300, A310, A330 and A340 all served different markets and missions just as the 707, 727, 737 and 757 did. So I'm not sure what you can draw from that other then the fuselage diameter was mighty popular for each widebody and narrowbody variant.
 
bmacleod
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:24 am

Despite being replaced by the 787, the 767 is still extremely popular. AC had been leasing new 767-300ERs as recent as 2004. I still hope to be on the last AC 767-300ER flight, possibly in 2014...
"What good are wings without the courage to fly?" - Atticus
 
WINGS
Posts: 2312
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 1:36 am

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:28 am

Quoting MPDPilot (Reply 5):

But that isn't what he said. He said that the 767 is the most popular widebody AIRPLANE currently

He also said this.

People tend to forget that the 767 is the most popular widebody airplane overall after the 747

The point is that Mr Randy is know for his unique ability to twist the facts. Why did he not mention the A300/A310 series? Maybe it's because the A310-200/300 out sold the B767-200/ER, or maybe for the fact that the A306F outsold the B763F.

Quoting MPDPilot (Reply 5):
Now there maybe 4 airbus models that combined sold more but that isn't what he said. I will also add that if you include the a300 with the a340 you should also include the 777 with the 747 or perhapps even the 787 in which boeing leads even without the 787 at 2408.

Since when does the B747, B777 and B787 share the same fuselage cross section?

Quoting MPDPilot (Reply 5):
I don't think randy was lying here like you claim I will say that he definately fudges the facts nothing that is untrue.

I never claimed he lied. He clearly withheld the correct facts, so that he could make his product look better. That is his job. The same thing can be said about loud mouth Mr Leahy and his cheap talk.

Regards,
Wings
Aviation Is A Passion.
 
BigJimFX
Posts: 301
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 2:25 am

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:33 am

Quoting WINGS (Reply 2):
Why is it that Mr Randy has no problem in comparing the sales of the B767 vs the A330-200,

I thought the A330/340 were made to compete with the many models of 767/'s/ 777's

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 4):
More over, lumping all of a given "cross section" together to make a number is silly. Are you compensating for something? Worried that you need to stuff another gym-sock down there or you won't get the ladies? If you want to use this I might point out that boeing has a single cross section that has outsold the total production of Airbus, since Airbus was started.... by a good margin.

The A300 and A310 alone are two different aircraft.

Well that seems to work with the ladies till i'm done with them... Which is all that matters... wink  Meanwhile the 767 and 777 are different cross sections...
And granted the A300/ A310's are different A/C, the A310 is just a shorter A300. Different length, same family. Which is why we called it the "Baby Bus" @ FX... Like the A318/319/320/321, or the B731,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 LOL

I know the 321 was built to compete with th 757, and I know the 757 can outclimb it and I don't care.... this just seemed to be the start of an A vs. B thing.
I'd like to thank me for flying Me Airways...
 
Lemurs
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:13 am

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:37 am

You can pick any criteria you like for a comparison. The job of a good PR person is to pick the criteria that make you look good, without falsifying anything. He's decided the best way to make the 767 look good is by comparing it as an aircraft model against other inidivdual models. His numbers are correct and convincing in that context, and make Boeing and the 767 look good.

Wings has decided he doesn't like that set of criteria, so he's created his own set of criteria, which involves the markets the plane competes in against a particular cross-section. For that set of criteria, he has also brought his own set of numbers, which is very convincing and makes the 767 and Boeing look bad compared to Airbus and their A300/310/330/340 common cross-section "family".

Stitch followed that up by saying that if you want to apply that set of criteria to one segment of the airplane market, you should apply it to all sections of that market. To that effect, he uses Wings criteria to show that the A320 cross-section "family" is actually an abject failure when compared to the 707/727/737/757 cross-section "family". His numbers also appear to be accurate and very convincing.

So in the end, PR is about picking your criteria such that you can find numbers that make you look good. Calling him a liar because you didn't get to pick your own criteria is ridiculous. If you want to pick your own criteria, get your own PR blog for whichever manufacturer you want to support.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
 
Lokey123
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 6:59 am

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:37 am

Quoting WINGS (Reply 11):
People tend to forget that the 767 is the most popular widebody airplane overall after the 747

It is clear that he is referring to the 767 as a family, and that makes the statement correct. Additionally, I believe that the 707, 727, 737 classic and NG, and the 757 share the same fuse cross-section, that is a whole lot of airplanes sold and on order.
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:41 am

Quoting WINGS (Reply 2):
A330-200 ( 399 frames) vs B767-400 ( 38 frames sold)

Ohhhh by the way, here are the sales figures for the following aircraft that also competed directly with the B767.

A300 = 561 frames sold
A310 = 255 frames sold.

It is with out a doubt that the A300/A310/A330/A340 fuselage cross section is in fact the best sold widebody in history (1900+) and not the B747-100/200/SP/300/400/800 like Mr Randy referred.

How very sill you are.

According to your logic, 707, 727,737, and 757 are all the same plane... and their total production is

707 - 1,010
727 - 1,832
737 - 5,268
757 - 1,050
Total = 9,160

So apparently this boeing 'model' has twice as many aircraft produced as Airbus all together....


Just because something shares a cross section does not make it the same plane.

An A310-200 and an A340-600 share little in common, besides both sharing the same pipe diameter.

A330-200 is a valid comparison against 767-400ER and 767-300ER (i realize 767-300ER is somewhat smaller than A332, but in terms of range, they are quite similar, and 763ER fits the A332 mission profile better than the A300-600 profile. A300-600 cannot do 12+ hour transpacific flights.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
WINGS
Posts: 2312
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 1:36 am

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:43 am

Quoting Flyorski (Reply 8):
Wings, your next tribute should be the 767, it is a great plane...... And with 62 unfilled orders after this many years, it is truly remarkable.

It would be a pleasure to write up a Tribute to the B767, although my Tributes are for out of production models. The B767 still has a healthy future, especially if the USAF opts for the B767-200 tanker.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
Or he's just being a first class salesman and marketer.

Mr Leahy and Mr Randy are twins separated at birth.



Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):

Yet airlines that flew 767-200s and 767-300s started ordering A330-200s before the 767-400 was launched. It's true the 767-400 best matches the A330-200 in terms of internal space and capacity, but I know that you know that airlines do not solely base their purchase decisions on capacity. The A330-200 offered them more range, more capacity, and more payload then the 767-200ER and 767-300ER did so that is why airlines started to buy it instead of just staying with the 767 family.

Absolutely correct.

Regards,
Wings
Aviation Is A Passion.
 
Confuscius
Posts: 3568
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 12:29 am

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:46 am

"Oh and no matter what you say the A330 and A340 while sharing a very nice level of commonality, ARE NOT THE SAME FAMILY."

I think the FAA would agree with you there. Two different type certificate:
A330 - A46NM
A340 - A43NM

The rest, as they say, is marketing...  


Boeing:

737 (-100 - 900) A16WE
747 (-100 - 400) A20WE
757 (-200 - 300) A2NM
767 (-200 - 400) A1NM

[Edited 2007-03-07 20:02:49]
Ain't I a stinker?
 
Sangas
Topic Author
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 8:52 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:52 am

Quoting WINGS (Reply 16):
Mr Leahy and Mr Randy are twins separated at birth.



http://boeingblogs.com/randy/images/blog_header.jpg

There's some resemblance (neither gentleman seems to have the need/desire to "restore" the natural color of their hair), though I think they're really twin brothers born of different mothers.

Edited for spelling error.

[Edited 2007-03-07 19:55:38]
A camel only sees the other camels' humps
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:52 am

Quoting WINGS (Reply 2):
Ohhhh by the way, here are the sales figures for the following aircraft that also competed directly with the B767.

A300 = 561 frames sold
A310 = 255 frames sold.

It is with out a doubt that the A300/A310/A330/A340 fuselage cross section is in fact the best sold widebody in history (1900+) and not the B747-100/200/SP/300/400/800 like Mr Randy referred.

Ohhh, here we go again.  Yeah sure The A-300, A-310, A330, and A-340 are four different types, serving four different markets. 3 of the 4 have seperate certifications. All B-747s operate from the same certification, updated for each model.

Quoting WINGS (Reply 2):
Mr Randy tends to be a first class idiot when he wants. Why is it that Mr Randy has no problem in comparing the sales of the B767 vs the A330-200, but fails to mention that the B767-200/ER/300/ER/F also competes directly with the A300 and A310?

Both Boeing and Airbus say the A-330 competes against the B-767. In fact, both are the only real consideration for the USAF KC-X compitition. BTW, Randy has never hidden the fact he works for Boeing. Do you work for Airbus/EADS? If not, you really should, perhaps you can help them solve their problems with the A-380, A-340, and Power 8.

Quoting WINGS (Reply 7):
Yet it wasn't silly for Mr Randy to group the sales of the B747-100/200/SP/300/400/800.

Why not, you grouped the sales of 4 types. The B-747 is only one type.

Quoting WINGS (Reply 7):
You may not know this but the A320-200 series is actually the best sold frame in aviation history.

What rock do you live under? Have you ever heard of the DC-3? Have you ever heard of the B-737? Have you ever heard of the A-320?

Do you know the B-737 alone has sold more airplanes than all the Airbus types, combined?  bigthumbsup 

Quoting WINGS (Reply 7):
Really? And the B767-200/ER/300/ER/400 are what?

All B-767s.  Big grin

Quoting WINGS (Reply 7):
I consider the A332/A333/A342/A343 a remarkable achievement. With one nearly identical, fuselage/wings they managed to serve two different markets.

I consider the A-340-200 and -300 both as a failure. The A-340-500/-600 are not running away with any sales awards, either. The A-330-200/-300 are an Airbus success story. Well, maybe not a successful as we think since Airbus is practically giving A-330s away at bargan basement prices to those airline who have to wait 2+ years for their WhaleJets.
 
cubastar
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:48 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:11 am

Quoting WINGS (Reply 2):
Mr Randy tends to be a first class idiot when he wants



Quoting WINGS (Reply 11):
The point is that Mr Randy is know for his unique ability to twist the facts.

And....Airbus' Leahy doesn't???

Come on guys, make your points and quit with the "mine is better than yours" nonsense....on and on and on.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23214
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:17 am

As to the A320 vs. 737, one needs to note WINGS was referring specifically to the A320-200, which has outsold the 737-100, 737-200, 737-300, 737-400, 747-500, 737-600, 737-700, 737-800 and 737-900 when comparing frame to frame (A320-200 to 737-200 or A320-200 to 737-800) and not the A320 family (all models) vs. the 737 family (all models).

As to the DC-3, were they all built as one model? I tend to think not, so it is possible no single model of the DC-3 family sold more then ~2755 (which is the total sales of the A320-200, but does also include the A320-100 as well as A320-100s converted to A320-200 specification).
 
Confuscius
Posts: 3568
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 12:29 am

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:47 am

The A300 and A310 alone are two different aircraft.

Not really, both have the same type certificate, A35EU.

Interestingly, there's no MD-80 type certificate, only DC-9-80 (A6WE, all DC-9 models). I guess the "MD-80" is for marketing purpose only.  


And yes, it's been a good year for the 767.

[Edited 2007-03-07 20:50:03]
Ain't I a stinker?
 
steeler83
Posts: 7391
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:06 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:53 am

Quoting WINGS (Reply 7):
Yet it wasn't silly for Mr Randy to group the sales of the B747-100/200/SP/300/400/800.

I think as somemone has already stated, or make that several people... they are one family of aircraft operating under one contract. I am sure the A319, 320, and 321 in the narrow body category, I am sure THOSE operate under one contranct... as do the A342 - 343 - 345 - and 346 I am sure...
Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
 
WINGS
Posts: 2312
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 1:36 am

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:04 am

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 17):

I think the FAA would agree with you there. Two different type certificate:
A330 - A46NM
A340 - A43NM

Why do you think that is? One has to comply to TWIN ENGINE ( ETOPS) rules, while the other does not

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
Ohhh, here we go again. Yeah sure The A-300, A-310, A330, and A-340 are four different types, serving four different markets. 3 of the 4 have seperate certifications. All B-747s operate from the same certification, updated for each model.

So we can agree that the B748i/F is a 40 year design? Or is it an all new model for marketing purposes?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):

What rock do you live under? Have you ever heard of the DC-3? Have you ever heard of the B-737? Have you ever heard of the A-320?

While I'm not familiar with the history of the DC-3, I know that a great part was for military use and not for commercial operations.

I'm not sure you read my quote correctly but the A320-200 series (not family) is in fact the best sold airplane in commercial aviation history.

Regards,
Wings
Aviation Is A Passion.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4972
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:36 am

Regardless of how you want to class them, I think the 767 is remarkable for the length of time it has been in production without an upgrade and is still selling. Granted, not in great numbers, but it is still selling.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
787engineer
Posts: 545
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:08 am

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:38 am

Quoting WINGS (Reply 24):
I'm not sure you read my quote correctly but the A320-200 series (not family) is in fact the best sold airplane in commercial aviation history.

I think he read it as A330-200 not A320-200, which is probably why he also mentioned the A320. I read it as A330-200 the first time too.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:15 am

Quoting BigJimFX (Reply 12):
this just seemed to be the start of an A vs. B thing.

Yes, it is.......don't ya just love it?  bigthumbsup 

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
As to the A320 vs. 737, one needs to note WINGS was referring specifically to the A320-200, which has outsold the 737-100, 737-200, 737-300, 737-400, 747-500, 737-600, 737-700, 737-800 and 737-900 when comparing frame to frame (A320-200 to 737-200 or A320-200 to 737-800) and not the A320 family (all models) vs. the 737 family (all models).

The A-320 Series has 5,025 orders and deliveries, total.

http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a320/

The B-737 past the 6,000th aircraft ordered on 21 Dec. 2005.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/pf/pf_ng_milestones.html

Then went on to sell another 739 B-737 units in 2006

http://active.boeing.com/commercial/...optReportType=AnnOrd&pageid=m15521

The B-737 has sold 3 units already this year.

http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
As to the DC-3, were they all built as one model? I tend to think not, so it is possible no single model of the DC-3 family sold more then ~2755

There were several models of the DC-3, but you can break it down to two versions, the DC-3 version, and the C-47/R4D versions. There were some 10,500 C-47s/R4Ds/Dakotas built. That is more than 4X the A-320.

Quoting WINGS (Reply 24):
So we can agree that the B748i/F is a 40 year design? Or is it an all new model for marketing purposes?

I will agree the B-747 is a 40 year old design. The -800I/F models are new technoligies applied to that 40 year old design.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:16 am

Quoting WINGS (Reply 24):
I'm not sure you read my quote correctly but the A320-200 series (not family) is in fact the best sold airplane in commercial aviation history.

As worded, this is incorrect as the DC-3 and some Soviet types easily take this crown.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
delawareusa
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 12:48 am

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:37 am

To sell a 27 year old B767 at a slight discount is good bussiness sense. Its design has been paid for. That facts are that on a per seat mile cost, the old 767 still beats the A330. Only in the additional cargo does A330 win. Also Airbus is selling at a discount larger then that of the 767.

But both are great a/c. But I prefer to fly on the 767, more comfortable coach 2-3-2 seating, and not the fealing that the pasenger cabin is jamend in the top part of the tube to allow for more cargo.
 
easyfriday2000
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:08 am

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:51 am

I know that Air canada leased some a 330's and a couple 340's but now we are getting rid of them and keeping the 767 we have had all along. Got to be a good reason.
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1981
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:02 am

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 22):
Interestingly, there's no MD-80 type certificate, only DC-9-80 (A6WE, all DC-9 models). I guess the "MD-80" is for marketing purpose only.

I think the MD-87/88 share a separate rating from the rest of the family. The original MD-81/82/83s were changed from DC-9-80's for marketing purposes following AA 191, but the MD-87/88's were always "MD's." I think the EFIS flightdeck is why they share a different type certificate.
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
futureualpilot
Posts: 2404
Joined: Thu May 25, 2000 10:52 am

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:42 am

IIRC, the 764 was designed soley as a DC-10/L1011 replacement for CO/DL respectively, not as a direct competitor to the A33X series, so while it may not be "as good", it was not intended to be...it does what it was designed to do, replace the L1011 and DC-10.
Life is better when you surf.
 
JAAlbert
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:43 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:05 am

Absolutely hilarious post! How we can turn a simple little comment about a great airplane and turn it into a mega A vs B battle of the Atlantic is just beyond me. Sometimes I wonder if a few of us suffer from one personality disorder or the other that makes us go off like this!

I'm just a simple lay person, I'm not an expert like some folks here. I think of the 767 as one model of aircraft. I think of the 330 as one model of aircraft. Rightly or wrongly I think of the 340 as one model of aircraft. Why do I do this? Only beause Boeing and Airbus label the planes with these numbers. And you know, when I am plane spotting, I can tell you whether the plane that has just passed by is a 727, 737, 757 etc., etc. or whether its a 300/310, a 320/321, a 330 or a 340. Why? Cause each looks different from the other. That's the shocking truth on how a simpleton like me distinguishes planes.

By all means classify the planes by fuel efficiency, cross section, commonality, length, height or age and come up with what you will. I'll read it and be impressed.

But when somebody (even somebody from Boeing) says the 767 has sold a 1000 frames, I determine whether the guy is right or wrong by looking at those little model numbers the airlines put on the planes and checking it against Boeing's order page and then look to see if any other numbered aircraft has sold as much. If it checks out, I'm satisfied.

I also don't see how Randy (what's his last name?) saying the 767 is the second most popular widebody puts him in league with some of the unprofessional things Mr. Leahy has occasionally come up with. (Wasn't Mr. Leagy the one who said the 787 is a cigar tube with wings?) We could devote a separate thread to nasty comments hurled by each manufacturer against the other, but my very uninformed impression is that the comments from Airbus have sometimes been a bit less professional.

I am just sorry the 767 is due to be replaced as I do love its size and comfort. I wish they'd update it a bit -- add those bigger windows and stuff. Otherwise, I just love that plane!
 
SansVGs
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:21 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:06 am

Another A vs. B thread, Great...

I have flown both, and here is the 411:

A: Pilots love them. They require very little work to fly. The environmentals are excellent. PAX who don't know any better think A is more comfortable because of width. A-makes some cheap / affordable planes.

B: "If it is not a Boeing, I am not going." This is all about reliability and feel in flight. The Boeing is far superior aerodynamically, and rides through turbulence much better. They are just solid, but old school up front.

The "net" is A's and B's are both good. Just pick your preference, and enjoy. It's all about the journey.
Winglets on a Falcon are "over-painting" a great work of art.
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2427
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:33 am

Quoting WINGS (Reply 24):
So we can agree that the B748i/F is a 40 year design? Or is it an all new model for marketing purposes?

Neither, really. The changes from the older 747-100/200/300 to the -400 series alone were extensive, even while based on the old fuselage. The changes to the new -8, while not too extensive from the -400 will distance the newer 747 even further from the original model. While certainly not "all-new", the -8F and I are quite different from the original "City Of Everett" prototype. And while the 767 can'y compete on an even footing with the A330 these days, its' contuing success is still a remarkable achievement and I predict it will win the initial Air Force tanker procurement competition on the basis of its lower unit cost and smaller size that allows it to operate from the same airfields as the KC-135 it would initially supplement, thaat is, unless the USAF decides it needs bigger multirole tankers to supplement its C-5s and C-17s for cargo lift.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17119
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 1:05 pm

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 17):
"Oh and no matter what you say the A330 and A340 while sharing a very nice level of commonality, ARE NOT THE SAME FAMILY."

I think the FAA would agree with you there. Two different type certificate:
A330 - A46NM
A340 - A43NM

The rest, as they say, is marketing...

Not really different from a technical standpoint. They are built on the same line and apart from the 340NG are basically the same aircraft with different numbers of engines. I would venture that the 330 and 340 are much more alike than the 741 and 744.

The type certificate is, as WINGS mentioned, presumably due to ETOPS certification issues.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
manni
Posts: 4049
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:48 am

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 1:40 pm

Quoting WINGS (Reply 2):
People tend to forget that the 767 is the most popular widebody airplane overall after the 747. We've sold more than 1,000 to date (three times more than the competing model - A330-200).

http://boeingblogs.com/randy/

That's indeed a lot of hot air. Mr. Baseler is comparing the orders for all 767 models (762, 763, 764 and 767F) of which the first have been flying in the late seventies with the A332 that first started flying in the late nineties. Laughable and something one would say by lack of other things to boast about!

Quoting DelawareUSA (Reply 31):
Also Airbus is selling at a discount larger then that of the 767.

And that comment is based on what?


As far as "The year of the 767" is concerned. No doubt Mr. Baseler is confident that uncle Sam will buy tankers from Boeing. I can't imagine they wouldn't.
SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
 
multimark
Posts: 411
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 1:53 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 2:07 pm

Quoting Easyfriday2000 (Reply 32):
I know that Air canada leased some a 330's and a couple 340's but now we are getting rid of them and keeping the 767 we have had all along. Got to be a good reason.

I believe AC only took on one extra A340 to deal with a widebody shortage? And there were some 767's which are now leaving the fleet, as it would be uneconomic to XM them. The A330's will get the new interiors as well. The 767 and 330 are 2 of my favourites, so this suits me fine!
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 868
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:25 pm

From Randy's Blog:

"You know, the 767 is the original king of point-to-point. It’s still a very popular size airplane for opening up new long-haul nonstops. 131 operators worldwide fly the 767, and it makes up 21% of the world twin-aisle fleet. The 767 flies across the Atlantic more frequently than any other airplane, and it continues to grow in popularity as governments around the world liberalize air travel."

This is why IMHO the 767 and A330 are competitors and not with the A300/A310 - They serve different purposes, one which is market fragmentation and transoceanic point to point. The A300 and A310, though different in capacity seem more transnational like the 757 (until recently with the winglets for transatlantic) and those should be logged as competitors by mission.

The 767 also has the most comfortable Y class I have flown, only one seat out of 7 is a middle seat - I think it's the best layout around and I'll be sorry to see it go when it does. I heard Larry King say on his show its his favorite airplane to travel, so I am not alone. Maybe some premium economy demands would keep it around.
 
airways45
Posts: 282
Joined: Wed May 10, 2000 1:26 am

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:32 pm

Quoting Justloveplanes (Reply 40):
767 flies across the Atlantic more frequently than any other airplane

Is this still true? I know it certainly used to be the case, but I would have thought the use of 777s and A330s has reduced the use of 767s displacing their No 1 spot? Anyone know for sure?

Airways45
 
sstsomeday
Posts: 821
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:32 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:45 pm

Quoting WINGS (Reply 24):
So we can agree that the B748i/F is a 40 year design? Or is it an all new model for marketing purposes?

It's a highly modified and updated platform, to be more specific. Since it's inception; new wings, engines, avionics, interiors, additional capacity, etc.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 28):
I will agree the B-747 is a 40 year old design. The -800I/F models are new technoligies applied to that 40 year old design.

Exactly.
I come in peace
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:48 pm

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 17):
I think the FAA would agree with you there. Two different type certificate:
A330 - A46NM
A340 - A43NM

The rest, as they say, is marketing...

Its not possible to hold both on the same cert due to the different engines count.
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: The Year Of The 767

Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:57 pm

Quoting DelawareUSA (Reply 30):
To sell a 27 year old B767 at a slight discount is good bussiness sense. Its design has been paid for. That facts are that on a per seat mile cost, the old 767 still beats the A330.

The 767 has lower CASMs than the A330?

Quoting DelawareUSA (Reply 30):
But both are great a/c. But I prefer to fly on the 767, more comfortable coach 2-3-2 seating, and not the fealing that the pasenger cabin is jamend in the top part of the tube to allow for more cargo.

Then what will you do when the 767 is no longer around? Its my fav layout also.

Quoting Easyfriday2000 (Reply 31):
I know that Air canada leased some a 330's and a couple 340's but now we are getting rid of them and keeping the 767 we have had all along. Got to be a good reason.

The 787s wont replace the 767s?

Quoting FutureUALpilot (Reply 33):
IIRC, the 764 was designed soley as a DC-10/L1011 replacement for CO/DL respectively, not as a direct competitor to the A33X series, so while it may not be "as good", it was not intended to be...it does what it was designed to do, replace the L1011 and DC-10.

Thats just a poor excuse. Why did it do a world tour? Its also worth noting that both DL & CO ordered the aircraft with the original 767 cockpit, but Boeing introduced the new cockpit design at a later stage.

Quote:

In growing markets, it can fly more passengers on routes served by existing 767s, A300-600s and A310s. Efficient design gives the higher-capacity 767-400ER excellent range capability (approximately 5,645 nautical miles or 10,454 km) to fly about 99 percent of the routes currently being served by airplanes in this size category.

In comparison with the Airbus A330-200, the 767-400ER offers superior economic performance -- with at least 4 percent lower operating costs. The 767-400ER weighs 40,000 pounds less than the A330-200.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/400/index.html

Boeing appear to market the aircraft specifically against the A330-200 but how many airlines (inc existing 767 operators) have bought it instead of the former?

Quote:

By this month, sales had reached 52 aircraft, with 26 orders for Continental, 21 for Delta and five for International Lease Finance. Although it has been static for some time, the orderbook is widely tipped to grow before the end of 1998. Queen says that there is "significant interest in the programme", and he adds that "-we still expect it to be a best seller". If the last two decades of 767 history are anything to go by, he may be proved right.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...19/40856/stretching-a-stretch.html

[Edited 2007-03-08 11:27:19]