VC10er
Topic Author
Posts: 2189
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Why No 767MAX?

Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:31 am

No doubt over the past 20 years the 767 has been a very popular aircraft with airlines and passengers alike. However it has certainly run out of steam. Why no 767 with a new wing (perhaps the swept wing of the 767-400) and re-engined? Is that just too close to a 787? Or would it not garner the same efficiencies as a mostly composite aircraft?

Given how many are sold, I would assume it's aerodynamics and safety record and size could have appeal? So aside from a 787 or an overhaul of the 747 and 737, why not the 767?
The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
 
ghifty
Posts: 885
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 9:12 pm

RE: Why No 767MAX?

Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:37 am

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
Is that just too close to a 787?

There's your answer.

It'd be like if Boeing went clean-sheet to replace the 738, 739, and 752, 753. And then continued on with the 737MAX.
Fly Delta Jets
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Why No 767MAX?

Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:48 am

This has come up many times, so a search in the archives should help.

In general, Boeing tried to improve the 767, but airlines eventually pushed Boeing to the 787.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9762
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Why No 767MAX?

Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:59 am

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
Why no 767 with a new wing (perhaps the swept wing of the 767-400) and re-engined?

A new wing and engines is a significant investment, it would also provide a significant improvement. A new aircraft is also a significant improvement, however the efficiency gain between the two is not that great.

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
Or would it not garner the same efficiencies as a mostly composite aircraft?

A new composite wing an new engines would result in a very efficient aircraft. In terms of manufacturing and production, I would see them being able to push more of them out the door than 787s if they had started both projects at the same time.

As it is at the moment, the 787 is heavier than the 767.

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
So aside from a 787 or an overhaul of the 747 and 737, why not the 767?

I suspect the under floor cargo capacity was one of the drivers for the 787, it was aiming at competing with the A330, not just replacing existing 767s.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
rjm777ual
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 11:32 pm

RE: Why No 767MAX?

Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:32 am

The 767, unlike the 737, is an older model, with the last update being the 767-400ER some 5 or 6 or however many years ago. The 737 however, is a VERY popular model and has more variants, the last being the -900ER which was fairly recent.
Greetings from Dulles!
 
SEA
Posts: 235
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:21 pm

RE: Why No 767MAX?

Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:37 am

There is a 767 MAX, it's the 787 :/
 
D L X
Posts: 11641
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Why No 767MAX?

Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:40 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 3):
A new wing and engines is a significant investment, it would also provide a significant improvement. A new aircraft is also a significant improvement, however the efficiency gain between the two is not that great.

I heard one aero student when I was younger say that building a new wing and applying new engines is 90% of the way to making a new plane, with less expense. Would you agree with that statement?
 
rjm777ual
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 11:32 pm

RE: Why No 767MAX?

Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:37 am

Somebody might confuse a B767-400ER with a 787 due to blended wingtips, but it seems unlikely.
Greetings from Dulles!
 
Bongodog1964
Posts: 3069
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:29 am

RE: Why No 767MAX?

Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:27 am

Quoting rjm777ual (Reply 4):
The 767, unlike the 737, is an older model, with the last update being the 767-400ER some 5 or 6 or however many years ago.

Surely some mistake ? The 737 is a plane with its roots back in the 1960's and its last major update was the NG in 1997, meanwhile the 767 has a basic design more than a decade newer, and the last major upgrade was the 764 about 10 years ago.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Why No 767MAX?

Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:11 pm

Quoting SEA (Reply 5):
There is a 767 MAX, it's the 787 :/

Exactly.

It's the same reason we're very likely not going to see an A330neo, because the A350 fills that role.

I expect what is really driving the A320neo and 737MAX is not immaturity of technology or lack of financial and/or engineering resources, but what rjm777ual alluded to: both the A320 and 737 are very popular models and neither OEM wants to have a development or production snafu of any kind because of the impact it would have due to the volume.

Three years late in EIS on the 787 means Boeing is probably 200-250 deliveries behind where they planned.

Three years late in EIS on the NSA or A30X would mean Boeing/Airbus could be over 1500 deliveries behind where they planned.      
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4921
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: Why No 767MAX?

Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:14 pm

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 8):
The 737 is a plane with its roots back in the 1960's and its last major update was the NG in 1997, meanwhile the 767 has a basic design more than a decade newer, and the last major upgrade was the 764 about 10 years ago.

The 737 had a near-total redo in the late 1990s, including new engines, new wing, new cabin, and many new systems.

The 767-400ER changes were hardly enough to qualify as an "update" -- only raked wingtips, new cockpit instrumentation, and a new cabin. They didn't fundamentally change the plane the way the 737NG makeover did.

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
Why No 767MAX?

Because the 767's too-narrow cross section is a fundamental limitation that prevents the 767 from being fully competitive today, no matter how up-to-date you make everything else.
 
jfk777
Posts: 5830
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: Why No 767MAX?

Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:15 pm

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 2):
In general, Boeing tried to improve the 767, but airlines eventually pushed Boeing to the 787

AS one executive put it, "it is one derivative too many". Airbus was pushing the A330 which is why Qantas purchased A330 and no more 767's.

The 737 is a short haul plane and many of the "savings" from a new design can be achieved with a derivative at much less cost.
 
Flyglobal
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:25 am

RE: Why No 767MAX?

Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:49 pm

to some extend the 787 = 767XWB MAX.

Good that Boeing went with a clean sheet design.

Regards

Flyglobal
 
747400sp
Posts: 3833
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: Why No 767MAX?

Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:58 pm

Well, the 787 was design to replace the 767, so a 767 MAX, would be like having an A330 NEO, it do not make since.
 
Extra300
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 8:04 pm

RE: Why No 767MAX?

Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:57 pm

For me it´s still kind of surprising that Boeing leaves the market "typical 7 abreast". The 787 is bigger and hevier than the 767. OK, the 767 is still in production, but only in small numbers.

The A310, 757 and 767 togehter had it´s own market space between A330/787 and A321 / 739. We still don´t know what will happen the the A330, but probably Airbus will let it die a few years after the bigger A350 is in the air.

This makes me believe there is market for a A332neo, or 763max. But probably neither A or B has the engineering capacity at the moment.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11747
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Why No 767MAX?

Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:58 pm

The main issue with the 767 is the 7-across seating in Y. Back when the plane was new, that was all the JT9Ds could lift up. 8-across was not an option. Recall this was a time to market scenario versus the A300. Boeing 'rushed to market' the 757 and the 767 to kill off the A300/A310. It was a success as the A300/A310 were simply not initially designed for long haul but as rather a large 'regional trunk-line' airframe whose range was extended.

So Airbus went back to the drawing board and created the A333 with the later A332 derivative. With 5700nm range, the 8-across (in Y) A333 kills the economics of the 763ER.   If more range is required, the A332, utilizing the under-utilized space of the extra gear of the A343, opened up new markets. The A330 forced boeing to respond, in particular on longer range routes. A 767MAX wouldn't have 787 range (ok, 787 range of frame 90 onward).

So Boeing went to the drawing board and created a competitive 8 across 787 that can be a 9-across 787. In effect, giving airlines the option to do to the A333 what the A333 did to the 767 (much lower CASM on 5000nm missions).

The 767 also has too small of a cargo hold. In particular, the hold needs to be wider and a little bit taller. Which is why:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 10):
Because the 767's too-narrow cross section is a fundamental limitation that prevents the 767 from being fully competitive today, no matter how up-to-date you make everything else.

  

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 2):
In general, Boeing tried to improve the 767, but airlines eventually pushed Boeing to the 787.

Exactly. While the 767 was 'great in its day,' the DC-10/MD-11/777/A330/744/A380 all pushed the market to a more standardized cargo hold. This leaves, for cargo, the 767 in a 'low population' middle ground between the narrow bodies and the 'big widebodies.' The 7-across Y is also a waste of weight. Oh, it made the initial TATL market possible. But then Airbus figured out how to make their 8-across economical TATL and then it has been a steady loss of sales for the 767.

Quoting Extra300 (Reply 14):
This makes me believe there is market for a A332neo,

Much more of a market for an A333NEO. However customers spoke and airbus went back and is designing the 9-across A350.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 3920
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

RE: Why No 767MAX?

Tue Dec 06, 2011 4:02 pm

Quoting rjm777ual (Reply 4):
with the last update being the 767-400ER some 5 or 6 or however many years ago

The 767-400 entered service in 2000. Try 11+ years ago.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Why No 767MAX?

Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:15 pm

Quoting Extra300 (Reply 14):
The A310, 757 and 767 togehter had it´s own market space between A330/787 and A321 / 739. We still don´t know what will happen the the A330, but probably Airbus will let it die a few years after the bigger A350 is in the air.

This makes me believe there is market for a A332neo, or 763max. But probably neither A or B has the engineering capacity at the moment.

The 737-900ER and A321-200 can perform most of the missions of the 757-200 at better trip costs. The extra capacity the 757-200 offers is not enough to offset it's higher trip costs. So the 757-200 doesn't make as much profit as the smaller planes.

The A350-800 and 787-8 will both have better trip costs than the A330-200 and 767-300ER/767-400ER. And they're larger airframes with more seating and cargo volume. So if an airline can sell those extra seats, it's pure profit.And if they cannot, well it cost them less to send the A350/787 instead of the A330 or 767 so why not do so?

Hence why I am convinced why both the 757 and 767 won't be replaced with something similar and why Airbus won't launch an A330neo.
 
pnd100
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 4:40 pm

RE: Why No 767MAX?

Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:36 pm

  

I also have wondered about the replacements for the A310, B757 & B767.
Based on research & conversations, the many reasons that have been cited above are most common & valid.

One other reason I have learned is due the evolution of the air travel market.
Back in the 1980s there was a market for the size / range combination of the A310, B757 & B767.
That same market has grown or evolved today. There hasn't been enough emerging markets filling in the old slot.

Let's take the B763 & B764 out of this comparison as the A332 seems to be a very capable replacement for these models both in terms of range & capacity. The B788 will also serve as a replacement for these models. As discussed earlier, both the A330 & 787 are capable of flying 8 across with standard cargo holds which also serve as an improvement from the B763 & B764.

This leaves us with the A310, B757 & B762. What models can replace this market? In exact terms there may not be a replacement. There are no in-production aircraft that offer the capacity / range combination that those pioneers had. But there is a combination of capacity & frequency that will continue to serve the markets that were once visited by these aircraft.

For example, the market that was served in 1985 with a daily 175 seat (at 34" pitch) B762 surely has developed since then. Today that same city may have a lot more demand & therefore flying a daily B777 will be needed. Alternatively perhaps the market dynamics have changed & travelers demand more frequency. If within range, flying 2x daily A320 will suffice now.

The cities that are emerging as the "new" A310/B757/B762 markets today do not yet have enough demand to warrant a like for like replacement yet. They will in time but that time will be in the next generation, maybe 25 years from now. That is my prediction.
 
VC10er
Topic Author
Posts: 2189
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

RE: Why No 767MAX?

Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:21 pm

Wow, guys & gals,

Interesting stuff. The number 1 reason I even asked the question was that I have spent much of my flying life on a 767 and you become attached sentimentally. Then, with the A320 and the 737 getting so much attention (NEO & MAX) and the 757 out of production entirely I was wondering from a 4 sizes standpoint (each being close but different enough portfolio of high performance aircraft) why not a 767ERMAX, 787, 777 and even a new 747. As I wrote it dawned on me that a 767ERMAX was probably too close to the 787 to make sense.

Also...How many pax orders are there for the 767? I know the is the military order to keep the line running. But with 787 orders so backed up, will they convert the 767 line to 787's once the military order is complete OR is the 767 tanker order so large that the 767 line will be cranking for a long time?

More: I have been on one of the very new ANA 767's in business and it's clear vs an old 767 that NEW is always NEW and she was a beauty inside and out for such an old model. I wish I could look that new and fresh at my age  

Do airlines like ANA and LAN speak highly of them and how they perform under today's unique pressures or do they complain about them because they were supposed to be 787's?
The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 2743
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

RE: Why No 767MAX?

Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:32 pm

The 777 was the 767MAX.
UNITED We Stand
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Why No 767MAX?

Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:52 pm

Quoting VC10er (Reply 19):
How many pax orders are there for the 767?

As of end of November, 22 767-300ER airframe remained to be delivered, along with 20 767-300Fs.
 
SCL767
Posts: 2812
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 6:25 am

RE: Why No 767MAX?

Tue Dec 06, 2011 8:00 pm

Quoting VC10er (Reply 19):
Do airlines like ANA and LAN speak highly of them and how they perform under today's unique pressures or do they complain about them because they were supposed to be 787's?

LAN loves the B-767-300ERs since it operates profitably on the various routes that they are deployed. This year, LAN placed two separate orders for the B-767-316ERs with options on top of a previous order. The three new B-767-316ERs that LAN recently received were from a previous order. Next year, LAN will receive 7 new B-767-316ERs and during 2013, LAN will receive 4 new B-767-316ERs with options for more B-767-316ERs all for delivery during 2013. The new B-767-316ERs will enable LAN to renew its fleet of B-763s thus lowering operational costs, and will allow LAN to expand its operations. Some of the older B-763s will be phased out starting next year. For example, one carrier will lease two 16 year old B763s from LAN next year. The B-787-8s will eventually operate many of the same routes that the B-763s currently operate, i.e. GYE-LIM, MAD-LIM, SCL-MEX, SCL-JFK, routes into both LAX and SFO, etc. which will free up additional B-763s providing more flexibility for LAN. As of today, LAN has a fleet of 43 B767s including 31 B763s and 12 B763Fs.
 
abbamd
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 4:58 pm

RE: Why No 767MAX?

Tue Dec 06, 2011 8:35 pm

There was a 767 MAX.




     
 
135mech
Posts: 410
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:56 pm

RE: Why No 767MAX?

Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:03 pm

Love the threads and comments! I remember the documentary (1 hr and 5 hr versions) about the 777 creation and Boeing specifically mentioning that they tried several different "renditions" of the 767 and variants of what could be...which became the 777. So, the 767 which is a very reliable workhorse, has seen it's limits in production and capabilities, sadly. However, I am very glad that it will be living on as the new USAF Tanker Transport!
135Mech
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11747
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Why No 767MAX?

Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:58 am

Quoting pnd100 (Reply 18):
Back in the 1980s there was a market for the size / range combination of the A310, B757 & B767.
That same market has grown or evolved today. There hasn't been enough emerging markets filling in the old slot.

The issue is that so much of the various markets has been filled 'otherwise.'

The 757 was once the smallest TCON airframe and once had the lowest CASM. Once the 738 (even without winglets) came out, too many of its niches are filled. The 739ER and A321 fill most of the remainder of the 752 niches.

The A310 was the smallest TATL aircraft but was pushed out of the market by superior 763ER economics. Right now, the TATL niche is still filled by the 763ER, but has many routes 'taken over' or created by the 752. The issue is the 752 is filling the role of 'lowest cost plane that is able to fly the route daily.' The A319NEO and probably some 737MAX variations will take that role on TATL.

For larger routes, the A330 just has better economics than the 767 on too many routes. On the routes that the 767 has better economics, we often see the 738/A320 plying those routes (e.g., to Hawaii on AS).

Quoting pnd100 (Reply 18):
This leaves us with the A310, B757 & B762. What models can replace this market?

For shorter markets that do not require the 752s rockstar short field performance, the 737NG and A320 have already displaced what would have been 752 routes. With the 737MAX and A320NEO, most of the routes for those types will be met. Perhaps with a little more frequency or 'hub bypass.' But the demand will be met.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9762
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Why No 767MAX?

Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:01 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 6):
Would you agree with that statement?

I think most of the design work is in the detail design and systems, I would not agree with the 90% comment.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
pnd100
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 4:40 pm

RE: Why No 767MAX?

Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:09 am

Quoting VC10er (Reply 19):
Interesting stuff. The number 1 reason I even asked the question was that I have spent much of my flying life on a 767 and you become attached sentimentally.

I think it was a great question & I often wondered about the replacements myself!

Quoting abbamd (Reply 23):
There was a 767 MAX.

LOL, love the Maxjet 767!

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 25):
The issue is that so much of the various markets has been filled 'otherwise.'

Agreed. That's what I meant to convey with my post. Either through frequency or capacity adjustments those same markets have been served through evolution of the airline industry.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 25):
The 739ER and A321 fill most of the remainder of the 752 niches.

  

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 25):
For larger routes, the A330 just has better economics than the 767 on too many routes.

  

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 817Dreamliiner, AirlineCritic, Bluebird191, cchan, David L, hjulicher, RalXWB, Roadcruiser1, VCy, XAM2175, Yahoo [Bot] and 168 guests