krisworldB777
Posts: 556
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2000 10:28 pm

Poor Sales Of B767-400

Thu Jan 04, 2001 3:09 pm

It is quite obvious that Boeing's new 767-400 is selling poorly but why is this? Arilines seem to be flocking to Airbus with orders for the A330. The 767-400 features the excellent 777 interior new cockpit and wings which probably puts it in front of the A330 technologically. Do airlines prefer the A330s close relationship with the A340 and the -200/-300? Are the prices different? What about engine performance?

The biggest shock was when Qantas went Airbus with their first ever order. It was expected they would purchase the 777 or the 767-400. Even more of a shock was EVA Air's decision. Are airlines not happy with their -200 and -300 767s?? Well there are lots of questions that need to be answered.
 
A320FO
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2000 12:28 am

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Thu Jan 04, 2001 6:54 pm

Sorry, can't really comment on it, but according to the rumors I've heard, the 767-400s performance does not live up to the expectatons. Also, the current model lacks range, as it was built for the specifications of DL and CO.
KrisworldB777, the only change in the 767-400 wing are the (IMHO ugly) wingtip extensions. Otherwise it is the same ( 20 something year old) wing as on the other 767 series.
The A330s main advantage is the cargo compartment. The 767s container system is kind of non-standard and does not offer the dimensions possible on Airbus.

A320FO
 
steman
Posts: 1400
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 4:55 pm

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Thu Jan 04, 2001 7:34 pm

Many best sellers planes started with slow sells.
I think the 767-400,especially the new longer range derivative, will be bought in large numbers from airlines operating previous 767 versions and 777.
In Europe the most likely to order that are BA, Alitalia and KLM.

Just wait and see.

By the way, the Airbus wings are probably the best designed in the world.
The 767 wings were designed when fuel efficience was a premier objective (remember oil crisis of the '70s?). The 747 wings were designed to reach high speeds and nowadays wings are designed as a compromise between spedd and economy.

Ciao

Stefano
 
star_member
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2000 5:09 pm

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Thu Jan 04, 2001 7:41 pm

airbus also has the advantage of fly by wire and cockpit commonality of A320/330/340
 
Qantas737
Posts: 714
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:34 am

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Thu Jan 04, 2001 7:52 pm

The 767-400ERX will be out some time soon too, and it will have all the range that airlines are expecting. THe A330 is also greater in respect of its Fly-By-Wire, cockpit commanilty and that it is a newer design. I know that QF didnt only order the A330 due to its specifications, but it was also a bargain with the A380 purchases. Trust me i dont hate no company 
 
United Airline
Posts: 8766
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:24 pm

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Thu Jan 04, 2001 7:55 pm

According to Boeing's Homepage, the 767-400ER is already available. I am sure that the 767-400ER will be very successful. I guess UAL, Delta, Continental will get some.

 
 
airnewzealand
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 6:00 pm

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Thu Jan 04, 2001 7:57 pm

AirNZ is expected to place an order for the 767-400 or A330-200/300. Also they might be getting the A330-200 for AN. I hope they go for the 767 for AirNZ so that they can carry on their 767 fleet. I really like it and it really is a cosy aircraft.

Cheers
mikey
 
tim
Posts: 672
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2000 12:25 pm

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Thu Jan 04, 2001 8:19 pm

LD3's can be fitted into the A330's hold. Can 767's hold LD3's?

Tim
 
hkgspotter1
Posts: 5750
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:43 pm

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Thu Jan 04, 2001 8:38 pm

Very poor would be more correct. Just like the 717.
 
VirginFlyer
Posts: 3880
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Thu Jan 04, 2001 8:47 pm

Airnewzealand - I believe AN/ANZ are likely to decide on the 767 or A330 depending on what SIA decide to replace the A310

United Airline - There is no 767-400, only the 767-400ER. Goodness knows why, but thats it. There is an even longer range version, currently dubbed the 767-400ERX, which has identical range to the 767-300ER. It will likely become the 767-400LR. I really have no idea why the base model carries the ER tag, anyone care to elaborate???

Tim - The A330 can carry the standard LD3. The 767 can only carry non-standard LD2s, which are smaller, and of course have less capcity. This is a major selling point for Airbus (all their aircraft, A319-A340-600, can carry LD3 containers)

I think it is WAY too early to call yet whether the 767-400 is selling well or not. Just remember, Boeing has its products very spread, with numerous variants, which means less orders for individual variants, whereas airbus has less variants, making more orders for each... The only way you can make real sense of it is to look at total orders for a whole segment of the market (ie 737/757 vs A32x, 757/767/777 vs A330/A340) and even then, because the manufacturers segment things differently, this is not an entirely accurate view of things.
"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
 
johnnybgoode
Posts: 2144
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Thu Jan 04, 2001 9:57 pm

a main problem is that the 764 was developed for the likes of continental and delta.
i don´t think that an or anz order the 764 because of its lack of range. bus that decision relies heavily on sq. so i´d think they could order 777s or perhaps a-330s, if singapore decides to replace it a-310s with a-330s.
don´t think united will order the 764, but who knows.
this summer i flew to cancun from frankfurt with condor, and i took a visit to the cockpit and i chatted with the pilots about condor´s fleet strategy. i asked the captain if condor might order the 764 and he said he doubts it because it´s hard to get such a large plane (764 in charter configuraton: up to 320 pax) fully loaded. that´s why condor phased out its dc-10s with 757-300s.
If only pure sweetness was offered, why's this bitter taste left in my mouth.
 
cv640
Posts: 843
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2000 8:10 pm

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Fri Jan 05, 2001 12:25 am

Virgin Flyer did hit the nail on the head about sales of the 767-400. Boeing will make an aircraft for a few of the bigger airlines even if they know that total sales won't be too high in order to keep them as a customer. Most US airlines are us to manufacturers building exactly what they ask for and want. If they want a new variant of an existing airplane, they expect it too be built, if they will order enough. I'm sure Boeing was hoping for more orders, and they will probably get them, I think follow up from Delta and Continental plus AA might order some. There will probably be only about 100-120 at most prodeuced, but that will be enough. Remember the -400 was to prevent Delta from going ot the Airbus.

ANother thing to remember that before the A330 was cut down tot he -200 sales were also very dissappointing too. When the -200 came out they took off, the smaller size and greater range fit perfectly. Most airlines would prefer the range to the large size and that is one area where the Airbus has the big advantage. It has more range avialable, the 764 lost a lot of range in comparison to the 763.

 
Guest

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Fri Jan 05, 2001 12:41 am

In another forum sometime ago someone said that Delta was unhappy with the performance of their 767-400s. They said that it could not reach it's designated altitude with the excess weight of passengers, cargo and fuel until it burned up some of that fuel to lightened it enough to go that high.
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 7982
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Fri Jan 05, 2001 12:52 am

TEDSKI,

Actually, the story about the low performance of the 764ER in DL service has already been discounted by actual DL pilots.  

I think we may see both AA and UA order the 764ER some time in 2001 as a true replacement for the DC-10. And if KLM does follow through with the 772ER order, expect NW to very likely order a large number of 764ER's as D10 replacements. This could mean a backlog of around 100 planes or more.
 
DCA-ROCguy
Posts: 3890
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2000 5:03 am

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Fri Jan 05, 2001 1:14 am

Ditto to Ray; the 764 is the true DC-10 replacement; in my view it should have come out years ago. Also, don't American and Continental have 20-year contract arrangements of some kind with Boeing, in exchange for discounts? I'd be very surprised if AA didn't order the 764 at some point.

The 757 sold slowly at first too, but took off by the late '80s when American, United and Delta made big orders. I think a similar pattern will emerge with the 764. AA and UA are phasing out their DC-10s, which they were not doing when the 777 (which was too big anyway for DC-10 routes) came out in 1995.

Airbus has not succeeded in marketing the A330/A34O series to the largest US carriers, so unless that changes it seems to me that the 767-heavy US majors have a lot of incentive to order the 764. They may also be waiting to see if the first-run planes have any bugs that DL or CO encouter, before buying.

Jim
Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
 
CPDC10-30
Posts: 4681
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 4:30 pm

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Fri Jan 05, 2001 2:19 am

VirginFlyer, the "base" model for the -400 is an ER to keep naming conventions consistent with the rest of the 767 family. There are many non-ER (domestic) -200 and -300s that have a range of less than 6000km. 767-X00ER all have intercontinental range.
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 7982
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Fri Jan 05, 2001 5:03 am

DCA-ROCguy,

The 757-200 originally didn't sell very well because 1) it came out in the middle of a major economic recession and 2) Boeing couldn't decide if the 757-200 was really designed to replace 727-200's. That's why Boeing studied seriously the 7J7 project (which was a true 727 replacement design) until another recession in the early 1990's killed that idea; it took the Next-Generation 737 to finally fill the 727 replacement niche.

What Boeing subsequently did was to sell the 752 as a DC-8/707 replacement, and that resulted in lots of sales to AA, CO, DL, NW, TW and UA. Even HP and US bought fairly sizeable fleets.

Because AA, CO, DL and UA are rapidly retiring their tri-engine jumbos, that's why CO and DL have each bought over 20 planes. An order from AA and UA for the 764ER could net each airline a minimum of 40 planes; they will be used on the busiest USA transcon flights (LAX-JFK), flights to GIG, GRU and EZE from the USA, and flights to Hawaii from the USA.
 
DeltaSFO
Posts: 2407
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2000 11:22 am

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Fri Jan 05, 2001 5:12 am

Oh God.... Here we go again with people making an issue out of a non-issue.

The 767-400 has fulfilled every expectation Delta had for it. It is very popular with pilots, and FA's love it just as much as the other 767s in the fleet.

Range and climb performance meet the specifications laid out by Delta. To the best of my knowledge, CO is also very happy with the 767-400.

DeltaSFO


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Barry Crawford

It's a new day. Every moment matters. Now, more than ever.
 
Notarzt
Posts: 646
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Fri Jan 05, 2001 5:46 am

Folks...

I have read topic headers like this one here very often. Some people try to say that the B717, the B757-300 and B767-400 are "not successful", some others even add these are going "poor" (due to design errors, defects in actual performance, etc., pp.). It's not only too early to comment on the (non-) success of the new Boeing models, it's not the correct way of "argumentation". What's a commercial success? Sales? Economic innovation? An aircraft fitting the market's needs?
Now, I suggest that these people look up total sales of more "successful" models like the A300, the A310, the A321 or the DC-10 and tell about the commercial "success" of these models if single non-airline mega order are disregarded (FedEx, UPS, US Government). Thanks. They will have to realise that even "successful" models like the A300 and A310 are relatively low in airline sales. The B757-300 and B767-400 received only few orders... let's see, they have 20 more years to come.

Daniel
 
DCA-ROCguy
Posts: 3890
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2000 5:03 am

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Fri Jan 05, 2001 6:02 am

Thanks for the additional info, Ray....I do remember the 7J7 project now that you mention it. I have a couple of questions you might be able to answer.

First, the 7J7's final death in the early '90s came after Boeing had introduced the 737-400, which has the capacity of the 727 but sorely lacks its range. Thus the 734 sold poorly in the USA except to US which has lots of short dense routes. And of course Europeans have lots of short dense routes and thus it sold better there (BA, etc).

I remember thinking at the time, why didn't Boeing give the 734 the 722's range? No doubt it cost less to simply put fuselage plugs in the 733, but you then have a less marketable airplane. United, I remember, specifically rejected the 734 because it couldn't fly EWR-DEN.

And then Boeing lets the longer-range A320 go unanswered from 1989 until 1998 when the 738 came out. Which seems to me a huge strategic mistake. Now UA, NW, AC and US are operating big Airbus narrowbody fleets that might never have been had the 734 had sufficient range.

Second, back to the original topic: could the 764 be hitting the market at the right time now instead of in the early '90s? I remember that Boeing considered an extended 763 back then but rejected it to build the 772 as a DC-10/ L-1011 replacement. For which the 772 was too large, as the 752 was too large to replace the 722.

UA, CO, AA et al meanwhile wrung another decade out of their DC-10s; now they're retiring those a/c and maybe the 764 is hitting the market at the right time.

Jim
Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3136
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Actual Sales Of B767-400

Fri Jan 05, 2001 6:05 am

Just because I had to look this up for another post, I figure I'd share the information here as well.

Delta 21
Con. 26
Kenya 3

Total: 50 orders

Question is, how many need to be sold before Boeing makes a profit off of the program. Informed responses only please.

T.J.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 7982
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Fri Jan 05, 2001 6:38 am

DCA-ROCguy,

Boeing's 7J7 project died because the recession caused by the Iraq invasion of Kuwait 1990 killed off chances of the plane being sold to any airline period. Boeing could have sold quite a few to AA, CO, DL and UA as 727 replacements.

That's why MD-80 series sales continued a bit longer. When Boeing announced the Next-Generation 737 project in 1993, the 737-800 perfectly matched the need to replace the 727-200, so that's why AA, CO and DL were among the first airlines to order the plane; UA couldn't wait and ordered the A320 instead.

The timing of the arrival of the 767-400ER actually couldn't be better for US-based airlines; as I said earlier, now that the three-engine jumbos are rapidly disappearing from US-based airlines, they need a replacement, and the 764ER fits the bill perfectly.
 
SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Fri Jan 05, 2001 7:01 am

Who are thou to comment on success or faliure of thus holy 767-400. It is when thy superior and sexy Singapore Airlines orders either thy A330 or thou 767-400, than we will know then thou.

Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
sn330
Posts: 606
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:01 pm

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Fri Jan 05, 2001 7:01 am

AA already has gotten rid of their DC10's. On most, if not all, routes they were replaced by the 767-300, so I doubt AA would order the 767-400. They seem to be satisfied with the job that their 763's are doing.
 
Zander
Posts: 585
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 7:16 am

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Fri Jan 05, 2001 7:07 am

To DeltaSFO,
Oh God.... here we go again......the same photo on every damn post.....aren't you bored of that one soon??
Could you change please....I assume you have shot it yourself and it isn't that good to be included on every post! Just check among the 125 000 photos on the site!!!

By the way....the A330 had also a slow start, correct me if I am wrong. But I think anyway it's hard for the 767-400 to be a best seller.....we have to wait and see.
 
Notarzt
Posts: 646
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Fri Jan 05, 2001 7:22 am

T.J.,

Do you know what happened to the ILFC orders for the B767-400? Did they convert all their B767-400 positions to B767-300 or even other Boeing types?

Still interested in the B757-300 deliveries/orders/options situation!

Daniel
 
Tan Flyr
Posts: 1558
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2000 11:07 pm

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Fri Jan 05, 2001 7:34 am

The 764 will do quite well down the road when carriers such as AA/UA & others decide to get add'l capacity and retire the 762's. Traffic growth will kick in and push sales further. No doubt in my mind the 764 will be the true DC-10/L-10 replacement, just a bit late in blooming if you will!

 
Spacepope
Posts: 3136
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Daniel

Fri Jan 05, 2001 7:39 am

The 753 orders are tallied under the CO 753 topic (44 orders total). All leasing companies cancelled their orders for the 764, but I am not sure as to whether they were converted into other 767 or 777 orders.
Cancelled orders are as follows..
CO -4
Gecas -3
ILFC -5

total 12 cancelled orders.

T.J.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
Guest

Zander

Fri Jan 05, 2001 7:58 am

Zander,
Mabye DeltaSFO likes that pic? He can post it as much as he wants to. And anyway, thats a pretty pathetic thing to get back at.
 
Guest

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Fri Jan 05, 2001 8:05 am

Cyprus Airways is looking for aircraft either 767/A330 to replace their A310s but, MY opinion is that they would go for the A330s because they have an all Airbus fleet and as many of you stated the cockpit commonality. So it would be trouble for them to change to a Boeing aircraft... I'm just trying to imagine the A330 on Cyprus logo Tail...
 
Guest

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Fri Jan 05, 2001 8:11 am

Some carriers would prefer the aircraft they needs, In my own airline, I will have lots of Boeing Orders all the way until I'm filled up on my Routes, and Stocks.

When I looking at my airline schedule before it opens, I would count which route needs this planes.

For Honolulu, Hawaii, I will go for the 767-400s, 3 flights daily from every major hubs of my carrier.

If they(other airlines) prefers the A330, thats their problems.... But BOEING IS GROWING SUCCESSFULLY.

But I have few Commuter Planes to choose from which is my Boeing B717 will be 1 to fly short flights as a commuter service, and not those ATR42, ATR72.. or any wing mounted commuter jets. EMB 170 / EMB 190 would be my favourite commuter fleets. I will choose what right for me !!!!

baec777xx  
 
Guest

OlympicA340

Fri Jan 05, 2001 12:17 pm

Hey,
Actually the A310 and the A330 do not share cockpit commonality, neither do they share the same systems, hence the A310 with standard system, and the A330 with FBW. But there are the A320s which do share commonality with the A330. Well I guess we will just have to wait and see what Cyprus will do.
Tom
 
Fleet Service
Posts: 473
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2000 11:58 am

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Fri Jan 05, 2001 12:23 pm

Virginflyer, you say the 767 can only accept LD-2's?
Where did you get that information?
At AA our 767's accept LD-3's, 4's,8's and on the 763's,LD9's,P1P and PMC Pallets.
Yes, I actually *do* work for an airline,how about you?
 
IndianGuy
Posts: 3126
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2000 3:14 pm

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Fri Jan 05, 2001 12:42 pm

I think one of the reasons could be the inability to carry cargo. Most airlines are looking for aircraft with plenty of space in the belly holds This was the advantage airlines had even with the A300/310's and this holds true today for the A330 and A340's as well.

I am not sure of the specifics, but from what i heard from a airline source, they can fly their A300's with just a 50% load of passengers and still make a neat profit, as long as they carry cargo. 50% may be too less, but i think u get the idea!

That was one of the main reasons AA and indeed IC went in for the A300's; they wanted a pax carrier with cargo hold space for the Carribean(AA) and "Metro"(IC) routes. AI is also supposed to have decided in favor of A310's over 767's for this reason.

Airbus describes their offerings in this segment as "True Widebodies" (sic), referring to the fact that the A300/310/330/340 are substantially wider than Boeings 76X's.
 
Guest

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Fri Jan 05, 2001 12:45 pm

IndianGuy,
It really depends on the airline, if the extra cargo is important or not. As the looks of it, there are alot of airline who did not really care about that extra space. A quick fact: The 763F can hold more cargo than an A300-600F.
The Best, Tom
 
toxtethogrady
Posts: 1693
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2000 12:33 pm

Why Get A 764 When A 777 Will Do The Same Thing?

Fri Jan 05, 2001 1:38 pm

Only the folks at Continental know...
 
Zander
Posts: 585
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 7:16 am

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Fri Jan 05, 2001 7:58 pm

King767,
There are no doubts about that DeltaSFO likes that pic...that's for sure. But he can use it as wallpaper instead and we can watch it if we want to in the library on this site. It's quite irritating to see it on every post!
 
DeltaSFO
Posts: 2407
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2000 11:22 am

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:07 pm

Zander...

If you don't like it you don't have to look at it. And no I did not shoot it myself.

Have a nice day.

DeltaSFO


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Barry Crawford


It's a new day. Every moment matters. Now, more than ever.
 
Notarzt
Posts: 646
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Sat Jan 06, 2001 2:43 am

King767,

Are you sure about what you've said in your above post? Are you referring to volume or payload weight? Please specify. Thanks.

Daniel
 
dakotasport
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2000 5:20 am

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Sat Jan 06, 2001 4:27 am

I think that the -400 has been selling poorly for a simple reason............AIRBUS!! In my opinion, i would mych rather be flying on a boeing than an Airbus, but who am i to choose!
 
Guest

Notzart

Sat Jan 06, 2001 5:29 am

Hey Norzart,
I am not 100% sure about the question. I have not gone into detail to try to find that answer. Can someone elaborate a little on the fact that the 763F can carry more freight than the 300-600F.
Thanks,
Tom
 
Notarzt
Posts: 646
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Sat Jan 06, 2001 8:05 am

Tom,

I was wondering about your "quick fact info" that the B767-300F loads more cargo than the A300B4-600F. What does "more cargo" mean? Volume? Payload weight?

In fact, the B767-300F and the A300-600F are quite similar when compared by their individual standard cargo capacity. The Boeing 767-300F offers a capacity of 24 standard 88x125 in. paletts on the main deck, 30 LD2-Containers in the lower cargo hold plus bulk. The Airbus A300B4-600F has a capacity of 21 standard 88x125 in. paletts on the main deck, 4 standard 88x125 in. paletts in the forward lower cargo hold, 10 LD3-Containers in the rear lower cargo hold plus bulk.

Total B767-300F:
24 88x125 in. paletts
30 LD2-Containers
+ bulk

Total A300B4-600F:
25 88x125 in. paletts
10 LD3-Containers
+ bulk

In the end, it comes down to the payload/range performance and, subsequently, to each operator's individual needs. The B767-300F is a real long-range freighter whereas the A300B4-600F offer similar volume to overnight freight operators for medium-haul routes.
After all, it's difficult to compare both models and determine which might be "better".

Daniel
 
Guest

Dan

Sat Jan 06, 2001 8:14 am

Hey,
Yes I understand what you are saying and I agree with you 100%. The A300-600F is best for shorter ranged heavy roles, while the 763F is best for long-ranged routes. Look at UPS, they are doing exactly what we are talking about, purchasing A316s, to free up more 763Fs for long-rang flights. My fact was based on volume, not performance, which as you said, the 2 planes really do have different roles. I see you thought my statement was saying that the 763F is a better over the A316F, well I think both craft are a very good choice, and as you said, for different roles.
The Best, Tom
 
crewchief32
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2000 3:16 am

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Sat Jan 06, 2001 8:40 am

VirginFlyer,

the Boeing 767 is able to carry LD3 Containers, too.
These containers are larger, so they cannot be loaded on the left and right positions at the same time, but one after the other in a row, that is possible.
Condor, for example, wants them to be loaded with the overhang towards the center of the aircraft.
On the other side, LD2-Containers can be loaded onto
every other widebody aircraft (TriStar, A300, 747, etc.).

Notarzt,
the Boeing 767-300 can also accomodate 4 PMC- or PAC-Pallets in the forward hold instead of LD2-Containers. A combination of both is possible, too.
On the other side, the A300 can carry 16 LD3-Container in the forward hold or a combination of containers and pallets.

Torsten
 
Fly-by-pilot
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2000 10:45 am

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Sat Jan 06, 2001 8:44 am

http://www.celticairways.com/L1011F.html

This site will enlighten you.
 
Notarzt
Posts: 646
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Poor Sales Of B767-400

Sat Jan 06, 2001 6:48 pm

Torsten,

You are correct about the alternate lower cargo hold's container or paletts. That's why I was talking about the A300's and B767's "standard cargo loading" in order to have a far-reaching comparison.

Fly-By-Pilot,

This site does not enlighten me because it's maintained by someone claiming to have airline operations in 2001 called "Caledonian Wings" which is not correct. He furthermore claims to have L-1011 leasing available as "Wings Holdings" which is not true as well.

Daniel

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ADL77W, arnie, asuflyer, Baidu [Spider], BNEFlyer, Google Adsense [Bot], josciak, KarelXWB, Loran, Mani87, NolaMD88fan, qf789, SelandiaBaru, vv701 and 282 guests