User avatar
Crosswind
Topic Author
Posts: 2536
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2000 4:34 am

Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Wed Feb 07, 2001 11:50 am

Airbus is making a new offer to Kenya Airways for 3 A330-200 aircraft for the airline's future long-haul, high-capacity requirements. This represents a serious threat to the future of the longer range B767-400ERX, as Kenya Airways is the only customer for the aircraft.

Kenya Airways officials have in the last few weeks visited Toulouse for discussions with Airbus about the offer, but say they remain committed to the B767-400ERX, and are not actively looking for new offers.

Kenya Airways is believed to have been offered each B767-400ERX at $85 million (against list price of $120-132 million)
Airbus is now believed to be offering the A330-200 at $79 million (against list price of $120-125 million)

Obviously there may be some counter-offers here. For Airbus, they stand to retain Kenya Airways as a customer (already operating A310-300) and also severely set back the competing B767-400ERX programme, by taking the only orders for the plane.
Boeing will be working hard to keep Kenya Airways' order, to secure the future of a the B767-400ERX, and move Kenya Airways from a mixed Boeing/Airbus fleet to all Boeing.

There is a March 30 deadline that Kenya Airways must meet by informing Boeing of their engine choice, in order to avoid delays to the B767-400ERX. The airline will apparently go with the Rolls Royce Trent 600, because they don't want to lauch a new aircraft and a new engine (GP7172) into service at the same time.

While the future of the Kenya Airways B767 order looks fairly secure, I'm sure this will be causing some people in Seattle to be slightly uncomfortable. I think in the interests of retaining the Kenya Airways deal, Boeing will do almost anything to get them to stay with the B767-400ERX, which of course is only a good thing for Kenya Airways!

Just goes to demonstrate how competitive the commercial aircraft market is, and the lengths both Boeing and Airbus will go to, with deep discounts to get order, and to keep them...

Regards
X-Wind
 
BA
Posts: 10134
Joined: Fri May 19, 2000 11:06 am

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Wed Feb 07, 2001 11:53 am

Personnally I think the A330-200 is a better plane than the 767-400ER. I was somewhat disappointed in the 767-400ER's performance, although I still think its a glamorous aircraft. Either way, both are great. But I think the A330-200 is a better aircraft overall.

Kind regards.
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
 
travelin man
Posts: 3198
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2000 10:04 am

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Wed Feb 07, 2001 11:59 am

Exactly which aspect of the 767-400ER's performance were you disappointed with? In what way is the A330-200 a better aircraft? Do you know the specs of the 767-400ERX? How would you rate the 767-400ERX vs. the 767-400ER?

Since you seem to have this opinion, I am just wondering what you are basing it on.
 
cwapilot
Posts: 1085
Joined: Mon May 01, 2000 7:10 am

RE: BA

Wed Feb 07, 2001 12:00 pm

Note that we are talking about the 767-400ERX...not the 767-400ER. The 767-400ER is what is flying now, designed specifically according to airline (i.e. North American airlines replacing DC10/L1011 aircraft) requirements. It performs according to their requirements perfectly. The new 767-400ERX is built to fullfill longer range requirements. It has yet to fly.
Southside Irish...our two teams are the White Sox and whoever plays the Cubs!
 
gerardo
Posts: 3372
Joined: Sun May 21, 2000 6:22 pm

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Wed Feb 07, 2001 4:36 pm

Which would be the exact specs of this ERX compared to the A332 (range, payload, pax, cargo, ...)?

Gerardo
dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
 
QantasA3XX
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2000 3:20 am

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Wed Feb 07, 2001 8:39 pm

Insteading of waiting for The Boeing767-400X , i think Kenya should go for the A330-200 , its a great aircraft and i think it suits them better then the B764X !!

Come on Kenya go for Airbus !!

QantasA380
 
DatamanA340
Posts: 535
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2000 7:02 pm

Then, What's 764X?

Wed Feb 07, 2001 8:47 pm

I cannot mention just because I don't know about this plane.
 
Guest

QantasA3XX

Wed Feb 07, 2001 11:50 pm

Man, you must know alot about Kenya Airways to make such a decision like that. You must be CEO of Kenya. QFA3XX, you say the same thing every time, "the Airbus suits them better than the Boeing". So, being the CEO, why don't you tell us why your company thinks the A332 suits them better?
-Tom(The King of the 767)
 
Notarzt
Posts: 646
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Thu Feb 08, 2001 12:34 am

King767,

I agree to you.

QantasA3XX & All,

Here's some info on the Longer-Range B767-400ER characteristics in comparison to the basic model B767-400ER:

- Seating for 245 passengers in three classes -- the same as the 767-400ER. A typical layout accommodates 20 first-class, 50 business-class and 175 economy-class seats.

- Maximum takeoff weight of 465,000 pounds (210,920 kg) -- an increase of 15,000 pounds (6,800 kg) more than the 767-400ER.

- Range of about 6,115 nautical miles (11,310 km). This represents an increase of 500 nautical (950 km) more than the 767-400ER.

- Improved takeoff field length. The longer-range 767-400ER needs just 9,650 feet (2,940 m) of runway.

- Higher thrust engines -- maximum thrust levels of 72,000 pounds (32,659 kg).

- Increased fuel volume without compromising cargo capacity. The longer-range 767-400ER has a total fuel capacity of 26,165 gallons (99,890 l) -- 2,185 gallons (8,269 l) more than the 767-400ER. The additional fuel is carried in the airplane's horizontal tail.

- Strengthened wing, fuselage and landing gear.

In addition to these capabilities, the longer-range 767-400ER joins the 767-400ER in offering superior economics. When compared to the Airbus A330-200, the longer-range 767-400ER carries the same number of passengers, but is estimated to provide three percent lower seat-mile costs, three percent lower trip costs and 8.4 percent lower fuel requirements. The longer-range 767-400ER also weighs an average of 36,000 pounds (16,300 kg) less than the A330-200. These economic and efficiency benefits provide operators with less risk than the competition.

The longer-range 767-400ER's capabilities make it the ideal airplane for many of the more mature 767-300ER routes on the North Atlantic and other high-density routes. With the longer-range 767-400ER, airlines gain 12 to 15 percent more capacity on established 767-300ER routes.

The longer-range 767-400ER also includes the new interior architecture first developed for the 767-400ER, which features the modern, award winning style of the 777 passenger cabin. In an independent survey, approximately 60 percent of passengers preferred flying the 767 versus the A330 on six-hour-plus flights.

The longer-range 767-400ER joins the 767-400ER in having greater cargo-revenue potential than competing A330-200s. Both 767-400 models have one more cargo pallet or 9.4 percent more unitized cargo volume than A330-200s.

Hope this helps to answer some of your questions (and also some of the wrong claims by the all-Airbus-freaks).

Daniel
 
SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Thu Feb 08, 2001 12:58 am

I don't think the A332 is a threat to the 767X. It just depends on which one's better of course. If the A332 is better then so be it and v.v. I think it's just comeptition. Of course Airbus would make an offfer to Kenya Airways. Why would they want to lose out on prospective orders? Same with Boeing. They wouldn't have just stood by when Airbus pitched their A380 to SIA would they?
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
WorldTraveller
Posts: 594
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 1999 3:47 am

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Thu Feb 08, 2001 4:44 am

Notarzt wrote:
"Hope this helps to answer some of your questions (and also some of the wrong claims by the all-Airbus-freaks)."

Sorry, but by just quoting exactly what the Boeing website says (claiming that the B767-400ERX is way better than A330-200) you don't contribute to a neutral discussion! It also implies you're not very neutral either...

Quoting manufacturers statements won't bring us very far...

Best regards
the WorldTraveller
 
Guest

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Thu Feb 08, 2001 4:53 am

I think Boeing is better....

No wait, I think Airbus is better....

But wait, what about Boeing....


I am glad I read this board so much. Otherwise I would never learn so much about the airline industry. Thanks guys.
 
Notarzt
Posts: 646
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Thu Feb 08, 2001 5:09 am

WishIhadalife,

Hahaha, that's a good one! I am sure you hit someone's nerves!  Smile


WorldTraveller,

Correct, I quoted the Boeing's current info on the Longer-Range Boeing 767-400ER. In fact (and in opposite to the ever-saying "I love Airbus" and "I love Boeing" people) I provided some up-to-date information currently available for this type of aircraft.
In opposite to Airbus, Boeing keeps quite "objective" on the comparison issue (note the inverted comma). It's my impression that Boeing just quotes the facts. On the other hand, Airbus prefers to attack the Boeing product by comparing their Airbus model in specific characteristics (of which they know they appear to be better than Boeing). No problem at all, but a slightly different way of "heading up" with the competition. Anyway, I prefer the "Boeing way" (which does not mean that I prefer the Boeing product generally). BTW, the Boeing info does not say "the Longer-Range Boeing 767-400ER is way better than the A330-200".

Someone asked about the Longer-Range B767-400ER's characteristics. I tried to provide something. Any problems?

Daniel
 
cwapilot
Posts: 1085
Joined: Mon May 01, 2000 7:10 am

RE: WorldTraveller

Thu Feb 08, 2001 5:12 am

Where do you suggest we obtain performance specifications if not at the manufacturer's website? I am interested to find this resource...or does Airbus know more about Boeing's new 767 than Boeing itself...or, flipside, does Boeing know more about Airbus's new A380 than Airbus itself? I have not seen Airbus dispute any of the 764ERX performance claims. I have not seen Boeing dispute any of the A380's performance claims...they merely state that Airbus always compares their new products' performance to the older, non-competing Boeing product. And we should all know by now that cost comparisons are useless in that the manufacturers always compare on the basis of the type of operation and route that makes their product look better.
Southside Irish...our two teams are the White Sox and whoever plays the Cubs!
 
baec777
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 1999 5:01 am

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Thu Feb 08, 2001 6:04 am

Why did Airbus threaten to have Kenya Airways to purchase 3 A330s and they have few Boeing 767-400ERX.?? Thats really isn't nice to do that or to happen in any ways.

My carrier will have few of Boeing, Airbus, ERJ, Embraer, Dornier, ATR, Etc....

No Expections


Baec777  Big thumbs up


"Aircraft Manufacturers should not beg their launch customers until they choose the right fleet for their Carriers"
 
BA
Posts: 10134
Joined: Fri May 19, 2000 11:06 am

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Thu Feb 08, 2001 6:47 am

The 767-400ERX will still not have the range of the A330-200. Although they will be VERY close, the A330-200 can fly a few hundred nautical miles more.

Kind regards.
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
 
cba
Posts: 4228
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2000 2:02 pm

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Thu Feb 08, 2001 7:36 am

On Airbuses's website, the A330-200's range is listed at 6400nm, the 767-400ERX is listed at about 6100nm. Not much of a difference.

I am inclined to believe that the 764 is more efficient because it is narrower, and has less surface are at the front of the aircraft, which gives it less air resistance.
 
JumboClassic
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2000 4:37 am

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Thu Feb 08, 2001 8:03 am

Do you really think Boeing is going to spend hundreds of millions to develop an aircraft (764ERX) for only ONE customer so far (Kenyan) and 3 (THREE) airplanes sold for $85M each???

And how come the 764 is more efficient and it has only one new customer (Kenyan for 3 A/C) since the launch of the A332?? Is the 332 not a real treat to the 767? I don't think so. In fact, it's actually killing it.

IMHO it's very wise for Kenyan to reconsider their commitment for long-haul aircraft since the chances of the 764ERX to be built are slim to none.
 
magyar
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2000 4:11 pm

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Thu Feb 08, 2001 8:09 am


Guys, the B767ERX maybe a magnificent aircraft but nobody
buys it (at least not yet). And it is a sort of the point of making
aircraft to be able to sell them.

Apart from this, I don't think it is a good sign if you have to
X your plane up before it basically enters into service. I mean
Boeing had to come up with the B767-400ERX almost
before the first B767-400 rolled out.

Janos
 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Thu Feb 08, 2001 8:14 am

Just a few words about Boeing's figures:

Thier capacity figures are based on the following - and I'll put Gulf Air's A332 spec next door -

a 60 inch pitch in F/class - Gulf Air has 85inches.

a 38 inch pitch in J/class - GF has 50.

So saying the 764 can carry the same is a lie - it carries significantly less. Putting 245 pax in an A332 is super luxurious - it's not in a 764.

And about 'that' survey - I've seen it myself - it was done in 1996 and only surveyed North Atlantic routes. So in 96, how many airlines were operating 763s over the pond (loads - AA, UA, BA, US, TW) and how many were operating A330s (1? 2?). Survey's bound to be biased against the A330 by sheer weight of numbers.

An example of the folly of placing your faith in any manufacturer's claims. To do so shows your stupidity.
 
BA
Posts: 10134
Joined: Fri May 19, 2000 11:06 am

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Thu Feb 08, 2001 8:39 am

I like the 767-300ER more than any of them.  Big grin
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
 
CXA330-342
Posts: 393
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2000 7:54 am

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Thu Feb 08, 2001 9:51 am

With how many passengers can the A330-200 fly 6400 nautical miles? I read somewhere that it can fly 6650 nautical miles, although it will naturally carry a lesser load. If it can fly 6650 nautical miles with 245 or more passengers, it will fulfill the range requirements better. However, the financial state of the airline also affects choice, and the lower operating costs of the 767 come into play. I don't think I'm going to fly Kenya Airways in the future, so it doesn't matter to me what they choose. However, if I had my own airline, I would go for the A330 because it is my personal preference and due to other things not easily categorized. By the way Notarzt, the 8.4% lower fuel requirement, was that measured with both planes going their maximum range or with both planes going the same range. How much of that is due to the lower drag of the 767 because of its narrower fuselage? Thanks.
 
Notarzt
Posts: 646
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Thu Feb 08, 2001 3:58 pm

CXA330,

>By the way Notarzt, the 8.4% lower fuel requirement,
>was that measured with both planes going their maximum
>range or with both planes going the same range. How
>much of that is due to the lower drag of the 767 because
>of its narrower fuselage? Thanks.

Still, I am not a clairvoyant. The Longer-Range B767-400ER didn't take off so far, right?! So please feel free to contact Boeing for your questions. BTW, if the B767's (better) performance results from its fuselage's lower drag... well then, there its goes. The "how much comes from the drag" is of little interest, I assume.
Daniel
 
WorldTraveller
Posts: 594
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 1999 3:47 am

RE: Notarzt

Thu Feb 08, 2001 9:02 pm

Notarzt wrote:
"Airbus prefers to attack the Boeing product by comparing their Airbus model in specific characteristics (of which they know they appear to be better than Boeing)."

Sorry, but the Boeing info on the longer-range B764ER you quoted also only compares the B764 in certain characteristics to the A332.....and in a very biased way that makes it look like facts. If you apply the same seat pitch for both models, for example, the A332 carries more passengers. It can also hold more cargo overall, which the Boeing website doesn't mention either.

If I where an Boeing-basher I could also point out that the A332 is faster and that it is very important for me to arrive 15 minutes earlier at my destination (which of course is absolute bulls***, but Airbus-bashers always exploit on the fact that the A340 is sooooooo slow, if you know what I mean).  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

As you see, Boeing's website is far from objective either (same as Airbus').

Notarzt wrote:
"Someone asked about the Longer-Range B767-400ER's characteristics. I tried to provide something. Any problems?"

Not at all, but you could at least have mentioned that it's from Boeing.com and I would also only quote the bare facts (like range, cargo volume etc.) and not all the biased "interpretations" of the manufacturer.

Best regards und viele Grüße,
the WorldTraveller
 
DatamanA340
Posts: 535
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2000 7:02 pm

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Thu Feb 08, 2001 9:38 pm

Who will believe a 7 column seating airplane with 61m fuselage can carry same as 332, 8 columns and 59m fuselage? I don't know what airline operate 332 with 3-class configuration, but 332 MUST be bigger and so carry more.

According to 'Airliners Almanac' from Japan, 332 can fly 6400nm with 253 seats on 3 class. It's so little, but difinitely longer than 764 or 764X.

Well, Is C with 38-inch pitch really a C class?
 
Notarzt
Posts: 646
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Thu Feb 08, 2001 11:14 pm

WorldTraveller,

Boeing definitely adopted the Airbus “I compare my product to yours and claim mine is better all the way” policy in some way. Nevertheless, Boeing still acts quite moderately in this respect, to say the least. If you have ever seen the ealier “Airbus Briefing” brochures (e.g. on the A320 or A340), you know what I am talking about. However, this does not belong to the details of this topic. By the way, my first post implied that the information was taken from Boeing’s background data.

> Not at all, but you could at least have mentioned that it's from
>Boeing.com and I would also only quote the bare facts (like range,
>cargo volume etc.) and not all the biased "interpretations" of the
>manufacturer.

Difficult to say which information are “facts” if an aircraft did not get airborne yet, huh? Range is a very sensitive performance data. Do you really want to classify range as a fact? Or may be as an assumption?

>If you apply the same seat pitch for both models, for example, the
>A332 carries more passengers.

Well, airplane manufacturers normally use standard configurations including a standard seat pitch, right?! Well then, the Airbus 3-class standard layout for the A330-200 shows 253 seats, whereas the 2-class standard configuration has a 293 seating. In comparison to the B767-400 this is quite similar. The B767-400 standard cabin seats 245 passenger in a 3-class layout, and up to 304 in a 2-class design.

By the way, eg777er, Airbus uses a 32 in. standard seat pitch for their Y-class configuration. Please refer to the manufacturer's data.

As for the range of A330-200 and Longer-Range B767-400ER. According to Airbus, the A330-200’s maximum range is up to 6,400 nm. The prospective range of the Longer-Range B767-400ER will be 6,115 nm. The difference is 285 nm. Furthermore, it should be noted that some operators provide a more limited range for the A330-200 (e.g. Monarch Airlines at 6,100 nm). BTW, the “full-payload range“ of the A330-200 is listed at 4,200 nm.

Just to have a better overview: How many A330-200s have been ordered yet?

Daniel
 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Fri Feb 09, 2001 1:52 am

I didn't say the A332 in Y class had anything other than 32-inch pitch - I didn't mention Y class at all, only F & J!

Gulf Air's A330-200s seat 12 in f/c, 24 in j/c and 198 in Y-class. This is 234 people. It is only 10 less than the 764 in the Boeing config which includes a 60-inch pitch in First Class and a 38-inch pitch in j/class. So, it stands to reason that if you put 12 f/class seats in a 764 (well, you couldn't becuase they have to be 5-abreast, but humour me...) with 80 inch pitch and 24 biz class with 50 inch pitch you would have to dramatically reduce the number of economy seats you put in.

So, in 'real world' operations, the 332 can carry more than the 764.

You just have to look at the orders to see that the 332 is much more successful than the 764:

Orders for 332: 150
Orders for 764: 47

And even if you take the orders from the time of the first 764 order, the A330 still wins. Since 3 Mar 97 when Delta ordered 21 764s the A330 has gathered 118 orders opposed to the 764's 47. So even since the introduction of the 764 which according to some people on this forum is a much more attractive aircraft, the A330 hasn't been doing too badly, don't you think?
 
Notarzt
Posts: 646
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Fri Feb 09, 2001 5:39 am

Eg777er,

The "greater success" of the A330-200 (to date)appears to be based on the Airbus' relatively long existence on the market. The Longer-Range B767-400ER is quite new, and the basic B767-400ER model is a typical medium- to long-range aircraft. Let' wait and see. I think the next two years will play a decisive role. I am not convinced that too many US operators of the DC-10-30 are interested in the A330-200. This, however, does not necessarily imply they will purchase the Longer-Range B767-400ER, of course. They may also chose the B777. Regarding the "question of success", I am watching the market with great interest.

Correct, you did not talk about Economy Class. I wanted to point out that there can be decisive differences between the manufacturer's layout on the one hand, and individual airline configurations on the other hand. The Y Class pitch was just an example. In addition, Airbus and Boeing use standard pitch for First and Business Class; in order to have an optimized base for comparison, we have to refer to the manufacturers' data. And these manufcaturers' data say: A330-200 seats 253 in 3-class, the B767-400 up to 254. The Airbus aircraft accomodates 293 pax in a 2-class layout, the Boeing competitor seats 304. All with same pitch! That's a pretty much comparable reality.

Daniel
 
F4N
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2000 11:37 pm

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Fri Feb 09, 2001 6:23 am

To all: A few quick comments about website definitions of a product line(especially lines as complex and extensive as Airbus/Boeing).
I've read some of the posts going back and forth regarding website info on A330/764 in which various attributes and characteristics of the frames are compared and evaluated and from which conclusions are drawn regarding the relative merits of each a/c and from which statements are made regarding the success (or lack of success) of each. Bear in mind the pitfalls of website data when doing exactly that. Websites are essentially glitzy marketing and public relations tools (like the sales brochures and programs of "old", a term I hate to use)which are designed to pique interest and consideration of your product line. They provide stats, graphs, charts and descriptions touting your goods and services, perhaps make some vague comparisons about competitive products and infer the relative benefits of buying from you.
Note the term "infer". What is lacking is clarity and definition. This is deliberate. You want customers to arrange meetings with your sales and marketing people, you want that "in". You want those face-to-face meetings to close deals. Even if it requires multiple meetings at different levels and months of negotiatians.
Details, discussions, arrangements, concessions, ect come from these meetings; planes(or anything else is)are bought/sold here. As such, conclusions from website data should be avoided as details on websites are never intended to be definitive.

That said, great topic and discussion folks.

Best regards,

F4N
 
WorldTraveller
Posts: 594
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 1999 3:47 am

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Fri Feb 09, 2001 7:14 am

Dear all,

I really have a problem saying that one aircraft is "better" than another one.

I would never claim that the A340 for example is better than the B777 and vice versa.

There are just too many factors that have to be considered by the airlines evaluating competing products from various manufacturers.

As for the A332 vs B764(ERX) comparison, I would think that it will make sense for most American carriers to order it as a DC-10/B763 replacement, as well as for some European and Asian carriers.
But for carriers such as SR, AF, NW, US, SQ etc. the A332 just makes more sense because for reasons of fleet commonality etc.

Maybe we should now turn this thread into an order guessing game...?!

Here are my guesses for upcoming B764 orders:

KLM
Air NZ/Ansett (?)
DL (more)
CO (more)
AA


Best regards
the WorldTraveller
 
BA
Posts: 10134
Joined: Fri May 19, 2000 11:06 am

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Fri Feb 09, 2001 7:21 am

This is an interesting discussion................. Big grin
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
 
F4N
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2000 11:37 pm

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Fri Feb 09, 2001 7:45 am


WorldTraveller: I agree with you wholeheartedly. In my limited experience with face to face negotiations for product/equipment purchases, I've often been amazed at how complex issues become and how many seemingly unconnected details come up with regards to product performance and suitability. I imagine it is far more complex when discussing a/c.

I am also put off by the reliance on manufacturer supplied data for drawing conclusions. You wouldn't expect Airbus or Boeing to say anything negative about their frames, would you?

I like your choices for 764 orders, UA as another (outside) option.

Best regards,

F4N
 
WorldTraveller
Posts: 594
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 1999 3:47 am

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Fri Feb 09, 2001 8:52 pm

F4N, I actually forgot many potential future B764 customers in my list, that's why I decided to look at all non-US-airlines which could be interested in this bird and try to guess how likely an order from them would be.

Let's have a look at all cities Boeing visited during the B767-400ER-world-tour and to which airlines they pitched the bird.

EUROPE

Vienna: AUA, Lauda Air (both very unlikely to order)
Hannover: Hapag-Lloyd (somewhat likely after A335 delay)
Frankfurt: Lufthansa, Condor (rather unlikely, maybe Condor)
Gatwick: BA, Air 2000, Virgin (slight chnace at BA only)
Luton: easyJet, Britannia (maybe Britannia)
Warsaw: LOT (pretty likely in the future)
Prague: CSA (pretty likely in the future)
Larnaca: Cyprus Airlines (40:60 chance against A332)

AFRICA

Nairobi: Keya Airways (has already sogned MoU for longer-range B764ER, deal may be cancelled if Airbus gives them the A332 "for free")

ASIA

Beijing: Air China, China Northern (maybe Air China)
Shanghai: Shanghai, China Eastern (both unlikely)
Hainan: Hainan (only has B737 to date, maybe for future growth, B767-300 more likely however)
Urumqi: Xiajing Airlines, China Southern (unlikely)
Taipei: EVA, China Airlines (EVA went A332, China A. unlikely)
Seoul: Asiana, Korean, FAT, Transasia, Mandarin (all unlikely, maybe Asiana)
Singapore: Singapore Airlines (chance because of A335 delay, A332 more likely IMHO)
Bangkok: Thai, Bangkok Airways (both very unlikely)
Tokyo: ANA, JAL, JAS (ANA + JAL likely in the future)

AUSTRALIA

Sydney: Qantas (QF already ordered A332/333)


Well, based on the list, these are the airlines that could (in my opinion)buy the B764 in the near future:

LOT (around 6), CSA (around 4), Britannia (around 4-8), Cyprus (2-4), Singapore Airlines (around 10-20), ANA (10+), JAL (10+)


It is very in teresting to note that the B764 did not visit South America and not KLM, Alitalia, Air New Zealand and Ansett either. I think some South American carriers and the ones I mentioned above could well order the B764 this year.

BTW F4N, I agree that UA may choose the B764 as well if they have specific routes that would require the capacity and not a B767-300ER or B777-200.

OK, any thoughts?

Best regards
the WorldTraveller


 
Notarzt
Posts: 646
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Fri Feb 09, 2001 9:10 pm

WorldTraveller,

Agree to you on ANA, JAL, and Britannia as potential B767-400 customers. I'd also vote for American and United in the US as well as Varig and LanChile in South America. Ansett and Air New Zealand are good choices for the Pacific region, plus British Airways, Condor, and KLM in Europe.

Presumably, we will see 10 others to order the B767-400 first - however, as time goes by, I am sure some ofthe above will sign for the 767 as well.

Daniel
 
WorldTraveller
Posts: 594
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 1999 3:47 am

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Fri Feb 09, 2001 10:29 pm

Notarzt,

I have mixed feelings about Varig and LanChile and I'm really not sure if they will go for the B764.

Varig is rumored to be looking at the A332 since they appearently want to end their "exclusivity" with Boeing and establish relationships with both manufacturers (in order to get better pricing I would guess).

LanChile recently ordered both the A32X and A340 and I would doubt that they'll go for the B764 since the A340 will eventually replace the B767-300s (more economical, see SAS).

While thinking about Latin America, Aeromexico might be a candidate for the B764 as well.

Best regards
the WorldTraveller
 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Sat Feb 10, 2001 1:27 am

The size of the 767-400 is the plane's achillies heel.

I am willing to bet that British Airways (among others) WILL NOT order the 764.

Why?

The 767-300 in BA config has 193 passengers.

The 777-200 in BA config has 232 passengers.

BA will not introduce a new fleet type just for the difference of 39 passengers. Because, if you look at routes that are growing, such as the Gulf routes have done in the last 5 years, the jump from 763 to 772 has been very successful - one 763 to Dubai daily has been replaced with two 772s daily, one 763 to Bahrain replaced with one 772 and so on.

And if you look at the European routes the 763 is large enough and is ideal for 2 hour/1 hour sectors.

Airlines will not specialise thier requirements to the extent that they will introduce a new aircraft for maybe 15 passengers - the 777 is efficient enough to make a profit at 764 capacity - and passengers prefer it too!

And as for suggesting the orders for new customers - I seem to remember I did the exact same thing in comparing the prospective orders for the A332 against those for the 764 and got flamed alive for it - people didn't like them so they screamed....

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/269955

Perhaps now people realise that the 332 is gaining orders and the 764 is actually loosing them...oh sorry, thats the A380 v. 747X can of worms...
 
Guest

Eg777er

Sat Feb 10, 2001 6:15 am

Eg777er,
Do you know how old it is to say: "Perhaps now people realise that the 332 is gaining orders and the 764 is actually loosing them...oh sorry, thats the A380 v. 747X can of worms... " This had been said over and over. Mabye if you took to thought that the A332 was introduced a few years ago, while the 764 is only months old! Can't you wait just a little bit, and give it a chance until you start badmouthing everything?
-Tom
 
Guest

Eg777er

Sat Feb 10, 2001 6:37 am

I could not help but notice you statement: "764 is actually loosing them", as in orders. How could the 764ER be loosing orders if no airline that has placed orders for the 764ER canceled their order? Please Eg777er, stop the crap.
-Tom
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8007
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Sat Feb 10, 2001 6:37 am

I think people really forget that the 767-400ER was developed very cheaply, since the 767-400ER is primarily a 767-300ER with extra fuselage plugs, upgraded engines and a new raked wingtip.

Boeing does not need to sell a lot of them to recoup the development costs.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

I think AA and UA may order the 764ER, configured in the "two class" configuration for use on USA transcon routes and flights to Hawaii from as far east as ORD and DFW. Sure both AA and UA have big 762/763 fleets, but they ARE getting old (many of them date from the early 1980's!).

Another airline that may buy the 764ER is Hawaiian Airlines (HA). They will use them to replace the DC-10's HA now flies. I can also envisage ATA buying the 764ER in a few years to start replacing their L1011 fleet also.
 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Sat Feb 10, 2001 12:16 pm

"Mabye if you took to thought that the A332 was introduced a few years ago, while the 764 is only months old! Can't you wait just a little bit, and give it a chance until you start badmouthing everything?

Well, you obviously haven't read my first post - in the time that the 764 has been on the market it has gathered 47 orders, and the 332 has gathered 118 orders IN THE SAME TIME FRAME .

"764 is actually loosing them", as in orders. How could the 764ER be loosing orders if no airline that has placed orders for the 764ER canceled their order?

Sorry, some clarification needed. Noone has ordered 764LR. In 1998, 2 orders for the 764 were cancelled, in 1999 6 and in 2000 1 were cancelled...

Not the most wholehearted endoresment is it...

 
ILUV767
Posts: 3035
Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 2:21 pm

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Sat Feb 10, 2001 12:39 pm

RayChuang Wrote:

I think AA and UA may order the 764ER, configured in the "two class" configuration for use on USA transcon routes and flights to Hawaii from as far east as ORD and DFW. Sure both AA and UA have big 762/763 fleets, but they ARE getting old (many of them date from the early 1980's!).



I have to agree with you on the issue of UA getting 764s, but I dont agree about their useage. United has both 763s and 777s for domestic operations. Those are in a 2 class configuartion.

If UA were to get the 767-400ERX, I believe that it would be in a 3 class configuartion. There will be two configurations. One will be with an expanded business and first class cabins to fly on the premium transcon routes, and international trips that require more business class seats. The other will seat about 235 in a more standard configuartion.

My 2 cents,
David
 
ap305
Posts: 914
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2000 4:03 am

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Sat Feb 10, 2001 5:19 pm

The a330-200 and the 767-400 are both superb all purpose airplanes.Imho they are more versatile than the 772 and a343.The 767-400 is at home on very short as well as reasonably long routes.The lower weight of the 764 gives it a significant advantage over the a332 on shorter range routes.The problem for the 764 is that most airlines these days do not mind paying extra money in weight related landing fees as long as the ultimate operating range of the aircraft is good.The a330-200 in its 233t version has a range of around 12300kms.This gives any airline which operates the aircraft significant flexibility.For eg many of the current european customers of the aircraft have the option of sending it deep into asia if required.The proposed longer range 764 should in theory reduce the gap to the a332.However if airbus increases the mtow of the a332 to the roumoured 240t mark the ball game will change altogether.If the extra 7ts motow is used for fuel then the a332 will firmly be in the a343/772 class(which raises its own questions).The other advantage the a332 has over the 764 is field-performence.By any calculation a mtow climbout on an a332 is going to be significantly better than a 764.This is another area boeing needs to adress.In conclusion i would say that the a332 is the class act of the current airbus widebody fleet.Boeing really needs to give it's old boy some vitamins to keep it in the race.

ap305



 
cruising
Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2001 3:28 pm

Ap305

Sat Feb 10, 2001 5:32 pm

You said,"The other advantage the a332 has over the 764 is field-performence.By any calculation a mtow climbout on an a332 is going to be significantly better than a 764".

If you don't mind, could you tell how did you calculate the climb out performance of two airplanes?

What flaps, temperature, altitude and other calculation creteria?

Thanks.
 
tullamarine
Posts: 1614
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:14 pm

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Sat Feb 10, 2001 5:53 pm

World Traveller wrote that Boeing did not pitch 764 at AN/NZ on World Tour. This is partly correct. Whilst the fancy painted 764 didn't come to MEL or AKL to be pitched to AN/NZ, the first DL 764 came to MEL some months earlier prior to its delivery to DL.

Whether AN/NZ take the 764 is pure speculation. I would guess that AN/NZ have not made a decision as yet though their existing 767 fleets would favour the 764. Then again AN has suffered a lot of bad publicity with its 767s recently and may be attracted to, what for marketing purposes would be seen as, a clean break. SQ's A310 replacement decision may also play a part. If SQ get a killer deal from Airbus or Boeing, I'm sure they would be keen to see their Antipodean associate get a piece of the same action.

For people who think BA are interested in the 764, dream on! Rod Eddington is keen to reduce types in the fleet and has already farmed 7 of the airlines 763s off to QF so I can't see them even bothering to give the 764 a kick of the tyres.

717,721/2,732/3/4/5/7/8/9,742/3/4,752/3,762/3,772/E/W,300,310,319,320/1,332/3,388,DC9,DC10,F28,F100,142,143,E90,CR2,D82/3/4,SF3,ATR
 
ap305
Posts: 914
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2000 4:03 am

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Sat Feb 10, 2001 6:01 pm

Cruising,I took two things into consideration when I said that the a332 has a better field performance than a 764.They are power to weight ratio and the fact that the bigger a332 wing would genarate more lift.I also know through reading some extremley reliabile aviation journals that the field performance advantage of the a332 is a fact and not just theory.I shall try and post some exact runway length figures if i can find them somewhere.

ap305
 
cruising
Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2001 3:28 pm

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Sun Feb 11, 2001 4:46 pm

Thanks, Ap305.

I will also ask my friend who is working at Boeing. One of his resposibilities is competitive analysis. I don't know if he is busy or not, but I will ask him.
I can't promise quit answer, though. It really depends on his current work loads. Please contact me, if you like to know the results.

 
raggi
Posts: 879
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2000 4:34 am

RE: Airbus Threat To Future Of B767-400ERX

Mon Feb 12, 2001 1:09 am

Of the potential B 764ER and LR customers, I would also include Alitalia. Shifting to a long haul made up of 777s and 767s, they are in my opinion likely to order the 764. They are rumored to be in contact with KLM again, and if something comes out of these talks, I would expect a big boost for the 764 programme, perhaps as a joint order? The 764`s versatility also makes it profitable to operate on short, busy Euroean routes. But who knows, they might both go with Airbus, or 777s. Condor have also expressed an interest in the 764LR, lets hope for an LH/ Condor order for the 753 and 764. With AI abandoning the 335 project, Boeing might be able to steal a few customers from Airbus. But having that said, the A332 is one hell of an airplane, and definetly a worthy competitor to the 764. But it would be very nice to see the elegant 767-400 in other liveries than CO an DL……Imagine it in Uzbekistan
Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Guido Potters

and Avianca….
Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © William Ronciere

and LAN Chile
Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Lars Blomberg



raggi
Stick & Rudder

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 8herveg, absolutelyAN, AirbusOnly, airnorth, astuteman, av8r915, Bing [Bot], blueflyer, coolian2, Google Adsense [Bot], IslandRob, jbpdx, julio777, rocketPower, sassiciai, seat38a, SyeaphanR, WIederling and 215 guests