Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
rotating14
Topic Author
Posts: 1391
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:54 pm

UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:33 pm

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ew-433417/

UA management is not exactly sure how to replace the 767 fleet. The 787-9 were intended to do so but are really growing markets in the Pacific out of SFO. The most logical decision would be to order more 787-9s but they cost more than the A330 NEO. Coincidentally UA is in the midst of rearranging it's A350-1000 order while adding more 77Ws to its fleet. Thoughts?
 
flyguy84
Posts: 770
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 7:26 pm

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:48 pm

rotating14 wrote:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/united-eyeing-767-replacement-in-fleet-review-433417/

UA management is not exactly sure how to replace the 767 fleet. The 787-9 were intended to do so but are really growing markets in the Pacific out of SFO. The most logical decision would be to order more 787-9s but they cost more than the A330 NEO. Coincidentally UA is in the midst of rearranging it's A350-1000 order while adding more 77Ws to its fleet. Thoughts?

The 787-9 was never intended to replace the 767 fleet.
SFO
 
fcogafa
Posts: 1280
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:37 pm

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:53 pm

The number of A350s on order is very similar to the number of 767s they operate, could a swap of the order to A330NEOs be one option?
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:57 pm

I think Kirby's comments are a reflection of a phenomenon occurring now with both the 767 and the 757 - namely, it appears that the OEMs designed newer-generation models to replace these airplanes based on expectations of how the 767/757 missions, and the broader market, would evolve, but as it's turned out the market hasn't evolved in quite the expected way. To be more specific - I think both Boeing and Airbus expected, to at least some extent, that both the 757 and 767 would be replaced by larger, denser airplanes that were thus more cost/fuel-efficient on a per-seat basis. Airlines today, though, seem to be questioning that logic based on, as one example, the experience in many places with the A380 - where the economics of the improved cost/fuel-efficiency is partly (largely) offset by the yield depression that comes with such a large increase in per-departure capacity.

So, for example, looking purely at a similarly-configured seat count, the near-perfect 763 replacement is the 788. The 788, however, is obviously optimized - in terms of weight, range, payload, acquisition cost, etc. - for much longer flying than where most 767 missions are today. (It's hard to imagine, for instance, the 788 coming to dominate the Northeast U.S.-Western Europe market the way the 767 long has.) I think this is the quandary that the airlines, and by extension, the OEMs, find themselves in today. Most of the ostensibly suitable 763 replacements are heavier and larger.

As such, I think many airlines may ultimately conclude that if any viable 763 replacement will involve upgauging, anyway, they'll opt for reconfiguring older, fully/mostly-depreciated widebodies like 777s and A330s. This appears to be, for instance, the direction AA is heading - the 777 and A330 certainly add more capacity than a 763, and are certainly less efficient on a per-seat basis than 788, but they also have drastically lower ownership cost than a 788 which may be more economically optimal on 8-10 hour sectors.
Last edited by commavia on Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
nikeson13
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:35 am

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:59 pm

Well getting rid of the A350-1000 order and getting the 77W was primarily to keep fleet commonality IIRC, so getting the A330NEO is somewhat counterproductive to that. Maybe if they order it to replace all the 763ERs, the 764ERs, and a couple of 772s it would make it pretty viable to add the subfleet, with a fleet over 50 frames. But then again they already have the 787s, so adding more frames is quite easy. I would think that they would order more 789 for more expansion + replacement, but price and availability may say otherwise. Another factor is what Airbus is saying, something like wanting to charge them a lot if they cancel the A35X order vs. charge nothing/very little for converting it to the A330NEO. Many factors can be put into this, hard to say where it will go.

As the article mentioned, quite a few 767s and 772s have been refurbished, when will these + the ones without refurbishing will need to exit the fleet? That could also be quite a large factor in this decision.
Nikolas
 
TheGeordielad
Posts: 905
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 5:08 pm

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:00 pm

I would order more B787-9s However they do have something like 14 B787-10 on order
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21861
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:13 pm

Well, now here's a problem, isn't it? There is no longer a good 767 replacement and the market needs one. The 787 is too big and its capabilities make it suboptimal for routes under ~8 hours. The A350 exaggerates the problem further. The A330NEO is one fair option if one gets the A338. But it's still a lot of airplane/wing and a lot of capability for such a small cabin.

Airbus just finished/is finishing a major program (A350) and two major re-engine programs (A320 and A330). Boeing completely stuffed up the 787 program and 748 program and is now working on the 77X program. Does either OEM have the resources to really work on a proper 767 replacement that will efficiently carry a 763/764-sized cabin on flights under 12 hours?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7322
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:14 pm

I'm in the camp that believes UA can't use a next gen aircraft to adequately replace the 767. They are too big for what UA uses the 767 for. The only current aircraft that would best fill the void would be a fresh batch of 763/4s.
DocLightning wrote:
Airbus just finished/is finishing a major program (A350) and two major re-engine programs (A320 and A330). Boeing completely stuffed up the 787 program and 748 program and is now working on the 77X program. Does either OEM have the resources to really work on a proper 767 replacement that will efficiently carry a 763/764-sized cabin on flights under 12 hours?

Boeing still has the commercial 767 line open, right? This reminds me of the dilemma the USAF faced when trying to replace the C130. The only replacement was, another C130.
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
User avatar
tlecam
Posts: 1498
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:38 pm

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:17 pm

commavia wrote:
I think Kirby's comments are a reflection of a phenomenon occurring now with both the 767 and the 757 - namely, it appears that the OEMs designed newer-generation models to replace these airplanes based on expectations of how the 767/757 missions, and the broader market, would evolve, but as it's turned out the market hasn't evolved in quite the expected way. To be more specific - I think both Boeing and Airbus expected, to at least some extent, that both the 757 and 767 would be replaced by larger, denser airplanes that were thus more cost/fuel-efficient on a per-seat basis. Airlines today, though, seem to be questioning that logic based on, as one example, the experience in many places with the A380 - where the economics of the improved cost/fuel-efficiency is offset partly (largely) offset by the yield depression that comes with such a large increase in per-departure capacity.

So, for example, looking purely at a similarly-configured seat count, the near-perfect 763 replacement is the 788. The 788, however, is obviously optimized - in terms of weight, range, payload, acquisition cost, etc. - for much longer flying than where most 767 missions are today. (It's hard to imagine, for instance, the 788 coming to dominate the Northeast U.S.-Western Europe market the way the 767 long has.) I think this is the quandary that the airlines, and by extension, the OEMs, find themselves in today. Most of the ostensibly suitable 763 replacements are heavier and larger.

As such, I think many airlines may ultimately conclude that if any viable 763 replacement will involve upgauging, anyway, they'll opt for reconfiguring older, fully/mostly-depreciated widebodies like 777s and A330s. This appears to be, for instance, the direction AA is heading - the 777 and A330 certainly add more capacity than a 763, and are certainly less efficient on a per-seat basis than 788, but they also have drastically lower ownership cost than a 788 which may be more economically optimal on 8-10 hour sectors.



This.

I think that this is the best articulation of the 763 replacement I've read or heard anywhere. I also think that it captures the essence of Richard Anderson's "too much plane" comment.

I think it's also, partially, why UA and DL haven't really placed an order for 763 replacements. Some of the planes are young and not ready to be replaced, for sure. But part of it is also because there's not an obvious answer. I do think that they're chipping away at some 763 routes with other purchases, but haven't attacked the majority of the eastern half of the US to Europe 763 fleets.
BOS-LGA-JFK | A:319/20/21, 332/3, 346 || B:717, 735, 737, 738, 739, 752, 753, 762, 763, 764, 787, 772, 744 || MD80, MD90
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3698
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:20 pm

The 788/9 is an excellent replacement - the best out there today and for the foreseeable future - but U.S. carriers are too concerned with dropping their stock price to pony up the necessary capital for it. That's the reason we haven't seen it used much as a 767 replacement in this country. The "too much plane" excuse is just that--a garbage excuse.
 
catiii
Posts: 3611
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:27 pm

flyguy84 wrote:
The 787-9 was never intended to replace the 767 fleet.


You sure about that? From the article:

It is unclear what could replace the 767. Ron Baur, vice-president of fleet at United, said in May 2014 that the Boeing 787-9 was "ultimately a replacement for the 767-300ER". However, the airline has used the 19 787-9s it has taken since then for growth rather than replacement.
 
caverunner17
Posts: 267
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:50 pm

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:27 pm

nikeson13 wrote:
Well getting rid of the A350-1000 order and getting the 77W was primarily to keep fleet commonality IIRC, so getting the A330NEO is somewhat counterproductive to that. Maybe if they order it to replace all the 763ERs, the 764ERs, and a couple of 772s it would make it pretty viable to add the subfleet, with a fleet over 50 frames. But then again they already have the 787s, so adding more frames is quite easy. I would think that they would order more 789 for more expansion + replacement, but price and availability may say otherwise. Another factor is what Airbus is saying, something like wanting to charge them a lot if they cancel the A35X order vs. charge nothing/very little for converting it to the A330NEO. Many factors can be put into this, hard to say where it will go.

As the article mentioned, quite a few 767s and 772s have been refurbished, when will these + the ones without refurbishing will need to exit the fleet? That could also be quite a large factor in this decision.

They haven't gotten rid of the A350 order.

With a fleet of 35, fleet commonality isn't an issue. There's less 747's and 787's in the fleet right now than that.
 
User avatar
raravena80
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2014 4:03 pm

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:31 pm

re-engine the 767
 
MoonC
Posts: 349
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 1:26 am

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:33 pm

Here's maybe the answer:

Q: Why isn’t United flying any of the Boeing 787-8 and 787-9 Dreamliners out of East Coast hubs such as Washington, D.C. and New York/Newark? We on the East Coast would love to see some Dreamliner service! I also believe that Chicago has yet to receive any 787s.

A: We have focused our first 30 787s in hubs with the longest average flight length (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver and Houston) where the fuel savings are greatest. We have many more 787s on order, and we envision that we will introduce 787s to new hubs throughout 2018 and beyond.

Source: https://unitedairtime.com/your-questions/isnt-united-flying-boeing-787-8-787-9-dreamliners-east-coast-hubs-washington-d-c-new-yorknewark-east-coast-love-see-dreamline/
 
airzona11
Posts: 1775
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:35 pm

commavia wrote:
I think Kirby's comments are a reflection of a phenomenon occurring now with both the 767 and the 757 - namely, it appears that the OEMs designed newer-generation models to replace these airplanes based on expectations of how the 767/757 missions, and the broader market, would evolve, but as it's turned out the market hasn't evolved in quite the expected way. To be more specific - I think both Boeing and Airbus expected, to at least some extent, that both the 757 and 767 would be replaced by larger, denser airplanes that were thus more cost/fuel-efficient on a per-seat basis. Airlines today, though, seem to be questioning that logic based on, as one example, the experience in many places with the A380 - where the economics of the improved cost/fuel-efficiency is partly (largely) offset by the yield depression that comes with such a large increase in per-departure capacity.

So, for example, looking purely at a similarly-configured seat count, the near-perfect 763 replacement is the 788. The 788, however, is obviously optimized - in terms of weight, range, payload, acquisition cost, etc. - for much longer flying than where most 767 missions are today. (It's hard to imagine, for instance, the 788 coming to dominate the Northeast U.S.-Western Europe market the way the 767 long has.) I think this is the quandary that the airlines, and by extension, the OEMs, find themselves in today. Most of the ostensibly suitable 763 replacements are heavier and larger.

As such, I think many airlines may ultimately conclude that if any viable 763 replacement will involve upgauging, anyway, they'll opt for reconfiguring older, fully/mostly-depreciated wide bodies like 777s and A330s. This appears to be, for instance, the direction AA is heading - the 777 and A330 certainly add more capacity than a 763, and are certainly less efficient on a per-seat basis than 788, but they also have drastically lower ownership cost than a 788 which may be more economically optimal on 8-10 hour sectors.


This is a great, detailed post. It accurately shows the downfall of having only 2 manufacturers in the space. The 763

Taking the depreciated wide bodies "downmarket" will continue to happen. That obviously is time limited.

What is also interesting is that it leaves airlines at odds with the strategy of frequency over gauge. Offering 2 flights from 2 different connection banks in theory is much better than offering 1 flight a day.

For DL there is a huge capacity gap and they fly many 763s. For UA (and CO) they opened many routes with 752s/763s or went with frequency with them. Going larger gauge is going to cause retrenching to core markets. And then this gives them more vulnerability to P2P LCCs.
 
User avatar
intotheair
Posts: 1896
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:40 pm

Ah yes. It's a new week, so of course that means a new UA fleet thread with yet another puzzling report about UA's evolving fleet strategy!

This is more or less what I've been saying for a while. 70% of the 757s have already been replaced with 739s, the 777s are in good shape to go for at least another decade, and enough 77Ws and 787s are coming online to backfill the 744 capacity, but there's really nothing ideal for the 767s, which, despite what some may think, are aging and can only fly for so much longer.

This is why I think there's still at least a case for the A330. Out of anything that anyone is making today, the A330 is the next best thing to the 767 for short TATL flying. UA's reluctance to put the 787 on east coast-TATL makes it seem that it's not necessarily the best suited plane for that mission. The question is, would the tradeoff in capacity, price, and fleet commonality be worth it enough for UA to jump for the A330?
300 319 320 321 332 333 345 346 380 717 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77W 788 789 CR2 CR7 CR9 CRK Q400 E175 DC10 MD82 MD90
AA AF AS AY AZ B6 BA BR DL F9 FI GA HA KF LH MI QX SK SN SQ UA US VY WN
 
2175301
Posts: 1898
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:43 pm

raravena80 wrote:
re-engine the 767


Re-engine, rewing, and redo the cockpit to 787 standards. A very good performer that could be sold at a lower cost than a totally new aircraft. Could a redone 767 be a decent 757 replacement for at least part of the 757 market... More capacity; but, that might be better than some of the other options...

If Boeing wished to keep the old design as a Freighter - they could do that (although I think everyone would be interested in new more efficient engines).

Have a great day,
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14011
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:47 pm

Glad this isn't just another "United must cancel their A350 order" post.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
readytotaxi
Posts: 7480
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:09 am

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:51 pm

Aircraft strategy appears to move faster than a manufacturers ability to provide. :stirthepot:
you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
Growing older, but not up.
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Posts: 530
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:58 pm

I think there simply is no 1:1 replacement available these days, especially for 767s flying on the eastcoast - western europe routes. Not capacity wise nor range wise. The 787-8 comes very close in terms of capacity, but I think its too heavy and has too much range.

I think there are only two options for Airlines like UA, DL:

Ordering 787-8. UA at least operates the 787 already. I read that new built -8s have some improvements from the -9 over the older -8s? This would make up some of the excess weight over the 767, also the 787 burns less fuel anyway.

Getting younger second hand 767-300s and wait another 10 years for Boeing to build a MOM aircraft.
My Instagram Account: Instagram
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10358
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:00 pm

So how much more efficient is a current 767 being delivered today over the frames that UA currently operates?
Boeing's choice here is to give a good price on a new batch of 767's versus hold the fort on price and watch UA get a larger A330 and abuse the frame.
 
User avatar
intotheair
Posts: 1896
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:14 pm

Why are so many people all of the sudden thinking on here that replacing 767s with more 767s is a good idea?

The last time a passenger airline took delivery of one was (I think) around 2003/2004. They're not really being made for passenger airlines anymore. Everything about the plane is 30 years old, and one built today won't necessarily be all that much more efficient than a 25 year old one being flown today. Buying any second hand wouldn't make any sense either, because any second hand ones are likely to be of the same vintage, if not older, than what UA currently has.

It's at least possible Boeing could re-engine and re-wing the 767, unlike the 757, where the supply chain is completely gone. But what current generation engine could you re-engine it with? And would the high development costs justify it?
300 319 320 321 332 333 345 346 380 717 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77W 788 789 CR2 CR7 CR9 CRK Q400 E175 DC10 MD82 MD90
AA AF AS AY AZ B6 BA BR DL F9 FI GA HA KF LH MI QX SK SN SQ UA US VY WN
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24635
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:20 pm

commavia wrote:
I think Kirby's comments are a reflection of a phenomenon occurring now with both the 767 and the 757 - namely, it appears that the OEMs designed newer-generation models to replace these airplanes based on expectations of how the 767/757 missions, and the broader market, would evolve, but as it's turned out the market hasn't evolved in quite the expected way. To be more specific - I think both Boeing and Airbus expected, to at least some extent, that both the 757 and 767 would be replaced by larger, denser airplanes that were thus more cost/fuel-efficient on a per-seat basis. Airlines today, though, seem to be questioning that logic based on, as one example, the experience in many places with the A380 - where the economics of the improved cost/fuel-efficiency is partly (largely) offset by the yield depression that comes with such a large increase in per-departure capacity.

Thanks for the excellent post.

From what I read from Lightsaber and others, there is more than just a market motivation, there's also a technological one too. From what I gather, adding range is cheaper than it's ever been. This is what leads to the ultra long range a/c we now have such as 787 and A350. I won't get into a full-on MOM discussion, but a direct replacement of the 767 will require an all-new airplane with an all-new engine for what is a pretty niche market. Boeing could have built a direct 767 replacement when they built the 787, and in fact started out doing just that, but they say the customers kept asking for a bigger plane with more range. Its huge order book shows there was a market for that plane. The current number of 767s in the world fleets that don't have replacements on order has to be a pretty small number these days. It's gonna be next to impossible to justify an all new plane to replace UA's 35 767-300ERs and the similar remaining numbers at the various legacy airlines, no matter how badly they want such a replacement. DL ended up ordering A330neo for TATL roles. It probably is the best choice available, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit to see UA come to that realization too.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 1977
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:23 pm

intotheair wrote:

This is why I think there's still at least a case for the A330. Out of anything that anyone is making today, the A330 is the next best thing to the 767 for short TATL flying. UA's reluctance to put the 787 on east coast-TATL makes it seem that it's not necessarily the best suited plane for that mission. The question is, would the tradeoff in capacity, price, and fleet commonality be worth it enough for UA to jump for the A330?


Excellent points. It might be time to dust off the plans for the B787-3 again. It meets/exceeds the capacity of the 763/4, has a smaller wingspan than the 788/9 so it addresses some congested airport gate issues. The original 2,500-3,000 mile range is probably on the low side but that could probably be bumped up to something acceptable for US-western Europe/S. America routes without going to the >7,000 mile range of the current 788. Now that the early 788 construction issues have been resolved, a slightly modified 783 might once again be feasible for airlines that don't currently operate the A330 series.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_78 ... iner#787-3
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24635
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:25 pm

keesje wrote:
Glad this isn't just another "United must cancel their A350 order" post.


Glad this isn't just another "United must cancel their 737-9 order and order A321neo" post.

readytotaxi wrote:
Aircraft strategy appears to move faster than a manufacturers ability to provide. :stirthepot:


Yep. We get only a few new clean sheet A/C per decade (A350, 787, C Series, MRJ, etc) yet the market can find roles if not business cases for more (MOM).
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Boeingphan
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 10:29 am

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:25 pm

2175301 wrote:
raravena80 wrote:
re-engine the 767


Re-engine, rewing, and redo the cockpit to 787 standards. A very good performer that could be sold at a lower cost than a totally new aircraft. Could a redone 767 be a decent 757 replacement for at least part of the 757 market... More capacity; but, that might be better than some of the other options...

If Boeing wished to keep the old design as a Freighter - they could do that (although I think everyone would be interested in new more efficient engines).

Have a great day,


I think this idea would actually work. The line is still open as it is so finding a replacement may be as simple as purchasing new at reduced rates. I also think Boeing needs to learn from their mistakes with the closing of the 757 line. They found out far to late that they had indeed created a pretty viable airframe well after the line was shut down. I believe we will see this same effect on the 767 (maybe not the same affection among us a.netters). It's a fantastic TATL aircraft and with minor tweaks to engines (it'd look better anyways with larger diameter engines), wing tweaks and aero enhancements maybe this becomes the MOM.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19182
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:29 pm

jetblastdubai wrote:
Excellent points. It might be time to dust off the plans for the B787-3 again. It meets/exceeds the capacity of the 763/4, has a smaller wingspan than the 788/9 so it addresses some congested airport gate issues. The original 2,500-3,000 mile range is probably on the low side but that could probably be bumped up to something acceptable for US-western Europe/S. America routes without going to the >7,000 mile range of the current 788. Now that the early 788 construction issues have been resolved, a slightly modified 783 might once again be feasible for airlines that don't currently operate the A330 series.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_78 ... iner#787-3


The 787-3 was stillborn because it was only cheaper to operate than the 787-8 on the very shortest routes (several hundreds of nm, not thousands). Once past that low threshold, -8 is the better plane and gives the airlines flexibility the -3 lacks.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
FriscoHeavy
Posts: 1791
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:31 pm

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:48 pm

intotheair wrote:
Why are so many people all of the sudden thinking on here that replacing 767s with more 767s is a good idea?

The last time a passenger airline took delivery of one was (I think) around 2003/2004. They're not really being made for passenger airlines anymore. Everything about the plane is 30 years old, and one built today won't necessarily be all that much more efficient than a 25 year old one being flown today. Buying any second hand wouldn't make any sense either, because any second hand ones are likely to be of the same vintage, if not older, than what UA currently has.

It's at least possible Boeing could re-engine and re-wing the 767, unlike the 757, where the supply chain is completely gone. But what current generation engine could you re-engine it with? And would the high development costs justify it?




Passenger 767s are still available to be built. In fact, some have recently been filled with the likes of ANA and LAN I believe. They may still be receiving deliveries -- but certainly not 2003/2004.
Whatever
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15100
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:50 pm

Nobody is building a 250 seat 2-class 3000nm optimized aircraft, yet there was and still is a huge market for it. An airframe that is designed for 6000nm is going to be too heavy non-international configured 2000-3000nm regional routes, at least when compared with an aircraft designed for it. The 763, DC10, L1011, 753, A300 all had a place that is now vacated.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
Bricktop
Posts: 1498
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:50 pm

UA does currently fly the 788 on the IAD-CDG route (UA914/915). That may be a test case to see how it plays out. I will hate to see the 767 go, as in IMO 2-3-2 is a very nice way to fly.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4339
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:57 pm

LOL, drop the price of the 787 by $30 million, forget the past constructions costs and build them faster.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
JeffinMass
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:29 pm

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:59 pm

Isn't a B763 a good replacement for the B763? After all they are still rolling off the line for FedEx.
 
dc10lover
Posts: 1594
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 6:11 pm

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 8:00 pm

UA can replace the 767 with used 777 they already use.
Why endure the nightmare and congestion of LAX when BUR, LGB, ONT & SNA is so much easier to fly in and out of. Same with OAK & SJC when it comes to SFO.
 
StTim
Posts: 3733
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 8:02 pm

caverunner17 wrote:
nikeson13 wrote:
Well getting rid of the A350-1000 order and getting the 77W was primarily to keep fleet commonality IIRC, so getting the A330NEO is somewhat counterproductive to that. Maybe if they order it to replace all the 763ERs, the 764ERs, and a couple of 772s it would make it pretty viable to add the subfleet, with a fleet over 50 frames. But then again they already have the 787s, so adding more frames is quite easy. I would think that they would order more 789 for more expansion + replacement, but price and availability may say otherwise. Another factor is what Airbus is saying, something like wanting to charge them a lot if they cancel the A35X order vs. charge nothing/very little for converting it to the A330NEO. Many factors can be put into this, hard to say where it will go.

As the article mentioned, quite a few 767s and 772s have been refurbished, when will these + the ones without refurbishing will need to exit the fleet? That could also be quite a large factor in this decision.

They haven't gotten rid of the A350 order.

With a fleet of 35, fleet commonality isn't an issue. There's less 747's and 787's in the fleet right now than that.



Please don't let this descend into another will they won't they can the A350-1000. They get so boring.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 8:03 pm

Could this mean that United may be interested but in launching the middle of the market plane that has been discussed for a while? I don't know if UA can wait five years though.
 
StTim
Posts: 3733
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 8:06 pm

The thing most people seem to agree on is that there is no single MoM segment. The analysis shows airlines have very different ideas and thus it is in fact a number of niches. Is any one of them big enough for a new frame in an ear when it seems that a new frame needs to sell in the order of 1000 just to really be thought of as successful.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9682
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 8:23 pm

It is the uncanny valley of aircraft design.

250 seats in 2 class, is a bit too much for a single aisle and bit too little for a twin aisle. In the end it means going 7 abreast which is a highly (if not the most) uneconomic solution, as you fly one aisle for 3,5 seats. It is the same with the range. Once you aim for 5000nm with a full payload going further is not much of a challenge.
 
User avatar
redzeppelin
Posts: 1189
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:30 pm

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 8:24 pm

intotheair wrote:
It's at least possible Boeing could re-engine and re-wing the 767, unlike the 757, where the supply chain is completely gone. But what current generation engine could you re-engine it with? And would the high development costs justify it?


The GEnx-2B (used on the 748) is just sitting there waiting. Hang it on the 764 airframe and you've got a very intriguing aircraft. Is the fan too big?
I vaguely recall some old threads suggesting that GE was pushing for this.
 
User avatar
Thunderboltdrgn
Posts: 2058
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:39 pm

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 8:44 pm

DocLightning wrote:
Airbus just finished/is finishing a major program (A350) and two major re-engine programs (A320 and A330). Boeing completely stuffed up
the 787 program and 748 program and is now working on the 77X program. Does either OEM have the resources to really work on a proper 767 replacement that
will efficiently carry a 763/764-sized cabin on flights under 12 hours?


I agree that neither are likely to be able to launch a completely new clean sheet program at this moment. Possibly they have engineers available.
However at Airbus I think they might be working on a possible A350-1100/2000 version? At Boeing? I don't know.
Like a thunderbolt of lightning the Dragon roars across the sky. Il Drago Ruggente
 
MoonC
Posts: 349
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 1:26 am

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 8:52 pm

Bricktop wrote:
UA does currently fly the 788 on the IAD-CDG route (UA914/915). That may be a test case to see how it plays out. I will hate to see the 767 go, as in IMO 2-3-2 is a very nice way to fly.


IAD - CDG will go 789 effective April 4th.
And IAD - LHR will also go 789 effective April 4th, replacing 777-200ER.

It must be working.
I wish GVA could also follow the trend.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10735
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 8:52 pm

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
Airbus just finished/is finishing a major program (A350) and two major re-engine programs (A320 and A330). Boeing completely stuffed up
the 787 program and 748 program and is now working on the 77X program. Does either OEM have the resources to really work on a proper 767 replacement that
will efficiently carry a 763/764-sized cabin on flights under 12 hours?


I agree that neither are likely to be able to launch a completely new clean sheet program at this moment.

I have my doubts about either ever launching a cleansheet for this segment anytime soon. With the lower end of the MOM market you would have the A330neo vs 787 situation all over again, where Airbus would just tweak the A321, maybe add a stretch with some wing changes etc and give a credible competitor at a fraction of the cost. On the upper end of the MOM market you have the reverse. If Airbus launches a new aircraft directly targeting the 763/764 in size/capability Boeing can just make a credible 767MAX at a fraction of the cost (Airbus could make an A300neo, but the changes required to modernize the plane/give it a bit more range would probably still cost Airbus more than Boeing and 767MAX).
 
VS11
Posts: 1662
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:24 pm

Anyone has an idea/guess what's the market size for shorter-range wide-bodies? I can't imagine the manufacturers overlooked this segment but who knows...
 
User avatar
intotheair
Posts: 1896
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:26 pm

FriscoHeavy wrote:
Passenger 767s are still available to be built. In fact, some have recently been filled with the likes of ANA and LAN I believe. They may still be receiving deliveries -- but certainly not 2003/2004.


You're right. I was thinking about the last time a US airline had one delivered. But I do question whether an airline like UA would/could actually just order a 767 off the shelf today. Even if Boeing would do it, it would probably be a tough sell to get financing for it.
300 319 320 321 332 333 345 346 380 717 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77W 788 789 CR2 CR7 CR9 CRK Q400 E175 DC10 MD82 MD90
AA AF AS AY AZ B6 BA BR DL F9 FI GA HA KF LH MI QX SK SN SQ UA US VY WN
 
StTim
Posts: 3733
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:46 pm

They would have to purchase them as I cannot see any lease company being interested.
 
User avatar
rotating14
Topic Author
Posts: 1391
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:54 pm

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:48 pm

intotheair wrote:
FriscoHeavy wrote:
Passenger 767s are still available to be built. In fact, some have recently been filled with the likes of ANA and LAN I believe. They may still be receiving deliveries -- but certainly not 2003/2004.


You're right. I was thinking about the last time a US airline had one delivered. But I do question whether an airline like UA would/could actually just order a 767 off the shelf today. Even if Boeing would do it, it would probably be a tough sell to get financing for it.


It would also depend on how soon they'd need to be delivered as well.
 
kimimm19
Posts: 434
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:34 pm

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Tue Jan 24, 2017 10:02 pm

I think rather than it being one clear cut answer over the rest, it's more a mixture of many mentioned here already.

For starters, I think many are jumping the gun so to speak as is often the case, and airlines like United are, like their post says, replacing planes at hubs on missions that see the most savings first before doing it at hubs that see less impact. This is followed by the Delta trend of having less ownership cost and picking planes up for less, which is still not that possible with the 787s and A350s. Then you have the fact that US airlines are gauged more towards frequency than capacity, though they are very weary about over capacity. Finally (although it still seems in the grand scheme of things a bit of an exaggeration), there is no real new generation aircraft that is optimized to truly replace the 767.
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 563
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Wed Jan 25, 2017 12:00 am

The GenX-2B weighs about 1.5t more than the RB211 on the -300er. That's 3t of mass that has to be taken into consideration with respect to wing construction, gear setup, and empty mass to lift. It is not really a suitable engine for the frame.
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 563
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Wed Jan 25, 2017 12:16 am

Maybe, and I mean MAYBE, p&w could come up with a version of the PW1100 in the 45K thrust range that comes in under 8000 lbs dry. IF they could do that, and if Boeing got enough market attention for the project, they could make a 767-200 NG of some sort with the 2C cockpit modernizations, other minor improvements, and move enough to make money on the project. It seems to me that the 787-8 overlaps with the -300er too much to bother there.

None of that is likely, but that seems to me to be the only way you'd even approach making such a project feasible.
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Wed Jan 25, 2017 12:34 am

LightningZ71 wrote:
The GenX-2B weighs about 1.5t more than the RB211 on the -300er. That's 3t of mass that has to be taken into consideration with respect to wing construction, gear setup, and empty mass to lift. It is not really a suitable engine for the frame.


True, but the increased weight that comes with higher bypass ratio engines goes for all the NEO treatments we've seen. If anything, the GEnx-2B is even lighter because it uses a slightly smaller BPR than the GEnx-1B, T1000, LEAP-1A and PW1000G.

The GEnx-2B is about as perfect an engine as you could hope to have for a 767NEO and its already tested and in service. The 767 already has blended winglets so nothing more than a re-engine would be needed. I'd guess a conservative 10-12% efficiency improvement.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: UA undecided with 767 replacement

Wed Jan 25, 2017 12:40 am

raravena80 wrote:
re-engine the 767


Yay....my current favourite subject...the 767max. Genx -2B's, split winglets, wing root fairing and other aero tweaks, and kick the puppies out of the door. An automatic 15% improvement in fuel efficiency using all currently certified off of the shelf parts. Basically, the only new bit would have to be the pylon. I'm sure GE would love to sell a bunch more of the engines with the 748 sales in the dumpster.

After all, the 767 is still being produced right now.

At 80,000lbs OEW lighter than the 788/338, (which are basically niche models), and closer to 100,000lbs lighter than the 789/339, it would see huge trip savings at medium ranges over the big models and way cheaper to buy. After all, 50 tons of aircraft parts ain't cheap.



LightningZ71 wrote:
The GenX-2B weighs about 1.5t more than the RB211 on the -300er. That's 3t of mass that has to be taken into consideration with respect to wing construction, gear setup, and empty mass to lift. It is not really a suitable engine for the frame.


The Trent 7000's on the 330neo weigh 3500lbs each more than the 700's they replace. All of the modern engines are heavier than the models they replace. 3t would add about 1.5% to the OEW of the 763. Not a deal breaker, I reckon. The efficiency advantages of the newer engines more than makes up for it.

To work, the aircraft would have to be as cheap as possible...which means no new wing...which would be of limited advantage anyway, for sub 6000nm sectors and basically not worth the cost or effort.

There's only one true substitute for a 767; a better 767.
What the...?

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos