Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
cheapgreek
Posts: 566
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:57 pm

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 3:25 am

beechnut wrote:
One of my favourites. Looks great, flies great, and the 2-3-2 seating while perhaps less efficient economically, is by far the most comfortable wide-body aircraft layout. It was a bird at equally at home on a transcon, an overseas flight, or even on high-density short-hauls like Air Canada's Rapidair service between YUL and YYZ where you'd see them during rush hour. I've had many great transatlantic and transpacific flights on them. With a bunch of them refurbished for Rouge, you'll see them for many years to come in Canada and abroad.

Beech


Flew many US 767-200's across the Atlantic, my favorite, I too like the 2-3-2 seating and it seems a shame it could not be upgraded to a MAX edition.
 
claytonyu
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 4:01 am

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 4:15 am

callumconroydub wrote:
Would it be correct to say that the Boeing 767 is a dying type of aircraft? Basically, my question is: why don't I see too many 762s around anymore?
All I see nowadays are 763s and occasionally 764s.
What would the price of a 762 be today? Were they not efficient or something? I don't get it.
Overall, will 767s become out of production soon?

As a newbie, I have no idea how they number their aircraft variants, such as the 762, 763 and 764.

In my opinion it seems as if the 767 is a forgotten aircraft. Since its release it has not really made so much impact like the 777 in terms of carrying passengers, I did not even know it is still being produced today! And since most of them are used for cargo I would like to agree that the 767 is a dying type of aircraft, replaced by the 777 and 787.

I also never understood what the point of the Boeing 777 is, it is also a widebody airliner like the 767. I wonder why the 777 is not made as an improved version of the 767 instead.
 
User avatar
OneSexyL1011
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:10 pm

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 4:49 am

At UA, the 763/4 are constantly voted by passengers as their favorite aircraft in the fleet. Yes, even over the 787.

Passengers just love it. Its the perfect balance. I just wish it had just a little bit more MTOW capability. This A/C is just begging to be turned into a MAX or NEO or whatever.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3712
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 8:35 am

KLMatSJC wrote:
Stitch wrote:
KLMatSJC wrote:
Colorful Fun Diagrams?


Computational Fluid Dynamics


Hahaha I know. I'm an aerospace engineering student, and that's what our professors and we call it.


LOL, we call it Colours For Directors ( I work in the food manufacturing sector so CFD = Witchcraft to upper management)

Back on topic however the 767 always feels of its time when you fly on it but I would agree that it always a pleasure because of the space on 2-3-2 layout. I flew it on Rouge -MAN-YYZ last year and for an "LCC" it was great.

Fred
Image
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 9:39 am

767333ER wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
PEK777 wrote:
While they seem to be on the way out, a neo option would be a quick solution to the mom problem and it would go hand in hand with the 757neo given these aircraft were developed in parallel


The wing is pre-CFD. There is no FBW system. There isn't enough clearance under the wing to install an engine with an optimal fan diameter. The fuselage has two aisles for 7 passengers. Aisles do not earn revenue, so the cross-section is the least efficient possible for a twin-aisle aircraft.

Best to start from scratch and come up with a new model that has upgrade potential.

The 767 ustilizes FBW for the flapperons and spoliers so to say there is no FBW is false. The 737 has the same situation now with FBW and engines, yet it works. The 767's wing isn't much older than the A320's yet the A320 is still considered great, it can't be that Airbus did that much of a better job only about 5 years later. 7 across being terribly inefficient is way overblown, if it was so bad the 767 wouldn't have killed off the A310.

Now with that said, a 767 max is something I don't see happening. If they were to do it however I believe they could fit newer engines as the 787 seems to do so with the same amount of ground clearance. They could also put the 777X's cockpit in it. They could even convert it fully to FBW and even give it a new wing if they thought that would work, but I think after what happened with the 747-8, they don't want to do a project like this again in case they reach the same outcome. I do think the 767 has more upgrade potential than the 737, it just won't get a chance to ever prove it.


The 767 has no FBW and the 737 has no FBW. FBW is the name for controlling the 3 axis of an airplane with a flight computer and the inputs of the pilot are not direct to the control surfaces but into the computer.
Calling computer controlled flapperons and spoilers a FBW is just simple grandstanding. Like calling a car with an electronical controlled injection and ignition, a computer controlled car.

The 767 was an old design when it was new, whereas the A320 was a revolution, first commercial aeroplane with a digital FBW, it is well possible that one company does design something new whereas the other company keeps to old solutions. The 5 years time difference is irrelevant. The wing of the A320 family, if rather small for the A321, is still a very efficient wing today.

In what way did the 767 kill off the A310? There were 249 767-200/200ER sold and 255 A310, pretty even I would suggest. The A300/310, than a revolutionary design starting off the twin engined wide body, was time wise a far older design than the 767, It was replaced by the A330, that than did away with the passenger 767.

There will not be a 767 max. The 767 was killed off by the A330 on similar engine technology. Boeing developed the 787 as the replacement for the 767 and an answer to the A330.
 
77H
Posts: 1570
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:30 am

OneSexyL1011 wrote:
At UA, the 763/4 are constantly voted by passengers as their favorite aircraft in the fleet. Yes, even over the 787.

Passengers just love it. Its the perfect balance. I just wish it had just a little bit more MTOW capability. This A/C is just begging to be turned into a MAX or NEO or whatever.


They are great aircraft to fly on. Very comfortable seating arraignments and with the new 777 style bins they hardly show their age. I was on a 763 HNL-EWR back in December and if I didn't know any better I would have sworn it was a new aircraft.

In my opinion the 764 is the best looking WB ever produced. It looks like a 772 on a diet. Its hot older sister if you will. It's nose low and tail up design makes it look kind of like a high performance car. The raked wing tips are icing on the cake.

While I'd love to see a MAX'd out 767 I think the 764 was the MAX in the 67 line and it came a little too late/early depending on the perspective. My understanding is that the MoM will be taking the place of the 767 once built. The 787 is a seemingly poor replacement, at least for the largest 67 operators, the US3

77H
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24814
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:46 am

OneSexyL1011 wrote:
At UA, the 763/4 are constantly voted by passengers as their favorite aircraft in the fleet. Yes, even over the 787.

Passengers just love it. Its the perfect balance. I just wish it had just a little bit more MTOW capability. This A/C is just begging to be turned into a MAX or NEO or whatever.

There is a 767MAX -- it's called the 787! :-)

Actually Boeing is looking into something that could act as a 767-200 replacement, they're calling it NMA (new midsized aircraft) or MOM (middle of market).

But no, no one is slapping new engines on the 767 frame for lots of reasons. While freighter companies like the 767, that's largely because they are cheap. They're no longer the kind of airplanes that can demand full market price.

Above some members are hot and bothered over how much FBW the airplane has, but that's a second order issue. Airbus had some unfortunate fatalities due to issues with its early FBW technology. Seems there was some merit in letting the technology mature a bit before jumping into it, IMHO.
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
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 11:11 am

Revelation wrote:

Above some members are hot and bothered over how much FBW the airplane has, but that's a second order issue. Airbus had some unfortunate fatalities due to issues with its early FBW technology. Seems there was some merit in letting the technology mature a bit before jumping into it, IMHO.


Can you provide one accident on Airbus frames that has its reasons in the FBW, rather that in pilot error?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24814
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 11:23 am

mjoelnir wrote:
Revelation wrote:

Above some members are hot and bothered over how much FBW the airplane has, but that's a second order issue. Airbus had some unfortunate fatalities due to issues with its early FBW technology. Seems there was some merit in letting the technology mature a bit before jumping into it, IMHO.


Can you provide one accident on Airbus frames that has its reasons in the FBW, rather that in pilot error?

Yes, as can you, and can anyone else who has been on this forum for a while, or can use Google, but we've done that before and it only results in locked threads.

As I said, FBW is a second order issue. It's not the primary reason the 767 lost market popularity nor the primary reason Airbus gained market popularity.
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
longhauler
Posts: 6488
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 11:47 am

[threeid][/threeid]
Revelation wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Revelation wrote:

Above some members are hot and bothered over how much FBW the airplane has, but that's a second order issue. Airbus had some unfortunate fatalities due to issues with its early FBW technology. Seems there was some merit in letting the technology mature a bit before jumping into it, IMHO.


Can you provide one accident on Airbus frames that has its reasons in the FBW, rather that in pilot error?

Yes, as can you, and can anyone else who has been on this forum for a while, or can use Google, but we've done that before and it only results in locked threads.

As I said, FBW is a second order issue. It's not the primary reason the 767 lost market popularity nor the primary reason Airbus gained market popularity.

I am a bit curious about your statement as well.

I can not think of an Airbus accident where the cause was the FBW system, that was not caused primarily by pilot error.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
xdlx
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:29 pm

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 11:51 am

Revelation wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Revelation wrote:

Above some members are hot and bothered over how much FBW the airplane has, but that's a second order issue. Airbus had some unfortunate fatalities due to issues with its early FBW technology. Seems there was some merit in letting the technology mature a bit before jumping into it, IMHO.


Can you provide one accident on Airbus frames that has its reasons in the FBW, rather that in pilot error?

Yes, as can you, and can anyone else who has been on this forum for a while, or can use Google, but we've done that before and it only results in locked threads.

As I said, FBW is a second order issue. It's not the primary reason the 767 lost market popularity nor the primary reason Airbus gained market popularity.


Was it not the A320-100 demonstrator that ended up in the forest >>>>>>?
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 12:23 pm

xdlx wrote:
Revelation wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

Can you provide one accident on Airbus frames that has its reasons in the FBW, rather that in pilot error?

Yes, as can you, and can anyone else who has been on this forum for a while, or can use Google, but we've done that before and it only results in locked threads.

As I said, FBW is a second order issue. It's not the primary reason the 767 lost market popularity nor the primary reason Airbus gained market popularity.


Was it not the A320-100 demonstrator that ended up in the forest >>>>>>?


Pilot error.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 12:30 pm

Revelation wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Revelation wrote:

Above some members are hot and bothered over how much FBW the airplane has, but that's a second order issue. Airbus had some unfortunate fatalities due to issues with its early FBW technology. Seems there was some merit in letting the technology mature a bit before jumping into it, IMHO.


Can you provide one accident on Airbus frames that has its reasons in the FBW, rather that in pilot error?

Yes, as can you, and can anyone else who has been on this forum for a while, or can use Google, but we've done that before and it only results in locked threads.

As I said, FBW is a second order issue. It's not the primary reason the 767 lost market popularity nor the primary reason Airbus gained market popularity.


Now you are writing absolute nonsense to not concede a point. Show one accident only, that the research of the accident pointed to a failure in the FBW. We are not talking about different philosophies between an Boeing or Airbus way of using an FBW. Putting out such a statement you should provide corroboration or stop talking about it.

If FBW would be a secondary consideration, you would not see it in every new development by a main competitor since the A320 introduced it.
 
VC10er
Posts: 4274
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 12:32 pm

If an airline owns their 767 pax fleet, and they are spending a fortune to retrofit them with the lastest new hard product (I am assuming it's a fortune, but "fortune" is obviously subjective) then if they are dying, they seem to be dying quite slowly. I assume that I will be on the 767 for a long time...in fact I may be dying faster than the 767 as I'm 56 years old! Which is ok. I love the comfort of the size of a 767. In the front or back, it's a comfortable ac. I prefer a 787, but very happy with a well refurbished 767.
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24814
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 12:58 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Now you are writing absolute nonsense to not concede a point. Show one accident only, that the research of the accident pointed to a failure in the FBW. We are not talking about different philosophies between an Boeing or Airbus way of using an FBW. Putting out such a statement you should provide corroboration or stop talking about it.

If FBW would be a secondary consideration, you would not see it in every new development by a main competitor since the A320 introduced it.

Now you are writing absolute nonsense to not concede a point. Show us exactly how many 767s were not sold due to lack of nose-to-tail FBW, excluding any effects due to different philosophies between an Boeing or Airbus, or other factors such as price, availability, commonality, etc. Putting out such a statement you should provide corroboration or stop talking about it.
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
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 1:32 pm

Revelation wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Now you are writing absolute nonsense to not concede a point. Show one accident only, that the research of the accident pointed to a failure in the FBW. We are not talking about different philosophies between an Boeing or Airbus way of using an FBW. Putting out such a statement you should provide corroboration or stop talking about it.

If FBW would be a secondary consideration, you would not see it in every new development by a main competitor since the A320 introduced it.

Now you are writing absolute nonsense to not concede a point. Show us exactly how many 767s were not sold due to lack of nose-to-tail FBW, excluding any effects due to different philosophies between an Boeing or Airbus, or other factors such as price, availability, commonality, etc. Putting out such a statement you should provide corroboration or stop talking about it.


Very simple the A330 having an FBW killed off the 767-300ER having nothing like that. Furthermore every clean sheet design at Boeing, since the 767, has and FBW, like the 777 and the 787.
The talk is about an FBW is responsible for about 2 % fuel burn reduction (Embraer).

http://business.financialpost.com/execu ... 19eb747e65
https://www.wired.com/2012/12/nasa-f18- ... -research/


But you are changing the discussion. You should corroborate your statement about accidents because of a failure in the FBW, a tall statement if there is one. The nonsense was in regard to that statement and I stand by the fact, that that statement is nonsense.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24814
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 2:15 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Very simple the A330 having an FBW killed off the 767-300ER having nothing like that.

Laughable. As if the the only difference between the 767 and the A330 is FBW. They have different sizes, different cargo capabilities, different ranges, and you're saying the major difference between the two is FBW? And you can't name one customer who said the main reason they picked A330 over 767 was FBW, instead you posit EMB marketing material as relevant?

mjoelnir wrote:
But you are changing the discussion.

Nope, you're the one repeatedly dragging the discussion off-topic, to an area that's been discussed countless times here on a.net.
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
Arq
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2016 6:31 am

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 2:17 pm

I have always been curious that, since 767 cannot accommodate standard LD-3 container, won't that make their freight operation complicate? I would appreciate if someone can kindly educate me on the matter.

Thank you
 
incitatus
Posts: 3381
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 2:21 pm

Arq wrote:
I have always been curious that, since 767 cannot accommodate standard LD-3 container, won't that make their freight operation complicate? I would appreciate if someone can kindly educate me on the matter.

Thank you


767s can accommodate LD3s. They just cannot accommodate two LD3s side-by-side like the large wide-bodies can.
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3350
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 2:44 pm

callumconroydub wrote:
What about the 762s, what was wrong with them that I don't see them as pax versions as often as the 763s or 764s?


An A321 does the same job domestically cheaper. Its that simple.
 
ILNFlyer
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:34 pm

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 2:46 pm

DocLightning wrote:
PEK777 wrote:
While they seem to be on the way out, a neo option would be a quick solution to the mom problem and it would go hand in hand with the 757neo given these aircraft were developed in parallel


The wing is pre-CFD. There is no FBW system. There isn't enough clearance under the wing to install an engine with an optimal fan diameter. The fuselage has two aisles for 7 passengers. Aisles do not earn revenue, so the cross-section is the least efficient possible for a twin-aisle aircraft.

Best to start from scratch and come up with a new model that has upgrade potential.


There are charter operators who have installed a 2-4-2 config in the aircraft.
 
User avatar
spinotter
Posts: 803
Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 1:37 am

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 2:52 pm

Revelation wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Very simple the A330 having an FBW killed off the 767-300ER having nothing like that.

Laughable. As if the the only difference between the 767 and the A330 is FBW. They have different sizes, different cargo capabilities, different ranges, and you're saying the major difference between the two is FBW? And you can't name one customer who said the main reason they picked A330 over 767 was FBW, instead you posit EMB marketing material as relevant?

mjoelnir wrote:
But you are changing the discussion.

Nope, you're the one repeatedly dragging the discussion off-topic, to an area that's been discussed countless times here on a.net.


Guy, you made a claim about accidents primarily caused by FBW, and the other guy has asked you three times to name one and you have not answered. Maybe you answered later - I will see. But if not, you are conceding his/her point.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3350
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 2:58 pm

The 767 (and the A300) was the last widebody really designed for high cycle domestic flying. Today's widebodies are optimized for long distance flying. You will not see Delta flogging their A330s out of ATL to Florida and Northeast all day everyday, like they did with the 767-200.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27311
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 3:02 pm

Arq wrote:
I have always been curious that, since 767 cannot accommodate standard LD-3 container, won't that make their freight operation complicate?


It should not, as I doubt many LD2/LD3 containers are directly interlined between two airframes. The incoming LDs are instead unloaded and their contents redistributed amongst outgoing LDs.

So an LD2 coming off a 767 would be unloaded and it's contents distributed to other LD2s, LD3s, LD3-45s or even bulk loaded 737s. And LD2s going onto 767s would have contents that were previously on other LDs or bulk loaded.
 
User avatar
Channex757
Posts: 2417
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:07 am

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 3:14 pm

A very one-sided description of the LD3 issue.

Simply put, the rest of the widebody world uses the LD3 as the standard container. A container comes off a 747 or 777, and it goes into the pool ready for the next flight. Bags get loaded into containers. That means the 767 fleet needs a second pool of containers (the LD2 standard) to be kept available at the airport, and that increases costs and complexity.

The solution is that widebodies standardise around carrying the LD3. The 767 is an oddball here. Airlines have been specific in their desires to eliminate the LD2 as it just doesn't fit their need to cut costs and stay competitive. Containers also get leased so the lessors want this odd standard gone.
 
Bricktop
Posts: 1504
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 3:37 pm

I really don't understand why someone parachutes into a thread on the 767 to espouse his near pathological love for Airbus products. BFD about FBW on the 767! That sort of interjection and distraction is unnecessary. There are plenty of other threads where one can indulge one's fetishism for a particular manufacturer. Tedious in the extreme!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27311
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 4:31 pm

Channex757 wrote:
A very one-sided description of the LD3 issue.

Simply put, the rest of the widebody world uses the LD3 as the standard container. A container comes off a 747 or 777, and it goes into the pool ready for the next flight. Bags get loaded into containers. That means the 767 fleet needs a second pool of containers (the LD2 standard) to be kept available at the airport, and that increases costs and complexity.


You could argue the same for the A320 family and the LD3-45 versus just bulk-loading her like a 737/757. So airlines that operate both A320s and Airbus/Boeing widebodies have to keep both ULDs available at the airport, increasing costs and complexity. If they had only bought 737s, they could have saved on those "oddball" containers only used on one family of airframes. :cheeky:

Of all the things an airline pays for to operate a widebody airframe, the ULD container is probably one of the cheapest. And they look pretty rugged so I imagine their usable life is a long one so they're not constantly being replaced. So I really doubt that having to buy a couple dozen LD2 containers per 767 was a real deal-breaker when doing an RFP against an A3xx series widebody.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24814
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 4:54 pm

Bricktop wrote:
I really don't understand why someone parachutes into a thread on the 767 to espouse his near pathological love for Airbus products. BFD about FBW on the 767! That sort of interjection and distraction is unnecessary. There are plenty of other threads where one can indulge one's fetishism for a particular manufacturer. Tedious in the extreme!

And look at how many 767s get purchased, even when there were FBW A330s to be had:

No. Ordered Customer Date
50 FedEx July 21 2015 Largest 767 order to date.
29 UPS Jan. 15 1993 First 767 order for UPS.
27 UPS Feb. 15 2007 Last 767 order for UPS to date.
27 FedEx Dec. 14 2011 First 767 order for FedEx.

Ref: http://aviationweek.com/blog/glance-top ... 767-orders
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
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3642
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 5:05 pm

Revelation wrote:
Bricktop wrote:
I really don't understand why someone parachutes into a thread on the 767 to espouse his near pathological love for Airbus products. BFD about FBW on the 767! That sort of interjection and distraction is unnecessary. There are plenty of other threads where one can indulge one's fetishism for a particular manufacturer. Tedious in the extreme!

And look at how many 767s get purchased, even when there were FBW A330s to be had:

No. Ordered Customer Date
50 FedEx July 21 2015 Largest 767 order to date.
29 UPS Jan. 15 1993 First 767 order for UPS.
27 UPS Feb. 15 2007 Last 767 order for UPS to date.
27 FedEx Dec. 14 2011 First 767 order for FedEx.

Ref: http://aviationweek.com/blog/glance-top ... 767-orders


Trolls are going to troll, so there is no point feeding them

I think you bring up a good point with freight. The 767-300F is what has been keeping the line alive for a while. 767-300ER freighter conversions are also in demand. FBW has nothing to do with the fact that the 767 is a more popular freighter than the A330.
Last edited by Newbiepilot on Mon Jul 31, 2017 5:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1171
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 5:14 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
The 767 has no FBW and the 737 has no FBW. FBW is the name for controlling the 3 axis of an airplane with a flight computer and the inputs of the pilot are not direct to the control surfaces but into the computer.
Calling computer controlled flapperons and spoilers a FBW is just simple grandstanding. Like calling a car with an electronical controlled injection and ignition, a computer controlled car.

The 767 was an old design when it was new, whereas the A320 was a revolution, first commercial aeroplane with a digital FBW, it is well possible that one company does design something new whereas the other company keeps to old solutions. The 5 years time difference is irrelevant. The wing of the A320 family, if rather small for the A321, is still a very efficient wing today.

I'm not sure you even understand what Fly-by-wire technology is and what it means. The name is somewhat misleading as one such as you have may mistake it for meaning the plane is fully electricallly controlled, but that isn't exactly what it means. All it means is that a flight control is actuated via an electronic input rather than by cable or pushrods. It is a type of technology that can be either used for some of a planes controls or all, it's not as if it doesn't count if all of the planes don't use it. On the 767 the spoilers are controlled via fly-by-wire technology as are the flapperons as they require fly-by-wire to be flapperons. I'm not sure how doesn't count as utilizing that technology if the outboard ailerons (that don't function for much of the flight) and the elevators are still cable. And your car analogy is wrong, cars with EFI and electronic injection DO have engine computers and therefore are somewhat computer controlled. Perhaps to ease your confusion as to what FBW is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly-by-wire

As for the 767 being old when it was new, unless I'm missing something I don't remeber there being a 767 or anything like it from Boeing before there was a 767. If you knew about the history of the plane it was an all new clean sheet just like the A320 was when it came out or any plane when it first came out. The wing was an all new design using CFD as the A320 did and as its wing is slowly showing its age, so is the A320's though it's still good and it's competitors wing despite being newer has its on problems so it still works fine. I will leave it at that as it is clear that you have bias or double standard when it comes to these topics that clouds your judgement.

claytonyu wrote:
I wonder why the 777 is not made as an improved version of the 767 instead.

Depending on how you look at it, it kind of is one or at least that's how it started anyway. Much of the systems and some of the design are just improved off of the 767 as is the cockpit.

Revelation wrote:
Airbus had some unfortunate fatalities due to issues with its early FBW technology. Seems there was some merit in letting the technology mature a bit before jumping into it, IMHO.

I still would like to see you backup your own claim with an example rather than referring us to google where we won't find anything anyway.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T PA-28-180

2 ears for spatial hearing, 2 eyes for depth perception, 2 ears for balance... How did Boeing think 1 sensor was good enough?!
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3642
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 5:21 pm

767333ER wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
The 767 has no FBW and the 737 has no FBW. FBW is the name for controlling the 3 axis of an airplane with a flight computer and the inputs of the pilot are not direct to the control surfaces but into the computer.
Calling computer controlled flapperons and spoilers a FBW is just simple grandstanding. Like calling a car with an electronical controlled injection and ignition, a computer controlled car.

The 767 was an old design when it was new, whereas the A320 was a revolution, first commercial aeroplane with a digital FBW, it is well possible that one company does design something new whereas the other company keeps to old solutions. The 5 years time difference is irrelevant. The wing of the A320 family, if rather small for the A321, is still a very efficient wing today.

I'm not sure you even understand what Fly-by-wire technology is and what it means. The name is somewhat misleading as one such as you have may mistake it for meaning the plane is fully electricallly controlled, but that isn't exactly what it means. All it means is that a flight control is actuated via an electronic input rather than by cable or pushrods. It is a type of technology that can be either used for some of a planes controls or all, it's not as if it doesn't count if all of the planes don't use it. On the 767 the spoilers are controlled via fly-by-wire technology as are the flapperons as they require fly-by-wire to be flapperons. I'm not sure how doesn't count as utilizing that technology if the outboard ailerons (that don't function for much of the flight) and the elevators are still cable. And your car analogy is wrong, cars with EFI and electronic injection DO have engine computers and therefore are somewhat computer controlled. Perhaps to ease your confusion as to what FBW is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly-by-wire

As for the 767 being old when it was new, unless I'm missing something I don't remeber there being a 767 or anything like it from Boeing before there was a 767. If you knew about the history of the plane it was an all new clean sheet just like the A320 was when it came out or any plane when it first came out. The wing was an all new design using CFD as the A320 did and as its wing is slowly showing its age, so is the A320's though it's still good and it's competitors wing despite being newer has its on problems so it still works fine. I will leave it at that as it is clear that you have bias or double standard when it comes to these topics that clouds your judgement.

claytonyu wrote:
I wonder why the 777 is not made as an improved version of the 767 instead.

Depending on how you look at it, it kind of is one or at least that's how it started anyway. Much of the systems and some of the design are just improved off of the 767 as is the cockpit.

Revelation wrote:
Airbus had some unfortunate fatalities due to issues with its early FBW technology. Seems there was some merit in letting the technology mature a bit before jumping into it, IMHO.

I still would like to see you backup your own claim with an example rather than referring us to google where we won't find anything anyway.


Mjoelnir doesn't know what Fly By Wire means and gets confrontational when someone quotes the 737 or 767 maintenance manual sections that describe the fly by wire spoilers. I even quoted the 737 MAX maintenance manual discussing the Fly by wire spoilers, yet he refused to concede that FBW exists on a 737.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:12 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
767333ER wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
The 767 has no FBW and the 737 has no FBW. FBW is the name for controlling the 3 axis of an airplane with a flight computer and the inputs of the pilot are not direct to the control surfaces but into the computer.
Calling computer controlled flapperons and spoilers a FBW is just simple grandstanding. Like calling a car with an electronical controlled injection and ignition, a computer controlled car.

The 767 was an old design when it was new, whereas the A320 was a revolution, first commercial aeroplane with a digital FBW, it is well possible that one company does design something new whereas the other company keeps to old solutions. The 5 years time difference is irrelevant. The wing of the A320 family, if rather small for the A321, is still a very efficient wing today.

I'm not sure you even understand what Fly-by-wire technology is and what it means. The name is somewhat misleading as one such as you have may mistake it for meaning the plane is fully electricallly controlled, but that isn't exactly what it means. All it means is that a flight control is actuated via an electronic input rather than by cable or pushrods. It is a type of technology that can be either used for some of a planes controls or all, it's not as if it doesn't count if all of the planes don't use it. On the 767 the spoilers are controlled via fly-by-wire technology as are the flapperons as they require fly-by-wire to be flapperons. I'm not sure how doesn't count as utilizing that technology if the outboard ailerons (that don't function for much of the flight) and the elevators are still cable. And your car analogy is wrong, cars with EFI and electronic injection DO have engine computers and therefore are somewhat computer controlled. Perhaps to ease your confusion as to what FBW is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly-by-wire

As for the 767 being old when it was new, unless I'm missing something I don't remeber there being a 767 or anything like it from Boeing before there was a 767. If you knew about the history of the plane it was an all new clean sheet just like the A320 was when it came out or any plane when it first came out. The wing was an all new design using CFD as the A320 did and as its wing is slowly showing its age, so is the A320's though it's still good and it's competitors wing despite being newer has its on problems so it still works fine. I will leave it at that as it is clear that you have bias or double standard when it comes to these topics that clouds your judgement.

claytonyu wrote:
I wonder why the 777 is not made as an improved version of the 767 instead.

Depending on how you look at it, it kind of is one or at least that's how it started anyway. Much of the systems and some of the design are just improved off of the 767 as is the cockpit.

Revelation wrote:
Airbus had some unfortunate fatalities due to issues with its early FBW technology. Seems there was some merit in letting the technology mature a bit before jumping into it, IMHO.

I still would like to see you backup your own claim with an example rather than referring us to google where we won't find anything anyway.


Mjoelnir doesn't know what Fly By Wire means and gets confrontational when someone quotes the 737 or 767 maintenance manual sections that describe the fly by wire spoilers. I even quoted the 737 MAX maintenance manual discussing the Fly by wire spoilers, yet he refused to concede that FBW exists on a 737.


I use fly by wire when the main functions of the flight controls, elevator, rudder and ailerons are computer controlled with inputs by the pilots through the computer. Calling the computer control of auxiliary function fly by wire is silly grandstanding, but computer controlled sounds perhaps not weighty enough. Putting those two uses on even footing passes the boundary of silly.
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1171
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:34 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
I use fly by wire when the main functions of the flight controls, elevator, rudder and ailerons are computer controlled with inputs by the pilots through the computer. Calling the computer control of auxiliary function fly by wire is silly grandstanding, but computer controlled sounds perhaps not weighty enough. Putting those two uses on even footing passes the boundary of silly.

It doesn't matter when you use the term FBW as you aren't the one who invented it, makes it, or uses it. The rest of us are using it when the manufacturers do. Again, you have no concept of what FBW refers to. It is a type of technology that can be used to command the actuation of a flight control surface or something else related and can be used to set up a fully augmented flight control system such as on the A320. The A320 is an example of using FBW in a certain way just as salmon is an example of fish, but that you are suggesting is basically saying all fish are salmon otherwise they don't count as fish. And for the record, I am not CNN or Fox News, I don't grandstand something for the sake of stirring something up of because of personal bias, I d argue that's what you are doing.

If you are still confused as to what FBW refers to:

"Fly-by-wire (FBW) is a system that replaces the conventional manual flight controls of an aircraft with an electronic interface. The movements of flight controls are converted to electronic signals transmitted by wires (hence the fly-by-wire term), and flight control computers determine how to move the actuators at each control surface to provide the ordered response."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly-by-wire

It doesn't get any more cut and dry than that...
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T PA-28-180

2 ears for spatial hearing, 2 eyes for depth perception, 2 ears for balance... How did Boeing think 1 sensor was good enough?!
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:46 pm

767333ER wrote:

If you are still confused as to what FBW refers to:

"Fly-by-wire (FBW) is a system that replaces the conventional manual flight controls of an aircraft with an electronic interface. The movements of flight controls are converted to electronic signals transmitted by wires (hence the fly-by-wire term), and flight control computers determine how to move the actuators at each control surface to provide the ordered response."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly-by-wire

It doesn't get any more cut and dry than that...


Exactly and now read up on flight controls and than try again to tell me what I do not understand.

The manual flight controls is not one auxiliary system.
 
airzona11
Posts: 1784
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:13 pm

Have always enjoyed my flights on the 767s. The -300 fills a space that has been encroached from the bottom and by larger planes from the top. Maybe the MoM will be in that wheel house. DL UA AA UPS AC JL NH among others have great utility value in the 763/ERs capability/size.

I am quite surprised airlines continue to operate, let alone order this plane without FBW. :scratchchin:
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3642
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:40 pm

airzona11 wrote:
Have always enjoyed my flights on the 767s. The -300 fills a space that has been encroached from the bottom and by larger planes from the top. Maybe the MoM will be in that wheel house. DL UA AA UPS AC JL NH among others have great utility value in the 763/ERs capability/size.

I am quite surprised airlines continue to operate, let alone order this plane without FBW. :scratchchin:


Yes it fills a need and has exceptional passenger comfort. The 787-8 offers more capacity and range than the 767-300er but almost equal fuel burn so demand for it will fade. It will be interesting if a 797 matches the range and capacity of the 767 while reducing fuel consumption. The 788 matched fuel consumption but offered more capability.
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1171
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 8:01 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
767333ER wrote:

If you are still confused as to what FBW refers to:

"Fly-by-wire (FBW) is a system that replaces the conventional manual flight controls of an aircraft with an electronic interface. The movements of flight controls are converted to electronic signals transmitted by wires (hence the fly-by-wire term), and flight control computers determine how to move the actuators at each control surface to provide the ordered response."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly-by-wire

It doesn't get any more cut and dry than that...


Exactly and now read up on flight controls and than try again to tell me what I do not understand.

The manual flight controls is not one auxiliary system.

What even is your point with this anyway? Now you argree with this excerpt from Wikipedia that describes exactly the basics of what happens on a FBW controlled flight surface whether on a 767 or A330, but before you said it doesn't count as FBW unless every axis is controlled by that means! No one said anything about primary or auxiliary flight control systems, soemthing that doesn't really exist on the 767 anyway. By manual they are referring to physical linkage between control column and either the control surface, its tab, or its actuator. On the 767's roll axis, the outboard ailerons are controlled this way. The inboard aileron and spoilers are not physically linked to the control column and are controlled through a rudimentary FBW computer somewhat similar to the spoilers, elevators, and rudder on the E190. The computer detects the position of the control column and translates that to where the flight control should be actuated to. On the 767 once the outboard ailerons are locked out the pilot has no physical linkage to the roll axis, only FBW and this is still "primary" flight controls. By your original logic, the E190 can't be said to use FBW either as it does not fully use it nor does it have the magic planes like the A330 or 787 do.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T PA-28-180

2 ears for spatial hearing, 2 eyes for depth perception, 2 ears for balance... How did Boeing think 1 sensor was good enough?!
 
ghifty
Posts: 906
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 9:12 pm

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 8:16 pm

VC10er wrote:
If an airline owns their 767 pax fleet, and they are spending a fortune to retrofit them with the lastest new hard product (I am assuming it's a fortune, but "fortune" is obviously subjective) then if they are dying, they seem to be dying quite slowly. I assume that I will be on the 767 for a long time...in fact I may be dying faster than the 767 as I'm 56 years old! Which is ok. I love the comfort of the size of a 767. In the front or back, it's a comfortable ac. I prefer a 787, but very happy with a well refurbished 767.


"Fortune" is more relative than subjective! The airline(s) can/do save a fortune by keeping the 767 rather than introducing a new type, under certain circumstances.

The pax 767 is slowly becoming a dying breed (no more pax variants), but it'll be around verrrry long.
Fly Delta (Wid)Jets

Comments made here reflect only my personal opinions.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3642
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 8:19 pm

767333ER, it's not worth feeding the trolls.

The 767 does have a wing that is of an older generation. Some of the latest control laws like variable camber, droop, maneuver load alleviation, etc aren't either present or as advanced as on then 787. THe CF6-80C2 is a great engine. It brought FADEC and was one of the first truly computer controlled engines. However it also lacks some of the advanced technology found on the latest planes. This is why we talk about a new 797 in this capacity and what opportunity brings. FBW alone is not what will drive improvements. Control laws, engine advancements, aerodynamic improvements and modern materials such as more use of composites will all offer improvements for a new 797 and are already here with the 787.
 
User avatar
Channex757
Posts: 2417
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:07 am

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Mon Jul 31, 2017 9:59 pm

Stitch wrote:
Of all the things an airline pays for to operate a widebody airframe, the ULD container is probably one of the cheapest. And they look pretty rugged so I imagine their usable life is a long one so they're not constantly being replaced. So I really doubt that having to buy a couple dozen LD2 containers per 767 was a real deal-breaker when doing an RFP against an A3xx series widebody.

Irrelevant.

It is the case that the lessors and airlines want odd sized containers out of the system, especially one lessor who you may of heard of. A little outfit called GE....
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Tue Aug 01, 2017 8:31 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
767333ER, it's not worth feeding the trolls.

The 767 does have a wing that is of an older generation. Some of the latest control laws like variable camber, droop, maneuver load alleviation, etc aren't either present or as advanced as on then 787. THe CF6-80C2 is a great engine. It brought FADEC and was one of the first truly computer controlled engines. However it also lacks some of the advanced technology found on the latest planes. This is why we talk about a new 797 in this capacity and what opportunity brings. FBW alone is not what will drive improvements. Control laws, engine advancements, aerodynamic improvements and modern materials such as more use of composites will all offer improvements for a new 797 and are already here with the 787.


You are clear on the fact that most of the advances you are counting up, control laws, variable camber, maneuver load alleviation are based on having an FBW and that why having a FBW drives the improvements? And that is exactly the point, an FBW and not one or two functions computer controlled.
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1656
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Tue Aug 01, 2017 10:06 am

The 767 has had a great life for what was a 70s design, helped by it not being directly replaced. Yes there are more modern and efficient planes out there, but if they're paid for, a fleet of 767s can do a useful job for an airline, especially for medium haul routes where the narrowbodies are too small and the newer widebodies too large.
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed National Express a6 to ruin my username)
 
User avatar
khunpaul3
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2017 7:37 am

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Tue Aug 01, 2017 10:10 am

Why are not many airlines buy the B767-400? Only CO and Delta bought B764
 
kimimm19
Posts: 434
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:34 pm

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Tue Aug 01, 2017 10:46 am

Although the 767 is still extremely prevalent in America, isn't it one of the big reasons why the A330 has surpassed it is because Airbus has continually improved its performance? In relation to the 767, which I think has only really had one performance update which has been the winglets..
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3642
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Tue Aug 01, 2017 12:16 pm

kimimm19 wrote:
Although the 767 is still extremely prevalent in America, isn't it one of the big reasons why the A330 has surpassed it is because Airbus has continually improved its performance? In relation to the 767, which I think has only really had one performance update which has been the winglets..


Airbus has done a great job of marketing the MTOW increases in the A330, but in truth, the 767 has gone through bigger MTOW increases over its lifetime. The original 767-200 had a MTOW of 142tons. The 767-400ER has a MTOW 204t.

The A330-300 has gone from 212t to 242t. The 767-300 went from 159t to 187t, which is practically the same increase. Airbus went through many smaller MTOW increases whereas the 767-300 went through in two MTOW increases in 1988 and 1993 and earned the ER nomenclature in 1988.
 
kimimm19
Posts: 434
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:34 pm

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Tue Aug 01, 2017 3:08 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
kimimm19 wrote:
Although the 767 is still extremely prevalent in America, isn't it one of the big reasons why the A330 has surpassed it is because Airbus has continually improved its performance? In relation to the 767, which I think has only really had one performance update which has been the winglets..


Airbus has done a great job of marketing the MTOW increases in the A330, but in truth, the 767 has gone through bigger MTOW increases over its lifetime. The original 767-200 had a MTOW of 142tons. The 767-400ER has a MTOW 204t.

The A330-300 has gone from 212t to 242t. The 767-300 went from 159t to 187t, which is practically the same increase. Airbus went through many smaller MTOW increases whereas the 767-300 went through in two MTOW increases in 1988 and 1993 and earned the ER nomenclature in 1988.


True but the 767 hasn't gone through an upgrade in a while (probably due to Boeing's focus on the 787) whereas the upgrade for the A330 is more recent. I suppose that suggests that the 767 reached its potential (or at least what Boeing were willing to invest) earlier in relation to the A330, plus the A330 being a slight step larger than the 767 to begin with.
 
AVFCdownunder
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 11:12 am

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Tue Aug 01, 2017 3:15 pm

xdlx wrote:
How about doing what they did with 737 series? An updated 767 700/800/900 series based on the 2/3/400 series with newer technology and updated economics.


Is that not basically what they did by developing the 787 range?
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3642
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Tue Aug 01, 2017 3:48 pm

kimimm19 wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
kimimm19 wrote:
Although the 767 is still extremely prevalent in America, isn't it one of the big reasons why the A330 has surpassed it is because Airbus has continually improved its performance? In relation to the 767, which I think has only really had one performance update which has been the winglets..


Airbus has done a great job of marketing the MTOW increases in the A330, but in truth, the 767 has gone through bigger MTOW increases over its lifetime. The original 767-200 had a MTOW of 142tons. The 767-400ER has a MTOW 204t.

The A330-300 has gone from 212t to 242t. The 767-300 went from 159t to 187t, which is practically the same increase. Airbus went through many smaller MTOW increases whereas the 767-300 went through in two MTOW increases in 1988 and 1993 and earned the ER nomenclature in 1988.


True but the 767 hasn't gone through an upgrade in a while (probably due to Boeing's focus on the 787) whereas the upgrade for the A330 is more recent. I suppose that suggests that the 767 reached its potential (or at least what Boeing were willing to invest) earlier in relation to the A330, plus the A330 being a slight step larger than the 767 to begin with.


The 767 flight deck and avionics actually went through a big upgrade for FedEx. Their flight deck is a glass cockpit with updated Avionics. UPS and others are actually retrofitting it on old airplanes. Boeing will invest if airlines will pay for it.

Old 767

Image



New 767
Image
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4694
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Tue Aug 01, 2017 5:06 pm

Revelation wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Very simple the A330 having an FBW killed off the 767-300ER having nothing like that.

Laughable. As if the the only difference between the 767 and the A330 is FBW. They have different sizes, different cargo capabilities, different ranges, and you're saying the major difference between the two is FBW? And you can't name one customer who said the main reason they picked A330 over 767 was FBW, instead you posit EMB marketing material as relevant?


If FBW is what killed the 767, then by the same logic the 737 would have been dead over 20 years ago. Obviously it isn't, despite its lack of FBW.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27311
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: B767s - a dying breed?

Tue Aug 01, 2017 5:36 pm

khunpaul3 wrote:
Why are not many airlines buy the B767-400? Only CO and Delta bought B764


The A330-200 was comprehensively better.

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