Hi All,

Hindsight, as they say - is 20/20, and I believe that we are far divorced from the passions of the past to accurately discuss it now, that we can perhaps more intelligently discuss the failings of the 767-400ER, and why it did not sell (in as great, numbers-wise compared to expectations/competitors). What were the flaws/failings of the aircraft? Was range too little, for needed missions? What were the true competitors to said aircraft? Who were intended audiences for said aircraft? How (and perhaps, to whom) could the aircraft have been improved upon to garner more sales?

Pardon my ignorance, I am simply lost in thought - at what seems like a good idea, and the reality of a less than successful production run. That said, I am simply nostalgic. I am sure, that the right decision was made (and that future models came to successes far greater than holding to the idea of a 764ER). Thank you in advance for your insight, your intelligence, and your lack of insults.

Biggest issue was it arrived too late in the product cycle - the A330-200 was already in production and offered greater capacity and performance over the 767-400ER for most operators. Boeing tried to address the performance gap with the 767-400ERX, but that depended on the engines planned for the 747X program and when the 747X was cancelled, so were the engines and with it the 767-400ERX's chances of actually going to production (especially as by then it had only secured a single order for three frames from Kenya Airways).

Boeing sent the model on a world tour to try and drum up orders, but for most operators - even those with the 767-300ER in their fleet - the A330-200 made more sense as an upgrade. Delta and Continental wanted something smaller than a 777-200 / A330-300 and larger than a 767-300ER, but generally didn't need the range of the A330-200 so the 767-400ER appealed to them (both were large 767 family operators already) and both ended up being the only customers for the type.

The USAF chose the 767-400ER as the airframe for the E-10 MC2A program and a single frame was built in support of it, but the program was cancelled while the frame was in production. It was eventually sold as a BBJ to the government of Bahrain in 2009.

Stitch wrote:

Delta and Continental wanted something smaller than a 777-200 / A330-300 and larger than a 767-300ER, but generally didn't need the range of the A330-200 so the 767-400ER appealed to them (both were large 767 family operators already) and both ended up being the only customers for the type.

Continental had no 767's at the time. They ordered the 767-400 in late 1997 and then ordered 10 767-200's in 1998.

The 767-400ER was built as a result of a joint request by DL and CO to replace their L-1011 and DC-10 fleets, respectively. DL was already a large 767 operator that could take advantage of fleet commonality, while CO was simply looking for a replacement for the DC-10 fleet that they were using to Europe. At the time, both airlines had pro-Boeing CEOs that wouldn't touch an Airbus product (especially CO's Bethune) and wanted to uphold their gentlemen's agreement with Boeing.

As a result, the 767-400ER was basically built to DL and CO specs, not the rest of the industry. For example, a big reason why the A330-200 won the sales war by a landslide was far superior belly cargo capacity, which even loyal 767 operators elsewhere in the world wanted.

At the time of the 764 order, CO had recently introduced the 762ER. At least on CO, the 764 was intended to be a DC-10 replacement.

dcajet wrote:

At the time of the 764 order, CO had recently introduced the 762ER. At least on CO, the 764 was intended to be a DC-10 replacement.

CO received their first 764 before they received their first 762.

You are correct - for a couple of months.

I think the 767-400ER was a bit too "niche" of a plane to be really successful. They were designed to replace DL's aging L1011 fleet and CO's DC-10 fleet--and because the plane was essentially a derivative of the 767, development costs weren't ridiculous.

Airbus, if I remember correctly, never considered building the A330-200 in the first place, mostly because of fears it might affect A340 sales. But airline demand changed that, and the A332 being certified with ETOPS 180 meant it became very popular for "thin" route long-distance flights.

FWAERJ wrote:

The 767-400ER was built as a result of a joint request by DL and CO to replace their L-1011 and DC-10 fleets, respectively.

As a result, the 767-400ER was basically built to DL and CO specs, not the rest of the industry.

Nothing could be much farther from the truth. The 767-400 was built by Boeing to compete with the A330-200, NOT "by request from DL and CO", this myth, legend, fairytale continues to be pushed on here and is plain incorrect.

Boeing clearly advertised the 767-400 as a superior, competing product due to its lower weight and commonality with other 767 models. The market decided that superior capabilities and range of A330-200 is what was needed at the time.

If it were intended for DL and CO only, the 767-400 wouldn't take the world promotional tour, which took it to the base of every operator who was pitching it against A330-200. With exception of DL and CO due to their "exclusivity clause", everyone else rejected it and went for the A330-200. Kenya Airways turned out to be sole customer for the planned extended range 767-400ERX, but that one turned out to be too little, too late.

It was a waste of money and resources for Boeing at the time.

. Kenya Airways turned out to be sole customer for the planned extended range 767-400ERX, but that one turned out to be too little, too late.

In deed they have ordered B777-200ERs.

I think that B767-400ER was the first B767 type to get the 777-style Signature Interior. If i m right, the first B767-300ERs with the 777-style Signature Interior were built in 2001 or 2002.

I think also that B767-400 was used as "test bed" for the B777-300ER wings. B767-400 has wingtip, like the B777-300ER. B777-300 which made its 1st flight in 1997, didn't have wingtip

the B767-400 is closer to the B777-200 than the B767-200 or -300 in cockpit layout and avionics package. CO could have waited a few months and ordered the B777-200a if they wanted a DC10 replacement.

BlueSky1976 wrote:

FWAERJ wrote:

The 767-400ER was built as a result of a joint request by DL and CO to replace their L-1011 and DC-10 fleets, respectively.

As a result, the 767-400ER was basically built to DL and CO specs, not the rest of the industry.

Nothing could be much farther from the truth. The 767-400 was built by Boeing to compete with the A330-200, NOT "by request from DL and CO", this myth, legend, fairytale continues to be pushed on here and is plain incorrect.

Boeing clearly advertised the 767-400 as a superior, competing product due to its lower weight and commonality with other 767 models. The market decided that superior capabilities and range of A330-200 is what was needed at the time.

I don't know if that's quite right. The 764 made more sense for existing 763 operators and the 332 made sense for existing 333 operators. It's not like BA or NH bought the 332 over the 764; they just did not purchase an aircraft of that rough size (the 772 fleets of both no doubt had an impact). Indeed, I think QF is the only airline who ordered and simultaneously operated large fleets of 763 and 332.

I think in some ways Boeing became its own competitor in the sense that it had the B777. With the A330- 200/300 series, there really was no other need for an aircraft between the B767-300 and B777. Passenger/Price wise, it made more sense to go with the B777. Also, post 9/11 airlines decided to "slim" their fleets with regards to how many types of aircraft operated.

But as the Thread starter stated. Hindsight is always 20/20.

I have a question to add....what might be DL & UA's plans for these airframes after retirement? Would they be suitable for freighter conversion?
Came across this article from 2011, outlining a possible cargo version. I know the article is old, and FX is probably no longer interested, but I'll still link it: http://cargofacts.com/fedex-and-boeing- ... freighter/

[photoid][/photoid]

TriniA340 wrote:

I have a question to add....what might be DL & UA's plans for these airframes after retirement? Would they be suitable for freighter conversion?
Came across this article from 2011, outlining a possible cargo version. I know the article is old, and FX is probably no longer interested, but I'll still link it: http://cargofacts.com/fedex-and-boeing- ... freighter/

There are only 38 frames all together, nobody will bother to develop a conversion to a freighter, enough 767-200 or -300 out there.

Cubsrule wrote:

BlueSky1976 wrote:

FWAERJ wrote:

The 767-400ER was built as a result of a joint request by DL and CO to replace their L-1011 and DC-10 fleets, respectively.

As a result, the 767-400ER was basically built to DL and CO specs, not the rest of the industry.

Nothing could be much farther from the truth. The 767-400 was built by Boeing to compete with the A330-200, NOT "by request from DL and CO", this myth, legend, fairytale continues to be pushed on here and is plain incorrect.

Boeing clearly advertised the 767-400 as a superior, competing product due to its lower weight and commonality with other 767 models. The market decided that superior capabilities and range of A330-200 is what was needed at the time.

I don't know if that's quite right. The 764 made more sense for existing 763 operators and the 332 made sense for existing 333 operators. It's not like BA or NH bought the 332 over the 764; they just did not purchase an aircraft of that rough size (the 772 fleets of both no doubt had an impact). Indeed, I think QF is the only airline who ordered and simultaneously operated large fleets of 763 and 332.

Only 2 airlines bought the 767--400, most airlines having other 767 in their fleet were not interested.

Cubsrule wrote:

I don't know if that's quite right. The 764 made more sense for existing 763 operators and the 332 made sense for existing 333 operators. It's not like BA or NH bought the 332 over the 764; they just did not purchase an aircraft of that rough size (the 772 fleets of both no doubt had an impact). Indeed, I think QF is the only airline who ordered and simultaneously operated large fleets of 763 and 332.

From the top of my head: Alitalia, KLM and Air France (separate companies at the time), 767-300ER operators without any A330s in their fleet, rejected 767-400 in favour of A330-200. IIRC, BA rejected 767-400 in favour of more 777-200ERs and NH did the same in favour of more 767-300ERs. I recall the 767-400 being pitched to Qantas and TAM, where it lost to A330-200 as well.

There were others, too, which I don't remember at the moment, though.

BlueSky1976 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

I don't know if that's quite right. The 764 made more sense for existing 763 operators and the 332 made sense for existing 333 operators. It's not like BA or NH bought the 332 over the 764; they just did not purchase an aircraft of that rough size (the 772 fleets of both no doubt had an impact). Indeed, I think QF is the only airline who ordered and simultaneously operated large fleets of 763 and 332.

From the top of my head: Alitalia, KLM and Air France (separate companies at the time), 767-300ER operators without any A330s in their fleet, rejected 767-400 in favour of A330-200. IIRC, BA rejected 767-400 in favour of more 777-200ERs and NH did the same in favour of more 767-300ERs. I recall the 767-400 being pitched to Qantas and TAM, where it lost to A330-200 as well.

There were others, too, which I don't remember at the moment, though.

Of those three, only AZ operated the 332 and 763 simultaneously for more than a year.

Also 9/11. Prospects DL, AA and UA went into survival mode.

Stretch but same MTOW as the 763ER...if it had more MTOW for fuel, there may have been better sales.

BlueSky1976 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

I don't know if that's quite right. The 764 made more sense for existing 763 operators and the 332 made sense for existing 333 operators. It's not like BA or NH bought the 332 over the 764; they just did not purchase an aircraft of that rough size (the 772 fleets of both no doubt had an impact). Indeed, I think QF is the only airline who ordered and simultaneously operated large fleets of 763 and 332.

From the top of my head: Alitalia, KLM and Air France (separate companies at the time), 767-300ER operators without any A330s in their fleet, rejected 767-400 in favor of A330-200. IIRC, BA rejected 767-400 in favor of more 777-200ERs and NH did the same in favor of more 767-300ERs. I recall the 767-400 being pitched to Qantas and TAM, where it lost to A330-200 as well.

There were others, too, which I don't remember at the moment, though.

Kenya Airways was seriously thinking of buying it, but they chose the 777 instead.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Stretch but same MTOW as the 763ER...if it had more MTOW for fuel, there may have been better sales.

That was tried with the 767-400ERX, did not make the cut and never saw production. The airlines bought the A330 or 777 instead.

A330 offers more at a similar price point. The 777 isn't much more expensive and fully tpac capable.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Stretch but same MTOW as the 763ER...if it had more MTOW for fuel, there may have been better sales.

Incorrect. B767-300ER MTOW (highest) 412,000lbs. B767-400ER MTOW 450,000lbs.

Don't post alternative facts here.

Noooo...not this question again.....!!! Please!!

Edit: Is there any requirement on here to check to see if a topic has been previously discussed? I know the search function used to be broken but there don't seem to be any excuses now.

kjeld0d wrote:

Noooo...not this question again.....!!! Please!!

Edit: Is there any requirement on here to check to see if a topic has been previously discussed? I know the search function used to be broken but there don't seem to be any excuses now.

I personally like having the refreshment of a new thread with new and different posters after some time has passed. To each his/her own, but every topic has been discussed at some point over the years and minus that, all we'd have is the ridiculous current event and slow news day threads.

Varsity1 wrote:

A330 offers more at a similar price point. The 777 isn't much more expensive and fully tpac capable.

Help me with "fully TPAC capable." What are we talking about? Ex-ATL?