They wanted the 787 and A350 bad enough.
...and they may have even wanted the NMA, they just weren't willing to wait or pay for it.
GE would have had to develop yet a third version and it could have hit the same snafus the engine did on the 747-8 and 787 programs depending on when it was scheduled to enter service. And if the A330-200 "killed" the 767-300ER as a passenger frame as we are so often told on this forum, then by extension the A330-800 would have "killed" the "767-3". So would GE or Boeing have been willing to spend the money?
The 767er's used 747 engines. We're basically talking new pylons.
But MOM/NRA will be as much a step beyond the 767 as the 787 was and that is what airlines seem to want to wait for. We know Boeing could not make a business case to sell new passenger 767s to at least one of the US3 (believed to be UA) and I am sure Boeing peddled the plane to the other two when the first came a calling since the US3 is the most obvious choice to buy more. But I feel that the US3 might also be the only choice to buy more.
They were trying to sell ceo, not neo 767's. There is no business case for that, just like there is no business case for 737ng's and 320ceo's. The airlines ARE buying re-engined decades old designs in droves.
If the USAF had chosen GE for the KC-46A, perhaps GE and Boeing could have made a successful pitch to the USAF to develop a smaller and lighter version of theGEnx1B.
Which is basically the -2B...but yes, without having GE powering the tanker, it would be a tough sell.
The US3 are flying them until the wings come off because they're already in the fleet (so CAPEX) and now they have the allure of NMA on the horizon as a replacement.
As for passenger to freighter conversions, it's thanks to the wide availability of feed stock due to every other 767 operator getting rid of them in their own fleets.
True...why get rid of a perfectly good running aircraft, though I don't think the allure of the NMA is why. I believe that they are the right plane for the right job and they would fly them until the wings come off regardless of whether or not an NMA ever comes.
Airlines seem to be asking for the capabilities either of the 321 or 767. Airbus is willing and able to fill their 321 needs, and Boeing is taking even more of the bottom end of the market with the 737-10. That's making for a pretty small MOM window into which Boeing must insert a brand new in every aspect, totally unproven, multi billion dollar aircraft that will do more than the 737/321, but won't eat into 787 sales, and be reliable as well.
And that is the conundrum for NMA's business case. If Boeing can make it work, it could be huge because it would offer the performance and capacity advantage of a widebody with the economics of a narrowbody. But if they can't, then it likely won't "fly" - figuratively or literally.
Even with perfect engines, it's still a huge investment with a risky business case, and the odds of getting engines perfect out of the box, are slim.
1. The 767MAX idea has been hashed and rehashed.
2. Boeing doesn’t NEED to do anything.
3. The NMA sounds less risky from a technology POV than the 787.
4. They could also be rethinking their planes based on the outcome of the CSeries and Embraer deals.
5. It could surprise us and be the NSA.
1. See 757. This is A.net, after all. Rehash is what we do.
2. Boeing acts and talks like they need to do something.
3. That's certainly not true for the engines. As it is, much of the technology that would be needed for the all new engines is still under development, and the engines are not only the key to the major increases in efficiency, but also have been the least reliable of the new technologies in the latest aircraft.
4. True...though I'm not sure how that would affect the 797.
5. Also true. We have no idea what they are really thinking.