So to be clear, it is fine for Airbus to design frames with a width that forces the carrier to maintain a certain level of comfort, but that is a bad thing for the 767 and must be addressed?
Really....

I know Boeing and its supporters and a growing group of airlines spend considerable time and effort to convince everyone else 10 abreast on the 777 is normal, nobody notices, efficient, the way forward, just fine. And then Boeing spends a billion to widen the cabin on the 777x. Another day.. and everybody quickly forgets / adjusts what they said before. So maybe something it is possible on a 767 MAX too. It would greatly improve CASM and 7 abreast with a few inch extra knee room could be for premium economy.

keesje wrote:

I know Boeing and its supporters and a growing group of airlines spend considerable time and effort to convince everyone else 10 abreast on the 777 is normal, nobody notices, efficient, the way forward, just fine. And then Boeing spends a billion to widen the cabin on the 777x. Another day.. and everybody quickly forgets / adjusts what they said before. So maybe something it is possible on a 767 MAX too. It would greatly improve CASM and 7 abreast with a few inch extra knee room could be for premium economy.

I don't think Cabin Width is what is behind an airline like United considering a top order of 767s to bridge the gap until a NMA is in service. A 3-5 year development of a new engine on the 767 also is unlikely to fulfill the need to bridge a gap to an NMA either.

I think we should take this for what it is, an airline looking at a stop gap a/c less than an 787 / A330 and more than a A321 which they already operate, since the 757 is no longer in production but the 767 is in freight and military form.....

We have the MOM threads where some of us posit that a reduced 767-200 is an ideal cheap solution for an a/c as soon as possible.

Exactly!
The thread started with the use of manufacturing some 767-300er's as a stopgap.Leeham was the main source but there are others.In fact the re hiring of recently made redundant employees by Boeing probably states a lot.
But within one or two posts suddenly is a max/NEO or X8 seating or new interiors etc etc.Why can't be be just what is suggested?
Perhaps 50-70 new build a/c to cover short term requirements.The airlines in question have loads of the type and thoroughly understand (and like ) them.(personally love the new Polaris interior on the 767 btw).
Over the ranges required and cheap fuel there is no way anybody is going to re engine- with a sub optimal engine at that.
And btw what's wrong with the latest interiors anyway.Look ok to me.
The actual basic performance of the 763er is very close to the MOM peramiters of 220-270 seats at 5knm.But the base technology is late 1970's not late 2020's.
We have come a very long way in those 50 years!

parapente wrote:

Exactly!
The thread started with the use of manufacturing some 767-300er's as a stopgap.Leeham was the main source but there are others.In fact the re hiring of recently made redundant employees by Boeing probably states a lot.
But within one or two posts suddenly is a max/NEO or X8 seating or new interiors etc etc.Why can't be be just what is suggested?

That's the way a.net works. For instance, right now we have a report that Airbus is planning out the shutdown of the A380 line, but instead of discussing that, we've mostly got a discussion about why it never should have been built at all.

Really would love to see an updated version of the 767 but mantainig the main curves of it. Changing everything is called B787.
What a classic and reliable bird the 767 was (is)...

parapente wrote:

The actual basic performance of the 763er is very close to the MOM peramiters of 220-270 seats at 5knm.But the base technology is late 1970's not late 2020's.
We have come a very long way in those 50 years!

Have we?

CallmeJB wrote:

parapente wrote:

The actual basic performance of the 763er is very close to the MOM peramiters of 220-270 seats at 5knm.But the base technology is late 1970's not late 2020's.
We have come a very long way in those 50 years!

Have we?

New Engine Tech
New Wing designs
Lighter Materials - Fuselage
New Avionics
New Passenger Experiences


I'd say so.

ikolkyo wrote:

CallmeJB wrote:

parapente wrote:

The actual basic performance of the 763er is very close to the MOM peramiters of 220-270 seats at 5knm.But the base technology is late 1970's not late 2020's.
We have come a very long way in those 50 years!

Have we?

New Engine Tech
New Wing designs
Lighter Materials - Fuselage
New Avionics
New Passenger Experiences


I'd say so.

Yet very few of these things have been added to the 737 and yet it does just fine.

New Engines? Yes.
New Wing? Kind of, but it has some issues.
Lighter materials (fuselage or wing)? No.
New avionics? Not really. New screens that present no more information than before.
New passenger experience? Same cramped cabin from the 60s with newer bins, PSUs, and fancy lights.
Power cockpit seats? No.
EICAS? No.

More changed from the 60s to the 80s than has changed from the 80s to now. The 767 was on par for technology in the 80s. EICAS, CRT display, reasonable amount of automation, fully FMS manageable autoflight, and some elements of fly-by-wire to name a few things. The A320 for example was ahead of its time and was a moonshot for the day like the 787 was. The 737 was revolutionary because of the ability to have 2 crew operations, but was otherwise on par for the 60s. People can say these plane’s technology roots back to the previous decade, but that’s just how technology works.

ikolkyo wrote:

CallmeJB wrote:

parapente wrote:

The actual basic performance of the 763er is very close to the MOM peramiters of 220-270 seats at 5knm.But the base technology is late 1970's not late 2020's.
We have come a very long way in those 50 years!

Have we?

New Engine Tech
New Wing designs
Lighter Materials - Fuselage
New Avionics
New Passenger Experiences


I'd say so.

If I may expand your excllent list:
New Engine Tech - <b> the MoM is looking at a 3.5:1 GTF, so we're looking at further fuel burn reduction as lessons learned are incorporated. </b>
New Wing designs
<b> Folding Wingtips - For this size of plane, carrying more people in either a smaller parking spot or greater wingspan is quite a benefit </b>
Lighter Materials - Fuselage
<b> Lighter Materials - Wing (CFRP wings on a widebody should weigh 4 tons or less than 767 wings for a similar sized aircraft), plus another ton or so of savings at the wing box). </b>
New Avionics
New Passenger Experiences
<b> better cross sections - thanks to new control algorithms for manufacturing
Help improve passenger comfort (expanding on your passenger experience)
More cargo or more aerodynamic for the same cargo
New underside belly aerodynamics (lifting body, it is almost free lift that reduces fuel burn almost 1%).
New landing gear concepts (usually less maintenance)
Less maintenance intensive sub-systems (compared to the 767 this will be a huge bonus) </b>

But the downside of new designs is the regulatory process takes longer (more testing, more paperwork, and thus more cost). So it takes longer to develop a new design, so an airline that needs a MoM today could use a bridge to the design. But that airline would only fly the 767s until say 2030 at most. But Boeing can make 767s for far less than they could in say 2007. So if Boeing can meet price points, they will sell.

And I think new build 767s will be attractive to be converted to frieghters until about 2035. At that point I would expect new build MoM or other freighters to be more economical if used 767Fs (new build or conversions) couldn't meet the demand. So new pax planes would be built in 2019 through 2025 and be converted to freighters in 2026 through 2032 or so. Yes, a true bridge project. This order either happens soon, or it won't happen. Soon as by end of 2018.

This is why I think the Amazon new build freighter order is so critical for restart in pax 767 production to improve economies of scale of 767 production. Neither order on its own would be enough (I personally see 50 pax and 50 freighters). Since vendors will demand 3+ years at full production and a tail (tail is a minimum a 50% production year plus spares, plus the ramp up years), Boeing needs to get to 25+ 767s per year for economy of scale. Since there are tankers in production, I think an order for a hundred 767s is enough. (Note, I only talk the military side for economies of scale in 767 production as there will be 100+ KC-46s for the US air force plus a few for Japan)

Lightsaber

On another thread, it seems RAM is looking at another extra 3 763's. Would love them to be new builds !

keesje wrote:

So maybe something it is possible on a 767 MAX too. It would greatly improve CASM and 7 abreast with a few inch extra knee room could be for premium economy.

There is never going to be a 767 MAX, and all the speculation about it is making me want to go put dents in an innocent CF6 nacelle. There is no appropriate engine and no plans for one; the GEnx and Trent 1000 are too big and heavy. The fuselage is too heavy, too wide, and (especially) too tall for what it can carry. At the price it would require to be profitable, a 767 MAX would be eaten alive, both from below by the HGW A321 and above by the 787 and A330neo.

As I said well over a month ago, any further 767 passenger production will be of 767-300ERs sold at rock bottom prices, likely with short service lives and future freighter conversion already in mind.

Even though a 767 airline like Delta and United have new and far more efficient aircraft in their fleets - I have to assume that both airlines make good money still on good 767-300ER routes today.
Is there a way of knowing the profit margins on the 767-300ER? (When full, with mostly paid J, and Y and even some “basic” fare pax & cargo?)

seabosdca wrote:

keesje wrote:

So maybe something it is possible on a 767 MAX too. It would greatly improve CASM and 7 abreast with a few inch extra knee room could be for premium economy.

There is never going to be a 767 MAX, and all the speculation about it is making me want to go put dents in an innocent CF6 nacelle. There is no appropriate engine and no plans for one; the GEnx and Trent 1000 are too big and heavy. The fuselage is too heavy, too wide, and (especially) too tall for what it can carry. At the price it would require to be profitable, a 767 MAX would be eaten alive, both from below by the HGW A321 and above by the 787 and A330neo.

There's a good engine the GENX-2, maybe Trent 7000 and the 767 fuselage is 30t lighter than the A330/787. It fits code D gates and would have commonality with existing 767 fleets. It has the same cockpit section as the 777 fleets.

keesje wrote:

seabosdca wrote:

keesje wrote:

So maybe something it is possible on a 767 MAX too. It would greatly improve CASM and 7 abreast with a few inch extra knee room could be for premium economy.

There is never going to be a 767 MAX, and all the speculation about it is making me want to go put dents in an innocent CF6 nacelle. There is no appropriate engine and no plans for one; the GEnx and Trent 1000 are too big and heavy. The fuselage is too heavy, too wide, and (especially) too tall for what it can carry. At the price it would require to be profitable, a 767 MAX would be eaten alive, both from below by the HGW A321 and above by the 787 and A330neo.

There's a good engine the GENX-2, maybe Trent 7000 and the 767 fuselage is 30t lighter than the A330/787. It fits code D gates and would have commonality with existing 767 fleets. It has the same cockpit section as the 777 fleets.

The Trent 7000 on a 767 sounds like another terrible idea. It has a dry weight that is 70% higher (7500lbs) than the CF6-80C2, has 20% higher thrust, would require significant new certification work on the 767 likely requiring years of development and finally UA who is the customer rumored to be interested doesn’t have any Rolls Royce engines in the fleet.

Newbiepilot wrote:

keesje wrote:

seabosdca wrote:

There is never going to be a 767 MAX, and all the speculation about it is making me want to go put dents in an innocent CF6 nacelle. There is no appropriate engine and no plans for one; the GEnx and Trent 1000 are too big and heavy. The fuselage is too heavy, too wide, and (especially) too tall for what it can carry. At the price it would require to be profitable, a 767 MAX would be eaten alive, both from below by the HGW A321 and above by the 787 and A330neo.

There's a good engine the GENX-2, maybe Trent 7000 and the 767 fuselage is 30t lighter than the A330/787. It fits code D gates and would have commonality with existing 767 fleets. It has the same cockpit section as the 777 fleets.

The Trent 7000 on a 767 sounds like another terrible idea. It has a dry weight that is 70% higher (7500lbs) than the CF6-80C2, has 20% higher thrust, would require significant new certification work on the 767 likely requiring years of development and finally UA who is the customer rumored to be interested doesn’t have any Rolls Royce engines in the fleet.

While I agree with everything you wrote, UA has 136 RR RB211-535s in service. The entire PMCO B752/B753 fleet (68 A/C).

Newbie you know the GENX is about 25% heavier than CF6-80C2 and Boeing themselves proposed the heavier GP7000. All new gen engines are heavier than their less efficient predecessors, no idea what you are trying to prove. All the dry weighs of the engines can be found on wiki, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking

Qantas744er wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

keesje wrote:

There's a good engine the GENX-2, maybe Trent 7000 and the 767 fuselage is 30t lighter than the A330/787. It fits code D gates and would have commonality with existing 767 fleets. It has the same cockpit section as the 777 fleets.

The Trent 7000 on a 767 sounds like another terrible idea. It has a dry weight that is 70% higher (7500lbs) than the CF6-80C2, has 20% higher thrust, would require significant new certification work on the 767 likely requiring years of development and finally UA who is the customer rumored to be interested doesn’t have any Rolls Royce engines in the fleet.

While I agree with everything you wrote, UA has 136 RR RB211-535s in service. The entire PMCO B752/B753 fleet (68 A/C).

Oops, can’t believe I forgot about those. I was only thinking widebodies.

keesje wrote:

Newbie you know the GENX is about 25% heavier than CF6-80C2 and Boeing themselves proposed the heavier GP7000. All new gen engines are heavier than their less efficient predecessors, no idea what you are trying to prove. All the dry weighs of the engines can be found on wiki, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking

I am sorry if you feel stalked when others including me point out that a 767 MAX is a terrible idea.

Restarting passenger 767 production to quickly and cheaply fill a gap until the NMA is what predicated thread. Given the high demand on the used market for 767-300ERs right now, it looks like restarting passenger production for a limited quantity might make business sense when tied to a launch of the NMA.

If it is a terrible idea, depends on the performance delta between a maxed 767 and the MoM in relation to investment and production costs. I am sure Boeing looked at this before moving ahead with the MoM.

seahawk wrote:

If it is a terrible idea, depends on the performance delta between a maxed 767 and the MoM in relation to investment and production costs. I am sure Boeing looked at this before moving ahead with the MoM.

~~6% worse than an A330CEO.
i..e ( ref A330-200 )
763 has ~~12%less capacity but only 6% less fuel
764 has same size but 6% more fuel ( at less range ).

WIederling wrote:

764 has same size but 6% more fuel ( at less range ).

Citation needed. If this were true, Delta would have long ago replaced its 764 fleet with more A330s. Instead the 764s are getting an interior renovation.

I would believe this at the very bleeding edge of the 764's range, but no one uses it for that sort of route.

seabosdca wrote:

WIederling wrote:

764 has same size but 6% more fuel ( at less range ).

Citation needed. If this were true, Delta would have long ago replaced its 764 fleet with more A330s. Instead the 764s are getting an interior renovation.

I would believe this at the very bleeding edge of the 764's range, but no one uses it for that sort of route.

If it wasn't true, the 764 would have sold much better. 38 examples screens bad economics versus a competitor.

Where would the increased fuel burn come from?
1. Engines? The larger diameter A330 engines (e.g., 100" for the Pratts) are much for efficient than the 94" diameter 767 engines. A few percent more efficient, as long as you can get to the altitude where the engines have a proper loading.
2. Wing loading. The 767 has 7.6% higher wing loading than the A330. That means early cruise on long range cruise is in denser air with the higher drag. Note that this wing enables utilizing the larger diameter engines more efficiently (you can't have one without the other, aircraft must be designed as a system).

Yea... 5% or 6% less fuel burn sounds right for 4,000nm to 5,000nm. For even longer still air missions, the 764 would be non competitive.

Lightsaber

seabosdca wrote:

I would believe this at the very bleeding edge of the 764's range, but no one uses it for that sort of route.

Use the ACAPS. Look at payload derate per range increment at the MZFW corner.
( obviously very much rule of thumb but nonetheless seems to fit other data.)
757! They are paid for. A330 cost real money and used 764 bring no money.

Here is an anet old citation that supports the 764 is more efficient than the A332 using Delta's seating.

AMS-DTW
Aircraft — Gallons Burned — Gals/Mile — Seat Count — Fuel Burn/ASM — Fuel/ASM % Difference to 333
333 — 15679 — 4.579 — 293 — 0.0156 — Baseline
764 — 13950 — 4.074 — 246 — 0.0165 — +6% (less seats overall, more J)
332 — 13891 — 4.056 — 234 — 0.0173 — +11% (less seats but still competitive for off-peak times)
744 — 26307 — 7.683 — 376 — 0.0204 — +31% (ouch)

https://www.airliners.net/aviation-forum ... in/6391173 (Link now broken?)

Newbiepilot wrote:

keesje wrote:

Newbie you know the GENX is about 25% heavier than CF6-80C2 and Boeing themselves proposed the heavier GP7000. All new gen engines are heavier than their less efficient predecessors, no idea what you are trying to prove. All the dry weighs of the engines can be found on wiki, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking

I am sorry if you feel stalked when others including me point out that a 767 MAX is a terrible idea.

Restarting passenger 767 production to quickly and cheaply fill a gap until the NMA is what predicated thread. Given the high demand on the used market for 767-300ERs right now, it looks like restarting passenger production for a limited quantity might make business sense when tied to a launch of the NMA.

Leahy predicts Boeing will reengine the 767.

https://leehamnews.com/2018/01/03/nma-market-sector-small-airbus-leahy-says/

I'm sure you have a much better picture of the market than John Leahy.

Since when is John Leahy a reputable source on what Boeing is doing? John Leahy is doing all he can to sell Airbus planes. This includes trying to convince airlines not to buy the NMA and dissuade Boeing from building it.

Completely unrelated to any of this, I have hundreds of flights behind me over the past 30 years or so, but I have only once (well twice) had a chance to fly on board the 767, that was Qantas MEL-SYD-MEL back in 2003.

Now it's going to happen again, I'll be flying in March PTY-EWR-ZRH with UA. First leg with B739 (first time actually with this variant!) followed by B764 (also first time on this variant!) on the second leg.

Can't wait!

Oh I hope they bring this bird back to production line.

keesje wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

keesje wrote:

Newbie you know the GENX is about 25% heavier than CF6-80C2 and Boeing themselves proposed the heavier GP7000. All new gen engines are heavier than their less efficient predecessors, no idea what you are trying to prove. All the dry weighs of the engines can be found on wiki, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking

I am sorry if you feel stalked when others including me point out that a 767 MAX is a terrible idea.

Restarting passenger 767 production to quickly and cheaply fill a gap until the NMA is what predicated thread. Given the high demand on the used market for 767-300ERs right now, it looks like restarting passenger production for a limited quantity might make business sense when tied to a launch of the NMA.

Leahy predicts Boeing will reengine the 767.

https://leehamnews.com/2018/01/03/nma-market-sector-small-airbus-leahy-says/

I'm sure you have a much better picture of the market than John Leahy.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 87-215430/

He has an awesome track record of guessing what Boeing will do.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Since when is John Leahy a reputable source on what Boeing is doing? John Leahy is doing all he can to sell Airbus planes. This includes trying to convince airlines not to buy the NMA and dissuade Boeing from building it.

Well, he at least provided a good justification why he thinks so. He pointed how the vast improvements in new airplanes come from improvments in engines, not the frame itself. the story of 737 confirms his point of view, and so does 77X in a way.


I find the example he gave of the improvements one would get from an all new single aisle plane to be amazing. But seriously, why bother with investing $15 billions into making an all new plane for just 5% improvement, while a new engine can give a 15% improvement by itself for a very little investment capital.

Well, Boeing can prove him wrong at the end of the day, but I just find this interesting. But I don't think for a second that he only said that to convince airliens not to buy a new NMA, airlines are smarter than that. Their decisions on capital investments are based on net present value analysis, nothing else.

Eyad89 wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Since when is John Leahy a reputable source on what Boeing is doing? John Leahy is doing all he can to sell Airbus planes. This includes trying to convince airlines not to buy the NMA and dissuade Boeing from building it.

Well, he at least provided a good justification why he thinks so. He pointed how the vast improvements in new airplanes come from improvments in engines, not the frame itself. the story of 737 confirms his point of view, and so does 77X in a way.

I find the example he gave of the improvements one would get from an all new single aisle plane to be amazing. But seriously, why bother with investing $15 billions into making an all new plane for just 5% improvement, while a new engine can give a 15% improvement by itself for a very little investment capital.

Well, Boeing can prove him wrong at the end of the day, but I just find this interesting. But I don't think for a second that he only said that to convince airliens not to buy a new NMA, airlines are smarter than that. Their decisions on capital investments are based on net present value analysis, nothing else.

JL can make that analysis because Airbus has one more stretch/rewing left in the A320 family, whilst Boeing does not have one left in the 737 family and the 767-MAX is a non-starter.

Therefore the issue isn't whether or not to spend $15B, the question is where to spend it.

And, of course "John Leahy is doing all he can to sell Airbus planes", just like a few posters here.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Since when is John Leahy a reputable source on what Boeing is doing?

20 years, with great success.

william wrote:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 87-215430/
He has an awesome track record of guessing what Boeing will do.

& Leahy then sold 800+ A330 CEO's profitably to prove his right, including to Udvar. The end part of the story, that somehow often falls off the paper .

I do not instantly recall any past OEM situation where looking backward assisted any move forward - anyone?

Also the under-estimate of the costs of updating etc the 767 for the military role will not inspire Chicago accountants to permit such a thing on the commercial side.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Since when is John Leahy a reputable source on what Boeing is doing? John Leahy is doing all he can to sell Airbus planes. This includes trying to convince airlines not to buy the NMA and dissuade Boeing from building it.

I'd be very surprised if Leahy over decades sold planes just on dissing Boeing.
I'd more like expect some unique personal style
_and_ explaining why his product matches customer demand better than a competing product.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Since when is John Leahy a reputable source on what Boeing is doing? John Leahy is doing all he can to sell Airbus planes. This includes trying to convince airlines not to buy the NMA and dissuade Boeing from building it.

Well he did predict, against a tsunami of critism from the B fanboys, that Boeing would not launch NSA and instead re-engine 737.
But then again, he also starts every year with predicting he'll be selling 20 A380s.

Re-capping, it seems he is closer on the ball when it comes to Boeing than his own Airbus . . .

keesje wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Since when is John Leahy a reputable source on what Boeing is doing?

20 years, with great success.

william wrote:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 87-215430/
He has an awesome track record of guessing what Boeing will do.

& Leahy then sold 800+ A330 CEO's profitably to prove his right, including to Udvar. The end part of the story, that somehow often falls off the paper .

John also said this "The A330-800 “takes the world by storm,” he says, speaking of its potential but not its orders–of which there are virtually none. “It is a MOM. That’s the size of airplane you want.""

ojjunior wrote:

Really would love to see an updated version of the 767 but mantainig the main curves of it. Changing everything is called B787.
What a classic and reliable bird the 767 was (is)...

Love that Delta 767 pic


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Revelation wrote:

JL can make that analysis because Airbus has one more stretch/rewing left in the A320 family, whilst Boeing does not have one left in the 737 family and the 767-MAX is a non-starter.

Therefore the issue isn't whether or not to spend $15B, the question is where to spend it.

And, of course "John Leahy is doing all he can to sell Airbus planes", just like a few posters here.

He is looking at it from a return to investor point as well. How do you justify spending $15B when there is at best 4000 sales or at worst 2000 sales. These would be shared between Airbus and Boeing, even if Boeing takes 2/3 it is 1300 sales at the low end. You now have to add the cost to each sale, taking into consideration that the engine cost would be high as well (as per JL, who I am sure has been in touch with the engine providers as well to look at possible responses), the price of the frame itself needs to be lower in that case. Is there a return on investment for the company? That is why he is seeing a 767MAX, the biggest ROI for the company.

The thread is not about John Leahy been a fortune teller. Anyway 767 topic has been well discussed and until no real news are popping up thread will be locked.

Once we hear something new other than a rumor fell free to open a new thread.