Why is Boeing still selling 767s? Which airlines are still ordering 767s and why? Are they all freighters or are pax versions also still being ordered?

Only freighters are being produced now. Some airlines have shown interest in new passenger versions.... but it appears number crunching proved that’s not going to happen.

Because it’s an outstanding aircraft, naturally.

The last passenger model was purchased by LATAM Airlines in 2011. Since then all new orders are either for freighters or the K46 tanker program. At the planned production rate of 30 per year the 767 line will be around for at least another 15 years.

Almost 40 years with no major changes (sure there are incremental changes but nothing of a NG/MAX/neo magnitude). It just keeps going.

SC430 wrote:

The last passenger model was purchased by LATAM Airlines in 2011. Since then all new orders are either for freighters or the K46 tanker program. At the planned production rate of 30 per year the 767 line will be around for at least another 15 years.

Actually it was Air Astana that took the last delivery in June 2014.

iahcsr wrote:

Only freighters are being produced now. Some airlines have shown interest in new passenger versions.... but it appears number crunching proved that’s not going to happen.

Correct, the business case to start producing 767-300ERs with the new 767F/KC-46 like display system didn’t pan out.

The 767 will survive in production for awhile as a Tanker. Development challenges notwithstanding, the KC-46 is an excellent airplane.

hkcanadaexpat wrote:

SC430 wrote:

The last passenger model was purchased by LATAM Airlines in 2011. Since then all new orders are either for freighters or the K46 tanker program. At the planned production rate of 30 per year the 767 line will be around for at least another 15 years.

Actually it was Air Astana that took the last delivery in June 2014.

Although you are mixing orders with deliveries, you are still correct. Air Astana was the last passenger purchase. Order was in 2012.

I recall it was Air Astana (purchase). I wonder if United could potentially hunt for newer build 767s owned by other airlines to replace it’s older frames.

You would think it’d be easier than expected to just put seats on a plane, apparently not. I guess it’s mainly supply chain issues though.

Is the 772/77E still built?

CarlosSi wrote:

Is the 772/77E still built?

No, Boeing is only selling the 77L, 77F, and the 77W. They all use the same engine just with different thrust levels, firmware, and maintenance schedules. The 772 and 77E engines are no longer being manufactured by PW, RR, and GE.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

CarlosSi wrote:

Is the 772/77E still built?

No, Boeing is only selling the 77L, 77F, and the 77W. They all use the same engine just with different thrust levels, firmware, and maintenance schedules. The 772 and 77E engines are no longer being manufactured by PW, RR, and GE.

All GE90, got it, thanks!

jeffrey0032j wrote:

Almost 40 years with no major changes (sure there are incremental changes but nothing of a NG/MAX/neo magnitude). It just keeps going.

There was a huge engine change in the late 1980s when the 767-300ER came out. The marketing teams didn’t make as big of a deal as Airbus/Boeing do nowadays, but that was a big engine upgrade and 50% range increase.

If you compare the CF6-80C2 to the original CF6-80A, the changes are similar to what the CFM56 to LeapX in scope. Similar with the JT9D to PW4000. 20% increase in thrust, larger fan diameter, higher pressure ratio, higher bypass ratio, etc.

BoeingGuy wrote:

The 767 will survive in production for awhile as a Tanker. Development challenges notwithstanding, the KC-46 is an excellent airplane.

To make this point more explicit for the OP, the line who be open to produce tankers. There is no opportunity cost to keeping the line open. The development costs associated with the aircraft are paid, Boeing can offer killer deals to cargo operators and still make a healthy profit.

Meanwhile, cargo aircraft tend to spend less time in the air than passenger aircraft, so a lot acquisition cost becomes relatively more important than lower operating costs.

Newbiepilot wrote:

jeffrey0032j wrote:

Almost 40 years with no major changes (sure there are incremental changes but nothing of a NG/MAX/neo magnitude). It just keeps going.

There was a huge engine change in the late 1980s when the 767-300ER came out. The marketing teams didn’t make as big of a deal as Airbus/Boeing do nowadays, but that was a big engine upgrade and 50% range increase.

If you compare the CF6-80C2 to the original CF6-80A, the changes are similar to what the CFM56 to LeapX in scope. Similar with the JT9D to PW4000. 20% increase in thrust, larger fan diameter, higher pressure ratio, higher bypass ratio, etc.

Wow - I had always assumed it was more like going from a CFM56-5A to a -5B

jeffrey0032j wrote:

Almost 40 years with no major changes (sure there are incremental changes but nothing of a NG/MAX/neo magnitude). It just keeps going.

The -400 series could certainly be considered a NG 767


Along with a new, taller landing gear and
other changes the cockpit displays were completely changed and updated, almost identical to the 744

I wonder if United could potentially hunt for newer build 767s owned by other airlines to replace it’s older frames.

Rest assured, they are. At least two of Hawaiian's younger 767s have come off of lease and are now going to United. Several more will follow as the leases end. I'm not sure if they're already flying for United or are still being checked out, repainted, etc., but the point is United is actively looking for more 767-style lift and acquiring it when able for the right price.

Aptivaboy wrote:

Rest assured, they are. At least two of Hawaiian's younger 767s have come off of lease and are now going to United. Several more will follow as the leases end. I'm not sure if they're already flying for United or are still being checked out, repainted, etc., but the point is United is actively looking for more 767-style lift and acquiring it when able for the right price.

UAL has agreed to take 3 HA 763s. Time will tell if they find more and how many will be replacement or growth aircraft.

FlyHossD wrote:

Aptivaboy wrote:

Rest assured, they are. At least two of Hawaiian's younger 767s have come off of lease and are now going to United. Several more will follow as the leases end. I'm not sure if they're already flying for United or are still being checked out, repainted, etc., but the point is United is actively looking for more 767-style lift and acquiring it when able for the right price.

UAL has agreed to take 3 HA 763s. Time will tell if they find more and how many will be replacement or growth aircraft.

UA has taken possession of one HA so far N588HA will become N684UA. ATM it’s stored at GYR and will begin conversion/induction at a later time. UA is focusing attention and funds to Polaris work on the existing fleet for now.

1989worstyear wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

jeffrey0032j wrote:

Almost 40 years with no major changes (sure there are incremental changes but nothing of a NG/MAX/neo magnitude). It just keeps going.

There was a huge engine change in the late 1980s when the 767-300ER came out. The marketing teams didn’t make as big of a deal as Airbus/Boeing do nowadays, but that was a big engine upgrade and 50% range increase.

If you compare the CF6-80C2 to the original CF6-80A, the changes are similar to what the CFM56 to LeapX in scope. Similar with the JT9D to PW4000. 20% increase in thrust, larger fan diameter, higher pressure ratio, higher bypass ratio, etc.

Wow - I had always assumed it was more like going from a CFM56-5A to a -5B

The 767 was designed from the start as a twin engined wide bodied jet that used the same engines as the 4 engined 747. It cut down the development costs. It also made it possible to operate fleets of 767's and 747's with one pool of common spare engines. The 767-300ER benefitted from the improvements in engines developed for the 747-400. The improved efficiency of the engines supplied by all three manufacturers for the 747-400 allowed the 747-400 to have the same range as the 747SP but at a much lower CASM. The same engines installed on the 767-300ER allowed for greater range and payload while extending extending the number of routes that could be served by twin engined wide bodies.

UA even used the same ETOPS protocols for maintaining the engines for their 747-400 fleet as for their 767-300ER's even though that was not required. It supposedly cut down the cost of spares by not having to have duplicate spare engines available and by increasing the dispatch reliability of the 747 fleet. A 747 is twice as likely to have an engine failure as a 767 if the engines are maintained to the same standard. They are more than twice as likely to have a shut down if normal 747 standards of maintenance are used. As neither a 767 nor a 747 may take off in revenue service with an inoperable engine, using a ETOPS maintenance increased the dispatch reliability of the UA 747 fleet.

There are currently more orders now than the backlog when the 767 entered service in the 80s, counting the order that FedEx just placed.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

1989worstyear wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

There was a huge engine change in the late 1980s when the 767-300ER came out. The marketing teams didn’t make as big of a deal as Airbus/Boeing do nowadays, but that was a big engine upgrade and 50% range increase.

If you compare the CF6-80C2 to the original CF6-80A, the changes are similar to what the CFM56 to LeapX in scope. Similar with the JT9D to PW4000. 20% increase in thrust, larger fan diameter, higher pressure ratio, higher bypass ratio, etc.

Wow - I had always assumed it was more like going from a CFM56-5A to a -5B

The 767 was designed from the start as a twin engined wide bodied jet that used the same engines as the 4 engined 747. It cut down the development costs. It also made it possible to operate fleets of 767's and 747's with one pool of common spare engines. The 767-300ER benefitted from the improvements in engines developed for the 747-400. The improved efficiency of the engines supplied by all three manufacturers for the 747-400 allowed the 747-400 to have the same range as the 747SP but at a much lower CASM. The same engines installed on the 767-300ER allowed for greater range and payload while extending extending the number of routes that could be served by twin engined wide bodies.

UA even used the same ETOPS protocols for maintaining the engines for their 747-400 fleet as for their 767-300ER's even though that was not required. It supposedly cut down the cost of spares by not having to have duplicate spare engines available and by increasing the dispatch reliability of the 747 fleet. A 747 is twice as likely to have an engine failure as a 767 if the engines are maintained to the same standard. They are more than twice as likely to have a shut down if normal 747 standards of maintenance are used. As neither a 767 nor a 747 may take off in revenue service with an inoperable engine, using a ETOPS maintenance increased the dispatch reliability of the UA 747 fleet.

The new engines come with some disadvantages. They are a lot heavier (heavier materials allow for higher temperatures and pressures thus more efficiency) and costlier (manufacturers know the new engines are reducing fuel costs and they want a piece of the action!). Overall a win, but still one needs to consider all the variables.

Revelation wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

1989worstyear wrote:

Wow - I had always assumed it was more like going from a CFM56-5A to a -5B

The 767 was designed from the start as a twin engined wide bodied jet that used the same engines as the 4 engined 747. It cut down the development costs. It also made it possible to operate fleets of 767's and 747's with one pool of common spare engines. The 767-300ER benefitted from the improvements in engines developed for the 747-400. The improved efficiency of the engines supplied by all three manufacturers for the 747-400 allowed the 747-400 to have the same range as the 747SP but at a much lower CASM. The same engines installed on the 767-300ER allowed for greater range and payload while extending extending the number of routes that could be served by twin engined wide bodies.

UA even used the same ETOPS protocols for maintaining the engines for their 747-400 fleet as for their 767-300ER's even though that was not required. It supposedly cut down the cost of spares by not having to have duplicate spare engines available and by increasing the dispatch reliability of the 747 fleet. A 747 is twice as likely to have an engine failure as a 767 if the engines are maintained to the same standard. They are more than twice as likely to have a shut down if normal 747 standards of maintenance are used. As neither a 767 nor a 747 may take off in revenue service with an inoperable engine, using a ETOPS maintenance increased the dispatch reliability of the UA 747 fleet.

The new engines come with some disadvantages. They are a lot heavier (heavier materials allow for higher temperatures and pressures thus more efficiency) and costlier (manufacturers know the new engines are reducing fuel costs and they want a piece of the action!). Overall a win, but still one needs to consider all the variables.

The CF6-80C2 also brought FADEC. That is a huge improvement for fuel savings, engine wear, maintenance, etc. For those who don’t know what FADEC is, it essentially is the fly by wire of the engine world. However it has way more impact since it results in improved fuel control.

Newbiepilot wrote:

The CF6-80C2 also brought FADEC. That is a huge improvement for fuel savings, engine wear, maintenance, etc. For those who don’t know what FADEC is, it essentially is the fly by wire of the engine world. However it has way more impact since it results in improved fuel control.

Indeed. The pre-FADEC engine control systems were mechanical marvels, pushing the limits of such tech. Since they pushed the limits they were complicated and fiddly things to service. FADEC being software driven rather than electro-mechanical is so much more precise in terms of fuel control, and eliminates so many of the fiddly parts needed by pre-FADEC engines. Also the FADEC tech has improved each generation since CF6-80C2 and its ilk came on to the scene. Now these things manage sensors that are capturing amazing amounts of data in real time which helps provide even better performance and service intervals.

cosyr wrote:

There are currently more orders now than the backlog when the 767 entered service in the 80s, counting the order that FedEx just placed.

Also, there are only 38 frames on the order books for the tanker program. The contract calls for I believe, 179. I guess they will add some every year. The USAF eventually needs to replace 400 tankers.

This has likely been discussed on a.net in the past and pardon the deviation of the op's question, but during the mid/late-00s when we started seeing 763s with blended winglets, why didn't airlines opt for the 764 raked style wingtips on 763s instead? Do the blended style offer less drag and improve range more so than the raked style?

I guess the question could also apply the p-8 Poseidon (military 738) with raked wingtips versus the common style 737 blended winglets, and the 744 winglets vs 748 raked style.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

The 767 was designed from the start as a twin engined wide bodied jet that used the same engines as the 4 engined 747. It cut down the development costs. It also made it possible to operate fleets of 767's and 747's with one pool of common spare engines. The 767-300ER benefitted from the improvements in engines developed for the 747-400. The improved efficiency of the engines supplied by all three manufacturers for the 747-400 allowed the 747-400 to have the same range as the 747SP but at a much lower CASM. The same engines installed on the 767-300ER allowed for greater range and payload while extending extending the number of routes that could be served by twin engined wide bodies.

UA even used the same ETOPS protocols for maintaining the engines for their 747-400 fleet as for their 767-300ER's even though that was not required. It supposedly cut down the cost of spares by not having to have duplicate spare engines available and by increasing the dispatch reliability of the 747 fleet. A 747 is twice as likely to have an engine failure as a 767 if the engines are maintained to the same standard. They are more than twice as likely to have a shut down if normal 747 standards of maintenance are used. As neither a 767 nor a 747 may take off in revenue service with an inoperable engine, using a ETOPS maintenance increased the dispatch reliability of the UA 747 fleet.

Interesting info.

Can someone explain the points in bold? If the engines are maintained to a higher spec, applicable to both aircraft types, why would the engines on the 747 have potentially higher failure rates?

questions wrote:

Interesting info.

Can someone explain the points in bold? If the engines are maintained to a higher spec, applicable to both aircraft types, why would the engines on the 747 have potentially higher failure rates?

Because if they aren't maintained to ETOPS standards, they are not as reliable. ETOPS engines have different service schedules than non-ETOPS engines of the same model. They have to be rebuilt more frequently. Also only can be serviced by ETOPS rated mechanics. The engines must be maintained separately. If one engine is having an oil change, the other can't have one before the plane has flown. Different mechanics have to check the engines between flights so that a mechanic can't make the same mistake on both engines before the next flight.

N626AA wrote:

This has likely been discussed on a.net in the past and pardon the deviation of the op's question, but during the mid/late-00s when we started seeing 763s with blended winglets, why didn't airlines opt for the 764 raked style wingtips on 763s instead? Do the blended style offer less drag and improve range more so than the raked style?

I guess the question could also apply the p-8 Poseidon (military 738) with raked wingtips versus the common style 737 blended winglets, and the 744 winglets vs 748 raked style.

Raked wingtips as a very general rule offer a greater improvement than blended winglets, but are also much harder to retrofit unless the wing has been designed for them from the beginning (or just remarkably overbuilt, I suppose :p )

There is also the consideration of wingspan - blended winglets generally increase it only slightly, which is why the 787-3 would have had them instead of raked tips, as the nine-metre reduction in wingspan would have allowed it to fit the ICAO Class D box like the 763 does.

For your other examples; the P-8's "normal" mission profile is a prime territory for the performance improvements offered by raked tips and they don't have to worry about gate space, and the change to using them on the 748 was allowed by the changes Boeing were already making to the wing and the fact that the 744 was already in the biggest size box possible.

questions wrote:

If the engines are maintained to a higher spec, applicable to both aircraft types, why would the engines on the 747 have potentially higher failure rates?

The engines, when maintained to the same standards, have the same likelihood of failure. However, since a 747 has double the number of engines, the aircraft has double the chance of a failure occurring.

By the same measure though, the 747 and 767 when undergoing engine maintenance to the same standard will have the same chance of a failure causing the loss of half the engines.

N626AA wrote:

This has likely been discussed on a.net in the past and pardon the deviation of the op's question, but during the mid/late-00s when we started seeing 763s with blended winglets, why didn't airlines opt for the 764 raked style wingtips on 763s instead? Do the blended style offer less drag and improve range more so than the raked style?

I guess the question could also apply the p-8 Poseidon (military 738) with raked wingtips versus the common style 737 blended winglets, and the 744 winglets vs 748 raked style.

The 764 has a wider wingspan and might not be able to fit in the same gates as the 763. Also, the 764 wings were strengthened to enable higher MTOW and to be compatible with the raked wingtips. It might not have been economically feasible to retrofit the raked wingtips into existing 763's.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

1989worstyear wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

There was a huge engine change in the late 1980s when the 767-300ER came out. The marketing teams didn’t make as big of a deal as Airbus/Boeing do nowadays, but that was a big engine upgrade and 50% range increase.

If you compare the CF6-80C2 to the original CF6-80A, the changes are similar to what the CFM56 to LeapX in scope. Similar with the JT9D to PW4000. 20% increase in thrust, larger fan diameter, higher pressure ratio, higher bypass ratio, etc.

Wow - I had always assumed it was more like going from a CFM56-5A to a -5B

The 767 was designed from the start as a twin engined wide bodied jet that used the same engines as the 4 engined 747. It cut down the development costs. It also made it possible to operate fleets of 767's and 747's with one pool of common spare engines. The 767-300ER benefitted from the improvements in engines developed for the 747-400. The improved efficiency of the engines supplied by all three manufacturers for the 747-400 allowed the 747-400 to have the same range as the 747SP but at a much lower CASM. The same engines installed on the 767-300ER allowed for greater range and payload while extending extending the number of routes that could be served by twin engined wide bodies.

UA even used the same ETOPS protocols for maintaining the engines for their 747-400 fleet as for their 767-300ER's even though that was not required. It supposedly cut down the cost of spares by not having to have duplicate spare engines available and by increasing the dispatch reliability of the 747 fleet. A 747 is twice as likely to have an engine failure as a 767 if the engines are maintained to the same standard. They are more than twice as likely to have a shut down if normal 747 standards of maintenance are used. As neither a 767 nor a 747 may take off in revenue service with an inoperable engine, using a ETOPS maintenance increased the dispatch reliability of the UA 747 fleet.

Thanks for the insight. It's pretty clear the rest of the 763's systems killed it in 1999, as they were introduced about 10 years before 1988 (late 80's are part of the current generation of airliner tech - the early and mid 80s belong with the 60's generation with the 727 and 732 still being built).

It makes me wonder what would have happened if the A320 entered service in 1986 as opposed to '88, and the 757/767 in '88 instead of the real '80's

1989worstyear wrote:

Thanks for the insight. It's pretty clear the rest of the 763's systems killed it in 1999, as they were introduced about 10 years before 1988 (late 80's are part of the current generation of airliner tech - the early and mid 80s belong with the 60's generation with the 727 and 732 still being built).

The 767 passenger variants stopped selling in the late 90s because they no longer had compelling payload and range offering once the A330-200 entered service. Product configuration - and not system design - is consistently the dominant factor that leads to a market leader or market loser.

N626AA wrote:

This has likely been discussed on a.net in the past and pardon the deviation of the op's question, but during the mid/late-00s when we started seeing 763s with blended winglets, why didn't airlines opt for the 764 raked style wingtips on 763s instead? Do the blended style offer less drag and improve range more so than the raked style?

I guess the question could also apply the p-8 Poseidon (military 738) with raked wingtips versus the common style 737 blended winglets, and the 744 winglets vs 748 raked style.

The winglets came through a rather unique third party after market option that then got partnered and partially absorbed by Boeing. Boeing was not particularly supportive of Aviation Partners who developed the blended winglets. Boeing didn’t offer a raked wingtip retrofit, but Aviation Partners offered a blended winglet based on some of their prior designs that offered measureable savings. Eventually Boeing partnered with them which is why we began seeming blended wingtips in production on 737 instead of exclusively through retrofit.

Newbiepilot wrote:

N626AA wrote:

This has likely been discussed on a.net in the past and pardon the deviation of the op's question, but during the mid/late-00s when we started seeing 763s with blended winglets, why didn't airlines opt for the 764 raked style wingtips on 763s instead? Do the blended style offer less drag and improve range more so than the raked style?

I guess the question could also apply the p-8 Poseidon (military 738) with raked wingtips versus the common style 737 blended winglets, and the 744 winglets vs 748 raked style.

The winglets came through a rather unique third party after market option that then got partnered and partially absorbed by Boeing. Boeing was not particularly supportive of Aviation Partners who developed the blended winglets. Boeing didn’t offer a raked wingtip retrofit, but Aviation Partners offered a blended winglet based on some of their prior designs that offered measureable savings. Eventually Boeing partnered with them which is why we began seeming blended wingtips in production on 737 instead of exclusively through retrofit.

And even when offered as a factory option, many airlines preferred to buy 737's without winglets and install them themselves, because the airlines could install them cheaper.

DfwRevolution wrote:

1989worstyear wrote:

Thanks for the insight. It's pretty clear the rest of the 763's systems killed it in 1999, as they were introduced about 10 years before 1988 (late 80's are part of the current generation of airliner tech - the early and mid 80s belong with the 60's generation with the 727 and 732 still being built).

The 767 passenger variants stopped selling in the late 90s because they no longer had compelling payload and range offering once the A330-200 entered service. Product configuration - and not system design - is consistently the dominant factor that leads to a market leader or market loser.

Originally CO wanted a 764 with longer wingspan and more range to replace international DC-10's. DL wanted a 764 to replace domestic DC-10's without taking mute gate space especially at LGA. Boeing built the DL version as the 764ER. A proposed 764LR with wider wingspan would have used the same engines proposed for the 747-500. When the 747-500 and 600 were cancelled, the 764LR was cancelled too.

If Boeing ultimately decided against 797, will Boeing think about pushing passenger version of 767 to airlines again as they have previously suggested as a stop gap before NMA EIS?

Newbiepilot wrote:

Revelation wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

The 767 was designed from the start as a twin engined wide bodied jet that used the same engines as the 4 engined 747. It cut down the development costs. It also made it possible to operate fleets of 767's and 747's with one pool of common spare engines. The 767-300ER benefitted from the improvements in engines developed for the 747-400. The improved efficiency of the engines supplied by all three manufacturers for the 747-400 allowed the 747-400 to have the same range as the 747SP but at a much lower CASM. The same engines installed on the 767-300ER allowed for greater range and payload while extending extending the number of routes that could be served by twin engined wide bodies.

UA even used the same ETOPS protocols for maintaining the engines for their 747-400 fleet as for their 767-300ER's even though that was not required. It supposedly cut down the cost of spares by not having to have duplicate spare engines available and by increasing the dispatch reliability of the 747 fleet. A 747 is twice as likely to have an engine failure as a 767 if the engines are maintained to the same standard. They are more than twice as likely to have a shut down if normal 747 standards of maintenance are used. As neither a 767 nor a 747 may take off in revenue service with an inoperable engine, using a ETOPS maintenance increased the dispatch reliability of the UA 747 fleet.

The new engines come with some disadvantages. They are a lot heavier (heavier materials allow for higher temperatures and pressures thus more efficiency) and costlier (manufacturers know the new engines are reducing fuel costs and they want a piece of the action!). Overall a win, but still one needs to consider all the variables.

The CF6-80C2 also brought FADEC. That is a huge improvement for fuel savings, engine wear, maintenance, etc. For those who don’t know what FADEC is, it essentially is the fly by wire of the engine world. However it has way more impact since it results in improved fuel control.

The -80C2 is not always FADEC though. For example, even AA’s newest 767s are non-FADEC.

DfwRevolution wrote:

1989worstyear wrote:

Thanks for the insight. It's pretty clear the rest of the 763's systems killed it in 1999, as they were introduced about 10 years before 1988 (late 80's are part of the current generation of airliner tech - the early and mid 80s belong with the 60's generation with the 727 and 732 still being built).

The 767 passenger variants stopped selling in the late 90s because they no longer had compelling payload and range offering once the A330-200 entered service. Product configuration - and not system design - is consistently the dominant factor that leads to a market leader or market loser.

However I wonder if the whole picture has not become a little more nuanced.

The given wisdom developed that the 330-200 was always & everywhere superior.
I suspect that later developments rather point-to the 330-200 having been superior in the largest portion of small-WB space - but not all of it.
And that a part of the problem which developed for the 767-300ER is also facing the 330neo family right now.

The upshot of the USAF Tanker imbroglio indicated that the 767 remains desirable in a (smallish) niche.
AA decided to retain them in their fleet (until the increasing problems with old frames sent them in the 787 direction).
UA and DL are apparently determined to keep the old girls going; and again UA actually requested pricing on new-build frames.
All these would seem to indicate that for some carriers the 767 is still the correct product, even after the A330neo family has arrived on the scene.

In summary the 767 demand was all satisfied for quite some time, and no new frames were required until now- when new-builds are no longer available.

As also seems to be much the case for the A339neo - there are lots and lots of good 330ceo frames in service which are nowhere near needing replacement - yet.

cheers

Newbiepilot wrote:

jeffrey0032j wrote:

Almost 40 years with no major changes (sure there are incremental changes but nothing of a NG/MAX/neo magnitude). It just keeps going.

There was a huge engine change in the late 1980s when the 767-300ER came out. The marketing teams didn’t make as big of a deal as Airbus/Boeing do nowadays, but that was a big engine upgrade and 50% range increase.

If you compare the CF6-80C2 to the original CF6-80A, the changes are similar to what the CFM56 to LeapX in scope. Similar with the JT9D to PW4000. 20% increase in thrust, larger fan diameter, higher pressure ratio, higher bypass ratio, etc.

Yes, for some reason they kept things quiet. If anything of the magnitude (PW JT9D vs PW4000) was done today, the type would probably get a new name and new house livery!

questions wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

The 767 was designed from the start as a twin engined wide bodied jet that used the same engines as the 4 engined 747. It cut down the development costs. It also made it possible to operate fleets of 767's and 747's with one pool of common spare engines. The 767-300ER benefitted from the improvements in engines developed for the 747-400. The improved efficiency of the engines supplied by all three manufacturers for the 747-400 allowed the 747-400 to have the same range as the 747SP but at a much lower CASM. The same engines installed on the 767-300ER allowed for greater range and payload while extending extending the number of routes that could be served by twin engined wide bodies.

UA even used the same ETOPS protocols for maintaining the engines for their 747-400 fleet as for their 767-300ER's even though that was not required. It supposedly cut down the cost of spares by not having to have duplicate spare engines available and by increasing the dispatch reliability of the 747 fleet. A 747 is twice as likely to have an engine failure as a 767 if the engines are maintained to the same standard. They are more than twice as likely to have a shut down if normal 747 standards of maintenance are used. As neither a 767 nor a 747 may take off in revenue service with an inoperable engine, using a ETOPS maintenance increased the dispatch reliability of the UA 747 fleet.

Interesting info.

Can someone explain the points in bold? If the engines are maintained to a higher spec, applicable to both aircraft types, why would the engines on the 747 have potentially higher failure rates?

If both are maintained to ETOPS specs, the engines themselves won't have higher failure rates, but the aircraft in general will, by nature of there being double the engines on a 744 than a 763

oldannyboy wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

jeffrey0032j wrote:

Almost 40 years with no major changes (sure there are incremental changes but nothing of a NG/MAX/neo magnitude). It just keeps going.

There was a huge engine change in the late 1980s when the 767-300ER came out. The marketing teams didn’t make as big of a deal as Airbus/Boeing do nowadays, but that was a big engine upgrade and 50% range increase.

If you compare the CF6-80C2 to the original CF6-80A, the changes are similar to what the CFM56 to LeapX in scope. Similar with the JT9D to PW4000. 20% increase in thrust, larger fan diameter, higher pressure ratio, higher bypass ratio, etc.

Yes, for some reason they kept things quiet. If anything of the magnitude (PW JT9D vs PW4000) was done today, the type would probably get a new name and new house livery!

Exactly! Airbus added the suffix LR to the A321 for a 3% MTOW boost of only 7,000lbs. The 767-300ER was a 13% increase in MTOW which added 45,000lbs and increased range about 70%. I think marketing would have scoffed at calling it the 767MAX back in the 1980s.

Newbiepilot wrote:

oldannyboy wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

There was a huge engine change in the late 1980s when the 767-300ER came out. The marketing teams didn’t make as big of a deal as Airbus/Boeing do nowadays, but that was a big engine upgrade and 50% range increase.

If you compare the CF6-80C2 to the original CF6-80A, the changes are similar to what the CFM56 to LeapX in scope. Similar with the JT9D to PW4000. 20% increase in thrust, larger fan diameter, higher pressure ratio, higher bypass ratio, etc.

Yes, for some reason they kept things quiet. If anything of the magnitude (PW JT9D vs PW4000) was done today, the type would probably get a new name and new house livery!

Exactly! Airbus added the suffix LR to the A321 for a 3% MTOW boost of only 7,000lbs. The 767-300ER was a 13% increase in MTOW which added 45,000lbs and increased range about 70%. I think marketing would have scoffed at calling it the 767MAX back in the 1980s.

I guess it was different times back then.

One thought is they didn't make a big fuss because the engines were literally the same ones that were already made available for 744.

We see these days GEnx for 787 and 748 are not interchangeable like 767 and 744 engines were:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_E ... ifications

And yes marketing does like to justify their pay packets, so...

Revelation wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

oldannyboy wrote:

Yes, for some reason they kept things quiet. If anything of the magnitude (PW JT9D vs PW4000) was done today, the type would probably get a new name and new house livery!

Exactly! Airbus added the suffix LR to the A321 for a 3% MTOW boost of only 7,000lbs. The 767-300ER was a 13% increase in MTOW which added 45,000lbs and increased range about 70%. I think marketing would have scoffed at calling it the 767MAX back in the 1980s.

I guess it was different times back then.

One thought is they didn't make a big fuss because the engines were literally the same ones that were already made available for 744.

We see these days GEnx for 787 and 748 are not interchangeable like 767 and 744 engines were:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_E ... ifications

[color=#400080]And yes marketing does like to justify their pay packets, so[/color]...

I know...talking about people being paid to sell froth.....

Newbiepilot wrote:

oldannyboy wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

There was a huge engine change in the late 1980s when the 767-300ER came out. The marketing teams didn’t make as big of a deal as Airbus/Boeing do nowadays, but that was a big engine upgrade and 50% range increase.

If you compare the CF6-80C2 to the original CF6-80A, the changes are similar to what the CFM56 to LeapX in scope. Similar with the JT9D to PW4000. 20% increase in thrust, larger fan diameter, higher pressure ratio, higher bypass ratio, etc.

Yes, for some reason they kept things quiet. If anything of the magnitude (PW JT9D vs PW4000) was done today, the type would probably get a new name and new house livery!

Exactly! Airbus added the suffix LR to the A321 for a 3% MTOW boost of only 7,000lbs. .

...Hey!! ..But they also moved A DOOR!!!!

Revelation wrote:

We see these days GEnx for 787 and 748 are not interchangeable like 767 and 744 engines were...

Two words; bleedless & bleed.

neutrino wrote:

Revelation wrote:

We see these days GEnx for 787 and 748 are not interchangeable like 767 and 744 engines were...

Two words; bleedless & bleed.

A bit more than that: they have different fan diameters and the smaller/lighter -2B 747 motor also drops one LPC and one HPC stage.

Revelation wrote:

neutrino wrote:

Revelation wrote:

We see these days GEnx for 787 and 748 are not interchangeable like 767 and 744 engines were...

Two words; bleedless & bleed.

A bit more than that: they have different fan diameters and the smaller/lighter -2B 747 motor also drops one LPC and one HPC stage.

The 748 doesn't need as much thrust per engine as the 787.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

neutrino wrote:

Two words; bleedless & bleed.

A bit more than that: they have different fan diameters and the smaller/lighter -2B 747 motor also drops one LPC and one HPC stage.

The 748 doesn't need as much thrust per engine as the 787.

If Revelation knew about the fan diameter and stage reductions, don't you think he also knew the 747 engine has less thrust? Give the man some credit.

Andre3K wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

A bit more than that: they have different fan diameters and the smaller/lighter -2B 747 motor also drops one LPC and one HPC stage.

The 748 doesn't need as much thrust per engine as the 787.

If Revelation knew about the fan diameter and stage reductions, don't you think he also knew the 747 engine has less thrust? Give the man some credit.

Of course he does, but some of the newer members reading this thread might not understand the difference in the required thrust for a quad versus a twin and other issues involved.

what a heads and tails of a rumour