• 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 11
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8847
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sun Oct 13, 2019 10:24 am

RJMAZ wrote:
seahawk wrote:
We should not look at that rumour in isolation, but consider the rumour about a 737-9ERMAX. The 737 would be the direct competition to the A321 and the 767MAX would try to fill the gap in capacity between the 737 and the 787.

I see where you are coming from. But 221m2 vs 232m2 the 767-400ER nearly has the same cabin area as the 787-8. It does not really fill the gap below the 787.

The 787-8 would easily carry 10% more passengers due to its better cabin width optimisation while burning the same if not less fuel than this hypothetical 767-400MAX. The bigger wing on the 787-8 allows it to fly higher and burn less fuel despite having an empty weight 10% greater than the 767-400ER.

Purchase price would have to be extremely cheap to make the 767-400MAX attractive. Boeing could just further improve production efficiency on the 787-8 instead.

Unless we are talking about 767-200MAX and 767-300MAX. They would fill the gap in terms of cabin area however they would most likely have a range of 8000nm and 7000nm respectively. Like I know we have a surge in point to point routes but is there demand? Airlines might actually be desperate to open more long thin routes which is being held back by the lack of suitable small long haul aircraft. We do not know demand as it is a chicken before the egg situation. New routes might open up that people here might laugh at.

Lets take Australia to the USA. Currently we have a dozen routes between the two countries with about half going to and from Sydney. A 767MAX would allow Brisbane to connect to four or five of the current US cities. Melbourne and Sydney would then connect to a few additional US cities. It is really hard to predict as we have not had a small widebody with competitive fuel burn for 30+ years.


I would not interpret "based on the -400" as having the same fuselage length as the -400, more like the 400 being the baseline (landing gear, avionics, wingtips) from which they start and I see no reason why they could not do a -300 length fuselage. And do you remember the customer feedback surveys for the MOM from a few years ago- They indicated that a larger group of airlines wanted a direct A321 competitor, while a sizeable group wanted a 767 replacement. The combination of 767MAX and 737-9ERMAX would appeal to each group and together would be quite cheap to implement and rather fast to the market.

Due to the conflicting wishes the 797 could always appeal to one group only and the costs would be a lot higher, while the time to the market would be a lot longer. Considering the financial consequences of the MAX grounding, cheap and fast might be the better option, especially if Boeing has reached a consensus that they need the NSA by 2030.
 
iberiadc852
Posts: 272
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 8:23 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sun Oct 13, 2019 12:40 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Unless we are talking about 767-200MAX and 767-300MAX. They would fill the gap in terms of cabin area however they would most likely have a range of 8000nm and 7000nm respectively. Like I know we have a surge in point to point routes but is there demand? Airlines might actually be desperate to open more long thin routes which is being held back by the lack of suitable small long haul aircraft. We do not know demand as it is a chicken before the egg situation. New routes might open up that people here might laugh at.


Not only that. Not to forget the big amount of routes that are oversized in capacity/range because the existing gap between 788-330 and 321.
Yes, the 762MAX and 763MAX would steal sales of your own, but that's better than your rival does it.
In that regard, Boeing has and advantage, because they have something intermediate in the closet (767) which Airbus doesn't have any similar.

But for that, obviously,

a) You have to create something capable, cheap and efficient enough to compete
b) You cannot count on a 764MAX model. It's too near the 788 and 330 to fill the gap in capacity and would have "too old genes" to be competitive in their proper market.
variety is the spice of life; that's what made the "old times" so good
 
VC10er
Posts: 4132
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sun Oct 13, 2019 1:08 pm

From a purely emotional and an historical large amount of 767-300 flights AND that I have thoroughly enjoyed United’s refurbished 763’s, I would love for this to happen and see airlines like UA pick up a bunch of these upgraded 764’s.

Everyone says they are too noisy, I personally don’t mind that she is not as quiet as a 787, but I do prefer the smaller cabin width. With the 777 ceiling and bins the 767 looks new tech enough (even though she’s not) - nice to know she’d be more fuel efficient.

So, Question one is: would the GenX engine be more quiet?

Second Question: I am amazed at how much UA gets out of their 14 764s. It sometimes “seems” like UA must have way more than 14 764s from EWR to Europe, 8 out of 10 times I look at cities beyond LHR, it’s a 764!!! Often to cities where the international competition (Ex: SWISS, LH, etc) the UA 764 trails far behind with the old Diamond seat.
So, COULD this updated 764 be a high J configuration, Polaris & PE but with a bit larger Y+ and Y?

It does “feel” that if UA could get a much less expensive upgraded 763 & 764’s, with 15% fuel savings they many not need/want that MoM (797) as bad as they do now?
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 2942
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sun Oct 13, 2019 5:47 pm

The GEnx-2B from the B748 could probably be redesigned for the B763, with a retrofit offered for existing CF6-80 frames. This may be an admission that the B789 won't work as a cargo frame because of its fiberglass and composite frame, but the B763 will work very well and will have demand for years to come. For the B763, you likely run out of space first, but to strengthen the B789 may result in the opposite.

As for a MOM, maybe the B764 could be dusted off with the GEnx-2B as well, and more fuel capacity as a true 6000-nmi frame?
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Posts: 9125
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sun Oct 13, 2019 6:40 pm

Just a reminder to keep your posts on topic, the thread is about the 767 not about the production and order book of the 787.
Forum Moderator
 
Aptivaboy
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:32 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sun Oct 13, 2019 6:51 pm

No airline needs a small widebody with 8000+nm range.


Then again, no one needed a smallish narrowbody with oceanic range, and yet we now have the 737 and baby buses flying the North Atlantic, and making the West Coast - Hawaii runs every day. The market has a way of changing over time and going in unanticipated directions. Time will tell...
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3982
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sun Oct 13, 2019 7:55 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
Look I get the 767 has been a highly successful freighter, but Boeing can't be serious. The 788F is the obvious successor to that, and the 787 backlog has shrunk once again, so the time to launch the 787F is now. The NMA honestly should be a re-engined, re-winged 757 stretch if they're going to go down a derivative/grandfathering route.

I really don't believe a 787 based freighter would be that successful. Thoujgh? With a reduction in Air conditioning and pressurization equipment? The weight would be very light and the freight uplift would be phenominal. But a 787 based freighter would HAVE to be purpose built As a freighter and not a warmed over Passenger- Liner
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1586
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sun Oct 13, 2019 7:56 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
SamTheGeek wrote:
A bit off topic, but I think that this is Boeing preparing for military sales with the newer engine.

Too late for that. The USAF already has about 50 KC-46 refueling tankers with Pratt engines. 15 aircraft are coming off the line each year. The USAF would never change its order to GenX. It would be decades until they would consider fitting more modern engines to the KC-46.

The freighter market most likely has suggested updated engines. A big Amazon order would be the most likely reason. Amazon would no doubt request an offer from Airbus and they would have offered an A330-800 freighter. Boeing would rather spend a billion on fitting 747-8 engines to the 767F than lose multiple billions in profit from the Amazon sale.


As you have noted, these proposed changes make a very viable freighter, but these new engines do not improve the passenger prospects.

Not sure about the acceptance of the GEnx with the Air Force. They are considering the Passport on the B-52, the big thing is a ton of in service hours reliably.

I am sure that Pratt is locked into the KC-X contract for 179. But a new RFP is probably coming for KC-Y, it could be changed then. I am sure that any proposed engines will be discussed in background. This later RFP would need to address the KC-10 replacement, but it also is a chance to look at the entire tanker fleet with the F-35 fighters, drones, B-21, etc.

It is likely that Boeing has been in long term discussions with the freight customers. Boeing has the 767 line for KC-46 production for at least a decade, probably 2 decades. But that is 15 per year rate. Much better if it is a 48 per year rate, so need to sell 3 dozen freighters a year for decades. How to do that? Update the most popular freighter to live on.
 
Noshow
Posts: 1075
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sun Oct 13, 2019 8:41 pm

Could the low rate optimized 767-tanker line build so many commercial freighters?
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 500
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sun Oct 13, 2019 10:48 pm

Noshow wrote:
AFAIK the 767 tanker line has been optimized for low rate long time military production. With a sort of a separated military logistics and infrastructure. Would this be able to build commercial aircraft at higher rates on top at competitive cost now? All the fuss with certifying new engines for some commercial freighters? I can't believe it. Well if Amazon would want 500 maybe. But then they would need a new line anyway.


I think that building commercial aircraft at a high rate between the military ones has its merits, ie economies of scale among others. You can also run the line much more efficiently with higher numbers of staff doing less varieties of tasks. When you have a low production line, you have few staff doing almost everything and wasting time switching between tasks or doing them slower because they are less used to doing each task.

I also don't see the ROI of the new engines working out straight away.
If they can sell 1000 of them, sure, but for a couple couple of hundred copies, it's smarter to PIP it as much as possible, keep the weight low, take more weight out, put a dreamliner interior, aero tweaks here and there and try to make it 10% more efficient on a per aircraft basis, 20% on a per seat basis with 8 abreast, with minimal investment.

Sure GE would probably like to sell more GEnx at higher price and margin than CF6, but that doesn't mean that they can roll over everything to the GEnx.

Also, who says that it has to be GE.
If you look at the KC46 which is running on PW4000, the solution might come from PW rather than GE.
PW surely would love to sell PIP's to the USAF too?
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sun Oct 13, 2019 11:38 pm

If they went this route I'm guessing they would use the 787/77X avionics suite? I believe the Rockwell Collins avoinics package on the 767-400 was discontinued.
 
planecane
Posts: 1234
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:02 am

Waterbomber2 wrote:
Noshow wrote:
AFAIK the 767 tanker line has been optimized for low rate long time military production. With a sort of a separated military logistics and infrastructure. Would this be able to build commercial aircraft at higher rates on top at competitive cost now? All the fuss with certifying new engines for some commercial freighters? I can't believe it. Well if Amazon would want 500 maybe. But then they would need a new line anyway.


I think that building commercial aircraft at a high rate between the military ones has its merits, ie economies of scale among others. You can also run the line much more efficiently with higher numbers of staff doing less varieties of tasks. When you have a low production line, you have few staff doing almost everything and wasting time switching between tasks or doing them slower because they are less used to doing each task.

I also don't see the ROI of the new engines working out straight away.
If they can sell 1000 of them, sure, but for a couple couple of hundred copies, it's smarter to PIP it as much as possible, keep the weight low, take more weight out, put a dreamliner interior, aero tweaks here and there and try to make it 10% more efficient on a per aircraft basis, 20% on a per seat basis with 8 abreast, with minimal investment.

Sure GE would probably like to sell more GEnx at higher price and margin than CF6, but that doesn't mean that they can roll over everything to the GEnx.

Also, who says that it has to be GE.
If you look at the KC46 which is running on PW4000, the solution might come from PW rather than GE.
PW surely would love to sell PIP's to the USAF too?

I think everyone is missing the key here that a poster mentioned earlier in this thread. There is some date within the decade after which Boeing can't sell the 767 anymore due to some emissions regulation. The model is still somewhat popular for cargo operations. In order to serve that market without an expensive 787 freighter variant, this is the only option. If it is efficient enough for a few airlines to want it as a passenger model, that would just be bonus sales.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13281
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Mon Oct 14, 2019 5:47 am

Noshow wrote:
Could the low rate optimized 767-tanker line build so many commercial freighters?


Triggered by your question I took a look at deliveries. 1165 over 38 years. Average 30 per year. Top years were 1990-1992 at 5 per month / 60 per year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767#Orders_and_deliveries. We see an upturn from 2017. Probably also because carrier stick to their 767s and few good ones become available for conversion.

Image

8 Abreast on 767 must lead to one off the narrowest seat/armrests/ aisles in the industry. I think, like 9 abreast A330's, it is almost exclusively found on leisure carriers. Maybe a bit can be optimized. Sculpturing like the 777X would seem unlikey. IMO Boeing walked a narrow path of grandfathered design certification there and it would raise delivery time, costs. But if they did it would certainly mean an efficiency bump. Examples below TUI Thomson.

Image
https://static.wixstatic.com/media/107b ... s_4_2.webp

Leeham summed specifics of a 767 re launch in 2017. I know United has been pushing for it.
https://leehamnews.com/2017/08/14/boeings-tactical-option-for-mom-sector/

The 767 has a healthy distance from A321 XLR in terms of capacity-range and a healthy (30t OEW) advantage in term of operating costs over the 787 and A330. No wonder Boeing has been targeting "767 size" with the latest NMA studies. Now they have to believe themselves.

I think congress (KC46), Fedex, GE (Genx2 line) and United would certainly be willing to support a quick launch. Around 767-300ER size. The bulk of the 1990-2002 production bulk is up for replacement. And however nice the XLR is, it's still small & cargo weak.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21589
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Mon Oct 14, 2019 5:52 am

Why the GEnX? Seems like an awfully old engine to be installing on a new upgrade, seeing as how the first ones were delivered 11+ years ago.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Mon Oct 14, 2019 5:58 am

This could also be Boeing trying to lull their competitor into a false sense of security. Meanwhile have MOM development going on.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13281
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:27 am

DocLightning wrote:
Why the GEnX? Seems like an awfully old engine to be installing on a new upgrade, seeing as how the first ones were delivered 11+ years ago.


It is. Plus would be that it is matured. Operating it under it's design thrust levels might compensate the higher cycles of medium flights, helping time on wing. Trent 7000 (bleed air) might also be an option, but is really optimized for 70k lbs for the long haul mission of the a330NEO.

A GenX-2B optimzed variant, incorporating all lessons learned, service data might be the lower risk way forward. GE is now at a production rate 20-25/yr for those engines and no doubt would prefer a better rate. Not to be ignored, the GEnX is way quieter, savier and cleaner then the PW4000, RB211's and CF6 currently used on the 767. Which helps a lot flying into noise restricted airports around large populated areas.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1666
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:47 am

DocLightning wrote:
Why the GEnX? Seems like an awfully old engine to be installing on a new upgrade, seeing as how the first ones were delivered 11+ years ago.

The GenX 2B had a Performance Improvement Package (PIP) in 2013 and received a durability PIP just last year that brings it up to the standard of the latest GenX 1B being fitted to the 787-8's.

The GenX 1B is said to beat the TrentTen in fuel efficiency by a very small amount. The XWB also beats the TrentTen by a small amount. So the current GenX is very close to the XWB.

So considering the GenX also has rock solid reliability with very low maintenance it makes a perfect choice. It would be MUCH cheaper than going with a cleansheet engine.

I expect the GenX in the 787 to get another PIP in a few years, this can also be fitted to the 767 and 747-8.

The definition of a PIP and NEO has been blurred recently. The TrentTen was a fully new engine over the Trent1000 yet was sold as a PIP. I expect the 787NEO to actually be a big PIP instead. They might call it the GenX 3B. A slightly smaller but more powerful core will push the bypass ratio above 10:1 in the same nacelle. We'll see CMC tech from the GE9X fitted in the hot section. I expect 90% of 787's to get this new GenX 3B and the A350 will get the ultrafan. It will be a battle of engines.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8847
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:52 am

The GenX 2B is not old compared to any competitor in the market. If you plan on fighting the A330NEO it does just fine.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 366
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Mon Oct 14, 2019 7:04 am

seahawk wrote:
The GenX 2B is not old compared to any competitor in the market. If you plan on fighting the A330NEO it does just fine.



I wonder if Boeing will ever be able to kill off the A330. They try since it is launched and it is still here after all them years. The 767 tried hard and lost, the 787 definitely knocked it down hard but it is still there and now Boeing maybe tries with another upgraded 767.

From a passenger perspective this two aircraft are in my opinion the nicest ones to fly on. 2-3-2 and 2-4-2 is just a great experience for a long flight 3-3-3 and 3-4-3 are just awful...
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13281
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Mon Oct 14, 2019 7:09 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
This could also be Boeing trying to lull their competitor into a false sense of security. Meanwhile have MOM development going on.


The funny thing is when convincing yourself 2-3-2, maybe 2-4-2 is the best cross section for the market requirements, the Asian market requires a bit more cargo capability and airlines want to pay 80mln/ship, engine availability in 2025 is a must, it becomes hard to say the in production 767 / GEnX is a bad idea / conspiracy.

http://leehamnews.com/wp-content/upload ... 9x1024.png
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 578
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Mon Oct 14, 2019 7:16 am

JetBuddy wrote:
It seems like Boeing is considering scrapping the MoM and re-engine the 767 instead to have more funds to build a 737 replacement. I think it's a logical step considering all the issues with the MAX and it's reputation. On the other hand, a 767 MAX could become a repeat of the 737 MAX. Although I do believe they've learned a lesson by now.


It seems like a very logical step.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8847
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:08 am

Especially if you consider the costs of the MAX grounding and the probably increased pressure to replace the 737 with a new model. We can be quite sure that the MAX grounding will probably cost Boeing a large part of the development budget for the MoM.

And if Boeing needs the FAS (Future Small Aircraft) earlier than planed, the resources (engineering and monetary) might be better spent there. While they do a 737-9ERMAX and a 767MAX to buy time and still decently cover the market segments the MoM was supposed to tackle.
 
User avatar
MrBren
Posts: 274
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 11:44 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:16 am

Will the FAA certify it? Quite frightening.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8847
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:21 am

Why not? Engine is reliable and with the -400 landing gear the position of the engine is also conservative. Weight difference is also negligible .
 
Noshow
Posts: 1075
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:29 am

So please again what exactly was that future emission requirement that requires new 767 engines from the mid 20s please? Does anybody have a link possibly?
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1666
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:40 am

FluidFlow wrote:
I wonder if Boeing will ever be able to kill off the A330. They try since it is launched and it is still here after all them years. The 767 tried hard and lost, the 787 definitely knocked it down hard but it is still there and now Boeing maybe tries with another upgraded 767.

The A330 will never be able to be killed providing Airbus is willing to keep lowering the price and accept an extremely low profit margin. It is however putting a massive drain on Airbus financially as their yearly profits are not that good. With so many narrowbodies coming off the line there is no other explanation other than their widebodies must not be generating any profit. The A380's barely cover the build cost. A350 manufacturing costs are still very high. The A330NEO's are being sold extremely cheap to compete.

Boeing on the other hand is making a very high profit on each 787 due to the vastly superior performance, and construction techniques. Boeing can easily ride out the 737MAX problems.

A 767MAX freighter will probably see Boeing capture 95% of the freighter market by 2030.
Last edited by RJMAZ on Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:45 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
Max Q
Posts: 7806
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:40 am

VC10er wrote:
From a purely emotional and an historical large amount of 767-300 flights AND that I have thoroughly enjoyed United’s refurbished 763’s, I would love for this to happen and see airlines like UA pick up a bunch of these upgraded 764’s.

Everyone says they are too noisy, I personally don’t mind that she is not as quiet as a 787, but I do prefer the smaller cabin width. With the 777 ceiling and bins the 767 looks new tech enough (even though she’s not) - nice to know she’d be more fuel efficient.

So, Question one is: would the GenX engine be more quiet?

Second Question: I am amazed at how much UA gets out of their 14 764s. It sometimes “seems” like UA must have way more than 14 764s from EWR to Europe, 8 out of 10 times I look at cities beyond LHR, it’s a 764!!! Often to cities where the international competition (Ex: SWISS, LH, etc) the UA 764 trails far behind with the old Diamond seat.
So, COULD this updated 764 be a high J configuration, Polaris & PE but with a bit larger Y+ and Y?

It does “feel” that if UA could get a much less expensive upgraded 763 & 764’s, with 15% fuel savings they many not need/want that MoM (797) as bad as they do now?



Last I checked UA had sixteen 764’s
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


Guns are a malignant cancer that are destroying our society
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 366
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:58 am

RJMAZ wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
I wonder if Boeing will ever be able to kill off the A330. They try since it is launched and it is still here after all them years. The 767 tried hard and lost, the 787 definitely knocked it down hard but it is still there and now Boeing maybe tries with another upgraded 767.

The A330 will never be able to be killed providing Airbus is willing to keep lowering the price and accept an extremely low profit margin. It is however putting a massive drain on Airbus financially as their yearly profits are not that good. With so many narrowbodies coming off the line there is no other explanation other than their widebodies must not be generating any profit. The A380's barely cover the build cost. A350 manufacturing costs are still very high. The A330NEO's are being sold extremely cheap to compete.

Boeing on the other hand is making a very high profit on each 787 due to the vastly superior performance, and construction techniques. Boeing can easily ride out the 737MAX problems.


So the conclusion is, that a few dirt cheap A330s a month put a lid on Boeing profits as the 787 has to meet certain pricing criteria.

The production problems of the A350 are a different story and not anyway related to the possible re-engined 767. The floating of this info and the 737-9ER just show that the MOM 797 seems an impossible business case to close, probably also because of A330s that can be bought dirt cheap.

I posted a few months ago, that the 797 is not gonna be a MOM aircraft, just because the MAX crisis drains a lot of money and Boeing needs to decide between a NSA or NMA for entry into service in 2030 to compete against Airbus in the NB segment. It starts to look like Boeing also goes this way by introducing cheap bridging products to have the resources in place. The reason is fairly simple: Why draining $30B+ into a MOM aircraft just by getting blindsided when Airbus launches the A320 replacement in 2030.

Airbus does not need to launch a MOM aircraft and even tho the A330 does not bring profits it keeps the price of the 787 low (and the possible re-engined 767). Also Airbus does not need a new wide body. Production problems of the A350 will maybe get handled and all Airbus needs to do is improvements (like MTOW increase) and a possible NEO from 2028+.

Boeing on the other side as a great WB lineup comming so no need for big investments, also just a re-engined version of the 787, which will be an amazing aircraft (it already is). The 777X will do ok, and will generate profits, not a lot but enough.

So the next investment has to go to the NSA or NMA, but investing in the NMA will lead to an uphill race in the NB segment. A $30B+ investment there could turn out as a big loss. The 797 might be like the A380: Just too big for its purpose. A cool thing but not a good business decision. So Boeing should go for the NSA in my opinion. It is a low risk option with huge potential for big return.
 
Noshow
Posts: 1075
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:04 am

If Boeing goes NSA now they don't have the next generation engines they'd need to succesfully fight the high rate A321neo and it's possibly upcoming even bigger brothers. Waiting like about five years could prevent them from lagging one generation behind when Airbus finally launches some A320 follow on family with those new engines.

Admittedly Boeing is under higher pressure to modernize the narrowbodies but in some way this will be who moves first loses because the other guy can wait and match or top his competitor.
 
phollingsworth
Posts: 675
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:05 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:09 am

The biggest advantage a GEnX-2B based re-engine has over the A330NEO programme is on the engine manufacturers side. RR spent quite a bit of money to create the Trent7000. In the case of the -2B it already exists, has an inservice fleet. The real advantage for GE is that having another airframe for the -2B makes future PIPs easier to justify.

On the wing. It would be relatively low cost to re-loft the wing to improve the aerodynamics. The 767 has a relatively early supercritical airfoil. To re-contour the trailing edge would be fairly straightforward. However, the risk is that it disrupts your spares line. As for Aspect Ratio, the raked wing-tips on the -400 bring the aspect ratio up to 9.3 and still keep the aircraft in the ICAO Code D range. This was critical back in the late 1990s when DL and CO needed aircraft that fit span limited gates for domestic ops. However, this has been broken. Additionally, the raked wing-tips on the -400 are first-gen, boeing is now 3 or 4 generations further along, so these could easily be revisited.

Two big questions would have to be answered on a re-engine.
1. How big do you make the wing-span, and should you use folding wing-tips to get an advantage?
2. Fuselage length: If you use the -400 main gear you will need to lengthen the nose gear, both for engine fitting and for cargo operations. The amount you do will be based on the 'primary' fuselage length. The -300 fuselage will need a longer nose gear than the -400.
 
Noshow
Posts: 1075
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:12 am

Does it need to use LaGuardia's tiny stands or not? This defined the span back then.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6932
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Mon Oct 14, 2019 10:50 am

RJMAZ wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
I wonder if Boeing will ever be able to kill off the A330. They try since it is launched and it is still here after all them years. The 767 tried hard and lost, the 787 definitely knocked it down hard but it is still there and now Boeing maybe tries with another upgraded 767.

The A330 will never be able to be killed providing Airbus is willing to keep lowering the price and accept an extremely low profit margin. It is however putting a massive drain on Airbus financially as their yearly profits are not that good. With so many narrowbodies coming off the line there is no other explanation other than their widebodies must not be generating any profit. The A380's barely cover the build cost. A350 manufacturing costs are still very high. The A330NEO's are being sold extremely cheap to compete.

Boeing on the other hand is making a very high profit on each 787 due to the vastly superior performance, and construction techniques. Boeing can easily ride out the 737MAX problems.

A 767MAX freighter will probably see Boeing capture 95% of the freighter market by 2030.


Please can you explain "extremely low profit margin"?

In 2018 Airbus Commercial (which bizarrely includes the A400M) had the following results:-

Revenue :- E47 970 M ($57.5Bn)
EBIT adjusted :- E 4 808 M ($5.75Bn) and 10% margin
EBIT reported :- E 4 295 M ($5.15Bn) and 9% margin after a E400m exceptional write-down on the A380, and a E400m exceptional write-down on the A400M)

https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... ELEASE.pdf

The H1 2019 results show slightly lower margins, but then their H1 2018 figures were lower still.

(H1 2018 E25Bn revenue, EBIT adjusted E1.2Bn, EBIT reported E 1.1Bn)
(H1 2019 E31Bn revenue, EBIT adjusted E2.5Bn, EBIT reported E 2.1Bn)

Please can you also explain how the A330 is "a massive drain on Airbus financially", when the 49 A330's delivered last year amount to around 10% of total revenue at list prices (vs 93 x A350, plus 12 x A380, plus 626 x A320)

I would be very careful of assuming that Airbus are selling the A330 and A350 on very low margins - that assumption has massive implications for the margins it implies for the A320's.
For reference, zero profit on widebodys implies an EBIT margin on A320's of 17% - you know, the A320's that they are famous for "giving away" ...

Airbus still make money on A330's .....

Rgds
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8847
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:09 am

Just look at the numbers from Boeing since they stopped delivering 737. Both depend on their single aisle offerings more than anything. The success or failure of the widebodies is not important for the overall picture.
 
JonesNL
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:11 pm

seahawk wrote:
Just look at the numbers from Boeing since they stopped delivering 737. Both depend on their single aisle offerings more than anything. The success or failure of the widebodies is not important for the overall picture.


Exactly this, 50% to 60% of all profits of the commercial aircraft division are contributed by the 737. The A32x is probably doing the same for Airbus. Seeing the success and backlogs of the 737MAX, A32x and A220 I think the biggest money on the table can be earned by narrow bodies. The whole market seems to be moving that direction anyway, higher frequency, lower risks of empty planes and increased flexibility.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 7229
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:38 pm

Is 764-GEnx re-engine that simple? Will it keep 764 avionics, hydraulics and bleed system (or) use 787 avionics, go electric and bleedless. Either option seems to be a major undertaking and ends up being a granfathered quilt of patches.

I think a low-tech, stubby 787 with derated engines would be a safer bet for BCA.

Don't spend money on the development, just spread the estimated development cost on discounts to test the market. And don't call it a MAX.
 
Noshow
Posts: 1075
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:45 pm

You got me.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1666
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:50 pm

JonesNL wrote:
Exactly this, 50% to 60% of all profits of the commercial aircraft division are contributed by the 737. The A32x is probably doing the same for Airbus.

You just proved my argument.

Airbus profit in 2018 was about 60% of Boeing. Boeing generates 50/60% of its profit from the 737.
If The A32x has the same profit margin as the 737 that means Airbus made no profit off their widebodies.

So either Airbus makes significantly less profit margin on their A32x or they make significntly less profit on their widebodies. If their profit margin was the same for both then their yearly total profit should be very close to Boeing.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 366
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:54 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
Exactly this, 50% to 60% of all profits of the commercial aircraft division are contributed by the 737. The A32x is probably doing the same for Airbus.

You just proved my argument.

Airbus profit in 2018 was about 60% of Boeing. Boeing generates 50/60% of its profit from the 737.
If The A32x has the same profit margin as the 737 that means Airbus made no profit off their widebodies.

So either Airbus makes significantly less profit margin on their A32x or they make significntly less profit on their widebodies. If their profit margin was the same for both then their yearly total profit should be very close to Boeing.


Overall you might be right, that the WB from Airbus did not generate an overall profit or only a small one, but that is entirely due to the A380 (overall EBIT impact of -290million€ in 2018 and -136million€ in H12019) but this does not mean that the A330 and A350 do not generate profit.

Also Airbus suffers heavily from their defense division that can only be partially offset by the helicopters. So taking this into account profits on the A32X/A330/A350 should be really healthy but are negatively offset by the A380, and the defense division.

I could not find EBIT infos excluding the other divisions on the Airbus homepage only the revenue was split between commercial and defense is around 13%.

So it is actually not possible to compare Boeing civil profits to Airbus profits as they are differently calculated.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8785
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:40 pm

We have here starting the comparing of apples at Boeing with Bananas at Airbus, when people compare the strait numbers from the Annual reports. They are not comparable without serious calculations, not because the numbers are different presented, but because Boeing and Airbus account to ratherer different systems.
Do people want to run this discussion here in this thread?
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21589
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:40 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
The A330 will never be able to be killed providing Airbus is willing to keep lowering the price and accept an extremely low profit margin.


This. Airbus didn't even succeed in killing the 777, really. If anyone is going to kill the A330 it will be Airbus.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 578
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:31 pm

Max Q wrote:
Last I checked UA had sixteen 764’s


16 United 18.1 Years average
21 Delta 18.8 Years average

Outside of these 764s there is one VIP configuration.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:51 pm

If they can produce 200 764F or so they can get an ROI. Passenger version might be a tougher sell similar to the 748 intercontinental.
 
INFINITI329
Posts: 2472
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:22 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
Revelation wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
You would think they would use the -300ER for their base model for this re-engine project. Since you know, it's the best selling one out of this variants and it got no competition from Airbus.
Weirdly enough they choose -400ER for the base. I guess the weakest GEnx engine is still to powerful for such small frame.

And, another indication this is not addressing the same space MOM/NMA would address.

MOM/NMA was more like a 762E size aircraft with half the range of 762E.

This 767-8 idea is a 764E replacement with the same or more range as 764E.

Easily 30 more pax and twice the range than the NMA proposal, +10,000 lbs more thrust, so not the same thing.


I don't think they mean the -400 length.

I think they mean the -400ER flight deck, landing gear, and updated systems on a -300 length fuselage. Or maybe even -200.


I think more than likely it gets the same flight deck that's in KC-46 which is based on the 787 flight deck
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1229
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:52 pm

INFINITI329 wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
Revelation wrote:
And, another indication this is not addressing the same space MOM/NMA would address.

MOM/NMA was more like a 762E size aircraft with half the range of 762E.

This 767-8 idea is a 764E replacement with the same or more range as 764E.

Easily 30 more pax and twice the range than the NMA proposal, +10,000 lbs more thrust, so not the same thing.


I don't think they mean the -400 length.

I think they mean the -400ER flight deck, landing gear, and updated systems on a -300 length fuselage. Or maybe even -200.


I think more than likely it gets the same flight deck that's in KC-46 which is based on the 787 flight deck


I agree.

Several posters have said that the 764 has the 777 flight deck. I feel that is a misnomer. The 764 has similarly sized screens. Everything behind the screens is completely different. And the 1995 era 777 flight deck is obsolete now in any event.

On the wider topic of the thread in general, I've always felt that the GEnx was sized for the larger 787 on purpose. I've always believed that Boeing and GE didn't want the GEnx to be suitable for 767 re-engining, they didn't want it to poach 787 orders. The engine would be so de-rated if installed on the 767 that it would be very sub-optimized. However, I'm sure neither GE nor Boeing foresaw themselves in their present reduced (pathetic actually) circumstances, so this rather weak offering may be their only option. I don't believe that they can have an all new airplane in service prior to 2027, and that is far too late for the customers who need it. This entire idea is a bad one, put forth from a position of weakness by inept bean counting managers with no vision. It's doomed to failure. Just look at the 330neo orderbook. How very sad.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1659
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:46 pm

63,500 LB Engines were an option on 764 - 2B's are only 66,500 - that is not a massive difference.

No one would think much of an Single Aisle going from 20,000 to 21,000 lb engines.
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 429
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:42 pm

Although 2-4-2 is nice on an a330, for maximum passenger comfort and maximum overhead bin space, a staggered 2-3-3 cabin makes the most sense to maximize cabin space in coach on a 767-200 sized aircraft.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8785
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Tue Oct 15, 2019 12:08 am

The GEnx 2B is with 5,623 kg quite a bit heavier than the CF6-80C with about 4,470 kg.

The GEnx is the version with bleed air rather than a big generator, so an all electric 767-400ER would need a new, not developed version, therefor I would rule that out straight away.

The 767-400ER did not manage to compete well with the A330, both offered with the CF6-80, the 767-400ER with the C version and the A330 with the E version, besides P&W and RR..
At least in regards to a passenger version, I do not see how the 767-400ER, with the slightly inferior GEnx, should be able to compete well with the A330neo, with the slightly superior, newer T7000.
Regarding the A330F, a 767-400 freighter would offer a smaller wing span, about the only advantage I can think of,
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1586
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Tue Oct 15, 2019 12:47 am

I suspect the proposal for this is to start with the current 763F. There were a lot of updates of systems and cockpit with the revised -2C version certified as a civilian plane before the military conversion to the tanker. Change the structure complete to a 764 as is or a slight shrink to be between the 763 and 764.. Adjust the winglets to fit the planned missions. I see them actually shortening just a bit down from the current 764 to something closer to the 763. Add the new engines, about 7% increased thrust to the 2B. The 764 wings are designed to use gear 18" taller and have a higher landing and takeoff weights.

Basically, it is a bit of a frankenmonster, parts of the 762, the 2C, the 763, and the 764. But the parts for all of these are already certified, so a lot easier. No lofting of the wings, no thinning of the ribs to get 8ab, no change to Al-LI, no change to windows, no CFRP replaced parts, maybe a new cargo loading system. It needs to pay off the development in say 200 frames. At $10m per plane that would cover a $2B program Must be a KISS project to be a success.
 
speedbird52
Posts: 801
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 5:30 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Tue Oct 15, 2019 1:06 am

OA940 wrote:
OK but the 764 is literally the 788 of the family. If they wanna launch a re-engined 767 and not doing it on the -300ER platform I'm actually convinced they are dumb.

I am completely and utterly perplexed as to why anyone would pick a engined 764 over a 788 for PAX hauling. What's the point? A 763 based design makes more sense to me as well imo unless this is purely intended for the freighter market.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1666
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Tue Oct 15, 2019 1:53 am

speedbird52 wrote:
OA940 wrote:
OK but the 764 is literally the 788 of the family. If they wanna launch a re-engined 767 and not doing it on the -300ER platform I'm actually convinced they are dumb.

I am completely and utterly perplexed as to why anyone would pick a engined 764 over a 788 for PAX hauling. What's the point? A 763 based design makes more sense to me as well imo unless this is purely intended for the freighter market.

Agreed.

The 767-400ER would actually burn slightly more fuel in an aircraft with slightly less cabin area. Even if the GenX pushed range of the 5625nm to 6600nm it is still 700nm short of the 787-8. The 787-8 would only need to take off at approximately 215t to have the same payload range as the GenX 204t 767-400ER.

The takeoff performance of the 767-400ER is actually quite poor compared to the 787-8. The 787-8 can operate from short runways and hot/high airports with ease.

The 767-400ER would effectively be like the 787-3. In theory it would have a slight advantage on very short routes under say 500nm. Airport fees make up a large portion of cost of these shirt flights, the slight empty weight per seat advantage helps in this area. I still don't see how this can make it attractive.

Pricing it might also have an advantage. There is a very slim chance the a 767-400MAX could cost say 20% less than the 787-8. This could offset the increased fuel burn per passenger.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 11

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