Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Quoting Keesje (Reply 12): Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 6): Even though Boeing specifically said this was in no way related to UPS' review of it's A380 order, this can not be good news for that program. I think this has nothing to do with the A380. All the more a strategicly very important order for Boeing in relation to the ongoing KC-X competition. |
Quoting ERAUgrad02 (Reply 156):
Why hast Boeing listed the UPS orders yet i wonder. |
Quote: UPS and Boeing are concluding negotiations necessary to book the airplanes and add them to the Boeing Orders & Deliveries Web site. |
Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 135): The 330/340 do have some commonality as they are from the same line and program, but they are different aircraft that serve totally different mission profiles, and in my opinion that's what separates them. |
Quoting DIA (Reply 137): And is that a major reason for going with the 767? |
Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 141): Quoting DIA (Reply 137): Q2: I thought UPS was not satisfied with the 767, which is why (in 2001) they ordered a whole bunch more A306s. I thought their reasoning had something to do with the width of the 767 being narrower when compared with the A300 In my humble opinion, it was a politcal decision. |
Quoting Areopagus (Reply 144): Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 135): The 330/340 do have some commonality as they are from the same line and program, but they are different aircraft that serve totally different mission profiles, and in my opinion that's what separates them. The 737-600 and 737-700ER also serve totally different mission profiles. |
Quoting EI321 (Reply 158): Some, they have almost complete commonality. There is as much commonality between an A333 and A343 as there is between a GE powered 777 and a RR powered 777. |
Quoting DIA (Reply 137): Q1: Is the 763ERF's range that much better than an A306F?...And is that a major reason for going with the 767? |
Quoting EI321 (Reply 157): Some, they have almost complete commonality. There is as much commonality between an A333 and A343 as there is between a GE powered 777 and a RR powered 777. |
Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 160): Sorry - I can't agree with the above claim, nor can I agree that these are variants of the same A/C. 2 engine vs 4 engine technology. |
Quoting Keesje (Reply 161):
I wonder what will be the logistical consequences for UPS. The standard LD3s that just fit in the A300 (& UPS M11, 747) won't fit in the 767. |
Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 158):
GE powered 777: engine count - 2, major product name: 777 RR powered 777: engine count - 2, major product name: 777 |
Quoting Keesje (Reply 161): I wonder what will be the logistical consequences for UPS. The standard LD3s that just fit in the A300 (& UPS M11, 747) won't fit in the 767. |
Quoting Lotsamiles (Reply 146): To my knowledge, UPS "mainline" operations have a closed system of their own containers, not utilizing LD-3 or LD-3 containers at all. With the large aft door on the 763ERF UPS can load either 88x125 or 96x125 ULDs longitudinally. http://www.ups.com/aircargo/using/se...vices/domestic/svc-containers.html The L9N will fit on 767 or A300 or whatever other widebody freighter they have or a contractor may use. This container does give away volume with the contours and longitudinal loading. However, the gains from standardization must be worth it to UPS or they would have been using LD-4's which best fit the 767. On the main deck, they use 88x125 containers for both the 767 and A300. The UPS A300-600F's were delivered prior to Airbus offering the 96x125 capability. At least the earlier deliveries were, someone correct me if I am wrong. |
Quoting EI321 (Reply 164): Thats just nit picking. All 777, 747, A32X, all families have different model names. The A310-200 and A300-600 have different names in the way you are making it even though their only difference is fuselage length. |
Quoting EI321 (Reply 168): Neither are FBW. The A300-600 and A310-300 are basically the same aircraft, fuselage length is the only real difference between. |
Quoting Rwessel (Reply 162): I'm not sure a different engine count immediately disqualifies two aircraft from being variants of one type. Consider the Trident 3Bs (with the fourth booster engine in the tail) vs. the Trident 1s and 2s, or the B-36Ds which added four turbojets to the six piston radials of the earlier models. And if the B-52s ever get re-engined with four modern turbofans, I think they'll still be a B-52 variant. |
Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 167): My initial point was there are a lot of ways to group things if you want to and at the end of the day, it simply doesn't matter. |
Quoting Lotsamiles (Reply 146): To my knowledge... |
Quoting Revelation (Reply 166): Actually... |
Quoting Manni (Reply 159): The 763ERF's range is better than that of the A306F. Since Airbus is not taking any more orders for the A306F, it's pointless to look for any other reason why the A306F has not been selected. FWIW the A306F has outsold the 767F by a huge margin. |
Quoting BoeingFever777 (Reply 51): I'm sure here in the next week or so they will cancel it all together with Airbus. You do not order (27) new a/c from Boeing and still keep the A380F or order... I would believe the threads i've read in the last few weeks and say A380F for UPS. |
Quoting EI321 (Reply 157): Some, they have almost complete commonality. There is as much commonality between an A333 and A343 as there is between a GE powered 777 and a RR powered 777. |
Quoting EI321 (Reply 164): The A310-200 and A300-600 have different names in the way you are making it even though their only difference is fuselage length. |
Quoting EI321 (Reply 168): The A300-600 and A310-300 are basically the same aircraft, fuselage length is the only real difference between. |
Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 169): But the 310 did have a different wing from the 300, in addition to it's shortened fuselage and smaller tail. |
Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 175): Since the A343 has a center landing gear and the A333 does not, I was unaware that either the 777 GE or RR airplane needed a center gear. |
Quoting Gatorman96 (Reply 177): Maybe a new thread should be started about the difference in aircraft types since it has nothing to do with this thread |
Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 174): I wish we could quit the debate that the A33X series and the A34X series belong together like the all the 737 aircraft or the variants of the 777. Airbus considers them different enough that the A330 and the A340 have different Flight Manuals, different Maintenance and Repair manuals and different Type Certificates. |
Quoting EI321 (Reply 157): Some, they have almost complete commonality. There is as much commonality between an A333 and A343 as there is between a GE powered 777 and a RR powered 777. |
Quoting Trex8 (Reply 176): Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 175): Since the A343 has a center landing gear and the A333 does not, I was unaware that either the 777 GE or RR airplane needed a center gear. leaving aside the number of engines being different between a A330 and 340 but the difference an additional landing gear and different engine types on say a Dc10-10 vs -40 would not makes those a totally different type? |
Quoting BoeingFever777 (Reply 51): You do not order (27) new a/c from Boeing and still keep the A380F or order... I would believe the threads i've read in the last few weeks and say A380F for UPS. |
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 172): It has outsold the 767F, but that in part is due to the fact that the 767 was preferred over the A300 for passenger service during most of the 90s for that size class, |
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 172): Now that passenger airlines aren't so interested in the 767, Boeing will adjust pricing on the 767 and sell more into the freighter market. |
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 172): Since LD3 capacity matters more to passenger airlines, the disadvantage in relation to the A330 is not particularly significant. |
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 172): In every other year Boeing was selling 40 767s, or 2/3 of the peak levels reached at the early 90s, with most of them being passenger models. |
Quoting Manni (Reply 183): The 767F has been available for the bigger part of the nineties and has only recorded 50 firm sales. At that time the A300 was no longer (altough still available) Airbus' widebody twinjet answer for aircraft in that class. The 767 suffered from competition from the slightly larger A330 for medium to longhaul routes while the A321 was a good shorthaul alternative. I dont think Boeing was in the driver seat as far as pricing was concerned. |
Quoting Manni (Reply 183): That remains to be seen. After years of relative quietness in this freighter class the initial interest, illustrated by the various commitments made, for the A330F indicate that the difference is significant enough. |
Quoting Manni (Reply 183): In '92 they've sold 21, in '94 17, in '95 22, in '98 38 and in '99 30. These numbers are far below their production capacity at that time and do not justify an attitude to demand a premium for the 767. |
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 185): How convenient for your argument to leave out the 52 in '90, 65 in '91, 54 in 93, and 79 in 97. |
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 185): The A332 is hardly in the same class. Its sales success likely reflects the desire for something in between the A306F/763ERF and 777F. |
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 185): The fact that they weren't selling out the line is likely partly due to Boeing's supposed arrogance and refusal to deal. I |
Quoting Manni (Reply 186): YOU wrote that Boeing sold more then 40 aircraft in every other year. I replied with all the years Boeing did not sell more then 40 aircraft, clearly in more years then just '95. This has NOTHING to do with my argument. |
Quoting Manni (Reply 186): The A330F is slightly larger. The 777F is a much bigger step up from the A330F then the A330F is compared to the 767F. I'm convinced that both aircraft will be evaluated as competing aircraft by airlines wishing to place new orders. 767F/A300F - A330F - 777F 55 Tonnes - 64/69 Tonnes - 105 Tonnes |
Quoting Manni (Reply 186): Which has cost them dearly and is not acceptable as excuse. |
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 187): I explicitly said deliveries, not orders, |
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 172): Boeing's lowest number of 767s delivered during the 90s was 37 in 1995. In every other year Boeing was selling 40+ 767s, or 2/3 of the peak levels reached at the early 90s, with most of them being passenger models. |
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 187): In contrast, 429 767s have been delivered, some what shy of 3 times more, with a small number being 763ERFs. |
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 187): Actually in the end it probably didn't matter because they were using the profits resulting from those higher margins |
Quoting Manni (Reply 188): You've created confusion. You talk about deliveries in one sentence and continue about sales in the other. You wrote 37 deliveries in '95 and then continue in the next sentence 'In every other year Boeing was selling...' That's clearly a reference to your previous sentence. Here's what you wrote... |
Quoting Manni (Reply 188): Pointless to compare the 767-200, 767-300 and 767-400 with the A300 only. For a fair comparison you should include the A330 in your numbers, as many many many sales for this aircraft have been replacing existing 767 and A300 fleets. |
Quoting Manni (Reply 188): Offcourse it did matter. Loosing customers to your competitor can NEVER be advantageous. |
Quoting Lotsamiles (Reply 193): This announcement of the 767-200LRF is very interesting indeed. So far there is no mention of this variant on the Boeing website, I look forward to the specifications. |
Quoting ERAUgrad02 (Reply 196): Can someone start a new thread about the 767-200LRF once someone gets facts about it. There are none on the website or i would post it myself. |