UPS Orders 27 X B767F

eraugrad02 · Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:42 pm

What were the airlines that made up the 10 orders in 2006?

osiris30 · Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:22 pm

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 144):
The 737-600 and 737-700ER also serve totally different mission profiles.

They do, but at least they have the same number of engines LOL.

Dougloid · Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:45 pm

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.

Not directly. However, m'dear fellow,freight companies are in the business of moving cubic feet here and there. When they're shopping they're buying for capacity. So if they're buying, say, Ilyushin cubic feet, a fortiori thats just that many cubic feet or capacity they aren't going to buy someplace else, from whomever.

It's no different than Joe Blow...if he's got five bucks in one pocket and eight bucks in the other he's got thirteen. Take two out of the eight and Joe's got eleven, even though it hasn't made a bit of difference to the pocket that's got five bucks in it.

Water, y'see, seeks its own level.

JayinKitsap · Fri Feb 09, 2007 2:49 am

Boeing Orders update indicates 3 UFO 767's, no word if pax or freighter. But now with the UPS commitment the 767 is at 1005. With the long wait to get any other widebody, I suspect that there may be at least a dozen more 767 orders out there for this year.

CX747 · Fri Feb 09, 2007 2:57 am

It's amazing that the 767 is still racking in the orders. With that being said, I can't wait to see the 777F.

eraugrad02 · Fri Feb 09, 2007 7:21 am

Why hast Boeing listed the UPS orders yet i wonder.

brendows · Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:14 am

Quoting ERAUgrad02 (Reply 156):
Why hast Boeing listed the UPS orders yet i wonder.

Because the order isn't firm yet, or as Boeing stated in the press release regarding this commitment:

Quote:
UPS and Boeing are concluding negotiations necessary to book the airplanes and add them to the Boeing Orders & Deliveries Web site.

Source:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/news/2007/q1/070205b_nr.html

[Edited 2007-02-09 00:14:32]

EI321 · Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:47 am

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.

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):
And is that a major reason for going with the 767?

Is the A300 even still on offer, I thought the line is closing next yr?

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.

Er, what?.......

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.

As do the 772 and 772LR, as do the A333 and A345, but that would detract from Osiris30's point.

........Back on the 767. Looking at the current strong sales of the A332F and 767F, maybe Boeing will launch the 787F in the next couple of years?

osiris30 · Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:00 pm

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.

Really? Let me see:

GE powered 777: engine count - 2, major product name: 777
RR powered 777: engine count - 2, major product name: 777

Now let's try the experiment with the A330/340:

A330: engine count - 2, major product name: 330
A340: engine count - 4, major product name: 340

There's two very visibile differences right there. Not I didn't say I don't think they should be grouped together. I was merely saying I think a lot of questionable groupings exist, on all sides of the debate.

manni · Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:29 pm

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?

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.

sstsomeday · Fri Feb 09, 2007 5:56 pm

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.

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. Besides being DIFFERENT, one A/C is an ongoing success, the other a sales and economics disappointment. And they each compete with completely different A/C on Boeing's side.

It doesn't work to try and hide the shortcomings of the 340 behind the 330's success.

While some continue to slip this kind of spin into unrelated posts, it won't make it true.

keesje · Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:18 pm

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.

Well UPS made the trade off & obviously the 767 will be used in areas where that isn't much of an issue..

rwessel · Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:29 pm

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.

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.

EI321 · Fri Feb 09, 2007 7:44 pm

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.

I thought UPS dont use many LD3s anyway? If the A300 is no longer on offer than its either 767s A332F or 777s. They wont get cheap A332s or 777s so 767s are probably the most cost effective option.

[Edited 2007-02-09 11:47:01]

EI321 · Fri Feb 09, 2007 7:50 pm

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 158):

GE powered 777: engine count - 2, major product name: 777
RR powered 777: engine count - 2, major product name: 777

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. Only reason the A340 has four engines other than two is the simple fact that it was not possible to make it a twin at its time of conception. If it was developed five yrs later like the T7 it certainly would have been a twin.

Anyway back to UPS. It strikes me that if they are apparently looking at canceling the A380s, why are they not looking at 748Fs? Since they already have old 741Fs that will not last forever.

[Edited 2007-02-09 11:54:34]

Revelation · Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:14 pm

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.

I think you might want to read reply 146 again, perhaps?

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.

Revelation · Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:31 pm

Actually, from here, you can see, comparing apples to apples in UPS service:

A300 Main: 22 - 88" x 125" positions
A300 Belly A: 5 - 88" x 125" x 64" positions
A300 Belly B: 3 - 88" x 125" x 64" positions

B767 Main: 24 - 88" x 125" positions
B767 Belly A: 4 - 88" x 125" x 64"
B767 Belly B: 3 - 88" x 125" x 64"

A300 can load 30 of these containers, B767 can load 31.

You can also see that both can load seven 96" x 125" x 64" containers in the lower deck, and the B767 alone can load eleven 96" x 125" x 64" instead of 22 88" x 125" on its main deck.

osiris30 · Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:42 pm

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.

The 300 and 310 share other differences as well (FBW). And sure it's just nit picking. If you hunt back to the original post I was replying that too was nit picking. I also said major model number. I didn't want to say family number or model number as you did because the very arguement is around what is a family Wink

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.

EI321 · Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:50 pm

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 167):

The 300 and 310 share other differences as well (FBW)

Neither are FBW. The A300-600 and A310-300 are basically the same aircraft, fuselage length is the only real difference between.

[Edited 2007-02-09 13:51:27]

osiris30 · Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:14 pm

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.

You're right. I'm just an idiot with a bad memory. I always fall into that trap with those two frames because of the experimental work Airbus did with FBW on them (I know they used at least one in an FBW test config).

But the 310 did have a different wing from the 300, in addition to it's shortened fusalge and smaller tail.

sstsomeday · Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:10 am

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.

I commend your historic knowledge, and so with respect, I would consider these A/C, based on how you describe them (real and imagined) to be anomalous hybrids .

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.

I can see it would come to a matter of subjectivity and personal agenda as to who considers which A/C to be essentially the same type or not. Some members here, IMO, indulge in a denial about the performance and sales of the 340 family in these threads, so including it's sales statistics with the 330 makes them feel better, I guess. I am always irritated by spin because it gets in the way of truth. Statistics in any field of interest, as we know, can be spun to suggest they support almost any position.

I think it "matters" here only for the purposes of healthy debate. However, if AIRBUS tries to sell it's 330/340 "Family" to an airline that doesn't do it's homework, then it matters to both parties.

But back to the thread...

Quoting Lotsamiles (Reply 146):
To my knowledge...

Quoting Revelation (Reply 166):
Actually...

These are great posts that go a long way in explaining how UPS went with the 767, which I had difficulty understanding. Also to the member who posted about how the newer 330 with it's larger size and more range would also be a lot more expensive, I say Thank You for your posts.

eraugrad02 · Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:28 am

Why wont UPS or other carriers add the aviation partners winglets? i know they were looking for a carrier to test these. Did AC decide against these?

atmx2000 · Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:09 am

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.

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, so Airbus had to cut prices and sell into the freighter market or close the line. 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. For the latter half of the 90s, Airbus was selling under 20 A300/A310s, mostly freighters, with the lowest level being 6 in 1997. 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. Since LD3 capacity matters more to passenger airlines, the disadvantage in relation to the A330 is not particularly significant.

ebj1248650 · Mon Feb 12, 2007 7:31 am

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.

Not necessarily true. The 767 and A380 have nothing in common, so far as size and utilization go. That UPS ordered the 767 doesn't mean there's no need for the A380. I would believe you're correct if we were talking A300s on order and UPS ordering more 767s.

pygmalion · Mon Feb 12, 2007 7:34 am

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.

If Airbus, the FAA and the EASA all agree that the A33X and the A34X are different types.... why are we arguing about it?

OldAeroGuy · Mon Feb 12, 2007 7:55 am

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.

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 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.

Wrong in both quotes.

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.

The wing change is why EI321 is wrong and is also the reason the A310 was a failure in the marketplace. Engineering a completely new wing to sell 260 airplanes was not a good business decision. Airbus does count them with the A300 sales to soften the story. Sort of like Boeing counting the 720 (another bad decision) along with the rest of the 707 variants.

trex8 · Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:17 am

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?

Gatorman96 · Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:23 am

Maybe a new thread should be started about the difference in aircraft types since it has nothing to do with this thread

eraugrad02 · Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:24 am

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

I agree. this is about ups.

sstsomeday · Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:32 am

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 174):
If Airbus, the FAA and the EASA all agree that the A33X and the A34X are different types.... why are we arguing about it?

So that the 340 can be characterised as a success.

(with apologies for being off topic...)

jacobin777 · Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:51 am

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.

...I have no problems with separating the A33X series from the A34X series, but when Airbus management lumps them together...well... scratchchin

.....can't have it both ways...

OldAeroGuy · Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:55 am

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?

I made no statement about different airplane types. The issue was level of commonality.

EI321's above statement was that there was as much commonality between an A333 and an A343 as between GE and RR powered versions of the 777. In addition to the obvious differences in engine arrangement, the A343 has a centerline landing gear with the accompanying structure, actuation hardware, gear doors, and position detection/annunciation system. None of these parts are required on the A333, so this represents a significant degree of un-commonality. Since neither GE or RR versions of the 777 have a center gear, don't the A333 and A343 have more uncommon parts?

ebj1248650 · Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:11 pm

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.

Sure you do. 767s for one segment of their airfreight business and A380F for another more specific one.

manni · Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:18 pm

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,

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 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.

Passenger Airlines haven't shown a big interest for years in the 767. Since 2000, 94 have been sold. Most of them to existing 767 operators. Additionally 15 freighters have been sold.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 172):
Since LD3 capacity matters more to passenger airlines, the disadvantage in relation to the A330 is not particularly significant.

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 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.

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.

ptcflyer · Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:43 pm

[Knowing UPS -- they probably negotiated on the 767 knowing that Boeing would probably sell the planes for the price of the tin to keep their options open for the tanker contract. All in all -- a win/win. UPS gets planes cheap... Boeing gets incremental revenue to keep the lines going.

atmx2000 · Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:04 pm

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.

The 767's deliveries exceeded the combined sales for the A300/A310 and A330 for every year during the 90s except 1995 and 1999. The 767 hardly "suffered." The truth is during the majority of the 90s Airbus didn't have anything shipping that competed well with the 763ER. The A300's deliveries dropped off a cliff in 1994 when the A333 was introduced, but the A333 is a much bigger aircraft than the 763ER with less range. The A332, which while closer was still more than slightly larger than the 763ER (30% more floor space), only started shipping in 1998.

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.

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 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.

How convenient for your argument to leave out the 52 in '90, 65 in '91, 54 in 93, and 79 in 97. Orders vary more by year as there is tremendous variety in the number and size of airline orders. The fact that they weren't selling out the line is likely partly due to Boeing's supposed arrogance and refusal to deal. It also partially is due to the increase in the dollar's value starting in 1998 that gave Airbus a signficant advantage.

manni · Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:49 pm

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.

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 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.

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 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

Which has cost them dearly and is not acceptable as excuse.

atmx2000 · Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:28 pm

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.

I explicitly said deliveries, not orders, when I was talking about the 40 for every year except '95. For aircraft models that are already on the market and in the same class, it gives you the best idea of the relative attractiveness to customers. To put it in simpler terms there were 281 A300 A310 deliveries from 1990 through 1999 while there were 490 767s delivered. More telling, since A300F EIS in 1994 only 156 A300/A310s have been delivered, with a very large fraction being A306Fs. In contrast, 429 767s have been delivered, some what shy of 3 times more, with a small number being 763ERFs. And note that the the 763ERF only entered service in late 1995.

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

Not quite, the payload figures don't tell the whole story. The volume increase over the 767 is closer to 30% while the payload increase is only 25%. The volume increase for the 777F is about 30% more over the A332F, however the payload increase is nearly 50%.

Quoting Manni (Reply 186):
Which has cost them dearly and is not acceptable as excuse.

Actually in the end it probably didn't matter because they were using the profits resulting from those higher margins productively, investing in the future. Whatever marketshare gains Airbus made in the widebody market seem to be cursory.

manni · Mon Feb 12, 2007 7:02 pm

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 187):
I explicitly said deliveries, not orders,

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 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.

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 Atmx2000 (Reply 187):
Actually in the end it probably didn't matter because they were using the profits resulting from those higher margins

Offcourse it did matter. Loosing customers to your competitor can NEVER be advantageous.

Stitch · Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:24 am

Boeing launched a new freighter model today - the 767-200LRF (Long-Range Freighter) to support their KC-767 Advanced Tanker proposal. I wonder if the 762LRF could be of interest to cargo carriers...

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q1/070212b_nr.html

CX747 · Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:43 am

The 767's main competitor was the A330/310 family. As time passed, the A330 family came into play and took the mantle of competitor from the A300/310. The A330-200 was the nail in the 767's proverbial coffin but we really are talking apples and oranges. By the time the A330-200 came onto the scene, the 767-300 had been in operation for well over a decade. So, in reality the 767 outlasted it's head to head rival but was slayed by it's off spring. With that being said, the 767 is somehow still in production and winning orders while the A300/310 takes its last breath and the A330 family gets overrun by the 787 and A350 design.

eraugrad02 · Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:40 am

Funny that Boeing didnt add ranked winglets from the -400. Help with performance id think. What are the odds that they ge the contract? I hope it does. will the 767 replace AWACS too i wonder? I remember seeing a drawing of one.

wjcandee · Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:58 am

There was much discussion earlier in this thread about the Tanker, and how this order keeps the line open until the tanker would need to be produced. There was further discussion about whether the tanker would have to be built on a separate line than the commercial line, for security reasons.

That question has now been definitively resolved by the press release: the Tanker "will be produced at Boeing's facilities in Everett, Wash., on the existing commercial line where more than 950 highly reliable and maintainable 767s have been built. Installation of military refueling systems and flight test activities will take place at the company's finishing center in Wichita, Kan."

Couldn't be clearer, and parallels what one knowledgeable poster said about how they would do it.

Interesting, too, that they see some life in the 762 as a freighter. Guess ABX Air wasn't as crazy as the AStar pilots always try to suggest that they were to buy 762 (converted) freighters (albeit not a long-haul version thereof).

lotsamiles · Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:37 am

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. Perhaps the continued inability to source suitable 767-200 P2F candidates has pushed Boeing in the direction of developing a -200 based factory freighter to address this market. The development costs could be minimal in light of the effort to produce the KC767, as well as the work done on the 767-200SF to date. A 767-200LRF may be of great interest to DHL and it's affiliates as they seek to modernize and standardize their worldwide DHL lift in the next few years.

atmx2000 · Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:39 am

Only if it is a permanent loss. But Boeing has demonstrated that it can recapture customers who bought A330s.

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...

OK, I improperly used sell, when I should have said delivered.

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.

You can exclude the 764 if you want, but I wouldn't combine the A332 figures in the same category. The 764 is still smaller than the A332 in cabin area, by 10%. And you only confuse the issue when you include larger aircraft that are sold to replace 767s, as 772s have been sold to replace 767s.

Quoting Manni (Reply 188):
Offcourse it did matter. Loosing customers to your competitor can NEVER be advantageous.

Boeing has shown it can capture customers who bought A330s. Was it better to sell 767s at a higher margin to fund future development? It may turn out in the end that Boeing comes out fine.

N328KF · Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:14 am

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.

It may be that you will never see specifications posted as such. Specifications for the 737-800ER are not available in that form, though it is the stated basis for the P-8. With that said, the BBJ2 is its closest cousin.

eraugrad02 · Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:21 pm

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.

N328KF · Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:55 pm

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.

As I said in another thread, you may never see them, just like you never see specifications for the 737-800ER, even though that, too, is a real variant.

CX747 · Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:11 pm

What is going on in Seattle. Here we all sat, thinking that the 767 line was coming to a close and poof, within the last 3-4 weeks we have 30 new orders for 767-300/300Fs and a new -200LRF. Long live the 767!

eraugrad02 · Wed Feb 14, 2007 2:21 am

Quoting CX747 (Reply 198):
Long live the 767!

HAHA isn't it great. I guess there is a little room for the 767. If airlines can afford the 787 or to wait for a spot, they can purchase this new model until there is a time when they can. I'm thinking that's why boeing is doing this.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net