What Would Be An Ideal Replacement For The 767

planiac787 · Thu Apr 04, 2013 1:34 pm

With the 767 slowly coming to age...what would be the ideal replacement for it...
American Carriers use 767 for most european routes and they some how form the workhorse of there fleet...

787 people would say is the right choice but was the 787 made for the typical 8 hour flight..
Here is an aircraft that was built to do the ultra long haul routes and save an airline fuel...
but now with the problems its facing and a potential range cut coming there way maybe 787 is the right choice...

And with the 767 still in production, do carriers order more of them?

Would A332 come in into consideration?

Carriers like delta who have over 95 767s have ordered just 18 787's...

But because of heavy delays in the 787 program would airlines be able to re establish faith in the aircraft and what kind of compensation would boeing be looking to shell out?

These are some questions running in my head...

Any answers?

ClassicLover · Thu Apr 04, 2013 1:48 pm

Quoting planiac787 (Thread starter):
With the 767 slowly coming to age...what would be the ideal replacement for it...

The 787, which is 30% cheaper to operate than a 767 according to reports from ANA and JAL when the 787 was operating.

BD338 · Thu Apr 04, 2013 1:54 pm

I wouldn't look at it as a straight replacement for role/mission question. Airlines will look at the missions and the aircraft they need in todays environment to make that profitable. A lot has changed since many 767s were ordered and delivered, the whole dynamic of the industry has changed. So while on many routes a 787/350 could be a good choice it might be that a 739/321 (etc.) might be a better result for other flights currently operated by a 767.

SonomaFlyer · Thu Apr 04, 2013 1:58 pm

For routes at six hours and under, the 321 or 739 works. For routes over six hours, the 788 will be the cheapest CASM for airlines given its light weight.

sunrisevalley · Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:00 pm

Quoting planiac787 (Thread starter):
Here is an aircraft that was built to do the ultra long haul routes and save an airline fuel...
but now with the problems its facing and a potential range cut coming there way maybe 787 is the right choice...

First, on a equal payload basis the 788 becomes more fuel efficient than the 767-300ER at sectors greater than about 1000nm.
The second part of your hypothesis is nothing but conjecture. Airlines are continuing to order the type . If they believed this why aren't they ordering 332's and 359's by the hundreds?

planiac787 · Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:02 pm

Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 1):
The 787, which is 30% cheaper to operate than a 767 according to reports from ANA and JAL when the 787 was operating.

Yes agreed the 787 is 30% cheaper but with the delays when will boeing be able to deliver the aircraft and how will they be able to shell out such big compensations...they cant go around offering discounts on future orders...ANA requested a cash compensation last time and I guess they ll be sticking to there word...From what I know...The cash strapped AI is also looking for a similar deal...Some 767's are over 25 years old and will be retire soon...in such a case does the airline go to Airbus for 330? Even to get the 330 there is a 3 year wait but that would still be acceptable....some airlines will be getting the 767 not before 2018....Lets see how things pan out..but things dont look very bright for boeing...

Quoting BD338 (Reply 2):

I wouldn't look at it as a straight replacement for role/mission question. Airlines will look at the missions and the aircraft they need in todays environment to make that profitable. A lot has changed since many 767s were ordered and delivered, the whole dynamic of the industry has changed. So while on many routes a 787/350 could be a good choice it might be that a 739/321 (etc.) might be a better result for other flights currently operated by a 767.

But again with the delays in the programs wouldn't airlines have to go for more 777 or A330's...especially for airlines who need immediate delivery....As I said some 767's are over 25 years old and will be retired soon...

Cheers

Pradat

planiac787 · Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:09 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 4):
First, on a equal payload basis the 788 becomes more fuel efficient than the 767-300ER at sectors greater than about 1000nm.
The second part of your hypothesis is nothing but conjecture. Airlines are continuing to order the type . If they believed this why aren't they ordering 332's and 359's by the hundreds?

I dont see an increase in the 787 order after the problems have started and only time will tell what other problem and hurdles the program has to face....With so much speculation do you think airlines will risk there money...?

Infact I can definitely see an increase in the A350 orders by the end of the year...Yes it is a conjecture but the point is valid...

I dont have anything against the 787 but boeing looks like to be in a rough ocean because of it...On the other hand the 748i has not proven to be a commercial success that boeing was hoping for... Lets hope they can get there act together soon...

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 3):

For routes at six hours and under, the 321 or 739 works. For routes over six hours, the 788 will be the cheapest CASM for airlines given its light weight.

Yes but what if those are high density routes...why would airlines sacrifice on seats...Lets say a JFK-LAX...Some carriers operate wide bodies on these routes...A321 and 739 cant make them money and I dont see the point of operating 2 aircrafts on the same route at the same time..That wouldnt make sense..

Cheers

Pradat

pvjin · Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:16 pm

Quoting planiac787 (Reply 6):
I dont see an increase in the 787 order after the problems have started and only time will tell what other problem and hurdles the program has to face....With so much speculation do you think airlines will risk there money...?

Boeing will eventually get rid of the battery problem, after that it should be all okay and airlines will keep ordering 787's just like they order A350's.

Quoting planiac787 (Reply 6):
Yes but what if those are high density routes...why would airlines sacrifice on seats...Lets say a JFK-LAX...Some carriers operate wide bodies on these routes...A321 and 739 cant make them money and I dont see the point of operating 2 aircrafts on the same route at the same time..That wouldnt make sense..

Then just put a 787 or A330 on those routes. Just because 787 can do long haul doesn't mean it couldn't be used on those shorter haul routes too.

[Edited 2013-04-04 07:17:17]

planiac787 · Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:21 pm

Quoting pvjin (Reply 7):
Then just put a 787 or A330 on those routes. Just because 787 can do long haul doesn't mean it couldn't be used on these routes too.

True but what about the airlines who dont have neither or rather dont have neither to spare on those routes...Currently 767 are doing those and if 787 are not ready on time then why should airlines keep sustaining losses....Isnt boeing in real trouble here?

Pradat

pvjin · Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:26 pm

Quoting planiac787 (Reply 8):
True but what about the airlines who dont have neither or rather dont have neither to spare on those routes...Currently 767 are doing those and if 787 are not ready on time then why should airlines keep sustaining losses....Isnt boeing in real trouble here?

I don't think so, I highly doubt this battery problem would keep Boeing 787 grounded for more than some months from now.

Unless some more major problems are found all those airlines have to do is keep their B767's operating for a couple of more months than planned, that's all.

SonomaFlyer · Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:29 pm

Airlines stopped or shortly will stop flying wide bodies on routes like JFK-LAX/SFO. The reason of course is CASM given the flight length. Airlines go for frequency over a/c size. Once the 321s arrive, AA's 762 go away and that will end the wide body use on domestic flights except for the occasional substitution or re positioning.

Stitch · Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:36 pm

Folks really need to remember that when Boeing first started talking to customers with what was then called the 7E7, the two sizes they were pitching were around the capacity of the 767-300ER and the capacity of the 767-400ER | A330-200. It was through those discussions with customers that the sizes moved up to 767-400ER | A330-200 and 777-200 | A330-300.

So the ideal replacement for the 767, per the customers who order and fly them, is the 787.

Yes, there are some missions where the 767 is a better option and we've seen customers like ANA, JAL, LAN, Azerbaijan Airlines, Uzbekistan Airlines, Air Astana, MIAT Mongolian Airlines and Shanghai Airlines have placed orders for them since January 2005.

And yes, I am sure many of them were as compensation for delays in the 787, but the fact is the airlines are not going to take an airplane they can't make effective use of no matter how cheap it is.

ADent · Thu Apr 04, 2013 4:31 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
So the ideal replacement for the 767, per the customers who order and fly them, is the 787.

I don't think so. AA is replacing theirs with A321. UA replaced their trans-cons 767s years ago with 757-200s. 737-900ERs are the new replacement. HA is buying A321NEOs and phasing out 767-300s.

Maybe the 787 is an 'ideal' replacement for a 767-300ER used in intercontinental service, but it is not the ideal replacement for all cases.

bmacleod · Thu Apr 04, 2013 4:38 pm

788 is only 767 replacement option I can think of. The 739 will work on shorter/continental routes but that's about it...

L0VE2FLY · Thu Apr 04, 2013 9:45 pm

Quoting planiac787 (Thread starter):
And with the 767 still in production, do carriers order more of them?

Apparently they still do!

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © A. Kwanten

LAN still has some 767s on order, JAL & ANA were taking delivery of brand new 767s recently. I think they were offered by Boeing due to the 787s delays though.

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 13):
788 is only 767 replacement option I can think of. The 739 will work on shorter/continental routes but that's about it...

Unless Airbus develop an A330NEO.

rg787 · Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:42 am

Quoting BD338 (Reply 2):
739/321 (etc.) might be a better result for other flights currently operated by a 767.

No matter how many times you guys tell me the future of the 757 and now the 767 will be 739/A321. This doesn't make any sense, the 767 is just a lot bigger than the 739/a321 and a lot more capable and even if you put more frequency, this is going against the world. The biggest airports are already crowded and slot managed, putting thousands of frequency on them because you don't have anything between the 737/a320 series and the 787/a330/a350 just doesn't make any sense.

SonomaFlyer · Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:54 am

Quoting rg787 (Reply 15):

Quoting BD338 (Reply 2):
739/321 (etc.) might be a better result for other flights currently operated by a 767.

No matter how many times you guys tell me the future of the 757 and now the 767 will be 739/A321. This doesn't make any sense, the 767 is just a lot bigger than the 739/a321 and a lot more capable and even if you put more frequency, this is going against the world. The biggest airports are already crowded and slot managed, putting thousands of frequency on them because you don't have anything between the 737/a320 series and the 787/a330/a350 just doesn't make any sense.

The cost per available seat mile (CASM) drives the issue. The 767 burns more fuel than the 737 and 320. The newer versions of those a/c will be even more efficient. For U.S. domestic routes and domestic routes in your country, the long range of a 763 is not needed. They need efficiency (read low cost to operate). The single aisle planes fit the bill.

Only a few airports in the U.S. have hard slot restrictions. Even at those airports, U.S. airlines still use regional jets and narrow bodies.

flightsimer · Fri Apr 05, 2013 4:53 am

Quoting ADent (Reply 12):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
So the ideal replacement for the 767, per the customers who order and fly them, is the 787.

I don't think so. AA is replacing theirs with A321. UA replaced their trans-cons 767s years ago with 757-200s. 737-900ERs are the new replacement. HA is buying A321NEOs and phasing out 767-300s.

Maybe the 787 is an 'ideal' replacement for a 767-300ER used in intercontinental service, but it is not the ideal replacement for all cases.

The 787-8 can replace either a 767-200 or 767-300 on any mission as we see ANA flying 787s with as little as 158 seats or as dense as 335. It depends on the airline. I personally would not be supprised at all to see American and United configure some of their 787s for Trans-Con flights.

You say the 787 isn't an ideal replacement on short sectors, yet ANA fly their 787s on domestic flights or short international flights; a lot of which are well within the range of what a US Trans-Con flight would be.

HA's A321NEOs are more than likely going to be for expansion to cities that can't support daily 767(s) or A330(s); the A330 is the 767 replacement.

UA772IAD · Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:05 am

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 10):
Airlines go for frequency over a/c size. Once the 321s arrive, AA's 762 go away and that will end the wide body use on domestic flights except for the occasional substitution or re positioning.

Not this argument again. UA and DL still operate domestic widebody service. Among those off the top of my head: SFO-IAD, ATL-LAX, SFO-HNL, ORD-HNLIAD-IAH...

Aircraft size and frequency are not mutually exclusive terms.

Quoting ADent (Reply 12):
I don't think so. AA is replacing theirs with A321. UA replaced their trans-cons 767s years ago with

Stitch is correct. One airline's operational decision isn't the catch-all solution for the entire industry. AA is replacing thier 767-200s, which, IIRC, only operate JFK-LAX/SFO in favor of the A321. They are not replacing the 767-300 with the A321.

AA is realizing what UA realized years ago when they retired the 762; that their share of the JFK-LAX/SFO market is O&D driven, and not booked up with passengers making onward connections- thus requiring a bigger aircraft.

HA chose the A321 to go after thinner markets nonstop, that they wouldn't be able to sustain with an aircraft the size of the 767. Again, their decision is pretty specific to their network. Note they are also ordering A330 aircraft as well...

[Edited 2013-04-04 22:16:36]

[Edited 2013-04-04 22:25:02]

FlyASAGuy2005 · Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:30 am

Quoting planiac787 (Reply 6):
Yes but what if those are high density routes...why would airlines sacrifice on seats...Lets say a JFK-LAX...Some carriers operate wide bodies on these routes...A321 and 739 cant make them money and I dont see the point of operating 2 aircrafts on the same route at the same time..That wouldnt make sense..

Quoting planiac787 (Reply 8):
True but what about the airlines who dont have neither or rather dont have neither to spare on those routes...Currently 767 are doing those and if 787 are not ready on time then why should airlines keep sustaining losses....Isnt boeing in real trouble here?

Ummm, the majority of the a/c flying JFK-LAX/SFO are narrowbodies. AA is the only one left in the game with DL soon to be flying 763s as a stop-gap to instroduce flatbed product into the market until all their 75Es complete their mods for flatbeds.

lightsaber · Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:43 pm

Like prior aircraft replacements, it won't be a 'one for one' basis. There will be multiple types replacing the 767. It is already happening. We've had threads on 763ER scrapping before:
1st B767-300ER Being Scrapped? (by Dahlgardo Sep 25 2010 in Civil Aviation)

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 3):

For routes at six hours and under, the 321 or 739 works.

The NEO and MAX will take that to 7 hours.

Quoting planiac787 (Reply 5):
As I said some 767's are over 25 years old and will be retired soon...

Many already have been retired. They are being replaced by 739/A321 on shorter routes until enough long haul aircraft are available.

Quoting rg787 (Reply 15):
the 767 is just a lot bigger than the 739/a321 and a lot more capable

Higher CASM. People do not care enough about planes to demand a widebody. For longer routes, it will be the A333/787/A350 that replaces the 767. But for routes under 7 hours, it will be the NEO and MAX.

Quoting ADent (Reply 12):
I don't think so. AA is replacing theirs with A321. UA replaced their trans-cons 767s years ago with 757-200s. 737-900ERs are the new replacement.

Quoting ADent (Reply 12):
HA is buying A321NEOs and phasing out 767-300s.

But to be fair, many of the 767s will be replaced with A332s or A350s.

Quoting planiac787 (Reply 8):
True but what about the airlines who dont have neither or rather dont have neither to spare on those routes...Currently 767 are doing those

Then if they do not have the 787, they must replace what they can with shorter range planes. Its all about CASM and the NEO/MAX take the narrowbodies to the next level.

Lightsaber

cornutt · Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:01 pm

Quoting rg787 (Reply 15):
No matter how many times you guys tell me the future of the 757 and now the 767 will be 739/A321. This doesn't make any sense, the 767 is just a lot bigger than the 739/a321 and a lot more capable and even if you put more frequency, this is going against the world.

It's very true that on a seat-by-seat basis, those two narrowbodies are not a replacement for a 763 or 764. However, with regard to some of those routes, the airlines are caught in a pinch between operational efficiency and customer expectations. Taking JFK-LAX as an example, there are a lot of frequent flyers on that route who expect to be able to catch a flight at whatever time of day they decide to fly, and their airline loyalty will be based on which airline can get them to the destination soonest. So, if this customer decides at 10:00 AM on Tuesday to fly to L.A., and UA has a flight at 12:30 but DL's next flight isn't until 3:00 PM, he flies UA. But the next week, the same customer decides at 4:00 PM to go to L.A., and DL has a departure at 6:00 PM but UA's next departure isn't until 8:00 PM, he flies DL. So both UA and DL want to increase frequency on the route so they can capture the loyalty of that type of customer (who likely is a million-mile flyer), and they'll trade capacity and operational efficiency to get it.

cornutt · Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:13 pm

Quoting planiac787 (Reply 8):
True but what about the airlines who dont have neither or rather dont have neither to spare on those routes...Currently 767 are doing those and if 787 are not ready on time then why should airlines keep sustaining losses....Isnt boeing in real trouble here?

I don't think so, no more than Airbus was in trouble with the wing rib issues on the A380. A couple of things to remember: The battery issue hasn't stopped the production line; it has only stopped deliveries. Boeing can install the battery containment change on aircraft awaiting delivery in Everett fairly quickly, and for future production, the change will simply be incorporated on the line and result in no delay at all. So once the backlog of planes on the tarmac at Everett is cleared, the impact on future deliveries is minimal.

And you have to remember that, if an airline that wanted 787 orders wanted to switch to, say, the A350, they'd go to the back of the line with their orders. So it's not like they could get an A350 this year. For airlines with 787 deliveries scheduled for this year, it's not worth it to switch. It's actually pretty rare that an airline can ever expect to place an order for an aircraft of any model and expect to take delivery right away; the popular models all have years' worth of order backlogs. Airlines know that and they do their fleet planning accordingly. For those occasions where an airline needs an aircraft right away, they usually go to a leasing company.

What Would Be An Ideal Replacement For The 767

What Would Be An Ideal Replacement For The 767

RE: What Would Be An Ideal Replacement For The 767

RE: What Would Be An Ideal Replacement For The 767

RE: What Would Be An Ideal Replacement For The 767

RE: What Would Be An Ideal Replacement For The 767

RE: What Would Be An Ideal Replacement For The 767

RE: What Would Be An Ideal Replacement For The 767

RE: What Would Be An Ideal Replacement For The 767

RE: What Would Be An Ideal Replacement For The 767

RE: What Would Be An Ideal Replacement For The 767

RE: What Would Be An Ideal Replacement For The 767

RE: What Would Be An Ideal Replacement For The 767

RE: What Would Be An Ideal Replacement For The 767

RE: What Would Be An Ideal Replacement For The 767

RE: What Would Be An Ideal Replacement For The 767

RE: What Would Be An Ideal Replacement For The 767

RE: What Would Be An Ideal Replacement For The 767

RE: What Would Be An Ideal Replacement For The 767

RE: What Would Be An Ideal Replacement For The 767

RE: What Would Be An Ideal Replacement For The 767

RE: What Would Be An Ideal Replacement For The 767

RE: What Would Be An Ideal Replacement For The 767

RE: What Would Be An Ideal Replacement For The 767

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net