The Last 767-300ER?

WestWing · Tue Jun 03, 2014 2:41 am

Matt Cawby has a photograph on his site of Air Astana's P4-KEC making her B1 flight. With the 787s superiority in similar missions, this Air Astana frame may very well be the last ever passenger 767 built.

The is also - at present - the last civilian Pratt & Whitney powered Boeing. I suppose this could change if Boeing are successful in commercializing the 767-2CFX. Leeham News had reported that FedEx were interested.

If this is indeed the last passenger 767, here's a tip of the hat to this versatile old girl who - as far as I know - had a bit of a head start over her larger sibling (777) in showing the airlines the advantages and economics of transatlantic ETOPS.

UA444 · Tue Jun 03, 2014 3:01 am

It would be nice to see some top up orders every now and then, I think the most recent are from 2012 so not long ago. Uzbekistan also took some just last year.

777Jet · Tue Jun 03, 2014 3:10 am

As a pax the 767 is one of my favorite aircraft to fly on. You cannot beat the 2-3-2 in Y in terms of room and accessibility. Only 1 more seat per row than the 320 family, 737s, 757s, etc. and yet double the number of isles! Long live the 767!

scbriml · Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:49 am

Unfortunately, as a passenger plane, this is most likely the end. I can't see anyone ordering more - heck, if DL elect to top-up with A330s rather than 767s, I don't see much hope for anyone else.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley

na · Tue Jun 03, 2014 12:00 pm

Time to take off into history. The 767-300ER as a passenger plane is a 747-400 agemate, even a year older. With the same engines and nothing onboard which is more advanced. I am surprised that it has been built until now. It was close to death between 2005 and 2010. And now with the 787 what sense does it make other than offering a bargain aquisition price?

777klm · Tue Jun 03, 2014 12:24 pm

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 2):
As a pax the 767 is one of my favorite aircraft to fly on. You cannot beat the 2-3-2 in Y in terms of room and accessibility. Only 1 more seat per row than the 320 family, 737s, 757s, etc. and yet double the number of isles! Long live the 767!

Except for the OR 763 I had to travel with for 10 hours last week... 2-4-2

. But I agree, the 2-3-2 configuration is really nice! Especially when you're traveling as a couple, the 2 seats are great!

MEA-707 · Tue Jun 03, 2014 12:52 pm

Not to hyjack this thread but I noticed it's the first first flight of a 767 in over half a year.
L/n 1064 for FedEx flew on 21 Nov 2013, and this Air Astrana is L/n 1068 and took off at 30 May 2014.
It's clear that the frames in between, 1065 to 1067, are the first three USAF production birds, one or two have been seen outside.
But does anyone have more details; registrations or military serials, planned first flight date, construction numbers etc?

georgiaame · Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:01 pm

I loved flying on that plane from my first flight in 1884. (Never liked its 757 sister, except up front.) But funny, I won't "mourn" the loss of the 767 the way I will for the 747. It was a great aircraft, still is, but it is time to move onto better and more modern. Has Delta Air Lines ever heard of that new jet Boeing is building, the 787 I think it's called?

Ferroviarius · Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:20 pm

Good afternoon,

I beg your pardon if this question has been discussed any earlier:

If I recall correctly, pilote rating for 757s and 767s are not very far from each other, which gives a commonality advantage.

At the same time, the RB211-524 G/H T engines are - if I am not misinterpreting RR's webpage information - fully compatible between 767-300ERs and 744s.

Did any airline (British Airways or a Commonwealth Airline) ever really make use of this latter flexibility and had 744s and 763-300ERs with identical engines?

Best wishes,

Ferroviarius

aerorobnz · Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:31 pm

Well a 32 year production is a pretty amazing effort really.

ANITIX87 · Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:43 pm

Quoting georgiaame (Reply 7):
I loved flying on that plane from my first flight in 1884.

I head the Wright brothers were nice guys, can you confirm?

The 767 is one of my favorite planes to fly on as well. I tend to prefer the A330, as long as I'm on the outer set of seats, because it's quieter and, at least to my sense of balance, smoother.

However, it depends on the airline. The former CO 767-400s are, in my mind, unparalleled as a flying experience. The UA 767-300s (E+ class) I was on to/from GVA last month were awful. The seats are old, the interior is claustrophobic with the old bins, the IFE is downright archaic, and the temperature insulation is really bad. I've never been colder in a plane than I was yesterday.

TIS

TC957 · Tue Jun 03, 2014 2:02 pm

Didn't Air Astana order 4 763's ? I think there is still one more left to come. Planespotters.net 767 production list also shows 2 more LA ones due as well.

Stitch · Tue Jun 03, 2014 2:08 pm

Quoting TC957 (Reply 11):
Didn't Air Astana order 4 763's ? I think there is still one more left to come. Planespotters.net 767 production list also shows 2 more LA ones due as well.

Air Astana ordered three 767-300ERs on 23 February 2012.

Boeing's O&D page shows 1 unfilled 767-300ER order through April 2014 and that frame should be Air Astana's P4-KEC.

So once she is delivered, there are no more 767-300ER frames on order or in production.

washingtonflyer · Tue Jun 03, 2014 2:54 pm

I assume the line is still producing - mostly the KC-46 tankers for the USAF....

Stitch · Tue Jun 03, 2014 3:02 pm

Quoting washingtonflyer (Reply 13):
I assume the line is still producing - mostly the KC-46 tankers for the USAF....

Yes, there are some two score of 767-300Fs still to be delivered.

At the moment, the initial four 767-2C that will be the foundation of the KC-46A have been built. An additional 60 frames are planned between 2015-2020 with additional buys through 2028 to bring the fleet to 179 frames.

washingtonflyer · Tue Jun 03, 2014 3:05 pm

Not to mention 767 Freighters.

na · Tue Jun 03, 2014 4:05 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
So once she is delivered, there are no more 767-300ER frames on order or in production.

A cheap oldie, anyone? No? Ok, lets sell modern products now.

The 767 - an efficient transport with very little character. Easily forgotten. Time to move on. A bit harsh, but the truth.

warren747sp · Tue Jun 03, 2014 4:27 pm

If they are going to update the A330 why not the B763 on the cheap?

washingtonflyer · Tue Jun 03, 2014 4:46 pm

Quoting na (Reply 16):
The 767 - an efficient transport with very little character. Easily forgotten. Time to move on. A bit harsh, but the truth.

I'm not seeing how it has little character. Care to explain?

The first commercially successful twin jet twin aisle craft for North America...

[Edited 2014-06-03 09:48:44]

seabosdca · Tue Jun 03, 2014 4:51 pm

Quoting warren747sp (Reply 17):
If they are going to update the A330 why not the B763 on the cheap?

Because the 767 has a cross-section that can't be competitive as a passenger airliner in the era of widebodies with 9Y and 10Y and cargo hold space for two-abreast LD3s. The A300 cross section (reused for the A330/A340 and nearly duplicated for the 787) proved to have greater efficiency, and decisively won out once engines with high enough thrust to send it a long way were developed.

Quoting na (Reply 16):
The 767 - an efficient transport with very little character.

Can't agree there. 7Y is wonderful for the passengers, it feels every bit as spacious as bigger widebodies when equipped with the BSI, it has terrific field performance, and pilots almost universally praise its flying characteristics. Even though Boeing didn't arrive at the optimal widebody cross-section they built an airplane worth remembering.

[Edited 2014-06-03 09:51:22]

[Edited 2014-06-03 09:52:20]

KPDX · Tue Jun 03, 2014 4:52 pm

Quoting washingtonflyer (Reply 18):
I'm not seeing how it has little character.

I have to agree with na, here. At least if we're talking visually. Of all the Boeing products, I've always felt the 767 was the "dullest." Pretty much like the A300 and A310. Nothing special or exciting about them. No mean looking nose or tall landing gear like the 757... no beautiful wings like the 787... etc.

Still a great airplane and workhorse, though.

[Edited 2014-06-03 09:53:56]

Norcal773 · Tue Jun 03, 2014 5:22 pm

Great aircraft over time, did great as one of the first twin isle airplanes, good riddance though due to the economics compared to like-sized airplanes. I can tell you this much, I hope this means carriers retire them quick because I am so tired of flying on UA's older than Noah 767s IAD-ZRH. last one I flew on a month ago was creaking for the 8-hr hop across the pond.. Thank God to Channel 9 which drowned out the creaks and noises and the duct tape on the door which stuck out like a sore thumb. Ooh well, we did get there safely

Stitch · Tue Jun 03, 2014 5:28 pm

Quoting warren747sp (Reply 17):
If they are going to update the A330 why not the B763 on the cheap?

Because they updated it on the expensive with the 787.

na · Tue Jun 03, 2014 5:30 pm

Quoting washingtonflyer (Reply 18):
I'm not seeing how it has little character. Care to explain?

Its a boring looking twinjet like so many. It has no design details to set it apart. It has its merits as an efficient transport but its nothing to remember like the 707, 727 or 747.

Devilfish · Tue Jun 03, 2014 5:44 pm

Quoting na (Reply 16):
The 767 - an efficient transport with very little character. Easily forgotten.

Quoting na (Reply 23):
Its a boring looking twinjet like so many.

I beg to differ.....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 19):
Can't agree there. 7Y is wonderful for the passengers, it feels every bit as spacious as bigger widebodies when equipped with the BSI, it has terrific field performance, and pilots almost universally praise its flying characteristics. Even though Boeing didn't arrive at the optimal widebody cross-section they built an airplane worth remembering.

.

Quoting warren747sp (Reply 17):
If they are going to update the A330 why not the B763 on the cheap?

Why not indeed? ...

...

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
Because they updated it on the expensive with the 787.

And they wouldn't want to throw that money away by undermining the 787.

washingtonflyer · Tue Jun 03, 2014 5:51 pm

Quoting na (Reply 23):
Its a boring looking twinjet like so many. It has no design details to set it apart. It has its merits as an efficient transport but its nothing to remember like the 707, 727 or 747.

None of which are twinjets....but I digress.

scbriml · Tue Jun 03, 2014 6:11 pm

Quoting warren747sp (Reply 17):
If they are going to update the A330 why not the B763 on the cheap?

Because nobody is buying it now and you'd have to ask why would an airline buy a 767neo when there are two clearly better choices available (the 787 and, assuming it's launched shortly, the A330neo)?

There are leasing companies and airlines begging Airbus to do the A330neo. Outside of a.net, I've not read anyone suggesting a 767neo would be viable. I just can't see a business case for it.

s.p.a.s. · Tue Jun 03, 2014 7:49 pm

Being on the pointy end of a 767 for two years I can only vouch about how great this machine is. Great plane to fly, feels rock solid, has a quite respectable range (depending on payload) but is on the eight to nine hours flight time market that it excells. Not too big, not too small.

Very easy operation, dependable systems and great all weather capability, even with late 80's technology.

Having flown many sectors as a passenger too, indeed the 2x3x2 config is very nice, one of my favorites around.

I would say it still has as a freight machine, many years ahead, as passenger orders will be placed in favour of the 787 instead, despite the 787 being a totally diferente kettle of fish altogether.

LH707330 · Tue Jun 03, 2014 8:13 pm

Quoting georgiaame (Reply 7):
I loved flying on that plane from my first flight in 1884.

I always knew the Wright Brothers were lying....

Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 8):
If I recall correctly, pilote rating for 757s and 767s are not very far from each other, which gives a commonality advantage.

Correct, they have a common rating and cockpit design (hence the 757 nose), though they have slightly different flying characteristics (the 767 has more sensitive ailerons).

Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 8):
At the same time, the RB211-524 G/H T engines are - if I am not misinterpreting RR's webpage information - fully compatible between 767-300ERs and 744s.

Did any airline (British Airways or a Commonwealth Airline) ever really make use of this latter flexibility and had 744s and 763-300ERs with identical engines?

This is also true of the PW 4062 and GE CF6-80C2 engines of the day. NZ, BA, and a few others have engine pools common to the fleet.

Stitch · Tue Jun 03, 2014 8:17 pm

The 787 is the 767neo.

I was part of the early days of the 7E7 at Boeing and our initial configurations pitched to customers were dimensioned around the passenger capacities of the 767-300 and 767-400 - between 225 and 250 passengers in three classes.

Those discussions quickly resulted in those dimensions scaling up to the 240-280 the 787 was launched at as customers wanted a plane that could replace not just the 767 family, but also the A330-200, A330-300/A340-300 and 777-200ER.

UA444 · Tue Jun 03, 2014 8:18 pm

I do agree that the 767 and in many ways the 777 look quite boring when compared to other jets out there. The 757 looks unique and so does the 787 and even the A330.

This doesn't detract from what a great plane it is.

bobnwa · Tue Jun 03, 2014 8:24 pm

Quoting georgiaame (Reply 7):
Has Delta Air Lines ever heard of that new jet Boeing is building, the 787 I think it's called?

Yes Delta has heard of the 787, but Boeing was not speaking loud enough !

Aloha717200 · Tue Jun 03, 2014 8:49 pm

Let me tell you something about boring.

I used to hate the 767. Found it, and the 737 classics, to be the most boring aircraft in the skies. Even the A300 looked a bit more attractive to me, even moreso the A310. But still, boring.

I found some things to love though, as my favorite twin was the 757, and the 767 shared much in common...similar wing, cockpit, engines (except for GE), tail, and so forth. So basically it was a fatter, uglier, brother to the 757.

But then they started putting winglets on 737s and 767s and that pretty much changed everything. The 763 with a set of nice winglets is absolutely gorgeous. It's changed my opinion of the plane entirely. Winglets, frankly, make an ugly plane look fast, sleek, and sporty.

holzmann · Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:28 pm

I don't get the pic of the 777 engine in here...?

Stitch · Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:30 pm

Quoting holzmann (Reply 33):
I don't get the pic of the 777 engine in here...?

That is a GEnx2B-67 from an LH 747-8.

brucek · Tue Jun 03, 2014 10:54 pm

Quoting WestWing (Thread starter):
If this is indeed the last passenger 767, here's a tip of the hat to this versatile old girl who - as far as I know - had a bit of a head start over her larger sibling (777) in showing the airlines the advantages and economics of transatlantic ETOPS.

Didn't the B767 (and the A300) spell the end of the tri-jet? (Notwithstanding issues specific to the tri-jets themselves).

Stitch · Tue Jun 03, 2014 10:58 pm

Quoting brucek (Reply 35):
Didn't the B767 (and the A300) spell the end of the tri-jet? (Notwithstanding issues specific to the tri-jets themselves).

Yes, as both proved extended flights with twin engines was statistically and empirically safe and more efficient than with three engines.

Viscount724 · Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:11 pm

Quoting 777klm (Reply 5):
But I agree, the 2-3-2 configuration is really nice! Especially when you're traveling as a couple, the 2 seats are great!

Agree, the 767 is by far my preferred widebody due to the 2-3-2 seating. Unfortunately a twin-aisle aircraft with only one more seat across than a narrowbody is no longer cost-effective at current fuel prices.

When the 767 program was launched in 1978, crude oil was less than $20 a barrel, vs. about $102 today.

jetwet1 · Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:50 pm

Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 8):
At the same time, the RB211-524 G/H T engines are - if I am not misinterpreting RR's webpage information - fully compatible between 767-300ERs and 744s.

Did any airline (British Airways or a Commonwealth Airline) ever really make use of this latter flexibility and had 744s and 763-300ERs with identical engines?

Yes, BA did swap engines from their 767 to their 744 fleet.

Edit:

Here is a thread that helps explain it better than I could ever hope to.
RR Engine On 767 (by LukasMako Apr 9 2006 in Tech Ops)

[Edited 2014-06-03 16:52:39]

GUYAIR707 · Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:12 am

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 10):

Try Omni Air's 763's you arrive as a frozen corpse, and the F/A's always promise they will talk to the Captain to warm up the a/c.

From GEO-JFK our options were usually the 738 & 752, but now it's mainly the 763 with a few 762's. Although the 752 is my fav I really enjoy the space on the 763, sorry to see it go, but I am certain they will fly for many years to come.

GUYAIR707

Ferroviarius · Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:13 pm

Quoting jetwet1 (Reply 38):
Here is a thread that helps explain it better than I could ever hope to. RR Engine On 767 (by LukasMako Apr 9 2006 in Tech Ops)

Thanks a lot, jetwet1!

Devilfish · Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:00 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 26):
Outside of a.net, I've not read anyone suggesting a 767neo would be viable.

There was a least one last month. With lower cost, earlier availability and PIPs for the engine and frame, it just might.

.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 34):
Quoting holzmann (Reply 33):
I don't get the pic of the 777 engine in here...?

That is a GEnx2B-67 from an LH 747-8.

Perhaps it'd be clearer if someone would photoshop the GEnx2B hanging from a lofted CFRP wing onto this image and changing the model designation to read 767-400NEO?

.....

.
http://flyawaysimulation.com/modules/Images/gallery/FSX/FSX0520.JPG

UA444 · Sun Jun 08, 2014 3:47 am

I'm curious if the airlines that have ordered recent PAX versions might order more. It's pretty amazing its lasted this long into the 787's tenure.

bobnwa · Sun Jun 08, 2014 11:25 am

Quoting scbriml (Reply 3):
heck, if DL elect to top-up with A330s rather than 767s, I don't see much hope for anyone else.

I believe that DL ordered the A330 because they thought it was the better aircraft, not because they were disappointed in the 767

crimsonchin · Sun Jun 08, 2014 11:44 am

Probably the blandest looking WB ever made, even the winglets didn't help her looks much as they just looked oversized and awkward.
But it made money for airlines/Boeing and it was efficient for its time, so good aircraft

scbriml · Sun Jun 08, 2014 12:22 pm

Quoting bobnwa (Reply 43):
I believe that DL ordered the A330 because they thought it was the better aircraft, not because they were disappointed in the 767

Which totally endorses my point - I see no future for 767 passenger sales.

WestWing · Sun Jun 08, 2014 12:47 pm

FlightAware indicates that P4-KEC (BOE033) has been flown to VCV - I assume for painting.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net