Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Revelation · Mon Oct 28, 2019 11:43 am

Checklist787 wrote:
Less range and more passengers IS the key for the Middle Of Market!

This is the reason why the 767-400ER is the main base according to Boeing REVEALED by flightglobal

If you can fit the seats in a narrower cross section like the 767-X and close around of the 767-400ER strech,

we can obtain a good platform because less drag than the HEAVIER 787-8 Dreamliner/A330-800neo/A300/DC-10/MD-11/L-1011

Even better yet, get rid of the weight associated with range you'll never use and get a cross section designed for moving people in and out of busy airports via a design like NMA.

Babyshark wrote:
Revelation wrote:
KC-46 is a far better deal for the US taxpayers and fits its role in the USAF better.

Bunch of KC-46s sitting across ramps in Seattle says it's not a better deal for us taxpayers in any way. Not to mention the original tanker deal corruption in the early 2000s that sent a usaf/Boeing exec to prison.

Boeing is a mess. It's not 1990s Boeing. Its 2020 Boeing and it sucks at airplanes.

Taxpayers aren't paying anything for undelivered KC-46s, in fact Boeing has paid penalties for being late.

Meanwhile, KC-46 Officially Begins Initial Operational Test and Evaluation and USAF has accepted delivery of 22 KC-46s.

If Boeing sucks at airplanes, why all the enthusiasm for another rewarmed grandfathered 767 derivative?

planecane wrote:
If the market doesn't have a future need then why is Amazon expanding the fleet so much?

Is it really expanding?

The stuff we're seeing now going into the fleet is tapering off and is the result of decisions made two years ago or more.

AMZN's current trend is to spend big on building more warehouses for same-day and next-day delivery to avoid reliance on air.

ThePinnacleKid · Mon Oct 28, 2019 12:34 pm

Revelation wrote:
Is it really expanding?

The stuff we're seeing now going into the fleet is tapering off and is the result of decisions made two years ago or more.

AMZN's current trend is to spend big on building more warehouses for same-day and next-day delivery to avoid reliance on air.

It's expanding like crazy... year over year... and Amazon was never focused on using air like you're describing. One of the key aspects of AmazonAir is for "backroom" mobility of goods between warehouses to enable same-day / next-day delivery. It allows for warehouses to replenish stocks in different areas as ordering dictates to facilitate the ability to deliver quickly to consumer. It was not meant to be specifically the main vessel to get the package to a consumer like FedEx / UPS (although there are movements in that way as well). As to their expansion - just look at the doubling of BWI air hub, the build out at RFD and AFW. The massive construction at CVG. You can also go look online for their jobs page for Amazon Air. They're just in the beginning stages of building an aviation juggernaut (or pipe dream - time will tell). They're heavily pursuing hiring in Europe for AmazonAir too.

Stitch · Mon Oct 28, 2019 1:15 pm

planecane wrote:
I need to dig up the article but it was posted m months ago that, due to coming emissions regulations, Boeing will not be allowed to sell the existing 767 in a few years. If there is a market and they don't want to develop a 787F, they have to do this reengine.

Please do, as I have never heard of such a thing nor, apparently, has Google as a search on 767 emissions made no mention of the frame not meeting any regulatory standards.

Revelation · Mon Oct 28, 2019 1:33 pm

ThePinnacleKid wrote:
It's expanding like crazy... year over year... and Amazon was never focused on using air like you're describing. One of the key aspects of AmazonAir is for "backroom" mobility of goods between warehouses to enable same-day / next-day delivery. It allows for warehouses to replenish stocks in different areas as ordering dictates to facilitate the ability to deliver quickly to consumer. It was not meant to be specifically the main vessel to get the package to a consumer like FedEx / UPS (although there are movements in that way as well). As to their expansion - just look at the doubling of BWI air hub, the build out at RFD and AFW. The massive construction at CVG. You can also go look online for their jobs page for Amazon Air. They're just in the beginning stages of building an aviation juggernaut (or pipe dream - time will tell). They're heavily pursuing hiring in Europe for AmazonAir too.

Interesting, especially the backroom mobility part.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Air#Fleet says it has 41 767s now, with +4 in 2020 and +4 in 2021 as the plan.

I'm not sure I'd say +10% growth is growing like crazy, for the purposes of this thread.

We don't even know if AMZN will fly new builds as long as the lessors keep scraping the bottom of the barrel for older 767s, more of which will eventually come from DL and UA.

Seems the growth is in 737-8F, with 5 now and indications of adding 15 more.

Revelation · Mon Oct 28, 2019 2:02 pm

Interesting fact from viewtopic.php?p=21753319#p21753427

Take for instance JAL. They alone have 35 B767's that will eventually need to be replaced.
NH also has about 30 B767's to be replaced.

Also, DL has 56 763s being pushed out earlier than planned due to bargain A339s.

UA it seems will run theirs into the ground waiting for NMA :-)

Seems to me we have a long trail of feed stock for 767Fs.

Devilfish · Mon Oct 28, 2019 5:03 pm

Revelation wrote:
Even better yet, get rid of the weight associated with range you'll never use and get a cross section designed for moving people in and out of busy airports via a design like NMA.

Like this..... :?:

.....

https://theaircurrent.com/wp-content/up ... otated.jpg

Oykie · Mon Oct 28, 2019 5:44 pm

Babyshark wrote:
Revelation wrote:
[ KC-46 is a far better deal for the US taxpayers and fits its role in the USAF better.

Bunch of KC-46s sitting across ramps in Seattle says it's not a better deal for us taxpayers in any way. Not to mention the original tanker deal corruption in the early 2000s that sent a usaf/Boeing exec to prison.

Boeing is a mess. It's not 1990s Boeing. Its 2020 Boeing and it sucks at airplanes.

Boeing developed the 787 after 1990, as well as developing the 777X. Combine that with the new T-7 Red Hawk (T-X) jet trainer that Boeing is developing in record time and in a new way, and it seems Boeing still invents. They have had a really bad year, but I do not agree that they suck at airplanes.

Devilfish · Mon Oct 28, 2019 9:28 pm

Clearly, the GEnx2Bs are heavier and bigger.

I guess this thread has just about run its course with the NMA-6X concept above...as there's now a new topic to fritter away time and bandwidth on.

keesje · Mon Oct 28, 2019 11:39 pm

I few years ago I pasted this picture, seems I might have been too optimistic on innovation..

NeBaNi · Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:24 pm

keesje wrote:
I few years ago I pasted this picture, seems I might have been too optimistic on innovation..

And like I said when you posted that image, that is misinformation. All of those designs were studied for a projected entry-into-service of 2035. So, that has nothing to do with a potential 2024 design.

keesje · Wed Nov 06, 2019 2:33 pm

Bjorn seems to conclude the 767 is not an optimal design.
https://leehamnews.com/2019/10/31/is-reengining-the-boeing-767-a-good-idea-part-3/

I think he misses the point it still looks great placing it next to a A330 or 787 on e.g. trans con or intra Asia flights.
It's way lighter and cheaper to buy & operate and sits alone in a, according to Boeing but not Boeing alone, huge segment.

Airbus and Boeing sold 2000 757/767s + 1000 A300/310 there and a heaps of miss-used bigger and smaller aircraft. Major upgrades to the 767 are already done/payed for, the supply chain is in place, FSA is becoming a must. Reengined aircraft like NEO's, MAX broke sales records. NMA is becoming a bad idea at this stage & Boeing better move on.

At some point, even United will call it a day..

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ma-459767/

Revelation · Wed Nov 06, 2019 3:03 pm

keesje wrote:
Bjorn seems to conclude the 767 is not an optimal design.
https://leehamnews.com/2019/10/31/is-reengining-the-boeing-767-a-good-idea-part-3/

I think he misses the point it still looks great placing it next to a A330 or 787 on e.g. trans con or intra Asia flights.
It's way lighter and cheaper to buy & operate and sits alone in a, according to Boeing but not Boeing alone, huge segment.

Maybe you should give his summary:

Summary:
The economic improvement of a GEnx reengined 767 is hampered by the new engine's larger size and higher weight.
After catering for the increased empty weight and drag of a reengined 767, the result puts the project in question.
A reengined 767 is far from a replacement for the NMA.

It no longer looks great placing it next to the A330neo or 787 once you add the frontal drag and heavier weight of the GEnX to the existing high drag design and then add the cost for developing and certifying the project.

As he says, the result is not a replacement for the NMA. Too heavy, too much drag, too much tankage for fuel you will not burn.

It seems that at best we may see 764F emerge from this study, and even that seems dubious given that we haven't seen any potential customers come forward and say they want that kind of airplane.

Devilfish · Wed Nov 06, 2019 4:47 pm

keesje wrote:
Reengined aircraft like NEO's, MAX broke sales records.

I'm still waiting for the A330NEOs to get bigger orders --- leave alone breaking sales records. :eyebrow:

eugdjinn · Wed Nov 06, 2019 5:01 pm

Having read page after page of the reasons that Boeing will not and can not back track and redo the 767 (likely 400) with the GEnx2b engine, I'm left with the following conclusions:
- Boeing may have realized it cannot afford to introduce an aircraft with 788 seating (250ish) and range 8000 nm without negatively impacting the sales of the 788 - a bad thing!
- Nobody needs an aircraft of that seating with that range, or they would already own the 788 or be buying A330 neos! (um, oops)
- The 788 is an acceptable replacement for the 767-300 in the minds of very few airlines, AA, possibly ANA, JAL, and ??? but notably NOT DL, UA, and a number of other 767 carriers who are struggling to find a replacement.
- It actually does matter, not only on cargo ramps, but in aging and constrained airports too, that the wingspan of the 787 and the A330 is not the same as the venerable 767-300er fleet that dominates Trans-Atlantic flying.
- As the pilot shortage increases, it's entirely likely that hub-hub flying will also have to transition to an efficient twin aisle aircraft that isn't fundamentally designed for massively long distance flying. For all the A330neo and 787 are elegant and brilliant aircraft, they were never designed to spend their lives flying DEN-ORD.
- Boeing has found itself in radically changed circumstances from what it envisioned when it assigned its resources to the NMA. At the time, it believed the antique design of the 737 would soldier on for another refresh cycle. That is no longer the case. <-- (that is a period. full stop. pay attention Boeing Aircraft Corp.) Personally, I will not be surprised if AA informs Boeing that they are not taking any Maxes, and are giving back all of the 24 they had in order to buy 320s. It is that bad.
- The only way out is to pull most of the engineering team from the NMA and move immediately to a new narrowbody, ASAP. Then get on their knees and go to DL, UA, etc, and ask about a 767-500/600 [personal plea - could we Please take a break from MAX anything, and the idiotic pandering to Chinese numerology of the "-8"??? Clearly, the Chinese gods have no love for Boeing right now, and its time to go back to what worked.]
- The success of the 787 lay in part in asking actual users (FAs, catering staff, cleaners, mechanics, ramp, pilots, etc) for feedback and advice on things to improve on the aircraft. Do that again for every aircraft out of Boeing, but do it fast for the 767 GEnx2b.
- Finally, it's time to put the NMA to rest. For Boeing, it simply cannot focus on an aircraft between the 737Max and the 787 and survive. Let's just be honest. The Max is dead. And should be. After what, 60 years, you simply cannot keep putting lipstick on it. Let it die.

There is one truly novel aircraft in the narrowbody market, and to Boeing's shame, they had nothing to do with it. Well, they tried very hard to kill it. The CSeries by what was Bombardier, is a game changer. It should be a wake up call. It clearly scared a few people in Chicago. It apparently did nothing positive in the Emerald City. It is time for the great and powerful OZ (American engineering, innovation, design and chutzpah) to get it together and do something. Or admit that we are truly as vacuous and empty as the great orange bombast at 1600 Pennsylvania.

Your ball, Boeing Aircraft, please, please, make us proud.

keesje · Wed Nov 06, 2019 5:06 pm

Revelation wrote:
Maybe you should give his summary:

Summary:
The economic improvement of a GEnx reengined 767 is hampered by the new engine's larger size and higher weight.
After catering for the increased empty weight and drag of a reengined 767, the result puts the project in question.
A reengined 767 is far from a replacement for the NMA.

It no longer looks great placing it next to the A330neo or 787 once you add the frontal drag and heavier weight of the GEnX to the existing high drag design and then add the cost for developing and certifying the project.

As he says, the result is not a replacement for the NMA. Too heavy, too much drag, too much tankage for fuel you will not burn.

It seems that at best we may see 764F emerge from this study, and even that seems dubious given that we haven't seen any potential customers come forward and say they want that kind of airplane.

A replacement for the NMA? For the airliners there is no NMA they can wait for, want to invest in. And it seems neither for Boeing.

NMA is becoming a Dreamwhiner from another time zone/ reality. Not something United and can replace there 767 fleets with. Add that even the 737-10 looks increasingly a challenge more than a solid investment going forward for the next 25 years.

If Boeing thinks a little longer to fully understand, Airbus might have moved forward and things changed again.

Stitch · Wed Nov 06, 2019 5:49 pm

keesje wrote:
Bjorn seems to conclude the 767 is not an optimal design...I think he misses the point it still looks great placing it next to a A330 or 787 on e.g. trans con or intra Asia flights.

And yet airlines keep buying A330neos and 787s for these missions... :scratchchin:

Probably because they don't dedicate the frames to just those types of missions, but instead also use them on other missions (like intercontinental) where the 767 does not look great.

keesje wrote:
At some point, even United will call it a day.

Well they already called it a day on the 767-300ER when the rumored large order from a couple of years back never materialized. They ordered over a dozen 787s, instead, which fits with their new strategy of up-gauging frames with more premium seating. If they pursue that strategy into the 767 replacement cycle, then larger 787s would be what they want, not the same-size 767-X.

seahawk · Wed Nov 06, 2019 5:58 pm

The NMA will come, this is just a study for the freighter version.

FLALEFTY · Wed Nov 06, 2019 6:07 pm

I believe the question that FexEx and UPS asked Boeing, "What do you have to replace the MD-11F?" Boeing then offered this 764XF concept for consideration. However, both freight airlines also have the option of buying (UPS), or expanding (FedEx) fleets of (still in production) 777F's to fill the MD-11F role. They also might be interested in the 773ERF conversion project that IAI and GECAS have recently started. Then there is Airbus with offerings of A330F CEO's and possibly, A338F NEO's that could also do the job. Ideally, both airlines would like to accelerate the retirement of the MD11F, an airframe that has been out of production for over 19 years and has a MRO support base that is growing increasingly more expensive to maintain.

There is much talk of Amazon, but as it was pointed out, their current fleet of B763F's is only projected to grow modestly in the next few years, so it is unlikely they will be a candidate as a launch customer of a new freighter type at this time.

texl1649 · Wed Nov 06, 2019 6:08 pm

No new product will be offered until a new CEO has his team in place, and then analyzes and presents a plan to the board for go ahead. There will be several new members of the board, as well.

Frankly, a lot of these potential airline clients (and leasing companies) for NMA/767Max or whatever are also 737 MAX customers too. None of them (meaning; zero) would entertain a new product launch commitment (meaning, financial commitment, not PR), prior to the MAX penalties/situation being resolved and agreed to. In short; nothing here gets even consideration for a go-ahead for at least another 10 months. The 77X, pending MAX re-entry (and certifications/training/contract adjustments), then the Boeing Brazil situation and any adjustments (toward March), then the corporate leadership shuffle all have to happen first.

2175301 · Wed Nov 06, 2019 6:40 pm

It is also my opinion that this study is primarily about Freighters, with a "peak" to see if they could possibly get a few hundred passenger aircraft as part of the program.

I believe that there is a fairly good chance of it occurring just as a Freighter to replace the MD-11F's and as an upgauge for companies using the 763F looking for more capacity.

The NMA is separate; and I believe you will see the authorization to offer to the market by mid 2020 after the key issues with the 737Max are resolved and aircraft are returned to service and new aircraft are being delivered.

Have a great day,

Stitch · Wed Nov 06, 2019 8:46 pm

When it comes to MD-11F replacement, the non-767 options all come with a wider wingspan which will mean the operators will need to re-define existing MD-11F infrastructure to accommodate them, so this might be part of what is motivating a larger 767-X freighter concept. However, a 767-400 freighter would be fairly smaller in overall payload volume and especially in payload weight. We're looking at around 20% less volume and perhaps 30% less payload weight?

That being said, based on posts in this forum, FX is standardizing on pallets that can be used in the 757 and 767. So while they would be 88x125" instead of 96x125", a 767-400 freighter could take ~28 pallets compared to 26 for the MD-11F. So as they are already using 767-sized pallets on the MD and Airbus fleet, the MDs might be primarily going out at below max-volume already.

keesje · Wed Nov 06, 2019 10:02 pm

If Boeing waits long enough, for whatever reason, market demand won’t wait. Maybe even Airbus might come up with something. Now, can Airbus even afford to come with a brand new aircaft at this stage? definitely.. https://airbus-h.assetsadobe2.com/is/im ... 1&qlt=85,0

ClarkeKent · Wed Nov 06, 2019 11:08 pm

Hi guys,

Real hurdle I see for the 76 is the wing. She’s limited earlier on in the flight. Sometimes FL290.

On a 9 hour flight the 767/a330/787 all burn roughly the same flight fuel. The big difference being that the a330/787 do it 60-70T heavier. The big wing on the 330 and 787 get them up higher earlier.

Don’t get me wrong. I love the 767, and I see a future in the 767F re-engine program. The Ge.nx is a great engine. Mature with pips forecast. But.. a new engine is only half the story if you want an aeroplane to compete with the 330. The 767 simply can’t do it in a pax capacity. Not without significant improvement. A new gear, winglet, flight deck and engine simply isn’t enough. Without significant wing improvements, the 767 will always be stuck down low guzzling fuel. Just my opinion.

I see 767x succeeding as a freighter. Due to the fact there’s no competition. Simple re-engine. Aero and wing tweaks, winglet. Mtow bump. But proceed with caution. The 767F should not try and creep into the 330F market too much.
I see the same result as the a330 vs 767-400 in the pax market. Don’t go there B.

:old:

SonomaFlyer · Wed Nov 06, 2019 11:25 pm

The 767 has replacements: the 330NEO or the 787. There is too much work needed on the 767 to make it commercially viable. If Boeing were smart, they'd sharpen their pencils on the 788. IIRC, the 789 weight shaving improvements went into new build 788s as well.

JayinKitsap · Thu Nov 07, 2019 12:13 am

ClarkeKent wrote:
Hi guys,

Real hurdle I see for the 76 is the wing. She’s limited earlier on in the flight. Sometimes FL290.

On a 9 hour flight the 767/a330/787 all burn roughly the same flight fuel. The big difference being that the a330/787 do it 60-70T heavier. The big wing on the 330 and 787 get them up higher earlier.

Don’t get me wrong. I love the 767, and I see a future in the 767F re-engine program. The Ge.nx is a great engine. Mature with pips forecast. But.. a new engine is only half the story if you want an aeroplane to compete with the 330. The 767 simply can’t do it in a pax capacity. Not without significant improvement. A new gear, winglet, flight deck and engine simply isn’t enough. Without significant wing improvements, the 767 will always be stuck down low guzzling fuel. Just my opinion.

I see 767x succeeding as a freighter. Due to the fact there’s no competition. Simple re-engine. Aero and wing tweaks, winglet. Mtow bump. But proceed with caution. The 767F should not try and creep into the 330F market too much.
I see the same result as the a330 vs 767-400 in the pax market. Don’t go there B.

Yes, it really is only viable as a freighter. The GEnx 2b currently on the 748F fits the 764 gear and frame so it is easy geometry wise, possibly shrink the fuse to what is optimum as a package freighter. Same cockpit, etc currently on the 763F. Looks like a good freighter prospect, the current 763F competes with P2F conversion, the 777W P2F also competes. Boeing would much prefer to sell a new freighter. Also, helps keep the barn door closed on 330F sales.

After seeing the wonderful results of the 748 pax model (less than 50) orders it is apparent that the days of glory carrying passengers are well past sunset. Fifty planes at $20M each to pay off the development costs only brings $1B, so doing the pax version seems crazy.

Varsity1 · Thu Nov 07, 2019 12:17 am

ClarkeKent wrote:
Hi guys,

Real hurdle I see for the 76 is the wing. She’s limited earlier on in the flight. Sometimes FL290.

On a 9 hour flight the 767/a330/787 all burn roughly the same flight fuel. The big difference being that the a330/787 do it 60-70T heavier. The big wing on the 330 and 787 get them up higher earlier.

Don’t get me wrong. I love the 767, and I see a future in the 767F re-engine program. The Ge.nx is a great engine. Mature with pips forecast. But.. a new engine is only half the story if you want an aeroplane to compete with the 330. The 767 simply can’t do it in a pax capacity. Not without significant improvement. A new gear, winglet, flight deck and engine simply isn’t enough. Without significant wing improvements, the 767 will always be stuck down low guzzling fuel. Just my opinion.

I see 767x succeeding as a freighter. Due to the fact there’s no competition. Simple re-engine. Aero and wing tweaks, winglet. Mtow bump. But proceed with caution. The 767F should not try and creep into the 330F market too much.
I see the same result as the a330 vs 767-400 in the pax market. Don’t go there B.

What?

You have that completely backwards. The 767 is known for getting high, fast and early.. sipping gas.

keesje · Thu Nov 07, 2019 1:00 am

ClarkeKent wrote:
Hi guys,

Real hurdle I see for the 76 is the wing. She’s limited earlier on in the flight. Sometimes FL290.

On a 9 hour flight the 767/a330/787 all burn roughly the same flight fuel. The big difference being that the a330/787 do it 60-70T heavier. The big wing on the 330 and 787 get them up higher earlier.

Don’t get me wrong. I love the 767, and I see a future in the 767F re-engine program. The Ge.nx is a great engine. Mature with pips forecast. But.. a new engine is only half the story if you want an aeroplane to compete with the 330. The 767 simply can’t do it in a pax capacity. Not without significant improvement. A new gear, winglet, flight deck and engine simply isn’t enough. Without significant wing improvements, the 767 will always be stuck down low guzzling fuel. Just my opinion.

I see 767x succeeding as a freighter. Due to the fact there’s no competition. Simple re-engine. Aero and wing tweaks, winglet. Mtow bump. But proceed with caution. The 767F should not try and creep into the 330F market too much.
I see the same result as the a330 vs 767-400 in the pax market. Don’t go there B.

Boeing 767-200 — 4500 kg/h
Boeing 767-300 — 4800 kg/h
Boeing 767-300ER — 4940 kg/h
Boeing 787-8 — 4900 kg/h
Boeing 787-9 — 5600 kg/h
Airbus A330-200 — 5590 kg/h
Airbus A330-300 — 5700 kg/h

https://www.transtats.bts.gov/DL_SelectFields.asp?Table_ID=297

Now add 10-15% better engines, aerodynamics to the 762/763 and a significant lower price & taxes (it weighs 30t less), fits smaller gates.
And you don't have to spend 7-8 yrs / $20Billions the get a first flight with an entire new supply chain.

:idea:

?! FL290 ?! 37.000 ft, as we speak, for nearly 40 yrs, pls...

ClarkeKent · Thu Nov 07, 2019 3:01 am

I can tell you Keesje that the figures you are posting are merely average fuel burns dreamed up at average weights. Sure, they have some merit but they only tell a fraction of the story

Yes I agree. The 767 doesn’t and isn’t known as a ‘gas guzzler’. But.. an a330 will outlift it significantly and burn similar, if not the same fuel, on an 9-10 hour flight. So will a 787.

I can positively tell you that a heavy 767 only just makes it into the early FL300s. Pilots don’t operate their aircraft at maximum altitude Keesje. I’m by no means saying they operate an entire sector at 290/300/310, because they don’t. I’m just saying they’re limited early ‘when heavy’ because of its wing. (The image you posted is an aircraft half way into a flight.. of course they’re not at FL300)

All said and done. It obviously depends how you intend to operate the aircraft. On 5-6 hours flights it’s better and the numbers start to stack up. Over 9 hours, it’s simply outclassed by the bigger wing of the 330/787.

I’m by no means saying “I’m right and you’re wrong”.
I’m simply stating the reasons why a re-engined passenger 767 will not stack up against an a330/787.

Yes the new engine has a fuel burn advantage, but that fuel burn advantage will be at a $1-2B development cost. Now combine that with the cost of aero tweaks, wing tweaks, winglets, modified gear, etc.

The 330/787 are much closer in fuel burns than a 330 is to a 767. (BUT ONLY FOR THE SAME WEIGHT)
It’s all in the wing I tell you. Compare an a330 to a 767 at similar mtow. The 330 smokes it. Compare an a330 and 767 with the a330 weighing 40-50T more, and I believe the trip fuel burns will be similar. There’s always variables.

:old:

ikramerica · Thu Nov 07, 2019 3:57 am

ClarkeKent wrote:
I can tell you Keesje that the figures you are posting are merely average fuel burns dreamed up at average weights. Sure, they have some merit but they only tell a fraction of the story

Yes I agree. The 767 doesn’t and isn’t known as a ‘gas guzzler’. But.. an a330 will outlift it significantly and burn similar, if not the same fuel, on an 9-10 hour flight. So will a 787.

I can positively tell you that a heavy 767 only just makes it into the early FL300s. Pilots don’t operate their aircraft at maximum altitude Keesje. I’m by no means saying they operate an entire sector at 290/300/310, because they don’t. I’m just saying they’re limited early ‘when heavy’ because of its wing. (The image you posted is an aircraft half way into a flight.. of course they’re not at FL300)

All said and done. It obviously depends how you intend to operate the aircraft. On 5-6 hours flights it’s better and the numbers start to stack up. Over 9 hours, it’s simply outclassed by the bigger wing of the 330/787.

I’m by no means saying “I’m right and you’re wrong”.
I’m simply stating the reasons why a re-engined passenger 767 will not stack up against an a330/787.

Yes the new engine has a fuel burn advantage, but that fuel burn advantage will be at a $1-2B development cost. Now combine that with the cost of aero tweaks, wing tweaks, winglets, modified gear, etc.

The 330/787 are much closer in fuel burns than a 330 is to a 767. (BUT ONLY FOR THE SAME WEIGHT)
It’s all in the wing I tell you. Compare an a330 to a 767 at similar mtow. The 330 smokes it. Compare an a330 and 767 with the a330 weighing 40-50T more, and I believe the trip fuel burns will be similar. There’s always variables.

Are you saying the 787 and A330 are flying at FL360/70 soon after takeoff on a heavy loaded flight? The 777 doesn’t do that. It step climbs.

Or are you comparing Apples to Oranges and Pears by showing a 30 year old 767 on a near max flight but a final version HGW A330 on a flight not even close to its max and a 787 on a half range flight? Does the 789 LHR-PER climb to FL360/70 within the 1st hour?

ClarkeKent · Thu Nov 07, 2019 4:00 am

I’m not kicking the 76 at all. I love the 76. Just stating why it can’t compete as a pax aircraft with 330. A new engine won’t do. It needs several billion in development costs put into it. Just not worth it. Like I’ve stated. As a freighter, I think a Genx 76 will be a good aircraft. Just don’t encroach the 330.

ClarkeKent · Thu Nov 07, 2019 4:07 am

I would kill to see a 767neo developed. New flight deck, new gear, hgw, Genx, new wing and tailplane. But.. realistically, the costs required to develop it just don’t stack up. Hope I’m making sense. I don’t mean to bash the 76 above, just being realistic about her future.

2175301 · Thu Nov 07, 2019 4:54 am

ClarkeKent wrote:
I’m not kicking the 76 at all. I love the 76. Just stating why it can’t compete as a pax aircraft with 330. A new engine won’t do. It needs several billion in development costs put into it. Just not worth it. Like I’ve stated. As a freighter, I think a Genx 76 will be a good aircraft. Just don’t encroach the 330.

I think a 764F will indeed encroach on the A330F, not that the A330F is selling many units. Yes there are a few A330P2F's now. Again, nothing like the numbers of B767P2F's (not to mention B737P2F's). There are and I doubt will ever be any B777P2F as the floor modifications are too expensive.

In my opinion and by my reading Airbus has a tiny sliver of the freighter market because they never focused on it like Boeing did. A 764F will likely only increase the dominance...

Not yet developed... but planned for is a future 787F (all the key structure and service routings to add cargo doors were designed into the structure up front).

Have a great day,

mjoelnir · Thu Nov 07, 2019 5:29 am

2175301 wrote:
ClarkeKent wrote:
I’m not kicking the 76 at all. I love the 76. Just stating why it can’t compete as a pax aircraft with 330. A new engine won’t do. It needs several billion in development costs put into it. Just not worth it. Like I’ve stated. As a freighter, I think a Genx 76 will be a good aircraft. Just don’t encroach the 330.

I think a 764F will indeed encroach on the A330F, not that the A330F is selling many units. Yes there are a few A330P2F's now. Again, nothing like the numbers of B767P2F's (not to mention B737P2F's). There are and I doubt will ever be any B777P2F as the floor modifications are too expensive.

In my opinion and by my reading Airbus has a tiny sliver of the freighter market because they never focused on it like Boeing did. A 764F will likely only increase the dominance...

Not yet developed... but planned for is a future 787F (all the key structure and service routings to add cargo doors were designed into the structure up front).

Have a great day,

It is strange how some think that things will stay the same.

The A300F did quite well and so the A300&310 p2f.
The A330 conversions have started and there are quite a few on order. AFAIK the current plan is to convert 10 to 15 frames a year at EFW. They did nearly 200 A300 & A310.

I assume that the 767-400FMAX could also be a possible answer to a RFP, were Airbus but it's A330F forward, possible MD11F replacement, with the 767-300F being to small.

I can imagine a 737-400FMAX.

I do not believe we will see a 767MAX passenger frame. The 767-400ER could not match up to the A330ceo, why should the 767-400MAX match up to the A330neo or even the 787.

ClarkeKent · Thu Nov 07, 2019 5:30 am

Agree with your analysis regarding freighters. Members are making the arguement that Boeing should ‘Max’ the 767. Won’t work with a passenger model. Reasons stated above. Freighter only requires the new engine. Not a complete ‘Maxing’.

ClarkeKent · Thu Nov 07, 2019 5:32 am

mjoelnir wrote:
2175301 wrote:
ClarkeKent wrote:
I’m not kicking the 76 at all. I love the 76. Just stating why it can’t compete as a pax aircraft with 330. A new engine won’t do. It needs several billion in development costs put into it. Just not worth it. Like I’ve stated. As a freighter, I think a Genx 76 will be a good aircraft. Just don’t encroach the 330.

I think a 764F will indeed encroach on the A330F, not that the A330F is selling many units. Yes there are a few A330P2F's now. Again, nothing like the numbers of B767P2F's (not to mention B737P2F's). There are and I doubt will ever be any B777P2F as the floor modifications are too expensive.

In my opinion and by my reading Airbus has a tiny sliver of the freighter market because they never focused on it like Boeing did. A 764F will likely only increase the dominance...

Not yet developed... but planned for is a future 787F (all the key structure and service routings to add cargo doors were designed into the structure up front).

Have a great day,

It is strange how some think that things will stay the same.

The A300F did quite well and so the A300&310 p2f.
The A330 conversions have started and there are quite a few on order. AFAIK the current plan is to convert 10 to 15 frames a year at EFW. They did nearly 200 A300 & A310.

I assume that the 767-400FMAX could also be a possible answer to a RFP, were Airbus but it's A330F forward, possible MD11F replacement, with the 767-300F being to small.

I can imagine a 737-400FMAX.

I do not believe we will see a 767MAX passenger frame. The 767-400ER could not match up to the A330ceo, why should the 767-400MAX match up to the A330neo or even the 787.

Amen. 767max pax can’t compete. All I’m saying. 767F re-engine. I say yes.

767333ER · Thu Nov 07, 2019 5:42 am

Varsity1 wrote:
ClarkeKent wrote:
Hi guys,

Real hurdle I see for the 76 is the wing. She’s limited earlier on in the flight. Sometimes FL290.

On a 9 hour flight the 767/a330/787 all burn roughly the same flight fuel. The big difference being that the a330/787 do it 60-70T heavier. The big wing on the 330 and 787 get them up higher earlier.

Don’t get me wrong. I love the 767, and I see a future in the 767F re-engine program. The Ge.nx is a great engine. Mature with pips forecast. But.. a new engine is only half the story if you want an aeroplane to compete with the 330. The 767 simply can’t do it in a pax capacity. Not without significant improvement. A new gear, winglet, flight deck and engine simply isn’t enough. Without significant wing improvements, the 767 will always be stuck down low guzzling fuel. Just my opinion.

I see 767x succeeding as a freighter. Due to the fact there’s no competition. Simple re-engine. Aero and wing tweaks, winglet. Mtow bump. But proceed with caution. The 767F should not try and creep into the 330F market too much.
I see the same result as the a330 vs 767-400 in the pax market. Don’t go there B.

What?

You have that completely backwards. The 767 is known for getting high, fast and early.. sipping gas.

This is not entirely true nor false. The 767-300ER is a rather overpowered plane particularly with the top of the line rating of CF6 compared to some other planes, but make anything loaded up to the max and it does begin to struggle no matter what plane it is. The 767-400ER is the one that notoriously starts it’s flights at sometime like FL290 because it’s a little gutless and the wings are too small. If the range gets pushed on the 787-10 for example it could be much the same, but I don’t think the range has to get pushed as hard in that plane.

B777LRF · Thu Nov 07, 2019 5:59 am

Revelation wrote:
If Boeing sucks at airplanes, why all the enthusiasm for another rewarmed grandfathered 767 derivative?

Do not confuse "enthusiasm" on these pages with anything even remotely relevant to airline decision makers. Boeing launching yet another warmed up version of an ancient model is neither what the industry is asking for or is in need of. It is, quite simply, the only answer Boeing has that fits a very tight investment schedule.

Keep in mind, Boeing management would much rather see funds disappear down their wallets than invest for the future. That's been the case ever since Dennis took the reins - to the tune of roughly 5,4BN USD in stock options to the board and management.

Boeing's made it quite clear they're not into "moonshots" anymore, and this is one of the results. Another result was the 737 Max, and we all know how well that went.

ClarkeKent · Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:02 am

767333ER wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:
ClarkeKent wrote:
Hi guys,

Real hurdle I see for the 76 is the wing. She’s limited earlier on in the flight. Sometimes FL290.

On a 9 hour flight the 767/a330/787 all burn roughly the same flight fuel. The big difference being that the a330/787 do it 60-70T heavier. The big wing on the 330 and 787 get them up higher earlier.

Don’t get me wrong. I love the 767, and I see a future in the 767F re-engine program. The Ge.nx is a great engine. Mature with pips forecast. But.. a new engine is only half the story if you want an aeroplane to compete with the 330. The 767 simply can’t do it in a pax capacity. Not without significant improvement. A new gear, winglet, flight deck and engine simply isn’t enough. Without significant wing improvements, the 767 will always be stuck down low guzzling fuel. Just my opinion.

I see 767x succeeding as a freighter. Due to the fact there’s no competition. Simple re-engine. Aero and wing tweaks, winglet. Mtow bump. But proceed with caution. The 767F should not try and creep into the 330F market too much.
I see the same result as the a330 vs 767-400 in the pax market. Don’t go there B.

What?

You have that completely backwards. The 767 is known for getting high, fast and early.. sipping gas.

This is not entirely true nor false. The 767-300ER is a rather overpowered plane particularly with the top of the line rating of CF6 compared to some other planes, but make anything loaded up to the max and it does begin to struggle no matter what plane it is. The 767-400ER is the one that notoriously starts it’s flights at sometime like FL290 because it’s a little gutless and the wings are too small. If the range gets pushed on the 787-10 for example it could be much the same, but I don’t think the range has to get pushed as hard in that plane.

Agreed. The 76 is a beast for its mission. The point I’m trying to make is that in order for the 767 to become really competitive in the nma market, it needs a lot of money spent on it. Keesje is barracking for a complete maxing of the 767. As much as I would love to fly it, or fly in it. It just won’t compete. Not even the 787-3 could compete with 330/787 in the nma/midhaul market. In the 8-10 hour category. I’ve seen 330/787 burn similar trip fuel as 76. 76 was at 150T, 330/787 were at 220-230T. That’s nma territory. Therefore, in order for 76 to be the new nma, it needs PLENTY of work. If they want the UA 767 replacement they’re gonna have to do better than a 767 reboot, I’m sorry to say.

Let me repeat. The 767F is in a sweet spot monopoly. I’m purely talking pax in the previous paragraph. Give 76F a new GEnx. The 767 is a great 3-6ish/7ish hour aircraft. North of that she will struggle, especially with a load on. Imo.

:old:

767333ER · Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:09 am

ClarkeKent wrote:
767333ER wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:

What?

You have that completely backwards. The 767 is known for getting high, fast and early.. sipping gas.

This is not entirely true nor false. The 767-300ER is a rather overpowered plane particularly with the top of the line rating of CF6 compared to some other planes, but make anything loaded up to the max and it does begin to struggle no matter what plane it is. The 767-400ER is the one that notoriously starts it’s flights at sometime like FL290 because it’s a little gutless and the wings are too small. If the range gets pushed on the 787-10 for example it could be much the same, but I don’t think the range has to get pushed as hard in that plane.

Agreed. The 76 is a beast for its mission. The point I’m trying to make is that in order for the 767 to become really competitive in the nma market, it needs a lot of money spent on it. Keesje is barracking for a complete maxing of the 767. As much as I would love to fly it, or fly in it. It just won’t compete. Not even the 787-3 could compete with 330/787 in the nma/midhaul market. In the 8-10 hour category. I’ve seen 330/787 burn similar trip fuel as 76. 76 was at 150T, 330/787 were at 220-230T. That’s nma territory. Therefore, in order for 76 to be the new nma, it needs PLENTY of work. If they want the UA 767 replacement they’re gonna have to do better than a 767 reboot, I’m sorry to say.
The counter argument to the climb performance argument though is that with new engines it would need a lot less fuel and therefore a lot less weight to do the same missions to do what a current 767 does. Otherwise you’re making valid points as far as I can see.
Let me repeat. The 767F is in a sweet spot monopoly. I’m purely talking pax in the previous paragraph. Give 76F a new GEnx. The 767 is a great 3-6ish/7ish hour aircraft. North of that she will struggle, especially with a load on. Imo.

musman9853 · Thu Nov 07, 2019 2:39 pm

2175301 wrote:
ClarkeKent wrote:
I’m not kicking the 76 at all. I love the 76. Just stating why it can’t compete as a pax aircraft with 330. A new engine won’t do. It needs several billion in development costs put into it. Just not worth it. Like I’ve stated. As a freighter, I think a Genx 76 will be a good aircraft. Just don’t encroach the 330.

I think a 764F will indeed encroach on the A330F, not that the A330F is selling many units. Yes there are a few A330P2F's now. Again, nothing like the numbers of B767P2F's (not to mention B737P2F's). There are and I doubt will ever be any B777P2F as the floor modifications are too expensive.

In my opinion and by my reading Airbus has a tiny sliver of the freighter market because they never focused on it like Boeing did. A 764F will likely only increase the dominance...

Not yet developed... but planned for is a future 787F (all the key structure and service routings to add cargo doors were designed into the structure up front).

Have a great day,

777p2f was just announced a few weeks ago

FLALEFTY · Thu Nov 07, 2019 5:07 pm

Stitch wrote:
When it comes to MD-11F replacement, the non-767 options all come with a wider wingspan which will mean the operators will need to re-define existing MD-11F infrastructure to accommodate them, so this might be part of what is motivating a larger 767-X freighter concept. However, a 767-400 freighter would be fairly smaller in overall payload volume and especially in payload weight. We're looking at around 20% less volume and perhaps 30% less payload weight?

That being said, based on posts in this forum, FX is standardizing on pallets that can be used in the 757 and 767. So while they would be 88x125" instead of 96x125", a 767-400 freighter could take ~28 pallets compared to 26 for the MD-11F. So as they are already using 767-sized pallets on the MD and Airbus fleet, the MDs might be primarily going out at below max-volume already.

Currently, FedEx is adding 777F's to take over the longer-duration routes flown by the MD-11F's. They are also adding 763F's for shorter hub feeder routes flown now being flown by the MD-11F and A306F's. UPS seems to be using the added capacity of the 748F's to reduce their need to use MD-11F's on longer international routes and they are adding more 763F's as large hub feeders. Perhaps these two freight airlines will simply phase out the MD-11F's without directly replacing them?

This thought did come to mind: What if Boeing re-engined the 777F with a version of the GE9X engines? Perhaps even do a freighter version of the 773ER with the new engines, but using the legacy airframe?

Stitch · Thu Nov 07, 2019 5:16 pm

FLALEFTY wrote:
Currently, FedEx is adding 777F's to take over the longer-duration routes flown by the MD-11F's. They are also adding 763F's for shorter hub feeder routes flown now being flown by the MD-11F and A306F's. UPS seems to be using the added capacity of the 748F's to reduce their need to use MD-11F's on longer international routes and they are adding more 763F's as large hub feeders. Perhaps these two freight airlines will simply phase out the MD-11F's without directly replacing them?

I believe that is a distinct possibility. FedEx was said to be the initial driver for a freighter based on the 767-400ER back in 2011. Since those initial discussions FX has placed orders for 125 767-300Fs and 19 777Fs.

FLALEFTY wrote:
This thought did come to mind: What if Boeing re-engined the 777F with a version of the GE9X engines? Perhaps even do a freighter version of the 773ER with the new engines, but using the legacy airframe?

It is generally believed that Boeing will offer a new 777 Freighter based on the 777-8 before the end of the next decade.

jagraham · Thu Nov 07, 2019 5:40 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Revelation wrote:
767333ER wrote:
That one was purely kicking and screaming for the government to yet again hand Boeing money they didn’t deserve.

The KC-45 was selected largely due to a USAF general who had his thumb on the scale and later went on to work for Airbus, then got post-retirement demotion because of sexual harassment. KC-46 is a far better deal for the US taxpayers and fits its role in the USAF better.

The KC-46 is not a hand out, in fact Boeing bid so aggressively and made a bunch of mistakes which has led Boeing to losses it must pay out of its own pocket, as opposed to let's say A400M where Airbus has gone back to the taxpayers twice to renegotiate the deal to gain more favorable terms for itself.

The KC-46 is a hand out, because after the KC-45 won the other bid, the new requirements were specially written to fit the KC-46, to exclude as far as possible other bids. The cost explosion is because Boeing seriously bungled execution of that program. The most astonishing fact is how far the Boeing can push the timeline without loosing the contract. Not including the terrible quality issues.

When you compare it to the A400, you seem to forget, that quite a few requirements were changed after Airbus got the contract, including the requirement where Airbus were to source the engine. That is also one of the reasons for the delays apart from Airbus bungling a few few things themselves.

In regards to your air force General, he was at least not prosecuted, as several persons involved in the first 767 tanker bid were.

The KC-46 was not a handout.

Unlike many other air forces, the USAF has significant transport capacity and does not need their tankers to double as transports.

The KC-45 beats the KC767 in every way except basing and takeoff length (an A332F requires a lot of runway to take off fully loaded, that characteristic carries over to the KC-45). After the first round, Boeing redid things with a KC-46 based on a redone 767-2C freighter, with a lot of extra fuel tanks. As a result, while maintaining the basing and takeoff length advantages, the KC-46 burns 1000 gallons per hour less than the KC-45. With the increased tankerage (212299 lbs vs 160660 lbs for the KC767), the KC-46 delivers more fuel at ranges over 1500 mi than the KC-45. So less fuel consumed, more fuel delivered, able to use existing bases and hangars, caused the USAF to select the KC-46 in round 3.

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Docu ... c_2017.pdf

As far as the new boom, and the camera for remote operation, these would have been problems with either vendor. Same with the wiring. All these were new requirements from the USAF, some after contract award, which have proven to be ill-defined and therefore problematic.

JayinKitsap · Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:15 pm

jagraham wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Revelation wrote:
The KC-45 was selected largely due to a USAF general who had his thumb on the scale and later went on to work for Airbus, then got post-retirement demotion because of sexual harassment. KC-46 is a far better deal for the US taxpayers and fits its role in the USAF better.

The KC-46 is not a hand out, in fact Boeing bid so aggressively and made a bunch of mistakes which has led Boeing to losses it must pay out of its own pocket, as opposed to let's say A400M where Airbus has gone back to the taxpayers twice to renegotiate the deal to gain more favorable terms for itself.

The KC-46 is a hand out, because after the KC-45 won the other bid, the new requirements were specially written to fit the KC-46, to exclude as far as possible other bids. The cost explosion is because Boeing seriously bungled execution of that program. The most astonishing fact is how far the Boeing can push the timeline without loosing the contract. Not including the terrible quality issues.

When you compare it to the A400, you seem to forget, that quite a few requirements were changed after Airbus got the contract, including the requirement where Airbus were to source the engine. That is also one of the reasons for the delays apart from Airbus bungling a few few things themselves.

In regards to your air force General, he was at least not prosecuted, as several persons involved in the first 767 tanker bid were.

The KC-46 was not a handout.

Unlike many other air forces, the USAF has significant transport capacity and does not need their tankers to double as transports.

The KC-45 beats the KC767 in every way except basing and takeoff length (an A332F requires a lot of runway to take off fully loaded, that characteristic carries over to the KC-45). After the first round, Boeing redid things with a KC-46 based on a redone 767-2C freighter, with a lot of extra fuel tanks. As a result, while maintaining the basing and takeoff length advantages, the KC-46 burns 1000 gallons per hour less than the KC-45. With the increased tankerage (212299 lbs vs 160660 lbs for the KC767), the KC-46 delivers more fuel at ranges over 1500 mi than the KC-45. So less fuel consumed, more fuel delivered, able to use existing bases and hangars, caused the USAF to select the KC-46 in round 3.

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Docu ... c_2017.pdf

As far as the new boom, and the camera for remote operation, these would have been problems with either vendor. Same with the wiring. All these were new requirements from the USAF, some after contract award, which have proven to be ill-defined and therefore problematic.

Great points.

The freighter market is confirming what was found with the KC-46. It delivers its payload at a lower total cost than the alternates currently on the market. Otherwise FedEX would not have ordered 125 of them. It would have ordered the plane with the best total costs.

Could Boeing be seeing that creating the 764F is better and with less development cost compared to the 778F or 787F projects. By doing the 764F it may be able to push back the 778F by 4+ years or even stay with the 77F. The 764F also has a line that is known to be there for more than 10 years anyway. It is likely a way to save a Billion or three when it needs all its funds to do the NMA and NSA.

Stitch · Thu Nov 07, 2019 8:46 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
Could Boeing be seeing that creating the 764F is better and with less development cost compared to the 778F or 787F projects. By doing the 764F it may be able to push back the 778F by 4+ years or even stay with the 77F. The 764F also has a line that is known to be there for more than 10 years anyway. It is likely a way to save a Billion or three when it needs all its funds to do the NMA and NSA.

The 787 was supposedly designed with a future freighter model planned and it is assumed that the 777-8 was designed with parallel passenger and freighter models. As such, the 767-400 freighter might actually be the more expensive derivative, since it would require Boeing and suppliers to re-start production of components unique to that model. And if they also throw GEnx engines on it, that would raise the costs even more.

Back in 2011, the supposed impetus for a 767-400 freighter was to help bridge 767 production until the KC-46 was ready, but now that the KC-46 is in serial production and the 767-300F seems to be popular enough, I am not sure how strong the market interest is in a 767-400 with GEnx engines, though that Boeing is talking about it implies there is at least some...

flyingclrs727 · Thu Nov 07, 2019 8:53 pm

Stitch wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
Could Boeing be seeing that creating the 764F is better and with less development cost compared to the 778F or 787F projects. By doing the 764F it may be able to push back the 778F by 4+ years or even stay with the 77F. The 764F also has a line that is known to be there for more than 10 years anyway. It is likely a way to save a Billion or three when it needs all its funds to do the NMA and NSA.

The 787 was supposedly designed with a future freighter model planned and it is assumed that the 777-8 was designed with parallel passenger and freighter models. As such, the 767-400 freighter might actually be the more expensive derivative, since it would require Boeing and suppliers to re-start production of components unique to that model. And if they also throw GEnx engines on it, that would raise the costs even more.

Back in 2011, the supposed impetus for a 767-400 freighter was to help bridge 767 production until the KC-46 was ready, but now that the KC-46 is in serial production and the 767-300F seems to be popular enough, I am not sure how strong the market interest is in a 767-400 with GEnx engines, though that Boeing is talking about it implies there is at least some...

A lot of the 764 specific parts are in common with the 777. The landing gear is derived from 777-200 landing gear. The windows are from the 777.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net