FedEx takes first 767-300ERF; sources say readies 767-2CF order

FedEx took delivery of its first Boeing 767-300ERF yesterday.

FedEx FED 767-F - FA294247 K65968

Boeing Photo

As we reported way back on June 16, our market intelligence tells us FDX is lined up to become the first commercial customers of the 767-2C, the new platform on which the KC-46A tanker is based. The 767-2C is about six feet longer (165 ft 6 in) than the 767-200ER (159 ft 2 in) on which the 2C is based but shorter than the -300ER.

KC46A schematic

Boeing rendering

Separately:

  • Aspire Aviation has a long analysis of the DOJ lawsuit against the American Airlines-US Airways merger that further decimates the heart of the case.

29 Comments on “FedEx takes first 767-300ERF; sources say readies 767-2CF order

  1. Hello Scott
    Are you sure that the -2C is longer. This specs was buried in the initial Press Release after the announcement of the winning bid … and has not received a lot of publicity after.
    The length presented on the KC46 leaflet indeed may include the boom that is extending behind the top of the VTP …
    So what ? Is it really a 6 feet fuselage extension as you said (and as I read it initially ?
    Have a nice day

  2. FedEx is getting a great freighter in the B-767-300ERF. I will be watching for their order of the B-767-2CF and wonder if UPS will follow them in ordering this new version of the B-767F.

    • Why should FedEx order an about 15 feet shorter aircraft than the 300ERF?
      Within the next years 6 767-300ERF will be delivered to FedEx per year of 49 on order.

      • The B-767-2CF will have much more range compared to the B-767-300ERF, it will also be able to lift the same cargo weight, but it will have fewer cubes.

        This is no different than when FedEx operated the A-300Fs along side of the A-310CFs..

  3. A stretch seems a good idea. Extended raked wingtips seems a good idea. Thing is the Boeing lobby in congress and everywhere had been screaming the KC45 was simply to big for years. So you have to carefully manage reality afterwards.

    If I was a US taxpayers I would demand a serious look be given to the now of the shelve GenX engines. Putting 25 yr old powerplants on a aircraft for the next 40 years doesn’t sound right to me. Or are they already planning a $eriou$$ modification line in 10-15 years?

    • Boeing could have based the KC-46 on the longer 767-300ER if they wanted to, But, they didn’t want to. There are no reality management considerations that prevented them from selecting the configuration they thought most appropriate.

      As far as the engines go, the CF6-80 series is just as old as the PW4000 series.

      • “As far as the engines go, the CF6-80 series is just as old as the PW4000 series.”

        Yes? So? Both are yesterdays engines on tomorrows platforms. Are there any precedents introducing an engine that saw the light 45 yrs ago and is scheduled for the next 45 yrs? Of course the CF6-80 version is newer (EIS 1982) but still..

      • It seemed to me you were criticizing the KC-46 relative to the KC-45 based on size and engine choice in your comment. Am I wrong?

        Actually, the PW4000 series was launched in 1982 with certification granted in 1986.
        http://www.pw.utc.com/Content/Press_Kits/pdf/me_pw4062_94_inch_pCard.pdf
        What 45 year old engine are you talking about anyway?

        Fuel costs are likely not as big of a deal for the USAF as they are for commercial airlines. The USAF could be more concerned with cost of acquisition, spares and maintenance, and with reliability proven over a long time. Sometimes, the ability to accurately predict costs is a selling point.

    • You do know, keesje, that when France orders the A-330MRTT for their KC-135R and C-135FR replacement tanker aircraft, it to will be powered by (then) 25 year old engines (no matter which engine they select) on a 25 year old airframe.

      I might add that neither Boeing or EADS offered the GEnx-2B engines for their tanker in the KC-X competition. This was due to the costs of the newer generation engines and the additional costs for certifying these engines on the B-767 or A-330. The GEnx engine was never shelved, it was just never offered.

      There is nothing preventing the USAF from ordering a KC-46B with a different engine later. There is nothing from preventing the USAF from modifying the KC-46A with new engines of a technology that has yet to be invented in 10, 15, or 20 years. (the same would apply if the USAF had ordered the KC-45A).

      • Peddle as much rubbish as you like Jacob.

        At the end of 2009, the UK taxpayer had peddled about £2.5 billion since 1970/71 into the UK aero industry with the bulk of that going to airbus and rolls-royce (about £100 million also went to the bombardier c series as the wing work is done at the Belfast Shorts factory in Northern Ireland.) This amount includes the A400M and A380 projects.

        £330 million was committed to the A350XWB.

        At the end of 2009, British exchequer received over £2.2 billion through royalties from the industries it supported (mostly from airbus and rr) and at the end of 2011, the balance of payments was in the governments favour.

        Considering the huge order backlog airbus still has and the promising future of the A350XWB, I have no qualms as a British taxpayer in funding RLI to our aero industry, even if some programs (A400M and A380) are running at an individual loss.

        I haven’t uploaded the most recent figures from a government freedom of information request as my current (aeroindustry) employer frowns upon me using aviation forums which means disabling my a.net account

        However, you’ll be glad to know that the 2009 figures and documents that I obtained are still available on airliners.net by googling the below:

        ‘4147189 airliners.net’

      • Off topic , but give me a tax cut, free patent, Japanese subsidy, fat defense research budget, Buy MyCountry laws over a cheap LOAN any, any day. It’s that pay back thing, just hate it..

      • “Fat defense research budget” LOL!

        What country are you talking about? Either you are not talking about the US or you’ve never actually worked on a defense contract in the US.

      • ikkeman,
        Large is not the same as fat, in my opinion. We all know that the US has the largest defense budget of any country in the world, even when measured relative to the size of the US economy. This does not mean, however, that the popular cynical view of US defense contractors represents the general reality. The US puts a much higher priority on defense and is trying to do more than anyone else. That is what drives the budget.

        US defense contractors compete for every defense dollar that they are awarded. Yes, there are the well publicized cases of fraud, waste, and abuse, but those are not the norm. The profit on defense R&D cost-plus contacts is typically low, less than 10%, and the government owns any IP that was created while paying for the R&D. Yes, companies can skirt this by “judiciously” allocating and applying their hard earned IRAD money, but the point is that to get the IP, company money will have to be spent. Contractors getting free IP from the government is a myth.

        Can companies benefit from learning how to do something on a government contract? Of course they can, just like an individual can make themselves more marketable by gaining knowledge and experience working a certain job. This is not illegal, or bad for that matter. I don’t understand why people forget that defense contractors actually need to produce something in return for the money they are awarded. The idea that defense contractors get a free ride from the government so they can perfect their craft is utter nonsense.

  4. Are the PW4000’s that old really?

    In terms of military applications, I would expect the parts/service are the main concerns. The efficiency gains (mileage, if you will) vs. KC-135R’s will be relatively huge.

    As an aside, isn’t this essentially the engine Delta ordered for their new A330’s yesterday? Why would they be ordering non-competitive technology? (I think the answer is they are now switching to CF-6 units for their next batch but in truth, like the USAF, I suspect the rationale has less to do with fuel burn than long term service contracts/commonality. Sort of like the USAF keeping their existing KC-10’s with CF-6 units, and DL their A330’s with PW’s.)

    • KC46A PW 4000s will have PIPs that increase fuel efficiency.

      Note that CFM won the A321 order so we’ll bet anything the A333 GE engines were wrapped into that deal.

    • 767’s first went into service in 1983 with P&W JT9D-7R4’s or GE CF-6-80A’s. Both were rated at around 48000 to 50000 lbs takeoff thrust. Those were superceded with the PW4000 series [4056, 4060 or 4062] and the CF6-80C2B-F series [B4F, B6F and B7F] around 1990. Those were rated from around 56000 to around 63,000 lbs. They were interchangeable between 767’s and 747-400’s. [British Airways bought their 767’s with Rolls-Royce RB-211-524’s]

      The A300 and MD-11 used similar P&W or GE engines, differing mostly in how the engines were built up from their core.

      The A330-200 and -300 use higher-rated versions of the PW4000 and the CF6-80E; also the RR Trent. Their ratings are around 68,000 to 70,000 lbs.

      Are there any engine experts that can provide more details about the major PIP’s that have improved these engines’ performance over the years?

  5. Scott:

    Wasn’t 767 supposed to follow 757 into the history books like a decade ago? What a cash cow that must be for Boeing, even with investments in the tanker upgrades. As for 757, I still love whenever I’m in one of those. Great airplane.

    Keep the good intel coming.

    Bob @ Airbus Helicopters!!

    • Boeing, creatively, kept 767 alive pending the tanker deal. Now that Boeing has the contract, Boeing and USAF like the idea of the commercial freighter version.

      • Maybe the “right sized tanker” is not the right sized freighter.
        What about a B-767-3CF? Why not stuff all the new things in a -300? Range? Cargo is not afraid of stops.

  6. “Cargo is not afraid of stops”.
    I disagree. Fuel stops can put a freighter operator at a competitive disadvantage because a nonstop flight can offer the customer a later pickup time while still getting to the hub in time to make the sorting deadline there. What the customer likes is the latest possible pickup time (like 5pm instead of noon), while still gettting to the destination on time.

  7. Maybe Boeing wants to simplify the line to just the 2C at some point. They could build just one version when they finish building all the 300F, or convert some of FedEx 300F to 2C to hasten that.

    Or, as Keesje says, GenX engines. A 767-9 with the GenX on the 400ER with the wing and longer gear, and then a 767-8C shrink for the Air Force and FedEx.

  8. @ Mike Bohnet, SEPTEMBER 6, 2013 @ 5:05 AM

    Fat is a subjective term. do you believe the UK defence contractors don’t have to compete for the UK defence pounds?

    No, it is not illegal to benefit from research you do for a customer – just like it isn;t illegal to take out a loan.
    When the grant or load comes from the government but does not benefit society, they become suspect. the WTO found against both Ab AND Bo
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_between_Airbus_and_Boeing#World_Trade_Organization_litigation).

    Thus, it becomes a question of principal.
    Is it better for the tax-payer to give a grant that doesn’t benefit them or a loan that’s below market rates and may not be fully re-payed at all…
    IMHO (and as a tax-payer) I would chose the loan. at least there’s a chance of getting something back.

    • The government benefits from the grants it gives defense contractors, it receives the results of the research that it then can disseminate as it wills. Society benefits from defense grants in so far as the research results increases defense capabilities. If the defense contractor also benefits, it is not a bad thing. Again, the idea that Boeing got a bunch of FREE money from the US government is ludicrous.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.