Composites in future airplanes: Composites World has a post about the use of composites in the future, with a good graphic detailing the increasing use of this material in airliners.
Boeing and Hillary Clinton: The Washington Post has a long story about the relationship between Boeing and Hillary Clinton, while she was US Secretary of State. While the story raises some interesting issues with respect to the prospective presidential candidate in 2016, the points focusing on her advocating for Boeing aircraft purchases doesn’t bother us a bit: that’s what politicians do on behalf of Airbus. As far as we’re concerned, our government should be supporting our industries, too.
757 MAX: The Motley Fool raises the prospect of a Boeing “757 MAX,” which is a restart of the 757 line but with a composite wing and new engines–something along the lines of the 777X in concept. We’ve been hearing rumblings about this, too.
American swaps A321neo orders: American Airlines swapped 30 A321neo firm orders into options, leaving 100 firm orders for this sub-type left. The deliveries were for 2021/22. American told us it retained this flexibility in the original contract and the new management elected to do so in order “to maintain flexibility.”
Delta’s RFP: Airchive has a good analysis of the Delta Air Lines Request for Proposals to replace its wide-body fleet. We were especially interested in the cost analysis of the 787 vs the A330, which is close to our own numbers (there was no collaboration between Airchive and Leeham).
Scott, do you know if those options include any guaranteed delivery positions or would AA have to wait for open delivery slots when converting options to orders?
We don’t know but typically there will be specified delivery positions and a “drop dead” date to exercise the options or let them expire.
I think Boeing will think twice before investing in an old fuselage that nearly fits LD3-45 containers and offers 5.6 abreast seating for 6-7 hour flights. Someone who knows told me aircraft aren’t produced today as they were 30 years ago. Unless you are willing to re-create a 1982 FAL and supply chain from micro film. Or start with a clean sheet. A bad idea it seems.
About AA A321s, they also bought iso leased a number of A321s. Is that good or bad and for who? 2021-22, who knows how the market AA will look lby then..
Demand and subsequently lease rates for the A321 are so high that it is probably cheaper for AA to buy them. Recently SUH was stated saying that he can choose from at least two customers for every A321 he gets.
I have to agree with you regarding a 757 line restart. First and foremost, I am still not convinced that there really is enough market demand in this size category to build what is basically an orphan product, i.e. not a member of an existing or future family of aircraft.
A 757X would necessitate converting all 757 documentation to modern-day formats and requirements, then starting to rework the 757 base frame to fit a new wing and engines – and not least of all re-building a 757 FAL. Plus the development cost of a new wing.
All of this makes a 757X/757MAX neither a cheap, nor a quick solution to filling that part of the 757 gap that hasn’t already been filled by A321/A321neo/737-9.
I also don’t give the article Scott linked to much credence, to be honest, partly because it doesn’t acknowledge that the FAL was decommissioned and tooling destroyed after the last 757 was delivered (which removes a lot of the “it’s a cheap solution” rationale), and partly because it says this:
“The original 757 body could still be used; after all, it’s newer than the original 737 body which Boeing continues to build new versions from.”
This ignores that the 757 body itself is – with the exception of the nose – just yet another version of the original 737 body and fuselage diameter.
The 757 is more a 727 then a 737 fuselage. Just like the 727 it has a different cross section aft of the wing.
Sorry – you’re right, but the photo you posted isn’t a good example to show this; it shows some signs of heavy (and not particularly good 😉 ) photoshopping aft of the wing.
Here’s a slightly better example:
Shows quite well that the main change is the lower lobe of the fuselage, which is indeed exactly what you see on the 727.
I think DL will go for the B-77W as it is available before 2020 (any model B-787 and A-350 are not available until after 2020) for the B-744 replacement. DL already flies the B-77L, and the “W” uses the same engines, but with a software change for the extra 5,000 lbs. of thrust.
For the B-763 replacement, things may be a little less clear. The A-332 and A-333 is available in the numbers DL needs, but so are new build B-763s or B-764s. DL already flies both the B-767 and the A-330, so adding any of these airplanes is not a problem at DL. The A-330NEO may be another story. Yes, it could have an EIS around 2018, which would put it, too, in the available category, but to do that Airbus needs to launch that airplane now. 2018 is only 4 years from now, and Airbus took a 5 year development to get to the A-320NEO predicted EIS. But 2018 is only possible if the RR Trent-1000-TEN or the GEnx-2B engines are selected. There is no time now to develop a 72,000+ lbs. thrust version of the P&W GTF.
Delta has an enormous 757/767 fleet up for replacement. The A330 is significantly larger, heavy and capable then needed for most flights and doesn’t fit the gates the 757/767 fleets do. Its a shame DL wants proven technology only because they would be the ideal launching customer for the proposed 757 replacement / A321 stopper..
Yes, I have a hard time seeing anymore passenger 767 ordered. One more off the production line and that is history. That leaves the A333 or the 787 as suboptimal but available choices, and maybe the A333 is more available, so the orders will continue. Time to launch a new 7 abreast, pronto.
I reckon you mean “time to launch a Fattie” = (2+3+2) ? But it is patent that the Fattie is a NO-GO : the Fattie concept is optimised in Y-class cross dimensions in either a 737 or A320 seat normative and the twin seat on both sides (of eg 2″ + 18″ + 2.5″ + 18″ + 2″ = 42.5″) IS NOT WIDE ENOUGH to permit installation above it of a proper Overhead Stowage Compartment, given the steep side-wall inward curvature of the Fattie’s horizontal elliptic fuselage cross-section. Or maybe you suggest Boeing would accept to pay royalties to Airbus for the use of its patented Wankel-cylindrical NSA fuselage design ?
Boeing is still making the 767, and selling at cheap rates. Current engines with all the tweaks and …… I believer Boeing still can do a 400 off that line.
They probably can.
With regard to DL, there’s one problem, though: The 767 isn’t even part of the RFP.
Agreed, but if you need something smaller than an A330-200 and are not going to buy the 787? And that would not be the first time there was a surprise.
No one saw the FedEx move to the 767 either (until rumors were leaked) I did not see anyone predict that.
a) Who said they’re not going to buy 787? DL already have 787 on order, and the 787 is also part of the RFP.
b) Do you really need something smaller than an A330-200? Most A330 orders now are for the larger A330-300, because the continuous improvements over the year have made it the better choice, with comparable range and higher revenue potential.
True, but as I said before: Don’t get your hopes up.
I wouldn’t rule out surprises here, but more regarding the spread across evaluated types – not regarding types that aren’t part of the RFP to begin with. Specifically: I don’t expect the 767, 747-8, 777X or A380 to figure in this order.
What? Sure – there were reports about FedEx weighing the 767-300F against the A330F at least a few months before they placed an order.
Some people may have been surprised that the A330F didn’t win – but the 767F was always in the running and part of the RFP.
In contrast to this, the 767 doesn’t figure in Delta’s current RFP at all.
“restart of the 757 line”
All the tooling have been destroyed, we’re basically talking about building a new assembly line instead of restarting.
“to maintain flexibility”
To negotiate lower prices I presume.
The 757 body is based on the 727, not the 737. The 757 began around 1973-74 as a super-stretch 727-300 but evolved from a t-tail trijet to a t-tail twin. Then common sense prevailed and the t-tail became a conventional horizontal tail. The nose was grafted from the 767 as part of the common type rating.
Then there is the engine question. A 757MAX needs a new-generation engine around 36,000-40,000 lbs SLST. Is there such an animal anywhere?
But all that is moot – as several commenters have noted the tooling is long gone. Not only that, so is the sub-assembly area [the razed 10-50 building]. The remaining Renton final assembly areas are completely dedicated to the 737NG, the 737MAX and the P-8. Other Boeing possibilities could be Long Beach or Charleston. Or, heaven forbid, outsource it somewhere and build more dreamlifters
The 757 is such a lovely airplane. One can always hope it may yet have a future. Too bad that hope doesn’t pay the bills,
Today is Leonado da Vinci’s birthday.
Happy birthday Burt Rutan!!
And … who has a modern 40 000lbs + engine for a new built B757, (Or Re-engined)
You don’t need the same thrust setting for a 757 MAX as was needed for the 757 RB211 : loop reiterations of Design Mission calculations, given the better mission fuel of MAX, will establish that the same mission payload can be delivered with an initial significantly lower TOW, whence a lower thrust setting requirement …maybe 37 klbf will do the trick, if on top eg the OEW of the lighter 757 MAX could be PIP’ped or tweaked to near or down below 54 metric tonnes ? Boeing’s number-cruncher to tell-tale ?
Re-winging the 757 makes about as much sense as doing the same for an A330neo. It will have a short production run due to the inevitability of the next gen narrow bodies encroaching its market segment. In addition to this engine makers have to develop an engine limited to just this one market unless they’ve figured out a way to make a simple 40 k derivative out of the current NB engines. Furthermore, Boeing will have redevelop tooling and the FAL line and then just when the production starts hitting the stride, it will be time to launch the next gen NB. Is it all worth the investment?
As for the Motley Fool, I wouldn’t pay too much attention to them. Their articles are heavily focused on stock movements speculations and tend to exaggerate things a lot.
the 757 is like the 707, 727 & 737 section but the 757 is newer than the 737! No narow body takes the LD3 Conteners, it is still an error from you, Keesje!
It can be very interesting, but the reasons for me doing it is not a good idea are different from yours because yours are not objective since when is Boeing reengine this is not a good idea, but when it’s Airbus, for you, they open sea in both sides is not it?
To be more serious, I predicted that the A330neo, will take only 5-7% of the market against the carbon plastic 787.
If Boeing can move forward with 767MAX, I think we can do 8% across the GEnx + 2.5 / 3% whith the new Winglet Technology Advance will go on the Boeing 737 MAX!
The MAX 767-8 carries 216 pax & the MAX 767-9 269 pax / 2 class to eat on the A330neo and reduce testing the low share of 7% to 2.5%!
checklist I am under the impression there carriers using LD3-45 sides containers and pallets on some narrowbodies, the 757 has the 727 aft fuselage cross section.
“It can be very interesting, but the reasons for me doing it is not a good idea are different from yours because yours are not objective since when is Boeing reengine this is not a good idea, but when it’s Airbus, for you, they open sea in both sides is not it?”
Yes, I guess VV agrees, they open sea in both sides, it’ s an obligation even.
Boeing will not upgrade the 767 to any substantial degree as it would eat their feedstock . For those who won’t buy the 787 yes, but not make it competitive.
767MAX? That’s as probable as an A340NEO…
You mean an A340-500/-600? 😉
Airchive was an intresting read, but I’m lost in de analysis of the bigger WB planes. Why does the 777 come out better? From the figures it seemed that the 777-X was beating the …. out of the 777, and that the a350-1000 was marginally better. As the 777-X is not on the table the 70-30 split chance between the 777 and 350 surprises me.
That article shows a 9% advantage in CASM for the A350 over the 777 (excluding capital costs). In their calculation the 777-300R is 1/3 cheaper in capital cost than the A350, which would offset any ecomomic advantage of the latter. The underlying assumption is a 50% rebate for the 777-300R versus only 25% rebate for the A350 on list price.
I’m not sure if their capital cost calculation is reasonable, they don’t explain the basis of that calculation. Can any of the experts from aircraft fimancing here comment on that? I think it also depends a bit at which level of aircraft utilisation you operate.
That calculation clearly shows, you can price your aircaft to economic indifference.
That’s a pretty expensive undertaking however. To make up for a 10% economic advantage you have to lower capital costs by 1/3.
The 70-30 split chance is solely based on the assesment of deltas strategy. That article states, Delta wants low capital costs to get a good credit rating which in turn would lower the costs even more. If you believe their calculation that 777 and A350 are on par in total operating per seat mile, a 1/3 advantage in cash operating costs makes the 777 ergo the clear winner for Deltas strategy.
More to the point they are apparently trying to replace their 744s before D checks are due at the end of the decade. I doubt if they would get any A350 slots, either 900 or 1000, in that timeframe, unless they already have an unwritten agreement with Airbus. It should be 773s to replace the 744s with little likelihood of anything else.
Lower capital cost for the 773ER
the problem you have just “your thoughts”! The LD3-45W? You again in error.
Anyway Keesje, you do not know, nor even less credibility and humor…
You spoil us there Keesje!
There is only the A320 can carry the LD3-43W conteners! The irony in this story is that you believed that the 757 (707/727 & 737) could carry containerized freight while bashing the 757 without reason! This is why I told you that the 757MAX could be a “bad idea” but not for the same reasons as yours. That’s why you can not be objective!
Unfortunately, it confirms my worst fears! …
“that you believed that the 757 (707/727 & 737) could carry containerized freight”
did I ? OMG, I spoiled you!
Agree with nofly on the CASM calaculations. Nice exersition but you can’t make big assumptions (25/50%) first and then go down very precise to prove something. The accuracy of the results is in the accuracy of your assumptions.
Also, as often, the seatcounts, a marketings favourite tuning tool, determine the CASM results. IMO putting 10 abreast on the 777 you can’t simply ignore there is a price to pay. Either more extra pitch (seatcount), an economy plus (seatcount) or a hit in customer satisfaction (margin) from high paying economy class flyers / FFs, specially on 5500NM+ flights.
The 747 is bigger then the 777X and should have at least the same seatcount, changing CASM. DL’s 772LR have 269 seats, a two class 777X wouldn’t seat anything close to 407 seats.
Add 9 rows to DL’s -200LRs and its 350 seats for the 300ER or 377 seats for the 9X, in line with other operators. IMO the 777x’ 407 seat count serves no other goal then to boast CASM calculations like this.
Anyway you never know with DL/NWAC, maybe they get 15 young 747-400s, for close to nothing, to replace their old ones, fix them up at TAECO & fly them for 8 yrs. They did so with DC10’s, MD90s, 717s, Dc9s, 757s..
For Delta Pacific’s Hub routes you can’t ignore the A380 because its the A380 either. So many of its competitors/partners use it. A 35% capacity growth over 30 years in a market with 5-10% growth per year isn’t that histerical..
When it is the most profitable machine on routes, well, it is.
I think if Delta take A380s they will be second hand. Old Emirates metal, for example, will probably be available later in the decade, as early A380s get rolled over, cheap and already with 1/2 GE engines. That fits their business model best. Alternatively they can lease before the end of the decade from Amedeo or take over the small Virgin order, or a mix of all three, but I can’t see an A380 order direct from Airbus on the horizon.
Yes you can ignore the A380 in the Delta fleet. It offers nothing they need let alone want. Its all to limited (because its too big).
My guess is more A321neo, A333, and ten new 773ER. Plus maybe a few used 777LR could have Delta’s name on them.
My guess is more A321neo
You mean A330neo, don’t you? DL hasn’t ordered the A321neo.
You are correct. I’m wondering if any of the 767 routes are short enough that they can be replaced with an A321?
I can’t see much reason for a 757-200 revamp. What would be the benefit over a 737 MAX 9? A few more seats? TATL range?
I do see a need for something to fit between the 737 MAX 9 and the 787-8. While there were not many 757-300s sold, there were a large number of 767-200s and 767-300s sold, and all three of these airplanes will need to be replaced. Perhaps the days of widebody transcons are history, and the bigger airplanes will take care of U.S. to Hawaii, but there is a big gap where the 767-300ER fits in TATL routes.
I really think a 767-NEO/767-8/767MAX might work, if Boeing did the right balance of efficiency improvement with development cost minimization. The advantage Boeing has is the 767 will remain in production for many more years to support the USAF tanker requirement.
If not, it is the return to hub and spoke TATL routings, and point to point routes will diminish.
The Boeing plane that is supposed to fill that niche is called the 787.
Boeing won’t encroach on that, and it would be stupid for them to do so, as they’d be aiming squarely at one of the main members of the 787 family.
Difference with Airbus and the A330neo is that this would chiefly aim at the worst-selling member of the A350 family.
Well, we all know how the last round of A330 vs 767 ended. Compare 767 pax sales with A330ceo sales over the last decade and you get a rough idea…
I’m not sure I see much reason why A330neo vs. 767MAX would end any differently.
767 will be produced for FedEx as well for some time as they are replacing DC10s and A310s. Pie in the sky to think they will undercut the 787 market though.
757 is hanging on because it is bought and paid ffor (or got cheap). 90% of hte market is coverd by current single aisels and creeping up with the NEOs.
There may be a market for a mini widd boyd between the 737 and the 767/787, but its not the 757 market as thats very small and does not come close to justifying anything.
There is a lot of work done on a mini wide body for the 737RS and if Boeing is willing to cede the 737-700 size, they could potentially fill the 8-9 max and the 757RS segment with a single offering of different lengths.
Always the $64 question of economics and can you do it with one wing or need two (as the 200 to 250 size might also need more range)
It would be an interesting entry for P&W GTF challenge.
I don’t look at it as a 767MAX cutting into the 787 sales, but rather keeping airlines in the Boeing camp by having more options. The A350-800 is dead and I think a 767MAX would be lower in cost than a A330NEO. The EIS should be relatively short if its just new engines, no composite wings or the like and perhaps some weight reduction I feel there will always be a need for a wide body in the 200 to 240 seat range, perhaps not a large number, but enough to justify keeping the 767 line open.
Then the 767MAX is generally a good idea. If Boeing goes ahead, it will cut the low share of A330neo market!
If Boeing speculates through the 767MAX, then they kill the Business Case of the A330neo already difficult to draw and then force Airbus to do something new with a all new composite plastic airplane!
Util remind, The 767 MAX can do 8% across the GEnx + 2.5 / 3% whith the new Winglet Technology Advance will go on the Boeing 737 MAX!
The way I remember it, the 787 was brought out to kill the A330 (which after 10 years somehow hasn’t happened yet). Why kill the A330? Because it was doing quite a good job of knocking the 767 out of the market.
But now some people suggest a re-engine of an aircraft that really hasn’t been in the game for over 10 years in order to make it compete with a re-engined version of the aircraft that was pushing it out of the market a decade ago.
Either a great strategic bluff or wow, do some marketing types have great ideas.
According to wikipedia the A330-200 has 9% lower operating costs than the 767-300R (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330). I think the larger A330-300 would lower CASM even more. I’m not sure what the current CASM relation is, does anyone have a link with more recent numbers ?
Airbus seems to have improved the A330 family dramatically in the last couple of years with much more range (and better fuel burn ?). The 767 gains 3% with winglets and 2% by the recent PW engine PIP for the tanker. But the announced A330-200 update in 2015 promises a 2% reduction in fuel burn, too. And sharklets are still a possibility for the future (maybe 1%?).
My feeling is, a hypothetical 767-Max can’t compete with a A330-Neo. The gap in operating costs is too large. Boeing can’t successfully use a low-price strategy to offset the economic gap here because it’s not competing against a new aircraft. Both OEMs are working with a product line that’s long written off and Airbus would have a similar pricing power to counter any low-price strategy from Boeing.
In fact, the 767-MAX is a good plan because it does not eat more about the 787-8, the A330neo will eat on the A350-900.
That said, the 787 has an advantage over the A350. Which is that it has 3 family member against two member for the A350!
It’s an advantage for the market and for Boeing.
Given the growth of the global market, kept the FAL of the 767MAX will be welcome! Then ease the production rate of 787 already high production rate
Ignoring for a second that there is a possibility of an A350-1100, if the number of family members was all that counted, how did the 757 ever sell as well as it did, and why did Boeing cancel the 787-3? Surely, that would have been one more family member, one more advantage over the A350!
…oh, and yes, I realise there was a 757-300, but that wasn’t offered until 1996, with only 56 delivered between 1998 and 2004, so that 2nd family member didn’t contribute an awful lot to the overall programme success.
What everybody concluded confirmed: Re-doing the 75 ain’t an option.
I don’t understand the logic of some of these ideas or suggestions concerning MAXing a 767 or 757. Yes, Airbus is seriously considering re-engining the A330 and yes, many who have suggested that Boeing do a “me too” have heavily criticized an A330 NEO.
Obviously an A330 NEO is not a no brainer or else Airbus would have already approved such a program. But why is ist worth considering when, as I see it, doing the same to a 757 or 767 is not worth it?
(Current) sales and deliveries!
The A330 has how many hundred sales and deliveries over the last decade?
There are many good reasons for that.
It is a no brainer for Airbus to avoid the A330NEO as long as possible to sell as much CEO as possible. Maybe Airbus can stretch the CEO production until the RR Advance is available.
Also a no-brainer is to make up your mind what you are going to do before announcing it. Is anybody sure that Airbus have decided on a A330 NEO, what engines would go on said NEO, or whether a more heavily discounted A330 has life in it yet? Then there is still the possibility of re-winging the A358 to make it suite the market better. And after all that what other projects in what order, ie A350-1100 or A380 NEO, might be more important and in what order all of this might get done, and what might happen in the mean time. To me it sounds smart of Airbus to just keep their mouths shut. Boring, but smart.
The new reality of OEM Strategists’ job is that we Armchair Strategists are doing the announcements for them, creating web-buzzes (echo’ed by Social Media buzzes) to confuse issues to such extent that real OEM Strategists – instead of telling the world what they ARE going to do – are being kept full busy telling the world what they ARE NOT going to do !
do not sink into hypocrisy, it is a question here of an apple ti apple comparison! A metal reengine A330neo VS metal reengine 767MAX!
You are part of those comparing apples to oranges reengine metal A330neo VS the composite-plastic 787!
It’s just that in reality, you see that Boeing has better cards than Airbus and you do not accept the current situation!
The 767MAX is a good idea vs A330neo!
As has been pointed out before: Look at what the A330 did to 767 sales. What, exactly (beyond a gut feeling or general bias) makes you believe that a 767MAX would fare any better against an A330neo?
Furthermore, a A330neo would be aimed at the lower end of the 787 spectrum, as a not-quite-on-par alternative, but with much lower capital cost, which is exactly why DL is interested in the A330neo.
So if Boeing go and aim a 767MAX at the A330neo they end up attacking their own product, the 787.
Yes, an A330neo also hurts the A350-800, but even Airbus is trying to persuade customers to not buy the -800 anyway, which is the worst-selling A350. The 787-8, on the other hand, currently has the majority of the 787 backlog.
No, a 767MAX would not be a good idea for Boeing.
Tell you what, you can hold your breath waiting for a 767 MAX type launch but I am (educatedly) guessing that you will only end up red in the face.
By the way, weren’t you one of those bashing Keesje a year ago when he kept suggesting an A330 NEO? But now you believe that Boeing should do a re-engine on the 767.
But you are accusing me of being a hypocrite. Righhhhht.
As much as I like the B-767MAX idea, I really don’t think it will happen. I also doubt there will be an A-330NEO. Why? Both OEMs have a lot of projects going on and engineering personnel are limited.
Boeing has in development;
B-737MAX (3 models)
B-777X (2 models)
B-787 (2 models)
Airbus has in development;
A-350 (3 models)
A-320NEO (3 models)
If Airbus were to do another NEO program, I believe it would be an A-380NEO. It would make the airliner more efficient, and more profitable. An A-380NEO would require fewer engineering resources and easier to do since the wingbox would not need additional reinforcement for heavier engines.
– A330-MRTT development is finished and just the boom is to receive IOC this year.
– KC-46 not even in the air.
– A320NEO is close to first flight.
– 737MAX first flight expected in 2016, introduction in 2017
– A400M: even Turkey accepted delivery.
– A330R: just paper work.
What is left:
– 747-8 PIP (for whom?)
– A350: first delivery expected this year + 2 models
– 787 + 2 models close first flight
I can’t see any program as much time consuming as the 777X on the side of Airbus. Therefore I see Airbus with more space for doing something else, e.g. A330NEO in 2020.
I agree with KC that recourses might well determine what gets done and what doesn’t, but A380’s biggest customer, Emirate’s Clark, wants 2020 tech on the plane, not 2018, or he would have said he wanted re-engining by 2018, if you follow me. The only way I can see an engine maker doing a new tech 70,000lb engine is if the potential market is a lot bigger than just the A380, hence I think an A330 NEO would need to be bundled into the deal. For that reason I can’t see a GE engine on an A330 NEO, as I doubt if GE are free to offer it on the A380, UNLESS P+W agree to dissolve the GP partnership, which would imply a P+W engine would also be available in the same timeframe, and probably more to Airbus’ liking. I think RR-3029 has a good chance of scooping both types, A330 NEO and A380 NEO
Obviously (=there are no orders) the current 767 can’t compete against the current A330. See my post above for numbers.
Checklist, do you dispute there is a gap in operating costs between the two?
Why do you think a re-engine of both aircraft would close that gap instead of just maintaining the status quo? Is the current 767 engine so much worse in fuel burn in comparison to the current A330 engine, and how much ?
The heavy metal reengine A330neo is supposed to (be called) be better than the composite – plastic 787 on some missions!
To get an answer to your question, you just can imagine the difference that there is between the heavy metal reengine A330neo VS the 767MAX on some missions too!
With the advance winglet Technology vs old concept of the “Sharklet” copy of the concept of Aviation Partners, you get 2% better fuel consuption vs the A330neo sharklets!
You have the answer with the 767MAX! …
checklist, first you should try to explain on which routes a 767 is better than an A330 (belly cargo – LD3). Then you can try to explain why no airline today orders a 767 but the A330 is still sold.
There are still a few B-767-300ERs to be delivered to NH, I believe. In recent years NH, LA, FedEx, UPS, and others have ordered the B-767. No, I am not counting the USAF KC-46 orders.
FedEx, UPS, LA Cargo have all ordered the B-767F over the A-330F
NH has not 767 left on order since March 2012, and they placed their last 767 order in December 2009.
NH’s last 767 order was Dec-2009. The “others”
Also, that wasn’t quite what mhalblaub asked about.
Then you can try to explain why no airline today orders a 767 but the A330 is still sold.
So for the record, Boeing currently shows 45 767 still on order (excluding the 4 tanker prototypes).
As of today, there is only a single pax 767 left to be delivered, to Air Astana, which was part of a 3-frame order placed in February 2012.
Now, if you care to look up the A330 order backlog (266 as of 31-Mar-2014) as well as new orders for the last few years (23 net in Q1 2014 alone), you’ll see what mhalblaub was on about.
Boeing had huge incentives to get orders at almost any cost to keep the line open until tanker production kicks in. Airbus not so much, they were already producing and selling A330s at record numbers thanks to the 787 delay. So IMHO it’s reasonable to assume, Boeing was offering steeper discounts than airbus for those freighter orders.
Isn’t the utilisation rate of cargo airplanes much lower than for passenger ones? That would favor a less efficient but much cheaper plane like the end-of-line 767s.
The B-767MAX is an interesting proposal. Just mounting the GEnx-2B67 engines from the B-747-8 would get you about a 10%-12% reduction in fuel burn, or a 10%-12% increase in range for both the B-767-300ER and the -400ER versions (over the current versions of the B-767). Of course Boeing would also include aerodynamic improvements, like adding raked wingtips, or Split Scimitar Winglet to the -300ER, -400ER and tail cone changes to both versions. Boeing could call these new versions of the B-767 the B-767-8MAX and B-767-9MAX, or they could just go with the next model numbers in line, the B-767-500ER/LR and B-767-600ER/LR.
The 767-400ER already has raked wingtips:
Even going with that assumption for a minute, this is the same reduction in fuel burn that’s expected for an A330neo.
Which means that Boeing would just be able to retain the same performance delta that already exists between the 767 and A330ceo.
That’s not going to be good enough.
Yes, anfromme, I know the B-764 already has raked wingtips.
But the B-763/4 airframe will benefit more from modern aerodynamic improvements than any A-330 will, because the basic airframe is older.
I had mentioned the B-767 could be reengined with the GEnx-2B67 engines, and it can, but it really doesn’t need 67,000 lbs. of thrust. The engines could be derated down to 60,000 to 63,000 lbs. of thrust giving better fuel mileage than the B-747’s -2B67 could have on a B-767.
The B-767 can take advantage of the B-737MAX and B-777X aerodynamic improvements, as well as a weight reduction. A 10%-12%, from just the engines increases in range for the B-763 adds 600-720 nm to the current 6000 nm range, aerodynamic improvements of 5%-6% add another 300 nm beyond that.. That’s enough for a 15.5 hour mission. That could be ATL-PEK, at under 14 hours and about 6200 nm or LAX-TLV at about 14.5 hours and about 6500 nm.
I like how you present a challenge as an opportunity here 🙂
Another way of looking at it is of course that, as you say, the 767 airframe is much older – and that it thus needs more improvements than the A330 does (which saw a massive amount of incremental improvements over the last few years anyay, ever-increasing its lead over the 767).
Which means that the whole proposal of a 767MAX is going to need a lot more time and money than any A330neo would.
Similar to the 737MAX as it happens – Jon Ostrower estimated 737MAX development costs to be twice (!) as high as those for the A320neo, although Boeing disputed that estimate.
Anyway – the fact that more improvements are necessary for a 767MAX than for an A330neo nulls and voids the notion that a 767MAX would be quick and/or cheap.
Consider as well that even Airbus is (at least officially) unsure whether an A330neo makes economical sense (just like many people here are, incidentally). If you think an A330neo doesn’t make economical sense, don’t even start thinking about the viability of a 767MAX. We may as well be talking about an A300neo/A310neo, or an A340neo in order to compete with the 777X.
As an aside: How funny that the same people that suggested all along that an A330neo was a stupid idea (old aiframe, not competitive with 787) suddenly suggest that strapping new engines onto an even older aiframe which wasn’t competitive with the base A330 to begin with is an absolutely brilliant idea.
If you look at just what is available today, a B-767MAX could be a great airliner and a great money maker for the airlines. My estimates in operating costs are all conservative, I put the engine at 10%-12%, some others say the GEnx-2B is 14%-15% better than the CF-6-80C or PW-4062, or RB-211E engines of the current B-767. My aerodynamic improvements other add about 3%, while it could be as much as 5%-6%, and new wingtip devices would add another 4%-7% over the current blended winglet, or no wing tip device at all. A weight reduction program could be another 3%.
Add all of this together, and it could be as much as a 31%, or more reduction in fuel consumption, over current B-767 models.
The B-767-300ER and B-767-400ER already burn a lot less fuel than the A-330-200 and A-330-300 on identical mission lengths. There is about a 12% advantage for the B-767 over the A-330 in these conditions, so an A-330NEO will bring that airplane to about parity with the B-767. Keep in mind the B-767 already costs less to buy, at list prices compared to the A-330, not including discounts.
2013 list price for the A-330-200/-300:
A-332 = $216.1M USD
A-333 = $239.4M USD
NEO = up to $25M per model
2013 list prices for the B-767-300ER:
B-767-300ER = $185.8M USD
B-767-400ER = Not Listed, but still offered. My price estimate is $209M USD based on the approximately $23M USD difference in price between the A-332 and A-333.
MAX = up to $30M per model
Neither the Airbus nor Boeing prices take discounts into consideration.
If you had both a B-763 and an A-332 available and need to fly 220 pax and 10,000 kg of cargo (all in LD2 or LD3) 5500 nm, which airplane would you use?
Not really. But close enough. The article above claims a ~3.1% CASM advantage for the 787-8, but the delta could be compensated for by lower capital expenditure for an A330neo.
By the way: Just for reference, as you keep saying “heavy metal” with regard to the A330neo, don’t forget that as of today, the A330-200 has an OEW that is within 1.6t (or 1.35%) of the “light plastic” 787-8. A difference, for sure, but not a world apart. Incidentally, all versions of the 787 and A330 are much heavier than even the heaviest 767.
The A330 still turned out to be the much better performing (and selling) plane over the 767, and the 787 is effectively Boeing’s superior 767 replacement (and answer to the A330).
Firstly, the Airbus sharklet and Boeing’s advanced winglets (as seen on 737NG, 757 and 767) are so close to each other that Airbus got a patent lawsuit on their hands for the design of the sharklet. Whichever way that lawsuit goes, it shows there’s not that much difference between the two. So to claim that the Boeing advanced winglet is 2% better than any Airbus sharklet is – uhm – optimistic. And quite probably not substantiated by facts.
And again: Don’t forget that even with the advanced winglets, the 767 wasn’t a match for the A330, which “only” has old-fashioned winglets.
You still haven’t answered why you think that a 767MAX would be competitive against an A330neo when this clearly wasn’t the case with the base 767 against the A330ceo.
the A330neo is supposed to eat on the A350-900 too, It’s naive to not realize!
The 767MAX-8, caries 216 pax in two class and he can not eat on the 787-8. It will be over the 737 MAX-9 and below the 787-8, while the 767MAX-9 will have a lighter OEW than the A330-200neo, beaucause the 767 is narrower, whith smaller GEnx engine and wings than the A330neo!
It’ s the same case of the 737 Max VS A320 neo!
The 767MAX could kill the very low Business Case of the A330neo and force Airbus to seriously launched a new composite plastic airplane!
Isn’t it ?
If that’s all there is to it – the 767 was always narrower and lighter than the A330.
In fact, the 767 is narrower and lighter than the 787, too.
And yet – the A330 at this point has 1298 pax orders and a 260+ backlog, with the last new orders in March 2014, while the 767 has 974 pax orders and a backlog of one (1), with the last new order in February 2012.
Let me just ask a simple question again: How is a 767MAX supposed to kill an A330neo when the A330ceo managed to kill the 767?
A330neo and 767MAX would have exactly the same technology available to them – same leap in engine technology, aerodynamic advances, etc.
So – how is applying the same magnitude of technological improvements to both frames suddenly supposed to reverse what has happened in the marketplace in the last two decades between the A330 and the 767?
I really don’t think Checklist is trying to make sense here at all. Not sure I would bother.
Checklist, Bryan, others: Our Reader Comment rules prohibit personalizing responses, so knock it off or I will close comments entirely. I have previously warned Checklist in this forum and in private email. Now I’m warning everybody.
@Leeham: I don’t think my comment is “personal” though? It was more to the nature of his comments than him as a person?
The A330 NEO with a slot delivery lead-time of 4 years or less does not eat into A350 sales, whose slot delivery lead-time exceeds 6 years. Sorry, no overlapping, checklist !
RE: 757 max, it just doesn’t make sense at all to me. BA even more than Airbus is focused on profitability in the next 5 years for commercial products, and discounting a new derivative rushed into production (with new tooling) for the purpose of competing with the other guy’s discount end-of-the-line new model doesn’t make any sense at all.
It may have been a mistake to destroy the tooling, but it’s all hindsight now.
I’d fully expect DL to split between A330NEO/CEO’s and 7773ER bargain hunter specials. It hasn’t been brought up so I guess the answer is no, but I will ask anyway; are all of the “troublesome teen’s” 787’s disposed/sold now, or could these also be offered to help Boeing’s chances vs. the A330. If there were 8-16 of those available sort-of-short-term it might really make a difference, and obviously DL is very flexible on fuel CASM etc.
The 7674ER(X?) would seem to be the size of the A332’s, and even if both had the same (newish) engine, and new winglets, plus exciting new interiors, I am not sure the existing 20 (?) plane DL fleet of 7674ER would be long term more viable if supplemented with yet another new sub-type or not. Still, it’s currently “in production,” even if discounted isn’t being ordered moving past 2017 (other than by the, ahem, government/taxpayer), and would have to have money spent on it by GE/Boeing to make it relevant to this cycle or others for a 5-7 year “el cheapo” run. Same problems Airbus faces (which again had a goal to double commercial airliner margins over that rough time frame). So I don’t see it (NEO) making much sense for either airframer just to short term occupy market space. Still, discounted 764’s, teen 787’s, and some “surprising” 787 slots being made available shouldn’t be totally ruled out.
I still see 773 and some gratuitous options for -9x being sold as well.
I would definitely rule out the 764. It’s not part of the RFP. As for the 787 – some “surprising slots” are unlikely to make much of a difference. DL could have already taken delivery of 787s, but chose to defer these to ~2020 and later.
The 777X is also not part of the RFP and DL have explicitly stated they’re not interested in it.
I agree with you 100%! You are a realistic and serious personne!
The 787 is not the same size as a 767. The optimal spot in the families is the 787-9 versus the 767-300ER. 9 vs. 7 abreast, length, wingspan, MTOW, the 787 is 30 to 40 percent bigger than the 767, which is not even close.
“By 2015, assuming a 10,5% fuel burn reduction for the A330neo vs. the A330-200 and a 2.5% PiP for the 787-8, that gap narrows to a 3.1% CASM advantage for the 787-8, which can be easily offset by more aggressive pricing discounts on the part of Airbus.”
Airchive seems to quickly donate the 787 an undeclared 2,5% PIP that an A330NEO obviously doesn’t qualify for & ignores other possible NEO improvements such as Sharklets, weight reductions, BPR/ sfc enhancements (10,5%? GE said 13% yrs ago, before any PIP), passenger / capacity increases etc.
“Airchive’s analysis found that the 787-8 has …. about a 7.4% CASM advantage on the A330-200 for a typical 4,000 nautical mile route.
Lets face it; 7.4% is a dangerously low advantage for the 9 abreast 787-8 vs the 8 abreast, 16 yrs old A330 shrink version & everybody knows, including Chicago.
If I remember correctly, SUH said that in some missions, the B767 could even be more economical to fly than even the B787. Obviously I think he was referring to short missions, probably around 3000 to 4000 miles long. This is probably because of the much smaller weight signature of the B767 compered to the B787. Basically you do not have to carry that much weight to go that long and hence the less fuel burned on those short missions (less fees on landing and navigation could help as well). Now, the better selling version of the A330 is the A330-300 for the simple fact is carries more passengers and so better economic per seat. The B767 did sell over one 1000 samples, so it was not such a bad aircraft. I might say that if some improvements were made to the B767-300 (heck, even a slightly shorter version) of about 7 to 8 percent (3% engines, 3% wiglets and a couple of percentage weight and aerodynamic) without new engines this could work for a couple of hundred more sales (without spending a lot of money to do it). The interior could be refreshed as well as the cockpit to make it more appealing to customers and passengers.
Most of your proposal is already available today.
PW has done an engine PIP for the tanker with 2-3% fuel burn improvement and will apply that to the civilian version, too.
(See Scotts comment in http://airinsight.com/2011/04/13/is-it-time-for-the-767ng/ )
The winglets are available as retrofit package.
Still no orders for any passenger 767.
Since when does a shrink is most economical? Airbus would he miscalculations on the A350-800? Boeing should he not run a shrink 787-7?
Lol! Wait, the shrink 767- 100 beats all records!
Keesje give me a reason to meet today?
I honestly do not understand what you mean, but obviously you do not understand what I wrote either..
Always said the trend of reduced sales of the 787-8 in the past few years vs upswing in sales of the -9 and the same trend in the A330-200 vs -300 should tell you all you need to know about the already moribund fate of a 767-300MAX.
“Let me just ask a simple question again: How is a 767MAX Supposed to kill an A330neo When the A330ceo managed to kill the 767?”
In the same way that the 767 kill the A300 in the early 80s! (The A330 A300 is based on!)
767 and A310 are of the same era. A300 designed as a short/middle range
people mover is ~7..9 years older.
Looking on Flightglobal for the PR stuff brought up by Boeing at the time
Except we’re not talking 767MAX vs A300neo here, but 767MAX vs A330neo.
Quite a different story.
You’re not just moving goalposts, you’re changing the stadium, and the type of sports along with it.
“Firstly, the Airbus and Boeing’s advanced Sharklet winglets (as seen on 737NG, 757 and 767) …”
Wrong! I mean this
http://www.airlinereporter.com/2012/07/photo-of-note-boeing-737-max-winglet/ the winglets AT is advanced compared to the old concept generation appeared late 90’s and we see now on the A320neo, and Sharklets we call!
This is really an old technology!
Gains from wingtip devices are first order linked to the shortcomings of the basic wing design. On a mediocre design you can fix quite a lot with winglets. Less so on a design that gets it right in its original layout.
So are you saying the wingtip fences Airbus installed on the (later) A-300, (later) A-310, A-320 and A-380, as well as the winglets on the A-330/A-340 are there to make up for a poor wing design?
Yes of course, somehow Boeing is always a brilliant step ahead of Airbus. http://www.american.com/archive/datapoint-entries/american-exceptionalism
In all cases wingtip devices “cloak” the imperfection of a limited aspect ratio wing.
Now compare size and cost of the device for an A320 and a 737NG keeping in mind
that the NG wing boasts ( your words ) 10++ years of improvements in aerodesign and based off a superior line of designs anyway 😉
Then Airbus seems to gain more with “a cheap copy” ( though it appears to have a distinctly different airflow control ) while Boeing has to one up the effort and go for more expensive split winglets.
non-horizontal Wing tip devices of increasing size and complexity on 737/a320 class aircraft are primarily used because gate width restrictions prevent Boeing and Airbus from producing aircraft with optimally sized wings. note on the Boeing P-8, they went with raked wingtips because the Navy has no gates and the raked wingtips produce better results at less weight and complexity in a non-wingspan restricted design space.
Apologies, I obviously thought you meant the blended winglets.
In any case – I’m highly sceptical that the scimitar winglets give you a 2% advantage over sharklets. If they do, there’s nothing that would keep Airbus from introducing a similar design.
Depends on how you look at it.
Sharklets weren’t announced until 2009. So for what it’s worth, they’re all of two years older than what Boeing announced for the 737MAX.
As for the approach on MAX: Ever seen an MD-11?
“I’m highly sceptical that the scimitar winglets give you a 2% advantage over sharklets.”
According to this Boeing spin doctor, it is 1.5% at longer ranges over their existing blended winglets. And If you consider the rest of his numbers…well, you know what he’s been trying to do.
Remember that clip. Body language shows he’s doing a 1+1=3 & knows it. IMO that slide damaged Boeing credibility. Who they thought they were fooling?
Where ever you see that “One leg good, two legs bad” graphic any further presented information seems to be more or less worthless.
Delta’s got a history of one order in 20+ years for Airbus WB aircraft. With the A350 seemingly not favored vs. the 773 I think optimism toward a big A330 NEO order (but caution/rule out on the 777x) is a bit unwarranted. The 764 isn’t officially part of the RFP (which is really an invitation for proposals/negotiations) but again it’s a plane that was specifically developed for DL (who have been a very loyal BA and GE customer), and they of course have the largest fleet. If the interest is short-term available proven technology that works on shorter hops it’s not that uncompetitive or unrealistic to see a discussion of a top off order.
But, again, their 763ER’s are almost all used on under 5,000 mile routes. Belly freight probably isn’t a huge issue and landing fees may be a material factor. It’s an open negotiation, but I’d expect GE to finance the birds and for the ASP to be much below average for the class of planes ordered regardless. This is an airline that just got through taking on an orphan fleet of used 717’s; behind closed doors I doubt they’ve ruled out any of the near-term available widebodies (2016-2020).
It should be mentioned that management has changed drastically since. Before DL’s Airbus order last year, there was intense debate that, because of their history of ordering Boeing, they surely would order 737-900 and 767-400 instead of A321 and A330. We all know how that one went.
Well, for starters, the A330neo hasn’t been launched yet.
But: DL have been very vocal proponents of the A330neo, and they have equally vocally ruled out the 777X. So it’s fair to say that the A330neo (if launched) has a much better chance than the 777X in this.
Al I’m saying is: Don’t get your hopes up.
DL passed on the 767-400ER before when they topped up their inherited NW fleet of A330s last year, even launching a new weight variant of the A330.
The basic prerequisite for a NEO/MAX (read: re-engine) is that all other details of the aircraft are somewhat close to the state-of-the-art. That is, fuselage, wings and systems. That is true for the A320, a little bit less for the B737 (due to the fuselage and slighter lower weight optimized wing, and systems).
It is also true for the A330, which does have a very good wing and the fuselage has a very good cross section (the B787 and A350 use basically similar dimensions … just a few inch more).
That is no Airbus-fanboyism, just simple observation of technical facts.
The B757 and B767 are both far away from the state-of-the.art. Wings are too small aspect ratio, both fuselages have disadvantages. The B767 might be useful as short & medium range widebody, but it still isn’t really good at it. Re-engining the B767 is equally bright as re-engining the A300-600 or A310. Any takers?
Just wondering, amidst all this back and forth arguments for the 767MAX, have there been any actual airline customers who expressed interest in a re-engined 767? The A330 has so far seen a fair bit of interest from existing customers, even urging a reluctant Airbus to do it.
Since Boeing has not made any noise regarding a 767MAX, no comments from the airlines. I would think the 767-200MAX and the 767-300MAX would be a good low cost frame between the 737-9MAX and the 787-8. There still are many routes that don’t warrant a 250 or higher seat count plane and many flights across the Atlantic to Europe that could use such a plane to LIS, DUB, BRU, and some routes to South America.
Since the 767 line is still open and the 757 is not, a 767MAX can be done on the cheap for the 4000 to 5000 mile routes, something the A321NEO will never be able to do reliably if at all.
If a 737MAX and a A320NEO and a A330NEO, why not a 767MAX?
“the 767 line is still open and the 757 is not” : You have a point, steve … analysed as a minimal-investment “A321-for-757” exchange slow-downer, plus as an “A322-launch” inhibitor, a reMAX’ed 767 tweaked with feathered winglets could make sense as a way to readjust upwards the monthly throughput controls of the 767 FAL for yet another half-decade or so : better confuse the battle with a smokescreen than leaving the battleground … whatever aircraft are sold by Boeing is grass cut under the feet of Airbus ?
” whatever aircraft are sold by Boeing is grass cut under the feet of Airbus ?” Exactly, While the A321NEO can carry 200 passengers, its range is much less that of even the current 767 and with new engines and perhaps new wing tips, Boeing will have the low seat count wide body range covered. Also the extra freight the 767MAX could carry is a bonus.
The 787 3 year EIS delay handed Airbus many orders for the A330 which happened to be the only game in town, and no real upgrade for the 767 has been made and this may be why no recent orders.
I see no incentive for Boeing to burn money for nothing.
There are no passenger orders for the 767, it obviously can’t compete against the current A330. Nobody has yet offered any argument why a simple-reengine 767 would do any better against a A330-NEO. Airbus has the pricing power at the paid-off A330 line to repulse any attempt on Boeings side to make up for the economic gap in low pricing.
You could debate if an extensive overhaul (ala 737-NG) would be competitive. The 747-8 is an example for a spectacular failure of such a strategy.
Even if Boeing could make it work, the product would be short-lived. The A320/737 successors are expected to move upward in capacity and encrouch on the 767. Its not reasonable to invest large amounts of money for such a short product cycle.
I personally analysed the 767 MAX not as an A330 upwards deterrent (not in the same ball-park) but clearly again as an A321/A322 downwards deterrent, in-between 739 and 788, ie for the ‘757 niche’ where Boeing’s product portfolio is presently vulnerable ? Boeing have said ‘NO’ to 757 MAX, but 767 MAX is yet an open issue ?
I agree with you that Boeing currently has no competitive offering at the size of the A321 or slightly above.
But for everything inside the A321 range the same logic applies. Why would a 767-Max be successful against the A321-Neo when the 767 classic had no chance against the A321-CEO?
For everything above the A321 range, you’d be competing with the larger A330-200(Neo) and 787-8. Both are more efficient and only 30 seats larger in capacity than the 767-300ER (typical seat count 2-class, source: wikipedia).
So you are talking about routes ouside of the A321-NEO range that can’t fill a A330-200/787-8. I think that’s a niche market.
Hm – if a 767 was a suitable replacement for a 757, why did Boeing bother developing both planes to begin with?
The only 767 that would sort-of fit that fill is the -200ER. This saw its last pax order 12 years ago almost to the day (April 15th, 2002), for a single frame. This smallest variant would suffer further with a MAX treatment due to the added weight of the new engines and required reinforcements.
In my view, a 767MAX would be more suitable for short-haul flights that many of the 767s do at the moment, and that Airbus is aiming the A330 Regional at, with the 787-3 out of the game.
Still – not going to happen, because of all the various factors brought up before by myself and others.
OK nofly, OK Anfromme : 757 MAX or 767 MAX are two ‘minimalistic’ strategy options AVAILABLE to Boeing, each one with its ‘pros & cons’ … and AGREED : there is one obvious other alternative also available to Boeing (and – according Chow – this one seems to be the favored avenue) : STATU QUO = doing nothing = surrender mainstream ‘757 niche’ business to Airbus’ A321 plus pave the way for a near-term A322 launch. That’s perfectly fine with me !
Yet, my ADVICE to Boeing – objectively – remains this : do not leave the ‘757 niche’ unattended ! For one, not picking up the gauntlet when a sector of the market is at risk never was ‘le genre de la maison’ and for two, we here on-watchers would miss the entertainment of another good OEM dog-fight !
AFAIK, the first talk of an A330neo came from an airline customer not long after they placed a massive order for the A320neo, not Airbus, who instantly dismissed the idea with a “no”. They didn’t wait for Airbus to talk about it, to start asking for it.
Air Force? grin
Could the Delta calls for Airbus to do an A330 NEO be a possible bargaining chip for them when spaeking with Boeing?
Concerning a 767MAX, the article Keesje linked seemed to indicated that nothing new, be it a 757 MAX or a 767 MAX, even when not specifically mentioned, is coming from Boeing until sometime in the 2020’s.
Below are 2 quotes from the Boeing spokesman:
“We don’t see a new airplane emerging until well into the next decade,” he wrote in an
email. “As we always do, we will continue to evaluate the best low-risk solution for new
development programs and production system architecture.”
“Today we are aggressively focused on investing in our new products from the 737 Max to
the 787 to the 777X, which will enter service between 2017 and 2020,” Chow wrote.
Now I don’t know what well into the next decade really means but I would guess it suggests nothing earlier than 2023. That would strike me as a bit late for a 767 MAX. What is interesting is what Boeing really does have up its sleeves for that timeframe.
I think the 767MAX is an excellent plan, it represents a good alternative for the constantly growing market including the next 20 years!
Let’s be realistic, some think it will take a third manufacturer in 2020. The 787 height of 3 family members with 2 FAL to meet demand at a rate of 10/12 months and in 2015 (if I remember) , 10/month for the A350 in 2015-2016, 10 / month for the A330 and 8.7 / month for 777 actualy. In any case, it remains a challenge for Boeing & Airbus!
Airbus side, the solution would be to open (also) a 2nd FAL for the A350 but this is litle risky because demand for the 300-400 seaters is smaller than the 200-300 seaters. So the 767, A330 & 787 are the most requested seaters as we know!
As the 787 absorbs a large part of this demand, the challenges centered on Boeing with its 787 and the idea of a 767MAX make sense, it is even crucial. Remember the market growth please. Is real! This was not possible 10 years ago or even 20 years back, will certainly in 2018-2020 and forever! So, the idea of a 767-MAX would facilitate the Boeing challenges in the market for 200-300 seaters.
So once again, the idea of a 767MAX is full of meaning, more than ever!
Remember the unprecedented demand of the market in the decade and decades to come!
If we assume its launch, if Boeing goes forward. The 767MAX-8 runs like the 777-9X & the 787-8 in monopolistic situation by finding a GAP between the 787-8 & 737 Max-9, without coming to eat / cannibalize the 787-8 ! I recall that the 767-8 (767-200 base) carries 218 pax in 2-class and 787-8, 260 pax two-class.
The 767MAX- 9 (2 class, 265 pax) is found in the same situation as the A330-300neo vs A350- 900 (+ / – same number of pax) vs 787-8!
The other advantage to the lanch, is the catalog price of the 767 MAX would also be the least expensive like the A330neo. It relieves the strong demand from fast world selling 787 without threatening the 787 program, favored by 3 members of the family!!
Boeing will be in a place like never before with this challenge.
With cheap to produce, a FAL kept for a very long time, completing the 787 FAL, to satiate the market and if Boeing goes ahead with the make sens 767MAX, they will be in a place like never before!
I understand the pain of “Mr marketing” (Keesje) Lol!
He knows the challenges of Boeing, he knows, Toulouse too! …
One pax 767 left to be delivered. Last order was placed in 2012.
Gosh – the 767-200ER hasn’t been ordered in pax config over 12 years!
Look at the 737-600/-700 and A318/A319 for an idea of how well re-engining works on the smallest family members. And look at how the 777-200ER does not get a 777X equivalent.
Even assuming that a 767MAX was viable for the sake of the argument – it’s very safe money indeed to bet that the 767-200ER wouldn’t get a MAX treatment.
You still haven’t shown how a 767MAX vs an A330neo would suddenly reverse what has happened in the marketplace between A330 and 767 over the last decades.
I agree there will be more demand than the A350 and 787 production lines can satisfy. But do you think that “surplus demand” is more than 120 units per year ?
Remember, the A330 line already is at 10 units/month and the A330 killed the 767. The 767-Max would have to compete with similar priced A330(Neos) and cheaper used A330s (>1000 A330s in service).
I guess if the 787-8 is supposed to be a game-changer for ‘long-thin’ routes, then the 767MAX could try to create a niche for itself in ‘not so long anorexic routes’. The lack of side by side LD3 capability on the 767 should not be a problem any more, since nobody is flying belly freight these days.
“[…] since nobody is flying belly freight these days.”
You did read this? https://leehamnews.com/2014/04/13/the-diminishing-market-for-main-deck-freighters/
Without the 767 all of Delta’s twin-aisle aircraft would accept LD3 side by side.
You got me right, I was joking.
A 767 MAX could have been successfull if it was availabe today. But Boeing made different choices.
It was discussed by Leeham and me several times in the past, but Boeing made different choices. and it is probably too late now.
Although I have no official confirmation it is even looked at this time, IMO the mean machine hanging above the 200+ seat market is a re-winged A321/A322 subseries. giving a 10-15% payload-range boast. It could be done quick, easily and with almost guaranteed success. As can a dedicated ~199 seat A320 series some big airlines keep asking for. The last one, inbetween 738 & 739 would IMO trigger a premature NSA at Boeing. But Airbus isn’t under much pressure..
As it concerns the belly freight true, no problem instead with 2 LD-2 side by side the Semi-Widebody 767MAX will be a Game Changer with the Widebody 787!
Is yet another advantage which demonstrates that it is impossible for the 767 Max cannibalize the 787-8!
With the 7-abreast VS the 8-abreast A330neo, 767MAX will be the monopoly without eating on the 787 and without actually compete with the A330neo, but removing him orders naturally!
And I understand that it bothers by concern for the Neo!
Boeing has the best cards!
Boeing’s producing the 767 today, with 787 cockpit features and has delivered the 764ER’s to DL relatively recently. And again I’d restate that the DL 767’s operate almost exclusively on sub-4000 mile routes. There just aren’t a lot of options that are in production to do that well, seating 210-230 in mixed layout. To quote Keesje from that linked thread in 2010;
“The A330 specially with a new engines is great, but still Stinks for Short Flights.
It’s like shopping around a city with a Jeep Commander, it’s possible but its capabilities are not required but still dragged along & quick parking is an issue.
We are talking the 757/767/A300/A310/Tu154 segment here. Not the A330/787/A350 segment. Cargo often goes by truck door to door short haul.”
Sure, maybe A would like to negotiate to launch the ‘A322NEO’ with new wings for this major fleet opportunity, but I sort of doubt it, and that would seem to be unconsidered and as risky as a 777x, plus not available for at least 5+ years.
Wings could be all new carbon or metal extended like the A340-500/600 wings.
Anyway they would be 3/4x times as small as the 777X wings and low risk if a metal approach is choosen, like on the MRJ. They can be build in existing, limited facilities with lots of automation and flown around by Beluga’s. But as I said with the high demand / limited competition for the A321 there seems little incentive.. unless US, DL, China say 200.
Echoing mhalblaub (topic : NB line belly-freight gaining momentum), building upon the last comments of keesje + texII649 :
The A322 [3+3] being a comparatively ambitious ergo risky/costly family addition (akin in tenure to 777X), with danger anyway of “757 syndrome” (in-flight service + airport turn-around shortfalls) why not KISS, doing the H22QR instead : the basic Design Mission is within reach of today’s A321 wing capabilities ! If better range is required, H21QR + 3 ACT will do the trick. Quietly, easy : topic resolved ! No rocket science needed, low investment, high ROIC ! OEMs happy, Operators happy, EndUsers happy !
I beg your pardon? DL’s youngest 764ER was delivered on April 15th, 2002. Over 12 years ago. That’s a very loose definition of “relatively recently”. United received their last 764ER just over a month later. Since then, there has only been a single 764ER delivery, of a VIP frame, in 2009.
Even the 762ER saw more orders and deliveries in the last 15 years. And that’s saying something.
Well, as I expected, it looks like the Motley Fool just made a quick 180 on the likelihood of an 757MAX.
Their disclosure policy is worth a read btw. You’ll see why I wouldn’t pay too much attention to their analyses. 😉
A reasonable article apart from the fact the author ignores there’s a world outside the US too and a bigger requirement then just replacing the 757. Worldwide 200-300 seats short-medium haul basically.
clarification is called for!
You talk about delivery which 767 occurred in 2012! I’m talking about 200-300 seaters future market, which is:
How the 767MAX can be in the future market as “game changer” with the 787!
As also in a monopolistic position for the version Max-8. Here’s how I see things purely and simply that it is competitive and Boeing also did not close the door to the 767 Max unlike the 757 Max.
We must remember that minor changes can be made to establish an aerodynamic improvement of up to 3%. Integration of aluminum will be necessary and not expensive, finally little plastic-composite or not at all. I stop here because this is not my responsibility. And I think the 767 Max will be at the A330neo!
Please read again. I was talking about the last order, not the last delivery, which is yet to happen.
I get that you believe a 767MAX to be a brilliant idea.
Let’s just leave it at that and agree to disagree.
I admittedly didn’t realize the last 764 delivery was in 2002 (geeze, time flies), but the current KC-46 new builds are getting the 787 style cockpit displays and various improvements, so it wouldn’t seem a huge stretch to see some of that offered without a new engine/wing as again the AVAILABLE Efficient 250 seat light short hop widebody Boeing could bid (without having to type certify a new model or getting GE to step up much with the best CF6-80 PiP powerpoints they can muster). Both the production capacity and ability to undercut a new A330NEO price point is quite real.
Well, except as this “available efficient 250 seat” plane, the 767 hasn’t been selling for years, and even DL gave it a pass last year when they topped up their inherited A330 fleet instead of ordering more 767s.
Also bear in mind that the only 767 certified for pax operations that has the more advanced cockpit is the 767-400ER, and even that isn’t a real “787 style” cockpit. Plus: The cockpit doesn’t really help the economics at all.
Well, Airbus could again undercut this by offering the A330, which – contrary to the 767 – is also part of the RFP, and which has been the airplane of choice versus the 767 for well over a decade now.
It seems that the point that the A330 is a superior airplane compared to the 767 still hasn’t sunk in with some people…
Just to illustrate:
767 pax orders March 1999 – March 2014 (15 years): 167
767 pax orders March 2004 – March 2014 (10 years): 79
767 pax orders March 2009 – March 2014 (5 years): 23
I have the XLS at home with the A330 numbers for 2014, which I’ll have to check to get all numbers right, but freighters included (which contributed net cancellations, not orders), Airbus got 69 A330 net orders.
In other words: In the last year alone, Airbus sold almost as many pax A330s as Boeing did 767 over the last ten (!) years.
So regarding a DL 767 top-up, I’ll restate: Don’t get your hopes up.
The 767-300ER is not really a direct competitor to the A330-300 but the -200, this version is not a success, however.
The A330 has not really killed the 767 in fact, it s’ is sold throughout his life by living with the A330 launched since 1987!
The A330 is relatively old. The proof is in the facts! Say that the A330 is a 767 killer is a pure fantasy of Airbus cheer leader!
When we talk about the 767 Max is” the modest seller”A330 -200 would be threatened and surrounded by 767Max-8 & 9!
Regarding the A330-300, and it will soon be shattered by the 787!
This is why the 767MAX – 8 will in monopolistic position with the bonus attack down the weakened A330-200 does not sell more in its version of Neo!
I tell you Anfromme! I hope, and Boeing did not close the door contrary to what you think!
For the record, there were 596 sales of the A330-200P through March 2014; 702 for the A333.
There were sales of 249 767-200/200ERs and 687 of 767-300/300ER (Pax) through March 2014. The 767 had a 10 year head start over the A330.
We’d hardly call the A332 “not a success.”
And, FWIW, there were 510 777-200s/200ERs sold; nobody is saying this wasn’t a successful model.
In general the 777-200ER can be seen as a real game changer, big twin operations to/ from Asia with a good cargo load. The A330-200 is/was instrumental in opening up new long haul flights to / from the new economies, 250 seats with a serious cargo load.
Fortunately, the Dreamliner was delayed. But the A330 is not a 767 killer, and then the sister program of 767 is the 757!
The result; 1000 757 + 1000 767 = 2000 757 & 767!
The sister progr of the A330 is the A340, killed by the 777!
The A330 has filled the difference even with delays of the 787!
Now it’s over. Cathay Pacific has said “No” to the A330neo is a new page is turned!
The 767MAX is always a good idea!
The A330-200neo is tickled
To be continued …
Sir, i don’t think anyone in the world believes the A330 was a competitor with the 757. Completely different airplane sectors in 1994.
Referring back to this week’s previous discussion (-F vs -P2F vs -LCF vs belly-freight ?), I’ve made the point that Logisticians and Forwarders tend naturally towards a common ‘industry normative’ which for Shipping is TEU/FEU … the trend in aviation is LD3/LD6 with their pallet/igloo derivatives. Notably however, the 767 design departs from this interlining normative, accepting special-to-type LD2 of 120 cuft each, instead of the industry norm LD3 of 159 cuft, one third bigger. Clearly, this proves to be the Achille’s Heel of the 767 and the Nº 1 explanation for its limited commercial dissemination selling merely a thousand units in 32 years of production …The 767 is a stereotype of Boeing ego-centrism erroneously assuming an industry logistic normative will eagerly fluctuate to adopt their new Baby, the isolated LD2 … unfortunately, this is not the way the World of Logistics works : the container normative remains unchanged and it is the new aircraft type that’s being isolated.
Mr Hamilton is very simple, the 757’s and 767’s complement each other very well, they have been designed to complement this as A330’s & A340’s later!
They have the same number of pax. Remember – that the 767-200ER has 190 pax in three class and the 757-200 had 200 pax in two class! So, the narrowbody just had a reduced relative to the semi-widebody design range.
In addition, you compare sales with the 767 A330 would it not comparing apples to oranges since one is in the lower 200-300 pax sector and the other is to up in the same sector?
It’s like comparing the 737-8 vs A321 or A320 vs 737-9? If we compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges, I just understand that the 757 is a A310 killer the, 767 a A300 killer, the 777 a A340 killer, the A350-900 a 777-200ER” killer” (and I still do not really know because orders for 772ER have weakened in 2000, when the 773ER/2LR program was launched, but why not if it can be fun!) ….
Apple to apple & orange to orange please!
It is interesting to notice that the A330neo is likely to be between cohabition and death against the 787!
The 767 Max could harden choabitation this, here is a simple term that allows a better understanding of the interest of the reengined 767 Max.
Boeing did not close the door to the reengined 767 Max, so the threat is real with 767 Max!
The 767 Max is a good idea, even if the truth is not always good to hear!
Out of interest, wHy do you think Boeing launched the 787 rather than the 767MAX?
the 767 lacks potential like the 737 but is not significantly advantaged by grandfathering rights from an ancient platform.
A very significant part of A330 advances over the years were derived via twidling the FBW system.
( then: somebody brought up the A330 and A340 as different siblings comparable to the 757 / 767 platform. this is wrong. A330 / A340 is the same plane with different number of engines while the 757/767 combo present two significantly different airframes capped by a common type rating. )
Checkssit, 3 days ago in this thread:
the 757 is like the 707, 727 & 737 section but the 757 is newer than the 737! No narow body takes the LD3 Conteners, it is still an error from you, Keesje!
It can be very interesting, but the reasons for me doing it is not a good idea are different from yours because yours are not objective since when is Boeing reengine this is not a good idea, but when it’s Airbus, for you, they open sea in both sides is not it?
Checklist, you obviously were wrong/ misinformed about the 757 MAX feasibility. Boeing told you so. With untempered energy you now jump on to the 767MAX,
“The 767 Max is a good idea, even if the truth is not always good to hear!”
Is there any other reason for your enthousiasm other then that the 767 is not an Airbus?
About what I’m wrong. Like you to believe that the fuselage section 707, 727, 737 & 757 have the LD3 cargo. Then you leap in LD3-43W before I learned you that the 737 fuselage section do not take containerized cargo!
You are the student in the history Keesje, and you never exceed the master! Lol!
Error: LD3 – 45W!
“You to believe that the fuselage section 707, 727, 737 & 757 have the LD3 cargo.”
Frankly I have no idea what let you to beleive I think those Boeings handle LD3s.. certainly not something I wrote.. maybe the third responds in this thread?
“I think Boeing will think twice before investing in an old fuselage that nearly fits LD3-45 containers and offers 5.6 abreast seating for 6-7 hour flights.”
-> Now checklist, you didn’t miss the word “nearly”, or did you?
“You are the student in the history Keesje, and you never exceed the master! Lol!”
What is the importance of launching the three class pax 295 A330neo vs 299 three class pax A350-900?
Moreover, the 34 LD3 A330-300 VS the 36 LD3 Conteners of the A359!
No interest too!
The A330neo will not even replace the stillborn A350-800! The A330neo has no value! The LD3 conteners / 9-abreast 787 vs the LD2 /7 abreast
has more sens it covers different GA, not the A359 vs A333, no sens
CX has said “no” to the A330 Neo
It also worth to Keesje!
You might want to check your numbers. Max LD3 capcity is given as 33 for the A330-300 by Airbus, not 34. The seating capacities you quote are also not correct. The A350-900 furthermore has roughly 40% more range than the latest iteration of the A330-300.
So the A330neo is a threat to the A350-900 (via an A330-300neo), while it won’t be able to replace the A350-800 (via an A330-200neo), and won’t be able to touch any 787 variant.
That does sound a bit like you’re being very selective with what credit you allocate to what plane and in what context.
I’m assuming you mean that the 767 at least covers a different niche than the 787, because the 767 only has 7 abreast and only fits LD2 containers.
Well – I’ll just say that’s one way of painting it.
Another way of looking at it is that the 767 is of course the only widebody airplane in operation today that won’t take LD3 containers and needs LD2 instead.
DL has said “no” to the 777X. Your point being?
On the other hand, DL along with Air Asia (and probably a few others behind the scenes), vocally asked for the A330neo.
Not a single airline has (publicly) asked for a 767MAX.
Contrary to a re-engined version of a plane that sold fewer than 100 pax frames in the last decade, of course.
Just to clarify: I am not saying that an A330neo is definitely going to become a reality. The business case isn’t as much of a clear-cut story as some people would like to believe, as Airbus themselves have pointed out. (Having said that, I’d currently say chances are 75:25 in favour of an A330neo launch.)
Regardless of whether an A330neo is launched or not, though, the business case for a 767MAX is non-existent.
The 767MAX is an airplane whose current iteration hasn’t been competitive in the market for new-built planes for over a decade. The 787-8 burns – according to ANA – 21% less fuel than the 767-300ER. Improve the 767 by 15% and you still burn more fuel than the slightly larger 787.
Saying the 767MAX is a great idea is akin to saying that a re-engine is going to be able to resurrect the A340 (or the A300, for that matter, ignoring the decommissioned FAL for a moment).
Boeing has made great efforts to optimize his structure of products based on experience and empirical observations more decade with 737+787+777+747 instead of 737+757+767+777+747 and now you force him to provide 737+757+767+787+777+747…. have you ever take Boeing’s feeling into consideration (sad face(｡•ˇ‸ˇ•｡)
BTW Mr Hamilton you fall into the trap this time as well (๑><๑)
I do not understand where you’re coming from.
An explanation is called for!
you disagree with 1 only contener LD3, it does not change the situation!
I think you look too hard! You speak to me of the range design 40% A359 vs A333, and you ignore that this is the same for case for the 787 VS 767MAX!
You accept that the A330neo is a good idea but not the 767MAX has the undeniable advantage of being different as LD2/7-abreast low range 767Max vs the LD3 / 9-abreast 787 more range!
You do not want to admit that’s your problem. But do not force me to say that the 767MAX is a bad idea as I think not!
On DL, they seems they like the old birds. DL can say what want. The 777-X is too good for them! 300 orders & Commitments!
Launch a reengined 330neo for 1 billion €, 1 billion to recover with low prices, good luck!
Maybe DL should understand that it is quite “experimental” as solution!
“You accept that the A330neo is a good idea but not the 767MAX has the undeniable advantage of being different as LD2/7-abreast low range 767Max vs the LD3 / 9-abreast 787 more range!”
Checklist, I remember one of the key reason for my airline to replace our 10yr old 767 fleet by A332s was cargo commonality with our M11/747 fleet and new 777s ordered around the same time. LD2/8 as an advantage for airlines doesn’t ring a bell for me, unless you compare e.g. a 762 to a 752..
That rings a bell very well. Today we have the GEnx, & some aerodynamic improvements and we now have a market outlook over the next 20 years, including freight!
it’s good, If you are a airline and you need to carry 210 pax and a certain amount of cargo that would exceed the 10 LD3-45W of the A321 for exemple, but less than 28 LD3 787-8!. You have no other choice to order the heavy 787-8, the too heavy A330 or the A321neo / 737Max-9 in the amount of cargo and pax unsatisfactory!
Luckily, I have a 22 LD2 conteners/7-abreast that does the job well. Which would have a 20% better than the 767-200ER classic and the A332Neo is too heavy!
Keesje, if you read the plan yesterday you understand that MAXed 767-8 is located in a substantial monopoly, on the sole condition that Airbus launches the A330neo!
The 767MAX more value to me than the A330 NEOised! You undeniable and indisputable proof!
Beware Boeing did not close the door for the MAXed 767, but has done for the 757! ..
I think this time you understand! …
Scott, I think it is a fair point to say that the A330s don’t compete with all of the 767s.
In terms of passenger capacity, only the A332 competes with the 764, which it obviously steamrolled in orders (596 vs. 38). The A333 competes with the -200 sized variants of the 777s and has done very well too (702 vs. 569).
Would it be fair to add the A342/A343/A345s to these numbers too since they’re sister-ships of similar capacities?
As far as the other 767 variants go, their true competitor could be the A300/A310s.
The comments in this post have degenerated into pointless back-and-forth and arguments between two or three readers. I’m exercising my prerogative as the owner of this forum and closing comments.