Boeing sees “healthy” future for 767

Aug. 19. 2015, © Leeham Co. Boeing sees a “healthy” future for the 767 commercial line, but won’t comment whether this includes an effort to rekindle interest for

Boeing sees a “healthy” future for the 767. Photo via Google images.

passenger airlines, or if the future is strictly for cargo carriers.

It was almost a throw-away question and answer at last week’s Jefferies Co. Global Industrial Conference at which Greg Smith, the CFO of The Boeing Co., appeared. Howard Rubel, the aerospace analyst for Jefferies, asked, “All of a sudden we’ve seen orders for 767s. It’s a 4,000 mile aircraft that is easy to operate and easy to fit into the fleet.” Could there be more orders? he asked. The question was obviously prompted by the July order by FedEx for 50 firm and 50 optioned 767-300ERFs. The 767-300ER’s capacity and range fits in the general description of the so-called Middle of the Market aircraft being explored by Boeing.

“There are opportunities,” Smith replied. “I think we will continue to see a healthy product line. At the same time we are still looking for opportunities to make the airplane more efficient in the operating cost perspective.”

That was it.

This raised more questions than the one that was answered:

  • Are the references to a healthy product line to passenger models, or freighters or both?
  • What kind of opportunities for more efficient operating costs?
  • Could a 767E (enhanced) be an inexpensive (ie, virtually no R&D) Middle of the Market answer, sold for about $75m?

We posed these questions to “Chicago” (where Smith is located), which were rerouted to Seattle, where Boeing Commercial Airplanes is headquartered.

“Campaigns are ongoing,” a spokesman emailed in answer to the first question. “We don’t share discussions with potential customers.” The spokesman declined to specify whether the campaigns include passenger models.

“We are continuing to explore additional capabilities and improvements,” he said. “Earlier this year, we introduced an engine performance improvement package that will provide an additional 0.5% fuel efficiency improvement. The PIP could save an additional 286 lbs of fuel on a typical 2,000nm flight,” based on generic 767 rules/assumptions, not specific to any operator.

As for the prospect of the 767 being updated and revitalized to become the much-talked about Middle of the Market aircraft, an idea that surfaces from time-to-time, the spokesman was clear:

“No, this is not something we are exploring. We continue to study the Middle of the Market segment to identify product alternatives that are right for our customers and right for Boeing.”

79 Comments on “Boeing sees “healthy” future for 767

  1. Put the Trent engine developed for a330neo, change wings ,cockpit display and avionics a la 787, voila you have a MOM that can enter service around 2021 as opposed to 2025 for the clean sheet design.
    A clean sheet MOM will require a new generation of engine for it to perform at the same level as the current generation aircrafts. If ab has done its own MOM using a321 why is boeing hesitant to do theirs with the 767? Talk to the customers and see what happens.

    • Because the 767-300ER is about 80.000 lbs heavier than an A321? Sorry, to much plane and to heavy fram by todays standarts.

      • Empty weight isn’t everything and comparing an A321 to a 767 is apples and oranges. It ‘s almost the same as comparing a 757 to a 767…different planes for different tasks.

        The 767 is almost exactly the definition of MOM. It is almost halfway between the A321 and 788/A330neo in every respect; empty weight, passengers, payload, range and price.

        Of course it’s going to be heavier than an A321…the whole idea of MOM is that it picks up where the A321 leaves off and the 788 picks up where the MOM leaves off.

        The kicker is that the 767 could be developed for cheaper and sold for less than any other option. Stick the GEnx-2b’s from the 788

        • oy…my computer sucks.

          …rather from the 748, (they are only 1500lbs heavier than the rb 211’s), do some aero tweaks….you could pick up 10-15% efficiency using stuff from current production parts bins.

          There would be no 10 billion dollars of development costs….more like whatever it cost to do the neo, so the price would be much lower than an all new aircraft and that would make up for any weight difference from going all new.

          Any MOM will be twin aisle, so it is automatically going to be heavier, (all new or neo), than the A321…but it will also be able to do more.

          Keep it cheap and dirty and you can have an MOM in two years.

        • The 767 is almost exactly the definition of MOM. It is almost halfway between the A321 and 788/A330neo in every respect; empty weight, passengers, payload, range and price.

          And like the smallest NB types have dropped out due to
          unfavorable cost/capabilities effects the 767 has dropped out
          of the WB offerings ( and for the same reasons ).
          Both in relation to WB competitors and the NB upgrowth from below.
          MOM is synonymous to a pronounced efficiency dip in unit cost versus capabilities. Whatever new tech can be introduced will not remove this intrinsic dip.
          You might get some limited improvement but everything you throw at this dip is also available for the higher efficiency NB and WB slots.
          That is why I think a MOM type craft will not happen.
          Not without some yet unseen disruptive design change.

          • The 767 can only work if You lower the main deck for 8-abreast, make a new wing, FBW, new systems etc. For 7-abreast it’s just to heavy with to many empty space.

            If You go 8-abreast and include all the other chances at least in the 777X level you get a good charter plane and you kill the A330neo very probably. What you still don’t have however is a MOM with 20% above A321 regarding range/capacity. You’ll end up with at least 40% more in everything – including weight and costs. And again, with 7-abreast the 767 fuse doesn’t stand anymore against the MAX/NEO on one end and A330neo on the other.

          • No, the 767NEO just like the A330NEO only works with minimal changes.

            This is a smaller market, not worth a new aircraft so if its viable then it has to be as minimal an aircraft upgrade as possible.

            This is not an A321 competitor, its a longer range, full load no compromise offering.

            Interesting of course does FedEx have an agreement to shift to a 767NEO-F

            Boeing has the 787 Cockpit in the 2C version so that is done and paid deal

            It will be interesting.

        • And let’s not forget that the 767 is still an efficient aircraft that can fill a big-[edited] in Boeing’s lineup (cheap to acquire jet that can goverlap anything that the A321NEO-LR can do, and the 737-900ER/-9Max will fail to do).

          If they can upgrade the 767 for cheap (GE Nx, anyone?) and since they’ve basically scuttled a 757Max, they might be a-ok.

          But if Boeing says there are orders, then let’s see ’em. All I see are freighter orders and tankers (when they can get them right)

          • the 767 is still an efficient aircraft that can […] goverlap anything that the A321NEO-LR can do, and the 737-900ER/-9Max will fail to do

            OEW 767-200ER: ~82t
            OEW 757-200: ~58t
            OEW A321: ~48t
            OEW 737-900ER: ~44t

            Notice something? Such as the 767-200ER (which isn’t even on offer any more, and hasn’t been for a while) being anywhere between 24t and 38t heavier than the heaviest of those planes you think it can act as an efficient substitute for? If you want to bring in the 767-300ER instead, add ~8t to those numbers.

            That’s a lot of extra weight to carry around before the first passenger has even boarded the plane.

          • Actually reanimating the A310 would make much more sense in conjunction with modern engines than tuning up the 767-300.
            It has a more optimal fuselage diameter/floor height arrangement, a good wing and some rudimentary FBW systems, nearly 10t lighter OEW, ….

      • MOM stands for Middle Of Market. When Boeing first introduced the term it was meant to define the 767 market; but it has since incorporated the 757 as well. In my opinion the 757 never was a MOM aircraft because a MOM has to be a twin-aisle aircraft. For a MOM is the market between narrowbody and widebody. And narrowbody aircraft are already at their maximum size before a twin-aisle design makes more sense.

  2. Great airplane long may it continue. I would much rather fly the 767 any day in preference to the 777 or 787 especially in Y. I think its the best aircraft there is in Y except perhaps the A380 which I haven’t flown yet. 2.3.2 trumps 3.3.3 and especially 3.4.3 on the 777. Second choice would be 2.4.2 on a A330

    • I once experienced 2-4-2 on a 6 hours 767 flight. Even less funny than 3-4-3 on a 777.

      • I have fortunately never had the experience. I have flown in an A300 in 3.3.3 but that was only 2 hours. Not so bad unless one is next to a big person.

    • Even on a 767, 777 or A380 wide seats check the pitch. This week-end I had a “hell of a night” on a 767-400 2-3-2 that left me exhausted & painful all over because it had a moving seatpan when reclining when the pitch was too short to start with. Then the person in front of my went in recline.. you get the picture. I would have gladly paid for a few inches extra, but those were sold out.

      • I very good point, if he pitch is better you can take a tighter seating across. But, these days so many have 3.3.3 at 31in . If you look on seatguru at the comments for the 787 for BA,VS,QR and others, not pretty. Maybe the 787 at 3.3.3 is just a stage too far for a quality airline. Which is why I have always liked the 767.

  3. “If ab has done its own MOM using a321 why is boeing hesitant to do theirs with the 767?”

    Empty weight (OEW) is a pretty good indicator of operating costs.

    OEW 767-200 : ~ 76 tonnes
    OEW A321 : ~ 48 tonnes

    Pick it up from there.

    • The A310 was said to be aerodynamically more advanced than the 767 at the time of introduction.
      The 767 is not designed for FBW. Thus it lacks all the potential for those rather low cost finetuning improvements that helped bring the A330 forward.

      MOM imho is a FUD item. We’ll never see it beyond CGI .

    • Any MOM is going to be heavier than the A321 by a significant margin since it intended to do a significantly larger job than the A321.

      As it is, the 767 slots almost exactly between the A321 and the 788, which is exactly what they are talking about with MOM.

      OEW, passengers, range, payload…in just about every metric, it’s as MOM as it gets. All it needs is new engines, which can come from the 748, (the 767 already uses 744 engines).

      Cheaper development will mean lower price, the line is already running and will be for at least another decade, almost no new parts would be required.

      • They dont even do engines as ‘hand me downs’ anymore. It may be loosely based on a similar thrust engine but it would be tailored to its specific role.
        That costs money and when there isnt a big market gap to fill, costs even more to provide return on investment.

        The insurmountable problem for 767 is that its not fly-by-wire, which makes for aerodynamic improvements and maintenance costs.
        Thats the other big advantage of modern planes over 70s clunkers like the 767, they were built for a high maintenance era and upgrading that would cost big money. The residual price would drop like a stone for new build passenger 767s- who wants to be stuck with it after 12 years ?

        • Ummm … Actually it is FBW. The spoilers and empennage controls have computers controlling them. This was done to make common design between 757/767. Personally I think B team is facing a simple problem and the answer is the same as it was back in the late 70s and early 80s with their 727 and 707 replacement conundrum. Upgauge the fuselage to carry more people. Get automated loading for cargo and accommodation for LD 3 and 2 containers, and make it fully compatible type rating as 787 in the flight deck. Dunno about going fully FBW … At least keep the same architecture as the 767 and upgrade the control laws. Maybe go fully FBW if they have to. I never got around to fully liking the software bunnies that come out of the woodwork every time a line of code needs to be written. At least cables are instantly there, though t/c ratios are getting insane, so maybe not enough space.

          • dukeofurl

            You are aware the 737MAX is also not FBW?

            Have you ever worked on electronics?

            I have as well as pneumatic (bleed air)

            Pneumatics are vastly easier to trouble shoot.

          • The MAX is FBW … But only the spoilers. Likely so they can have a ultra low risk, and simple, architecture. Keep the software bunny population low! Give them a crumb and they multiply like tribbles.

  4. Do not hear what boeing says, see what they do. Of course they study. They already know that it is very dificult next to impossible to spend to 10-15 billion or in the case of the dreamliner 30 to develop a mom aircraft and then sell it at rock bottom price. Another problem is that if boeing finally goes forward with the mom airbus will upgrade the a321neo and cut the price to close the advantage of the aircraft and the mom will have the same fate as the bombardier cseries.
    So what i believe boeing has to do is to upgrade the following aircraft:
    757-200: A321neolr competitor
    757-300: fits MOM aircraft requirements and it is lighter than the 767-200
    767-300: ideal a300 and MD-11F replacement and bridge the 757 and 787.
    The upgrades that boeing should undertake are :
    1.New GE9X :25% more efficient than the
    2.Aerodynamic upgrades: 6%
    3.New boeing sky interior
    Common 787 cockpit
    These changes will cost around 2-3 billion dolars and have an EIS of 2020-2022.

    • It all depends in what business you want to be. Boeing has always been at the avant-garde and gave us state-of-the art products one after the other; like the 707, 727, 737 and 747. After that Boeing stopped being a market leader and slowly became a market follower. They have long been in business to innovate. We used to say they were an engineers company. But they have since gone into the renovation business and have lost the Boeing spirit their employees and admirers were so proud of. In short they have sold their soul to the devil; i.e., the shareholders.

      • The history of the 737 and 747 show that they have long been as much an evolution company as a revolution company.

        The, ‘Boeing is an engineering company’ schtick was mostly fanboi fluff. Both Airbus and Boeing are for profit companies and are as much accountant companies as engineering ones, and perhaps more.

        • I am sorry Joe but I have to disagree with you. The 747 has revolutionized commercial transport. But perhaps you are too young to have witnessed that major transition period. As for the 737, it may not have been a revolutionary aircraftt, like the Caravelle was for example, but if you look at modern narrowbody designs they all have the same basic configuration of engines supported by pylons under the wing. But in this case the revolution came from Germany sometime before WW2. Boeing’s own genius was to turn this brilliant idea into a succession of extraordinary aircraft like the B-47, B-52, KC-135, B707/727/737/747. During that exhilarating period the generic term commonly used in France to designate a large modern aircraft was ‘Boeing’. They also called ‘Canadair’ any fire fighting aircraft because the Canadair Cl-215 defined that segment; like Boeing had defined what commercial aviation was going to be.

          • Su Aviation held the patent on two pod mounted rear engines when they introduced the Caravelle, so that might have discouraged others from that approach.
            Boeings only big idea was its flexible light two spar wings which started out with its jet bombers. Douglas stuck with the more conservative 3 spar ( but longer lived) design for the DC8. In the days before real useful computer based design methods it was a safe bet at the beginning of the jet age.
            The 747 was a rehash of the CX transport design ( won by Lockheeds C5) so was a useful way to repurpose otherwise wasted design effort. Juan Trippe as your buyer helped too, along with dirt cheap fuel prices

          • dukeofurl

            By your definition all aircraft are rehashes of someone else’s design.

            Normand Hamel : What design in Pre WWII in Germany had pylon mounted engines?

            ME262 certainly did and a lot of similarity to the original 737 tube engines integrated into the wing.

            Probably had a lot to do with Boeing doing that on the B-47 and B-52

          • No series design.
            What Boeing got after the war was the full chest of aero research data and foundational theoretical works on swept wings, how to hang engines, area rule and transonic dynamics from the aerodynamics research establishment in Göttingen.

          • There were no aircraft per say but the pylon concept had been developed before the war and preliminary calculations had been carried out. I believe the Me 262 was the first aircraft (first flight in 1941) to boast suspended jet engines under the wing. It was followed by the Arado 234 and Junkers 287 later in the war. The two key concepts taken over by Boeing, the swept wing and pylon suspended engines, had been developed by the Germans shortly before the war erupted (the swept wing concept goes back to 1935). An engineer from Boeing by the name of George Schairer happened to be a member of the Paper Clip delegation that put him in a position to retrieve engineering documents from Germany after the defeat. They transmitted this information to several aerospace companies in the US. But since Boeing had built an advanced wind tunnel at the start of the war they had a decisive advantage over the competition. That is what gave us the B-47 in record time. And the rest is history.

          • Im not saying ‘everyone’ did a rehash of someones design, but Boeing wasnt a major player in the passenger plane business before and after the war, thats was Douglas and Lockheed so they had to make changes to existing military designs and see if they could sell.
            You can see it Boeing’s Stratocruisers, a direct derivative of the B29, the B707 was certainly a direct derivative of the KC135 and back through B47 and B52, especially their wing design.

          • A bit more accurate is that swept wing design was a known improvement (if your speed was high enough) .

            Germany was the first to actually use it by a long ways.

            I would not call the faired tube engines a pylon design so much as a start in that direction to that and vastly better than the in wing designs of that era.

            Boeing leg up was its bomber designs that fine tuned what was needed commercially as well as seeing the early stuff start to take off and making the prediction they were too small.

            When they moved it was a very good aircraft.

      • Boeing for years apart from the 787 has been an indecisive company and always waiting while letting opportunities slip by. Vacillating back and forth on the 737 issue, finally being left at the gate by Airbus and the 320 neo and then coming out with the 737MAX and losing sales for 6 months to Airbus.
        Letting the 767 languish for years and allowing Airbus to have the 200-250 seat small WB market to themselves with the A330 as it was the only game in town, if an airline wanted a small WB, the choice was very limited, 1. Airbus 2. Nothing. Had Boeing 5 or 6 years ago upgraded the 767 on a budget, engines, weight loss program, no composites, it could easily garnered 200-300 or more orders.
        Boeing has lost its drive to be new and innovative and apart from the 787, the real stars in Boeing’s history were the 707, 747, 767, 757 and the game changing 727, the first jet to operate off a 5000 foot runway.
        The 767 frame is not as old as the 737 so its not old technology but a frame that with proper backing and support could have made many more sales and ate some of Airbuses lunch instead of the reverse.

        • I would amend that the 787 was indecisive as well.

          Everything that was done shifted the supposed cost off onto someone else. As all indecisive actions it failed miserably and has cost Boeing incredible billions to correct.

          the only decisive thing Boeing did lately was fire the CEO, will see how that works out.

  5. Boeing is a company that led us into the future. Unfortunately this once great company is increasingly turning its attention towards its past achievements, like the 737 (MAX), 747 (-8), 767 (KC-46) and 777 (X). The only innovative product they have introduced in the last twenty years is the 787; which, it can be argued, is perhaps a little too innovative. So much so that Boeing have decided there would be no more innovative products for a long time; i.e., no more moonshots. Well, the best way to become history is to live in the past.

    • They are following the same trend as Airbus. Innovations are coming from improving current products, not making new ones.

      Neither company will make another all new aircraft for the next decade and a half.

    • Norman:

      There is nothing wrong with the tech and innovation on the 787.

      787s problem was how they went about it.

      I can think of only one tech solution that was wrong and that was the batteries. Pretty small part of the whole and could easily have been done correctly (update to current better Li Ion batts) but they were too deep in the rest of the mess to do so or pay an attention.

      Actually they killed off their electronics design and test division and that was the major mistake there.

      • “Actually they killed off their electronics design and test division and that was the major mistake there.”

        I couldn’t agree more with you on this. That is now part of The Old Boeing which was in my opinion considerably superior to The New Boeing (but admittedly more expensive to run).

        As for the 787, there is indeed nothing wrong with it. I only said it could be argued that it was “perhaps a little too innovative.” Here is what I mean by that. First you need to know that I remain ambivalent about the Dreamliner. I love the aircraft but I have a deep hatred of the project itself, and especially the way it was presented to the world. What I like most is the high quality of the air, the low cabin altitude and the oversized windows. It is also an aerodynamically efficient design that gave us a beautiful airplane. What I don’t like, I mean it scares the heck out of me, is the all-electric architecture. That is far too many electrons for my taste. It probably makes André-Marie Ampère tun in his grave. The first question is: what is really necessary? The second question is: was it really worth it? The third question is: would they do it again? Hence my ambivalence.

  6. If challenged by an existing customer, Boeing will simply put some lipstick (sorry pip and wings etc), call it the 767MAxx or something funky and sell yet another Dino for another 20 years. Worked for the 737, 747 and 777, why not one more? Any doubters will just be reminded of the 787 desaster…

    • Airbus and Boeing are both going with lipstick on their newest models.

      Boeing is remodeling the 737 and the 777…and has already done the 747.

      Airbus is upgrading the A320, A330 and A380.

      Re-engining the 767 would be following future trends more than building an all new aircraft would.

      • Boeing is not going to repeat the market failure of the 747-8 with a 767-8.

        Its competitor the A330-8 neo doesn’t have anything to worry about, in fact this 767 story is just trying to put a banana skin under orders to spite Airbus sales. Its business, but which airline would buy a maintenance heavy plane with engines from 20 years ago and whos future residual values would drop the day it was delivered.
        Cargo planes are different story.

  7. To start with the 767-300ER is not a viable passenger aircraft because it is too close to the 787-8 and a330neo. But revitalisation is possible. About the MOM aircraft. Boeing should think again about the revitalise 757 for the following reasons :
    757-200:A direct competitor to the a321neolr
    757-300:It is right sized to be a one to the requirements of the MOM and it is lighter than a widebody.
    What changes would the 757X would have:
    New ge9x engine
    New al-li wing and fuselage
    Internal widening from 139.4 inches to 142.5
    Boeing sky interior
    Common type rating with 787.
    But why boeing invest on a 757X over a clean sheet design ?. Because it will need an investment in the region of 4-5 billion and be 35% more fuel efficient than the current 757.
    On the other hand a brand new clean sheet design will cost at least 10-12 billion or in the case of the dreamliner 30. These huge development costs will have a dramatic effect on the aircraft pricing a very sensitive part of an aircraft in this size category. Also airbus can underprice their own a321neolr and a330-800 and match the operating costs of the mom. These series of effects are excactly what happen to the bombardier cseries with mom risking having the same fate.
    In the end maybe a clean sheet design look superior technicall all this state of the art technology comes with a hefty price tag that customers are not willing to pay, something that many analysts have point out. The 757 X add more value and is in fact more compatitive than a clean sheet design on that sector.

    • 757 ain’t going to happen so should quit harping on it and stick with the real possibility, 767NEO may not happen but its possible, 757 is not, gone, done and never to be produced again, period.

  8. “If ab has done its own MOM using a321 why is boeing hesitant to do theirs with the 767? Talk to the customers and see what happens.”

    The parameters of the MOM are a single aisle jet with 3×3 seating, 4500-5500k nm range with 220+ seats. This does not fit the profile of the A321. You also can’t change the floor space of the 767 to make it a 3×3 configuration. There’d be a lot of dead weight and you don’t want that. And from what I understand the 767 is not flown by FBW tech, it still pulleys, levers and pneumatic operations. More weight. So its a no go.

    “Boeing is a company that led us into the future. Unfortunately this once great company is increasingly turning its attention towards its past achievements, like the 737 (MAX), 747 (-8), 767 (KC-46) and 777 (X). ”

    Part of that in my opinion is that the bean counters have the last say and since the 787 is still costing them money, along with the KC-46, they have no choice but to rehash the current showcase of aircraft. It makes sense for them to get alll the life out of the 767 since the line is paid for and they would hate to close it after the tanker (if it’s still with the USAF) and FedEx contracts run dry and have another debacle when they destroyed the tooling for the 757 and closed the line down only for that model to have a later resurgence like a Phoenix out of the flames.

    • “Since the 787 is still costing them money, along with the KC-46, they have no choice but to rehash the current showcase of aircraft.”

      For now it is still a question of choice. And the choice is between investing in the future or immediate returns to shareholders. They can’t have both simultaneously.

      Bombardier decided to invest in the future and the shareholders don’t understand that; look where the stock is today. Boeing found themselves close to bankruptcy after they introduced the 747. But later on nothing gave more strength to Boeing than the Jumbo Jet. And in the future nothing will give more strength to Bombardier than the C Series. They say that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. But we live in a world of instant gratification: huge bonuses to management and juicy dividends to shareholders. And when the party is over a few smart people go home with their pockets full of money while thousands of workers struggle to find another job quickly to be able to continue to feed their family.

      But in the future, say five or ten years from now, Boeing may no longer have choices to make because they may not have enough money at that time to be able to invest in new products. In the meantime Boeing is spending billions of dollars on ‘shareholder value’. But the best value they can bring to their shareholders are products that maintain a healthy cash flow. And to keep money coming in you have to constantly invest fresh money into new products that will maintain customer’s interest. But it’s like if Boeing were more interested to satisfy their shareholder’s interest than their customer’s. That is in my view an unsustainable business model.

      • Shareholder certainly do understand investing in the future, just as they understand great management.
        Compare the stock prices of future aligned companies that make and invest in tech stuff and a business in aviation parts that has top management ? Then compare BBD and consider which parts are not aligned with each other

  9. How about some new build 767-400 with the KC-46 cockpit? The 767-400 has the most long term value as a passenger aircraft due to extra floor area. The A330-800 is to heavy. Hawaiian could use some new build 767-400.

    • Ignore LD3 competibility / belly cargo and the world looks differently.

    • Only two buyers when it came out, why would anyone order it now 15 years later. Its place has been taken by 787-8 and its real competitor A330-200.
      The A330-200 neeo that still has some life in it order wise.

      The only thing that makes sense is a re optimised 787-3 as a real 767 replacement, and that may be a impossible business case without a new small wing and there is no money for that

    • Ted:

      Hawaiian airlines is not United, American or Emirate and they have consistently gone with Airbus A330.

      They are not going to buy a 767-400NEO.

  10. The Air Force can buy a tranche of 767-300F with PW4062 engines. If fleet and engine commonality is good for FedEx and Southwest, it is good for the Air Force too.

    • That could be good idea, it no longer hurts C-17 prospects. Yes, maybe 767F’s are a smart solution the AirForce needs now.

      • No money for an undefined operational requirement.
        Most lighter pallet loads can be sent via the existing commercial carriers.
        The US Army gets a better deal that way than paying the USAF high prices for its routine supplies. The Sierra Army depot just packs its light stuff in a cardboard box and sends it via UPS. Much much better for private operators to buy and own any 767F and handle the items from boots to tank parts in a normal way.

  11. WARNING: All characters suggested by the following story are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

    In the Seventies there was a Great Brain Drain from Seattle to Toulouse. In order to survive The Once Great Company had to get rid of their least productive elements, so they sent them to Chicago and kept the rest. That is what became known as The New Being. The New Guard started to Dream about conquering the Moon. They had been warned that this was a risky mission but they kept going because they thought they were invincible. On their way to the Moon they met The Gremlins and they lost what became known as The Great Accounting Battle. Once their endeavour was discovered by The New Boss he threatened to punish them severely and proceeded to disperse them all over The Country. There was a Great Rebellion and The New Boss had to go. But before he left he made a secret pact with The Board. They produced an ultra secret document entitled “No More Moonshots” in which they defined the way they will reconquer The Lost Territory: They will take the most precious artefacts out of The Great Museum and will spray them with Magic Dust. In case their plan fails they have taken special measures which are called The Great Escape, in which each one of them will receive a Special Loyalty Gift. But before they go they will set a Great Time Bomb that will ensure no one else survives.

    • Normand: Didn’t Airbus try to compete with Boeing by doing the same thing to the A330 with its Rev 3 or 4 version?

      I don’t disagree on aspect of Boeing but both are (now) supposed to make money and Airbus is doing the same thing with A330NEO, A320NEO and the A380 whatever.

      There just are not any huge improvement in flying now or in the future that justifies all new aircraft all the time.

      777X being a case in point. New engines and wing and keep fuselage. Even the spun fuselage is not hugely different.

      737 needs to be replaced because of its inherent design weakness (tube engines) not because the structure is not competitive. i.e. they can’t hang the best sized engines on it.

      • Do you seriously believe Boeing can survive be coming out with one new design every 20 years or so? Here is what I have to say to Boeing: Stop imitating Microsoft and start focussing on Amazon; they are just a nice bike ride away. Oh no, I forgot, Boeing are in Chicago now… 😉

        • Actually I think Boeing could survive on a once every 20 years launch if it was the right one.

          787 could have simply been an upgraded (wing and engines) 767

          The serious deficit was the 737.

          Even composites are not a huge leap, right now I don’t see any major advancements in material or engines (GTF being the last) that makes an all new anything that much of an improvement.

          Even a 737MAX is pretty competitive against an A320 despite is limited architecture (architecture means its lame against the A321, not its techy level) .

          That’s kind of where we are at.

  12. I strongly suspect that the Boeing MOM doesn’t really exist,at least not what everyone is guessing. My guess is that it’s a sort of semi cover story for the slightly larger 737 replacement. The max has sold reasonably well, but is obviously an emergency holding position. Boeing just has to react and show its hand first.10 year’s +development, expect launch within 3-4 years.

    • Very possible. We don’t know what is going on behind the closed doors.

      That does not mean the 767NEO might not be part of the package.

  13. If the good old 737 holds on until 2030, Boeing can meanwhile launch the MoM. Problem is it doesn’t hold on.

    Airbus has over 4,100 orders for the A320neo. Boeing has written 2,831 orders for its 737 MAX, struggling / discounting to maintain 40%.
    31 MAX customers are undisclosed & without UA and Lionair there is no 737-9 and the MAX is a one trick pony.

    I hope in the background Boeing continues working on a NSA. Quietly to not blow up MAX marketing efforts. McNerney says it will have the same config as current aircraft, a bit bigger. A carbon GTF mark II powered 160-230 seater seems logical and low risk. Making it bigger/more capable/twin aisle surrenders the (huge) 150-180 seat segment.

  14. 739max is irrelevant. 321neo is too light due to limits mainly of small wings. Cheapo mom tourist operators don’t need belly freight. The only question is if GE really wants to stay in this market. A tweaked wing should be practically free if Boeing wanted to ask the Japanese to name a price (that’s what would happen Seattle fans).

    The plane would still be about 60% of cost of a 787 to s customer and have no direct competitor.

  15. Pingback: » Daily Aviation Brief – 20/08/2015

  16. Firstly i think you do losing the point here. The reason that boeing came up with all these innovative had nothing to cover it so they were obliged to come up with a new aircraft. Now boeing has an aircraft to cover the market. The 757/767 family. So why to spend 12 billion on a new aircraft while you have an already exceptional product and just update it for 3-4 billion ?
    Alsl the 757-300 is lighter than the 767-200 by 342500 pounds or by 15.6 tonnes. Furthermore Boeing said that they need to be 20% larger than the 757-200. The 757-300 fits 243 passengers it already very nicely sized. So you already have a right sized aircraft now you have to make fuel efficient.
    First we will start with the engines. GE9X but with ultrafan after it becomes availiable.
    Then a new wing with aspect ratio of 12:1 and lift to drag ratio of 18. It should be aluminium lithium in order to save time
    Finally a cabin refreshment with the boeing sky interior and 787 cockpit.
    There are some nice but optional features that boeing should take a look at:
    Fly by wire system for saving weight
    Internal stretching to give a more comfortable interior.
    On the other hand there is no point to reengine the 767-300 because it is freighter aircraft the passenger is been covered by the 787-8 and a330-800neo. Also the 767-300ERF fly short haul where weight is much important that fuel efficiency so should go forward with a 767 PIP but a 767 MAX at least for now.

    • 757-300 :: Then a new wing with aspect ratio of 12:1 and lift ..

      All the enhancements you list could be done more cheaply to the A321 ( or already exist on that frame 😉

      The MOM is a fuddy mirage, conjured up to explain Boeing’s current market position. “Tomorrow Boeing will overtake ….”

      compare to the current 767 calisthenics:
      A supervisory institution mentions the unmentionable ( potentially no go ahead for the initial batch of 767 based tankers ) and surprise Boeing answers with a bubbly quip on 767 prospects. Afaics Boeing would like to force a positive decision on the initial batch production without first proving the suitability of their prototype. Looks like a bunch of thuggy problems from the “767 tanker” tribe linger in the aisles 😉

      • 757 is out of production

        757 according to Boeing is a costly aircraft to make.

        Its not going to be bought back into production

        767 is in production. Either its part of the package of what Boeing thinks their future is or not, but the 757 is not.

  17. I ‘d have said that there really needs to be two families of MoM aircraft, one optimised for short to medium range and the second for medium to long. It’s ridiculous to have 3000nm-capable aircraft, with all the extra weight that implies, flying sectors of a few hundred nm, which is what most do. The A300 when it first emerged was a short range aircraft that evolved – perhaps it is time to go back there1

  18. But people keep buying the longer range aircraft.

    so, while some do a few hundred mile segments, most do longer.

    Ak Airlines splits it up using Turbo props as they do have a lot of short segments.

    they now fly the regular Anchorage to Fairbanks route (360 miles more or less) with turbo props not the 737s.

    there is a shorter range option, C series. Stay tuned.

    • “They now fly the regular Anchorage to Fairbanks route (360 miles more or less) with turbo props not the 737s. There is a shorter range option, C series.”

      The C Series actually has longer range (3300 nm) than the 737-800 (2950 nm), and not much less than the MAX (3515 nm).

      • Reading myself after posting, something strikes me for the first time: the 737-800 has 2950 nm range, and that happens to be identical to what the C Series was offering at inception when the MAX did not exist yet. What this reveals to me is that Bombardier were aiming specifically at the 737. But because they were using a deferent set of rules to define range the C Series appeared to have less range, except for the cognoscente. But by Laurent Beaudoin’s own candid admission at PAS this year they were less than certain they would be able to actualize those numbers. In other words they were only aiming for the 737’s performances without being really sure they were going to meet them. As things turned out they actually exceeded them! Is this another example of the pupil surpassing the master? 🙂

        • Doesnt that just mean that the plane has been designed for a stretched larger version at some point. Fuel capacity is essentially related to wing box capacity, including centre box which would be empty for most short hauls. Helping CS series is its efficient ‘big little fan’ engines which go further on same fuel.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *