Airbus just changed the global aircraft market

When I first saw this idea in a facebook post I just laughed it off, like 99% of the garbage on facebook. I am stunned that it is really under consideration. Whatever next? A300 back in production for Air France? Maybe BA will revive the Comet4?? :LOL:

I really don't get how putting the 767 back into production for passengers can make any sense at all? Wouldn't it make more sense for boeing and United (and many others) so simply revive the 787-3?

a reply to: waynos

It makes no sense whatsoever, especially considering that the 787 was literally the replacement for the 767. But I guess with the 737 Max's sales woes, Boeing might be in an "any sale is better than no sale" sort of mood, especially since the 767 tooling will be warm from the KC-46 debacle for a good while.

I can definitely see it being cheaper, for them, in the short run, than designing an A310-ified "787-6/7" half from scratch, while still allowing them to get a 767-sized airliner onto customer flight lines far sooner than anything even remotely related to the NMA/MoM/797. The fact that this is even close to happening, though, speaks volumes about just how dire the issue of Boeing's weak lineup has been allowed to become.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

They're talking about more than just a 50 plane order. They're talking about multiple airlines that it "makes sense" to offer them to.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
They're talking about more than just a 50 plane order. They're talking about multiple airlines that it "makes sense" to offer them to.

But the ringleader is still going to be my carrier. The rumor is that they want 50 just for themselves, this would give Boeing enough aircraft to start fishing for other orders.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

And if Boeing does it, they can kiss any possibility of getting back ahead of Airbus goodbye.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Boeing: We still can't rival the A321neo but we'll happily sell you a barely warmed-over 40 year old aircraft!

Though in a sick sort of way, one wonders what could come of Boeing taking a page from Airbus's book and offering a "767neo"...

Hell, who needs MoM when you can just slap GTF's on a 757-300ER and call it a day!

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: FamCore

Now. This is the biggest aviation related deal in 20 years. This gets the CSeries around any possible tariff situation, and opens up the global market for it.

I cannot help but wonder if the recent tariff action by the US prompted this action?

a reply to: Barnalby

Not if they want to sell it before NMA comes to the market. It would require a complete certification and flight test program.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The question is, when IS NMA coming to market? Half the posts here seem to pessimistically suggest that it'll be the late 2020's before it flies carrying anything other than factory paint, while the other half seem to indicate that it could roll out of the Phantom Works hangars unannounced tomorrow for a first flight and no one would really be that surprised.

a reply to: Barnalby

The general rule is seven years for development. So if they start offering it in 2019, you're looking at mid to late 2020s, which is their current plan, if they roll it out. They've gone from "Ok, the airlines really want it so we're going to do it" to "Well......."

originally posted by: waynos
I really don't get how putting the 767 back into production for passengers can make any sense at all? Wouldn't it make more sense for boeing and United (and many others) so simply revive the 787-3?

Yes, it would except for one spot. Capital costs. If Airlines have decided that the cost of fuel is going to be somewhat flat then the upfront cost of a 787-3 may not be worth a new (old) airframe that is 1/3rd the price thus freeing up capital.

The 787-8 is listed at around 260 million (no idea if they are selling it at that and many get discounts)
The 767-300 is listed at around 160 million but the many articles on this point to prices at around 80-90 million.

If you wet lease the air frame you then basically sunset the air-frame from your fleet down the road (5-6 years) when either the fuel prices are too high to operate it, or something better has come along.

originally posted by: FredT
If you wet lease the air frame you then basically sunset the air-frame from your fleet down the road (5-6 years) when either the fuel prices are too high to operate it, or something better has come along.

Pretty sure that's United's intention, once the MOM becomes available they pawn the 76's off on FedEx, Amazon, et. al. who seem to prefer that platform for cargo.

originally posted by: Barnalby
a reply to: waynos

It makes no sense whatsoever, especially considering that the 787 was literally the replacement for the 767. But I guess with the 737 Max's sales woes, Boeing might be in an "any sale is better than no sale" sort of mood, especially since the 767 tooling will be warm from the KC-46 debacle for a good while. .

I don't know about sales Woes..... Boeing has just over 3900 orders for the MAX and the NEO has 5200+. The MAX's woes is more of not being able to cover the 757 market and in terms of narrow bodies they may eventually pull closer in terms of parity. Boeing dropped the ball on the NEO, waffled and now is behind.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

FedEx is ordering purpose built freighters, not converted aircraft. The market isn't there for them as freighters honestly. There's some market, with freighters growing again, but companies are going for larger with the 777F and 747-8F, which has had several surprise orders, and smaller, with the A320 and 757 sized aircraft for shorter ranges.

a reply to: Zaphod58


Boeing says otherwise:

Boeing's current market outlook forecasts a need for 400 widebody conversions over the next two decades, with strong demand for 767 freighter conversions due to a rise in e-commerce and the express market. Source

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Boeing has been doing a really good job of misreading the market lately. Even freight operators are going to end up wearing their aircraft out while oil stays low. And several of the straight freight companies, like FedEx and UPS have found that it saves money in the long run to buy new aircraft and have their entire life cycle. The problem with conversions is that by the time they're converted they've used a lot of their useful life up.

a reply to: Zaphod58


They're including companies like Amazon in their forecast as well and from what I've been reading the proposed United order would be turned over to the freight side quicker than normal so the aircraft would have longer life cycles for that use.

Speaking of the 747-8f.

came across this video.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Amazon will probably go with new aircraft once they buy out Prime Air. Short term there's a demand for them as Prime Air expands and a few others grow. Long term, even if these are low time aircraft, it's a really stupid idea. Nothing they can come up with will change that.

Then again, it's exactly what I expect from Boeing any more. All they do is whine about everyone else and expect airlines to run to them because they are the Great and Powerful Boeing.

a reply to: Zaphod58


Stupid or not, it seems to be legit and very possibly can manifest into an order of 50-100 new airframes. I guess we'll know more by the end of the year.