Maybe the 787-700 with 2-4-2 seating would be a solution and economy passengers would stop to hate the 787. Or maybe simply put 2-4-2 into a 788 and the capacity is roughly down to 767. Still enough space to make money with additional cargo.
The situation will change once 787 and 777 problems will arise (and they R serious) .... Today many Boeing engineers feel doomed that they passed by almost finished C-Series that now would safe Boeing and overall would benefit tremendously ....
@nupagadii5834 there will never be an upgraded 767 for passenger use. If Boeing builds a similar sized plane at some point, it'll be all new jet, not a warmed over 767x.
Boeing should make a 767x because it would be a good size in between the 787 and 737 max and there is no competition in that market a medium haul aircraft
That would have been a great idea had they announced that in 2004 and launched it with the same engines and same cockpit as the 787. Since Boeing destroyed all the tooling equipment for manufacturing the plane it Boeing determined a clean sheet design would around the same as creating a new 757 production line. They intended on launching the 797 but the 737 max crashed stopped the announcement and then the pandemic and subsequent certification issues stopped all plans for launching a new plane.
The 787 replaced the 767. A 757 replacement could be a 787-3, giving single aisle economy with more passenger comfort and 2 aisle room. Using the Dreamliner wing as it is would give incredible range, even exceeding the A321 XLR.
The 757 is single aisle fuselage. The 787 and 767 are two aisle fuselage. Both are not good candidates as middle market since they are too large to downsize to the economics of a single aisle place like the 757. They should do a 757x or a completely new aircraft.
Still is a head scratcher to me how the B787-8 wasn't deemed a suitable replacement to the B767-400ER... that said, the smaller B767 variants don't have anything from Boeing unless a B787-7 is developed
Boeing should dust off the 7J7 blueprints that was 86ed after the 70s energy crisis. Augment it with modern jet engines & composite body and you've got the perfect compromise between narrow-body & widebody planes!
As soon as you realise that the A300/310, (competition for the 767) were basically forerunners of the A330, it becomes obvious that should Boeing announce a 767x, not only have Airbus already done a lot of the required work for the A330neo, they could almost certainly get their offering to market before Boeing could. To stand a chance, they would need a clean sheet design to compete against another clean-sheet design. However, if I understand correctly, a lack of suitable engines from any manufacturer could be the most significant constraining factor on any development timeline. Suitable engines permitting, I would have thought that a shrunken (not just shortened) 787 would be the way to go.
Boeing needs to develop two planes in order to stay relevant and competing with Airbus. One that covers E/E2 series, A220 up to the smaller A320 planes, and another dedicated plane to compete with the larger A320 versions up to A330-800 (787-8). Thus not only replacing the aging 737 design, but having a far greater competition range. But that's not going to happen anytime soon. Boeing lacks the necessary funds and engineers right now. And maybe they won't get both anymore at all. We shall see.
@jantjarks7946 As for the number of planes that is difficult to determine, pedants will always have a field day rather than add to the discussion. Some will consider the 757 and 767 as two aircraft, while others will insist that it is only one and a half. What really matters is that Boeing has a range of single aisle aircraft, possibly with 5 and 6 abreast seating, and, should they wish to also include the regional market even 4 abreast. Embrear manages to size their wings for each model rather than make the same wing work for many, with only one being optimal. Why can't Boeing (and Airbus) do the same? Boeing has a good design with the 787. Perhaps it could be scaled down to the single aisle models.
Well, five abreast for the smaller, while six abreast for the larger plane. Another four abreast would require another plane design, which would add too much costs in the first place. But also would face massive competition by the smaller plane manufacturers. Both planes have to be bread and butter planes (again), otherwise Boeing will struggle financially for far too long. Like they do now already. And yes, the time of 'one wing for all sizes' is definitely over. Efficiency is key.
@jantjarks7946 At least they can take the systems from the 787 and fit them to any new aircraft, much as in the way that Airbus have been doing for many decades. Unfortunately, the A220 has lumbered Airbus with an unwelcome deviation. No doubt this will ultimately determine its future. Will it remain an anomaly, be brought in-line, or simply be replaced with a variant of their next new single aisle design(s). But that is another discussion altogether.
I know the original 767 offered range in a twin engine format - unique at the time but I never really got it's passenger variant economics once there were longer range twins than the a300 series. In capacity the 767 offered just a single extra seat per row over narrow bodies, but with the cost of a second aisle. The a330 offered much better economics but even that aircraft's 2-4-2 setup has been rejected as new widebodies go for 9 or 10 abreast. So what I am saying is that I do not believe there is anywhere you can go with this airframe to offer a competitive product - at least in passenger variants. I imagine this has been the case since the mid 90s really, remember they only sold less than 40 -400ERs - the only post a330/777 offering for the 767.
Yeah, I agree. I don't think a large number of airlines required the middle of the market airplane. Its similar to how the A380 seems to work for a few airlines, while the 747 worked for many airlines. The airlines that need a middle of the market airplane might have to do with a lower end 787/A330neo or higher capacity and long range single aisle airplane. Maybe if Airbus made a CFRP fuselage for the A330neo then they might shrink it to cater for the middle of market. I doubt it though.
At this rate Boeing won't release the 777x til I'm a senior citizen(I'm 39 now) so maybe we shouldn't be too hasty in talking about their next project, maybe we should talk about the A360 & A370 since we'll get those first even if they're both clean sheet designs
I flew a 767 just once and the one thing I like about that plane is there only 2 seats by the windows. Since it's only my wife and I who travel, I prefer that instead of 3 seats by the window. Now there is only one type of a wide body plane that only has 2 seats by the window is the A330. I think Boeing should just stop making passenger plane and concentrate on cargo while Airbus continue on making passenger planes.
The 747 Twin is where they should put their money. Maybe a shorter 777 could be useful but a new 767 would tend to cannibalize the 787. I think the key route to success in the next few years is to grow the sectors they have control of and not spend all their time trying to compete. Aviation is growing again and if they do not take the right strategy the Chinese Japanese and other builders will out maneuver them. I think Boeing should also look at a 717 replacement taking on RJ’s but with a regular sized cabin and maybe longer range. Meanwhile Airbus should focus on A350 and A320 series. But that is just my view. Growing the pie with an expanding market is always a better strategy than spending all your time looking for a bigger slice of a smaller pie.
Both Airbus and Boeing have a gap in the 757 and 767 market. Seems that developing a new plane in that segment, well all segments, is hyper expensive. So instead of creating a new plane for that segment, they don't, but leave the airlines with the gap they must fill with lower or higher the of the gap in the market. The costs are for the airlines and in the end the passenger, not for the manufacturers.
Just start designing the new replacements for 737 and 757. What other choice do they have? There’s no way to improve the flaws of the 737 that keep happening. Everyone likes the 757 yet Boeing seems paralyzed to bring it back. Once they complete certifications of their 737-7/10 and 777-8/9 and made deliveries. Propose the new 737 with extended range, then the new 757.
Why not make the new plane and call it a 767. Car manufacturers make new car models but use the same names. Boeing only has the 9 left to use in the 7X7 naming scheme so reusing numbers for new aircraft should be fine.
Should stick with the 777 & 787. The 787 is basically a glorified 767. The 777 was the 747 killer. The aircraft airlines are pining for is the 757 replacement.
Which is why Boeing initially wanted to build the 787-3, though in reality it was nearly 100% new plane and why it was never built. It would have shared a cockpit and pretty much nothing else
Never realized how large the 787 was compared to the 767. I can see why airlines are hanging on to them for so long now.
Maybe the 787-700 with 2-4-2 seating would be a solution and economy passengers would stop to hate the 787. Or maybe simply put 2-4-2 into a 788 and the capacity is roughly down to 767. Still enough space to make money with additional cargo.
Thank you Dj!!
The 767Max was offered to airlines years ago; it was soundly rejected. Nothing more needs to be said!
The situation will change once 787 and 777 problems will arise (and they R serious) ....
Today many Boeing engineers feel doomed that they passed by almost finished C-Series that now would safe Boeing and overall would benefit tremendously ....
@nupagadii5834 there will never be an upgraded 767 for passenger use. If Boeing builds a similar sized plane at some point, it'll be all new jet, not a warmed over 767x.
Why there is no 787 fighter?
Boeing should make a 767x because it would be a good size in between the 787 and 737 max and there is no competition in that market a medium haul aircraft
they should make a 757 max
That would have been a great idea had they announced that in 2004 and launched it with the same engines and same cockpit as the 787. Since Boeing destroyed all the tooling equipment for manufacturing the plane it Boeing determined a clean sheet design would around the same as creating a new 757 production line. They intended on launching the 797 but the 737 max crashed stopped the announcement and then the pandemic and subsequent certification issues stopped all plans for launching a new plane.
What about B797?
The 787 replaced the 767. A 757 replacement could be a 787-3, giving single aisle economy with more passenger comfort and 2 aisle room. Using the Dreamliner wing as it is would give incredible range, even exceeding the A321 XLR.
The 757 is single aisle fuselage. The 787 and 767 are two aisle fuselage. Both are not good candidates as middle market since they are too large to downsize to the economics of a single aisle place like the 757. They should do a 757x or a completely new aircraft.
Weight…. Hello, did you miss your physics classes?
The 757 replacement would be the 797 if it ever gets announced.
787 have problems of fuselage micro-cracks and the wing ....
Really? I work in the plant (787 Assembly) and have heard nothing of the alleged cracks.
Still is a head scratcher to me how the B787-8 wasn't deemed a suitable replacement to the B767-400ER... that said, the smaller B767 variants don't have anything from Boeing unless a B787-7 is developed
I think extended range version of china’s c919 will come out before new 767 replacement from Boeing
Boeing should dust off the 7J7 blueprints that was 86ed after the 70s energy crisis. Augment it with modern jet engines & composite body and you've got the perfect compromise between narrow-body & widebody planes!
Boeing just needs to do a clean sheet MOM airplane. Enough said.
How about a 787 SP for a 737 replacement,,,?
767X = 767 + GENX-2B + curved wings
Airbus needs to make a cargo version of the A330neo to fill the gap after the end of the B767 production
Plans for a 330-800 may be on the drawing board for the 330 neo freighters
Boeing needs a clean sheet replacement if 737, and then build a replacement for 757 and 767 based on that clean sheet new 727
As soon as you realise that the A300/310, (competition for the 767) were basically forerunners of the A330, it becomes obvious that should Boeing announce a 767x, not only have Airbus already done a lot of the required work for the A330neo, they could almost certainly get their offering to market before Boeing could.
To stand a chance, they would need a clean sheet design to compete against another clean-sheet design.
However, if I understand correctly, a lack of suitable engines from any manufacturer could be the most significant constraining factor on any development timeline.
Suitable engines permitting, I would have thought that a shrunken (not just shortened) 787 would be the way to go.
Boeing needs to develop two planes in order to stay relevant and competing with Airbus. One that covers E/E2 series, A220 up to the smaller A320 planes, and another dedicated plane to compete with the larger A320 versions up to A330-800 (787-8). Thus not only replacing the aging 737 design, but having a far greater competition range.
But that's not going to happen anytime soon. Boeing lacks the necessary funds and engineers right now. And maybe they won't get both anymore at all. We shall see.
@jantjarks7946 As for the number of planes that is difficult to determine, pedants will always have a field day rather than add to the discussion.
Some will consider the 757 and 767 as two aircraft, while others will insist that it is only one and a half.
What really matters is that Boeing has a range of single aisle aircraft, possibly with 5 and 6 abreast seating, and, should they wish to also include the regional market even 4 abreast.
Embrear manages to size their wings for each model rather than make the same wing work for many, with only one being optimal. Why can't Boeing (and Airbus) do the same?
Boeing has a good design with the 787. Perhaps it could be scaled down to the single aisle models.
Well, five abreast for the smaller, while six abreast for the larger plane.
Another four abreast would require another plane design, which would add too much costs in the first place. But also would face massive competition by the smaller plane manufacturers.
Both planes have to be bread and butter planes (again), otherwise Boeing will struggle financially for far too long. Like they do now already.
And yes, the time of 'one wing for all sizes' is definitely over. Efficiency is key.
@jantjarks7946 At least they can take the systems from the 787 and fit them to any new aircraft, much as in the way that Airbus have been doing for many decades.
Unfortunately, the A220 has lumbered Airbus with an unwelcome deviation. No doubt this will ultimately determine its future. Will it remain an anomaly, be brought in-line, or simply be replaced with a variant of their next new single aisle design(s). But that is another discussion altogether.
I know the original 767 offered range in a twin engine format - unique at the time but I never really got it's passenger variant economics once there were longer range twins than the a300 series.
In capacity the 767 offered just a single extra seat per row over narrow bodies, but with the cost of a second aisle. The a330 offered much better economics but even that aircraft's 2-4-2 setup has been rejected as new widebodies go for 9 or 10 abreast. So what I am saying is that I do not believe there is anywhere you can go with this airframe to offer a competitive product - at least in passenger variants. I imagine this has been the case since the mid 90s really, remember they only sold less than 40 -400ERs - the only post a330/777 offering for the 767.
Yeah, I agree. I don't think a large number of airlines required the middle of the market airplane. Its similar to how the A380 seems to work for a few airlines, while the 747 worked for many airlines. The airlines that need a middle of the market airplane might have to do with a lower end 787/A330neo or higher capacity and long range single aisle airplane. Maybe if Airbus made a CFRP fuselage for the A330neo then they might shrink it to cater for the middle of market. I doubt it though.
At this rate Boeing won't release the 777x til I'm a senior citizen(I'm 39 now) so maybe we shouldn't be too hasty in talking about their next project, maybe we should talk about the A360 & A370 since we'll get those first even if they're both clean sheet designs
Boeing needs 767 with new lightweight material to reduce engine power or vice versa.
If I fly on a 767X before 2050 I'll be very surprised. Which is to say I don't think they'll make it or at the very least, not call it that.
I flew a 767 just once and the one thing I like about that plane is there only 2 seats by the windows. Since it's only my wife and I who travel, I prefer that instead of 3 seats by the window. Now there is only one type of a wide body plane that only has 2 seats by the window is the A330. I think Boeing should just stop making passenger plane and concentrate on cargo while Airbus continue on making passenger planes.
The 747 Twin is where they should put their money. Maybe a shorter 777 could be useful but a new 767 would tend to cannibalize the 787. I think the key route to success in the next few years is to grow the sectors they have control of and not spend all their time trying to compete. Aviation is growing again and if they do not take the right strategy the Chinese Japanese and other builders will out maneuver them. I think Boeing should also look at a 717 replacement taking on RJ’s but with a regular sized cabin and maybe longer range. Meanwhile Airbus should focus on A350 and A320 series. But that is just my view. Growing the pie with an expanding market is always a better strategy than spending all your time looking for a bigger slice of a smaller pie.
Both Airbus and Boeing have a gap in the 757 and 767 market.
Seems that developing a new plane in that segment, well all segments, is hyper expensive.
So instead of creating a new plane for that segment, they don't, but leave the airlines with the gap they must fill with lower or higher the of the gap in the market.
The costs are for the airlines and in the end the passenger, not for the manufacturers.
Development for clean sheet is 7 to 15 years plus 3 years for certification and or modifications so no Boeing is out.
Just start designing the new replacements for 737 and 757. What other choice do they have? There’s no way to improve the flaws of the 737 that keep happening. Everyone likes the 757 yet Boeing seems paralyzed to bring it back. Once they complete certifications of their 737-7/10 and 777-8/9 and made deliveries. Propose the new 737 with extended range, then the new 757.
Why not make the new plane and call it a 767. Car manufacturers make new car models but use the same names. Boeing only has the 9 left to use in the 7X7 naming scheme so reusing numbers for new aircraft should be fine.
Should stick with the 777 & 787. The 787 is basically a glorified 767. The 777 was the 747 killer. The aircraft airlines are pining for is the 757 replacement.
🥱🥱🥱🥱🥱
it's "unlikely". So what is this story about?
Is Boeing a reality?
There is 787-8 already, which is not selling any more. So there is no market.
Which is why Boeing initially wanted to build the 787-3, though in reality it was nearly 100% new plane and why it was never built. It would have shared a cockpit and pretty much nothing else
No
Boeing is like the US declining fast its no longer compétitive or useful to the industry. Airbus is in a monopoly situation.
Please no more rehashes, invent something new!
Clutching at straws, sadly Boeing is in a mess