Back to Squawk list
  • 28

Boeing unlikely to resume passenger 767 production

Boeing is unlikely to resume production of the passenger version of the 767-300ER, even as airlines look to meet fleet needs until the possible New Mid-market Aircraft (NMA) comes on the market in the next decade. ( Mehr...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Dave Bartell 2
767 and 777 body two aisle configurations are good for passengers. 757 is aweful (as are bigger 737/A3xx) in any form as a single aisle is comfortable only on the shortest runs. (okay, it's not comfortable even then).

But, the older (10+) year planes are uncomfortable compared the newer technologies (noise and airpressure). I just flew over Pacific in a 777 compared to 787 last month. Loud and headache producing in 777 Used to love that plane, but last I stepped out of a 787/A380 ended that affair. You may not love the form factors, but the physical experience is light years better on the new planes.

Don't bring back 30 year old tech because in a few years it will feel like flying on 747 does now. (Conjur up working a jack-hammer all day.)
shrudini 2
So sad. Great airplane.
Michael Osmers 1
I imagine 767's and 757's with modern engines. Pipe dream, I know. I cannot believe the 737-900 travesty could hold a candle to a re-engined '57 and a re-engined '67 likely would give the 787 a run for it's money, especially considering the price differential between new and used.
Similar to A350 vs A330neo.
Al Di Jorio 1
Can't be done, to maintain a decent econ cruise altitude all four engines are require.
Rob Palmer 0
Same thing with the A-380. Don't throw them away. Flying slower with more efficient engines or going to two larger engines (ETOPS) can give bargain rates overseas. It still beats the Hindenberg, rowing or swimming. Here's an idea: turn off the outer two (1 and 4) when up to altitude and cruise with two (or have the outer run slower with lower fuel consumption).
Michael Osmers 1
Regarding your ideas, changing the configuration to two engines would require a new type rating... and all engines are required at altitude. Even shutting one down necessities descent to a lower and less efficient altitude. It worked for the P3 because they were already just above the sea.
paul gilpin 1
boeing bought aurora a couple months ago. not to obtain their technology, but to supress it. that would mean a total overhaul of all existing manufacturing and servicing (airport) infrastructure. not gonna happen.
this tinseth guy is not playing it straight. he is in a word lying.
now if he said, "that our most important goal at boeing is to make a boatload of money for our investor class, and as soon as the legal department completes the designs of the new aircraft, we will tell you what to print", i would have believed him.
Jamal Turner 0
Didn't the 787 replace the 767 but hey it don't matter tho I like all Boeing jets Airbus is trash I still enjoy flying the 737 and as of today I can say I still haven't flown on a 747 777 or the 787 minus the 727 and 707


Haben Sie kein Konto? Jetzt (kostenlos) registrieren für kundenspezifische Funktionen, Flugbenachrichtigungen und vieles mehr!
Diese Website verwendet Cookies. Mit der Weiternutzung der Website drücken Sie Ihr Einverständnis mit dem Einsatz von Cookies aus.
Wussten Sie schon, dass die Flugverfolgung auf FlightAware durch Werbung finanziert wird?
Sie können uns dabei helfen, FlightAware weiterhin kostenlos anzubieten, indem Sie Werbung auf zulassen. Wir engagieren uns dafür, dass unsere Werbung auch in Zukunft zweckmäßig und unaufdringlich ist und Sie beim Surfen nicht stört. Das Erstellen einer Positivliste für Anzeigen auf FlightAware geht schnell und unkompliziert. Alternativ können Sie sich auch für eines unserer Premium-Benutzerkonten entscheiden..