Naim 6 Report post Posted March 5, 2006 I'll miss the 767. Been in it many times in the US and trans-Atlantic. .ny +++ Published: Friday, March 3, 2006 End looks near for Boeing 767 The company says hopes for a tanker contract with the Air Force look bleak, and it could decide whether to end the line this year. By Bryan Corliss Herald Writer EVERETT - The Boeing Co. says the odds are getting longer of winning a U.S. Air Force tanker contract before the company runs out of 767s to build. The prospects for the current program have diminished, the company said in an annual report filed with the federal Securities and Exchange Commission. In the report, Boeing said it's "reasonably possible" that it will make a decision on ending 767 production this year. Tanker timeline December 2001 - Congress approves a plan to lease 100 KC-767s for the Air Force. November 2003 - Congress amends the deal to lease 20 and buy 80. Nov. 24, 2003 - President Bush signs the deal; Boeing fires chief financial officer Mike Sears and former Pentagon official Darleen Druyun for improprieties during negotiations. Dec. 1, 2003 - Boeing chief executive Phil Condit quits. May 2004 - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld puts the tanker deal on hold. September 2005 - A competing tanker concept is offered by EADS and Northrop Grumman. January 2006 - A study calls for a new contract competition. February 2006 - Boeing warns that time is running out for the 767 line. In the report, Boeing said it's "reasonably possible" that it will make a decision on ending 767 production this year. "It really depends on what it has always depended on," corporate spokesman Todd Blecher said. "As long as customers want them, we'll build them." The warning to investors was prudent, Teal Group analyst Richard Aboulafia said. "Many companies have taken a hit believing Air Force tanker plans to be firmer than they are." Sales of 767s have dwindled as Boeing works to get its replacement, the 787, off the ground. Executives warned last year that they were near the point of shutting down the Everett assembly line where the planes are built. The key to the future is an order from the U.S. Air Force for military versions of the plane. In 2002, Boeing and the Pentagon negotiated terms on 100 KC-767 aerial refueling tankers, but that deal collapsed amid a procurement scandal that sent two company executives to jail and forced former chief executive Phil Condit to resign. The program seemed ready to fold, but orders from airlines rebounded in 2005. Boeing entered the year with a backlog of 30 767s on the books , enough at recent rates to keep production going until late 2008. On Wednesday, Boeing added to that, announcing that it had taken a firm order for one 767 from an unidentified customer. But Tuesday's SEC filing shows the 767 is still living on borrowed time. "We are continuing to pursue market opportunities for additional 767 sales," Boeing said. Even so, a decision to end production "is still reasonably possible." Aboulafia said there are a couple of factors working against the 767 tanker. As Boeing notes in the regulatory filing, the military has a big shopping list but a limited checkbook. That likely puts the Air Force tankers in competition with C-17 cargo jets - also built by Boeing, in California. The C-17 program also is nearing its end, but it has strong support in Congress, which is likely to provide money for more, Aboulafia said. At the same time, the Air Force is hinting that it would like a bigger jet than the 767, such as Boeing's 777 or Airbus' A330 or A340, for a combined tanker-transport role, Aboulafia said. If that's the case, he said, Boeing's best bet is to lobby the Air Force to order tankers based on the 777 freighter. Finally, Aboulafia said, the 777 tanker is a newer and better plane than the 767. Given all that, "there are many good reasons to give up the ghost, or prepare to give up the ghost" on 767 tankers, he said. Boeing has not set a deadline for making the decision, said Bill Barksdale, a spokesman with the company's military and defense division, in St. Louis. "We're not going to go to them and give them a timeline," he said. "When the Air Force comes down with its requirement, whatever it's for ... we're going to look at the family of platforms we've got ... and we're going to make a business case decision on what we're going to offer." http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/06/03/03/...a1boeing001.cfm Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Azuddin 1 Report post Posted March 5, 2006 the only 767 i've been on is Continental B767-400ER for IAH-LAX flight. it's a very nice flight, very quiet, smooth and clean plane. there's PTV even in Y class Azuddin Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Naim 6 Report post Posted March 5, 2006 (edited) the only 767 i've been on is Continental B767-400ER for IAH-LAX flight. it's a very nice flight, very quiet, smooth and clean plane. there's PTV even in Y class Azuddin They use a lot of 767s for the coast-to-coast flights in the States. One memorable 767 ride I had was TWA from JFK-ARN. .ny Edited March 5, 2006 by naim Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Seth K 3 Report post Posted March 5, 2006 the only 767 i've been on is Continental B767-400ER for IAH-LAX flight. it's a very nice flight, very quiet, smooth and clean plane. there's PTV even in Y class Azuddin All CO 767's have PTV regardless what type................I say 767 has better sit arrangement Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Azuddin 1 Report post Posted March 5, 2006 They use a lot of 767s for the coast-to-coast flights in the States. One memorable 767 ride I had was TWA from JFK-ARN. .ny most of them do. but most other time i flew on 752 or 753 for coast to coast flight. i'm still looking for a way to fly on 762 and 763, as well as 777, never flew on any of these yet. Azuddin Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Naim 6 Report post Posted March 6, 2006 All CO 767's have PTV regardless what type................I say 767 has better sit arrangement It's a comfy plane to ride in as well. Btw I don't like the A330 - shakes a lot esp when weather is bad. Surprisingly A340 is much smoother - is it because of the 4 engines? But I still think the smoothest plane to ride in is the good old DC-10-30. .ny Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Seth K 3 Report post Posted March 6, 2006 (edited) Never flew on DC-10 before, but I know the best ride ever is on upper deck 747.........very quiet(from my point of view btw) and so high yet I can easily access to cockpit(got friendly crew too). I sleep almost 60% of flight too..........787 is coming, hope it will give more comfort, A380, 748, 350 too Z Edited March 6, 2006 by Seth K Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Naim 6 Report post Posted March 6, 2006 Never flew on DC-10 before, but I know the best ride ever is on upper deck 747.........very quiet(from my point of view btw) and so high yet I can easily access to cockpit(got friendly crew too). I sleep almost 60% of flight too..........787 is coming, hope it will give more comfort, A380, 748, 350 too Z Yeah, the 744 upper deck is super! When I was a keparat corporate guy in the 90s, the upper deck was like a second home, but now that I run my own business where I'm very mindful of costs, cattle class is the way to go. I last caught a DC-10 in '04, on NWA for SIN-NRT flight (now they are using A330). Another similar plane I fondly remember of, is the Lockheed Tristar L-1011. Rode it twice - one JED-MED on SV (1988) and another one for KUL-HKG on CX (can't recall which year). DC-10, L-1011, B-767, all classics! .ny Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Azuddin 1 Report post Posted March 6, 2006 It's a comfy plane to ride in as well. Btw I don't like the A330 - shakes a lot esp when weather is bad. Surprisingly A340 is much smoother - is it because of the 4 engines? But I still think the smoothest plane to ride in is the good old DC-10-30. .ny me too, i prefer 767 over A330. i flew on CX A330 last year. it does shook during flight. during rotate, the engine sounds rattling lke chainsaw. my dad start to like flying upper deck. he always flew on upper deck lately, he was on hibiscus upper deck last month. Azuddin Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sim Lim Shen 0 Report post Posted March 6, 2006 My B767 experience has all been US domestic transcon service. Delta twice (SFO - ATL and ATL - LAX), and USAir once (LAX - CLT). All of them were like 10 years ago, so really couldn't recall what it was like. Oh Yes, I almost forgot that I once flew ANZ B763 CHC-SIN. I got a broken seat that could not recline, so I sat straight up for the 12 hour flight. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
H Azmal 0 Report post Posted March 6, 2006 The 767 - my fave. airliner after the DC-10. Too bad the end is nearing - I like it even better than the T7! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flee 5 Report post Posted September 10, 2015 (edited) Reports of the Boeing 767's demise are a little premature! B767 soldiers on as freight and tanker aircraft.... Boeing boosting 767 production in Everett Boeing will increase 767 production in Everett from 18 jets to 30 jets per year in 2017, adding about 150 jobs for assembly mechanics. Full report: http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-increasing-767-production-in-everett/ Edited September 10, 2015 by flee Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
S V Choong 4 Report post Posted September 14, 2015 Reports of the Boeing 767's demise are a little premature! B767 soldiers on as freight and tanker aircraft.... Boeing boosting 767 production in Everett Boeing will increase 767 production in Everett from 18 jets to 30 jets per year in 2017, adding about 150 jobs for assembly mechanics. Full report: http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-increasing-767-production-in-everett/ Why wouldn't they launch the 787 programme as tankers and freighters? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
