My favorite long haul aircraft. The 2-3-2 seating is much better than the 3-3-3 or 2-4-2 of other wide body planes. The absolute worst was the DC10 2-5-2.
Ive flown a 3-3-3 A330 once, I was a skinny 9yr old back then so didnt feel tight then but I can imagine as an adult it would have been a nightmare. Though strangest seating configuration has to be the 3-4-2 that some MD-11s used to have, never got to fly one but have seen pictures inside + seating maps.
2-5-2 is better than 3-3-3 because in 2-5-2 only 1 passengers is 2 seats away from the isle, so boarding is faster and fewer people need to get up on average to let people out.
One other consideration that was not mentioned is cargo capacity. A widebody offers the extra revenue of being able to handle larger volumes of cargo to supplement passenger revenue. A narrowbody does not offer as good an option because cargo has to be bulk loaded, as opposed to containerized, and has lower limits on the amount, both weight and bulk, and size of cargo carried. Any increase of per seat mile cost can easily be compensated for with cargo revenue when say comparing an A-321XLR with a B-787-8.
@@rsearch932 Only if they are ordered in that configuration from Airbus. United, American and Delta didn't go with that option. The only North American carrier I have seen configured to use the LD3-45 is Air Canada that only has a 3 cubic meter capacity per container. Everybody else uses bulk loaded versions.
@@JohnMckeown-dl2cl I was just referring to the argument that single aisle aircraft cannot carry containers which is not correct. Obviously the busses can. That an airline opted differently is a business decision. There are good reasons for not choosing the LD3 loading system because it adds complexity to the operation and weight to the aircraft. I suppose that especially some of the smaller regional airports in the US lack the equipment of handling containers which may be a further reason why US carriers did not order it. But it is required for the installation of additional LD3 fuel tanks.
You mean because of the airport gate size? The 767 is category 4/d, which no newer widebody fits into. So you either have to replace it with the A321 or get a size e gate for the flight. But there are so few type 4 gates at the airports that it doesn't make much of a difference.
@@brunorocha9541Most international airports have a runway length of between 3500 meters to 4500 meters. This is more than enough for all wide body aircrafts including the 767s.
@@Psi-StormCertain airport will lose a handful of gates when they go from group 4 to group 5. Delta will lose 4 gates at JFK and as many as 10 at ATL. I think Delta goes all-in on the 330-900, adds depth to the international routes, and opts for premium seating configuration (~288) for international routes. The A339 is 19% more fuel efficient per seat mile than the 767-300ER, so if fuel prices go back up, or hours get too high on these 26 year old airframes, that is where my money is on.
@ “better replacement”. It is not better nor a replacement; it has no where near the capabilities of a 757. Glad to see your brakes are just as hot as your head which you’ve clearly injured from all the bumps you’ve endured cruising low and slow. Offering less capabilities is an alternative, not a replacement. If it cannot do what the other can do, it’s not replacing anything.
@@imapilot4 Again, READING comprehension. It’s the “better replacement”, did not say the best. Meaning out of all the AVAILABLE options to replace the 757 in today’s market, that’s the most viable. Hence airlines like Iceland Air, United, and La Compagnie doing exactly that. Let me know if you’d like me to break it down further to elementary school level. Cheers.
IIRC, there was supposed to be a 787-3 variant for this role specifically. Boeing ultimately cancelled the shorter variant due to difficulties in bringing the 787 program in the air. There was supposed demand for the type with Japan Airlines having a firm order of 43 units. It was limited to the same range as the 767-300 but it could easily reach the 767-300ER range with an increase in MTOW.
That is not true. They found that the fuel burn ended up being worse than the standard B787-8. And the lack of range caused problems with flexibility even for ANA and JAL. Adjusting the range to 6,000 nmi from 7,300 nmi makes no sense at all. They would just ended up limiting the plane flexibility without providing much saving on fuel burn.
The analysis is flawed because it's based on exit limits. The A330-800's exit limit is based on 9 abreast seating which is going to be very rare. On the basis on the most common configurations being 9 abreast on the 787 and 8 abreast on the A330, the A330-800 is clearly the closest replacement.
@ well as a passenger I’d rather then keep the 767s only 1 middle seat. But wide bodies are superior then narrow bodies if they had to replace them with these options
For passenger comfort in economy, nothing beats the 767 in its category. I still look forward to flying on it, and in 2024 I was aboard for EWR-Heathrow and EWR-Naples Italy. The A-330 probably comes closest as a replacement. Two of Boeing’s best models - 757, 767 - were ended in favor of the indefensible 737.
The A-330 has already replaced the 767, with the A330-800 NEO being the final nail in the coffin. And that's not even taking into account the A330's replacement option - 787 and A350.
That make no sense, B757 have the same exact cabin diameter as B737. If you hate B737, you must hate how small the cabin inside B757 too. They are exactly the same.
@@nntflow7058 Have you forgotten the landing gear? The one mechanism that has caused countless problems for both the NG and the Max. It is your comment that makes no sense.
@@wotan10950 I forgotten how the landing gear have anything to do with the comfort of passengers inside of a cabin for 2 different aicraft who have the same exact fuselage diameter.
the replacements would depend mainly on what routes the 767 is currently deployed. 1) short routes, if the A321XLR could be used, I'd try to increase the number of flights to those destinations per day with it, which would give more options to clients. 2) longer routes, probably the A330-800, unless I already had 787s in my fleet, then the -8 (or maybe Boeing could be persuaded to build a -7)
Many airlines in Asia and Europe that used to have B767-300ER in their fleet use combinations of A321 and A330 to replace B767-300ER. Since they don't actually need most of the range, they could get away with it. The Americans have harder times since they actually need the range to cross the Atlantic and even the Pacific.
There's no direct replacement for 767 because it wouldn't make sense - it's too small for increased number of seats to offset increased fuel burn inherit to wide-bodies. Current market reflects that - for ultra thin routes there's A321XLR, for mid-tier connections there's super efficient 787. At the time 767 was built there were no such options, so it sold reasonably well, but in the current world there's no point in aircraft of this size. Maybe 757 will get a new version some day, but I highly doubt 767 ever will.
Exactly! It is very telling that the shortest versions of the smaller wide bodies don't sell. There's no direct replacement for the 767 because no airline would buy it.
@@jest0riz0r But that's because they are overall designed for greater range and capacity, making the "smaller" version not so competitive. The 763 in comparison was a stretch, so it had better design efficiency. And there would have been a direct replacement, the 797 that was cancelled in favour of the MAX. It was supposed to have 2-3-2 seating, but with a different cabin cross-section.
757 is effectively being replaced by the MAX 10 or A321XLR. Both of those have similar maxpax and range characteristics to the 757-200 but without the runway performance. Seems like quite a few airlines treat the 787 as a weirdly big 767.
It's not always about finding a like-for-like replacement. The 767 did not replace any aircraft of equivalent size when it was introduced, instead airlines adapted their route networks to the aircraft's capabilities. No doubt this is happening nowadays as the 767 is phased out, airlines will cut routes that are not viable with larger aircraft or increase frequencies with smaller aircraft. Qantas wouldn't be doing London to Perth if it wasn't for the economics and range benefits of purchasing the 787 for example.
In 4 days I am flying with Air Astana Tashkent-Almaty-Astana-Seoul. I just found out, they have changed plane type, from A320/321 to B767 And I have newer been on a 767 before. Air Astana have the last 3, 767 pax planes ever buildt. I am realy happy.
There is no replacement for 757,767. Irreplaceable, I worked during the construction of the first 60 B-767and 10 B-757 during introduction. You forgot to mention the B-767 is the latest tanker being built for the US Air Force. B-767 n 757 was the last airplanes designed by engineers instead of bean counters Wall Street funds managers who are in charge now of Boeing.
The last time I flew on a 767 was in 2007 and, if I remember correctly, it had a 2-4-2 configuration in economy. I didn't know enough about planes at the time to notice much other details about the layout. It'd depend on the cost but, if I was in charge of an airline, I'd try to replace the 767 with a wide body and try to fill the extra seats.
Some UK charter airlines operated with 2-4-2 config. I flew to Australia with Airtours International (renamed MyTravel Airways and then Thomas Cook Airlines) in 2000 and it was 2-4-2. I also flew with Britannia Airways (now TUI Airways) and they also operated in this config.
The 787 dream liner is the best replacement for the 767 series, but seems to be getting no traction. If it's a fuel consumption issue, trade out more economical engines.
Still can't believe why Boeing closed down the passenger version production line when their 737MAX10 and mid-sized plane aren't ready yet. Completely feasible to reopen the production line of 767 passenger version when the cargo and military versions are still under production
I always thought a good way to get rid of the aging 767s was, possibly, replace half of them with A321 XLRs (similar long range, but smaller and use less fuel: put these on routes that don’t always fill the 767s) and 787s or A330 NEOs for the busier routes that tend to fill the 767s. (Or in the case of Delta/United, maybe they could replace 767-400s too.)
They will but in the looong run, their first venture on building bigger planes is the KC390 Millennium that are being purchased or considered by some air forces so let’s see what happens
I personally don’t think we will be alive when Embraer makes a wide body. Their first push into larger aircraft (the Embraer 195E2) isn’t doing as hotly as they thought it would. Right now their next big project takes them from the 19-50 seater market (Energia and the Next Gen Turboprop that was folded into Energia) their next jet project on their timeline is an H2 Emb 195 E2 and that’s set for 2040-2050. I don’t see them going into the widebody market in my lifetime (and I am young) short of Airbus or Boeing disappearing
It’s so weird that no major aircraft company including ones from China and Russia was developing a middle-of-the-market segment of their own. The hub and spoke model was already on its decline for decades now, and airlines would have to make do with either flying widebodies half empty or extremely full narrowbody (in particular the A321LR and 757) for point to point routes. Side note, I was kinda secretly hoping COMAC would develop something akin to the A300/A310, but even their smallest widebody would be nearly identical in dimensions to the 787-8.
Because most Asian airports have tons of slots available for airlines to use. So instead of using 2 A300 for a route. They use 3 A321 instead. Passengers prefers more options. For long-haul flights, in order to push the ticket price down, they need larger widebody to transport more people. Smaller widebody like A310, A300 or B767-300ER makes no sense for them anymore. Many South American cities are too far from continental Europe or Western US. So they need more range, B767-300ER only have maximum range of 6,000nmi in a good weather. A small headwind would push the range to around ~5,000 nmi, but with full flight, the range then dropped to ~4,000 nmi, not enough for many routes to Europe and west coast US.
Considering COMAC needed a lot of western help to get the c919 airborne and the current political environment I don't see any new airplanes coming out of China anytime in the foreseeable future. Also... would you really want to be on a Chinese made aircraft? Look at the quality of most of the stuff they make and think long and hard about your decision.
@@flyguy6296If you are ok stepping foot on american jets with their dodgy production standards, then this is just bias and a bit of jealousy. Sure the C919 isn't any more efficient than the 737ng and a320ceo , but it is pretty safe, with no incidents as of yet.
I have to agree on your thoughts. As if quadjets and rear mounted jets are no longer produced for regular passenger airliner (due to poor fuel efficiency and more prone to stall respectively), Middle-of-the-Market widebody airliner (A300/A310/767) also seemed that no maker wants to make those. It's either true narrowbody like A321xlr/737max or 787/A350 with size closer to 747s. No inbetweens or variety. I also wished that Comac's C929 should've been the A300/A310/767 size, whereas C939 should be 787/A330 size and the following sequence for larger. Although haven't flown on ARJ21/C909 or C919, i guess there's no major issue hits the news yet (compared to their usual others).
@@eirfanhazlan9271 The Chinese realizes that there is currently not muc market for MoM aircraft no more. It's not as flexible as A321XLR in terms of capacity and range. And it's not as efficient and profitable as B787-8. It seems like those 2 planes hit the sweet spot for today's market. It probably changes in the future, just like it did before.
If I had a Boeing 767-300 fleet that needs to be replaced soon, probably I'll choose the Boeing 787-8 (and/or the -9). Change to Airbus would be expensive.
757 and 767 (as well as DC-10/MD-11, A300/A310, L-1011 and Il-86) were Group IV airlines (wingspan up to 52m). Obviously they go extinct with no Group IV passenger planes in production. Obviously Group IV (Code D in Euro?) stands/gates cannot fit a Group V (up to 65m wide) plane, and runways and taxiways also need to be compatible with Group V. Fortunately, most large airports which were designed for Group IV got upgraded for Group V, and smaller airports only accommodate Group III (36m, like 737/A321) anyway. So in practice the industry standardized on Group III narrowbodies and Group V widebodies, with Groups IV and VI out of production (777X will technically be Group VI but with folding wings and only 2 engines will fit into Group V airports).
@@PaulVerhoeven2 The order books for the A320 line are filled to the brim. So the next few years it makes more sense to increase production of the 320/321 variants and try to sell A330s on top.
@@Psi-Storm If they would expand production of A320neo they would sell more simply because of availability, especially if they would do it 10 years ago when the capital was cheap (interest rates were low). But... they need to think about the future anyway and not just keep thousands of engineers idling and not designing anything. A322ULR would be such a low-hanging fruit and further cement their leadership in narrowbodies while Boeing is being throttled by FAA and their own DEI policies which gutted it of good talent.
There is currently no replacement for the 763. The A330-800 and B787-8 have considerably more passenger and cargo capacity and the A321 has considerably less. If Boeing wants to rebuild its business and reputation then a good place to start would be to design a 763 replacement that is between the A321 and 338/788 in size and range. An aircraft with a range of 5500-6000 nm and a capacity of 220-250 in mixed class configuration would sell very well.
Austrian (OS) should have been mentioned in this video operating three Boeing 767-300ER aircraft, all on north american routes on a daily basis, eventually replacing those as well as the 777-200ER universally with the Boeing 787-9.
The 787-8 seems like the most logical choice. It allows Delta to keep its pilots within the same manufacturer ecosystem while capitalizing on unmatched fuel efficiency. It’s evident that Delta is avoiding the A321XLR for now, likely holding out for Boeing’s eventual 757 replacement. However, they might ultimately decide to bite the bullet if demand pressures necessitate a short-term solution.
The 767 was built and designed in the 1980s the 787 was built and designed in the mid to late 2000s. That's a 20 year gap some sub systems may be similar but overall the two planes are far apart in terms of commonality.
Of course Delta’s Boeing pilot pool will need some readjusting if they choose the 787 as the 767 replacement, but with the current pilot shortage I think it’s a minor issue
Boeing could have refreshed both the 757 and 767. New engines new avionics and a cabin uplift. This was just a poor management call due to low orders at the time.
If I were in charge, I would have to do a mix based on the routes and demand of the routes. Unless one company gave me a hell of a deal vs the other. The 787-8 has some advantages as does the A330 as replacements. 787 being preferred from these two options. I would love to see Boeing return some sort of Next Gen 767. Come on Boeing fill this gap. Sadly, I know they won't. This could give the company a boost it really needs right now. Such a great aircraft.
Maybe a group of airlines could get together and approach Boeing about restarting passenger 767 production before the freighter line shuts down. It shouldn't be too difficult to develop a 767 NEO, but even another production run of the unmodified, current plane would be better than either losing revenue with a narrowbody or wasting fuel hauling empty seats.
The problem with middle of the market wide bodies is the amount of fresh air they carry. Wide bodies have two aisles so have two aisles worth of fresh air to carry and a higher over head space. Narrow bodies only have one aisle of fresh air and lower head space and are far more efficient over medium distances. The A321xlr will be the game changer in the near future
I would not fase out these jets for another 5 years minimal. I'd probably buy B787-8 over the years for extra capacity and at the end as a replacement for the 767-300ER, as this is the closest competitor in my eye's. The reason that i would keep the 767-jets longer is that i want to wait for the design of the 797, since there are changes it can be a good replacement for the 767.
I would have preferred a development and modernization program on the B757 instead of the prehistoric B737. The more recent 757 might have been better suited to transformations, and it's a very nicely designed aircraft.
This is not how airlines compare aircraft. For example the 787 flying the same distance with more seats uses less fuel. Thusly a 787 loaded to 767 capacity is cheaper to operate than the 767. If they can attain a load higher than the 767 seating that's a huge profit. Bottom line it's fuel use and range that matters not seating capacity.
I wonder what the cost per flight hour is for a 787-8 or A330-800neo is compared to the 767-300. If it's comparable or cheaper, the extra seating and extra cargo capacity would just represent extra earning potential, essentially for free (minus the cost of the new airframe), wouldn't it? Going for smaller and shorter-ranged aircraft would be much more limiting IMO unless you were planning on switching up your route schedule to match, which might be tricky at slot-constrained airports
The 763/764 is the smallest and narrowest widebody. Weird niche. The 788 is too fat, the A338 too long. As far as I see, the non-ER versions would be replaced by more frequently flown long-range A321s; ERs would be replaced with typical widebodies. I don't know if there's much room for a 7-seat-row widebody in an expanding travel market where routes are getting thicker - but if there was, I'd like to see one and fly on one.
Aircraft slots at airports are precious. Won't be getting smaller narrow-bodies to replace the B767-300ERs. Will instead get either of the wide-bodies (i.e. B787-8, A330neo-800). If 2 flights of the new wide-bodies can make up for 3 flights of the B767-300ER, I'll use the extra slot to fly to a new destination. The choice between the B787-8 and the A330neo-800 comes down to what one operates in the rest of the fleet of the wide-bodies. If one has mainly Boeings (777s and 787s), the B787-8 is the obvious choice. Whereas if one's fleet is mainly Airbus wide-bodies (A330s, A350s, A380s), then the A330neo-800 is the choice.
The advantage of the 767 is that they don't need a type 5 gate. So you either replace it with a narrowbody plane or you have to use a "precious" wide body gate.
@qv6486 That's why Delta went with the A330neo-900s instead of the 800s to replace their B767s. Upsizing for more passenger and cargo capacity as well as better fuel efficiency and reduced noise pollution. The purpose of the 800s is for those needing the extra range at the cost of some seats.
@@siongheeleong8078 if airbus were to offer a330 neo for the freighter market you are more likely to see -800 airframes. More weight for volume given the same range. Also a factory built freighter variant carries less fuel in exchangevfor payload(revenue).
What doesn't make sense to me is Boeing still has the 767 line running making freighters. Why don't they re-tool and MAX out the 767 for better engines and a better wing for the time being?
Japan airlines is replacing domestic 767-300 with a combination of A321 and a359 whilst their regional routes are normally replaced with 789 and 359 I believe
I am Not an expert on this subject but Love flying!! What about the Boeing 777 series or the Airbus A350 series as a replacement to the 767. And you might add and needing to replace the 757 as well.
The 300ER is Best aircraft I ever flew. Did everything exceptionally well. You left out the amount of belly freight it could carry. The narrow bodies are annoying on long haul flights.
I support Boeing's decision to build a new aircraft based on new technology, otherwise they could still build a 787-3. Airbus will not have anything suitable for a replacement, but they probably will when they also build an all-new aircraft in the future.
Isn’t it interesting how two Boeing aircraft developed at the same time (767 and 757) never has a real true replacement they need to focus on dominant in this segment too
The perfect replacement for the B767-300 (270 seats) would be the Comac C929 (280 seats) of course if we could do business with China. Only China seems to notice the gap between the B737 and B787, that is exactly the same gap as between the A320 and the A330.
Believe me, others have noticed but don't have the capital to take advantage of it. Just like Bombardier with the A220, Embraer and others know there is a spot and want to fill it, but just don't have the time, power, or money to do it. If I were to bet on anyone, it would be Airbus, but that's still a minimum of 3 years out. Either a specialty version of the A350 or A330 if we consider WB, or even a potential modded A220XL. But from China or Russia, doubt it. And potential other makers? well... we are looking 15-20 years unless someone has a Thanos Glove.
Fuel burn, landing weight, etc. (= Operating cost) are issues not mentioned. More people are flying, just as narrow body aircraft have been getting larger it is possible that a mid-market aircraft is not needed? The A330neo and 787 newer engine types (RR 1000/7000 & GEnx) have similar fuel burn or less than older CF6, PW4000 (767, A330) when based on cost per seat mile. I love the 767 and there will not be many aircraft to fly as long as 767 fleet. They are still making them, 43 yeas in production!!!
There are some key information that would help giving us the bigger picture. So what is the difference in the maintenance cost of each of the mentioned aircrafts? Each of these planes can operate in approximately how many airports?
I'd hold onto my 767's and 757's until a suitable and reliable replacement can be made. It's clear that's where a good chunk of the market is, and there's still a plethora of parts out there, especially as the 767 is still in production if only being produced as freighter.
So we compare Exit door limits, not std. cabin layout? Really not a comparable choice.. A330-800 can be equipped with 3-3-3 to immensly boost the seating capacity, however even lower cost charter based airlines as the upper mentioned Condor use the Std. 2-4-2 layout in their A330 neos. Std. seating for A330-200 (same fuselage as 330-800, but more common --> better use for comparison) is ~230-250 seats, pretty compareable to the 767-300 if you ask me. I don't understand the comparison used in the video.
What it sounds like is that Boeing built the 787 too close in size and range to the 777 and too expensive to replace the 767. Maybe the airlines should have come to Boeing sorted that out from the get go.
Boeing should have re-engined the 767 and beat the competition on both price (initial investment fully amortized) and passenger capacity. In hindsight, not the best decision, though they knew they would be leaving a market segment without a replacement.
Maybe this is the perfect timing to bring the A330-800 to life? I mean it is a little more expensive (new price), about 40 million dollars more, but operating costs are less. Range is better and capacity is basically the same!
It’s probably best to replace them with A321XLRs as it offers more flexibility where slots are not concerned. That last point can be resolved by flying to nearby secondary airports. A great cast study is Los Angeles. While everyone is pressed for slots at LAX, many people would rather fly from BUR, SNA, ONT, and/or LGB. Even SBD is getting some flights served by Breeze. These airports are much easier to access for the populace and come with much less crowding. In fact, China Airlines operates I think an A350 ONT>TPE to complement their LAX>TPE service on the 777. Ignoring parking fees (I can get free parking near LAX), I’d much rather fly out of ONT any day than LAX, despite LAX being 10-20 miles closer, though usually 30 minutes longer to get to. I see it more effective to do a flight out of LAX and one out of ONT on A321s to, for example, HNL than one 787 flight LAX>HNL. But of course if you’d want to fly further to NRT in Japan or SUV in Fiji you’ll need that extra range. Seemingly the A321XLR would slot in well for an ONT>PPT (French Polynesia) flight.
If the 767 order book had been full Boeing wouldn't have stopped building them. A few airlines may have been interested but by and large no one was placing orders. Same for the 757 though I hope an updated engine option might bring that one back - such a nice airplane. The STOL version of an airliner but unfortunately that means high fuel burn which no one wants. And holy moly Boeing please properly update the 737 with modern automation. Preferably while firing half of management and moving HQ back to Washington.
Using maximum passenger capacity as a metric for comparing aircraft size is not a good idea because the ratio of exits to usable area between the 767 and 787 is different. You need to compare them based on industry average seating configurations. I understand this was to make an “apples to apples” comparison, but it isn’t pragmatic.
It's also pointless because mainline carriers like Delta and United don't use the maximum capacity passenger numbers anyway, United 767-300ERs are configured as 214 or 167, Delta has 226, 211 or 208
At an American carrier, I think the A321NEOs would be the best replacement for domestic routes (also filling in for the 757-200) while the 787-8 would be best for highest demand routes & int'l ones. The A321NEOs do have an additional 2 class seating of 10 more while also having different range options as compared to the MAX 10. The 788 would also be closer in fleet commonality with the large 767 presence already in America with engine types and also retaining the control column & EICAS, not ECAM.
Technically, Delta still flies the 767, so it’s not an all Airbus wide body fleet yet. As far as I know, they still have the 737 MAX 10 on order. Is that still the case? They originally ordered 100 of the type. On another note, I don’t know why they retired their 777s. Personally, I would go with the 787-8 to replace the 767-300 and the ER version.
Retired the 777's due to age and fuel burn. Current Delta operations and planning is not Delta from 2007. Man I miss those 747's but seriously they were old. I am so glad they went with mostly A350 fleet, and a super smart move snatching up those Aeromexico A350's when they did during the pandemic. It's a shame Boeing is the giant cluster they are now. They had an excellent chance to dominate the market had they let engineering do its thing rather than let their accountants strangle the S%!t out of the company. Regarding the 737MAX orders. I hear nothing on that, but it's a wait and see game. Delta still has plenty of 737NG's so I'm sure the plan was to Naively trust in Boeing and just "drop in" the Max's in place of the NG's What concerns me more is that Delta has shredded its domestic route network for smaller cities and airports. What used to be 15mins - 60mins drive, has now turned into 1.5-3 hour drives for customers and this isn't helping. Sure I get that those smaller routes may have not been profitable, especially during the pandemic, but they were feeders to the larger network increasing over-all profitability. But..... C'est la vie. Les ne pas de recompense avec les bonbons.
I still think Delta’s domestic network is pretty good, isn’t? I just wish they flew to more places from LAX, and if they would have another hub in the middle of the country that wasn’t so far north. Good point about the 777, but I still think they could have put them to good use. I still prefer Boeing planes; but it’s certainly not the same company as it was when Joe Sutter designed the 747.
@@maxschwartz1365 Delta is fine if your destination is a major city. But smaller cities all got slashed and never returned after covid. Makes travel hell for visiting some of these locations for industrial customers. I personally used to prefer boeing but the A220 and A350 are lightyears better for customer cabin comfort. The only winner is in the Boeing lineup is the 787 and it's nothing special really.
@@maxschwartz1365 don't worry delta is quickly expanding LAX, but for some things it will take years. That said they do have the SEA and SLC hubs growing too. but yea I get it. I'm super lucky as DTW is my hub and was a core NWA/DL hub for years. Sad to see the decline on my end but c'est la vie. hopefully these smaller domestic routes return as further improvements happen.
@@shmuck66 Delta has a large network, but it does seem to be a lot of hub and spoke. I’m glad they have increased service at LAX. I prefer the 737 to the A321. I hope I get to ride on a DL 767 before they’re retired. DTW is great because it’s basically one long terminal, and the tram is inside. An added bonus is they know how to deal with weather. You couldn’t pay me to go through ORD in the winter, but I would gladly go through DTW.
In my general opinion, the Boeing 767 300/300ER is so succesful and reliable that hardly anything can replace it. The Dreamliner has a few issues e.g. Friday 8th June 2021 G ZBJB a 787 8 that its nose landing gear had collapsed at Heathrow while the 767 never had those problems before British Airways retired them. Another accident involving the Dreamliner is that an American Airlines 787 8 N812AA's door was ripped off due to a gate bridge collapse at Dublin, Ireland on the 9th July 2023. American Airlines 767 300ER's had no accidents like that when they were in service, it was a foolish decision for American Airlines to retire their 767 300ER's because they were great, succesful, lovable, reliable and are great, great freighters. The A330 800 is optional but is unpopular. In fact since the Boeing 767 300ER is so succesful and well loved, Air Canada has brought back 2 of them from storage. 2 because they're the only Air Canada 767 300ER's that aren't scrapped or derelict. Delta and United both plan to retire their 767 300ER's but its a foolish decision to do so by 2030 because Delta and United hardly had any accidents when they were in service. I'm so happy that 767 300ER's are still being produced for freightliners e.g. Amazon Prime Air, UPS Parcel Service. So I believe that the 767 300ER is so succesful, relaible and popular that its irreplacable to all airlines especially Delta & United.
You forgot the Airbus 350-800: The 60.45 m (198.3 ft)-long A350-800 was designed to seat 276 passengers in a typical three-class configuration with a range of 8,245 nmi (15,270 km; 9,488 mi) with an MTOW of 259 t (571,000 lb). The type was cancelled by Airbus, as not enough airlines wanted the smallest of the Airbus 350 at the time, but that might have changed and Airbus can still start production of it.
All the small wide body variants aren't selling because the airlines aren't looking for direct 767 replacements. The medium long routes can be covered with the a321xlr and the long routes will get more efficient longer wide bodies.
Neither Boeing nor Airbus has a true replacement for the Boeing 767-300/300ER. The proposed Boeing 787-3 would have been the closest airplane to replace the 767-300/300ER. Neither Boeing nor Airbus has a true middle of the market airplane to replace the B767-300/300ER.
It would be a better comparison if you used passenger economics. While the 787 and 330 may be bigger, if it’s the same operating costs as a 767 (minus purchase cost) it may be a worthwhile investment as you get more passengers for the same price. Most airlines seem to be holding on to 767s because theyre either close to being paid off so it’s just operating costs versus purchase payments. Same thing 757 operators (ie Delta) make when keeping them flying.
The 787-8 with 9 across seating is a closer fit to the 767 which has only 7 across seating. While the A330-8 with 8 across seating is less of a fit? It seems to me that 8 is closer to 7 than 9. But evidently the length differential closes the deal in the 787's favor? Too bad Boeing screwed up on the safety design of the 737 Max and delays with the 777X, otherwise we'd have the perfect replacement for the 2-3-2 767 with the much more efficient 2-3-2 797 in the works.
theoretically a 7107 could my hypothesis for boeings new airplanes 797 replaces 757 and 737 7107(icao thingy is 7x1 7x2 blah blah) replaces 787 and 777 then a regional jet called 808,entering a new market,and replacing 717
Delta would get a hell of a deal on 50 A330-800s
Yep but the A338 is 40t heavier than the 76 and it can’t fit ICAO cat D gates.
exactly ! Airbus has much better options
Derated engines and lower MTOW probably.
@@RVNspotting Where is Delta flying with 763s that only has Cat D gates?
@@nntflow7058 A338 MTOW is 251,000kg while the 767-300 is 186,880kg.
My favorite long haul aircraft. The 2-3-2 seating is much better than the 3-3-3 or 2-4-2 of other wide body planes. The absolute worst was the DC10 2-5-2.
2-5-2? That's gross, why not make it 3-3-3?
Apparently you have never been on A United 777 with 3-4-3.
AA used to have a 2-5-2 layout on their B772's
Ive flown a 3-3-3 A330 once, I was a skinny 9yr old back then so didnt feel tight then but I can imagine as an adult it would have been a nightmare.
Though strangest seating configuration has to be the 3-4-2 that some MD-11s used to have, never got to fly one but have seen pictures inside + seating maps.
2-5-2 is better than 3-3-3 because in 2-5-2 only 1 passengers is 2 seats away from the isle, so boarding is faster and fewer people need to get up on average to let people out.
One other consideration that was not mentioned is cargo capacity. A widebody offers the extra revenue of being able to handle larger volumes of cargo to supplement passenger revenue. A narrowbody does not offer as good an option because cargo has to be bulk loaded, as opposed to containerized, and has lower limits on the amount, both weight and bulk, and size of cargo carried. Any increase of per seat mile cost can easily be compensated for with cargo revenue when say comparing an A-321XLR with a B-787-8.
A320 and 321 can carry containers on the lower deck.
@@rsearch932 Only if they are ordered in that configuration from Airbus. United, American and Delta didn't go with that option. The only North American carrier I have seen configured to use the LD3-45 is Air Canada that only has a 3 cubic meter capacity per container. Everybody else uses bulk loaded versions.
@@JohnMckeown-dl2cl I was just referring to the argument that single aisle aircraft cannot carry containers which is not correct. Obviously the busses can. That an airline opted differently is a business decision. There are good reasons for not choosing the LD3 loading system because it adds complexity to the operation and weight to the aircraft. I suppose that especially some of the smaller regional airports in the US lack the equipment of handling containers which may be a further reason why US carriers did not order it. But it is required for the installation of additional LD3 fuel tanks.
It would be nice if you mentioned airport operation limitations. The A330s and 787s cannot operate on some airports that the 767s can operate.
You mean because of the airport gate size? The 767 is category 4/d, which no newer widebody fits into. So you either have to replace it with the A321 or get a size e gate for the flight. But there are so few type 4 gates at the airports that it doesn't make much of a difference.
@ no. I mean runway length
@@brunorocha9541Most international airports have a runway length of between 3500 meters to 4500 meters. This is more than enough for all wide body aircrafts including the 767s.
@@Psi-StormCertain airport will lose a handful of gates when they go from group 4 to group 5. Delta will lose 4 gates at JFK and as many as 10 at ATL. I think Delta goes all-in on the 330-900, adds depth to the international routes, and opts for premium seating configuration (~288) for international routes.
The A339 is 19% more fuel efficient per seat mile than the 767-300ER, so if fuel prices go back up, or hours get too high on these 26 year old airframes, that is where my money is on.
What metric are you refering to? the A330-800 has reasonable take off distances for short fields.
787-8 is the true replacement for the 767. Meanwhile A321N is a better replacement for the 757.
There is nothing better about an A321 compared to a 757.
@ This is why reading comprehension is important. No one said A321N is better than 757…
@ “better replacement”.
It is not better nor a replacement; it has no where near the capabilities of a 757. Glad to see your brakes are just as hot as your head which you’ve clearly injured from all the bumps you’ve endured cruising low and slow.
Offering less capabilities is an alternative, not a replacement.
If it cannot do what the other can do, it’s not replacing anything.
@@imapilot4 Again, READING comprehension. It’s the “better replacement”, did not say the best. Meaning out of all the AVAILABLE options to replace the 757 in today’s market, that’s the most viable. Hence airlines like Iceland Air, United, and La Compagnie doing exactly that.
Let me know if you’d like me to break it down further to elementary school level. Cheers.
@@CactusBravo42 clearly you are what the airplane calls you in the flare.
IIRC, there was supposed to be a 787-3 variant for this role specifically. Boeing ultimately cancelled the shorter variant due to difficulties in bringing the 787 program in the air. There was supposed demand for the type with Japan Airlines having a firm order of 43 units. It was limited to the same range as the 767-300 but it could easily reach the 767-300ER range with an increase in MTOW.
That is not true. They found that the fuel burn ended up being worse than the standard B787-8.
And the lack of range caused problems with flexibility even for ANA and JAL.
Adjusting the range to 6,000 nmi from 7,300 nmi makes no sense at all. They would just ended up limiting the plane flexibility without providing much saving on fuel burn.
The analysis is flawed because it's based on exit limits. The A330-800's exit limit is based on 9 abreast seating which is going to be very rare. On the basis on the most common configurations being 9 abreast on the 787 and 8 abreast on the A330, the A330-800 is clearly the closest replacement.
If I was in charge of an airline, I would replace all 767’s with either 787 or A330 but that’s my opinion so don’t hate
Smart move. Adding A321XLR would just erase the need for B767.
@@nntflow7058the A321XLR would replace the 757 not 767
That’s why your not in charge of an airline 😂
@bitcoin-investment As passenger POV, I agree with him. As airline CEO I don't.
But this is not airline CEOs forum 🤣
@ well as a passenger I’d rather then keep the 767s only 1 middle seat. But wide bodies are superior then narrow bodies if they had to replace them with these options
For passenger comfort in economy, nothing beats the 767 in its category. I still look forward to flying on it, and in 2024 I was aboard for EWR-Heathrow and EWR-Naples Italy. The A-330 probably comes closest as a replacement. Two of Boeing’s best models - 757, 767 - were ended in favor of the indefensible 737.
The 757 was ended because there were no orders for it. It is hard to defend making an aircraft. that no airline (at the time) wanted.
The A-330 has already replaced the 767, with the A330-800 NEO being the final nail in the coffin. And that's not even taking into account the A330's replacement option - 787 and A350.
That make no sense, B757 have the same exact cabin diameter as B737. If you hate B737, you must hate how small the cabin inside B757 too.
They are exactly the same.
@@nntflow7058 Have you forgotten the landing gear? The one mechanism that has caused countless problems for both the NG and the Max. It is your comment that makes no sense.
@@wotan10950 I forgotten how the landing gear have anything to do with the comfort of passengers inside of a cabin for 2 different aicraft who have the same exact fuselage diameter.
the replacements would depend mainly on what routes the 767 is currently deployed.
1) short routes, if the A321XLR could be used, I'd try to increase the number of flights to those destinations per day with it, which would give more options to clients.
2) longer routes, probably the A330-800, unless I already had 787s in my fleet, then the -8 (or maybe Boeing could be persuaded to build a -7)
👌🏼👌🏼👌🏼
also, code D if possible. the b787-3 was intended to fit in the icao code D, unlike the B787-8,9,10.
Many airlines in Asia and Europe that used to have B767-300ER in their fleet use combinations of A321 and A330 to replace B767-300ER.
Since they don't actually need most of the range, they could get away with it.
The Americans have harder times since they actually need the range to cross the Atlantic and even the Pacific.
There's no direct replacement for 767 because it wouldn't make sense - it's too small for increased number of seats to offset increased fuel burn inherit to wide-bodies. Current market reflects that - for ultra thin routes there's A321XLR, for mid-tier connections there's super efficient 787. At the time 767 was built there were no such options, so it sold reasonably well, but in the current world there's no point in aircraft of this size. Maybe 757 will get a new version some day, but I highly doubt 767 ever will.
Exactly! It is very telling that the shortest versions of the smaller wide bodies don't sell. There's no direct replacement for the 767 because no airline would buy it.
@@jest0riz0rYET, some airlines don’t want to get rid of it????? It’s a Goldie locks a/c! Just Perfect!
Maybe an Airbus A321XLR, or more directly to match, a potential A322??
@@jest0riz0r But that's because they are overall designed for greater range and capacity, making the "smaller" version not so competitive. The 763 in comparison was a stretch, so it had better design efficiency.
And there would have been a direct replacement, the 797 that was cancelled in favour of the MAX. It was supposed to have 2-3-2 seating, but with a different cabin cross-section.
757 is effectively being replaced by the MAX 10 or A321XLR. Both of those have similar maxpax and range characteristics to the 757-200 but without the runway performance. Seems like quite a few airlines treat the 787 as a weirdly big 767.
If airlines want new aircraft any time soon, the A330 is the only one with delivery slots
It's not always about finding a like-for-like replacement. The 767 did not replace any aircraft of equivalent size when it was introduced, instead airlines adapted their route networks to the aircraft's capabilities. No doubt this is happening nowadays as the 767 is phased out, airlines will cut routes that are not viable with larger aircraft or increase frequencies with smaller aircraft. Qantas wouldn't be doing London to Perth if it wasn't for the economics and range benefits of purchasing the 787 for example.
Best comment here!
In 4 days I am flying with Air Astana Tashkent-Almaty-Astana-Seoul. I just found out, they have changed plane type, from A320/321 to B767 And I have newer been on a 767 before. Air Astana have the last 3, 767 pax planes ever buildt. I am realy happy.
There is no replacement for 757,767. Irreplaceable, I worked during the construction of the first 60 B-767and 10 B-757 during introduction.
You forgot to mention the B-767 is the latest tanker being built for the US Air Force.
B-767 n 757 was the last airplanes designed by engineers instead of bean counters Wall Street funds managers who are in charge now of Boeing.
Boeing can't get the KC-46 (basically a 767-200ER) working right, all kinds of issues with it. Boeing is doing everything wrong now.
The last time I flew on a 767 was in 2007 and, if I remember correctly, it had a 2-4-2 configuration in economy. I didn't know enough about planes at the time to notice much other details about the layout. It'd depend on the cost but, if I was in charge of an airline, I'd try to replace the 767 with a wide body and try to fill the extra seats.
2-3-2
Some UK charter airlines operated with 2-4-2 config. I flew to Australia with Airtours International (renamed MyTravel Airways and then Thomas Cook Airlines) in 2000 and it was 2-4-2. I also flew with Britannia Airways (now TUI Airways) and they also operated in this config.
@jambon7681 😱
787-8 would probably be the best option due to market growth
The 787 dream liner is the best replacement for the 767 series, but seems to be getting no traction. If it's a fuel consumption issue, trade out more economical engines.
Still can't believe why Boeing closed down the passenger version production line when their 737MAX10 and mid-sized plane aren't ready yet. Completely feasible to reopen the production line of 767 passenger version when the cargo and military versions are still under production
I always thought a good way to get rid of the aging 767s was, possibly, replace half of them with A321 XLRs (similar long range, but smaller and use less fuel: put these on routes that don’t always fill the 767s) and 787s or A330 NEOs for the busier routes that tend to fill the 767s. (Or in the case of Delta/United, maybe they could replace 767-400s too.)
If only Embraer would create bigger planes, I could see them create a proper 2-3-2 airliner if they ever stepped into the widebody market.
They will but in the looong run, their first venture on building bigger planes is the KC390 Millennium that are being purchased or considered by some air forces so let’s see what happens
I personally don’t think we will be alive when Embraer makes a wide body. Their first push into larger aircraft (the Embraer 195E2) isn’t doing as hotly as they thought it would. Right now their next big project takes them from the 19-50 seater market (Energia and the Next Gen Turboprop that was folded into Energia) their next jet project on their timeline is an H2 Emb 195 E2 and that’s set for 2040-2050. I don’t see them going into the widebody market in my lifetime (and I am young) short of Airbus or Boeing disappearing
It’s so weird that no major aircraft company including ones from China and Russia was developing a middle-of-the-market segment of their own. The hub and spoke model was already on its decline for decades now, and airlines would have to make do with either flying widebodies half empty or extremely full narrowbody (in particular the A321LR and 757) for point to point routes.
Side note, I was kinda secretly hoping COMAC would develop something akin to the A300/A310, but even their smallest widebody would be nearly identical in dimensions to the 787-8.
Because most Asian airports have tons of slots available for airlines to use. So instead of using 2 A300 for a route. They use 3 A321 instead. Passengers prefers more options.
For long-haul flights, in order to push the ticket price down, they need larger widebody to transport more people. Smaller widebody like A310, A300 or B767-300ER makes no sense for them anymore.
Many South American cities are too far from continental Europe or Western US. So they need more range, B767-300ER only have maximum range of 6,000nmi in a good weather. A small headwind would push the range to around ~5,000 nmi, but with full flight, the range then dropped to ~4,000 nmi, not enough for many routes to Europe and west coast US.
Considering COMAC needed a lot of western help to get the c919 airborne and the current political environment I don't see any new airplanes coming out of China anytime in the foreseeable future.
Also... would you really want to be on a Chinese made aircraft? Look at the quality of most of the stuff they make and think long and hard about your decision.
@@flyguy6296If you are ok stepping foot on american jets with their dodgy production standards, then this is just bias and a bit of jealousy. Sure the C919 isn't any more efficient than the 737ng and a320ceo , but it is pretty safe, with no incidents as of yet.
I have to agree on your thoughts.
As if quadjets and rear mounted jets are no longer produced for regular passenger airliner (due to poor fuel efficiency and more prone to stall respectively), Middle-of-the-Market widebody airliner (A300/A310/767) also seemed that no maker wants to make those. It's either true narrowbody like A321xlr/737max or 787/A350 with size closer to 747s. No inbetweens or variety.
I also wished that Comac's C929 should've been the A300/A310/767 size, whereas C939 should be 787/A330 size and the following sequence for larger. Although haven't flown on ARJ21/C909 or C919, i guess there's no major issue hits the news yet (compared to their usual others).
@@eirfanhazlan9271 The Chinese realizes that there is currently not muc market for MoM aircraft no more.
It's not as flexible as A321XLR in terms of capacity and range. And it's not as efficient and profitable as B787-8.
It seems like those 2 planes hit the sweet spot for today's market.
It probably changes in the future, just like it did before.
If I had a Boeing 767-300 fleet that needs to be replaced soon, probably I'll choose the Boeing 787-8 (and/or the -9). Change to Airbus would be expensive.
757 and 767 (as well as DC-10/MD-11, A300/A310, L-1011 and Il-86) were Group IV airlines (wingspan up to 52m).
Obviously they go extinct with no Group IV passenger planes in production.
Obviously Group IV (Code D in Euro?) stands/gates cannot fit a Group V (up to 65m wide) plane, and runways and taxiways also need to be compatible with Group V.
Fortunately, most large airports which were designed for Group IV got upgraded for Group V, and smaller airports only accommodate Group III (36m, like 737/A321) anyway.
So in practice the industry standardized on Group III narrowbodies and Group V widebodies, with Groups IV and VI out of production (777X will technically be Group VI but with folding wings and only 2 engines will fit into Group V airports).
A322ULR will be the replacement for 767-300. Too bad for economy passengers, but the customers for Airbus are airlines, not passengers.
@@PaulVerhoeven2 The order books for the A320 line are filled to the brim. So the next few years it makes more sense to increase production of the 320/321 variants and try to sell A330s on top.
@@Psi-Storm If they would expand production of A320neo they would sell more simply because of availability, especially if they would do it 10 years ago when the capital was cheap (interest rates were low).
But... they need to think about the future anyway and not just keep thousands of engineers idling and not designing anything. A322ULR would be such a low-hanging fruit and further cement their leadership in narrowbodies while Boeing is being throttled by FAA and their own DEI policies which gutted it of good talent.
There is currently no replacement for the 763. The A330-800 and B787-8 have considerably more passenger and cargo capacity and the A321 has considerably less. If Boeing wants to rebuild its business and reputation then a good place to start would be to design a 763 replacement that is between the A321 and 338/788 in size and range. An aircraft with a range of 5500-6000 nm and a capacity of 220-250 in mixed class configuration would sell very well.
Austrian (OS) should have been mentioned in this video operating three Boeing 767-300ER aircraft, all on north american routes on a daily basis, eventually replacing those as well as the 777-200ER universally with the Boeing 787-9.
The 787-8 seems like the most logical choice. It allows Delta to keep its pilots within the same manufacturer ecosystem while capitalizing on unmatched fuel efficiency. It’s evident that Delta is avoiding the A321XLR for now, likely holding out for Boeing’s eventual 757 replacement. However, they might ultimately decide to bite the bullet if demand pressures necessitate a short-term solution.
The 767 was built and designed in the 1980s the 787 was built and designed in the mid to late 2000s. That's a 20 year gap some sub systems may be similar but overall the two planes are far apart in terms of commonality.
Of course Delta’s Boeing pilot pool will need some readjusting if they choose the 787 as the 767 replacement, but with the current pilot shortage I think it’s a minor issue
Boeing could have refreshed both the 757 and 767. New engines new avionics and a cabin uplift. This was just a poor management call due to low orders at the time.
You left out a key metric - cargo capacity. A single aisle jet would not be a replacement for a wide body due to loss of cargo pallets
If I were in charge, I would have to do a mix based on the routes and demand of the routes. Unless one company gave me a hell of a deal vs the other. The 787-8 has some advantages as does the A330 as replacements. 787 being preferred from these two options. I would love to see Boeing return some sort of Next Gen 767. Come on Boeing fill this gap. Sadly, I know they won't. This could give the company a boost it really needs right now. Such a great aircraft.
A330-800 Neo will be a perfect replacement!
No it wouldn’t. Way too heavy and wingspan way to large.
Maybe a group of airlines could get together and approach Boeing about restarting passenger 767 production before the freighter line shuts down. It shouldn't be too difficult to develop a 767 NEO, but even another production run of the unmodified, current plane would be better than either losing revenue with a narrowbody or wasting fuel hauling empty seats.
The problem with middle of the market wide bodies is the amount of fresh air they carry. Wide bodies have two aisles so have two aisles worth of fresh air to carry and a higher over head space. Narrow bodies only have one aisle of fresh air and lower head space and are far more efficient over medium distances. The A321xlr will be the game changer in the near future
This may seem Impractical but, why not give the 767 a New Wing and engine option one time.
I know the Dreamliner is an upscale 767 but still...
I would not fase out these jets for another 5 years minimal. I'd probably buy B787-8 over the years for extra capacity and at the end as a replacement for the 767-300ER, as this is the closest competitor in my eye's. The reason that i would keep the 767-jets longer is that i want to wait for the design of the 797, since there are changes it can be a good replacement for the 767.
I would have preferred a development and modernization program on the B757 instead of the prehistoric B737. The more recent 757 might have been better suited to transformations, and it's a very nicely designed aircraft.
There isn’t a replacement, this aircraft is very versatile
This is not how airlines compare aircraft. For example the 787 flying the same distance with more seats uses less fuel. Thusly a 787 loaded to 767 capacity is cheaper to operate than the 767. If they can attain a load higher than the 767 seating that's a huge profit. Bottom line it's fuel use and range that matters not seating capacity.
I wonder what the cost per flight hour is for a 787-8 or A330-800neo is compared to the 767-300. If it's comparable or cheaper, the extra seating and extra cargo capacity would just represent extra earning potential, essentially for free (minus the cost of the new airframe), wouldn't it? Going for smaller and shorter-ranged aircraft would be much more limiting IMO unless you were planning on switching up your route schedule to match, which might be tricky at slot-constrained airports
The 763/764 is the smallest and narrowest widebody. Weird niche. The 788 is too fat, the A338 too long.
As far as I see, the non-ER versions would be replaced by more frequently flown long-range A321s; ERs would be replaced with typical widebodies. I don't know if there's much room for a 7-seat-row widebody in an expanding travel market where routes are getting thicker - but if there was, I'd like to see one and fly on one.
Aircraft slots at airports are precious. Won't be getting smaller narrow-bodies to replace the B767-300ERs. Will instead get either of the wide-bodies (i.e. B787-8, A330neo-800). If 2 flights of the new wide-bodies can make up for 3 flights of the B767-300ER, I'll use the extra slot to fly to a new destination.
The choice between the B787-8 and the A330neo-800 comes down to what one operates in the rest of the fleet of the wide-bodies. If one has mainly Boeings (777s and 787s), the B787-8 is the obvious choice. Whereas if one's fleet is mainly Airbus wide-bodies (A330s, A350s, A380s), then the A330neo-800 is the choice.
The advantage of the 767 is that they don't need a type 5 gate. So you either replace it with a narrowbody plane or you have to use a "precious" wide body gate.
@siongheeleong8078 if the slot is a wide body flight delta may use the a330-900 variant instead of the -800 variants.
@qv6486 That's why Delta went with the A330neo-900s instead of the 800s to replace their B767s. Upsizing for more passenger and cargo capacity as well as better fuel efficiency and reduced noise pollution. The purpose of the 800s is for those needing the extra range at the cost of some seats.
@@siongheeleong8078 globally the -900 is more popular than the -800 variants.
@@siongheeleong8078 if airbus were to offer a330 neo for the freighter market you are more likely to see -800 airframes. More weight for volume given the same range.
Also a factory built freighter variant carries less fuel in exchangevfor payload(revenue).
I would choose the A330-800 NEO.
What doesn't make sense to me is Boeing still has the 767 line running making freighters. Why don't they re-tool and MAX out the 767 for better engines and a better wing for the time being?
757-300 + 767-300ER = Irreplaceable
I would say that combinations of A321, A330 and B787 replace them in different ways.
Especially the commonality between the pilottrainig between this both types.
787, A330, A321: NU UH
@@giestron336 what?
@@horsthorstmann2925 The replacements of the 767 and 757
Delta actually have a330-900 in their fleet, I don't get why you say they stay away from this plane🤔
Japan airlines is replacing domestic 767-300 with a combination of A321 and a359 whilst their regional routes are normally replaced with 789 and 359 I believe
The best replacement for a 767 is a used 10-year old A330-200 CEO. Low capital expense - still 15-20 years of life on it.
I am Not an expert on this subject but Love flying!! What about the Boeing 777 series or the Airbus A350 series as a replacement to the 767. And you might add and needing to replace the 757 as well.
If the 767-300 is irreplaceable, then why did Boeing stop building them and why did the airlines stop buying them?
The 300ER is Best aircraft I ever flew. Did everything exceptionally well.
You left out the amount of belly freight it could carry. The narrow bodies are annoying on long haul flights.
I support Boeing's decision to build a new aircraft based on new technology, otherwise they could still build a 787-3. Airbus will not have anything suitable for a replacement, but they probably will when they also build an all-new aircraft in the future.
Isn’t it interesting how two Boeing aircraft developed at the same time (767 and 757) never has a real true replacement they need to focus on dominant in this segment too
I think that the best to replace are 787-8 or A330-800
787-8 with low density seating configuration is the replacement imo. Much more comfortable for passengers for probably still less CASM than the 767's.
Why not be like Delta Airlines finishing them off with A330-900s leaving the A350s to finish off B747-400 B777-200/ER and B777-200/LR.
The perfect replacement for the B767-300 (270 seats) would be the Comac C929 (280 seats) of course if we could do business with China.
Only China seems to notice the gap between the B737 and B787, that is exactly the same gap as between the A320 and the A330.
Believe me, others have noticed but don't have the capital to take advantage of it. Just like Bombardier with the A220, Embraer and others know there is a spot and want to fill it, but just don't have the time, power, or money to do it.
If I were to bet on anyone, it would be Airbus, but that's still a minimum of 3 years out. Either a specialty version of the A350 or A330 if we consider WB, or even a potential modded A220XL.
But from China or Russia, doubt it. And potential other makers? well... we are looking 15-20 years unless someone has a Thanos Glove.
Fuel burn, landing weight, etc. (= Operating cost) are issues not mentioned. More people are flying, just as narrow body aircraft have been getting larger it is possible that a mid-market aircraft is not needed? The A330neo and 787 newer engine types (RR 1000/7000 & GEnx) have similar fuel burn or less than older CF6, PW4000 (767, A330) when based on cost per seat mile. I love the 767 and there will not be many aircraft to fly as long as 767 fleet. They are still making them, 43 yeas in production!!!
This and the 747 are my favorites to fly. Hopefully i can ride one before they disappear
THE 767 WILL NEVER DIE🗣️🔥
Naturally, the Boeing 787. It's the closest match to the Boeing 767-300 in terms of passenger capacity.
Fewer new wide bodies for sure. It'll allow for not only maximum range but also permit tapping into the cargo revenue which narrow bodies can't.
There are some key information that would help giving us the bigger picture.
So what is the difference in the maintenance cost of each of the mentioned aircrafts?
Each of these planes can operate in approximately how many airports?
Can you do a video on what happened to the Ukraine international airline planes in Ukraine. Were theu destroyed in the war or flew somewhere safe
I'd hold onto my 767's and 757's until a suitable and reliable replacement can be made. It's clear that's where a good chunk of the market is, and there's still a plethora of parts out there, especially as the 767 is still in production if only being produced as freighter.
On a hot day with seats filled in the back you'll never see us use more than 9000ft in the 763.
So we compare Exit door limits, not std. cabin layout? Really not a comparable choice.. A330-800 can be equipped with 3-3-3 to immensly boost the seating capacity, however even lower cost charter based airlines as the upper mentioned Condor use the Std. 2-4-2 layout in their A330 neos. Std. seating for A330-200 (same fuselage as 330-800, but more common --> better use for comparison) is ~230-250 seats, pretty compareable to the 767-300 if you ask me. I don't understand the comparison used in the video.
What it sounds like is that Boeing built the 787 too close in size and range to the 777 and too expensive to replace the 767. Maybe the airlines should have come to Boeing sorted that out from the get go.
Boeing should have re-engined the 767 and beat the competition on both price (initial investment fully amortized) and passenger capacity. In hindsight, not the best decision, though they knew they would be leaving a market segment without a replacement.
Maybe this is the perfect timing to bring the A330-800 to life?
I mean it is a little more expensive (new price), about 40 million dollars more, but operating costs are less. Range is better and capacity is basically the same!
It’s probably best to replace them with A321XLRs as it offers more flexibility where slots are not concerned. That last point can be resolved by flying to nearby secondary airports. A great cast study is Los Angeles. While everyone is pressed for slots at LAX, many people would rather fly from BUR, SNA, ONT, and/or LGB. Even SBD is getting some flights served by Breeze. These airports are much easier to access for the populace and come with much less crowding. In fact, China Airlines operates I think an A350 ONT>TPE to complement their LAX>TPE service on the 777. Ignoring parking fees (I can get free parking near LAX), I’d much rather fly out of ONT any day than LAX, despite LAX being 10-20 miles closer, though usually 30 minutes longer to get to. I see it more effective to do a flight out of LAX and one out of ONT on A321s to, for example, HNL than one 787 flight LAX>HNL. But of course if you’d want to fly further to NRT in Japan or SUV in Fiji you’ll need that extra range. Seemingly the A321XLR would slot in well for an ONT>PPT (French Polynesia) flight.
If the 767 order book had been full Boeing wouldn't have stopped building them. A few airlines may have been interested but by and large no one was placing orders.
Same for the 757 though I hope an updated engine option might bring that one back - such a nice airplane. The STOL version of an airliner but unfortunately that means high fuel burn which no one wants.
And holy moly Boeing please properly update the 737 with modern automation. Preferably while firing half of management and moving HQ back to Washington.
On a typical flight for 3000nm, 763ER and 788 with 250 pax will burn about the same fuel, giving much lower load factor and higher ZFW on 788.
Using maximum passenger capacity as a metric for comparing aircraft size is not a good idea because the ratio of exits to usable area between the 767 and 787 is different. You need to compare them based on industry average seating configurations. I understand this was to make an “apples to apples” comparison, but it isn’t pragmatic.
It's also pointless because mainline carriers like Delta and United don't use the maximum capacity passenger numbers anyway, United 767-300ERs are configured as 214 or 167, Delta has 226, 211 or 208
I would choose the:
A330-800!!
If i had an airline i would fly the a321xlr, A350, A330 and A319/20 (I like don’t want any loose bolts in my doors) 😂❤
787-800 best replacement.
I go to LAX a lot. Love the
Delta 767
At an American carrier, I think the A321NEOs would be the best replacement for domestic routes (also filling in for the 757-200) while the 787-8 would be best for highest demand routes & int'l ones. The A321NEOs do have an additional 2 class seating of 10 more while also having different range options as compared to the MAX 10. The 788 would also be closer in fleet commonality with the large 767 presence already in America with engine types and also retaining the control column & EICAS, not ECAM.
Call me stupid but isn’t the solution just the 787? Or an a330 variant?
Technically, Delta still flies the 767, so it’s not an all Airbus wide body fleet yet. As far as I know, they still have the 737 MAX 10 on order. Is that still the case? They originally ordered 100 of the type. On another note, I don’t know why they retired their 777s.
Personally, I would go with the 787-8 to replace the 767-300 and the ER version.
Retired the 777's due to age and fuel burn. Current Delta operations and planning is not Delta from 2007. Man I miss those 747's but seriously they were old. I am so glad they went with mostly A350 fleet, and a super smart move snatching up those Aeromexico A350's when they did during the pandemic.
It's a shame Boeing is the giant cluster they are now. They had an excellent chance to dominate the market had they let engineering do its thing rather than let their accountants strangle the S%!t out of the company.
Regarding the 737MAX orders. I hear nothing on that, but it's a wait and see game. Delta still has plenty of 737NG's so I'm sure the plan was to Naively trust in Boeing and just "drop in" the Max's in place of the NG's
What concerns me more is that Delta has shredded its domestic route network for smaller cities and airports.
What used to be 15mins - 60mins drive, has now turned into 1.5-3 hour drives for customers and this isn't helping.
Sure I get that those smaller routes may have not been profitable, especially during the pandemic, but they were feeders to the larger network increasing over-all profitability.
But..... C'est la vie. Les ne pas de recompense avec les bonbons.
I still think Delta’s domestic network is pretty good, isn’t? I just wish they flew to more places from LAX, and if they would have another hub in the middle of the country that wasn’t so far north.
Good point about the 777, but I still think they could have put them to good use.
I still prefer Boeing planes; but it’s certainly not the same company as it was when Joe Sutter designed the 747.
@@maxschwartz1365 Delta is fine if your destination is a major city. But smaller cities all got slashed and never returned after covid. Makes travel hell for visiting some of these locations for industrial customers.
I personally used to prefer boeing but the A220 and A350 are lightyears better for customer cabin comfort. The only winner is in the Boeing lineup is the 787 and it's nothing special really.
@@maxschwartz1365 don't worry delta is quickly expanding LAX, but for some things it will take years. That said they do have the SEA and SLC hubs growing too. but yea I get it. I'm super lucky as DTW is my hub and was a core NWA/DL hub for years. Sad to see the decline on my end but c'est la vie. hopefully these smaller domestic routes return as further improvements happen.
@@shmuck66 Delta has a large network, but it does seem to be a lot of hub and spoke. I’m glad they have increased service at LAX.
I prefer the 737 to the A321. I hope I get to ride on a DL 767 before they’re retired.
DTW is great because it’s basically one long terminal, and the tram is inside. An added bonus is they know how to deal with weather. You couldn’t pay me to go through ORD in the winter, but I would gladly go through DTW.
788 definitely...at a good price
In my general opinion, the Boeing 767 300/300ER is so succesful and reliable that hardly anything can replace it. The Dreamliner has a few issues e.g. Friday 8th June 2021 G ZBJB a 787 8 that its nose landing gear had collapsed at Heathrow while the 767 never had those problems before British Airways retired them. Another accident involving the Dreamliner is that an American Airlines 787 8 N812AA's door was ripped off due to a gate bridge collapse at Dublin, Ireland on the 9th July 2023. American Airlines 767 300ER's had no accidents like that when they were in service, it was a foolish decision for American Airlines to retire their 767 300ER's because they were great, succesful, lovable, reliable and are great, great freighters. The A330 800 is optional but is unpopular. In fact since the Boeing 767 300ER is so succesful and well loved, Air Canada has brought back 2 of them from storage. 2 because they're the only Air Canada 767 300ER's that aren't scrapped or derelict. Delta and United both plan to retire their 767 300ER's but its a foolish decision to do so by 2030 because Delta and United hardly had any accidents when they were in service. I'm so happy that 767 300ER's are still being produced for freightliners e.g. Amazon Prime Air, UPS Parcel Service. So I believe that the 767 300ER is so succesful, relaible and popular that its irreplacable to all airlines especially Delta & United.
787 for sure
You forgot the Airbus 350-800: The 60.45 m (198.3 ft)-long A350-800 was designed to seat 276 passengers in a typical three-class configuration with a range of 8,245 nmi (15,270 km; 9,488 mi) with an MTOW of 259 t (571,000 lb). The type was cancelled by Airbus, as not enough airlines wanted the smallest of the Airbus 350 at the time, but that might have changed and Airbus can still start production of it.
I doubt if he forgot. He didn't mention it because its not a Boeing aircraft. He is biased towards Boeing planes. 😊
All the small wide body variants aren't selling because the airlines aren't looking for direct 767 replacements. The medium long routes can be covered with the a321xlr and the long routes will get more efficient longer wide bodies.
@@4evertrue830 Yet, he mentioned a couple of Airbus aircraft in the video
@Cta2006 Yes he did, but they are all Airbus aircrafts that he knew could not replace the 767. Why didn't he mention this particular one that could? 😅
Wasn’t it because Airbus was afraid it would tap on the A330neo market?
Isn't the 757-300 the longest narrowbody plane?
Great airplane to fly. Docile, powerful motors, and good range.
Neither Boeing nor Airbus has a true replacement for the Boeing 767-300/300ER. The proposed Boeing 787-3 would have been the closest airplane to replace the 767-300/300ER. Neither Boeing nor Airbus has a true middle of the market airplane to replace the B767-300/300ER.
Boeing should've ended 737 production ten years ago and replaced it with modernized 757s and 767s.
Boeing should bring an aircraft in the 200-250 seat range,, otherwise they will struggle in narrow body market
If they had not optimized the 787 for the dash 8 and thereby making the 787~3 a shrink and so to heavy to replace the 763
Nothing can replace the best 2-3-2 seating layout
787s and A330neos will do
It would be a better comparison if you used passenger economics. While the 787 and 330 may be bigger, if it’s the same operating costs as a 767 (minus purchase cost) it may be a worthwhile investment as you get more passengers for the same price. Most airlines seem to be holding on to 767s because theyre either close to being paid off so it’s just operating costs versus purchase payments. Same thing 757 operators (ie Delta) make when keeping them flying.
yeh i would go with the 787-8
That intro with the wrong gear tilt hurted me
Can LGA take an A330? or B787?
I'd head for A330-800 and make it more customer-friendly.
787-8 is a pretty close aircraft size wise to 767. Boeing should developed a freighter version of the 787-8 given the impending death of the 767.
The 787-8 with 9 across seating is a closer fit to the 767 which has only 7 across seating. While the A330-8 with 8 across seating is less of a fit? It seems to me that 8 is closer to 7 than 9. But evidently the length differential closes the deal in the 787's favor? Too bad Boeing screwed up on the safety design of the 737 Max and delays with the 777X, otherwise we'd have the perfect replacement for the 2-3-2 767 with the much more efficient 2-3-2 797 in the works.
Boeing still builds the B767F, brand new from the factory.
How about the 777-200er
I'd go with fewer widebodies, so the 787 or A330
Nothing could replace the 767-300ER unless a 767X
theoretically a 7107 could
my hypothesis for boeings new airplanes
797 replaces 757 and 737
7107(icao thingy is 7x1 7x2 blah blah) replaces 787 and 777
then a regional jet called 808,entering a new market,and replacing 717
@ 777X for 777
@Youtub77W I know...but after the 777X there will be a clean sheet i think.
@thetruthbehindplanes in 2085 😂
@Youtub77Wno...it will take only 10 or 12 years to design