@@young-j731in the minds of the Boeing sales team maybe - but it has less seats than a A321 which has less seats that a 757 so not really a successor to a bigger plane imo…
@@young-j731the max 10 as a replacement is laughable. The 737 does not have the performance capabilities paired with seating capacity that made the 757 highly desirable to the mid market. What the 757 replacement needs to be is essentially an improved 1:1 which even the A321 XLR is not. The best thing about the 757 is it could get in and out of hot, high altitude airfields with a greater deal of capacity than anything else could offer in addition to its performance allowing it to be exceedingly good at getting into smaller airfields especially in the Caribbean which is why it is very popular with Delta as it was right on the limit of what was possible. The thing that made the 757 great was its wing and I don't see why especially with the powerplant options available these days Boeing can't bring themselves to get a similar in performance clean sheet aircraft off the ground. It's fully within their capability and the demand is there to justify it.
i imagine they use the 767-200, as it slots right between the 757-200 and -300. if they did also make a 767-300 re engine that would mainly be for cargo if i had to guess
Boeing has one thing that it can do going forward - a NMA, 757-replacement with 787 cockpit and....with two aisles. 2-2-2 layout. It would have the ultimate marketing angle - "No middle seat."
that's pretty much what a re-engine 767 would be. if they used the size of the 767-200, it'd a plane sized in the middle of the 757-200 and -300, and would be a 2-3-2. but judging by the way the 787-8 has sold, i think the single aisle option is the way they're most likely to go . just a shame they cant adapt the 767 production line to produce a re-engined 757
@@sammilburn445 I understand what you are saying but I think that the market may have moved towards a slightly larger narrow body, like the A321. I think Boeing would get more 'bang-for-it's-buck' with a plane that is as long as a 767-200/757-200, but with a width just a *little* bit bigger than a A320. Think A320+20inches for a second aisle. The ability to fill a small 'narrowbody' plane, while at the same time possibly having a longer range variant (4500nm, maybe even 5000nm) WITHOUT a middle seat would be compelling. Passengers would love it.
As far as I can tell, the Boeing 767 is still in production (pr. Boeing official site), but it is the freighter version and also millitary tanker version. How difficult can it really be to uppdate and continue the passenger version ?
Airbus has the A350 and the A330neo. If a buyer doesn't need the range of the A350, they can order the A330neo and pay a lower price. Similarly, an updated 767 could've been a way of keeping orders in the Boeing family for customers who didn't need 787 capabilities, and wanted to spend less. But indeed, given the march of time and Boeing's current woes, it's probably too late now.
Delivery slots and timelines for 787 could be offset and filled in by 767 max if one existed. Also it could aid airlines to update their existing 767 fleets for far lesser than buying an aircraft costlier than 767. Also 767 max couldve filled the medium capacity medium haul routes pretty easily and updated designs could reduce the gap between the 767 and 787 also helping some part sharing and quicker development times. This will keep profits and revenue growing for the company and fill some indercontested markets for boeing.
It is interesting that as design technology improved, new aircraft designs slowed. Cases in point in the 1960's Boeing designed, produced and delivered the 727, 737 and the 747. During this time the 707 was being updated and delivered. Then in the 1980's the 757 and 767. The 1990's the 777 and the mid 2000's the 787. Boeing dug a quality control hole, fell in and is trying to recover. Regarding the 767, it has a comfortable 2-3-2 economy seating configuration that is nowhere else.
The general public and executives will blame regulation, however as an engineer the REAL culprit is bandaid solutions like Oracle that promise executives more streamlined performance when in fact it's the single biggest piece of red tape software in the world. Couple that with organizational structures that are overly procurement and accounting lead organizations (because engineers are famously focused on being expensive and inefficient) and suddenly what should be a 10 year cycle gets caught in 15 years of cost study design loops where no one will make a decision.
Cargo operators have B767 fleets that don't seem to be going anywhere anytime soon. If Boeing decides not to make a B787F (they really should have made the B787F an option a long time ago), then considering the large B767F fleet in operation (especially with FedEx, who has over a hundred of these in service and dozens of them that are yet to be delivered) the next best hope would be for GE to make a new engine for existing B767 aircraft. This new engine could be called the GEnx-3B. This could go in one of three ways: A: GE could just tack on a GEnx-2B on an existing B767. However, this bigger and heavier engine would definitely make it take longer for certification - the bigger and heavier engine, most likely, would noticeably change the aircraft's handling characteristics. On the bright side, this same larger nacelle size would mean that any B767 could be re-engined, regardless of the original nacelle size. This would also make it possible for a P&W-powered B767 to get this bigger engine. B: If they want the most efficient engine, GE could make a custom GEnx using some existing technology they have for their lower-thrust GEnx-1B variants, with an infusion of GE9X technology. This, of course, would mean a bigger fan, and therefore a bigger nacelle, thus making it take longer for certification because of the effects of the bigger and heavier engine. C: If they want something done a bit faster (in terms of airframe certification), GE could make a 93" fan that would be a scale replica of the 104.7" GEnx-2B fan, resulting in a like-for-like replacement of the CF6-80C2 within the same nacelle size. Then, they could design the engine core to be as efficient as possible for that fan size and thrust rating (of up to 62,000lbf just in case cargo operators or second-hand passenger operators want the B767-400 after Delta and United retire them). This would most likely save time and resources on airframe certification. The basic question for GE would be: what's the most efficient core that will make this engine produce 53-62,000lbf of thrust? However, this would still make it run into the same nacelle size issue if it were to be installed in the smaller nacelles of the older 86.4"-fan CF6-80A engines (though there don't seem to be very many remaining in service), and then the B767 aircraft with the smaller nacelles would miss out on the advantages of a bigger fan. Boeing most likely will never do anything that would mean extra certification if they aren't legally required to. Thus, most likely, in order for anything at all to happen, it would be either the second option, or no option at all for anything of greater efficiency than the CF6.
Every 787 makes in excess of USD 1 million in losses to Boeing. Boeing is at the moment kept alive by tax payer money - and might make a new aeroplane in the 2030s or in the 2040s if still in the commercial business. There - a comprehensive answer.
a re-engined 767 could work. for passenger operations though, it'd need to have the same operating capabilities of the 757, so being overpowered for its size to allow it to fly into smaller airport and have a range good enough to fly transatlantic. a -200 could work, and the 2-3-2 seating layout is is more ideal than the 787 3-3-3 for the shorter operation, but it seems to be like airlines want a narrow body. if they did choose the 767 over the 757, they could also keep the freighter going, rather than working on a 787f. but ultimately, unless if boeing can adapt the 767 production line to produce 757s again, i doubt there will be a 757x or a 767x, especially if we potentially could be close to hearing something about a 787f. if that is the case, i can see it ultimately coming down to whatever is cheaper, either a 787f or a 767x, but only time will tell
there building the freighter version not the passenger verson anymore, the 787 replaced the passenger 767 because its bigger than the 767, the Airbus A300 and A330 are lot bigger than the 767.
@@Turbojets_Channel Yep, I agree. According to what I read, it means that new planes would be cargo variants pretty much exclusively, if not entirely, and at least for domestic routes in the U.S. (probably including Alaska and Hawaii I should think). However, if other countries allow it, they could be used there too. I have no idea what the rules are for older 767s in terms of them being used in any airspace and when they would have to be retired due to emission standards. I suspect it will be somewhat flexible across the planet so as to not piss off countries and operators around the world and they will be phased out over time if only due to age and spare parts inventories; let alone economics. This 5-year extension gives Boeing and other aerospace companies more time to develop a replacement at the very least.
Boeing really needs to prioritize the 737 MAX to cement its place in the short haul/ regional market, especially with the 737-7. With that said, the 757 needs to come back with better efficiency and performance to rival the a321 XLR.
The two biggest issues with the 67. The pilots unions (American carriers) and the wing design. UNITED Airlines actually went to Boeing and asked if they could fit a 787 efficient wing design to the 767 body with existing engines. Boeings responded we did its 787. Now the trickey bit ALPA. Has designated the 787 into a diferent category. This means higher salaries for the crews . Which negates any cost savinv from either the 787 or a 767..
so verbose... the a330 killed the 767, mainly because of capacity. the 330 had a 2-4-2 seating configuration. the 767 had a 2-3-2 seating arrangement. and of course there was increased range as well. it is that simple. the 787 of course bested the 330 because of its rather tight 3-3-3 seating configuration, which then was bested by the more capacious a350. the 777X is larger, thus the 3-4-3 seating configuration, but aside from the wings the 777X fuselage is basically the same. to bring back a 767neo with the same seating arrangement would have been stupid.
The reason why Boeing is looking into rebuilding a 767 is because it’s a lot cheaper to reengineer it than build a completely new plane. Also Boeing is using the electronics for the 787 and the technology from it the only big cost is that getting new engines which are more fuel efficient than those on the 787-900 . And there’s a demand for the 767 as a passenger plane but the 787 actually a lot more expensive to maintain than 777-200 and this is because of the hydraulic wings that lift up and down also the 787 doesn’t have the seating capacity of the 767-400 and that’s what Boeing is looking into keeping the design of the 767 which is either 400ER or the 332ER but and the wing tips but not redesigning the whole plane. It’s simply upgrade and the 787 never really replaced the 767 because it was the 787-800 is actually similar size to 757-200 but a lot more expensive to service and to buy and wasn’t a replacement for the Boeing 767
Boeing misse da trick by not updating the 767, especially as a freighter. It already has a glass cockpit. A re-engined 767-300F with -400ER wing would be a low cost / low risk effort. For some operators the 787 is too long-range, and it won't be available as a freighter. United wanted a large pax order, Boeing said no.
In sum, the FAA created a new rule requiring quieter more efficient planes by 2028. Boeing already makes a better 767…. that’s the 787. Clarification: the 767 is still in production and will be until 2033, but only existing freighter and aerial-refueler orders will be fulfilled. Big picture: Boeing’s product brochure is getting older, and the engineer work force has only grown smaller and younger. The next plane they come out with will require a lot of Boeing’s engineer workforce especially those older more experienced engineers, splitting the engineer workforce isn’t the right move. Because of events especially in the early 2000s Boeing has been playing rather defensive. 01 and 08 would scare anyone away from designing and building new planes. And because of that the last 10-20 years have not been used to design new products, on top of that I’d imagine a lot of engineers are being tied up in quality and delivery of what is being sold. The 787 took roughly 20 years between first passenger flight and design, this next plane has got to be right, and it’s got to be the best.
Boeing went back into the past. The 757 and the 767 were major technological advances for their times. The 737 was already old. Boeing got lazy when it came to further developments of these aircraft and chose to advance old outdated tech such as the 737. The 767 as much as I love this aircraft, tho bigger, the 787-800 has replaced the 767. Boeing really needed a 757 replacement a decade ago. Now Boeing is at the point where the 737 is at design limitations and there is no real replacement for this nor an aircraft that can meet the capacity and performance of the 757. Boeing needs enthusiastic engineers. The longer they wait to build a new aircraft, the harder it will be to introduce a new narrow body when they finally choose to start innovating again.
Actually, the 777X isn't operated by anyone and still kicks certification down the road. But yeah, the situation with high passenger capacity planes is annoying.
Thanks, DJ! Pls. allow me a few hints: 1. (off topic, but you mentioned it): I am quite old now, and have been following 757 revival talks online for over a decade. And to be honest: it is tiring! The claim of a (shrinking) Boeing fan community that there is no replacement for the 757 simply does not hold up. Do you - dear DJ - really want to build up you own reputation as a trusted aviation expert and analyst? Then get away with the gibberish, the myths, the iteration of other people's long falsified claims! While those said Boeing enthusiasts indulge themselves in nostalgy, the relevant airlines with remaining 757 fleets have all long decided. AMERICAN, UNITED, DELTA, CONDOR, JET2, and lastly ICELANDAIR: they all have ordered replacements for the 757. And in each and every case, the selected replacement is the AIRBUS A321neo. The only open question here concerns the few operators of sometimes very large 757 cargo fleets. 2. For the sake of this video, you have defined a topic "767 replacement". But the 767 replacement was exactly that what Boeing for many years had hyped as "the middle of the market", "the NMA", and "the 797". Interestlingly, Boeing had obscured the real intentions (or maybe the absence of such - who knows!) by leaving it open if the newly envisioned airplane would be a narrow or a widebody aircraft. Very late (IIRC!) it was disclosed that they envisioned a smallish widebody called "797" with a 2-3-2 seating configuration. Smallish widebody in 2-3-2 however is nothing else but a 767 successor. But following Boeing disclosures, this 797 will not (never) be built. 3. You assume that Boeing had to find factory space to build a re-launched new 767. But unlike the 757 line which was scrapped in their Renton site (South of Seattle) in 2004/5, the assembly line of the 767 (North of Seattle, in Everett) does still exist and builds - though in low frequency - freighters and KC-46 military tanker aircraft.
Well when you lose half the value of the company in 4 years because the MAX is a disaster I'd say it's pretty hard to produce money for some R&D. That being said, the 767 matches the 787 in almost all dimensions except fuselage diameter and weight, both of which the 787 is larger. This is kind of a waste of a video.
I don't think they need a new 767, since that's why the 787 was built. They do need to build a 757 successor.
isnt the max 10 to replace the 757 ?
@@young-j731in the minds of the Boeing sales team maybe - but it has less seats than a A321 which has less seats that a 757 so not really a successor to a bigger plane imo…
@@young-j731the max 10 as a replacement is laughable. The 737 does not have the performance capabilities paired with seating capacity that made the 757 highly desirable to the mid market. What the 757 replacement needs to be is essentially an improved 1:1 which even the A321 XLR is not.
The best thing about the 757 is it could get in and out of hot, high altitude airfields with a greater deal of capacity than anything else could offer in addition to its performance allowing it to be exceedingly good at getting into smaller airfields especially in the Caribbean which is why it is very popular with Delta as it was right on the limit of what was possible.
The thing that made the 757 great was its wing and I don't see why especially with the powerplant options available these days Boeing can't bring themselves to get a similar in performance clean sheet aircraft off the ground. It's fully within their capability and the demand is there to justify it.
i imagine they use the 767-200, as it slots right between the 757-200 and -300. if they did also make a 767-300 re engine that would mainly be for cargo if i had to guess
@@young-j731it's a shitty stretch that fulfills little if any of the mission profile of the 57 except a passenger to discomfort ratio
They need to make a new 757, the 787-8 is a fine replacement for the 767
Why do they need a 757 - is there not already enough overlap between 737-10 and 787-8?
@@Jim-kw1cz the 787 punches a big hole through the air with the wide body
Meanwhile the 737 doesn't have the MTOW and range of the 757
6:07 - I have always liked his shirt.
Because its a well built plane with little to no issues
Boeing ceo Calhoun:: we need a plane that breaks down constantly
Boeing has one thing that it can do going forward - a NMA, 757-replacement with 787 cockpit and....with two aisles. 2-2-2 layout. It would have the ultimate marketing angle - "No middle seat."
that's pretty much what a re-engine 767 would be. if they used the size of the 767-200, it'd a plane sized in the middle of the 757-200 and -300, and would be a 2-3-2. but judging by the way the 787-8 has sold, i think the single aisle option is the way they're most likely to go . just a shame they cant adapt the 767 production line to produce a re-engined 757
@@sammilburn445 I understand what you are saying but I think that the market may have moved towards a slightly larger narrow body, like the A321. I think Boeing would get more 'bang-for-it's-buck' with a plane that is as long as a 767-200/757-200, but with a width just a *little* bit bigger than a A320. Think A320+20inches for a second aisle. The ability to fill a small 'narrowbody' plane, while at the same time possibly having a longer range variant (4500nm, maybe even 5000nm) WITHOUT a middle seat would be compelling. Passengers would love it.
As far as I can tell, the Boeing 767 is still in production (pr. Boeing official site), but it is the freighter version and also millitary tanker version. How difficult can it really be to uppdate and continue the passenger version ?
Airbus has the A350 and the A330neo. If a buyer doesn't need the range of the A350, they can order the A330neo and pay a lower price. Similarly, an updated 767 could've been a way of keeping orders in the Boeing family for customers who didn't need 787 capabilities, and wanted to spend less. But indeed, given the march of time and Boeing's current woes, it's probably too late now.
Delivery slots and timelines for 787 could be offset and filled in by 767 max if one existed. Also it could aid airlines to update their existing 767 fleets for far lesser than buying an aircraft costlier than 767. Also 767 max couldve filled the medium capacity medium haul routes pretty easily and updated designs could reduce the gap between the 767 and 787 also helping some part sharing and quicker development times. This will keep profits and revenue growing for the company and fill some indercontested markets for boeing.
It is interesting that as design technology improved, new aircraft designs slowed. Cases in point in the 1960's Boeing designed, produced and delivered the 727, 737 and the 747. During this time the 707 was being updated and delivered. Then in the 1980's the 757 and 767. The 1990's the 777 and the mid 2000's the 787. Boeing dug a quality control hole, fell in and is trying to recover. Regarding the 767, it has a comfortable 2-3-2 economy seating configuration that is nowhere else.
The general public and executives will blame regulation, however as an engineer the REAL culprit is bandaid solutions like Oracle that promise executives more streamlined performance when in fact it's the single biggest piece of red tape software in the world.
Couple that with organizational structures that are overly procurement and accounting lead organizations (because engineers are famously focused on being expensive and inefficient) and suddenly what should be a 10 year cycle gets caught in 15 years of cost study design loops where no one will make a decision.
Cargo operators have B767 fleets that don't seem to be going anywhere anytime soon. If Boeing decides not to make a B787F (they really should have made the B787F an option a long time ago), then considering the large B767F fleet in operation (especially with FedEx, who has over a hundred of these in service and dozens of them that are yet to be delivered) the next best hope would be for GE to make a new engine for existing B767 aircraft. This new engine could be called the GEnx-3B. This could go in one of three ways:
A: GE could just tack on a GEnx-2B on an existing B767. However, this bigger and heavier engine would definitely make it take longer for certification - the bigger and heavier engine, most likely, would noticeably change the aircraft's handling characteristics. On the bright side, this same larger nacelle size would mean that any B767 could be re-engined, regardless of the original nacelle size. This would also make it possible for a P&W-powered B767 to get this bigger engine.
B: If they want the most efficient engine, GE could make a custom GEnx using some existing technology they have for their lower-thrust GEnx-1B variants, with an infusion of GE9X technology. This, of course, would mean a bigger fan, and therefore a bigger nacelle, thus making it take longer for certification because of the effects of the bigger and heavier engine.
C: If they want something done a bit faster (in terms of airframe certification), GE could make a 93" fan that would be a scale replica of the 104.7" GEnx-2B fan, resulting in a like-for-like replacement of the CF6-80C2 within the same nacelle size. Then, they could design the engine core to be as efficient as possible for that fan size and thrust rating (of up to 62,000lbf just in case cargo operators or second-hand passenger operators want the B767-400 after Delta and United retire them). This would most likely save time and resources on airframe certification. The basic question for GE would be: what's the most efficient core that will make this engine produce 53-62,000lbf of thrust? However, this would still make it run into the same nacelle size issue if it were to be installed in the smaller nacelles of the older 86.4"-fan CF6-80A engines (though there don't seem to be very many remaining in service), and then the B767 aircraft with the smaller nacelles would miss out on the advantages of a bigger fan.
Boeing most likely will never do anything that would mean extra certification if they aren't legally required to. Thus, most likely, in order for anything at all to happen, it would be either the second option, or no option at all for anything of greater efficiency than the CF6.
Simple answer:
the 787 exists.
there you go, I saved you 10 minutes.
Every 787 makes in excess of USD 1 million in losses to Boeing. Boeing is at the moment kept alive by tax payer money - and might make a new aeroplane in the 2030s or in the 2040s if still in the commercial business. There - a comprehensive answer.
Exactly delta_. It was built as an improvement on the 767. Same size, wider, and with far more range. And with bigger variants.
They only need to work on building a cargo variant (787F)
If not possible, then a re-engined 767F is perfect, for cargo.
a re-engined 767 could work. for passenger operations though, it'd need to have the same operating capabilities of the 757, so being overpowered for its size to allow it to fly into smaller airport and have a range good enough to fly transatlantic. a -200 could work, and the 2-3-2 seating layout is is more ideal than the 787 3-3-3 for the shorter operation, but it seems to be like airlines want a narrow body. if they did choose the 767 over the 757, they could also keep the freighter going, rather than working on a 787f. but ultimately, unless if boeing can adapt the 767 production line to produce 757s again, i doubt there will be a 757x or a 767x, especially if we potentially could be close to hearing something about a 787f. if that is the case, i can see it ultimately coming down to whatever is cheaper, either a 787f or a 767x, but only time will tell
The 787 dash 8 is the perfect successor of the iconic 767 which is why Boeing will not squander resources to develop a new 767.
As great as the 767 was, I think the -400ER was at the limit. Getting away from the nice 2x3x2 was also necessary
I wish they would make a new 767 since they are still making the 767
there building the freighter version not the passenger verson anymore, the 787 replaced the passenger 767 because its bigger than the 767, the Airbus A300 and A330 are lot bigger than the 767.
They are still building the 767-F and can thru 2033
Thanks Dj!!
A 787-8 should do the job IMO. it’s a quick fix that could fill a gap.
By the way, FedEx and UPS have B767s that are 1 and 2 years old. They still make them but have been ordered to stop by the FAA by 2026 or 2027.
It is now pushed back to January 1, 2033.
@@stephenjones8928 that’s good because that’s technically a sound and solid bird
@@Turbojets_Channel Yep, I agree. According to what I read, it means that new planes would be cargo variants pretty much exclusively, if not entirely, and at least for domestic routes in the U.S. (probably including Alaska and Hawaii I should think). However, if other countries allow it, they could be used there too. I have no idea what the rules are for older 767s in terms of them being used in any airspace and when they would have to be retired due to emission standards. I suspect it will be somewhat flexible across the planet so as to not piss off countries and operators around the world and they will be phased out over time if only due to age and spare parts inventories; let alone economics. This 5-year extension gives Boeing and other aerospace companies more time to develop a replacement at the very least.
Boeing really needs to prioritize the 737 MAX to cement its place in the short haul/ regional market, especially with the 737-7. With that said, the 757 needs to come back with better efficiency and performance to rival the a321 XLR.
What really surprises me is how they brought the T7 ‘up to today’s standards’ but they couldn’t do that to the 57/67 at the time…???
The two biggest issues with the 67. The pilots unions (American carriers) and the wing design. UNITED Airlines actually went to Boeing and asked if they could fit a 787 efficient wing design to the 767 body with existing engines. Boeings responded we did its 787. Now the trickey bit ALPA. Has designated the 787 into a diferent category. This means higher salaries for the crews . Which negates any cost savinv from either the 787 or a 767..
so verbose... the a330 killed the 767, mainly because of capacity. the 330 had a 2-4-2 seating configuration. the 767 had a 2-3-2 seating arrangement. and of course there was increased range as well. it is that simple. the 787 of course bested the 330 because of its rather tight 3-3-3 seating configuration, which then was bested by the more capacious a350. the 777X is larger, thus the 3-4-3 seating configuration, but aside from the wings the 777X fuselage is basically the same. to bring back a 767neo with the same seating arrangement would have been stupid.
The 767 is still built, in the form of the military C-46 Refueling aircraft.
I work at UPS part time on the ramp and we had a brand new (maybe 20 cycles on it) 767-300ERF a couple weeks ago. Crazy new plane smell still!
cargo too
The reason why Boeing is looking into rebuilding a 767 is because it’s a lot cheaper to reengineer it than build a completely new plane. Also Boeing is using the electronics for the 787 and the technology from it the only big cost is that getting new engines which are more fuel efficient than those on the 787-900 . And there’s a demand for the 767 as a passenger plane but the 787 actually a lot more expensive to maintain than 777-200 and this is because of the hydraulic wings that lift up and down also the 787 doesn’t have the seating capacity of the 767-400 and that’s what Boeing is looking into keeping the design of the 767 which is either 400ER or the 332ER but and the wing tips but not redesigning the whole plane. It’s simply upgrade and the 787 never really replaced the 767 because it was the 787-800 is actually similar size to 757-200 but a lot more expensive to service and to buy and wasn’t a replacement for the Boeing 767
Us the same cockpit and technology from the 787 to make a 797 which would be the 757 replacement
787 was the successor, that's why
Boeing should start looking for a 787F like the 350F…
GEnx-2b enough to power new 767
Absolutely
Boeing misse da trick by not updating the 767, especially as a freighter. It already has a glass cockpit. A re-engined 767-300F with -400ER wing would be a low cost / low risk effort. For some operators the 787 is too long-range, and it won't be available as a freighter. United wanted a large pax order, Boeing said no.
In sum, the FAA created a new rule requiring quieter more efficient planes by 2028. Boeing already makes a better 767…. that’s the 787. Clarification: the 767 is still in production and will be until 2033, but only existing freighter and aerial-refueler orders will be fulfilled. Big picture: Boeing’s product brochure is getting older, and the engineer work force has only grown smaller and younger. The next plane they come out with will require a lot of Boeing’s engineer workforce especially those older more experienced engineers, splitting the engineer workforce isn’t the right move. Because of events especially in the early 2000s Boeing has been playing rather defensive. 01 and 08 would scare anyone away from designing and building new planes. And because of that the last 10-20 years have not been used to design new products, on top of that I’d imagine a lot of engineers are being tied up in quality and delivery of what is being sold. The 787 took roughly 20 years between first passenger flight and design, this next plane has got to be right, and it’s got to be the best.
It's called the 787.
They did build it. It's the 787.
Doesn't Boeing still manufacture the 767? I thought it was still being manufactured for freight and military customers
Great point! It does actually KC-46 Pegasus, so a manufacturing line is being used.
Boeing went back into the past. The 757 and the 767 were major technological advances for their times. The 737 was already old. Boeing got lazy when it came to further developments of these aircraft and chose to advance old outdated tech such as the 737. The 767 as much as I love this aircraft, tho bigger, the 787-800 has replaced the 767. Boeing really needed a 757 replacement a decade ago. Now Boeing is at the point where the 737 is at design limitations and there is no real replacement for this nor an aircraft that can meet the capacity and performance of the 757. Boeing needs enthusiastic engineers. The longer they wait to build a new aircraft, the harder it will be to introduce a new narrow body when they finally choose to start innovating again.
Isn't Boeing still building the 767 for the US Air Force as tankers?
Yup the kc46
Airlines quit ordering the 767. Production continues, but passenger models were discontinued due to lack of customers.
They don’t need a new 767. They need a new 757. Unfortunately Boeing is short sighted and being run by shareholders instead of engineers.
New Airbus A380, Airbus Won't build It. What about the Boeing 777X, Emirates is also the largest operator of this plane!
Actually, the 777X isn't operated by anyone and still kicks certification down the road.
But yeah, the situation with high passenger capacity planes is annoying.
I've lost faith in Boeing, I don't think there is anthing left in the company...
Just need a new engine
Thanks, DJ!
Pls. allow me a few hints:
1. (off topic, but you mentioned it): I am quite old now, and have been following 757 revival talks online for over a decade. And to be honest: it is tiring! The claim of a (shrinking) Boeing fan community that there is no replacement for the 757 simply does not hold up. Do you - dear DJ - really want to build up you own reputation as a trusted aviation expert and analyst? Then get away with the gibberish, the myths, the iteration of other people's long falsified claims! While those said Boeing enthusiasts indulge themselves in nostalgy, the relevant airlines with remaining 757 fleets have all long decided. AMERICAN, UNITED, DELTA, CONDOR, JET2, and lastly ICELANDAIR: they all have ordered replacements for the 757. And in each and every case, the selected replacement is the AIRBUS A321neo. The only open question here concerns the few operators of sometimes very large 757 cargo fleets.
2. For the sake of this video, you have defined a topic "767 replacement". But the 767 replacement was exactly that what Boeing for many years had hyped as "the middle of the market", "the NMA", and "the 797". Interestlingly, Boeing had obscured the real intentions (or maybe the absence of such - who knows!) by leaving it open if the newly envisioned airplane would be a narrow or a widebody aircraft. Very late (IIRC!) it was disclosed that they envisioned a smallish widebody called "797" with a 2-3-2 seating configuration. Smallish widebody in 2-3-2 however is nothing else but a 767 successor. But following Boeing disclosures, this 797 will not (never) be built.
3. You assume that Boeing had to find factory space to build a re-launched new 767. But unlike the 757 line which was scrapped in their Renton site (South of Seattle) in 2004/5, the assembly line of the 767 (North of Seattle, in Everett) does still exist and builds - though in low frequency - freighters and KC-46 military tanker aircraft.
787 is the new 767 lol
767 neo.
Well when you lose half the value of the company in 4 years because the MAX is a disaster I'd say it's pretty hard to produce money for some R&D. That being said, the 767 matches the 787 in almost all dimensions except fuselage diameter and weight, both of which the 787 is larger. This is kind of a waste of a video.
It’s old tech and VERY noisey as a pax aircraft….why would you…and what is the point of this eight minutes of your life you will never get back
Ummm, because it's a boeing and their reputation's stuffed?
First!
Why? another airplane with safety issues?
Awesome Video Globe Trotting At Dj's Aviation🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂