Why Boeing SHOULD MAX The 767! 

I thinks so

767X fits and sounds better if you ask me :D

With that range, it’s basically a small Dreamliner, not really a MOTM airplane. Not that I’m complaining lol… If they make it with those specs, the per flight operating costs must be cheaper than a 787-8 (otherwise, why not just get a 787?), which means it will use more advanced engine technology, or a new body structure.

Are you Fucking kidding me dude! It’s an airplane

@@josiahslate7374 For some of us that fly transoceanic every week for work, we need to sleep on these 10-12 hour flights. 767 is a nice small plane but it's the noisiest of all widebodies - this is a fact, not an opinion. I can fall asleep with ease on the A350 or A330neo, but B767 is a struggle for me.

@@_w_w_ yea , old engines. The newer GEnx engines are much quieter.

This is not a 321xlr competitor. Very big difference in pax capacity and range. especially an enhanced 764.

@@alphabravoindia5267 If you keep revise the 767-400, you will get into exactly what 787-8 is. I'd argue 321xlr is nearly in the same class as 787 as far as comfort is concerned. At the typical 9-abreast 787, its seat width is at the 6-abreast 321. the 321xlr is a better replacement for the 757 on transcon or transatlantic routes.

@@alphabravoindia5267 what about a 757-x ??

@@arnavsharma9882 While it would look incredibly cool, the tooling is scrapped and it would take a while to get it to market anyway. Plus, there's no 40-50k pound thrust engine option available, though they are looking at some. One thing I will tell you, there was rumour of a 757-plus around this time last year but I have no idea of the status on that.

@@alphabravoindia5267 ok I see I remember we had discussed a lot about this in other videos also right ? But no problem if you don't have the status coz Boeing has no other option/choice

Not exactly, it is 50tons heavier. Most routes 767's fly/most routes in the world do not need that range provided by the 787. Ability to make up difference in tonnage capacity via cargo is the only true reason to buy. It is why the a330neo is selling so poorly. It is slightly heavier and slightly longer ranged which literally means the ONLY people who want it are those in SE Asia who have a ton of a330's already and need LONG distances over water in the Pacific/Indian ocean and cannot afford a 777 or a350. No one else in the world really likes their a330 as most routes are much shorter on average. Why a 767-400 MAX makes zero sense, it is very close to 787-8/a330-800NEO and almost zero orders for the -8 of either model model have been sold in last 4 years... Truth is only reason is being discussed at all is because the GenX2B engine exists and it is is TOO BIG to be put on 767-300 and -300 has an ancient wing. Why NMA was looked at to begin with, new wing, new engine, new cockpit/flight controls = essentially 100% new aircraft. Fuselages/empenages are dirt cheap in comparison. Other than that FAA certificate.....

@@w8stral that explains a lot

Although the 787 might have been promoted as a 767 replacement, without the intended smallest version, it never really did, and it is that middle of the market gap which is causing Boeing and the Airlines such a big headache now.

@@neilpickup237 boeing allowed that to happened. The B787 was originally designed as 8 abreast in economy but because of the overweight issue, in order to deliver the promised fuel savings boeing offered to squeeze in the 9 abreast configuration as default. That indirectly bumped up the B787 capacity making it replaced the B767-400ER and B777-200ER instead, creating a gap leaving the B767-300ER without a successor.

@@w8stral agree. It will also be interesting to see how the A321XLR will fragmentize the B767X market. Since the number of applicable routes shrink significantly going above 4000nm, additional fleet complexity, price and cargo capability would significantly influence on airlines decisions, not so much of range or seating capacity. Considering the limited B767 operator base outside USA, Will airlines choose to fly 3 A321XLR instead of 2x B767X to a specific destination?

I agree with your comment.

I don’t think a new 767-200 would fail. It would be the length of the 752 and 762 and therefore longer than the A321. It could carry a bit more passenger (+1 seat per row) which would make it more flexible with bigger markets in the NMA segment. Also it could carry more Cargo than the A321neo in all its variants, a throwback compared to the 757. But I would definitely agree that no matter when it comes, it would be too late

@@spongebubatz looking back at the B757-200 vs B767-200 (non-ER), you will realised that the B757-200 requires 20% less thrust (~40klbf) vs the B767-200 (~50klbf). With a similar range and the same engine generation, it will simply means the single aisle design with 1 seat and 1 aisle less will be easily 20% more efficient. Of course the tradeoff would be the cargo capability, however the light twin aisle design of the 767 cannot accommodate the standard LD3 in the underbelly which causes other such as LD2 containers availability and turnaround. So with all these disadvantage, unless the new B767-2X could offer significantly better economics than the A321XLR, otherwise it will be difficult to convince airlines to accept it. That is also why the B757-200 outsell the B767-200 by almost 9 to 1. Even if you also consider the B767-200ER variant, the B757-200 still outsell the B767-200+200ER by 5 to 1. On the B767-300/300ER, its not a fair comparison as the B757-300 is some 12yrs later with most airlines already owning the B767-300ER. Still if today we were to pit the A322 vs the B767-3X, i do not expect the A322 to lose by a large margin. My estimate would be around 45% (A322) - 55% (B767-3X) and my estimated gap will be larger if its against the B797-6 (65%) - A322 (35%)

@@spongebubatz - I think you need to factor in that the B767 is a wide body and the A321 is a narrow body. To different types of aircraft.

@@chrismckellar9350 I know it’s bigger, but the Middle of the market isn’t just the size of the A321neo! It also reaches to a higher capacity, a market ideal for a 762 sized aircraft which has no replacement as of now. As I said, also the factor cargo plays an important rule when it comes to finding a 757 replacement

Yes! It's a great topic

@@navgeekaviation and with changing airline requirements, increasingly relevant.

The 767-200/ 300 is actually smaller , making it better for the NMA than the a330

Has more power than needed for 767-300F replacement though. While technically it fits, it doesn't. The ONLY reason they are talking the -400 revamp is because it has a new wing which the -300F model in production does NOT have, and Delta/JAL/ANA/BA and many others would buy them for those ~2000-->3000nm routes which need lots of capacity. There are many more of these routes than long distance routes and why Delta etc have desperately still been holding onto their 767's as an a330Neo or 787 is utterly a colossal waste on those routes with an extra 35-->50tons of structural weight which one you have to pay for and 2 have to fly around all the time doing nothing. The only question is HOW much of an upgrade.... are we talking complete overhaul of flight systems to 787/777 standards? If so, we are talking big $$$ and time. Re engine, only? Less than a year, and only customers would be for cargo most likely.

Boeing is trying to get AWAY from the 787 supply chain problems which crippled 787. Essentially Boeing does not build much of the 787, all they do is assemble it and the suppliers of those parts make most of the profits. Therefore, using only parts of the 787 built by Boeing and not its suppliers is the only option as otherwise you have to get into the horrible contracts of the 787 with Smiths, Moog, etc. Switching over the cockpit... no problem it will fit, along with sensor distribution splitting of wiring etc. Nearly everything else? Dump, though I will note the idiots are SHIPPING 777X wing box from FUJI and have dumped MOOG so... maybe that aspect got ironed out since I was at Boeing. Working with Smith's, DeHaviland, MHI, MOOG was a nightmare. Complete idiots.

So you mean... essentially creating a weird 767/787 frankeinstein monster? A clean sheet design would cost about the same as adapting 787 parts and would be much more optimized

@@PlanesAndGames732 > Structures are COMPLETELY separate from flight control systems other than.... FAA certificates. Why? Once you go FBW(fly by wire), you have a universal cockpit and the size of the aircraft does not matter. What is pathetic is that the 787 cockpit(based on 777) should have been placed in their 737's as well, and 767's and 777X(which they did), but because of the FAA certificate issue they did not in the 737 and instead we got the MAX fiasco as they wanted a true clean sheet design for the last 30 years on the 737.....

@@w8stral read the damn thing

@@PlanesAndGames732 I think that you mis- understood. To take wing from here, a tail from there and a nose from somewhere else might look strange (although not unheard of, the French Caravelle shared a nose with the British Comet!) I was referring only to the internal components such as flight control, computer systems and instrumentation etc. As for taking a wing from a 787 and bolting it onto a 767, I doubt that would even be possible - but to take the design, scale and adapt it appropriately might save a lot of time and many millions, both in short supply at Boeing. Assuming that the dimensions work out, it might even be possible to bolt on the 787 cockpit with (or without?) external skin changes, which even if a clean sheet design were to have engineering advantages, the range compatibility, both from a maintenance and crew training point of view would almost certainly wipe out any advantages of a clean sheet design.

With a fuselage 6" narrower than the Airbus, and the ever increasing size of the passengers, not as much sense as you might think - especially for the longer routes the 757 typically served. The cabin width deficiency will become increasingly evident if the airlines had to reduce to 5 abreast seating just to compete with the space offered by even wider single aisle aircraft currently being developed, along with the fact that every single aisled Boeing jet aircraft share fuselage components with the original 707 developed in the 1950s. Not a great thought that a 757x (I think max is dead) at the end of its airline use assuming a 30 year operational life after an initial development of only 3 years, any aircraft produced after the first 5 years could well have a fuselage design over a century old by the time they were retired.

same ideology here !! 757 is smaller and can destroy the a321xlr if it wants but boeing has to make the final decision so that they can fail the a321xlr badlyyyyy !!

The 757 is completely out of production while the 767 is still in production. Re-establishing the supply chain for the 757 would not make sense from a commercial stand point.

@@SoundoftheVoid dude the 767 is too large the 757 is much more defined in shape and can easily compete with the a321xlr

@@arnavsharma9882 the 767-200 isn’t too large and could be the ideal option for many airlines, it combines capacity and range but also cargo capacity, which is something the A321neo falls behind compared to the 757. Of course the 762 would be bigger, but not by a lot as it only has one seat per row more in a typical configuration, also the middle of the market isn’t just the capacity of the A321neo but also above that. Currently there’s no replacement for an aircraft the size of the 767-200, as I said something like 767-8 could really fit the role of an NMA aircraft for many airlines

@@spongebubatz I guess yeah

No it's not. The 787 is alot heavier than the 767 and was ment for long haul flights while the 767 was made for short to medium haul flights . Their not the same . The 787 is not effective and efficient for medium / short flights like a 767X could be . The 767-200 for example is close to 40 tons lighter than the 787-8 and would be better for the NMA because of its lower fuel burn. Even thou the 787 is considered a replacement , it serves different purposes /markets from the 767

@@mmm0404 It serves the same markets as the 767, which is also used for long haul flights. Maybe the 767-200 was largely meant for domestic flights, but the 300ER is a long hauler, and same with the 400ER; both of which can be covered by the 787-8/9. That's why I said a larger version of the NMA could cover the 767-200, as no airline (if few at all) uses it anymore. Even the freighter is based on the 300 model. People like always you bring up how much heavier the 787 is based on the smallest 767 model, despite that 767s today serve the same airports as a 787. Even Boeing themselves said the 787 was based on characteristics from the 767, which were improved upon because of new tech. The 767-200 may burn fuel a little less because it's a smaller frame, but the 787 would gain the advantage as the larger wing improves lift and its shape reduces drag, the shape of the frame also reduces drag, and the newer engines require less fuel when going the same distance. Plus, the added seating capacity would mean airlines see they're using less fuel on a 787 per seat mile, with ANA some years ago saying they've seen a 15% improvement on domestic routes.

@@fighter5583 Well the 787 is better than the 767 , everyone knows that but a 767X would be better on medium to short haul flights than a 787 . A 767X could comprise of the GEnx (15% less fuel burn than the Cf6) , a new composite wing ( like the 787/777X), that could further improve efficiency/ fuel burn and a taller landing gear.. The non ER versions of the 767-200 and 767-300 could fly around 7400km and seat between 215 to 250 seats in a two class. This further proves my point that they where initially designed for short to medium routes . The ER versions could push their range to around 10000 km , which is still good for the NMA , considering the 797 was designed to reach around 9500km. The 787 was generally designed for longer routes from the start with the smaller 787 flying around 13500 km and the 787-10 rumoured to get an ER version ... And speaking of weights , the largest 767, the 400er Has a dry mass of close to 20 tons less and a MTOW of close to 25 tons less than the 787-8 just to show how heavy the Dreamliner family is. The 300Er could fly around 11k (km) while the 400er course fly around 10k , thats generally lower than how much the 787 can fly. A re engined 767 with its much lower weights could offer better economics and a lower fuel burn on medium /short routes while filling the gap between the 737 and 787 and offer better competition to the XLR. The real point here is that introducing the 797 would have been better overrall yes , if only it was launched in 2019/20 with introduction in the late 2020's but now it's too late for that. Any new aircraft now will enter into service in the mid 2030's and that would leave Boeing without an XLR competitor , handing over the market to AB. A 767X could be introduced 2-3 years from now and allow Boeing to challenge for the NMA market while they focus their resources on a 737/757 replacement instead of a 321xlr competitor.

So should Airbus stop making neos and XLRs and buying other's planess and actually make their cleansheet planes

@@PlanesAndGames732 in 15 years when their products reach the same age as B737 and B767 they should have a clean sheet replacement of A320 and A330 programs, yeah. As for A220 that was Airbus' very smart move towards having a replacement aircraft and technology. It's unfortunate that Boeing's fear of Bombardier's advanced new product threatening their outdated 737 design has put CSeries in Airbus' hand thereby limiting any chances for a third player disrupting the single-aisle duopoly.

@@mbenidze And how sure can you be that Airbus will replace the A320/A330? We've already heared rumors of the FSA by Boeing, but NOTHING on Airbus' side. And most likely the ZeroE thing will just remain as a concept. Commercial aviation is still a long way from zero emissions.

@@PlanesAndGames732 If I were representing Airbus I'd be happy to answer that question. Let's check back in 15 years and see what new planes are out there. But as you mentioned we've seen ZEROe, also MAVERIC, E-Fan and E-Fan X from Airbus which does prove that there's a lot of thinking happening at Airbus for future technology and next generation of aircraft. The truth is however, having been developed 15-20 years later than their Boeing counterparts, A320 and A330 families are far more advanced technology and they can take a few more years before replacement aircraft are as urgently needed as Boeing needs them now.

@@PlanesAndGames732 you're right a321xlr is total crap its of no sense even qatar airways ceo does not have interest in the xlr and is only buying up till the lr variant