It is a pleasure to again host guest commentator and commercial pilot Chris Cook, who offers his insight into the historical market of the 767 alongside its competition – the Airbus A300 and A310.
The ultimate “narrow” wide-body airplane.
Boeing officially launched the 767 family on the 14th July 1978 with an order from United Airlines for up to 30 767-200s. At the time, Boeing said that the 767 launch “climaxed several years of unprecedented airplane development activity. Never before in Boeing’s history has a new airplane been so thoroughly studied, analyzed, and wind-tunnel tested prior to official go-ahead.”
Boeing was clearly “bullish” regarding the size of the 767 market, and predicted the market would require between 1,000 and 1,500 airplanes over the next 20-years at the time of launch. However, markets never stand still, and by the end of July 1978, Airbus had hit back hard with the launch of their new high-tech twin-engine wide-body airplane, the A310-200. The race was on between the two competing airframe manufacturers to secure market dominance in the 200-seat commercial jetliner market.
Image courtesy of Boeing
Airbus pointed out that the A310 had a much wider fuselage than the 767-200, and therefore Airbus claimed that the A310 would offer better passenger comfort due to wider seats and wider aisles, whilst also offering greater seating flexibility options. The A310 has a maximum cabin width of 5.28m, whilst the 767’s is some 58cm less at 4.7m. Further, the A310’s wide-fuselage, 5.64m allowed for two industry standard LD-3s to be loaded side-by-side in the cargo bay; something the 767, with a fuselage width of 5.03m was unable to achieve. Boeing knew that the 767’s narrower fuselage was a major drawback in terms of it’s inability to carry two LD-3’s side-by-side, but remained firm that it offered better qualities than the A310 in two key areas; ironically both in volumetric cargo space and passenger cabin flexibility.
Was Boeing bluffing? No.
Boeing gambled that a new specially designed container for the 767’s lower-lobe cargo holds would be widely adopted. Boeing initially revealed the new container as an LD-3A, but quickly changed it to LD-67 as the former sounded too much like a compromise. The LD-67 was eventually renamed the LD-2 of today. Despite having to adapt to a new cargo container for the lower hold in order to efficiently full to volume available, Boeing hit back at Airbus and claimed that the 767 offered up to 30% more cargo volume than the A310.
In terms of passenger cabin comfort and flexibility, Boeing claimed that the 767’s cabin width was ideally suited for the passenger market.
“The 767 body was designed to cater to the people market, rather than the freighter market,” said Boeing engineer Jack Steiner at the time, pointing to the 767’s unique 7-abreast seating cross-section arrangement in economy.
This new cross-section philosophy on the 767 meant that the airplane had to be more than 80% full before the middle-row centre seats had to be occupied. These seats are famous for being heavily un-popular with passengers due to the need to “push-past” passengers to get to and from the centre seat. Therefore, the 767 offered the preferred cabin arrangement over the A310 according to Boeing.
Boeing knew that the 767 would evolve into a family of derivatives as the airplane indeed offered sheer design flexibility, and soon after the first -200s started rolling off the production line, the ground work was already in place for the launch of the equally popular -200ER versions. All -200s built from line number 86 onwards, regardless if they were -200ER order variants, incorporated structural provisions for the higher weight and extra fuel tanks that the -200ER required. However, the -200ER of today is an entirely different animal than the -200ERs of the early 1980s.
Back in the early 1980s, competition intensified with the A310 with Airbus moving ahead with the longer range and heavier A310-300 variant, prompting Boeing to beef up the -200ERs in order to provide more range and payload. This ultimately led to the 767 becoming the pioneer of ETOPS and ushered in the market phenomenon known as fragmentation. The 767 arguably became the first point-to-point, highly-efficient twin-engine, wide-body airplane.
The first -200ER variants were launched by ETOPS pioneers, Air Canada and El Al, and offered a maximum take-off weight of 151, 927kg (335,000Ibs) or some 24,923kg (55,000Ibs) greater than the basic -200s. However, it wasn’t until December 1982 that the real performance and weight increase for the -200ER came when Ethiopian Airlines ordered two 156,463kg (345,000Ib) maximum take-off weight -200ERs. These -200ERs offered far greater fuel capacity and range, with the additional fuel being carried in both the centre wing section as well as in two or three cargo bays converted into fuel tanks. However, the -200ERs range and weight was in for yet another growth spurt, and by late 1986, Boeing offered the 175,510kg (378,000Ib) maximum take-off weight version. By the 21st Century, the -200ER received its final boost to its range with the airplane featuring the 179,160kg (395,000Ib) maximum take-off weight.
Image courtesy of Airbus
Clearly, the 767 offered huge growth potential from the original -200 design, and it was mostly thanks to the extraordinary new wing the 767 featured. The Airbus A310 too featured an all-new wing design over the sister A300; an aft-loaded, super-critical wing design similar to the 767’s. The 767 features a 31.5 degrees wing sweep at mean aerodynamic chord (MAC), as well as relatively high aspect ratio of 7.98. The A310 features a wing sweep of 28 degrees at the MAC, whilst its aspect ratio is higher than that of the 767 at 8.8. The key in the 767’s greater growth ability over the A310 lay in the 767’s greater wing area of 3,050 square feet compared to the A310’s 2,360 square feet, which also allowed the 767 to have a higher initial cruise altitude over the A310’s. The 767s wing design also provided one of the best elliptical spanwise distributions of lift ever achieved on a Boeing airplane of that time. Elliptical lift characteristics on a wing result in an even and equal distribution of lift across the aerofoil and also results in a reduction of induced drag, hence the wing is incredibly efficient.
When Airbus ended production of the A310, they had sold 255 examples. It was certainly a very successful production run, and when combined with the total sales of the A300 family variants, Airbus had sold 816 A300/A310s by the end of production in 2007. The Boeing 767 family naturally grew into a variety of variants, with the -200/-200ER securing 249 orders, or 6 shy of the A310 order book. However, the 767 remains in production today, albeit with the main interest generated from the unique market position 767-300ER; both passenger and freighter model. Total 767s ordered up until July 2009 stood at 1036.
Christopher Cook
Commercial Pilot,
Johannesburg, South Africa.
http://tinyurl.com/Boeing-767-orders
More than one thousand 767 have been ordered, of which about fifty are still to be delivered.
http://tinyurl.com/Boeing-Backlog
Hey, Doesn’t this show that in general – the bigger growth capacity airplane is better?
Great article, it’s always nice to learn a little more about the history of the planes we fly in. The 767 truly was an excellent workhorse of an aircraft, and as the author pointed out, helped to pave the way for the vast number international travel options and city pairs that we enjoy today. A tribute to the flexibility of the aircraft, and helping to fill a noticeable capacity gap which had developed between the narrowbodies and widebodies of the day (esspecially in the Boeing product line!). In saying that I do look forward to it’s replacement – as a passenger I now dislike and try to avoid long-haul 767 flights in favor of 777s or A330s when possible (unless the price is good!), but that’s more because those 767s tend to be older with outdated interiors and poor IFE, a symptom of age and (commercial) neglect that seems common on many US-based 767s now days.
Christopher nice article / topic. I still think the 767 and A300/A310 left a large market segment (possibly with the 757 and Tu154) that hasn’t been adequatly filled in. The A330, 787 and A350 are much bigger, heavier and expensive. Look at the OEW’s.. The 787-3 proved a bad idea, luckely Boeing/ANA realized in time & pulled the plug.
Maybe Boeing can come up with a real light & optimized medium range 230-260 seater like the “light twin” they were testing the water with early this year.
http://www.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=356227572&o=int&prev=sub&p=44
I foresee a replacement / growth market of at least 2000 in 20 yrs.
>>>The 787-3 proved a bad idea, luckely Boeing/ANA realized in time & pulled the plug.
WTF are you talking about?
ANA is still taking the 787-3 and no amount of your incessant bullshitting can change that until ANA says otherwise.
Do you get paid to lie for Airbus or are you so blinded by the EU ejaculate that you cannot see fact from fiction?
Very nice article. Airbus had much to crow about with the A310 and its relatively “thin” wing – which proved to be a fairly competent and capable design (so my history books say). But ultimately, the 767 dramatically outsold the A300/A310 combination – having entered service about the same time as the A310 and about a decade after the A300.
Eventually, Airbus played catch up with the A330, and it incorporated the technology and economics to finally beat the 767. But as always, no Airbus really kills a Boeing – the 767 remains in production. The 767 together with the 757 where the original pioneers of the common cockpit/pilot type rating. And, the 767 remains the only airliner to have been stretched twice – from the 767-200/-200ER to the 767-300 and onto the 767-400ER. That’s true design growth potential.
2. ikkeman | December 1st, 2009 at 10:10
Hey, Doesn’t this show that in general – the bigger growth capacity airplane is better?
– I take that as reference to the A380. (G) If it makes you feel better, the 777 is also bigger than the A340 – better wing too. Maybe, the A380 will indeed outsell the 747, you know, at about 1,500+ units.
Paulo, the problem is that double stretches stink on ice. Boeing was also not willing to “do what was necessary” to make the 767-400 a real worthwhile aircraft. It was the first of the MD bastardization of Boeing “Do it on the cheap” attempts. Boeing could have done the plane right, but instead they cheaped out, and went half assed with the damn thing. It’s one of my LEAST favorite planes. In short, the 767-400 had “potential” that was flushed down the toilet of “do it cheap”.
‘the 767 remains the only airliner to have been stretched twice’
What about A340?
A340-200>A340-300>A340-500>A340-600
Also wondered what would happen if Boeing stretches the base model 787-8 to -9, to -10, to -11, as quite a few have been suggesting. Will it end up as the airliner above?
7. Erik Bloodaxe | December 1st, 2009 at 22:48
‘It’s one of my LEAST favourite planes’
It remains the best looking of the family
6. Paulo M | December 1st, 2009 at 19:32
2. ikkeman | December 1st, 2009 at 10:10
Hey, Doesn’t this show that in general – the bigger growth capacity airplane is better?
– I take that as reference to the A380. (G) If it makes you feel better, the 777 is also bigger than the A340 – better wing too. Maybe, the A380 will indeed outsell the 747, you know, at about 1,500+ units.
Paulo, or do you think that ikkeman meant that the larger “versions” of the same basic craft are better? 300 versus 200 with both the 76′ers and 77′s and the reference to the 380 may be for a stretch in the future? God forbid if they want to risk even more cash though, Yikes!
As for 4. keesje | December 1st, 2009 at 16:43, same old BS aye Mike M? Some things don’t change and it’s humorous to the point of embarrassment.
I think the 767-400ERX also suffered in that it required the EA and RR engines planned for the 747-500X and 757-600X. When those models were killed, that effectively killed the engines and that effectively killed the 767-400ERX. That the -ERX only secured one order might have been a sign that the airlines felt Boeing likely wouldn’t launch it and instead went with the A330-200 knowing they could get it (and it was a solid platform).
7. Erik Bloodaxe
I realise the 767-400 was the least successful variant of the 767 with just 37 deliveries made to Continental and Delta. The reason I mention this 767 is because Boeing today is working on another derivative in the form of the 747-8 – I feel that Boeing has spent considerably to do that plane.
They’ve largely reworked the wing. And there are major changes to the fuselage, like the 777 window belt. It’s still cheap by A380 standards, as anything would be, and indeed, it has a largely unchanged cockpit from the 747-400 – which is probably fine for such a niche aircraft. I think that the improvements should garner the Intercontinental more than 37 sales.
6. Paulo M | December 1st, 2009 at 19:32
I was talking tankers – but agree with what you said.
777 is better than 330/340 and A380 may well sell more than 747, if only because it’ll ba a real long time before anyone tries that again.
9. Aotearoa | December 2nd, 2009 at 01:52
nope – not all stretches are better, but when the 380 finally achieves it’s true intended size that will be a memorable day.
I think the 767-400 has bad luck. it could have been ordered by AA and UA if it wasn’t for 9-11.
Also it could do little the A330-200 couldn’t do better.
Mike m, oOn the 787-3, Boeing acknowleged it compromised by weight (see my link), JAL switched them for -8′s and ANA also switched. But you are not the kind of person who wants to know I guess, you seem to be on a one way street.
Boeing lists the 787-3 for ANA, they have not switched:
787-3 Summary Through October 2009
Model Series Orders Deliveries Unfilled
787-3 Total 28 – 28
Customer Name Eng First Order Orders Deliveries Unfilled First Delivery
All Nippon Airways RR 26-Jul-2004 28 – 28 –
787-3 Total 28 – 28
>>>USAF Fan
Thanks for showing keesje for what he is – a lying Airbus stooge.
Rather like the stooges that screwed the A380, cashed in their stock options and now have the French investigators crawling into their ass.
Keesje,
Have you ever noticed the B-787-3 and the A-330MRTT have the same number of orders? Somehow I think the B-787-3 will eventually sell more airplanes.
How’s that A-400M thing working out for ya?
Ed
8. B380 | December 1st, 2009 at 23:58
Sorry boss – I forgot about the A340. Beautiful aircraft, sadly no match for the 777. How many A340′s have been built – 250?
9. Aotearoa | December 2nd, 2009 at 01:52
Just kidding about the A380. But interestingly enough, both the initial size 767-200/-200ER and 777-200/-200ER have accounted for the bulk of those respective aircraft family sales. Of course, the 777-300ER is on its way to the top, having secured its market position as a genuine 747-400 passenger replacement aircraft. But as:
12. ikkeman | December 2nd, 2009 at 08:15
…says, the true design size of the A380 is the stretch – the -900. Boeing execs say that the current -800 is little more than a shrink from the -900. Now if they could just find the demand to go that big.
And the shrink -700 is a serious loser against the 747-8I. Unfortunately, market demand is so weak for all these 450+ seat aircraft, we may have to wait for eternity to see at least one stretched/shrinked derivative on the A380-800.
10. Chris Wallace | December 2nd, 2009 at 02:33
Yes. The 767-400ERX fate ultimately rested with the 747-500X and 747-600X (and also the 747-700X) – which where to be enormous engineering undertakings. Later that shifted to the 747-400X and 747-400X Stretch. This is itself an interesting dynamic, because Boeing appeared to try to launch one fairly weak aircraft (market demand speaking) on the back of another weak one – or at least, Boeing would never have been abe to launch those grandiose 747′s because the demand just never existed. This is altogether different from the current situation, where the 787 has part paid for the 747-8 to fly. And the 747-8 is a far better aircraft than those earlier stretch 747′s ever could be.
So looking forward to see the 747-8 fly – probably, the ultimate expression of the 747′s design potential.
17. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | December 2nd, 2009 at 19:10
“Beautiful aircraft, sadly no match for the 777″
Sadly indeed, although except for hot and high operations.
“How many A340’s have been built”
Let’s see
246+29+95=370 deliveries as of end of October.
@B380
Perhaps you should ask Emirates who have 100 or more 777s in service/order about their hot operations?
Or maybe ask Air China why they opted for 777-300ERs ahead of the A350 for their higher altitude airports – not to mention the likes Phillipine Airlines or Cathay Pacific etc etc?
Rather narrow statement from your otherwise good comments on this fora.
19. Paula K | December 2nd, 2009 at 21:12
“Rather narrow statement”
Paula, it is not a narrow statement. -600 will outlift B77W in hot and high operations.
“maybe ask…”
Or maybe ask South African for their operations in Africa or Iberia for the operations in South America. Please don’t take the view that B77W fits all missions. There are those for which -600 is better. That is my point.
20. B380 | December 2nd, 2009 at 21:50
Or maybe ask South African for their operations in Africa..
It’s Johannesburg, which is 1,694 metres above sea-level..
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OR_Tambo_International_Airport
For example, a flight from Johannesburg to Washington, D.C., currently operated with an Airbus A340-600, must stop in Dakar International Airport for refuelling, since the aircraft is not able to make the run on one fuel fill.
And I thought that was only a problem of Boeing 747-400′s. We should definitely have waited for the 777-300ER.
Well IB is a pure Airbus operator, so even if the A346 was the inferior performer, they’d still be flying it, anyway over the 77W.
SA is in many ways much the same, but while it is true the A346 performs better in such situations than the 77W, the 77W outperforms the A346 everywhere else, so most carriers ended up being willing to take a hit out of H&H in favor of stronger economics everywhere else.
19. Paula K | December 2nd, 2009 at 21:12
Sorry, just re read your post…
Air China is not operating B777-300ER and the A350 is not even in service. As for other airlines, I don’t know where they operate their 77Ws to.
“their higher altitude airports”, we are talking hot and high operations.
But again, I am not about to start an argument on the superiority of the 77W, it undoubtedly is, except for a few missions where -600 is better
21. Paulo M | December 2nd, 2009 at 22:14
‘Airbus A340-600, must stop in Dakar International Airport for refuelling’
But it is able to take off at MTOW or near enough, which B77W won’t do. It will also stop in Dakar.
22. Chris Wallace | December 2nd, 2009 at 22:17
‘A346 performs better in such situations than the 77W, the 77W outperforms the A346 everywhere else’
Is exactly the point i wanted to make.
20. B380 | December 2nd, 2009 at 21:50
Or maybe ask South African for their operations in Africa or Iberia for the operations in South America.
———————————————————-
TAM also uses the 777-300ER in that region.
Just a quickie: is the A346 better than the 77W due to volume or weight when it comes to better performance that poster B380 says?
Appreciate the clarification!
The A340-600, because it has four engines, has better engine-out performance from airports with high altitudes and/or high ambient temperatures. Also, at very high payloads in those environments, the 77W would exceed the maximum rated wheel speed to reach V2.