Originally Posted by
Dave Fitzgerald
Short term memory can be problems. You may have forgotten, the 787 is a direct replacement for the 767. Same seating capacity, but more range. The age of the 767's isn't really the question. The driving factor is how long do you want to keep paying for a higher seat mile cost? And....the seat mile cost of a paid for airplane, with cheap fuel isn't all that different than a brand new 787. So, at least for the time being, I'd say we will continue to keep the 767's. Just like Delta, hmmm.....
If you really wanted to, I bet Boeing would sell you a bunch of new 767's. Still building them. I'll bet you could even get the new 787 style glass that the KC-46 and FedEx planes are going to have. In fact Boeing is increasing the production rate because of these orders. The plane hasn't had this much of a backlog in decades.
So, no, the A330 is not the only option.
The 787 was never designed to replace the 767, not even remotely close. It was derived from the Sonic Cruiser, and was designed to completely change the paradigm. Long haul, thinner lower demand routes. Sure, you can use a 787 to fly 767 routes. Complete waste of $300+m airplane... what then flies the legs only the 787 can fly when your 787's are doing EWR-LHR? With a 30% fuel burn advantage over the 767 it would take the life limit of the airplane to recoup that purchase price in fuel savings. Meanwhile you get your ass handed to you while your competitors stretch out their 78's on routes you can't fly, because you're in the ballpark waiting for deice for a leg that's 1/3 of the airplanes capability. Like using a 757 for CLE-CMH runs.
And what are we going to do with a 767 freighter? They don't build the pax variant anymore.
Don't even get me started on what a sht show the KC-46 program is, and has been, for decades.