notEnuf

I seem to remember before deliveries started that the 787 was the all purpose airframe. Large volume shorter routes was supposed to be a realistic mission for the airplane. The 787-800 was supposed to be the 767-300ER replacement.

sailingfun

There are a bunch of engineering reasons why airframes don’t scale down well. They always end up heavier than wanted. In the case of the 787 it’s worse because it’s a heavy airframe to start with to carry the fuel for very long flights. The planned 757-100 is a example that was just to inefficient. Scaling up has the opposite effect and stretching airframes is very popular.

GogglesPisano

The 747SP comes to mind. Not very successful.

FL370esq

I think the "SP" stood for Saudi Prince 'cause they seemed to be the only ones flying 'em. 😁

sailingfun

There was discussion of a 787-300 for domestic. Airframe just to heavy for short haul and the wing to big for gating. 787-800 is 264,500 empty with a 197 foot wing. The 767-300 has a 197,000 OEW and a 156 foot wing. The 767-300 is much better for short flights.
Boeing may have missed the boat when UAL asked for more. Better engines and the cockpit already designed and built for the tanker version might have had surprising sales.

gloopy

I hope we have a strong backup plan ready to go then. If they really try another clean sheet jet there's no way they'll be able to resist the temptation of a fantasy outsource scheme like the 787. Way too much money up for grabs for the decision makers when they "calculate" in their fake savings. Another debacle is "tomorrow guy's" problem.

IMO a 763 with some gee-whiz engines (that's most of the advantage/efficiency right there) and a nose to tail walk through would be very hard to beat. I remember a company article somewhere years ago that talked about saving 2000 lbs on an ER just from replacing the door springs with better ones made out of another material. I'm sure you could find 5-10K more in a complete 2020ish walk through while still using mostly conventional manufacturing. Add in another couple percent in aero (scimitars or something, whatever) and the end result would be WAY cheaper than another late, heavy, lithium ion debacle and all in (including capex) cheaper in the first place.

BoilerUP

Boeing is already making 2.5 767s per month for FDX/UPS/USAF and going up to 3.0/mo in Jan 2020...with rumors for an additional 0.5/mo in July 2020 and a third 0.5/mo increase in Jan 2021.

If passenger airlines ACTUALLY want factory new 767-300ERs and Boeing isn’t willing to sell them, it is because they would rather sell 787-8s at a higher price.

gloopy

Or BA is, in their "Bank of Boeing" dual subsidized hubris high, arrogantly leaving those orders as crumbs on the table for Airbus to pick up with their 321NEO "least worst" option.

ebl14

I think Boeing knows they could sell new passenger 767s but it would be at the expense of the new clean sheet aircraft due to hit the showrooms in a few years. With no competition in this market Boeing holds all the cards. I’m guessing the new plane will be a disappointment but airlines will have no choice as long as Airbus doesn’t field a worthy competitor.

BoilerUP

NMA is at LEAST seven years out from entry into service...and still nothing more than marketing vaporware at this point.

2025+ is a long time to make airlines looking at recapitalizing aging medium widebody fleets to wait.

Then again, if they can thread the needle on performance v. price v. operating economics....it may be worth it.

I just have a hard time wrapping my head around a long-time customer saying "Hey we wanna buy some passenger models of this airplane you are still building" and BA saying "Nope."

<shrug>