Delta's Fleet replacement plan
10-14-2018, 11:04 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 7ERA
Posts: 1,216
Delta does a very good job of making aircraft purchases in smaller batches. Each time they are able to get Airbus and Boeing fight it out, driving down the price. People should not get worked up at the fact that we don’t have enough wide bodies on order to replace the ERs. Delta will stick with their tactic and there will be more orders.
10-14-2018, 11:10 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,094
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
The perfect engine would be the GTF fan on a GE core.
Pratt's engines have always been problems and it still sounds like the problem with the GTF is the main shaft of the engine and bearing interfaces. (combustion liners falling apart can be fixed by reverting back to older & more labor intensive assembly techniques for a cost) It appears the GTF just needs a larger shaft which pretty much means redesigning the entire production from soup to nuts. It would be chuckle-worthy if ten thousand million dollars had not already been spent, thousands of people's jobs were not on the line and thousands of orders already committed.
Pratt is very Douglas like in their commitment to a bad design once tooling has been made.
Pratt's engines have always been problems and it still sounds like the problem with the GTF is the main shaft of the engine and bearing interfaces. (combustion liners falling apart can be fixed by reverting back to older & more labor intensive assembly techniques for a cost) It appears the GTF just needs a larger shaft which pretty much means redesigning the entire production from soup to nuts. It would be chuckle-worthy if ten thousand million dollars had not already been spent, thousands of people's jobs were not on the line and thousands of orders already committed.
Pratt is very Douglas like in their commitment to a bad design once tooling has been made.
10-14-2018, 11:16 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,094
Originally Posted by GogglesPisano
So why is Boeing "developing" a whole new design for the 797. Why not shorten the 787 and add smaller fuel tanks and ... viola: A small, twin aisle, medium haul airplane.
You can't just re-engine a 767 because those engines don't exist and the stresses on them would be immense, plus it would still burn more because of the inefficient cabin crosssection compared to an elliptical structure.
10-14-2018, 12:40 PM
#24
Sick of whiners
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Position: 767 VEOP
Posts: 507
Originally Posted by iaflyer
Many of the currently flying B767s were purchased in 1990s and early 2000 timeframe. So using a 25 year lifespan, they aren't up for renewal until 2021 or so, going out to 2027, so we have plenty of time to plan for that. I'd guess it's going to be a B797 competition with whatever the Airbus product is at the time.
TCO calculations by network result in continued use of Boeing jets to approx a 30 year life, not 25. As of last week, Network stated that they plan on keeping most 757/767s out to that 30yr point. Based on build dates, MANY of our current 757/767 fleet will still be flying in the last half of the next decade.
.
10-14-2018, 01:46 PM
#25
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Originally Posted by Name User
The win on the 797 was a different cabin crosssection. With traditional design the fuselage must be oval or a "double double" (a la DC9) to handle the pressurization stresses. With a composite fuselage a 797 could be more elliptical and that would approximate the fuel burn of a narrow body with a twin aisle cabin (at the expense of cargo). Another issue is weight, the 787 is heavy due to internal structure to carry their 15+ hours or range, reducing the structure down also saves weight which is why a 767-300 is actually a better choice on shorter six hour legs vs a 787.
You can't just re-engine a 767 because those engines don't exist and the stresses on them would be immense, plus it would still burn more because of the inefficient cabin crosssection compared to an elliptical structure.
You can't just re-engine a 767 because those engines don't exist and the stresses on them would be immense, plus it would still burn more because of the inefficient cabin crosssection compared to an elliptical structure.
10-14-2018, 03:29 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2011
Posts: 275
Originally Posted by Xray678
Delta does a very good job of making aircraft purchases in smaller batches. Each time they are able to get Airbus and Boeing fight it out, driving down the price. People should not get worked up at the fact that we don’t have enough wide bodies on order to replace the ERs. Delta will stick with their tactic and there will be more orders.
Agree. Rather see a company be frugal on big purchases and not breaking the bank on new shinny equipment. Like one company that will be 35 billion in debt by years end on new aircraft orders. Ouch!!
10-14-2018, 05:40 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,032
I have no idea why Boeing uses a modified 60 year old design for its only narrow-body product yet has designed and built 4 clean sheet wide-body jets with their own variants in that same time. I don’t see the wisdom in not reworking the 767. I would never profess to be an engineer or a manufacturing business manager but there seems to be some inefficiency here.
10-14-2018, 06:15 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: A350 Both
Posts: 7,292
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
10-15-2018, 05:42 AM
#30
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 36
Originally Posted by notEnuf
I have no idea why Boeing uses a modified 60 year old design for its only narrow-body product yet has designed and built 4 clean sheet wide-body jets with their own variants in that same time. I don’t see the wisdom in not reworking the 767. I would never profess to be an engineer or a manufacturing business manager but there seems to be some inefficiency here.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
DLax85
Cargo
11
01-18-2017 07:53 PM
