37 Responses

  1. Andreas Mowinckel
    Andreas Mowinckel at |

    Requires minimal investment as 767 still is being produced as freighter and tanker. If memory serves me right, several operators also selected new and discounted 767’s then the 787 was delayed.
    Perhaps we’ll see a 767NG with new engines … ?

    1. Seth Miller
      Seth Miller at |

      New engines is a WAY bigger project, with new certifications required and such. I’d bet against that for a 2020ish ramp up as was suggested.

  2. Jason
    Jason at |

    If airlines are already deeming the 787 as too much plane for the mission they would rather put a 757/767/797/NMA/MOM, could you really say that those orders would have eventually gone 787? I think the hurting 787 program profitability argument is a non-factor unless you’re convinced no one was going to fill the space and airlines would be forced to overbuy capability. Airbus will likely build the A322 and force Boeing’s hand.

  3. Michael Leung
    Michael Leung at |

    I like this development!

    1. Seth Miller
      Seth Miller at |

      As a coach passenger I mostly like it, given that going tighter than 2-3-2 isn’t going to happen. Beyond that, it is all sorts of strange, both good and bad.

    2. Steven Sullivan
      Steven Sullivan at |

      Yeah, it’s a great aircraft in economy – perhaps one of the best ever designed back there. It also presents a lot of challenges up front, where it’s just not quite wide enough for the best lie flat business seats to work.

      That said, I’d still love to see a new batch of 767s out there.

    3. Joel Anderson
      Joel Anderson at |

      The staggered setup in C is a bit too narrow versus a reverse Herringbone to have a decent sleep position. I have short legs and I think the foot well is too narrow for C as well. AC’s 1-1-1 setup is about the best C seat for a 767, IMHO.

    4. Michael Leung
      Michael Leung at |

      United’s Polaris seat seems like a better solution.

    5. Scott Hamilton
      Scott Hamilton at |
  4. Robert
    Robert at |

    I always wondered why the 767 wasn’t in more demand still, at least that size plane, and why Boeing never renewed the project. I know it’s an old plane but it fits well, there’s a reason it’s still in use even if it’s no longer in production.

    1. Noah
      Noah at |

      but there is also a reason it isn’t in production (passenger variant). Airlines stopped ordering it. There reached a point where the price of a new 767 was not worth it compared to 737 / 787. I do think Boeing assumed the market would move a little more than it did towards longer range. The 787 at almost $100 M list price more than the last 767 is a huge price increase if the mission doesn’t change and all you get is a little better operating margin. And those key missions are longer than a 737Max at slightly more capacity, the 757/767 bread and butter routes. That hap has existed for a bit. But that doesn’t mean the answer is a new 767 – not everything should be replaced 1:1. It could be more 737 MAX and replace capacity with frequency, it could be utilizing older, depreciated planes like the 777, it could be the cheaper a330 / a330NEO, or it could be vacating certain routes and flowing over hubs. Does Boeing see the market as big enough to justify restarting a line and those costs vs. discounting the 787 to win an order similar to the UA 737 order.

      As a pax, I like the 767. And airlines like it too, mostly because for many carriers it is older and paid off or attractively priced. It is a reliable workhorse that can fit international and domestic routes. And the 767 is still in production for military and cargo variants, and the passenger version was made even into the 787 program launch as delays stacked up early.

      Seems like more of the 757 talk that existed a few years ago. Nostalgia + unique acquisition and operating costs + attractive fuel costs made an airplane look good in short term, but not necessarily one which can be restarted and sold again at today’s prices. If Boeing doesn’t go after the MOM, they will face a long term challenge as optimization opportunities on old frames are running out.

  5. Amy
    Amy at |

    What are NMA and MOM?

    1. Noah
      Noah at |

      New Midsize Airplane
      Middle of Market Airplane

      both to refer to the 757-767 sized replacement aircraft that is in the 200-250 seat range, smaller than 787 and larger than 737

  6. henry LAX
    henry LAX at |

    the gap is obvious and glaring … just take the max ULCC airlines can *realistically* stuff into the planes :

    737-MAX 200 : 200 seats , 4 FAs
    A321neo : 240 seats, 5 FAs (i’m sure someone is pressuing Airbus to go all the way to 250)
    789 / 339neo : roughly 400 seats, 8 FAs

    the gap for MoM/797 would be 2 sizes – one that maxes out at 6 FAs / 300, and one that maxes at 7 FAs / 350, which maps to roughly 190 seats in mixed-cabin for the smaller size one, and 225 seats for the larger one.

  7. Robert Dotson
    Robert Dotson at |

    Helen Porche…what do you make of this odd news???

    1. Helen Porche
      Helen Porche at |

      Robert, I don’t think we’ll see them because Douggie would rather fly 737’s on long haul, not widebodies! Looks like UA is lined up for them. Any airline that flies them MIA SFO/LAX will win my loyalty!

    2. Shane Martin
      Shane Martin at |

      Unfortunately you are stuck with Dougie.. #hubcaptive

  8. Matt Nevans
    Matt Nevans at |

    Good write up Seth. I think there’s a real possibility this happens.

  9. Glen Towler
    Glen Towler at |

    I think Boeing should worry more about a 757 replacement.And I always thought the 787 and 777 was the 767 replacement. It does show a lack of investment at Boeing for new aircraft they shouldn’t have bothered with the 747-8i and spent more money getting the 787 right first time and on time.

    1. Ben Granucci
      Ben Granucci at |

      Even if they develop the 797 as a replacement for the 757, it’s at least 7 years away once it’s launched. This can be accomplished quickly and would result in some sales that would almost definitely go to Airbus otherwise.

    2. Glen Towler
      Glen Towler at |

      Airbus are ahead as normal it seems these days with the A330 NEO. It was same with the A320 NEO ahead by years of the 737 MAX.

    3. Seth Miller
      Seth Miller at |

      The A330neo is not a 757 replacement. Neither is the A321LR.

    4. Glen Towler
      Glen Towler at |

      Yes but I am sure Airbus is marketing as the A321LR as a 757 replacement.

    5. Seth Miller
      Seth Miller at |

      And Boeing is marketing the MAX10 in a similar manner; it hits 80-90% of the mission profiles of the 752. But the NMA/MOM/797 “replacement” for the 757 is also an up-gauge to something larger. Really more a 787 with shorter range.

      I wonder if the 787-3 would’ve been the correct answer here had all the other program problems not cropped up.

    6. Glen Towler
      Glen Towler at |

      That is an interesting what if they had gone ahead with 787-3. I am surprised that Airbus hasn’t announced a proper 757 replacement but my guess is they don’t see the sales potential

    7. Seth Miller
      Seth Miller at |

      Airbus says the A321neo and A330neo cover the markets. Similar to Boeing I believe that is partly driven by the fact those are the planes it has available.

    8. Glen Towler
      Glen Towler at |

      It will be interesting to see how many 797s will be ordered.

  10. James Lawrence
    James Lawrence at |

    So what if there was a large online shipping company frustrated with service from UPS/FEDEX/USPS? Hypothetically maybe a Seattle based company had started its own cargo airline with a few 767 freighters? Maybe they wanted to expand to a fleet of fifty to one hundred 767 freighters? Would such a “prime” company have enough retiring passenger aircraft to fulfill such a need? Hypothetically speaking of course and sorry for all the annoying questions. ????

    1. Jason Thompson
      Jason Thompson at |

      They should invest in more super tankers.

    2. Glen Towler
      Glen Towler at |

      They could buy Airbus A330s instead

    3. Seth Miller
      Seth Miller at |

      The A330 as a freighter never caught on the same way the 767.did and I doubt that will change.

  11. Jeary Beals II
    Jeary Beals II at |

    this will happen once united figures out how to cram 3-3-3 in the back of the bus

  12. Paul Greer
    Paul Greer at |

    Not a bad idea at all…

  13. Jay Burwell
    Jay Burwell at |

    Clearly it is, and they still don’t want to go head to head against the A321…

  14. Mark Ellsworth
    Mark Ellsworth at |

    This Middle-of-Market airplane is very tricky business. Nobody is excited about bringing a 757-type aircraft back in the guise of an A-322 for the same reason airlines ignored the 757-300. Nobody wants to ride on an airplane that takes 30-minutes for disembarkation. Waiting a long time to get off is awful. It is difficult for staff to service so many people with one aisle. The alternative, a short 767-200 aircraft, is heavier and burns more fuel per passenger trip. So what is the 7-abreast, twin-aisle game? Less weight, read carbon fiber fuselage; less drag, read flatter, ovular shaped fuselage without freight pretense; medium range—less fuel to take aloft; hence a lighter, more efficient wing; a geared turbofan to cut 15% on SFC;, and a much shorter, lighter landing gear, positioned aft that probably forces the engines into DC-9 position; all to pull a long-haul aircraft as far down into the middle as possible. Forget extended range. We are going to get an ultra-efficient, medium-range airplane. That’s why the airlines are excited. It will be an airplane that does something special, something never done before, that does not confuse flying the top of the bottom of the market, or flying the bottom of the top of the market with actually breaking the mold and flying the middle of the market in a highly optimized way. It’s about flying people, not cattle.