A question about Boeing's plans...

I am just wondering…with the advent of the Boeing 787, does this spell the end of the 767 line for Boeing in order to make room for the 787? If not, where are they going to do final assembly of the 787?

Looking at Boeings unfilled orders from the January this yr to present for the 767, they only have 4 orders (3 for LAN and 1 unidentified customer).

To me, it would indicate that the 767 is at either close to the end of its production life cycle.

I think they will be discontinuing the 767 unless they are able to get the 767 AWACS program going.

The 787 is suppose to replace the 767 and 757.

767 is dead unless the Air Force picks it for their tanker program Real Soon Now.

787 more or less replaces the 753, all 767, and 772/772ER. The next generation narrowbody (Y1, currently known as 737RS) will probably cover everything up to and including the 752.

767 is dead unless the Air Force picks it for their tanker program…

Wasn’t sure if it was the AWACS or tanker that Boeing was pushing for its 767.

I thought it was the tanker as well?

Mduell says tanker and I believe he is correct. After reading his reply, I remember they proposed to call it the KC-767. In Air Force talk, C indicates Cargo and K indicates Tanker.

There is a 767 AWACS version that has either been purchased or looked at by a foreign country.

Yep, the 787 is designed to replace the 767, and final assembly will be on the same line. I believe this is in Renton, WA, or it could be Everett. It’s one of the 2 main WA facilities, and it’s on B’s website, which I’m too lazy to look up at this moment. :unamused:

It’s Everett. I dragged my lazy fingers over to:


it’s on B’s website, which I’m too lazy to look up at this moment.

Obviously very lazy. The proper abbreviation for Boeing is Boeing. :stuck_out_tongue:
“B” is what Airbus’ grade is while “A” is Boeing’s grade.

(not to start any Airbus versus Boeing discussion or is that fight?)

I am NOT going to touch that one… :unamused:

**> sniff <…> sniff <…Smells like a Boeing/Airbus flamewar brewing… :smiling_imp: **

…I’m in!

**I’ll take Boeing’s side! Who wants to play!?! **

Hey now, I DID look it up!! As far as “A” or “B” is concerned, sometimes “B” is Better and “A” is Amateur… Can’t wait to see my “inbox” in the morning! :smiling_imp: :smiling_imp: (On second though, this isn’t a.net) :laughing:

I swore I was going to keep out of this but when Planeaholic said

As far as “A” or “B” is concerned, sometimes “B” is Better and “A” is Amateur…

I just had to say I agree, although I’d have said “Best” instead of “Better.”

That may be so, but we ARE comparing TWO manufacturers in this forum. :wink: If it’s ok w/ you, I’d like to use “B” & “A” to save space.
I think most red-blooded flag-waving Americans (including the vast majority of FA members) would agree that B is the best, although for differing reasons. I happen to think that B builds a slightly better a/c, but there’s nothing wrong w/ A’s planes PHYSICALLY. When it comes to how the corporations are run, I think B blows Airbus away. Boeing seems to concentrate more on improving their products and designs, while A spends an awful lot of time & marketing $$ taking cheap shots at Boeing. Anyone remember the full-page newspaper ads (not long after 9/11, to add insult to it) that praised the A340 for trans-Oceanic travel over 767 & 777 because “4 engines are better than 2.” They seem to have forgotten that B had a 4-engine long distance hauler some 30 years before them!! And now, of course, they’re practically giving 340s away, and they still are being slapped around by 777. :smiling_imp: They continue to take cheap shots at the 787, even though the numbers don’t lie, and the airlines that know are gobbling up slots for 787 like a spoiled child at a candy counter. As I’ve said in past forums, I truly believe that the competition forces both builders to create a better product. But, don’t worry, damiross–I prefer Boeing hands down. :smiley:

Point about “better” and “best” well taken.

I think Boeing builds a stronger product. There’s two incidents that come to main to confirm this.

On 28 Jun 65, Pan Am 707-321B (N761PA) departed SFO. The number four engine, along with the wing around it, came off the aircraft due to improper mainteance. The aircraft, missing a good portion of the wing, was able to land without crashing.

Then just about everyone knows about the Aloha 737 convertible.

As I’ve mentioned in another thread, I was a passenger on board a World Airways 707 flying to SE Asia when we lost the port side outboard engine and pylon while encountering CAT.

We successfully diverted to Naha, Okinawa where we were transferred to another aircraft the following day.

But for truly awe inspiring tales of Boeing aircraft durability, just read some stories about B-17s surviving incredible damage during WWII and being able to return to their bases.



When you mentioned the “convertible” 737, and I thought of another incident (ironically enough, in Hawaii as well) where the front cargo door of a UAL 747 wasn’t properly latched, and it tore off, taking a 20X12 foot section of fuselage (and about 9 pax I think :cry: ) with it. The plane returned and landed with no further casualties.

thenewstribune.com/business/ … 1935c.html