Possible order for NEW 767s!

Hmmmm…. Interesting times?

Hmmmm…. Interesting times?

At first glance it’s weird. At second glance there is some logic in it. Not necessarilly for Shanghai, but for Boeing definately.

Consider this. The Pentagon wants to get 767s. No secret there. Only problem is getting the congress to approve it. This may take a while. Of course Boeing is not happy having an empty production line. Nor would the suppliers of the 767 program. My guess is that Boeing is giving them away at cost price (or even below!).

Would not be surprised if the Pentagon was a co-sponsor of the deal. Would be delicious irony. The Pentagon giving money to China! 😀

…[related]…

Aerospace Notebook: Will the 767 still be Boeing’s tanker for the Air Force?

By JAMES WALLACE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER
Wednesday, February 16, 2005

In a recent conference call, Boeing boss Harry Stonecipher was asked several times about the future of the 767 tanker deal with the Air Force.

“We are fully prepared to charge up that hill in any direction they want to go,” Stonecipher said of the Air Force. “We have a full line of products we’re able to offer them.”

But with the company’s 767 production line in Everett nearing an end, Boeing doesn’t have another airplane platform that fits previous Air Force requirements for a tanker. And that raises several interesting what-if scenarios for Boeing and the Air Force as the next episode of the tanker drama is set to play out.

Unless the Air Force changes those requirements, Boeing’s 777 is way too big. The company’s new 787 is designed so close to the edge for efficiency that it could not be modified as a tanker, according to senior Boeing executives.

Then there’s a futuristic blended-wing-body design that Boeing once touted as a possible tanker, but it is just a concept that may never become a reality.

Meanwhile, EADS, the European defense company that owns 80 percent of Airbus, is ready to take on Boeing for the tanker deal with the Airbus A330-200 — if the Air Force opens up the competition.

That’s possible, since a $23 billion buy-lease deal to supply the Air Force with 767 tankers was dumped in the wake of Boeing’s Pentagon ethics scandal in which a former Air Force official was sent to prison and Boeing’s former chief financial officer is due to be sentenced Friday.

The Pentagon recently said it will take at least five more months to assess alternatives for its tanker fleet. It could decide to postpone buying new tankers for now and keep flying its aging fleet of nearly 500 KC-135 tankers. Or it could hold a new tanker competition, this time with EADS in a head-to-head showdown with Boeing.

Such a competition could take more months. And Boeing’s 767 line is on borrowed time. Boeing has only 23 planes left to build and deliver.

Boeing will not comment on production rates, but 767 workers say they’re building about eight planes a year. So the orders still on the books amount to nearly three years of production.

But without new orders, Stonecipher has said, Boeing probably will announce in May or June a timetable for ending production of the 767. Boeing would likely speed up production of the remaining planes to save money and close the line next year.

Once 767 production ends, restarting the line to build tankers for the Air Force would significantly drive up Boeing’s costs. One option might be that Boeing could decide to reopen the line and take a charge against earnings to cover the startup cost.

Click HERE for the full article

At first glance it’s weird. At second glance there is some logic in it. Not necessarilly for Shanghai, but for Boeing definately.

Consider this. The Pentagon wants to get 767s. No secret there. Only problem is getting the congress to approve it. This may take a while. Of course Boeing is not happy having an empty production line. Nor would the suppliers of the 767 program. My guess is that Boeing is giving them away at cost price (or even below!).

Would not be surprised if the Pentagon was a co-sponsor of the deal. Would be delicious irony. The Pentagon giving money to China! 😀

…[related]…

Aerospace Notebook: Will the 767 still be Boeing’s tanker for the Air Force?

By JAMES WALLACE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER
Wednesday, February 16, 2005

In a recent conference call, Boeing boss Harry Stonecipher was asked several times about the future of the 767 tanker deal with the Air Force.

“We are fully prepared to charge up that hill in any direction they want to go,” Stonecipher said of the Air Force. “We have a full line of products we’re able to offer them.”

But with the company’s 767 production line in Everett nearing an end, Boeing doesn’t have another airplane platform that fits previous Air Force requirements for a tanker. And that raises several interesting what-if scenarios for Boeing and the Air Force as the next episode of the tanker drama is set to play out.

Unless the Air Force changes those requirements, Boeing’s 777 is way too big. The company’s new 787 is designed so close to the edge for efficiency that it could not be modified as a tanker, according to senior Boeing executives.

Then there’s a futuristic blended-wing-body design that Boeing once touted as a possible tanker, but it is just a concept that may never become a reality.

Meanwhile, EADS, the European defense company that owns 80 percent of Airbus, is ready to take on Boeing for the tanker deal with the Airbus A330-200 — if the Air Force opens up the competition.

That’s possible, since a $23 billion buy-lease deal to supply the Air Force with 767 tankers was dumped in the wake of Boeing’s Pentagon ethics scandal in which a former Air Force official was sent to prison and Boeing’s former chief financial officer is due to be sentenced Friday.

The Pentagon recently said it will take at least five more months to assess alternatives for its tanker fleet. It could decide to postpone buying new tankers for now and keep flying its aging fleet of nearly 500 KC-135 tankers. Or it could hold a new tanker competition, this time with EADS in a head-to-head showdown with Boeing.

Such a competition could take more months. And Boeing’s 767 line is on borrowed time. Boeing has only 23 planes left to build and deliver.

Boeing will not comment on production rates, but 767 workers say they’re building about eight planes a year. So the orders still on the books amount to nearly three years of production.

But without new orders, Stonecipher has said, Boeing probably will announce in May or June a timetable for ending production of the 767. Boeing would likely speed up production of the remaining planes to save money and close the line next year.

Once 767 production ends, restarting the line to build tankers for the Air Force would significantly drive up Boeing’s costs. One option might be that Boeing could decide to reopen the line and take a charge against earnings to cover the startup cost.

Click HERE for the full article

ATA still have quite a lot of scheduled work: West Coast-Hawaii, selected Midway routes in codeshare with Southwest and a few IND routes. Any B767’s would replace Tristars on USA military flights

ATA still have quite a lot of scheduled work: West Coast-Hawaii, selected Midway routes in codeshare with Southwest and a few IND routes. Any B767’s would replace Tristars on USA military flights

I don’t think ATA are in any sort of situation that will enable them to buy new aircraft? 😮 :confused: Aren’t they on the verge of liquidation?

I think they’ve stabilised after selling off their 757-300 fleet and a lot if not all of their schedules.

They are now concentrating on charter work.

I don’t think ATA are in any sort of situation that will enable them to buy new aircraft? 😮 :confused: Aren’t they on the verge of liquidation?

I think they’ve stabilised after selling off their 757-300 fleet and a lot if not all of their schedules.

They are now concentrating on charter work.

I think ATA might order new B767’s. They want to replace their Tristars and brand new B767’s would mean they would not have to replace them for 15-20 years. Also less maintenance costs. Maybe Southwest could help them with the cost?

I don’t think ATA are in any sort of situation that will enable them to buy new aircraft? 😮 :confused: Aren’t they on the verge of liquidation?

I think ATA might order new B767’s. They want to replace their Tristars and brand new B767’s would mean they would not have to replace them for 15-20 years. Also less maintenance costs. Maybe Southwest could help them with the cost?

I don’t think ATA are in any sort of situation that will enable them to buy new aircraft? 😮 :confused: Aren’t they on the verge of liquidation?

It was exactly my point 😉

Oops, must have missed it!

It was exactly my point 😉

Oops, must have missed it!

This is only standard practice in the A/c industry and has happen so many times before, difference being manufacturer sells old type aircraft ( 737, 767 ) untill new aircraft 787 is available. Then if the NEW aircraft dont get delivered on time Customer has a/c to satisfy their need, OR if customer gets New a/c on time and has requirement for the current a/c as well they keep them, simple really.

Paul

This is only standard practice in the A/c industry and has happen so many times before, difference being manufacturer sells old type aircraft ( 737, 767 ) untill new aircraft 787 is available. Then if the NEW aircraft dont get delivered on time Customer has a/c to satisfy their need, OR if customer gets New a/c on time and has requirement for the current a/c as well they keep them, simple really.

Paul

Just imagine the following. The Shanghai deal keeps the production going until the USAF order the tankers. After Shanghai takes delivery of the 787 Boeing buys back the 767, which are then converted to tankers for the USAF and could be sold cheaper then the new builts, which would reduce the price of the USAF contract.

A win win situation for both sides.

Just imagine the following. The Shanghai deal keeps the production going until the USAF order the tankers. After Shanghai takes delivery of the 787 Boeing buys back the 767, which are then converted to tankers for the USAF and could be sold cheaper then the new builts, which would reduce the price of the USAF contract.

A win win situation for both sides.

I think ATA might order new B767’s. They want to replace their Tristars and brand new B767’s would mean they would not have to replace them for 15-20 years. Also less maintenance costs. Maybe Southwest could help them with the cost?

I think ATA might order new B767’s. They want to replace their Tristars and brand new B767’s would mean they would not have to replace them for 15-20 years. Also less maintenance costs. Maybe Southwest could help them with the cost?

At first glance it’s weird. At second glance there is some logic in it. Not necessarilly for Shanghai, but for Boeing definately.

Consider this. The Pentagon wants to get 767s. No secret there. Only problem is getting the congress to approve it. This may take a while. Of course Boeing is not happy having an empty production line. Nor would the suppliers of the 767 program. My guess is that Boeing is giving them away at cost price (or even below!).

Would not be surprised if the Pentagon was a co-sponsor of the deal. Would be delicious irony. The Pentagon giving money to China! 😀

It was exactly my point 😉

At first glance it’s weird. At second glance there is some logic in it. Not necessarilly for Shanghai, but for Boeing definately.

Consider this. The Pentagon wants to get 767s. No secret there. Only problem is getting the congress to approve it. This may take a while. Of course Boeing is not happy having an empty production line. Nor would the suppliers of the 767 program. My guess is that Boeing is giving them away at cost price (or even below!).

Would not be surprised if the Pentagon was a co-sponsor of the deal. Would be delicious irony. The Pentagon giving money to China! 😀

It was exactly my point 😉