Welcome aboard Jimbo.

According to Boeing’s website there are 18 767s on backlog: LINK

The latest I’ve read is that this could keep the line open for about another 18 months, or, Boeing could choose to clear it out by the end of the year.

Much will depend on the USAF tanker competition which is due to be restarted next month.

There was a blurb on the evening news (I caught only the end) that made mention of UAL having most of their 767’s repossessed. I don’t know if that is immediately or if that will happen shortly.

United faces loss of leased planes
Court defeat spurs airline to seek deal

By Mark Skertic, Tribune staff reporter. The Associated Press contributed to this report
Published May 10, 2005
subscriber link

United Airlines said Monday that it is negotiating a deal that would allow it to keep eight planes that a federal appeals court has ruled could be taken back by the aircraft’s leaseholders.

A three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago called United’s argument for keeping the planes “thin to the point of invisibility” and said the leaseholders could move immediately to take back the aircraft, on which United has stopped making payments.

The panel’s ruling, issued Friday, involved 14 aircraft, though United has rejected leases on six of them. The remaining eight are Boeing 767s, aircraft generally used on international routes.

United said it was disappointed with the decision and “respectfully disagrees with it.” The focus now is striking a deal that would allow the carrier to keep the planes, said spokeswoman Jean Medina.

“That remains our intent, and we believe this group of mainly public-market financiers shares that goal,” Medina said. “While we are exploring all our legal and business options to ensure that this decision does not disrupt our ongoing operations, we intend to focus our energies on attempting to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement that provides for our continued use of these and other aircraft.”

The same leaseholders control about 175 of the roughly 460 planes in United’s fleet, and the decision could affect the airline’s efforts to renegotiate lease terms for each of the planes. Losing even some of them could cripple the airline’s efforts to emerge from bankruptcy this year, because it would reduce the amount of revenue generated.

The leaseholders have become known as the Chapman Group, named for the law firm representing them, Chapman & Cutler. The airline has argued that the leaseholders were violating antitrust laws because they were attempting to work together to renegotiate leases instead of doing it individually.

In November, when leaseholders and United were unable to come to terms, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Eugene Wedoff issued a temporary restraining order barring the group from seizing the planes. In December, he found the leaseholders in contempt of court for refusing to turn over communications between them and their trustees and attorneys.

The appeals panel overturned both decisions and ordered the injunction vacated. The leaseholders did not engage in anti-competitive behavior, wrote Judge Frank Easterbrook.

“It does not matter, whether, as United suspects, the lessors are engaged in strategic behavior,” Easterbrook found.

The decision is important because it clarifies the court’s position on aircraft financing, said James Spiotto, an attorney with Chapman & Cutler.

“It’s up to United to come up with something here, if they want the aircraft,” Spiotto said. “Obviously, pricing has gone up significantly during the course of this bankruptcy, and that’s something people are well aware of.”

**As per usual Politicians meddling.**

Should keep out of aviation and stick to what they are good at……….anyone know what that is?

Self preservation. 😉

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

😎

I want to say mid-2006.

Mmmm…perhaps we should give Boeing the benefit of the doubt and assume they did some research on the matter, coming to the conclusion that there wasn’t a big enough market to support two all new jumbo wide-body aircraft, thus deferring to their rival to spend the billions in development costs and concentrate on the mid-size wide-body market instead?

Now that some of their customers have decided that the A380 is too large for their specific needs, Boeing has acquiesced and will attempt to fill the niche between the 747-400 and A380 with a modest upgrade of an existing platform. Sound familiar?

:rolleyes: