Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Boeing Doubts Grow On 767 Production

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The weather sucks in Seattle
    Posts
    4,899

    Boeing Doubts Grow On 767 Production

    February 28, 2006
    Boeing is growing more doubtful about whether it can keep open the production line for its 767 widebody jet much beyond this year, the company said on Tuesday in a regulatory filing.

    Boeing said it could decide sometime this year on whether to shut down production of the aging plane, once seen as the basis of a US Air Force aerial refueling tanker program later canceled because of a procurement scandal.

    "Given the timing and changing requirements for new USAF tankers, the prospects for the current 767 production program to extend uninterrupted into a USAF tanker contract (are) becoming less likely," Boeing said.

    The reference to changing requirements as well as timing could be a sign Boeing thinks one of its newer commercial planes will fit the Pentagon's needs when it re-opens bidding for the tanker.

    The US Department of Defense has said it expects to do so sometime this year, in a contest where Boeing is due to face off against an alliance of European rival Airbus and US contractor Northrop Grumman.

    Congress in 2004 killed a USD$23.5 billion Air Force plan to buy and lease 100 Boeing 767s as tankers, after a former Air Force official admitted to inflating the price as a parting gift before taking a senior job with Boeing.

    Boeing had expected to decide last year on shutting down the 767 line in Everett, Washington, but the jet was kept alive by some commercial orders as business boomed for Boeing and Airbus.

    Boeing said in the filing: "It is still reasonably possible a decision to complete production could be made in 2006."

    Boeing said as recently as late January that it still hoped to offer the 767 to the Air Force for the tanker plan, but Chief Financial Officer James Bell earlier this month told analysts that production of the plane would be shuttered in the absence of a Pentagon contract.
    The problem with socialism is that you eventually,
    run out of other people’s money.
    ” - Margaret Thatcher

  2. #2
    Moderator mirrodie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Me like the Robert Downey Jr of cooooooookies!
    Posts
    5,747
    Mike, you mean you havent heard?

    Airbus is number one and Boeing Sucks. Oh, wait, thats from anohter forum ;)


    Actually, while I likve flying that plane and they will still be in the air for years to come, maybe you can answer this for me once and for all.



    Why do their rear wheels tilt the reverse of most normal aircraft? just wondering!
    And I, I took the path less traveled by
    and that has made all the difference......yet...
    I have a feeling a handle of people are going to be very interested in what I post in the near future.

    http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=187

  3. #3
    Senior Member Ari707's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    West Hempstead, NY
    Posts
    1,153
    I read in a book that it has to do with the way they are stored when they are retracted, because of the room they need and space avil.
    Overheard on JFK TOWER - S Turns are fine, U-Turns are bad....

  4. #4
    Senior Member cancidas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    traffic two o'clock two miles southbound flight of four C-130s
    Posts
    6,088
    ari hit it right on the nose. all main landing gear bogies tilt the way they do because of that is the way it needs to be in order to properly store in the belly of the a/c.


    shame to see the 767 leave production, as much as it was when the 757 line closed. alas... all good things must come to an end. i still feel that the 763/4 would have been a perfect platform for a KC-135 and KC-10 replacement. it's already been selected for the E-8 which is replacing the EC-135 (i think) right?
    it is mathematically impossible for either hummingbirds, or helicopters to fly. fortunately, neither are aware of this.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Jerusalem
    Posts
    79
    Eventually, when Boeing starts producing new 787s, it won't make any sense to keep on with the 767.

    Question: which carriers got new 767 in recent years?

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The weather sucks in Seattle
    Posts
    4,899
    Quote Originally Posted by i_mizrahi
    Eventually, when Boeing starts producing new 787s, it won't make any sense to keep on with the 767.

    Question: which carriers got new 767 in recent years?
    767 Tanker for the Italian Air Force & I think the Japanese
    ANA ordered some
    LAN Chile
    I think there is 18-20 orders left for the 767?

    If it weren't for the potential US Air Force order, Boeing would have announced a date already.
    The problem with socialism is that you eventually,
    run out of other people’s money.
    ” - Margaret Thatcher

  7. #7
    Senior Member Ari707's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    West Hempstead, NY
    Posts
    1,153
    Continental's are fairly new, they have prob. the newest 200's
    Overheard on JFK TOWER - S Turns are fine, U-Turns are bad....

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •