RCyyz

In a way, it can be (short-term) cheaper for an airline to buy "old" airframes like the 767 instead of upgrading to 787 / A350 in that the pilots don't need to requalify.

ual763

The article is referring to opening back up the passenger variant.

mike2003242

I love the 767's and the reconfigured one looks even better! This would be awesome if it was for UA!!

fly18725

Airplanes that are converted for cargo use generally have a low acquisition cost. The 737 and 767 are particularly capable cargo airplanes with a straightforward conversion program.

boat9781

I love the 767 but can’t help but think this is a repeat of CO ordering the 762 and then quickly retiring them. Forest for the trees.

FWAAA

Cargo doesn't care about the age of the plane (or average fleet age);

Cargo doesn't care about the amenities of the new planes like higher pressurization (lower effective cabin altitude) or higher cabin humidity;

Cargo doesn't require ultra-longhaul nonstop flights;

etc.

Cargo shippers don't mind if the plane stops for fuel and pilot change - and many FedEx and UPS flights do just that at ANC each day. Fuel efficiency that 787s and A350 can deliver on ultra-longhaul flights isn't an issue on 6-8 hour flights. With a few exceptions, cargo doesn't fly 16-18 hour flights and no cargo shipper would pay a premium for a nonstop the way some business travelers do.

On a very long passenger flight, the plane burns a lot of fuel carrying the fuel necessary for the long flight. That requires a very efficient plane. Not so much on those 6-8 hour cargo flights. So a slightly less efficient cargo plane does not impose the same penalty as it would if flown by a passenger airline.

1353513636

Why not buy 763s from the airlines that are getting rid of them like LO, ET etc. instead of getting brand new ones?

cesco.g

Is there any reasonable mode to go 8-across on the 767 frame?

As mentioned, it seems that cargo carriers are into this and possibly outbidding pax carriers.

Now, Boeing should throw in some 748s to sweeten the deal!

spin88

Don't get me wrong, I like the 767, I fly them all the time on DL SFO-JFK Great plane, even in Y. It is going to be the only decent widebody ride in Y at UA shortly. I would love to see UA upgage a lot of its TCON and SFO-ORD/SFO-IAH flying.

The 763/764 today is a very different situation, than the 333 was when Delta ordered it in 2013 for delivery in 2015. Airbus has steadily upgraded the plane, so that a new gen A333 is a very different than a last gen 330 in fuel burn, and much better than a 763/764. Again, I love the 763 but its fuel burn is about 27-29% higher than a current generation plane, and probably 24-25% higher than a modernized/reengined plane like the 339neo. Here is a comparison when using the 763ER as a 757 replacement was floated a few years ago. https://leehamnews.com/2014/05/26/ca...lace-the-757w/

Fuel prices are low today, but in the foreseeable future we will have major carbon taxes which will push up the price of fuel, betting on cheap fuel, given global warming and instability, for the next 10-15 years, is a suckers bet.

I would also add re DL and the 787, it was way too much plane (capital costs and range wise) for what Delta needed at the time. And adding a new type make little sense at the time, given Delta already had a major fleet of 333s (ex-NW birds) buying more was not a bad move, at the time.

But a few years later, Delta buys the 339neo and the a359.

p.s. I might add that the 764 is a more efficient plane than the 763, but I don't know if they can simply start producing it again. They can the 763, because of the tanker line which is ongoing. My guess is we are talking 763s....

OpenSky

Why is UAL buying old junk? Its essentially a 1980s airplane.

COSPILOT

I would hardly call an airplane from the 80's junk if the price is right. If the rumor is true, buying at such a low cost vs the alternative is a smart move for what I would call a short term plan. The airplanes will be new, not built in the 80's. Boeing needs something to shore up sales for certain aircraft types until a replacement can be designed and if the lower cost offsets operating cost, it gives them time to appease UA.

Seems like a good move for both UA and Boeing if you ask me.

boat9781

I agree with you. People at UA are running the numbers on this but is a super discounted, less proficient plane worth buying over the long term? Strikes me as an opportunistic play. If I were an analyst at UA I’d want to hedge against the future by ensuring an off ramp to unload these aircraft if world dynamics ie fuel becomes more expensive. Perhaps there is such a large cargo demand that UA feels protected on that front.

As a passenger I’d love more 767s as 2-3-2 in the back is great and the new Polaris config looks solid on that aircraft. Just thinking about the finances.

fly18725

The A330 performance improvements over the last 30 years have largely been related to weight, with fuel capacity and MTOW increasing allowing greater range. There was a roughly 1% fuel burn improvement from a design change on the wing. All this makes the A330 a competitive aircraft today, at the right price. Delta reportedly paid about 40% less in 2013 than the going price before 787 entry into service.

While fuel is about 30-40% of a wide body aircraft’s operating cost, it is not the sole driver of a purchase decision. If it was, no one would purchase the A330 over the 787 because the fuel burn is about 20% worse.

The 767-300ER does have worse fuel burn PER SEAT than the A330-300. But, it burns less fuel PER TRIP. The 767 clearly has worse fuel burn than a 787 on a PER SEAT and PER TRIP basis, but I would expect capital costs to offset this gap. Any financial analyst with a high school education can PV a conservative difference in fuel spend over the operating life of the aircraft and negotiate a corresponding price difference.

cerealmarketer

You say DL felt new gen was too much capital cost and range for the needs.

Think of the desire to replace the 752 on PS and transatlantic, which I don't think people are grasping here.

763 brings low capital cost, and anything beyond a 763 in the widebody department is too much range. Waiting for a next gen 757 isn't going to work, and a 763 addresses the fleet type issue that a 321 would bring, not to mention the range constraint. There are a whole bunch of 75/76 type rated pilots at UA locked and loaded.

On cheap fuel, expansion of any airline today is a bet on cheap fuel. If the price to fuel planes spikes there are bigger problems than 50 heavily discounted airframes unencumbered by leases.

I say it's less than a 50/50 proposition, but makes more sense than meets the eye.

Temedar

A few tourist charter/low-cost airlines in Europe have already gone this way.