Replacing The Boeing 767-300: What's The Best Available Option?

[@SaltyAntelope63]

Delta would get a hell of a deal on 50 A330-800s

[@RVNspotting]

Yep but the A338 is 40t heavier than the 76 and it can’t fit ICAO cat D gates.

[@alexanderr8603]

exactly ! Airbus has much better options

[@nntflow7058]

Derated engines and lower MTOW probably.

[@colonial6452]

My favorite long haul aircraft. The 2-3-2 seating is much better than the 3-3-3 or 2-4-2 of other wide body planes. The absolute worst was the DC10 2-5-2.

[@counterfit5]

2-5-2? That's gross, why not make it 3-3-3?

[@andresmith9212]

Apparently you have never been on A United 777 with 3-4-3.

[@cracker996]

AA used to have a 2-5-2 layout on their B772's

[@boffisgd]

Ive flown a 3-3-3 A330 once, I was a skinny 9yr old back then so didnt feel tight then but I can imagine as an adult it would have been a nightmare. Though strangest seating configuration has to be the 3-4-2 that some MD-11s used to have, never got to fly one but have seen pictures inside + seating maps.

[@PaulVerhoeven2]

2-5-2 is better than 3-3-3 because in 2-5-2 only 1 passengers is 2 seats away from the isle, so boarding is faster and fewer people need to get up on average to let people out.

[@brunorocha9541]

It would be nice if you mentioned airport operation limitations. The A330s and 787s cannot operate on some airports that the 767s can operate.

[@Psi-Storm]

You mean because of the airport gate size? The 767 is category 4/d, which no newer widebody fits into. So you either have to replace it with the A321 or get a size e gate for the flight. But there are so few type 4 gates at the airports that it doesn't make much of a difference.

[@brunorocha9541]

@ no. I mean runway length

[@4evertrue830]

​@@brunorocha9541Most international airports have a runway length of between 3500 meters to 4500 meters. This is more than enough for all wide body aircrafts including the 767s.

[@Xander-dx6mw]

​@@Psi-StormCertain airport will lose a handful of gates when they go from group 4 to group 5. Delta will lose 4 gates at JFK and as many as 10 at ATL. I think Delta goes all-in on the 330-900, adds depth to the international routes, and opts for premium seating configuration (~288) for international routes. The A339 is 19% more fuel efficient per seat mile than the 767-300ER, so if fuel prices go back up, or hours get too high on these 26 year old airframes, that is where my money is on.

[@moinhannes]

What metric are you refering to? the A330-800 has reasonable take off distances for short fields.

[@jacobnathanielzpayag3885]

IIRC, there was supposed to be a 787-3 variant for this role specifically. Boeing ultimately cancelled the shorter variant due to difficulties in bringing the 787 program in the air. There was supposed demand for the type with Japan Airlines having a firm order of 43 units. It was limited to the same range as the 767-300 but it could easily reach the 767-300ER range with an increase in MTOW.

[@nntflow7058]

That is not true. They found that the fuel burn ended up being worse than the standard B787-8. And the lack of range caused problems with flexibility even for ANA and JAL. Adjusting the range to 6,000 nmi from 7,300 nmi makes no sense at all. They would just ended up limiting the plane flexibility without providing much saving on fuel burn.

[@JohnMckeown-dl2cl]

One other consideration that was not mentioned is cargo capacity. A widebody offers the extra revenue of being able to handle larger volumes of cargo to supplement passenger revenue. A narrowbody does not offer as good an option because cargo has to be bulk loaded, as opposed to containerized, and has lower limits on the amount, both weight and bulk, and size of cargo carried. Any increase of per seat mile cost can easily be compensated for with cargo revenue when say comparing an A-321XLR with a B-787-8.

[@wotan10950]

For passenger comfort in economy, nothing beats the 767 in its category. I still look forward to flying on it, and in 2024 I was aboard for EWR-Heathrow and EWR-Naples Italy. The A-330 probably comes closest as a replacement. Two of Boeing’s best models - 757, 767 - were ended in favor of the indefensible 737.

[@stephenj4937]

The 757 was ended because there were no orders for it. It is hard to defend making an aircraft. that no airline (at the time) wanted.

[@whyno713]

The A-330 has already replaced the 767, with the A330-800 NEO being the final nail in the coffin. And that's not even taking into account the A330's replacement option - 787 and A350.

[@nntflow7058]

That make no sense, B757 have the same exact cabin diameter as B737. If you hate B737, you must hate how small the cabin inside B757 too. They are exactly the same.

[@wotan10950]

@@nntflow7058 Have you forgotten the landing gear? The one mechanism that has caused countless problems for both the NG and the Max. It is your comment that makes no sense.

[@nntflow7058]

@@wotan10950 I forgotten how the landing gear have anything to do with the comfort of passengers inside of a cabin for 2 different aicraft who have the same exact fuselage diameter.

[@CactusBravo42]

787-8 is the true replacement for the 767. Meanwhile A321N is a better replacement for the 757.

[@imapilot4]

There is nothing better about an A321 compared to a 757.

[@CactusBravo42]

@ This is why reading comprehension is important. No one said A321N is better than 757…

[@imapilot4]

@ “better replacement”. It is not better nor a replacement; it has no where near the capabilities of a 757. Glad to see your brakes are just as hot as your head which you’ve clearly injured from all the bumps you’ve endured cruising low and slow. Offering less capabilities is an alternative, not a replacement. If it cannot do what the other can do, it’s not replacing anything.

[@CactusBravo42]

@@imapilot4 Again, READING comprehension. It’s the “better replacement”, did not say the best. Meaning out of all the AVAILABLE options to replace the 757 in today’s market, that’s the most viable. Hence airlines like Iceland Air, United, and La Compagnie doing exactly that. Let me know if you’d like me to break it down further to elementary school level. Cheers.

[@imapilot4]

@@CactusBravo42 clearly you are what the airplane calls you in the flare.

[@pilot_frenzy]

If I was in charge of an airline, I would replace all 767’s with either 787 or A330 but that’s my opinion so don’t hate

[@nntflow7058]

Smart move. Adding A321XLR would just erase the need for B767.

[@Cytomicc]

@@nntflow7058the A321XLR would replace the 757 not 767

[@bitcoin-investment]

That’s why your not in charge of an airline 😂

[@user-yt198]

​ @bitcoin-investment As passenger POV, I agree with him. As airline CEO I don't. But this is not airline CEOs forum 🤣

[@bitcoin-investment]

@ well as a passenger I’d rather then keep the 767s only 1 middle seat. But wide bodies are superior then narrow bodies if they had to replace them with these options

[@mrmarecki1]

There's no direct replacement for 767 because it wouldn't make sense - it's too small for increased number of seats to offset increased fuel burn inherit to wide-bodies. Current market reflects that - for ultra thin routes there's A321XLR, for mid-tier connections there's super efficient 787. At the time 767 was built there were no such options, so it sold reasonably well, but in the current world there's no point in aircraft of this size. Maybe 757 will get a new version some day, but I highly doubt 767 ever will.

[@jest0riz0r]

Exactly! It is very telling that the shortest versions of the smaller wide bodies don't sell. There's no direct replacement for the 767 because no airline would buy it.

[@brawnbenson552]

@@jest0riz0rYET, some airlines don’t want to get rid of it????? It’s a Goldie locks a/c! Just Perfect!

[@dennisthebrony2022]

Maybe an Airbus A321XLR, or more directly to match, a potential A322??

[@EdVonPelt]

@@jest0riz0r But that's because they are overall designed for greater range and capacity, making the "smaller" version not so competitive. The 763 in comparison was a stretch, so it had better design efficiency. And there would have been a direct replacement, the 797 that was cancelled in favour of the MAX. It was supposed to have 2-3-2 seating, but with a different cabin cross-section.

[@No-mq5lw]

757 is effectively being replaced by the MAX 10 or A321XLR. Both of those have similar maxpax and range characteristics to the 757-200 but without the runway performance. Seems like quite a few airlines treat the 787 as a weirdly big 767.

[@RichardMigneron]

the replacements would depend mainly on what routes the 767 is currently deployed. 1) short routes, if the A321XLR could be used, I'd try to increase the number of flights to those destinations per day with it, which would give more options to clients. 2) longer routes, probably the A330-800, unless I already had 787s in my fleet, then the -8 (or maybe Boeing could be persuaded to build a -7)

[@GarfieldRex]

👌🏼👌🏼👌🏼

[@mteagleworld]

also, code D if possible. the b787-3 was intended to fit in the icao code D, unlike the B787-8,9,10.

[@nntflow7058]

Many airlines in Asia and Europe that used to have B767-300ER in their fleet use combinations of A321 and A330 to replace B767-300ER. Since they don't actually need most of the range, they could get away with it. The Americans have harder times since they actually need the range to cross the Atlantic and even the Pacific.

[@harstoft]

If airlines want new aircraft any time soon, the A330 is the only one with delivery slots

[@greensoba]

The analysis is flawed because it's based on exit limits. The A330-800's exit limit is based on 9 abreast seating which is going to be very rare. On the basis on the most common configurations being 9 abreast on the 787 and 8 abreast on the A330, the A330-800 is clearly the closest replacement.

[@Nafeels]

It’s so weird that no major aircraft company including ones from China and Russia was developing a middle-of-the-market segment of their own. The hub and spoke model was already on its decline for decades now, and airlines would have to make do with either flying widebodies half empty or extremely full narrowbody (in particular the A321LR and 757) for point to point routes. Side note, I was kinda secretly hoping COMAC would develop something akin to the A300/A310, but even their smallest widebody would be nearly identical in dimensions to the 787-8.

[@nntflow7058]

Because most Asian airports have tons of slots available for airlines to use. So instead of using 2 A300 for a route. They use 3 A321 instead. Passengers prefers more options. For long-haul flights, in order to push the ticket price down, they need larger widebody to transport more people. Smaller widebody like A310, A300 or B767-300ER makes no sense for them anymore. Many South American cities are too far from continental Europe or Western US. So they need more range, B767-300ER only have maximum range of 6,000nmi in a good weather. A small headwind would push the range to around ~5,000 nmi, but with full flight, the range then dropped to ~4,000 nmi, not enough for many routes to Europe and west coast US.

[@flyguy6296]

Considering COMAC needed a lot of western help to get the c919 airborne and the current political environment I don't see any new airplanes coming out of China anytime in the foreseeable future. Also... would you really want to be on a Chinese made aircraft? Look at the quality of most of the stuff they make and think long and hard about your decision.

[@hojaifasalim6932]

​@@flyguy6296If you are ok stepping foot on american jets with their dodgy production standards, then this is just bias and a bit of jealousy. Sure the C919 isn't any more efficient than the 737ng and a320ceo , but it is pretty safe, with no incidents as of yet.

[@eirfanhazlan9271]

I have to agree on your thoughts. As if quadjets and rear mounted jets are no longer produced for regular passenger airliner (due to poor fuel efficiency and more prone to stall respectively), Middle-of-the-Market widebody airliner (A300/A310/767) also seemed that no maker wants to make those. It's either true narrowbody like A321xlr/737max or 787/A350 with size closer to 747s. No inbetweens or variety. I also wished that Comac's C929 should've been the A300/A310/767 size, whereas C939 should be 787/A330 size and the following sequence for larger. Although haven't flown on ARJ21/C909 or C919, i guess there's no major issue hits the news yet (compared to their usual others).

[@nntflow7058]

@@eirfanhazlan9271 The Chinese realizes that there is currently not muc market for MoM aircraft no more. It's not as flexible as A321XLR in terms of capacity and range. And it's not as efficient and profitable as B787-8. It seems like those 2 planes hit the sweet spot for today's market. It probably changes in the future, just like it did before.

[@mr.md-11klm4ever]

A330-800 Neo will be a perfect replacement!

[@okay_then3337]

No it wouldn’t. Way too heavy and wingspan way to large.

[@eamonahern7495]

The last time I flew on a 767 was in 2007 and, if I remember correctly, it had a 2-4-2 configuration in economy. I didn't know enough about planes at the time to notice much other details about the layout. It'd depend on the cost but, if I was in charge of an airline, I'd try to replace the 767 with a wide body and try to fill the extra seats.

[@Nandobahia]

2-3-2

[@jambon7681]

Some UK charter airlines operated with 2-4-2 config. I flew to Australia with Airtours International (renamed MyTravel Airways and then Thomas Cook Airlines) in 2000 and it was 2-4-2. I also flew with Britannia Airways (now TUI Airways) and they also operated in this config.

[@Nandobahia]

@jambon7681 😱

[@ZombieKiller1965]

This is not how airlines compare aircraft. For example the 787 flying the same distance with more seats uses less fuel. Thusly a 787 loaded to 767 capacity is cheaper to operate than the 767. If they can attain a load higher than the 767 seating that's a huge profit. Bottom line it's fuel use and range that matters not seating capacity.

[@MariusClausen-bf2kw]

In 4 days I am flying with Air Astana Tashkent-Almaty-Astana-Seoul. I just found out, they have changed plane type, from A320/321 to B767 And I have newer been on a 767 before. Air Astana have the last 3, 767 pax planes ever buildt. I am realy happy.

[@MarcchsMan]

There are some key information that would help giving us the bigger picture. So what is the difference in the maintenance cost of each of the mentioned aircrafts? Each of these planes can operate in approximately how many airports?

[@boffisgd]

If only Embraer would create bigger planes, I could see them create a proper 2-3-2 airliner if they ever stepped into the widebody market.

[@HoolaaBaaloo]

They will but in the looong run, their first venture on building bigger planes is the KC390 Millennium that are being purchased or considered by some air forces so let’s see what happens

[@BKGBlueface]

The 787-8 seems like the most logical choice. It allows Delta to keep its pilots within the same manufacturer ecosystem while capitalizing on unmatched fuel efficiency. It’s evident that Delta is avoiding the A321XLR for now, likely holding out for Boeing’s eventual 757 replacement. However, they might ultimately decide to bite the bullet if demand pressures necessitate a short-term solution.

[@andymaurice7693]

788 definitely...at a good price

[@AlexBrown320]

It's not always about finding a like-for-like replacement. The 767 did not replace any aircraft of equivalent size when it was introduced, instead airlines adapted their route networks to the aircraft's capabilities. No doubt this is happening nowadays as the 767 is phased out, airlines will cut routes that are not viable with larger aircraft or increase frequencies with smaller aircraft. Qantas wouldn't be doing London to Perth if it wasn't for the economics and range benefits of purchasing the 787 for example.

[@VW_Fan]

Best comment here!

[@RVNspotting]

The 767X. Improved wing, GEnx 2B’s, updated avionics. 764 main landing gear, extended nose gear. Sadly this airplane is not available 😭

[@Juayl31]

Isn't the 757-300 the longest narrowbody plane?

[@PaulVerhoeven2]

757 and 767 (as well as DC-10/MD-11, A300/A310, L-1011 and Il-86) were Group IV airlines (wingspan up to 52m). Obviously they go extinct with no Group IV passenger planes in production. Obviously Group IV (Code D in Euro?) stands/gates cannot fit a Group V (up to 65m wide) plane, and runways and taxiways also need to be compatible with Group V. Fortunately, most large airports which were designed for Group IV got upgraded for Group V, and smaller airports only accommodate Group III (36m, like 737/A321) anyway. So in practice the industry standardized on Group III narrowbodies and Group V widebodies, with Groups IV and VI out of production (777X will technically be Group VI but with folding wings and only 2 engines will fit into Group V airports).

[@PaulVerhoeven2]

A322ULR will be the replacement for 767-300. Too bad for economy passengers, but the customers for Airbus are airlines, not passengers.

[@Psi-Storm]

@@PaulVerhoeven2 The order books for the A320 line are filled to the brim. So the next few years it makes more sense to increase production of the 320/321 variants and try to sell A330s on top.

[@PaulVerhoeven2]

@@Psi-Storm If they would expand production of A320neo they would sell more simply because of availability, especially if they would do it 10 years ago when the capital was cheap (interest rates were low). But... they need to think about the future anyway and not just keep thousands of engineers idling and not designing anything. A322ULR would be such a low-hanging fruit and further cement their leadership in narrowbodies while Boeing is being throttled by FAA and their own DEI policies which gutted it of good talent.

[@larrydugan1441]

The 300ER is Best aircraft I ever flew. Did everything exceptionally well. You left out the amount of belly freight it could carry. The narrow bodies are annoying on long haul flights.

[@dakotarobert7975]

There is no replacement for 757,767. Irreplaceable, I worked during the construction of the first 60 B-767and 10 B-757 during introduction. You forgot to mention the B-767 is the latest tanker being built for the US Air Force. B-767 n 757 was the last airplanes designed by engineers instead of bean counters Wall Street funds managers who are in charge now of Boeing.

[@robytar]

Boeing can't get the KC-46 (basically a 767-200ER) working right, all kinds of issues with it. Boeing is doing everything wrong now.

[@TheShowblox]

THE 767 WILL NEVER DIE🗣️🔥

[@TheWizardGamez]

Call me stupid but isn’t the solution just the 787? Or an a330 variant?

[@bobby1970]

Naturally, the Boeing 787. It's the closest match to the Boeing 767-300 in terms of passenger capacity.

[@stradivarioushardhiantz5179]

757-300 + 767-300ER = Irreplaceable

[@nntflow7058]

I would say that combinations of A321, A330 and B787 replace them in different ways.

[@horsthorstmann2925]

Especially the commonality between the pilottrainig between this both types.

[@giestron336]

787, A330, A321: NU UH

[@horsthorstmann2925]

@@giestron336 what?

[@giestron336]

@@horsthorstmann2925 The replacements of the 767 and 757

[@siongheeleong8078]

Aircraft slots at airports are precious. Won't be getting smaller narrow-bodies to replace the B767-300ERs. Will instead get either of the wide-bodies (i.e. B787-8, A330neo-800). If 2 flights of the new wide-bodies can make up for 3 flights of the B767-300ER, I'll use the extra slot to fly to a new destination. The choice between the B787-8 and the A330neo-800 comes down to what one operates in the rest of the fleet of the wide-bodies. If one has mainly Boeings (777s and 787s), the B787-8 is the obvious choice. Whereas if one's fleet is mainly Airbus wide-bodies (A330s, A350s, A380s), then the A330neo-800 is the choice.

[@Psi-Storm]

The advantage of the 767 is that they don't need a type 5 gate. So you either replace it with a narrowbody plane or you have to use a "precious" wide body gate.

[@qv6486]

@siongheeleong8078 if the slot is a wide body flight delta may use the a330-900 variant instead of the -800 variants.

[@siongheeleong8078]

@qv6486 That's why Delta went with the A330neo-900s instead of the 800s to replace their B767s. Upsizing for more passenger and cargo capacity as well as better fuel efficiency and reduced noise pollution. The purpose of the 800s is for those needing the extra range at the cost of some seats.

[@qv6486]

@@siongheeleong8078 globally the -900 is more popular than the -800 variants.

[@michaelsandor5349]

Fuel burn, landing weight, etc. (= Operating cost) are issues not mentioned. More people are flying, just as narrow body aircraft have been getting larger it is possible that a mid-market aircraft is not needed? The A330neo and 787 newer engine types (RR 1000/7000 & GEnx) have similar fuel burn or less than older CF6, PW4000 (767, A330) when based on cost per seat mile. I love the 767 and there will not be many aircraft to fly as long as 767 fleet. They are still making them, 43 yeas in production!!!

[@Humanity_Hope_]

A combination of A-321XLR, and A-330-800 would be perfect for Middle of the Market flights

[@russellwilson6193]

787-8 is the best replacement

[@ryen7512]

787-8 with low density seating configuration is the replacement imo. Much more comfortable for passengers for probably still less CASM than the 767's.

[@perdidonoglobo]

I would choose the A330-800 NEO.

[@Cheap0sy]

787-8 would probably be the best option due to market growth

[@TimBartholomew-f7t]

Using maximum passenger capacity as a metric for comparing aircraft size is not a good idea because the ratio of exits to usable area between the 767 and 787 is different. You need to compare them based on industry average seating configurations. I understand this was to make an “apples to apples” comparison, but it isn’t pragmatic.

[@colinbrown9549]

It's also pointless because mainline carriers like Delta and United don't use the maximum capacity passenger numbers anyway, United 767-300ERs are configured as 214 or 167, Delta has 226, 211 or 208

[@herrdrayer]

Maybe a group of airlines could get together and approach Boeing about restarting passenger 767 production before the freighter line shuts down. It shouldn't be too difficult to develop a 767 NEO, but even another production run of the unmodified, current plane would be better than either losing revenue with a narrowbody or wasting fuel hauling empty seats.

[@ChrisSnowFox]

I'd hold onto my 767's and 757's until a suitable and reliable replacement can be made. It's clear that's where a good chunk of the market is, and there's still a plethora of parts out there, especially as the 767 is still in production if only being produced as freighter.

[@seagullsbtn]

787-8 is a pretty close aircraft size wise to 767. Boeing should developed a freighter version of the 787-8 given the impending death of the 767.

[@williamlewandowski129]

The 787-8 with 9 across seating is a closer fit to the 767 which has only 7 across seating. While the A330-8 with 8 across seating is less of a fit? It seems to me that 8 is closer to 7 than 9. But evidently the length differential closes the deal in the 787's favor? Too bad Boeing screwed up on the safety design of the 737 Max and delays with the 777X, otherwise we'd have the perfect replacement for the 2-3-2 767 with the much more efficient 2-3-2 797 in the works.

[@colinw990]

This and the 747 are my favorites to fly. Hopefully i can ride one before they disappear

[@mrcaialexander2352]

On a hot day with seats filled in the back you'll never see us use more than 9000ft in the 763.

[@randomguygamingandstuff]

yeh i would go with the 787-8

[@STEN3326]

I would have preferred a development and modernization program on the B757 instead of the prehistoric B737. The more recent 757 might have been better suited to transformations, and it's a very nicely designed aircraft.

[@tommyd3257]

787.

[@_echobravo]

Fewer new wide bodies for sure. It'll allow for not only maximum range but also permit tapping into the cargo revenue which narrow bodies can't.

[@gaminglegofan]

Maybe this is the perfect timing to bring the A330-800 to life? I mean it is a little more expensive (new price), about 40 million dollars more, but operating costs are less. Range is better and capacity is basically the same!

[@Youtub77W]

Nothing could replace the 767-300ER unless a 767X

[@thetruthbehindplanes]

theoretically a 7107 could my hypothesis for boeings new airplanes 797 replaces 757 and 737 7107(icao thingy is 7x1 7x2 blah blah) replaces 787 and 777 then a regional jet called 808,entering a new market,and replacing 717

[@Youtub77W]

@ 777X for 777

[@thetruthbehindplanes]

@Youtub77W I know...but after the 777X there will be a clean sheet i think.

[@Youtub77W]

@thetruthbehindplanes in 2085 😂

[@thetruthbehindplanes]

​@Youtub77Wno...it will take only 10 or 12 years to design

[@ludlos]

Nothing can replace the best 2-3-2 seating layout

[@MarkJensen-e8d]

What doesn't make sense to me is Boeing still has the 767 line running making freighters. Why don't they re-tool and MAX out the 767 for better engines and a better wing for the time being?

[@djijspeakerguy4628]

I always thought a good way to get rid of the aging 767s was, possibly, replace half of them with A321 XLRs (similar long range, but smaller and use less fuel: put these on routes that don’t always fill the 767s) and 787s or A330 NEOs for the busier routes that tend to fill the 767s. (Or in the case of Delta/United, maybe they could replace 767-400s too.)

[@maxschwartz1365]

Technically, Delta still flies the 767, so it’s not an all Airbus wide body fleet yet. As far as I know, they still have the 737 MAX 10 on order. Is that still the case? They originally ordered 100 of the type. On another note, I don’t know why they retired their 777s. Personally, I would go with the 787-8 to replace the 767-300 and the ER version.

[@shmuck66]

Retired the 777's due to age and fuel burn. Current Delta operations and planning is not Delta from 2007. Man I miss those 747's but seriously they were old. I am so glad they went with mostly A350 fleet, and a super smart move snatching up those Aeromexico A350's when they did during the pandemic. It's a shame Boeing is the giant cluster they are now. They had an excellent chance to dominate the market had they let engineering do its thing rather than let their accountants strangle the S%!t out of the company. Regarding the 737MAX orders. I hear nothing on that, but it's a wait and see game. Delta still has plenty of 737NG's so I'm sure the plan was to Naively trust in Boeing and just "drop in" the Max's in place of the NG's What concerns me more is that Delta has shredded its domestic route network for smaller cities and airports. What used to be 15mins - 60mins drive, has now turned into 1.5-3 hour drives for customers and this isn't helping. Sure I get that those smaller routes may have not been profitable, especially during the pandemic, but they were feeders to the larger network increasing over-all profitability. But..... C'est la vie. Les ne pas de recompense avec les bonbons.

[@maxschwartz1365]

I still think Delta’s domestic network is pretty good, isn’t? I just wish they flew to more places from LAX, and if they would have another hub in the middle of the country that wasn’t so far north. Good point about the 777, but I still think they could have put them to good use. I still prefer Boeing planes; but it’s certainly not the same company as it was when Joe Sutter designed the 747.

[@shmuck66]

@@maxschwartz1365 Delta is fine if your destination is a major city. But smaller cities all got slashed and never returned after covid. Makes travel hell for visiting some of these locations for industrial customers. I personally used to prefer boeing but the A220 and A350 are lightyears better for customer cabin comfort. The only winner is in the Boeing lineup is the 787 and it's nothing special really.

[@shmuck66]

@@maxschwartz1365 don't worry delta is quickly expanding LAX, but for some things it will take years. That said they do have the SEA and SLC hubs growing too. but yea I get it. I'm super lucky as DTW is my hub and was a core NWA/DL hub for years. Sad to see the decline on my end but c'est la vie. hopefully these smaller domestic routes return as further improvements happen.

[@jaygelles9097]

787 for sure

[@Cta2006]

You forgot the Airbus 350-800: The 60.45 m (198.3 ft)-long A350-800 was designed to seat 276 passengers in a typical three-class configuration with a range of 8,245 nmi (15,270 km; 9,488 mi) with an MTOW of 259 t (571,000 lb). The type was cancelled by Airbus, as not enough airlines wanted the smallest of the Airbus 350 at the time, but that might have changed and Airbus can still start production of it.

[@4evertrue830]

I doubt if he forgot. He didn't mention it because its not a Boeing aircraft. He is biased towards Boeing planes. 😊

[@Psi-Storm]

All the small wide body variants aren't selling because the airlines aren't looking for direct 767 replacements. The medium long routes can be covered with the a321xlr and the long routes will get more efficient longer wide bodies.

[@Cta2006]

@@4evertrue830 Yet, he mentioned a couple of Airbus aircraft in the video

[@4evertrue830]

@Cta2006 Yes he did, but they are all Airbus aircrafts that he knew could not replace the 767. Why didn't he mention this particular one that could? 😅

[@xx_r6s698]

Wasn’t it because Airbus was afraid it would tap on the A330neo market?

[@TrevorKarran]

That intro with the wrong gear tilt hurted me

[@PInk77W1]

787-800 best replacement. I go to LAX a lot. Love the Delta 767

[@ahhyesrs1]

Sorry, I'm here in the United States and I checked both United and Delta Airlines sites for 767 seating arrangements. Your numbers are based on what Airbus and Boeing state but checking the actual seating arrangements, the 787-8 and 330-800. I know that it's great to produce conversations on the Mid-size airplane but there are options that aren't selling (the 2 mentioned above). The only plane I could see is something similar to the 767/757 in a single aisle but then you run into the 321XLR situation where I don't want to be in a narrow body more than 4 hours personally

[@EdVonPelt]

Narrowbodies were the standard for long-haul originally. The 707 had a narrower fuselage than the 320, and the DC-8 and Convairs were not better.

[@tylerduchesneau]

What it sounds like is that Boeing built the 787 too close in size and range to the 777 and too expensive to replace the 767. Maybe the airlines should have come to Boeing sorted that out from the get go.

[@Wheninflight]

At an American carrier, I think the A321NEOs would be the best replacement for domestic routes (also filling in for the 757-200) while the 787-8 would be best for highest demand routes & int'l ones. The A321NEOs do have an additional 2 class seating of 10 more while also having different range options as compared to the MAX 10. The 788 would also be closer in fleet commonality with the large 767 presence already in America with engine types and also retaining the control column & EICAS, not ECAM.

[@pinksnowbirdie2938]

I think if I were running an airline in the US at the very least E195-E2, E190-E2, E175-E2 would be the bulk of what we fly domestically and to much of Canada and Mexico... Whether Max or Neo would come down to delivery timelines, if Boeing fixes their production woes I suspect the Max could be delivered quicker than Airbus could deliver Neos since there are far more Neo orders than Max orders -- the main use of the Neo or Max would largely be for city pairs that frequency would be less of a priority or enough demand that you could still have frequency but fill the plane easier pretty much 737-8, -9, -10 would be the Max picks and A32x, 0 , 1, 1XLR would be the NEO picks. A319 and 737-7 make very little sense for the airline I've got in mind since the E195-E2 *almost* covers the segment those cover, maybe those could be thrown in there just for minimizing any holes in the fleet strategy if it made enough sense for us to do so. if we have more international aspirations, A321XLR is a no-brainer for thinner transatlantic routes and other further away destinations from a few city pairs in North America and Central America/Caribbeans While the 787 and A350 serve different purposes entirely, I think there is still some overlap... I think my preference would be 787-9 and deeply look into whether a 787-8 could make sense but in this instance it'd come down to costs and I think Airbus would be willing to play ball since they don't have nearly as many A330neo orders. Also I don't think the 787-10 would make as much sense for the type of airline I'm envisioning... For quicker lead times, I do think the A330-900 would be the right man for the job if you will, if we needed some of those 767-300 capabilities, easily the A330-800 would be the likely pick. the A350 is also a hard sell for that kind of airline I have in mind, it could make sense. for engines where it's an option of brand... if the NEOs won out, CFM would be the choice If the 787s won out, GE would be the choice

[@afb2]

With what's out there, A321neos just make the most sense, especially since the XLR can go transatlantic now.

[@Trojans5050]

It would be a better comparison if you used passenger economics. While the 787 and 330 may be bigger, if it’s the same operating costs as a 767 (minus purchase cost) it may be a worthwhile investment as you get more passengers for the same price. Most airlines seem to be holding on to 767s because theyre either close to being paid off so it’s just operating costs versus purchase payments. Same thing 757 operators (ie Delta) make when keeping them flying.

[@gop4usa12]

If the 767-300 is irreplaceable, then why did Boeing stop building them and why did the airlines stop buying them?

[@matsv201]

767 is from a gone by era when 7 wide seating was acceptable. Its not the case today (echonomicaly) So you either need to go 6 or 8. Making a 767 direct replacment makes no sense. The largest 6 wide is of cause the 321neo/xlr, its only slightlyn smaller. Maybe airbus makes a 322 in the future. The smalest 8 wide is the 330-800. A way to sort of "eat up" the capacity of a A330-800 with out carrying more passangers would be to have a larger number of classes. Like economy (8wide) econony+ (8 wide with 3 inches more leg space) premium (7wide) premium+ (with a bit more leg room), buessniess (6 wide) and first class (4 wide). This way the number of passangers can be reduces with out losing income. Of cause, this depends on it being a somewhay premium carrier where passangers will actually pay a bit for more space. They key here is to have the upgrade to the next level fairly cheap. Like extended legroom would only cost 10-15%

[@767driver]

Great airplane to fly. Docile, powerful motors, and good range.

[@joppe217]

I would not fase out these jets for another 5 years minimal. I'd probably buy B787-8 over the years for extra capacity and at the end as a replacement for the 767-300ER, as this is the closest competitor in my eye's. The reason that i would keep the 767-jets longer is that i want to wait for the design of the 797, since there are changes it can be a good replacement for the 767.

[@MrRashad9001]

787-8 for both 767-300/er & 400

[@jentypoulose5096]

Boeing should bring an aircraft in the 200-250 seat range,, otherwise they will struggle in narrow body market

[@EpicThe112]

Why not be like Delta Airlines finishing them off with A330-900s leaving the A350s to finish off B747-400 B777-200/ER and B777-200/LR.

[@itsrenemorales]

Since Delta is an Airbus fanboy, I would suggest an a330neo-800, the short one. It may be unpopular, but it would be perfect for coast-to-coast routes or west coast to Hawaii routes.

[@bitcoin-investment]

Too large

[@Psi-Storm]

@@bitcoin-investment Doesn't matter. Type 4 gates are getting upgrades to 5 almost everywhere. So you can also use the A330/787.

[@duaneadamsDM8029]

Iceland Airs Boeing 767-319ERs were from Air New Zealand

[@umi3017]

On a typical flight for 3000nm, 763ER and 788 with 250 pax will burn about the same fuel, giving much lower load factor and higher ZFW on 788.

[@jeffreybaba4155]

Why doesn't Boeing make a new 767 and 757 both of them aircraft seem to be hard to replace?

[@Your-local-a220]

wait Ik , make more IL-96!

[@suncheeserailway]

JAL/ANA still have lots of life left for some of their 767 so they won’t be gone anytime soon

[@clarkcalabrese5573]

I am Not an expert on this subject but Love flying!! What about the Boeing 777 series or the Airbus A350 series as a replacement to the 767. And you might add and needing to replace the 757 as well.

[@johnblackthorne787]

If they had not optimized the 787 for the dash 8 and thereby making the 787~3 a shrink and so to heavy to replace the 763

[@CompositesNG]

Can LGA take an A330? or B787?

[@moinhannes]

So we compare Exit door limits, not std. cabin layout? Really not a comparable choice.. A330-800 can be equipped with 3-3-3 to immensly boost the seating capacity, however even lower cost charter based airlines as the upper mentioned Condor use the Std. 2-4-2 layout in their A330 neos. Std. seating for A330-200 (same fuselage as 330-800, but more common --> better use for comparison) is ~230-250 seats, pretty compareable to the 767-300 if you ask me. I don't understand the comparison used in the video.

[@thisiskevin1000]

787s and A330neos will do

[@BaMb1N079]

I hate flying on narrowbodies....so it would be the 787-8 or A330-800

[@KevinTheGreat_US]

It’s probably best to replace them with A321XLRs as it offers more flexibility where slots are not concerned. That last point can be resolved by flying to nearby secondary airports. A great cast study is Los Angeles. While everyone is pressed for slots at LAX, many people would rather fly from BUR, SNA, ONT, and/or LGB. Even SBD is getting some flights served by Breeze. These airports are much easier to access for the populace and come with much less crowding. In fact, China Airlines operates I think an A350 ONT>TPE to complement their LAX>TPE service on the 777. Ignoring parking fees (I can get free parking near LAX), I’d much rather fly out of ONT any day than LAX, despite LAX being 10-20 miles closer, though usually 30 minutes longer to get to. I see it more effective to do a flight out of LAX and one out of ONT on A321s to, for example, HNL than one 787 flight LAX>HNL. But of course if you’d want to fly further to NRT in Japan or SUV in Fiji you’ll need that extra range. Seemingly the A321XLR would slot in well for an ONT>PPT (French Polynesia) flight.

[@perryallen7663]

Boeing should have re-engined the 767 and beat the competition on both price (initial investment fully amortized) and passenger capacity. In hindsight, not the best decision, though they knew they would be leaving a market segment without a replacement.

[@popeter]

feels like a market for somthing like a potential A360, max 300 (optimied for 220 two class) 2-3-2 / 4-4 seater long range wide body that or a combi variant of the A330 or 787

[@Psi-Storm]

Short wide bodies aren't that efficient per passenger seat. So airlines will pick narrow body aircrafts or bigger widebodies. A 4-4 seater could be really economic, but will be the most hated seating design ever and will take forever to fill and empty out the passengers.

[@ronaldwells6626]

First off… I’m a big fan of the 767. Boeing needs to retool this plane with more fuel efficient engines. Maybe add some more carbon fiber to lighten it up some and revamp the interior. Carrier’s and pilots love this plane. The keep trying to reinvent the 737, why not reinvent the 767 and the 757 !!! 2 GREAT planes. Since they don’t have the resources to push ahead with the 797, just update the 767s and 757s !!!

[@alexanderordinary2110]

I would select the 707....

[@GLA741]

I'd go with fewer widebodies, so the 787 or A330

[@petesteirer]

The 767 still lives? I'd prefer flying on a DC-3.

[@rudivandoornegat2371]

The perfect replacement for the B767-300 (270 seats) would be the Comac C929 (280 seats) of course if we could do business with China. Only China seems to notice the gap between the B737 and B787, that is exactly the same gap as between the A320 and the A330.

[@shmuck66]

Believe me, others have noticed but don't have the capital to take advantage of it. Just like Bombardier with the A220, Embraer and others know there is a spot and want to fill it, but just don't have the time, power, or money to do it. If I were to bet on anyone, it would be Airbus, but that's still a minimum of 3 years out. Either a specialty version of the A350 or A330 if we consider WB, or even a potential modded A220XL. But from China or Russia, doubt it. And potential other makers? well... we are looking 15-20 years unless someone has a Thanos Glove.

[@cellpat7392]

The 787-3 would be it. If Boeing wants to build it they still can.

[@Randomvideos-zi7pe]

Coby posted a video explaining the entire context of the 767 replacement, which is the 787-8

[@jantjarks7946]

And the 787-8 got exactly 1 order last year. With the A338 it's the same story, they are not ordered.

[@jam92uk]

Bring the 787-3 back and make it shorter like the 767-200

[@finleyfendt3750]

Boeing, Boeing, Boeing, no 757, and no 767, we do have the 737MAX. Really ?

[@NN-lq6uy]

767 with new engines

[@ahmadzahid266]

Not sure how much different between 767 and 787 efficiency but for me I’m going replace it to 787, the seat capacity will be close as long not going to 1 class exit limit seat configuration, if the point of 767s class being between largest narrow body aircraft’s seat capacity and wide body aircraft’s range could be built something like the shorter variant of 787 or A330 but looks wired like an A310 and differently not efficient to operate or using narrow body aircraft like 737 or A321 with stretched fuselage and extra fuel tank

[@SeanParkes-z7n]

In my general opinion, the Boeing 767 300/300ER is so succesful and reliable that hardly anything can replace it. The Dreamliner has a few issues e.g. Friday 8th June 2021 G ZBJB a 787 8 that its nose landing gear had collapsed at Heathrow while the 767 never had those problems before British Airways retired them. Another accident involving the Dreamliner is that an American Airlines 787 8 N812AA's door was ripped off due to a gate bridge collapse at Dublin, Ireland on the 9th July 2023. American Airlines 767 300ER's had no accidents like that when they were in service, it was a foolish decision for American Airlines to retire their 767 300ER's because they were great, succesful, lovable, reliable and are great, great freighters. The A330 800 is optional but is unpopular. In fact since the Boeing 767 300ER is so succesful and well loved, Air Canada has brought back 2 of them from storage. 2 because they're the only Air Canada 767 300ER's that aren't scrapped or derelict. Delta and United both plan to retire their 767 300ER's but its a foolish decision to do so by 2030 because Delta and United hardly had any accidents when they were in service. I'm so happy that 767 300ER's are still being produced for freightliners e.g. Amazon Prime Air, UPS Parcel Service. So I believe that the 767 300ER is so succesful, relaible and popular that its irreplacable to all airlines especially Delta & United.

[@1981SG]

Isn't the 787 the replacement for the 767?

[@nntflow7058]

B787-8 carry around 20-30 more seats and it got 20% more range than B767-300ER.

[@gavinliu279]

787-7 or A330-700