It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
They're talking about more than just a 50 plane order. They're talking about multiple airlines that it "makes sense" to offer them to.
originally posted by: waynos
I really don't get how putting the 767 back into production for passengers can make any sense at all? Wouldn't it make more sense for boeing and United (and many others) so simply revive the 787-3?
originally posted by: FredT
If you wet lease the air frame you then basically sunset the air-frame from your fleet down the road (5-6 years) when either the fuel prices are too high to operate it, or something better has come along.
originally posted by: Barnalby
a reply to: waynos
It makes no sense whatsoever, especially considering that the 787 was literally the replacement for the 767. But I guess with the 737 Max's sales woes, Boeing might be in an "any sale is better than no sale" sort of mood, especially since the 767 tooling will be warm from the KC-46 debacle for a good while. .