Talk:Boeing 767/Archive 1

Accident sections
The 767 and 757 have identical Accident Summaries. It looks like somebody copied and pasted without changing the numbers.


 * I noticed this too. I'm sure one of them is incorrect. I'll try to find the correct numbers and fix it, but I'm at work right now (most websites blocked). So, no promises. -GamblinMonkey 12:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I checked. It looks like the numbers are supposed to be for the 767. However, I'm still coming up with more fatalities than those listed, but less accidents. Also, should hijackings that resulted in hull-loss, Sept 11th for example, be counted as hull-loss as well? -GamblinMonkey 12:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I changed the description of the Lauda Air accident. It was caused by the un-commanded deployment of the left engine reverser in-flight. There was no explosion. The in-flight fuel fire that occurred, happened only after the plane began to break apart because of G-forces in the dive that exceeded the maximum strength design of the plane. Also, changed the date from the 23rd, to the 26th.EditorASC 10:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Cost?
Anyone know how much the of these things might cost? I've been thinking of buying one ;) Peoplesunionpro 22:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * A commercial Boeing 767 200ER goes for anywhere between 112.5 to 124 million dollars. The -300ER goes for 128 to 141.5 million, and the -400ER for 139.5 to 153.5 million.Source 青い(Aoi) 11:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Ram Air Turbine
I've corrected the trivia about the RAT, but I think its removal is needed since many widebody aircraft also have RATs. -DeAceShooter 17:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree, esp. since it's mentioned in the Gimli incident already. Josh59x 20:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed since aircraft since the 60s have had them (VC10) and all Airbuses have them. I think most Boeings have them too, they're nothing to write home about.

chinese state aircraft
how about a reference link?

Weight?
Why there is no information about the weight of the aircraft?--Pokipsy76 13:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Because you haven't added it! This is a reader-written encyclopedia so you're allowed to add stuff - Adrian Pingstone 08:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I added Max Takeoff Weight (MTOW) entries. Might get plane weight later, although I don't think that's so important. -Fnlayson 18:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Added a row for empty plane weight. -Fnlayson 18:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

KC-767
Given that there is a KC-767 article, I don't think we need more than one short paragraph. Any additional info ought to be in the KC-767 page. As other editors have recently worked on this section, I'm not unilaterally cutting it back. - BillCJ 17:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine to cut it back. But how much to keep?  Just this: The KC-767 Tanker Transport is a 767-200ER-based aerial refueling platform is being developed for the Italian Air Force and the Japan Self-Defense Forces. ?  -Fnlayson 18:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Cutting it back that far is fine with me, especially since Bill added the "main" template. Akradecki 18:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I cut the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs back. They could be removed if you think the first paragraph is enough. -Fnlayson 21:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What you've done looks good. I just added some additiona KC-X information to the KC-767 article, you might want to see if you want to tweak any of it. I'm also wondering at what point we might want to start a separate article on the KC-X RFP, especially if Boeing fields a KC-777 instead of the 767. Given the controversies, and the availability of citations, maybe move some of the political stuff out of the aircraft articles so that they just reflect the actual aircraft? Akradecki 21:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm going to move this over to the KC-767 talk page.  -Fnlayson 21:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys! Looking better. I think the "first hook-up" info should probably be moved too. - BillCJ 23:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Blank space
We seem to have a bunch of blank space in the 767-300 and 300ER sections. Our friend who likes Pluna seems to have added a pic, and theres another one too. To me, it looks like only one pic will fit well (either one -300 or one -300ER); any more looks like it will still leave blank space. So atleat 2 pics need to go, and maybe move the third somewhere else. Comments? - BillCJ 23:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed an extra 300ER image and moved the images above the variant subsections. I checked in IE and it looks that took care of the blank space.  There may still be blank space for users with large thumbnail size perference.  -Fnlayson 23:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I just checked in Netscape, and it looks good. If there's a desire for any more pics, I've got a few of 767 scrappings, since the early ones are now getting cut up. Akradecki 23:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

767-200LRF
Info on KC-767 entrant in the KC-X contest states that it is based on the 767-200lrf, which is in development. Yet there is no ifo in this article on that variant. Anyone have anything more on this model? - BillCJ 19:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds more like the 777 freighter, which is combination of 777-200LR and -300ER. -Fnlayson 19:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Any chance this is the freighter that UPS just ordered? Akradecki 19:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * UPS ordered -300ERs (this link also has info in -200LRF and KC-X). - BillCJ 23:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The KC-X press release says the tanker "will be an advanced derivative of the future 767-200 Long Range Freighter". They're using the tanker program to develop the variant, it seems. -Fnlayson 19:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess if you're going to continue producing a model you were going to discontinue, you might as well try to sell a civilian version of it too, and update both in the process. I'm surprised they're not calling it the 767-8LRF! - BillCJ 19:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * They'll offer a commerical version at least. Although it'll be shorter than the exiting 300F. -Fnlayson 20:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the KC-767 is competing against the much larger KC-30, why are they not offering a version of the larger -300? - BillCJ 23:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good question. The KC-X is just asking for refueling and range capability to match the KC-135.  -Fnlayson 23:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Makes sense. Plus Boeing has to charge for actual costs, and I would think the -300 or -400 cost more than the -200. - BillCJ 23:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

3 cockpit crew
In the current version of this article, there's a picture of an Ansett 767 with the caption that the 767 is being scrapped even as new ones are built. Ansett 767 had a cockpit crew of 3, not 2. Most airlines probably don't want this kind of 767.

Looking for source. It's possible that they converted those planes to 2 men crew but I'm not sure Archtrain 17:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Unlike most Ansett 767s which were delivered new and operated with a flight engineer, Ship 184 (N807AN/VH-RMO/G-BNCW) was second-hand ex-Britannia Airways machine with a two-man cockpit. MilborneOne 19:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, Boeing designed the 767 for a crew of 2, but retrofitted most of the flight test 767s for 3 person crew until regulations were changed to allow a 2 person crew for a larger airliner. See "History Of The 767 Two-Crew Flight Deck" for 767 background.  (In the 1960s the gross weight for the 2-crew DC-9 was limited to 80 Klb initially due to regulations.) -Fnlayson (talk) 03:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The 2/3 crew is covered in a book or two I have, I believe. Will try to fit something in on this..  -Fnlayson (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is space in the Boeing_767 section, first paragraph does mention the flight test 767s...the 3-person setup of those jets could be added there. SynergyStar (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Add 3 sentences there. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Article needs more info on competition from A330
There is currently very little in this article about the competition against the 767 by the Airbus A330. My understanding is that A330 competition has resulted in significant downward sales of 767 passenger aircraft, and was the main impetus for Boeing to start the 787 project. Anyone disagree? Shouldn't this be added to the article? Regards,  Lester  23:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know the details of that and all. But any of that added needs to referenced.  -Fnlayson (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It would have to be well sourced the Boeing 767 design is 25 years old and Boeing would be pushing sales of the 787 so it may not just be a 767 v 330 thing. MilborneOne (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the intro of the 777, which touches the upper end of this market was a factor as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Seating (2+4+2)
"It is possible to squeeze an extra seat for a 2+4+2 configuration, as done by Skymark Airlines"

yeah it is. I flew with thomson last week from london to bulgaria and it was like that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.160.17 (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep! Many charter airlines, especially in the UK, do this. I flew Thomson on a 767 last week and it's 2-4-2.82.31.219.109 (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

764 Pictures
This article has only one picture of the 767-400ER, and it's an interior pic. Anyone wanna include some exterior pics of the 764? --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 16:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. I added a Continental image from Boeing 767.  An in-flight image would be better though. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! I'm sure someone will add an in-flight one eventually. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 20:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

One of the pictures is an interior shot, notable for its example of the Boeing Signature Interior. I modified the description to note this, since earlier in the article the BSI was mentioned but no example shown. Steuben (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Article improvements
The lead, development sections have been expanded, and the variants sections organized. Hopefully this article can be improved further! Regards SynergyStar (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The 200ER, 300ER and 300F subsections labels were removed because the sections were very short.  But they are longer now and look alright. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Good to hear they look alright now, more details can be added to fill in these subsections. SynergyStar (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on largest airlines in Lead
On 7 May 2009, SynergyStar added the following sentence to the lead of this article: "As of 2009, Delta Air Lines operates the largest 767 fleet of any airline." That sentence remained unchanged until 23 June 2009, when an IP editor expanded the sentence to read as follows: "American Airlines currently operates the largest 767-200 fleet of any airline. However, as of 2009, Delta Air Lines operates the largest 767 fleet, in general, of any airline." Under the misleading and disruptive edit summary of reverting the IP editor, BillCJ on 23 June 2009 deleted both sentences, in effect reverting both SynergyStar and the IP editor. On 24 June 2009, I restored SynergyStar's edit, only to be promptly reverted by BillCJ. When I again restored SynergyStar's edit, BillCJ again reverted me, which was his third reversion of this article in a 6-hour period. The warning I then placed on his discussion page can be found here, which he immediately deleted with the edit summary of, "Please stop being obnoxious". In context of his well-documented unconstructive behavior in the recent past, his actions are very troubling indeed. He is willing to edit war to exercise ownership of this article and ignore the wishes of three different editors in favor of his unilateral conception of how the lead of this article should read. Comments on what should be done next would be welcome. Thanks. ShondaLear (talk) 08:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Refer to the immediately preceding section on this discussion page, where SynergyStar discussed his 7 May 2009 edits and which appear to have been agreed to by Fnlayson. That makes at least 4 editors in favor of those edits versus only 1 opposed. ShondaLear (talk) 09:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't assume support because of inaction. I'm actually neutral. WP:Consensus is not strictly a vote thing anyway. Not too many airliner articles list the largest operator in the Lead. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I stand by my edits. Being "Obnoxious" refers to the templating of regulars, and re-adding content after it was deleted by a user on his own talk page. I only "reverted" twice, the removal of the sentence is not a revert "in effect", but editing. I had no idea who added the original statement, or how long it had been there. I just know it is not necessary in the Lead, and it was attracitng more unneeded text. Removing it is not "edit warring" or a reversion. If the consensus here is for the text being kept, then I'll abide by that, as always. - BillCJ (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course your original removal of the sentence was a revert! Labeling things an "edit" does not make it so.  As for "templating the regulars", if you want people to abide by that essay, then perhaps you should start abiding by the WP:BRD essay.  Finally, the "I was ignorant of this-and-that" is a pathetic excuse for not doing your homework.  ShondaLear (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I stand by my edits, and my use of automated edit summariesIf you believe I've violated 3RR, then file a complaint in the correct place. Otherwise, move on. You're getting very close to Tenditious editng territory here. - BillCJ (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You actually said, "Thanks." to SynergyStar's expansion of the lead. That is support, not "inaction".  ShondaLear (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead photo
Hi all, I've switched the lead photo from the one I added a while back, it is still a Delta 767-300ER pic, in flight, but it faces the article text. Before, when the previous photo was added, the 747, 777 Boeing widebody articles had a right facing photo, but in those articles that has since been switched. With this change, the 707, 717, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777 articles all have lead photos facing the article text. SynergyStar (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Does not matter much. There's no requirement for the aircraft to be flying toward the text.  It is difficult enough finding an image that show a good angle of the aircraft for the Infobox. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right, it is not that big of a deal, and IIRC the WP guidelines refer in general to image placement, which has been interpreted by some to mean the facing images of cars, planes, etc. are to be that way as well. However it is indeed hard to find some of these photos, such as for the 727. SynergyStar (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: as the article gets further improvements towards possible future review, I'd like to propose changing the box image to the following: File:Delta Air Lines B767-332 N130DL.jpg; it is a similar photo, with the same airline, same takeoff configuration, and similar angle, but with higher resolution, sharper details, and fewer artifacts. It also shows the non-ER 767-300, which the article does not have a photo of at this time (the planform pic is a -300ER). This photo became available more recently. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please change the lead photo (after all, you're the boss here!).  Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 06:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

NPOV issue
I have removed a sentence that compares the 767-400ER's sales to the A330-200, as it falsely misleads readers into believing that the 767-400ER was a failure, which we all know is not true as Boeing designed the aircraft primarily to suit the widebody trijet (L-1011 and DC-10) replacement needs of Delta and Continental, respectively. The 767-400ER in fact wasn't originally supposed to exist; Boeing strongly urged both airlines to order the 777-200ER to replace their widebody trijets, which both airlines snubbed due to the fact that it was too large for that need. Boeing then offered them a possible 777-100ER, which was again snubbed due to lack of efficiency vs. the 777-200ER. Thus, the 767-400ER was born. ANDROS1337  19:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the insight. I had not thought too much about the -400ER being a niche market version.  Delta and Continental got a larger 767 for commonality with their 767s.  Though the 767-400ER has a different cockpit systems, based on the 777's systems. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Comparison with the 787
Given the similarities between the Boeing 767 and 787, is there any plans to phase out the Boeing 767 after deliveries have begun of the 787. I don't know of any announcement, although it does seem likely that the 787 is the successor to the 767 given the similarities. If anyone knows of any confirmation or reliable sugestions that this is the case it should be reflected in the article. Mtaylor848 (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * When 767 production ends will depend on how the KC-X tanker competition goes. 767 production has slowed in last decade or so with mostly freighters being delivered now. -fnlayson (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, 767 freighter production could go on for a few years. It could be several years before Boeing starts on a freighter version of the 787, judging by the 767 and 777 programs. -fnlayson (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Winglets
Just flew home on an American Airlines B767-300 with retro-fitted winglets. The captain said it gave a 6% fuel improvement and that all AA's 767 fleet will be fitted with them. If anyone has good information about the winglets (and maybe a picture), it would be worth adding to the article. Mesdale (talk) 10:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Winglets have been retrofitted on some 767s. This is briefly mentioned in the 767-300ER section.  I'll see what I can find on the retrofit program status.. -fnlayson (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

fuel capacities
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/767sec3.pdf those listed are just plain wrong. 68.40.61.81 (talk) 03:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Good catch, thanks. Fixed that. -fnlayson (talk) 04:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.html lists lists max fuel 23,980 U.S. gal (90,770 L) Why such a discrepancy? If you look at http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/767sec3.pdf, the fuel capacities for the -200 and -200ER are identical.  How then does the -200ER get a range increase from 5,200 NM to 8,000 NM?  Boeing.com seems to have a number of different max-fuel for the series. I suspect that 767sec3.pdf has an error.  According to http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=103, the -200ER had a center fuel tank installed.  My guess is the ER versions have larger Max Fuel.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim1138 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Change Factbox of image
I think the image in the description box should be changed to this: Reason: Delta has changed its livery and is still a large 767 operator. Jhz94 18:21, 18 December 2010 (CET)


 * Please dont change the image until after the discussion if you get a consensus. Dont see it should be changed the current image gives a reasonable airborne impression of the aircraft. The livery doesnt have to be up to date as this is an encyclopedia and a historical image is fine it is the view of the aircraft that is more important. MilborneOne (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

A livery change is no reason to change the lead image of an aircraft article. An image with new livery should be included in the Delta article though. --Denniss (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

A340 competition?
If you look on the page for the A340, it says that the A342 directly competes with the B764ER. However, in the section of this article with information about the B764ER, it says the competition is directly with the A332. Perhaps this was a mistake and the direct competitor with the B764ER is the A342? I actually don't see any reason why they shouldn't be. The B764ER and the A342, despite have different fuel capacities, are similar in size and pax capacity. Thoughts? --98.250.92.159 (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The A330 comparison here is per the Flug Revue source. The comparison in the A340 article is currently unreferenced there.  If reliable reference can be found for the 767-400 being comparable to the A340 and others, then we can add it. -fnlayson (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Airliners.net also says the B764ER directly competes with the A332. So, the A340 page is probably incorrect in saying that the A342 directly competes with the B764ER. But I guess it would be correct to say the A342 competes somewhat or "indirectly" with the B764ER. Like I said, they are similar in passenger capacity (though I think I was incorrect in saying that they are similar in size) despite the A342 having greater fuel than the B764ER. In addition, fuel efficiency for the two planes can be compared. --98.250.92.159 (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Help with ongoing peer review
User:Sp33dyphil started a peer review for this article. Check on the page and help make improvements suggested. Thanks for any help. -fnlayson (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This article should be ready for a GA review after this. It is too big of a hurtle to go straight for FA. -fnlayson (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Overall, seems to be pretty improved, and I think worthy of GA consideration. The prose is generally consistent, the article is factually verifiable, has broad coverage, neutral, stable, and illustrated. The review was helpful in illuminating issues to improve. One difference though, captions have been trimmed for spacing.


 * For further work, a key issue but nitpicky/cumbersome is consistency of referencing (which I have gone through many times on other articles, fortunately some bots now help out). Retrieved by dates, italics on "Flight Global" vs. "Flight International" etc.  US style vs. EU dates.  For higher status that needs to be worked out. Besides that issue, perhaps there are areas where claims could be challenged for refs, the prose improved or flow bettered, but that varies by reviewer. SynergyStar (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I list Flightglobal.com or Flight International depending on which is listed on the article page. I believe FI is listed if the article appears in the print magazine. -fnlayson (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Should article be checked for A-class status?
It seems with all the recent edits, perhaps it is now time to check if this article meets A-class status. I wouldn't go to FA-class just yet, however. ANDROS1337 TALK 22:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Definitely.  Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 07:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * A-class review sounds like a good idea, would anyone be willing to start it? I did try submitting the article for a copyedit (although the article has been gone over quite a bit the past few weeks), but no takers thus far. SynergyStar (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Update: having gone through a general review by the Guild of Copy Editors here, I've received a recommendation to proceed to the FAC process. The article may benefit from some prose improvements here and there, but the copy-editor has suggested that any further issues can be ironed out at the FAC level (and has offered to assist there).


 * At this point, with the article having been examined by copy-editors, the immediate focus is the A-class review. According to procedure, the article can pass the review if there are 3 support votes, with non-contributing editors providing input. I have advertised the review at WP:AVIATION, but with few takers perhaps more requests for input can be made. Thanks to all for their help! SynergyStar (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The A-class review is at WP:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Boeing 767. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all for the help in successfully passing A-class review! SynergyStar (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

FA nomination
Greetings all, thanks to everyone's collaborative work, the article has been greatly improved from GA to A-class. Extensive copy-edits occurred during the A-Class review, as well as separately courtesy of the GOCE. Members of the GOCE have recommended taking the article to FAC, which I expect to do shortly. Looking at WP:WIAFA, I believe that the article as it stands has a good chance of meeting those high standards. The prose is of high quality, it is quite comprehensive, researched, neutral, and stable. It has a summary-style lead and body, good structure, consistent citations, and quality images. It is also reasonable in length. That being said, I believe that over the FAC review process, the following will likely occur, among others:


 * 1) Further prose improvements - a fresh examination from new readers will help there. Flow, content, ways of saying things better, etc.
 * 2) Reference checks - possible further improvements in formatting style, and some publishers may be challenged.
 * 3) Image review - licensing, sourcing appears to be in order based on my review at the moment.
 * 4) Links and jargon - both of which have been brought up on past occasions; efforts have been made to streamline them.

At present, there are two outstanding issues that I sought to address:


 * A. Ref #145 on the Boeing orders search page, which I sought to remove owing to past critiques of "numbers [that] are completely dependent on a search" (see bottom of: ). Perhaps one could revert to the recent November data in Ref #1, which is a more 'static' results page?
 * I don't get what you're trying to say. Could you explain further? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure; the given citation leads to a input form, there is no data there. One has to perform a search to get the numbers each time, which may be a verifiability issue. Update: Fnlayson points out that the search page is needed for year-by-year older O&D data, so the ref remains. Regards SynergyStar (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * B. "See also" section, which I sought to remove. SandyGeorgia has stated that such a section is in violation of layout and style guidelines, as indicated at Talk: WP Aircraft. Justifications or removal will be needed in order to pass FAC. In the interim, citations have been added.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions or comments! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The issue with the See also section was just the Comparable list. All those are cited earlier in this article.  So are the related aircraft in the Variants section.  So I don't think they need to be cited in the See also again.  There was nothing in the edit summaries as to why the search page was removed and it is needed to cover the older order totals.  The recent ones are covered by this page. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * My read of the "See also" issue is that there is also opposition to it due to interpretations of MOS, including the suggestion that GAs and FAs shouldn't have long lists of links, and the statement that "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section" which has led to debates and proposals at WP:AIRCRAFT. Still, the MOS does say that links are up to editor discretion. While I don't think the "see also" section is needed, I have left it there. The references are added as an extra precaution, given expected opposition to the section during review, as well as the XF-85 FAC example; they can be removed if desired.


 * As for the search page ref, it was removed with an edit summary of "duplicate", given that ref #1 already covers all orders and deliveries to date (the multitude of adjustments made per edit can only be briefly summarized in the allotted space). Thank you for pointing out that that ref doesn't contain year-by-year breakdowns. In that case, the ref remains and we will have to see what the reviewers say. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Update: the reference style has been aligned, and I have updated my comments accordingly; in my view no further action is required on the above issues at the moment. My latest examination sees the article in good, not perfect condition (note - variants section verb tense); FAC review input is needed to progress further. Hopefully contributor apathy will be overcome in the process (like the past A-class review). My comments here are mainly to anticipate, catalog, and/or pre-empt potential issues, but evaluators' opinions are a necessary arbiter. The forthcoming FAC review should be interesting. Thanks again to the top contributors and other editors who have helped!!! Best regards, SynergyStar (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to truncate "see also" section
Per Dank's comments on the review page (here), I would like to propose shortening the "see also" section. Specifically: remove 757, E-767, KC-46, KC-767, E-10 MC2A, A300/A310/A332, and the 767 operator list. Leave only portal and List of civil aircraft.

Here are some reasons, in addition to the MOS concerns I mentioned above:


 * E-767, KC-46, KC-767, E-10 MC2A are already prominently displayed and linked in the top infobox.
 * 757 is linked and mentioned prominently in lead and throughout the article.
 * A300/A310/A332 is mentioned in the lead, and separately in each relevant "variants" subsection.
 * 767 operator list has a prominent link at the top of the "operators" section.

Moreover, Airbus A330 has had a similar short "see also" section for months now. Hopefully by shortening the section to the minimum links, we can avoid making a mountain out of a molehill and preempt further trouble over this (IMO minor) list...pretty much everything is already duplicated in the article. To my fellow editors, thank you for your consideration of this proposal. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That would work for me, but I just want to point out that it's not all-or-nothing ... even though those links are covered in other places in the article, if you guys prefer to put all the links together in one place toward the end of the article, I doubt FAC reviewers will have any objections ... as long as you do it in prose, and probably something very simple would work. - Dank (push to talk) 05:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That's an intriguing suggestion. I looked at WP:AIRCRAFT/content for what such a section would be called ("Competitors" section? "Applications"?). The links are already in article prose (e.g. "The type's main competitor was the Airbus A300."; "military derivatives include the E-767 surveillance aircraft, the KC-767 and KC-46 aerial tankers..."). Actually looking at this article's chronology, for instance in its incipient state, it seems the "see also" list, true to its MOS description, served more of a purpose when the article was still developing. SynergyStar (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope, this is unnecessary for the most part. This stuff is starting to look a bit like some vendetta to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * So to clarify, that's no to truncating the "see also"? How about Dank's prose suggestion?  Or retitle/refactor it somewhat? i understand that there is concern over a vendetta against "see also" aircraft templates--should WP: AIRCRAFT discuss this further?  The concern is MOS adherence, rules that all wiki articles are meant to follow.  For comparison, in my GA/FA work for WP:AUTOMOBILES, the use of short "see also" sections is adhered to just as the rule on few to no references in lead is. "See also" tends to be larger at first, but nearing FA most links have been incorporated in text.  In my view, reading the MOS, Dank correctly points out we are in danger of being seen to be flouting the rules. It would be unfortunate to sink this FA nomination on account of just a couple of extra links. SynergyStar (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure what the issue is but the see also appears to be OK in what is common practice. If it is to be pruned to be non-standard and then held up after the fact as a standard then it really needs a bigger audience than this one article before it is changed. MilborneOne (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Removing the operators list link was straightforward, but trimming the other links would probably lead to removing them all. I don't think there is any flouting of the rules here.  I think this falls under "editorial judgment and common sense" in WP:SEEALSO. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * How about renaming the "aircraft of comparable size, configuration, and era" section into more direct "competitors"? Outside template but less ambiguous and less easy to challenge. The point about editorial judgment sounds like the basis for a justification/defense--rather ambiguously put in the MOS. However reading the (now archived) November discussion at WP:AIRCRAFT, a hard line may be taken against this list..hopefully won't have to withdraw the nom over an impasse here.  SynergyStar (talk)

Successful result
Good news, thanks to everyone's hard work, the article has attained FA status. Thanks again to everyone who contributed, including long-time and occasional editors, peer reviewers, copy-editors, and FA reviewers. By working together, responding to points raised by reviewers, we were able to bring the article up to top standards and overall produce a higher-quality result. SynergyStar (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all your hard work. You did the bulk of it from adding needed content to fixing stuff to tweaking and polishing wording. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Stable version template
As you can see above, I added the stable version template. I did this because this article was just found to meet the Featured Article requirements, and should the quality ever fall for some reason (as unfortunately happens from time to time), this will hopefully preserve the hard work that has gone into this article thus far with an easy-to-access link. If you care to, you may read more about this new template in the template documentation, linked above. If for some reason you object to this template, feel free to discuss and remove it from this talk page. I just wanted to briefly explain what this is about! Note that it is a stable version, not a permanent version, and can be updated as necessary. Congratulations by the way on the featured article! Thanks, Falconus p t   c 19:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What the real need for this template here? I have not seen it added to any other GA or FA articles I've helped with.  The template's date is about 6 weeks after it was promoted to FA, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that the article promotion was several weeks ago; I did check to make sure that the edits since then are all good. You have not seen it added to any other articles because it has not been in use for very long, and is not yet well known.  The feeling is that it is needed to protect articles against deterioration - what will happen to the reliability and organization when the editors that keep an eye on this article move on and stop regularly maintaining it?  The point of this template is that because this is a very good, stable article right now, it is noted as such in case there is a time in the future where the quality has deteriorated.  It also may be used if somebody would prefer to read a more reliable version (the article should be vetted before the template is updated).  The template is not something special for featured articles, but because it just went through a review, I can feel confident that the article has been well vetted.  As long as the quality of the article continues to improve, the template should be periodically updated to newer versions.  The Village Pump discussion is here.  If the editors here don't want a stable version marked, you may of course remove the template from this page - there has been no consensus either for the use of or against the use of this template, other than in the village pump discussion that I linked.  I obviously support it, but that's my opinion. Falconus p  t   c 16:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Supercritical wing?
The opening piece says that the B767 is fitted with a supercritical wing but I'm not absolutely sure this is right.

I remember at the time it went into service, Boeing engineers were saying that their wing (what I recall was a Boeing-modified NACA profile) was superior in some flight regimes to its nearest competitor, the A310. I seem to remember a quote along the lines of "We took the wing and beat them over the head with it" but I can't source it.

Of course, I could be wrong as it's about 30 years ago.

Anyone else got any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flanker235 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * EDIT* Nope, I was wrong. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/ch13-6.htm Flanker235 (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

767-200ER / 767-400ER
While I understand Boeing has removed pricing for the 767-200ER and 767-400ER, it doesn't necessarily mean Boeing can no longer build them, since the tooling still exists; both use the same tooling as other 767 variants, unlike the 757 which used different tooling from the 737NG and has since been destroyed.

Also, in the source provided, it says the 767-400ER was primarily an A330-200 competitor, and states that it failed to do so. That raises a red flag for me, since its primary mission was actually to suit the widebody trijet replacement needs for Delta and Continental to keep its two important customers exclusive Boeing customers, while competing with the A330-200 in the mass market was a secondary mission that was far less important to Boeing. The 767-400ER wasn't originally supposed to exist; Boeing initially urged DL and CO to order the 777-200ER to replace their widebody trijets, and both airlines said no due to it being too large for that role. Boeing then offered them a 777-100 proposal, which was again rejected due to its economics being poor. Finally Boeing gave them the 767-400ER.

I personally think the source provided is questionable at best, since it makes certain false claims. ANDROS1337 TALK 19:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have removed the source, anything with the word "blog" in the link from somebody who is not a subject matter expert if iffy, I have added fact tags to allow somebody to find a better source. No need to list all the variants in the unit cost section particulary if you cant give a cost, I have left an example which is all that is needed. MilborneOne (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh and the 200ER and 400ER are still listed on the Boeing website so I will remove the statements. (refer http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/767family/index.page?) MilborneOne (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

New interesting photo landed at Commons
The present article is already pretty well illustrated, but the following air-to-air photo just landed at Commons that may be worth a look. Perhaps as a replacement for the LAN 767 in the Operators section? Ariadacapo (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * A nice image but the strong dark background is probably to much for the size it would appear in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice photo, if there was a higher-res version it could be cropped and would be a better fit. Thanks for sharing. SynergyStar (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed! It’s a little too loaded visually to fit here. Thanks for the feedback. On a side note, curious aviation photography enthusiasts should check out the freshly-created Files from the Austrian Airlines Flickr stream category at Commons. Ariadacapo (talk) 10:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

How about File:Boeing 767 over Mount Rainier, circa 1980s.jpg, which shows the prototype 767, N767BA? - Jmabel &#124; Talk 05:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a historically relevant photo of the prototype 767. It faces left, and although not very high resolution and with the main subject a bit high, it is worth considering. I think it could replace the Farnborough Delta 767 photo in the Development>Background section with the altered caption "The 7X7 would make its global debut in 1982 as the 767-200." Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Another possible route is to swap out the TWA 767-200 photo in the Development>Service entry and operations category with the altered caption: "The 767-200 entered service on September 8, 1982." or something like that. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The latter swap option has been exercised. Thanks for the historical photo! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

767 program developments in 2014
Just a note on some new developments that might get incorporated into the article:


 * 767 cockpit upgrade: program announced here: . Looks like 787 style 3-LCD display with HUD. Seems to coincide with KC-46A and FedEx 767-300F orders.  However have not been able to find a reliable source as of yet showing that the cockpit is being deployed on new builds. One enthusiast site says that the first 3 FedEx deliveries in 2013- were prior gen cockpit.


 * 767-2C. The basis for the KC-46 A.  Apparently this is a slight stretch of the 767-200ER (counts as a "fourth fuselage length" of the type?), and there may be commercial offerings.

Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Mention the cockpit upgrade. Otherwise there's not much notable just yet.  I'm not sure if the 767-2C is actually longer.  The KC-46 length increase over the 767-200 may be due to the refueling boom, at least partially. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Order for three TGCP (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

767 Tail Skin Wrinkles
I tried to alter the main page and it was purged in a few hours. In 2004 at the United Airlines ramp at IAD(Dulles Airport) tail skin wrinkles were observed. Myself and a captain discussed them. I might be a commercial pilot, I forget. I mentioned that every 767 on the flight line had wrinkles. Two were severe. The issued has not been resolved by Boeing correctly. No engineering analysis inclusive of the inferable frame distort has been conducted. If elevator failures are occurring it is likely due to captains using little if any rudder to fly. Aileron directional control requires aa downward nose down elevator movement. Turbulent air can cause a rather forceful control need. Why does the FAA allow skin distortion?96.255.207.79 (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It was removed as it needed a reliable reference/source and some idea that it is notable enough to mention. Personal knowledge is not treated as reliable on wikipedia, it needs to be published. MilborneOne (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrinkles on the underside of fuselage, and just ahead of the empennage, indicate a very heavy landing for any large airliner. More likely to happen with rear-mounted engines such as a 717, 727, or VC10, This is a discussion page, and users should be free to discuss these sorts of things. Perhaps the zealot controlling the article should go have a look for good refs himself. All too often zealots demand everyone else should supply refs, but they don't feel obliged to do it themselves. No mention is made in the article of cracks in part 1809B, the gusset supporting the inboard hinge of the inboard spoilers. Ansett discovered these cracks first. No mention is made of the public scandal and blame the Australian media labelled Ansett with for letting the crack happen. No mention is made that the 767 was the first of the fault tolerant designs. The 767 and 757 are sister ships and share much in the way of maintenance assets. The a/c is now at the end of its civilian life and the article needs to make it clear. It is now considered a 3rd world airliner.220.240.225.135 (talk) 11:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * With so many specifics, you should found easily some literature on the subject. You just have to mention it. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)