Why are people so 100% convinced that the airline even WANTS a seat-for-seat replacement?

IMO they clearly don't, or they would've purchased a larger eqp size from the start.

And it's not unreasonable nor unique among current purchases: DL is replacing 744s with A359s, VS replaced its LHR 744s with 789s, etc. And let's not forget how many airlines replaced 744s with 77Ws.

I don't understand.

I fly(not ride) the 747 for Delta. We carry 370 pax Dtw to ICN. 370 to PNG. 370 to NRT daily. I fly the planes and cannot get my wife on the trip as a pass rider. Delta is going to replace it with a 300 pax plane? How is that going to help. Now if they replace each 747 with 2 350s or 787s, I can see that as you will now have a frequency, more pax and virtually the same price as a 747.

Then again, The decision was made by the same guys who decided to buy back stock to inflate the price so they can sell their shares. 30 mil this year alone yet nothing towards IT.

Can anyone have an opinion for these seemingly bad business moves.

I've seen some incredibly low priced Asian flights posted at travel agencies in Chinatown in Seattle. We need to consider that Delta is replacing 744 metal, but since the planes were new, you have the likes of Hainan growing their fleet, a reinvigorated JAL, NH flying to more destinations, etc. The market isn't static, and a one for one replacement wouldn't be a prudent use of corporate assets. It kind of stinks for non-revs, but that isn't the reason management makes fleet decisions.

That makes more sense. Multiple gateways are the key. Don't know why I did not see it. Still gotta love the 747.... Worst case is more joint venture which means less Delta pilots needed. We are quickly becoming a virtual airline it seems.

Thanks for the input.

deltal1011man wrote:

ro1960 wrote:

DLLongIsland wrote:

they'll replace 747s 1-for-1 as they're phased out next year.

So does that mean a reduction of capacity? The 744 is at 376 pax (http://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US/traveling-with-us/airports-and-aircraft/Aircraft/boeing-747-400-744.html. How many on the A350?

yes but more routes to ICN/PVG from other hubs are going to happen.

MSP? Re-launch ATL-ICN?

WesternA318 wrote:

First flights are probably gunna be ATL/DTW-MCO or TPA or LAX. Gotta some inflight flight experience on the new fleet type afterall, like DL has done with every other new fleet type since oh I dunno...the DC--8?

I thought the same. It is always short routes to get pilots and crew comfortable. ATL-MCO is a safe bet. Or for fun JFK-LAX.

reltney wrote:

I don't understand.

I fly(not ride) the 747 for Delta. We carry 370 pax Dtw to ICN. 370 to PNG. 370 to NRT daily. I fly the planes and cannot get my wife on the trip as a pass rider. Delta is going to replace it with a 300 pax plane? How is that going to help. Now if they replace each 747 with 2 350s or 787s, I can see that as you will now have a frequency, more pax and virtually the same price as a 747.

Then again, The decision was made by the same guys who decided to buy back stock to inflate the price so they can sell their shares. 30 mil this year alone yet nothing towards IT.

Can anyone have an opinion for these seemingly bad business moves.

Pretty simple really. Of those 370 pax to PVG or ICN or NRT, 100 of them could be paying below-cost prices (which could very often be the case with transpacific markets). Delta wants fewer of those pax, so by cutting some seats for sale by going from a 744 to an A359, they are trying to limit the number of seats they may have to sell through consolidators or bucket shops....

panamair wrote:

reltney wrote:

I don't understand.

I fly(not ride) the 747 for Delta. We carry 370 pax Dtw to ICN. 370 to PNG. 370 to NRT daily. I fly the planes and cannot get my wife on the trip as a pass rider. Delta is going to replace it with a 300 pax plane? How is that going to help. Now if they replace each 747 with 2 350s or 787s, I can see that as you will now have a frequency, more pax and virtually the same price as a 747.

Then again, The decision was made by the same guys who decided to buy back stock to inflate the price so they can sell their shares. 30 mil this year alone yet nothing towards IT.

Can anyone have an opinion for these seemingly bad business moves.

Pretty simple really. Of those 370 pax to PVG or ICN or NRT, 100 of them could be paying below-cost prices (which could very often be the case with transpacific markets). Delta wants fewer of those pax, so by cutting some seats for sale by going from a 744 to an A359, they are trying to limit the number of seats they may have to sell through consolidators or bucket shops....

So then they shouldn't cry when they can't compete in the Asian market and loose market share you can't have your cake and eat it to. If they wanted a viable partner in Asia it could have happened years ago but their ego wants to always call the shots they just need to swallow their pride a bit and they could be just as competitive as AA/JL or UA/NH. They just see their ability to ride rough shot over a Chinese carrier so they chose a less desirable option so they could be in control. Kind of cutting of your nose to spiyr your face. DL needs KE more than KE would ever need DL.

[quote="klm617. They just see their ability to ride rough shot over a Chinese carrier so they chose a less desirable option so they could be in control. Kind of cutting of your nose to spiyr your face. DL needs KE more than KE would ever need DL.[/quote]

In the famous words of Ronald Reagan. "...there you go again..."

If you really think Delta - or any other US-based airline - can "ride roughshod" over any Chinese, state-controlled carrier... then I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you. Or maybe a pristine luxury-home lot in Downtown Detroit...

reltney wrote:

Worst case is more joint venture which means less Delta pilots needed. We are quickly becoming a virtual airline it seems.

Isn't that a big part of Delta's strategy? Sell tickets and keep some of the money while letting someone else deal with operating the flights and associated problems. Delta has pushed much of the domestic flying from mainline to the lowest cost bidder over the years. It's only logical that international is targeted next.

ro1960 wrote:

Polot wrote:

I'm guessing around 300 like their 777s (which are currently 37/36/218). The A350 will have a smaller J cabin than that, but it is also expected to have a more spacious Y+ product, vs the current Y with just more legroom as currently featured on DL's aircraft.

OK, down ~85 seats. Does that mean they didn't fill up the 744?

The 744's generally run full but the yields on flight such as NRT-MNL is terrible. It is all VFR traffic with very little business class purchased.

I could see DL reinstating BOM with ATL-BOM and/or JFK-BOM with the 350 but non-stop, not via AMS.

Does anyone see DL opting to convert or add the A350-1000 to the -900 order? They could use the additional capacity on some routes.

DTWPurserBoy wrote:

Does anyone see DL opting to convert or add the A350-1000 to the -900 order? They could use the additional capacity on some routes.

I'd say that's a higher probability vs say DL ordering the 778/779.

DTWPurserBoy wrote:

ro1960 wrote:

Polot wrote:

I'm guessing around 300 like their 777s (which are currently 37/36/218). The A350 will have a smaller J cabin than that, but it is also expected to have a more spacious Y+ product, vs the current Y with just more legroom as currently featured on DL's aircraft.

OK, down ~85 seats. Does that mean they didn't fill up the 744?

The 744's generally run full but the yields on flight such as NRT-MNL is terrible. It is all VFR traffic with very little business class purchased.

I could see DL reinstating BOM with ATL-BOM and/or JFK-BOM with the 350 but non-stop, not via AMS.

So what you're saying is the people who do not buy business class tickets do not deserve travel options that are convenient for them. Kind of sounds like sturage class in the olden steamship days. Not everyone travels in business class so what you're saying is they don't matter in the world of airlines business today.

alfa164 wrote:

[quote="klm617. They just see their ability to ride rough shot over a Chinese carrier so they chose a less desirable option so they could be in control. Kind of cutting of your nose to spiyr your face. DL needs KE more than KE would ever need DL.

In the famous words of Ronald Reagan. "...there you go again..."

If you really think Delta - or any other US-based airline - can "ride roughshod" over any Chinese, state-controlled carrier... then I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you. Or maybe a pristine luxury-home lot in Downtown Detroit... [/quote]


In a corrupt country like China a little money goes a long way.

klm617 wrote:

In a corrupt country like China a little money goes a long way.

You need to have some facts before posting your continuing drivel: Corruption in China has been - and is being - punished by the death penalty. It is taken very seriously there.

The things you don't understand would write a great book...

klm617 wrote:

DTWPurserBoy wrote:

ro1960 wrote:

OK, down ~85 seats. Does that mean they didn't fill up the 744?

The 744's generally run full but the yields on flight such as NRT-MNL is terrible. It is all VFR traffic with very little business class purchased. I could see DL reinstating BOM with ATL-BOM and/or JFK-BOM with the 350 but non-stop, not via AMS.

So what you're saying is the people who do not buy business class tickets do not deserve travel options that are convenient for them. Kind of sounds like sturage class in the olden steamship days. Not everyone travels in business class so what you're saying is they don't matter in the world of airlines business today.

Don't try to tell PurserBoy what he is saying; he understands the truth, while you refuse to accept it He understands that airlines - like any other business - have to be able to operate at a profit. It is a simple principle you do not seem to understand.

An airline's paying Business Class passengers often make it possible to offer low coach fares on some routes; if they can't sell Business Class, then the is no way to operate - without a loss - based on Coach tickets alone. This is particularly acute in markets like India, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam; most O&D traffic to those countries seems to be very price sensitive. Does that mean you might have to take an "inconvenient" flight sometime? Do you think you always deserve non-stop, door-to-door service everywhere you want to go?

Do you treat all businesses like you treat airlines? When you go to the grocery store. do you think you deserve New York Strip steaks for the price of ground chuck? Do you go to Detroit's best steakhouse and expect those same Strip Steaks for the price of a Big Mac? Do you think Best Buy should give you a 65-inch, 4K, 3D flat-screen Sony TV for the price of a 32-inch Vizio? Or do you just think airlines owe you special treatment?

I would honestly like to know...

klm617 wrote:

So then they shouldn't cry when they can't compete in the Asian market and loose market share you can't have your cake and eat it to. If they wanted a viable partner in Asia it could have happened years ago but their ego wants to always call the shots they just need to swallow their pride a bit and they could be just as competitive as AA/JL or UA/NH. They just see their ability to ride rough shot over a Chinese carrier so they chose a less desirable option so they could be in control. Kind of cutting of your nose to spiyr your face. DL needs KE more than KE would ever need DL.

I don't really think that we can completely fault DL for their strained relationship with KE. DL appears to have successful JV relationships with other airlines from around the world without too much objection. I do agree that DL has more leverage over MU than it does with KE (because MU can stand to gain a lot more presence in the US in exchange for less control), but calling it "riding roughshod" would be an exaggeration. At the same time, I understand why KE would be reluctant to enter into a JV relationship with DL:

- KE is already well entrenched in the markets that they serve in the US. If KE was able to do so without much support/feed from DL, why relinquish any further control over those markets if it's unnecessary for them? What new major markets would KE obtain as a result of a JV other than perhaps MSP and DTW?

- A potential KE/DL JV would be heavily lopsided towards KE metal. I wonder how the two airlines would work things out in terms of revenue/cost sharing in that case?

- KE is a very conservative airline in many ways, and something as drastic as a JV in a market that amounts to 34% of their bottom line could be incompatible with the conservative ethos of the (possibly megalomanic?) family that runs it.

Without knowing the full details of the discussions that have transpired between the two airlines, I am inclined to believe that such discord has more to do with the "idiosyncracies" (if you will) of KE, and not because DL is being unreasonable. It is what it is.

JFK-TLV and should bring back ATL-TLV huge Jewish population in Atlanta and many tour groups to the holy land in the summer from the Southern US.

Guarantee you anything that at some point we will see the SIN-NRT flight be axed in favor of A350 service on DL from SEA-SIN non-stop. Give it 2-3 years as the NRT hub is closed down and intra-Asia service is eliminated.

DL would never give up Singapore and with UA totally raking it in on the SFO flight, they know it is possible for a US carrier to be successful N/S to Singapore.

The real wild card in all of this will be AA if they try to open up more flights to Asia. One would assume SIN is on that list but their partners (CX, JL) would probably not be too happy about that.

sq452 wrote:

Guarantee you anything that at some point we will see the SIN-NRT flight be axed in favor of A350 service on DL from SEA-SIN non-stop. Give it 2-3 years as the NRT hub is closed down and intra-Asia service is eliminated.

DL would never give up Singapore and with UA totally raking it in on the SFO flight, they know it is possible for a US carrier to be successful N/S to Singapore.

The real wild card in all of this will be AA if they try to open up more flights to Asia. One would assume SIN is on that list but their partners (CX, JL) would probably not be too happy about that.

First off, SEA is not SFO -- there is virtually no local market into SIN from SEA.

Secondly, what evidence supports that UA is "totally raking it in" on what's basically an infant flight? A reputable poster who clearly had connections to UA insiders posted several times that bookings were 'strong up front, soft in the back' and questioned the longevity of the route once SQ went nonstop.

Thirdly, DL has pretty much shut down the NRT hub. An orphan flight to SIN will work until it moves operations from NRT, and that will be a long while.

What about MCO to AMS?

I definitely think DL is monitoring how SQ/UA fare on SFO-SIN. I bet DL would love to have a nonstop to SIN but the 77L just burns too much gas for a hypothetical LAX-SIN routing. Perhaps if DL received the 280 tonne MTOW version of the A350-900, a nonstop route to SIN would sound more feasible. The current version can do SEA-SIN but most of the traffic would be connecting. The 787-9 would be a better fit for SEA-SIN but it would still take time for the route to become profitable. Also, since the A350-900 will have only 32 Suites, there will be plenty of seats in the rear. SEA-MNL may be a possibility but still I believe the odds are better that NRT-MNL will be cancelled and DL leaves MNL altogether instead of SEA-MNL. While the Philippine economy is doing well, there's just not enough premium fare paying passengers to fly US-MNL nonstop. I doubt PAL is turning a profit on its US flights.

flee wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

When can we expect one in Amsterdam? Must be high on the list

A330neos will be deployed on Transatlantic services.

AMS might make the cut for the early crew training rotations, though? They'd get more bang for their training buck if they used them on trans-Atlantic for a few weeks before putting them on the much longer DTW-Asia sectors they are intended for.

I can't find the original post to be able to quote it, but DL hasn't sent anything other than a 777 to SYD since they started the route a few years ago (I can't even recall them sending a -200ER, I'm pretty sure every rotation has been -200LR).

DeltaB717 wrote:

flee wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

When can we expect one in Amsterdam? Must be high on the list

A330neos will be deployed on Transatlantic services.

AMS might make the cut for the early crew training rotations, though? They'd get more bang for their training buck if they used them on trans-Atlantic for a few weeks before putting them on the much longer DTW-Asia sectors they are intended for.

I can't find the original post to be able to quote it, but DL hasn't sent anything other than a 777 to SYD since they started the route a few years ago (I can't even recall them sending a -200ER, I'm pretty sure every rotation has been -200LR).

Does the A350 have the lags to do the SYD run?

DeltaB717 wrote:

but DL hasn't sent anything other than a 777 to SYD since they started the route a few years ago (I can't even recall them sending a -200ER, I'm pretty sure every rotation has been -200LR).

77Es have subbed for 77Ls on LAX-SYD plenty of times.

Dutchy wrote:

Does the A350 have the lags to do the SYD run?

Easily.

This article quotes an (unnamed) DL spokesperson claiming definitively that the A350 will be used on LAX-SYD:
http://www.ausbt.com.au/delta-eyes-sydn ... ass-suites

alfa164 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

DTWPurserBoy wrote:

The 744's generally run full but the yields on flight such as NRT-MNL is terrible. It is all VFR traffic with very little business class purchased. I could see DL reinstating BOM with ATL-BOM and/or JFK-BOM with the 350 but non-stop, not via AMS.

So what you're saying is the people who do not buy business class tickets do not deserve travel options that are convenient for them. Kind of sounds like sturage class in the olden steamship days. Not everyone travels in business class so what you're saying is they don't matter in the world of airlines business today.

Don't try to tell PurserBoy what he is saying; he understands the truth, while you refuse to accept it He understands that airlines - like any other business - have to be able to operate at a profit. It is a simple principle you do not seem to understand.

An airline's paying Business Class passengers often make it possible to offer low coach fares on some routes; if they can't sell Business Class, then the is no way to operate - without a loss - based on Coach tickets alone. This is particularly acute in markets like India, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam; most O&D traffic to those countries seems to be very price sensitive. Does that mean you might have to take an "inconvenient" flight sometime? Do you think you always deserve non-stop, door-to-door service everywhere you want to go?

Do you treat all businesses like you treat airlines? When you go to the grocery store. do you think you deserve New York Strip steaks for the price of ground chuck? Do you go to Detroit's best steakhouse and expect those same Strip Steaks for the price of a Big Mac? Do you think Best Buy should give you a 65-inch, 4K, 3D flat-screen Sony TV for the price of a 32-inch Vizio? Or do you just think airlines owe you special treatment?

I would honestly like to know...

So again what you're saying is people who live in these countries do not deserve ease of travel because they are low yield markets. Perhaps that is why Delta is angry at the ME3 because of the amount of travel to and from India and with the ME3 catering to this market they can't find a way to generate more yield and it bothers them that all these people are flying and they can't get a piece of this action and the margins they want. As far as my buying habits go I do not buy thing with artificially inflated prices just so some investor can sit on his yacht drinking margaritas while I have a difficult time making ends meet. Any person with common sense would see it the same way. And please don't tell me when you're out in the marketplace you're not looking for the best price because you'd be lying if you said you don't buy things at the cheapest price you can and why should airlines travel be any different.

klm617 wrote:

alfa164 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

So what you're saying is the people who do not buy business class tickets do not deserve travel options that are convenient for them. Kind of sounds like sturage class in the olden steamship days. Not everyone travels in business class so what you're saying is they don't matter in the world of airlines business today.

Don't try to tell PurserBoy what he is saying; he understands the truth, while you refuse to accept it He understands that airlines - like any other business - have to be able to operate at a profit. It is a simple principle you do not seem to understand.

An airline's paying Business Class passengers often make it possible to offer low coach fares on some routes; if they can't sell Business Class, then the is no way to operate - without a loss - based on Coach tickets alone. This is particularly acute in markets like India, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam; most O&D traffic to those countries seems to be very price sensitive. Does that mean you might have to take an "inconvenient" flight sometime? Do you think you always deserve non-stop, door-to-door service everywhere you want to go?

Do you treat all businesses like you treat airlines? When you go to the grocery store. do you think you deserve New York Strip steaks for the price of ground chuck? Do you go to Detroit's best steakhouse and expect those same Strip Steaks for the price of a Big Mac? Do you think Best Buy should give you a 65-inch, 4K, 3D flat-screen Sony TV for the price of a 32-inch Vizio? Or do you just think airlines owe you special treatment?

I would honestly like to know...

So again what you're saying is people who live in these countries do not deserve ease of travel because they are low yield markets. Perhaps that is why Delta is angry at the ME3 because of the amount of travel to and from India and with the ME3 catering to this market they can't find a way to generate more yield and it bothers them that all these people are flying and they can't get a piece of this action and the margins they want. As far as my buying habits go I do not buy thing with artificially inflated prices just so some investor can sit on his yacht drinking margaritas while I have a difficult time making ends meet. Any person with common sense would see it the same way. And please don't tell me when you're out in the marketplace you're not looking for the best price because you'd be lying if you said you don't buy things at the cheapest price you can and why should airlines travel be any different.

You are ignoring what was said... contradicting yourself... and just repeating your continuing drivel. As usual.

1) What you are saying is that "people who live in these countries"..."deserve ease of travel"... because of what? They deserve non-stop flights wherever they want to go? You mean the airlines should operate flights at a loss just because you think everybody in some far-off, low-yield market "deserves...ease of travel"? Do you have any concept of economics - or of the airline business?

2) You then go on to claim that, "Perhaps that is why Delta is angry at the ME3 because of the amount of travel to and from India and with the ME3 catering to this market they can't find a way to generate more yield..." Well, there is your answer! Don't whine about one airline cancelling a route; just fly on another airline! Is that so difficult to understand? Find a ME3 flight. You may be unhappy because none of the ME3 seem to want to fly into your favored airport...so that will give you something new to whine about.

3) As far as your buying habits are concerned... feel free not to, "buy thing(sic) with artificially inflated prices just so some investor can sit on his yacht drinking margaritas while I have a difficult time making ends meet". But don't complain when the cumulative effect of not buying something at a profitable price means that product will disappear. You will whine when they are priced to make them profitable... and if they aren't, you will whine even more when they disappear altogether.

4) And don't even pretend to know my buying habits. I, like many people, are not simply "looking for the best price"; many of us look for the best product; i.e., the best balance between price and quality. That is why we don't choose to fly on Spirit... or Ryanair... we don't buy Vizio TV's..et cetra, et al. Everyone makes their own choice. Not everyone, however, expects to be given a premium product at a cut-rate price. Actually, no sane person expects that.

Perhaps you need to go back and study some history; it might give you a new perspective (if you can understand it). More than 2,000 years ago, Aristotle showed that the earth revolves around the sun.. but you still think the world revolves around you.

Please, tell us, who said they don't deserve to travel conveniently? You're projecting your personal bias onto other's statements.

I don't understand how the concept of economical business interactions in the marketplace and the word 'deserve' go together. To deserve something is completely objective based on the person making the argument. Who decides what someone deserves?

--> Do people deserve safe drinking water?
--> Do people deserve 'ease of travel' and 'cheap travel options'

Quite frankly, if the demand existed and there was money to be made, the market would be addressed. Perhaps the market is there, but due to the high-cost of market entry and extreme regulation in the airline business, assets can be used more suitably elsewhere and the assets available are limited. Maybe EK even has the physical assets but they don't have the landing slots, or the pilots, etc to start the route.

Why was DTW-MUC launched as opposed to JFK-MUC? (If considering the economic aspect)

reltney wrote:

I don't understand.

I fly(not ride) the 747 for Delta. We carry 370 pax Dtw to ICN. 370 to PNG. 370 to NRT daily. I fly the planes and cannot get my wife on the trip as a pass rider. Delta is going to replace it with a 300 pax plane? How is that going to help. Now if they replace each 747 with 2 350s or 787s, I can see that as you will now have a frequency, more pax and virtually the same price as a 747.

Then again, The decision was made by the same guys who decided to buy back stock to inflate the price so they can sell their shares. 30 mil this year alone yet nothing towards IT.

Can anyone have an opinion for these seemingly bad business moves.

Fewer passengers at higher average fares (revenue management will tightly restrict the cheapest fare classes) in an aircraft with a much lower trip cost means higher profits. Every time you hear 'capacity restraint' this us what they really mean.

The first Delta A350 route may be Atlanta to Los Angeles, because, beginning next fall, the current aircraft is a 77L, but, could be upgraded in favor for the A350. There are hard rumors that the first few routes will be Los Angeles to Sydney or Atlanta to Seoul.

thedetroitpole wrote:

The first Delta A350 route may be Atlanta to Los Angeles, because, beginning next fall, the current aircraft is a 77L, but, could be upgraded in favor for the A350. There are hard rumors that the first few routes will be Los Angeles to Sydney or Atlanta to Seoul.

Is this an early avgeek Christmas present? A domestic A350 route?????!!!!

thedetroitpole wrote:

The first Delta A350 route may be Atlanta to Los Angeles, because, beginning next fall, the current aircraft is a 77L, but, could be upgraded in favor for the A350. There are hard rumors that the first few routes will be Los Angeles to Sydney or Atlanta to Seoul.

There you go the first A350 won't even originate from DTW where the first base is suppose to be I knew Delta would give Detroit another big middle finger.

I believe it should be not only LAX-SYD or LAX-LHR, but I think could be LAX-FRA if possible.

787fan8 wrote:

Upon delivery, what routes do you think Delta will deploy their A350's on?

Not only the other 3 I post earlier, next could be ATL-JNB or JFK-HKG if they could.

RacheyFlies wrote:

787fan8 wrote:

Upon delivery, what routes do you think Delta will deploy their A350's on?

Not only the other 3 I post earlier, next could be ATL-JNB or JFK-HKG if they could.

Or SEA-HKG?

11725Flyer wrote:

RacheyFlies wrote:

787fan8 wrote:

Upon delivery, what routes do you think Delta will deploy their A350's on?

Not only the other 3 I post earlier, next could be ATL-JNB or JFK-HKG if they could.

Or SEA-HKG?

Could be, currently this route is on an A330.

klm617 wrote:

thedetroitpole wrote:

The first Delta A350 route may be Atlanta to Los Angeles, because, beginning next fall, the current aircraft is a 77L, but, could be upgraded in favor for the A350. There are hard rumors that the first few routes will be Los Angeles to Sydney or Atlanta to Seoul.

There you go the first A350 won't even originate from DTW where the first base is suppose to be I knew Delta would give Detroit another big middle finger.

Your reaction is to a "may be". We'll see how it turns out.

Anybody have a seat map yet? I have a feeling it might look similar to the CI A350 layout with a premium economy section.

11725Flyer wrote:

klm617 wrote:

thedetroitpole wrote:

The first Delta A350 route may be Atlanta to Los Angeles, because, beginning next fall, the current aircraft is a 77L, but, could be upgraded in favor for the A350. There are hard rumors that the first few routes will be Los Angeles to Sydney or Atlanta to Seoul.

There you go the first A350 won't even originate from DTW where the first base is suppose to be I knew Delta would give Detroit another big middle finger.

Your reaction is to a "may be". We'll see how it turns out.

Because I believe this to be true my first thought was ATL-SEA so I wouldn't be far off remember it's still about a year off and as Delta likes to talk but in the end does whatever suits them I don't believe in the DTW base for the A350 until it formally happens because I think Delta is going to downgrade the Detroit hub drastically over time a little at a time.

klm617 wrote:

I don't believe in the DTW base for the A350 until it formally happens because I think Delta is going to downgrade the Detroit hub drastically over time a little at a time.

Yeah....no.

klm617 wrote:

11725Flyer wrote:

klm617 wrote:

There you go the first A350 won't even originate from DTW where the first base is suppose to be I knew Delta would give Detroit another big middle finger.

Your reaction is to a "may be". We'll see how it turns out.

Because I believe this to be true my first thought was ATL-SEA so I wouldn't be far off remember it's still about a year off and as Delta likes to talk but in the end does whatever suits them I don't believe in the DTW base for the A350 until it formally happens because I think Delta is going to downgrade the Detroit hub drastically over time a little at a time.

These kinds of posts are really becoming ridiculous. This is ABSOLUTELY NOT GOING TO HAPPEN and no one with any knowledge of DL's internal strategy has ever heard of or even hinted that this was going to occur. Can you please stop with the propagandist nonsense? Are you just trying to stir the pot?

Jeremy

klm617 wrote:

11725Flyer wrote:

klm617 wrote:

There you go the first A350 won't even originate from DTW where the first base is suppose to be I knew Delta would give Detroit another big middle finger.

Your reaction is to a "may be". We'll see how it turns out.

I think Delta is going to downgrade the Detroit hub drastically over time a little at a time.

Like that's ever gonna happen

The A350 once ready for transpacific flying will be flying out of DTW replacing 747 service.

ooslc wrote:

Anybody have a seat map yet? I have a feeling it might look similar to the CI A350 layout with a premium economy section.

Not yet for the seat map, but I bet it will likely have a CI layout, but not that the Business is the suite one.

tjerome wrote:

The A350 once ready for transpacific flying will be flying out of DTW replacing 747 service.

Not only for transpacific only, but transatlantic looks ready too, I bet next is DTW-LHR is the next one.

RacheyFlies wrote:

ooslc wrote:

Anybody have a seat map yet? I have a feeling it might look similar to the CI A350 layout with a premium economy section.

Not yet for the seat map, but I bet it will likely have a CI layout, but not that the Business is the suite one.

Yeah no reverse herringbone pattern like CI. I may have to burn some AS miles and try out the mini suite when it comes out!

DL does not find it necessary to fly the A350 on DTW-LHR, more or less the A330NEO once it comes because if they can barely maintain a 764, which is why it is downgraded to a 76L, than it will definitely not be able to use the A350 unless BA comes and takes over LHR, which is highly unlikely.

RacheyFlies wrote:

tjerome wrote:

The A350 once ready for transpacific flying will be flying out of DTW replacing 747 service.

Not only for transpacific only, but transatlantic looks ready too, I bet next is DTW-LHR is the next one.

The 350 was selected to replace the 747. It'll be those first and as more are added they'll use it on other routes. My guess for Asian expansion.