I find it quite odd that DL is shifting a bit on the A350, in theory the A350 should be the ideal aircraft for many of DLs trans pacific operations. I also find it quite interesting they deem it to be lacking for the LAX-SYD route. I know they're config is significantly denser than SQ however according to the available payload/range charts it shouldn't have an issue.

AngMoh wrote:

If there is an issue with LAX-SYD, it is a DL specific issue

Indeed. But I too have had several of my DL friends say that they're hearing the airline having trepidation about the aircraft's performance to Australia (I actually heard BNE, where DL doesn't fly but VA does, in addition to SYD).

Probably a comparison to what the 77L can do. The A359 can obviously cover the distance.

Thats not quite the inference i got.

I think DL is merely looking to delay delivery of some widebodies - looks like they may be trying out to space out the deliveries of the widebodies.

Didnt they already do this once before with the A350 fleet?

After 2 years of service, its fair to say if the a359 had performance issues it would be well known by now.The aircraft is consistently flying one of the longest routes in the world for a customer that had no issues in cancelling its md-11s when they could not meet guarantees. There are also enough photos of the fms online that suggests that even the early batch 2 aircraft have no problem flying 15 hours with 280pax and cargo. We have a senior a350 pilot on this forum who has on more than one occasion mentioned that the aircraft performs better than what the calculation software predicts. The CEO of Delta has clearly stated in an analyst call that what is being looked at is capacity related. I would request our resident Boeing devotees to keep all hopes and fantasies of the a350 performing poorly to themselves unless they have valid proof showing otherwise.

I can see Delta deferring the A330neo order. They need to replace there older B763's and have done a bit of that with the latest A333's. I would suggest that they pick up all of the A332's KLM is removing from there fleet. For now they can pick up additional A332's at a nice price and replace the oldest of the 763's.
As far as the A350, take the 4 you are getting this year. The may drop the order down for now.

akelley728 wrote:

phxa340 wrote:

Delta is reviewing its Airbus widebody order due to market saturation. They expect "reductions".

Yea another airline that has apparently over ordered or that LCC long haul has started to have it's effects.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... yptr=yahoo

Not surprising. Even though Delta has a large fleet of 767s that eventually need replacing, they have all been refurbished recently and the -900 versions of the A350 and A330-neo are just too large to replace the 767s one-for-one.

Yes on refurbishment, but when you consider that many are over 100,000 hours, you need replacements. I don't get why Delta doesn't down-grade some A330-300 orders to A330-200 orders (or A330-800neo orders). Delta's A330-200s have 234 seats...the 767s (new to Delta) have 208-211 seats and the 6-door subfleet has 226 seats. The MTOW difference, however, is significant (the 767-300ER is a 187t aircraft while the A330-200 would be a 242t aircraft if ordered new). I have to wonder if Delta will consider leasing (with an option to buy) lower-time A332s.

As a further piece of information on the performance of the a350, here is a recent article about air Caraïbes and the fuel burn they are seeing http://www.aeronewstv.com/fr/industrie/ ... -a350.html

The aircraft is flying 389 passengers,14 crew and 14 tonnes of freight on an eight hour flight using 48t of fuel at an mtow of 245t, That leaves another 30t on fuel which translates to a potential further 5 hours of air time. Those suggesting that the a350 will have problems carrying 300 odd passengers and a large amount of freight between lax and eastern Australia are living in a dreamworld.

jbs2886 wrote:

[twoid][/twoid]

deltal1011man wrote:

Joshu wrote:

Personally, no. I do not do any business with Airbus. But I do know some people.

Delta is on the hook for something like 14-16 frames but are deferring the rest.

15-16 is what i have heard also.

probably converting the rest to 330s and possibly looking at the 787 again.

Converting to A330neos or ceos?

There's a lot of focus on the A350, but I think the A330neo is the biggest risk at Delta. The outlook for the program isn't great, with lessors struggling to place airplanes and threatening to cancel their orders. Unless Delta has A330neo pricing equal to their A330ceo pricing, I could see them converting some orders to A330ceos, which Airbus is also desperate to sell.

There will be no more 777s going to Delta and no plans for 787s, so people can move on from that.

sxf24 wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

[twoid][/twoid]

deltal1011man wrote:

15-16 is what i have heard also.

probably converting the rest to 330s and possibly looking at the 787 again.

Converting to A330neos or ceos?

There's a lot of focus on the A350, but I think the A330neo is the biggest risk at Delta. The outlook for the program isn't great, with lessors struggling to place airplanes and threatening to cancel their orders. Unless Delta has A330neo pricing equal to their A330ceo pricing, I could see them converting some orders to A330ceos, which Airbus is also desperate to sell.

There will be no more 777s going to Delta and no plans for 787s, so people can move on from that.

Wont be any 777s unless a screaming deal, a realllllll screaming deal comes up. Used Tent ERs would be my guess if it happened.

as for the 787, recently (ish) Ed was asked about the plane and he said it would be looked at for the next widebody order. However I agree a 787 order in the near term (2-3 years) is probably off the table unless Boeing just offers some kind of crazy good deal. I have long been a believer DL will operate the 350/330/787 in the long term outlook.

deltal1011man wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

[twoid][/twoid]

Converting to A330neos or ceos?

There's a lot of focus on the A350, but I think the A330neo is the biggest risk at Delta. The outlook for the program isn't great, with lessors struggling to place airplanes and threatening to cancel their orders. Unless Delta has A330neo pricing equal to their A330ceo pricing, I could see them converting some orders to A330ceos, which Airbus is also desperate to sell.

There will be no more 777s going to Delta and no plans for 787s, so people can move on from that.

Wont be any 777s unless a screaming deal, a realllllll screaming deal comes up. Used Tent ERs would be my guess if it happened.

as for the 787, recently (ish) Ed was asked about the plane and he said it would be looked at for the next widebody order. However I agree a 787 order in the near term (2-3 years) is probably off the table unless Boeing just offers some kind of crazy good deal. I have long been a believer DL will operate the 350/330/787 in the long term outlook.

Delta has passed on a number of cheap Trent -200ERs. Maybe their strategy will change, but it is really expensive to reconfigure a used wide body.

787 could be discussed in the long run, but it is not even being talked about with Boeing.

sxf24 wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

There's a lot of focus on the A350, but I think the A330neo is the biggest risk at Delta. The outlook for the program isn't great, with lessors struggling to place airplanes and threatening to cancel their orders. Unless Delta has A330neo pricing equal to their A330ceo pricing, I could see them converting some orders to A330ceos, which Airbus is also desperate to sell.

There will be no more 777s going to Delta and no plans for 787s, so people can move on from that.

Wont be any 777s unless a screaming deal, a realllllll screaming deal comes up. Used Tent ERs would be my guess if it happened.

as for the 787, recently (ish) Ed was asked about the plane and he said it would be looked at for the next widebody order. However I agree a 787 order in the near term (2-3 years) is probably off the table unless Boeing just offers some kind of crazy good deal. I have long been a believer DL will operate the 350/330/787 in the long term outlook.

Delta has passed on a number of cheap Trent -200ERs. Maybe their strategy will change, but it is really expensive to reconfigure a used wide body.

787 could be discussed in the long run, but it is not even being talked about with Boeing.

I agree. Thats why i said it would have to be a screaming deal. Like single digit millions deal. DL has said multiple times it is basically impossible to find a used widebody worth it to buy/convert then fly. Mods and maintenance cost and time aren't in the same league as narrow bodies.

I wouldn't imagine its being talked about much with Boeing, the next widebody order is a fair long time away. Something that wouldn't have an RFP for a few more years at best.

United is flying the B787-9 LAX-SYD with 24F-252Y, , The B777 can do it as well, so the A350-900 should be able to do it no sweat.
The question IS? Can the A350-1000 do it??

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Yes on refurbishment, but when you consider that many are over 100,000 hours, you need replacements. I don't get why Delta doesn't down-grade some A330-300 orders to A330-200 orders (or A330-800neo orders). Delta's A330-200s have 234 seats...the 767s (new to Delta) have 208-211 seats and the 6-door subfleet has 226 seats. The MTOW difference, however, is significant (the 767-300ER is a 187t aircraft while the A330-200 would be a 242t aircraft if ordered new). I have to wonder if Delta will consider leasing (with an option to buy) lower-time A332s.

Couple things.

First, you'd be better served to compare the empty weight of the aircraft, not the max takeoff... as the latter can be adjusted/manipulated for various purposes.

Second, one of the reasons no one downgauges (not "downgrades") the A333/A339 to A332/A338 anymore, is because there's only a small increase in the cost to operate the larger variants, but that cost increase is eclipsed by the higher revenue (due to more seats and cargo volume) that they can bring in. So unless a route is well beyond their reasonable range, it doesn't really COST you more to operate the bigger aircraft, but it can EARN you more.

ap305 wrote:

This is well apart from the fact that it will burn a lot less fuel than the 77l on the same mission.

...which doesn't mean much, if they aren't hitting (presumably similar) payload goals-- a subjective measure.

So I take it that if Delta says the 777-200LR can perform LAX-SYD better than the A350-900, then DTW-HKG resuming using the A350-900 is off the table? Or could Delta look to deferring some A350-900s in order to receive 280 tonne version of the aircraft? I sense this has become totally lost in this conversation.

LAX772LR wrote:

ap305 wrote:

This is well apart from the fact that it will burn a lot less fuel than the 77l on the same mission.

...which doesn't mean much, if they aren't hitting (presumably similar) payload goals-- a subjective measure.

Payload goals are not seen in isolation- they are seen in the context of profitability(amongst other things). As has been shown earlier, the a350-900 at 275t mtow will have more than sufficient freight payload in addition to the passenger uplift even at the block times that routes like syd-lax demand.

Please keep the discussion respectful.

DeSpringbokke wrote:

So I take it that if Delta says the 777-200LR can perform LAX-SYD better than the A350-900, then DTW-HKG resuming using the A350-900 is off the table? Or could Delta look to deferring some A350-900s in order to receive 280 tonne version of the aircraft? I sense this has become totally lost in this conversation.

With an approx block time of 16hrs assuming worst head winds and worst case routing, the 275t 359 should be able to lift half a dozen tons of freight in addition to 300-310 passengers on dtw-hkg.

It seems like Delta is joining the long line of airlines wanting the 797.

Is DL planning on taking derated 350s? As a layman I guess I question why an aircraft capable of flying SIN-SFO nonstop would have issues with LAX-SYD. I do understand that DLs will have 50 more seats than SQs but still something seems off.

United1 wrote:

Is DL planning on taking derated 350s? As a layman I guess I question why an aircraft capable of flying SIN-SFO nonstop would have issues with LAX-SYD. I do understand that DLs will have 50 more seats than SQs but still something seems off.

Since our mods want us to be respectful I will try to walk on eggshells here.... I have genuine doubts about the existence of this internal memo claiming that the a350 has issues with lax-syd. As you say something is very off given the payload range capability the a350 has demonstrated in actual service. I also doubt if DL would buy a derated a350 if the goal from day one has been pacific operations.

Fwiw, there are a glut of 767-300s, that are coming up for heavy checks right around the 2019-2022 timeframe, starting with 171. If I'm not mistaken, about 10-15 frames in that time.

777Mech wrote:

Fwiw, there are a glut of 767-300s, that are coming up for heavy checks right around the 2019-2022 timeframe, starting with 171. If I'm not mistaken, about 10-15 frames in that time.

which matches frame-for-frame the delivery schedule of the A339s!

And another chapter of the latest airliners.net-trend "Every Airbus order by an US Airline will be cancelled". Makes me miss the millions "Bring those 757s back" posts...

strfyr51 wrote:

United is flying the B787-9 LAX-SYD with 24F-252Y, , The B777 can do it as well, so the A350-900 should be able to do it no sweat.

UA 789s to SYD and MEL seat 252 total. 116 in Y and 88 in Y plus. On these sectors the 789 is right at the edge of its range with 252 seats (incidentally does anyone know if UA are still seasonally blocking seats westbound to MEL?) and UA are still blocking seats seasonally on the Singapore route. It does not have the legs of a 359. NZ - who are big fans of the 789 for their Asian routes - have not used their current 302 seat 789s at all to LAX, SFO, YVR or IAH because the aircraft doesn't have the range unless you slash seat numbers. The notion that Delta's 359s will have a trans-Pacific payload/range problem for which the 789 is the solution is fantasy.

Isn't it just a normal for an airline looking at their future needs? And looking at what is happening with the widebody orders recently, I think it is always a wise to do.

The headline is a bit of a clickbite, sure Airbus doesn't like it if something is canceled, but calling it a blow, come on that is a bit too much.

ap305 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

ap305 wrote:

This is well apart from the fact that it will burn a lot less fuel than the 77l on the same mission.

...which doesn't mean much, if they aren't hitting (presumably similar) payload goals-- a subjective measure.

Payload goals are not seen in isolation- they are seen in the context of profitability(amongst other things). As has been shown earlier, the a350-900 at 275t mtow will have more than sufficient freight payload in addition to the passenger uplift even at the block times that routes like syd-lax demand.

You're missing the key component to what I'm saying, as summarized in the last three words.

Again: OF COURSE the A359 can do the route in general. No one is really questioning that per se.
What's in question, is can it do it with performance that comports to a measure that DL might desire.

That's information that you simply don't have.

Just because you, or even other carriers, feel that a given threshold is "sufficient payload in addition to passenger uplift," doesn't mean that they do. Or that they feel they're getting what they bought or were promised. Or that they could hit a new/greater threshold that they might've wanted to push for.

Any number of similar reasons, really.
Whether you agree with that, condone it, or believe it exists, is immaterial.

LAX772LR wrote:

ap305 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

...which doesn't mean much, if they aren't hitting (presumably similar) payload goals-- a subjective measure.

Payload goals are not seen in isolation- they are seen in the context of profitability(amongst other things). As has been shown earlier, the a350-900 at 275t mtow will have more than sufficient freight payload in addition to the passenger uplift even at the block times that routes like syd-lax demand.

You're missing the key component to what I'm saying, as summarized in the last three words.

Again: OF COURSE the A359 can do the route in general. No one is really questioning that per se.
What's in question, is can it do it with performance that comports to a measure that DL might desire.

That's information that you simply don't have.
Whether you agree with it, condone it, or believe it exists, is immaterial.

Let us go back to the original context.... Certain individuals here claim to have seen a memo that supposedly states that the a359 cannot do lax-syd in DL's config. Then one individual further interprets/guesses that DL does not believe that the a359 cannot do the Australian services as well as the 77l. There is also the suggestion that DL wants to cancel some of the birds because of this claimed issue. It has been demonstrated with facts that the aircraft can perform on these routes with 300+ plus passengers and substantial quantities of freight while consuming vastly less fuel than the 77l unless DL has some unheard of heavy configuration for the a350. Yet you want to take the conversation to some minute corner of the envelope where you believe the 77l may have an edge over the a359 for Delta.... a corner of the envelope which is achieved with much greater costs. I certainly do not know what is going on inside Delta but have every right to question the very existence of alleged internal memos that do not fit reasonably within the box of facts that are available regarding the real world performance of the a359.

ap305 wrote:

Yet you want to take the conversation to some minute corner of the envelope

I want to do nothing other than emphasize that you're postulating based on information you don't have and don't know.

You have no clue what their expectations/desires for that route performance are.
That's a fact. You're free to ridicule, but that doesn't change that fact.

Hell, for all you know: it could be something as fundamentally simple as DL not finding the CapEx worthwhile for the currently-offered decrease in burn coupled with a decrease in lift, until something either even more efficient and/or more capable is offered.

ap305 wrote:

I certainly do not know what is going on inside Delta but have every right to question the very existence of alleged internal memos

Just as I and others have every right to remind you that we take the word of people who (1) we personally know WOULD have access to such and (2) have no reason to lie about it, over the amateur assessment of an internet nobody making guesses based on generalized information.

It cuts both ways.

DeSpringbokke wrote:

So I take it that if Delta says the 777-200LR can perform LAX-SYD better than the A350-900, then DTW-HKG resuming using the A350-900 is off the table? Or could Delta look to deferring some A350-900s in order to receive 280 tonne version of the aircraft? I sense this has become totally lost in this conversation.

DTW-HKG was never on the tables all new Asia flying will be out of SEA if there is any. As far as Asia goes from Detroit it's as built out as it's going to get as Delta keeps shrinking the DTW-Asia market.

Joshu wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Converting 350s to 330neos would be a great alternative if that's what they end up doing. Those will serve them well, and the A350 slots might be desired by someone else in the short term.

That's what they want. It will interesting to see what they end up doing with 15 or so A350s.

Well, they don't seem to mind having subfleets of just 8 77E's and 10 77L's, so 15 A350s wouldn't cause too many headaches either I suppose. The remaining A350s on order can be deferred until DL decides it's time to replace their 77E's for example.

Beatyair wrote:

I can see Delta deferring the A330neo order. They need to replace there older B763's and have done a bit of that with the latest A333's. I would suggest that they pick up all of the A332's KLM is removing from there fleet. For now they can pick up additional A332's at a nice price and replace the oldest of the 763's.
As far as the A350, take the 4 you are getting this year. The may drop the order down for now.

KLM isn't removing any A332s from their fleet for the next 5 years at least.

seahawk wrote:

It seems like Delta is joining the long line of airlines wanting the 797.

Well, eventually DL will have to decide about replacing their remaining 767s. A339s IMO are a bit too large to replace all of them, the 787-10 is even larger, and 787-8/9s are suboptimal for 6-8 hour flights. So yes, I think DL will be interested in a MoM. Whether they will be ready to order an aircraft existing just on paper will be very interesting to see.

deltal1011man wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

and it was making its way around big time.

Haven't heard as much about deferring 350s once DL/KE came to a JV agreement BUT I know DL has some issues with the 350.....

Wouldn't be shocked at all to see a deferral or a cancelation with some other moves made.

What kind of issues?

Not being able to fly LAX-SYD is a problem for one.

So they'd cancel/defer all of their a350s because it can't fly one route out of the hundreds of possibilities?

I don't think the first batch will be deferred, their first a350 is pretty much flying, and they've been posting on social media about it a lot recently.

The first ~5-10 could be used to immediately replace the 747s. Then the rest can be deffered to, as another poster mentioned, when the 772's need to be retired.

777Mech wrote:

Fwiw, there are a glut of 767-300s, that are coming up for heavy checks right around the 2019-2022 timeframe, starting with 171. If I'm not mistaken, about 10-15 frames in that time.

Some of those frames will be close to expiring on hours...especially 171 which is approaching 130,000 hours. The limit of validity is 150,000 hours. Has any major airline flown a plane right up to LOV since the limits were published?

planespotter20 wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

What kind of issues?

Not being able to fly LAX-SYD is a problem for one.

So they'd cancel/defer all of their a350s because it can't fly one route out of the hundreds of possibilities?

I don't think the first batch will be deferred, their first a350 is pretty much flying, and they've been posting on social media about it a lot recently.

The first ~5-10 could be used to immediately replace the 747s. Then the rest can be deffered to, as another poster mentioned, when the 772's need to be retired.

I don't think DL would cancel/defer an entire order because of LAX-SYD (lets assume DL has concerns there). Rather, they are reviewing how many to take and what they need to fly LAX-SYD.

RL777 wrote:

I find it quite odd that DL is shifting a bit on the A350, in theory the A350 should be the ideal aircraft for many of DLs trans pacific operations.

I'm going to just copy and paste something I wrote in the thread about United A350's a few weeks ago because it is pretty applicable to this thread too:

A lot has changed in 3 years. I still think Delta wants the A350s, but it is certainly plausible that DL may be less enthused about the A350 as they once were. Global economy uncertainty, current US administration making future US international traffic trends uncertain, Chinese carriers flooding transpac market with cheap capacity and starting to kill yields, relationship with KE warming up to possible JV soon (possible less need for US mainland-secondary Asian cities), TATL getting more competitive with LCCs moving in, etc all take their toll.

The need for a A350 (which for US carriers works best on TPAC, it is a bit overkill for most TATL needs) may be less than what was envisioned 3 years ago, especially as the A350 is all new type unlike what the A339 will be. Boeing lucked out and what able to get 787s into UA/AA's hands before these issues. I wonder if DL had a choice right now on what to take later this year, the A339 or the A359, which one they would prefer.

Boof02671 wrote:

AA is not getting out of their A359 order, they delayed it too next year.

They will be replacing the 333s that will be retired, 757s, and 763s.

We're keeping 17x of our youngest 763s and our international 752s for the time being. A333s are gone next year.

The A350-900 has been deffered until, at least, Fall of 2018. There is very little fanfare about the A350 on our end, FWIW.

I, too think it's more likely for a deferral rather than cancellation. If the performance of A350 is really a concern they could wait for another two years to get the 280t. Given that the number of widebodies they need to replace, a reduction of those frames seems unlikely.

Polot wrote:

RL777 wrote:

I find it quite odd that DL is shifting a bit on the A350, in theory the A350 should be the ideal aircraft for many of DLs trans pacific operations.

Boeing lucked out and what able to get 787s into UA/AA's hands before these issues. I wonder if DL had a choice right now on what to take later this year, the A339 or the A359, which one they would prefer.

But why there's not any rumor around about UA/AA 's intention to delay their 787s?

phxa340 wrote:

Delta is reviewing its Airbus widebody order due to market saturation. They expect "reductions".

Yea another airline that has apparently over ordered or that LCC long haul has started to have it's effects.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... yptr=yahoo

I think this has VERY little to do with ULCCs and a LOT to do with the KE JV, and the unknown terms of the capacity agreement.

#1 DL was planning on building up SEA to fly to places like SIN/JKT/etc. I think that is dead now because of the ICN JV. On the call they talked a lot about ICN as the savior of their Pacific strategy. I did not hear a peep about SEA which has been spoken of in that context until now. Not flying routes like SEA-SIN saves a lot of planes. They actually spoke of capacity reductions across the Pacific even before the KE JV is approved. Plus, it almost certainly means that the capacity on the beyond NRT flights that remain will almost certainly not be backfilled. Routes like PDX and maybe MSP will just move to ICN, although the HND authority at MSP complicates that. I only see capacity cuts, not additions.
#2 The reason why the KE JV never happened before now was that KE is getting a lot of really large aircraft and has nowhere to put them except on Transpac. Delta wasn't excited about all that capacity being part of their JV. We don't know what the capacity agreement is, but I think it is likely that KE got a better deal than KL/AF because KE was really DL's only option left other than a very expensive SEA build-out. With the China bilateral capped the MU deal never really had the ability to replace NRT and wasn't a JV. My guess is that KE will supply more capacity to the JV than DL which also takes pressure off DL's long-haul fleet needs.

enilria wrote:

phxa340 wrote:

Delta is reviewing its Airbus widebody order due to market saturation. They expect "reductions".

Yea another airline that has apparently over ordered or that LCC long haul has started to have it's effects.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... yptr=yahoo

I think this has VERY little to do with ULCCs and a LOT to do with the KE JV, and the unknown terms of the capacity agreement.

#1 DL was planning on building up SEA to fly to places like SIN/JKT/etc. I think that is dead now because of the ICN JV. On the call they talked a lot about ICN as the savior of their Pacific strategy. I did not hear a peep about SEA which has been spoken of in that context until now. Not flying routes like SEA-SIN saves a lot of planes. They actually spoke of capacity reductions across the Pacific even before the KE JV is approved. Plus, it almost certainly means that the capacity on the beyond NRT flights that remain will almost certainly not be backfilled. Routes like PDX and maybe MSP will just move to ICN, although the HND authority at MSP complicates that. I only see capacity cuts, not additions.
#2 The reason why the KE JV never happened before now was that KE is getting a lot of really large aircraft and has nowhere to put them except on Transpac. Delta wasn't excited about all that capacity being part of their JV. We don't know what the capacity agreement is, but I think it is likely that KE got a better deal than KL/AF because KE was really DL's only option left other than a very expensive SEA build-out. With the China bilateral capped the MU deal never really had the ability to replace NRT and wasn't a JV. My guess is that KE will supply more capacity to the JV than DL which also takes pressure off DL's long-haul fleet needs.

I wouldn't be so sure KE got a better deal. TPAC is a very tough market with Chinese carriers flooding capacity in (for example, I find flights to Asia far cheaper than flights to Europe from Chicago). DL has an enormous domestic market, an improving Latin American market and TATL (even though its pressured to) to put capacity. KE has less options as Chinese carriers and long-haul LCCs flood Europe, starting to Australia/NZ and Asia generally. KE needed DL. So while DL definitely needed KE, I think the reverse is true, too.

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

Not surprising in part to seeing that TATL traffic is saturated and under heavy LCC pressure these days.
Its a business cycle related issue, not anything in part caused by the manufacturer.

I mean, I don't really see TATL widebody traffic improving. Especially once the 321NEOLR comes out. Someone like Jetblue with 2 perfectly positioned hubs (bos, nyc) could clean up.

MD80MKE wrote:

But why there's not any rumor around about UA/AA 's intention to delay their 787s?

UA has shuffled around their 787 order. All 14 of their 77W orders came as a result of conversions from their 787 order. At the same time they converted 4 787-10s to 77Ws they also converted 5 787-10s to 789s.

I'm not saying that AA/UA/DL want no new capacity, just not as much as they have on order. UA/AA already have 787s in their fleet, so it makes more sense if you are looking to reduce future capacity and save costs to take the remaining 787s and defer the A350s than it is to take the A350 and defer the remaining 787s, because the A350 is adding an entirely new fleet type to the airline which comes with additional costs. UA/AA have already ate those introduction costs with the 787.

DL still has A330-900s on order (which will probably be cheaper to introduce than the A350s), has been taking the last of their A333 order, and has reportedly been poking around the used market.

Polot wrote:

MD80MKE wrote:

But why there's not any rumor around about UA/AA 's intention to delay their 787s?

UA has shuffled around their 787 order. All 14 of their 77W orders came as a result of conversions from their 787 order. At the same time they converted 4 787-10s to 77Ws they also converted 5 787-10s to 789s.

I'm not saying that AA/UA/DL want no new capacity, just not as much as they have on order. UA/AA already have 787s in their fleet, so it makes more sense if you are looking to reduce future capacity and save costs to take the remaining 787s and defer the A350s than it is to take the A350 and defer the remaining 787s, because the A350 is adding an entirely new fleet type to the airline which comes with additional costs. UA/AA have already ate those introduction costs with the 787.

DL still has A330-900s on order (which will probably be cheaper to introduce than the A350s), has been taking the last of their A333 order, and has reportedly been poking around the used market.

Thanks for answering. IMO conversion to 77W from 787, which is actually a capacity increase, pretty much is saying that A350s are not necessary at this point. And according to the latest A350 production list, it's unlikely that UA will get their A350s before 2019. So they could end up being their 777-200ER replacement rather than 744 replacement as original intended.
As for second-hand market. I heard that China Eastern have 10ish 2006-2008 built A330-200/300 coming out of lease before the end of the next year and they intend to not renew the lease. Might be a good chance for DL to kick this deal off. I've always thought A330, especially -200 could be a great replacement for their 767-300/ER.

MD80MKE wrote:

Polot wrote:

RL777 wrote:

I find it quite odd that DL is shifting a bit on the A350, in theory the A350 should be the ideal aircraft for many of DLs trans pacific operations.

Boeing lucked out and what able to get 787s into UA/AA's hands before these issues. I wonder if DL had a choice right now on what to take later this year, the A339 or the A359, which one they would prefer.

But why there's not any rumor around about UA/AA 's intention to delay their 787s?

because there actively taking them. AA did defer some delivers not to long ago..

jbs2886 wrote:

enilria wrote:

phxa340 wrote:

Delta is reviewing its Airbus widebody order due to market saturation. They expect "reductions".

Yea another airline that has apparently over ordered or that LCC long haul has started to have it's effects.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... yptr=yahoo

I think this has VERY little to do with ULCCs and a LOT to do with the KE JV, and the unknown terms of the capacity agreement.

#1 DL was planning on building up SEA to fly to places like SIN/JKT/etc. I think that is dead now because of the ICN JV. On the call they talked a lot about ICN as the savior of their Pacific strategy. I did not hear a peep about SEA which has been spoken of in that context until now. Not flying routes like SEA-SIN saves a lot of planes. They actually spoke of capacity reductions across the Pacific even before the KE JV is approved. Plus, it almost certainly means that the capacity on the beyond NRT flights that remain will almost certainly not be backfilled. Routes like PDX and maybe MSP will just move to ICN, although the HND authority at MSP complicates that. I only see capacity cuts, not additions.
#2 The reason why the KE JV never happened before now was that KE is getting a lot of really large aircraft and has nowhere to put them except on Transpac. Delta wasn't excited about all that capacity being part of their JV. We don't know what the capacity agreement is, but I think it is likely that KE got a better deal than KL/AF because KE was really DL's only option left other than a very expensive SEA build-out. With the China bilateral capped the MU deal never really had the ability to replace NRT and wasn't a JV. My guess is that KE will supply more capacity to the JV than DL which also takes pressure off DL's long-haul fleet needs.

I wouldn't be so sure KE got a better deal. TPAC is a very tough market with Chinese carriers flooding capacity in (for example, I find flights to Asia far cheaper than flights to Europe from Chicago). DL has an enormous domestic market, an improving Latin American market and TATL (even though its pressured to) to put capacity. KE has less options as Chinese carriers and long-haul LCCs flood Europe, starting to Australia/NZ and Asia generally. KE needed DL. So while DL definitely needed KE, I think the reverse is true, too.

They both needed each other.. I'm sure its not lopsided but It could favor KE for Sure. RA leaving made this happen I'm thinking and KE probably was able to get it's wants. Of course it could of favored DL. HOWEVER I'm sure they made compromises and both gave and both will WIN.

RalXWB wrote:

And another chapter of the latest airliners.net-trend "Every Airbus order by an US Airline will be cancelled". Makes me miss the millions "Bring those 757s back" posts...

Kind of the same thought I had after reading the first page. I'll wait until an official announcement to believe it.

deltal1011man wrote:

Internally DL has said the 350 can't do LAX-SYD.
So chill.

That could be correct, or made up non-sense.

Calling it a "blow to Airbus" is a bit exaggerated, no?

Delta pilots will have a crap fit if they see even a remote probability of:

- KE or any other JV partner doing a lot of flying DL pilots do today

- Delta's widebody count declining significantly, leading to many fewer jobs at top pay rates

- MAX xx or 321NeoLR pay rates lower than 767 rates (because 767 and 757 have the same rate today)

Delta pilots won't care that 50 A350 and A339 have as many seats as 7 744 and 58 767s today. Really, that matters not at all. They seek to maximize pilot jobs and pilot paid hours at the highest pay rates. That's what you get with seniority protections.

Pilots dreaming of flying 339s to Rome (taking their SOs for the layover) will not be happy with visions of piloting 739s at 4 segments a day for the remainder of their careers.

Silly idea, but if they're going to route Asian traffic through a Korean hub, why not swap some A350s for A380s, Airbus would likely offer a rather good deal.