Hello A.net,

Came across a tweet out of Toulouse stating that the first flight of the Delta A350 is scheduled soon and shows a picture of what appears to be their first A350.

https://mobile.twitter.com/A350_Product ... 3265625089

Here's an even better close-up photo:


RTO msn115 F-WZGP 23/5/2017 by A380_TLS_A350, on Flickr

That plane is going to make Delta a ridiculous amount of money! Looking forward to seeing it painted.

Suites...

Wow, Delta flying a new aircraft!!!! I was so loving those 25 year old ones..........

This is the day I consider giving up my 1 MM United Airlines chase and switching to Delta.

That widget on the winglet is a great touch.

This will be a great plane for DL, but I don't understand how it's a 744 replacement capacity wise. What's the seating difference between the two?

The A350 is a smaller airplane capacity-wise than the 744 and is more versatile in DL's network.
By decreasing capacity they are attempting to increase RASM using a lower cost per seat airplane.
Basically, they believe they can fill fewer seats with higher fares.

Getting closer!

The winglet widget doesn't work though.

I can hardly wait to see it fully painted.

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

Basically, they believe they can fill fewer seats with higher fares.

There is only one problem with this plan. Level, Norwegian and ME3 are continuing to erode yields for all transatlantic carriers.

Other legacies clearly are second guessing aggressive international plans and focusing on domestic expansion.

Such a plain looking livery you can't even tell that it's Delta.

BC77008 wrote:

Such a plain looking livery you can't even tell that it's Delta.

It's the stealth look so folks won't know they spent some money on a new aircraft. You know, makes the older ones look even worse..........

flyingcat wrote:

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

Basically, they believe they can fill fewer seats with higher fares.

There is only one problem with this plan. Level, Norwegian and ME3 are continuing to erode yields for all transatlantic carriers.

Other legacies clearly are second guessing aggressive international plans and focusing on domestic expansion.

They are all focusing on the same things at the same time. All have NBs and WBs on order, all are focusing on domestic build up, and when that time in the cycle comes, they will focus on intl. What aspect of intl is what varies among the 3.

clrd4t8koff wrote:

This will be a great plane for DL, but I don't understand how it's a 744 replacement capacity wise. What's the seating difference between the two?

I expect that some routes currently flown by a 744 and that carry many connecting passengers will carry fewer of them in the future; to achieve that DL will simply have flights from other hubs, to the same destination. That could eliminate some connections and optimize others, hence making an overall more efficient system.

BC77008 wrote:

Such a plain looking livery you can't even tell that it's Delta.

Made me laugh out loud at the office, thanks!

flyingcat wrote:

There is only one problem with this plan. Level, Norwegian and ME3 are continuing to erode yields for all transatlantic carriers.

Too bad that Delta isn't using the A350 on transatlantic routes.

airzona11 wrote:

That widget on the winglet is a great touch.

It ads a nice touch indeed! Would love to see those on the A330s too.

sgbroimp wrote:

Wow, Delta flying a new aircraft!!!! I was so loving those 25 year old ones..........

.....while apparently missing the new 738s, 739s, and A321s that have been coming in in a steady stream; at the same time. Attention span.

clrd4t8koff wrote:

This will be a great plane for DL, but I don't understand how it's a 744 replacement capacity wise.

Because you're making the classic mistake of assuming that they want an equivalent capacity match in the replacement choice.

flyingcat wrote:

There is only one problem with this plan. Level, Norwegian and ME3 are continuing to erode yields for all transatlantic carriers.

That's not a "problem" for this plan... that's more or less the CAUSE of it: take out a few dozen seats that you're currently selling based on price alone, and let those go to the likes of DY and VFR consolidators. Focus instead on those for whom what you offer is valued (or obligated!) such that they generate higher yield.

LAX772LR wrote:

sgbroimp wrote:

Wow, Delta flying a new aircraft!!!! I was so loving those 25 year old ones..........

.....while apparently missing the new 738s, 739s, and A321s that have been coming in in a steady stream; at the same time. Attention span.

.

and those super old 242t A333's.

I can't wait until they deploy these pretty birds to ATL. They'll indeed make pretty good photos for my aircraft spotting collection.

clrd4t8koff wrote:

This will be a great plane for DL, but I don't understand how it's a 744 replacement capacity wise. What's the seating difference between the two?

It doesn't have to be the same capacity. Not only more point-to-point routes as others have mentioned, Delta can also offer more frequency with the smaller A350 and offer close if not more of the same amount of seats in a given market. This is the whole point of the 787 and A350.

This isn't about Delta merging with NWA and drawing down the cargo ops (that were using fairly old 747-200 aircraft)
This isn't about bashing Delta and their pilot pay scale (none of my Delta friends ever complain about their pay.)
This is about Delta taking on the A350 and creating a new chapter in their company history. This is about looking forward. If you're going to be a jerk and rip on their former cargo ops go do it on your own time.
Great job on a great aircraft Delta!

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

The A350 is a smaller airplane capacity-wise than the 744 and is more versatile in DL's network.
By decreasing capacity they are attempting to increase RASM using a lower cost per seat airplane.
Basically, they believe they can fill fewer seats with higher fares.

You are always spot-on in your posts. Thank you for being here and often posting wise responses and answers PSU!

too bad DL didn't introduce a new livery with this bird. The current liv is boring!

Hopefully this plane will keep the DTWers happy. I'm envious of this for them.

Well there's a couple DTWers that you will never make happy..especially if it has to do with DL.. that is going to be a nice ride. can't wait.

Those DTW (NW / KLM) fanboys are still going to complain endlessly that DL is screwing them over by retiring 744s and replacing them with A350s. They will never be happy...ever.

I thought rudders had to be painted before installation for balancing purposes. Why not in this case?

haynflyer wrote:

I thought rudders had to be painted before installation for balancing purposes. Why not in this case?

I'm wondering the same. Also is it only the 380 that has has the entire vertical tail painted off the line?

First flight scheduled for today. Then it will head to the paint hangar. Handover scheduled for around July 15th. It won't fly to the U.S. right away as some local providers will install some customer specific products at TLS post delivery.

And all this after some Anet expert said that no US airline will ever get their 350s... Can´t wait to see it in full livery!

hkcanadaexpat wrote:

First flight scheduled for today. Then it will head to the paint hangar. Handover scheduled for around July 15th. It won't fly to the U.S. right away as some local providers will install some customer specific products at TLS post delivery.

They are preparing for todays FF:
https://www.flightradar24.com/AIB01GP

hkcanadaexpat wrote:

First flight scheduled for today. Then it will head to the paint hangar. Handover scheduled for around July 15th. It won't fly to the U.S. right away as some local providers will install some customer specific products at TLS post delivery.

It will ferry to Atlanta around the 1st of August for mini-evac and marketing photo shoot, then go and get the 2KU back in ACJC.
Will also do 2 proving runs DTW-NRT, and spend a week in NRT.
Also the first XWB spare arrive a few days ago.

clrd4t8koff wrote:

This will be a great plane for DL, but I don't understand how it's a 744 replacement capacity wise. What's the seating difference between the two?

In fact it is not an exchange, it is an obvious downgrade.
It has become fancy now to say that the A350 is the natural evolution for long haul routes, just as they say of the 787.
In which world does an upgraded 767 and A330 replace an A340 or a 747?
It is a matter of market, airlines are decreasing capacity and claim technological advancement as an excuse to replace 4 by 2 holers...
Ask one who gets stuck in a LHR/SCL sardine can for example, how much the 747 is missing on a long route like this, or any US-Asia/Australia/NZ route for example.
Add the numerous routes worldwide 10~12+ hours in the air on the 787 and A350 and compare with the large aircraft that previously operated. How's the passenger experience, no matter the class used.
These 2 (787 and A350) are the best ready excuse that airlines might have... and poor passengers are getting tighter and uncomfortable as time goes by...
And before the Boeing and Airbus defenders league comes out in defense, yeah, I've been flying for years, I have a basis for comparing everything I'm saying, not from assumptions, but from actual experiences.

First flight

Some photos in the air:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/bycac/34820981796/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/aircrafts/34475249660/

ojjunior wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

This will be a great plane for DL, but I don't understand how it's a 744 replacement capacity wise. What's the seating difference between the two?

In fact it is not an exchange, it is an obvious downgrade.
It has become fancy now to say that the A350 is the natural evolution for long haul routes, just as they say of the 787.
In which world does an upgraded 767 and A330 replace an A340 or a 747?
It is a matter of market, airlines are decreasing capacity and claim technological advancement as an excuse to replace 4 by 2 holers...
Ask one who gets stuck in a LHR/SCL sardine can for example, how much the 747 is missing on a long route like this, or any US-Asia/Australia/NZ route for example.
Add the numerous routes worldwide 10~12+ hours in the air on the 787 and A350 and compare with the large aircraft that previously operated. How's the passenger experience, no matter the class used.
These 2 (787 and A350) are the best ready excuse that airlines might have... and poor passengers are getting tighter and uncomfortable as time goes by...
And before the Boeing and Airbus defenders league comes out in defense, yeah, I've been flying for years, I have a basis for comparing everything I'm saying, not from assumptions, but from actual experiences.

Although not a member of the `Boeing & Airbus defenders league` I can`t agree with you from my own experience,
& I haven`t even flown B787/A350! I`ve travelled over many years to N. America, on a variety of aircraft L1011,
B747, DC10, B767, B777, A310, A330 to name a few, & my 6`4" frame hasn`t noticed much difference ( all in economy )
between any of them. They`ve all been fairly snug true, but not that uncomfortable. I couldn`t honestly say the B747 was
any better than the A330 in any respect. I know people that have flown the new breed of 787/350 & they`ve all expressed
an improvement in flying comfort. This may not be anything to do with extra room, as again there won`t be that much
difference, but with these new birds come better air quality, better IFE, seat design, larger windows, etc etc. At the end of
the day the airlines are going this route for business reasons, & sadly there will be price increases due to overall decrease
in capacity compared to the 4 hollers, but passenger experience should be better if only slightly admittedly. It has to be
remembered that after airline profit, the main benefit to these new aircraft should be to the environment, for which we all
should be grateful for.

carljanderson wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

sgbroimp wrote:

Wow, Delta flying a new aircraft!!!! I was so loving those 25 year old ones..........

.....while apparently missing the new 738s, 739s, and A321s that have been coming in in a steady stream; at the same time. Attention span.

.

and those super old 242t A333's.

Yes, "missing" is a good word. My last three rides were on 25 year old DL MD-88's, so loud they made my ears ring as I was unlucky to get a seat near the tail. Guess that made me a bit biased against DL. Most of my runs are JFK-FRA where the choice is mostly relatively new 388's (SIA and LH) and 748's (LH). Not a tough decision not to avoid a DL 20-25 year old two engine 767.

We're expecting an hour and 17 minutes this morning over to DETROIT

sgbroimp wrote:

carljanderson wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

.....while apparently missing the new 738s, 739s, and A321s that have been coming in in a steady stream; at the same time. Attention span.

.

and those super old 242t A333's.

Yes, "missing" is a good word. My last three rides were on 25 year old DL MD-88's, so loud they made my ears ring as I was unlucky to get a seat near the tail. Guess that made me a bit biased against DL. Most of my runs are JFK-FRA where the choice is mostly relatively new 388's (SIA and LH) and 748's (LH). Not a tough decision not to avoid a DL 20-25 year old two engine 767.

Well, DL (and everyone else) puts good planes on valuable routes. FRA is not a valuable destination for DL, so don't expect top metal from them over there.
For LH and SQ, however, NYC is a big deal, so they put good planes on the route. That's normal. Now if you were talking about CDG or AMS, that's another story

ASQ400 wrote:

sgbroimp wrote:

Not a tough decision not to avoid a DL 20-25 year old two engine 767.

FRA is not a valuable destination for DL, so don't expect top metal from them over there.

Define "top metal".... the retrofitted 763ERs actually have one of the roomiest J seats in the DL fleet, and coach pax only have a 1/7th chance of being stuck in a middle seat-- the best of any widebody in operation.

All depends on how you look at it.

This person has chosen to focus on age of aircraft and engine count; fair enough, but so it's not like DL's going to care in the least about such preferences. The route provides their core customers what they need.

ojjunior wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

This will be a great plane for DL, but I don't understand how it's a 744 replacement capacity wise. What's the seating difference between the two?

In fact it is not an exchange, it is an obvious downgrade.
It has become fancy now to say that the A350 is the natural evolution for long haul routes, just as they say of the 787.
In which world does an upgraded 767 and A330 replace an A340 or a 747?
It is a matter of market, airlines are decreasing capacity and claim technological advancement as an excuse to replace 4 by 2 holers...
Ask one who gets stuck in a LHR/SCL sardine can for example, how much the 747 is missing on a long route like this, or any US-Asia/Australia/NZ route for example.
Add the numerous routes worldwide 10~12+ hours in the air on the 787 and A350 and compare with the large aircraft that previously operated. How's the passenger experience, no matter the class used.
These 2 (787 and A350) are the best ready excuse that airlines might have... and poor passengers are getting tighter and uncomfortable as time goes by...
And before the Boeing and Airbus defenders league comes out in defense, yeah, I've been flying for years, I have a basis for comparing everything I'm saying, not from assumptions, but from actual experiences.

That is a very flawed way to look at it.

First of all, you're assuming the Airlines in question "want" to offer a lesser product by introducing the 787/A350.
Secondly, most of what you said is in the form of opinion with very little facts. Example, an A330 CAN be viewed as an upgrade from a 744 if for example you enjoy 2-4-2 seating. Also, how in the world is an A340 and upgrade over an A330? Because it has 4 engines?

Also, it is a FACT that the fuel burn is lower on an A350 than a 744. This is not an airline excuse to cut capacity, it is simply a fact. The world changes and so do strategies.

The LHR/SCL comparison is a matter of opinion once again and irrelevant to the discussion of how an A350 can replace a 744.

The "tightness" you mention is due to seat elections, not airplane. Would a 2-2-2 A350 on economy still feel "tight and uncomfortable" as you said compared to a 3-4-3 744?

The fact that you've been flying for years also does not help your argument in any way.

gatibosgru wrote:

ojjunior wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

This will be a great plane for DL, but I don't understand how it's a 744 replacement capacity wise. What's the seating difference between the two?

In fact it is not an exchange, it is an obvious downgrade.
It has become fancy now to say that the A350 is the natural evolution for long haul routes, just as they say of the 787.
In which world does an upgraded 767 and A330 replace an A340 or a 747?
It is a matter of market, airlines are decreasing capacity and claim technological advancement as an excuse to replace 4 by 2 holers...
Ask one who gets stuck in a LHR/SCL sardine can for example, how much the 747 is missing on a long route like this, or any US-Asia/Australia/NZ route for example.
Add the numerous routes worldwide 10~12+ hours in the air on the 787 and A350 and compare with the large aircraft that previously operated. How's the passenger experience, no matter the class used.
These 2 (787 and A350) are the best ready excuse that airlines might have... and poor passengers are getting tighter and uncomfortable as time goes by...
And before the Boeing and Airbus defenders league comes out in defense, yeah, I've been flying for years, I have a basis for comparing everything I'm saying, not from assumptions, but from actual experiences.

That is a very flawed way to look at it.

First of all, you're assuming the Airlines in question "want" to offer a lesser product by introducing the 787/A350.
Secondly, most of what you said is in the form of opinion with very little facts. Example, an A330 CAN be viewed as an upgrade from a 744 if for example you enjoy 2-4-2 seating. Also, how in the world is an A340 and upgrade over an A330? Because it has 4 engines?

Also, it is a FACT that the fuel burn is lower on an A350 than a 744. This is not an airline excuse to cut capacity, it is simply a fact. The world changes and so do strategies.

The LHR/SCL comparison is a matter of opinion once again and irrelevant to the discussion of how an A350 can replace a 744.

The "tightness" you mention is due to seat elections, not airplane. Would a 2-2-2 A350 on economy still feel "tight and uncomfortable" as you said compared to a 3-4-3 744?

The fact that you've been flying for years also does not help your argument in any way.

Just read carefully and you gonna realize my SCL/LHR example aims the current 787 on the route.
Thanks for stopping by.

sgbroimp wrote:

carljanderson wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

.....while apparently missing the new 738s, 739s, and A321s that have been coming in in a steady stream; at the same time. Attention span.

.

and those super old 242t A333's.

Yes, "missing" is a good word. My last three rides were on 25 year old DL MD-88's, so loud they made my ears ring as I was unlucky to get a seat near the tail. Guess that made me a bit biased against DL. Most of my runs are JFK-FRA where the choice is mostly relatively new 388's (SIA and LH) and 748's (LH). Not a tough decision not to avoid a DL 20-25 year old two engine 767.

I usually try to avoid aircraft with more than 300 passengers. It just feels a little better to travel with fewer passengers. When you have 500+ passengers in a single aircraft, at times it can feel like airlines/airports are stretching their capabilities just a bit. Boarding and customs becomes more of an extended affair and if things go wrong such as a diversion, it becomes a little more complicated. I've always been a big fan of the 767 and think the 339 will be a nice replacement for my JFK-FRA runs on Delta (unless I have the option to fly on a LH 333).

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

Those DTW (NW / KLM) fanboys are still going to complain endlessly that DL is screwing them over by retiring 744s and replacing them with A350s. They will never be happy...ever.

No kidding. Until DTW has 120M passengers a year, 110M aircraft movements, nonstops to every continent (including Antarctica), over 300 cities served nonstop, and a 100% on-time service, along with an apolgy from DL saying DTW is far better than ATL.

MSPNWA wrote:

The winglet widget doesn't work though.

Yeah it does.

Taco2sDay wrote:

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

Those DTW (NW / KLM) fanboys are still going to complain endlessly that DL is screwing them over by retiring 744s and replacing them with A350s. They will never be happy...ever.

No kidding. Until DTW has 120M passengers a year, 110M aircraft movements, nonstops to every continent (including Antarctica), over 300 cities served nonstop, and a 100% on-time service, along with an apolgy from DL saying DTW is far better than ATL.

And then they'll complain that their brilliant nonstops are flying at 0.33% LF (one pax) because Delta is siphoning off all the traffic to ATL, and that this shows how DL are filthy liars that need to be carved up and reborn as Northwest.

ojjunior wrote:

gatibosgru wrote:

ojjunior wrote:

In fact it is not an exchange, it is an obvious downgrade.
It has become fancy now to say that the A350 is the natural evolution for long haul routes, just as they say of the 787.
In which world does an upgraded 767 and A330 replace an A340 or a 747?
It is a matter of market, airlines are decreasing capacity and claim technological advancement as an excuse to replace 4 by 2 holers...
Ask one who gets stuck in a LHR/SCL sardine can for example, how much the 747 is missing on a long route like this, or any US-Asia/Australia/NZ route for example.
Add the numerous routes worldwide 10~12+ hours in the air on the 787 and A350 and compare with the large aircraft that previously operated. How's the passenger experience, no matter the class used.
These 2 (787 and A350) are the best ready excuse that airlines might have... and poor passengers are getting tighter and uncomfortable as time goes by...
And before the Boeing and Airbus defenders league comes out in defense, yeah, I've been flying for years, I have a basis for comparing everything I'm saying, not from assumptions, but from actual experiences.

That is a very flawed way to look at it.

First of all, you're assuming the Airlines in question "want" to offer a lesser product by introducing the 787/A350.
Secondly, most of what you said is in the form of opinion with very little facts. Example, an A330 CAN be viewed as an upgrade from a 744 if for example you enjoy 2-4-2 seating. Also, how in the world is an A340 and upgrade over an A330? Because it has 4 engines?

Also, it is a FACT that the fuel burn is lower on an A350 than a 744. This is not an airline excuse to cut capacity, it is simply a fact. The world changes and so do strategies.

The LHR/SCL comparison is a matter of opinion once again and irrelevant to the discussion of how an A350 can replace a 744.

The "tightness" you mention is due to seat elections, not airplane. Would a 2-2-2 A350 on economy still feel "tight and uncomfortable" as you said compared to a 3-4-3 744?

The fact that you've been flying for years also does not help your argument in any way.

Just read carefully and you gonna realize my SCL/LHR example aims the current 787 on the route.
Thanks for stopping by.

No offense, but replace the A350 with the 787 and the argument to me is still the same.