thewizbizman wrote:

Personally, I hate Airbus and I hate that they are replacing the 772, but, bottom line, glad to have them in the fleet

Except that they aren't replacing the 772. They are replacing the 744.

Strange flight path for DL9971?

The A350 arrived at DTW today from ATL! It was / is doing extensive pattern work at CVG both before arriving at DTW and after leaving to head back to ATL. I hope they will through in some domestic revenue runs before the inaugural October 30 run from DTW-NRT. It seems crazy they would not do that in my opinion.

A350 arrival / departure in DTW today

https://youtu.be/I2P2-7cXSx0

Most likely pilot training. It was en-route DTW-ATL (the bird was flown up to DTW) and on it's return seemed to be doing touch-and-go's at CVG airport.

compensateme wrote:

atl100million wrote:

while I agree with you that the "why is the A350 not going to fly LAX-SYD" threads are way too old.....

where do you get your information that LAX-SYD is marginal for DL (you say we know it )?

In fact, according to DOT data, AA and DL carry NEARLY IDENTICAL amounts of revenue on LAX-SYD even though AA's current 777-300ERs are slightly larger than DL's 777-200LRs.

So, is AA ALSO marginal on LAX-SYD or is possible that assessments of DL's financial performance on LAX-SYD are the same kinds of a.net myths and legends that the A350 can't fly from LAX-SYD?

I never mentioned AA -- I merely stated it was a marginal route for DL. While reliable international data is hard to come across, unless you've been given access or subscribe to a third-party, the DOT itself shared the information in rejecting QF-AA:

http://airlineinfo.com/ostpdf98/484.pdf (see page 15)

DL managed an average segment fare of $862, significantly less than UA and a heck of a lot less than QF. Given the stage length of LAX/SYD... yes, it's very much a marginal route (so much that the DOT was concerned that approving AA-QF, despite AA's minimal presence on the route, could chase DL off).

Further, your logic about switching to a newer generation aircraft is backward. If the flight was - um, marginal, they would do everything they could to put the most economical aircraft on the route as fast as possible. Since you and I know (yes we do) that the A350 COULD fly LAX-SYD if DL wanted to use it that way (it is blocked only about a half hour longer than ATL-ICN in the winter), the route clearly does well enough that DL DOESN'T NEED to pull the A350 off of DTW-Asia routes because the 777 does JUST FINE on LAX-SYD.

This is an example of a logical fallacy, and I've already addressed it in my previous posting but I'll try again:

Think of McDonald's; when McD's (and its operators) chooses to renovate its stores, does it start with its top-performing locations or marginal-performing locations in competitive markets? By a.net logic, a decade ago McD's would've first added WiFi to its marginal, competitive stores since they can market it to attract new consumers. Problem is, there's no guarantee it will attract new consumers and meanwhile, consumers at your top-performing location have fled to Starbucks since it offered WiFi (and true to retail, they're not coming back). Fact is, it's easier to maintain market share than to grow it, which is why in retail top-performing locations will nearly always get new amenities first and endure shorter renovation cycles than marginal-performing ones.

DL's going to get fuel economy savings, whether it deploys the 359 on DTW-PVG or LAX-SYD. Fact is, that's just one piece of the puzzle -- if fuel economy were most important, DL would be rushing to get the 359 on LAX/SYD, ATL/JNB, etc. Instead, DL's heavily promoting the product itself (they began marketing the 359 to businesses with traffic to Asia well over a year ago); it recognizes its consumers have choices and it's trying to protect its marketshare. Meanwhile, LAX/SYD will have to wait -- it very well may get 359 service, it just won't be among the initial routes.

Like I said, LAX/SYD is not the route a.net wants to make it to be.

1. AA is compared because you can't include specific revenue for DL and exclude it for other carriers. AA and DL have identical revenue performance in the market.
2. AA is not in the chart you posted from the DOT about market performance in 2015 because it was a new carrier. The DOT data you so happily cite is from 2015; this is 2017.
3. The same industry proration process used by the DOT is used in the AA-QF JV application as in all other routes.
4. The DOT SPECIFICALLY noted that the US-Australia market is full of revenue premiums based on the length of flight AND on QF compared to other carriers. The VERY REASON they rejected the AA-QF JV is because of the revenue premium QF gets. Just because a carrier in a market does not get the same revenue as a carrier which the DOT says is above average does not mean the route is marginal.
5. DL is the ONLY US carrier that has not reduced its own capacity in the LAX-SYD market.

Whether DL uses the A350 on LAX-SYD or not is not about economics or airplane features but solely operational reasons.

A $100 million dollar airplane is not a comparison to a fast food restaurant. DL has more product consistency between aircraft types in its international fleet than any other US airline.

And above all, it has been repeatedly noted that the A350 for DL is an Eastern US to Asia plane for DL because they simply do not have enough to spread them around their system. Further, DL still sees the 777 as a very viable aircraft including the 777LRs which have NO MATCH with any other commercial aircraft in terms of performance. Based on the current 15 A350s on order, the A350 will heavily be used in DTW and the northern US hubs while the 777 will be used in the southern hubs which ALSO happen to have flights to the southern hemisphere (as well as to Asia). Trying to turn an operational decision into a sign of a weakness may be exactly what you would expect a cadre of pro-AA people would do on a.net, but it has absolutely nothing to do with reality.

Does anybody know if the Delta A350s will have tail cameras like Qatar Airways? That would be so cool

KDTWflyer wrote:

Does anybody know if the Delta A350s will have tail cameras like Qatar Airways? That would be so cool

They will not.

compensateme wrote:

This is an example of a logical fallacy, and I've already addressed it in my previous posting but I'll try again:

Think of McDonald's; when McD's (and its operators) chooses to renovate its stores, does it start with its top-performing locations or marginal-performing locations in competitive markets? By a.net logic, a decade ago McD's would've first added WiFi to its marginal, competitive stores since they can market it to attract new consumers. Problem is, there's no guarantee it will attract new consumers and meanwhile, consumers at your top-performing location have fled to Starbucks since it offered WiFi (and true to retail, they're not coming back). Fact is, it's easier to maintain market share than to grow it, which is why in retail top-performing locations will nearly always get new amenities first and endure shorter renovation cycles than marginal-performing ones.

The logical fallacy may be comparing fast food to airlines.

I doubt DL introduced its Shuttle service on LGA-CHI and LAX-SFO, dedicated a fleet of lie-flat 764s to LHR, and began flying international birds with enhanced business class service on JFK-LAX/SFO (among other moves) because those were its most profitable markets. By that logic, there should be dozens of routes out of ATL/DTW/MSP that see branded Shuttle service and enhanced business cabins. But instead, at least among legacies, the most competitive markets are the ones that usually see the most service enhancements.

With only 15 A350s on order for the next couple of years (the remaining 10 deferred) and 7 being necessary to operate DTW-NRT/ICN/PEK and ATL-ICN, the A350 will not be used all over DL's network and won't even end up in all of its transpacific hubs. The same is true of the 777 and A330-900 which will also be used for transpacific flights. DL's fleet strategy is clearly to not buy any more overly capable and more expensive than are necessary for its network. That is exactly why DL spit the Airbus order between the A350 and A330-900. In contrast, AA and UA ordered larger 787 fleets. They get commonality but DL says its strategy results in lower costs when acquisition costs are included. Ownership costs on aircraft like the 787-9 or A350 can easily top $1 million/month. An aircraft like the A330-900 could cost tens of millions of dollars less to acquire which reduces monthly ownership costs by tens of thousands of dollars without sacrificing operating costs. Likewise, the 777 has much lower ownership costs but higher operating costs. If the 777's operating costs were too high, all US airlines would be replacing them but they are not. That is what is happening with the 744 and it is easy to see why. The A350 is a very capable aircraft but it is also very costly relative to other widebody choices. DL will put the A350 where it can generate the best return on investment, including the new Premium Select cabin which can be sold in dozens of the longest markets to Asia from the eastern US to PEK/NRT and ICN. Average flight lengths on flights across the Pacific from the west coast are not as long and don't connect to as many markets.

DL would love to put the Premium Select cabin in every market right off the bat. the ATL and DTW hubs have the best coverage of the eastern US of any US airline hub, esp. in light of the JV with KE. DL's strategy is based on using its newest aircraft to serve the most markets via its hubs within the number of frames it will have to deploy. Putting newer aircraft on the west coast won't allow the A350 and its services to be solid in anywhere close to the number of markets as it can be sold on flights to DTW/ATL.

It is also worth noting that DL's selection of DTW-PEK for the A350 means that route is going from the smallest widebody that can serve the route (the A330-200) to the largest in DL's fleet post 744.

and above all, wait for schedules for later in 2018 and beyond but given that much of the currently planned A350 fleet is due to be delivered by the end of 2018. if DL hasn't announced schedules to put the A350 into LAX by then, it probably won't be until DL acquires a much larger fleet.

The Shuttle product is specific to a market that does not exist in the rest of the US. By the same token, LHR is a much larger local market than any other in Europe. It is not hard to see why DL puts a premium product in markets with high percentages of local demand but not in other markets while using the A350 in markets that can touch the most markets. The A350 product will be on the 777 and perhaps on the A330-900 at least within a couple years. The A350 is introducing a product that will be standard on DL's Pacific fleet. The Shuttle product never was intended to spread to DL's entire domestic system.

Caught the Delta A350 at CVG and a go around it did! https://mobile.twitter.com/Cvgspotter15 ... 0636620801

I'm delighted to hear that Delta is committed to sending the most state-of-the-art and advanced in-flight products to ICN. The Delta A350 will probably have the most cutting-edge product out of all the aircraft that serve ICN.

I know many Koreans that hold Delta with high regard. They will be pleased to know that their future flights may include these phenomenal products.

hoons90 wrote:

I'm delighted to hear that Delta is committed to sending the most state-of-the-art and advanced in-flight products to ICN. .

Nov 30th I will be on the DTW-NRT A350 flight. Springing for the new Delta one Suite should be a treat. I was going to do the 747 going and the 350 returning but a Delta employee talked me into nixing the 747. I guess I most likely had my last DL 747 flight the beginning of the year

I wonder if the A359 can compete with the B772LR on the JNB-ATL-JNB route. JNB-ATL is a very long way to fly when the departure field is 5500' AMSL with temps regularly in the mid 20's. The same question will apply to SAA when they eventually replace their A346's on the JNB-JFK-JNB route.

T54A wrote:

I wonder if the A359 can compete with the B772LR on the JNB-ATL-JNB route. JNB-ATL is a very long way to fly when the departure field is 5500' AMSL with temps regularly in the mid 20's. The same question will apply to SAA when they eventually replace their A346's on the JNB-JFK-JNB route.

Don't wonder anymore. It will be as capable as or better. No doubt. The 77W is a terrible hot and high performer and the 77L shares the same wing, so due to its lower weight its better then a 77W, but still not very capable.

If you look at the ACAPS data, you'll see the 77L is limited by the tire speed limit at every airport above ca. 3200ft.
On a standard day (not taking increased temperature into account!) it only lifts about 320 tons and therefore needs a 14000ft runway (thats more than 4 kilometers!)
Taking a day with +27°C (over standard conditions) the liftable weight drops to 300 tons. Which is about 47 tons below the MTOM of the 77L.

Considering the roughly 7500nm distance they are at the point where the 77L needs its max fuel capacity to fly its max payload over the whole distance.
Assuming a 145t OEW, it results in a 64t Payload it can carry at MTOW, with the restrictions that drops to just 17 tons.

These rough estimates show, that if JNB has temperatures of 15°C, the 77L can lift about 37 tons of payload from JNB to ATL, if temperatures rise to 30°C it only lifts about 25 tons. with temperatures at 42°C only 17 tons remain.

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commer ... 2lr3er.pdf

All of that shows, the 77L is not a stellar performer, especially at altitude.

For the standard (non 280t) A359 data shows that even at JNB altitude and 30°C outside temperature it easily lifts 270 tons and at 15°C it lifts the full 275 tons.

That, at 30°C is a payload reduction of 5 tons (A350) vs. 39 tons (77L) at JNB due to altitude and temperature.

That shows altitude and temperature aren't the problems for the 350, thats mostly its fuel capacity. At 5500 nautical miles it hits its fuel capacity limit.
To fly 7500nm it can only carry 40 tons and because that is still at MTOW, we need to sub the 5 tons from take-off. Leaving 35 tons of payload from JNB to ATL at 30°C

http://www.aircraft.airbus.com/fileadmi ... _Aug17.pdf

Final results
JNB>ATL; 30°C (86°F);
77L - 25 tons of payload (263 pax or 218 pax + 3,8t freight)
359 - 35 tons of payload (360 pax or 226 pax + 13t freight)

Any domestic routes uploading? I want to book it and fly on this beautiful plane.

MaxiAir wrote:

T54A wrote:

I wonder if the A359 can compete with the B772LR on the JNB-ATL-JNB route. JNB-ATL is a very long way to fly when the departure field is 5500' AMSL with temps regularly in the mid 20's. The same question will apply to SAA when they eventually replace their A346's on the JNB-JFK-JNB route.

Don't wonder anymore. It will be as capable as or better. No doubt. The 77W is a terrible hot and high performer and the 77L shares the same wing, so due to its lower weight its better then a 77W, but still not very capable.

If you look at the ACAPS data, you'll see the 77L is limited by the tire speed limit at every airport above ca. 3200ft.
On a standard day (not taking increased temperature into account!) it only lifts about 320 tons and therefore needs a 14000ft runway (thats more than 4 kilometers!)
Taking a day with +27°C (over standard conditions) the liftable weight drops to 300 tons. Which is about 47 tons below the MTOM of the 77L.

Considering the roughly 7500nm distance they are at the point where the 77L needs its max fuel capacity to fly its max payload over the whole distance.
Assuming a 145t OEW, it results in a 64t Payload it can carry at MTOW, with the restrictions that drops to just 17 tons.

These rough estimates show, that if JNB has temperatures of 15°C, the 77L can lift about 37 tons of payload from JNB to ATL, if temperatures rise to 30°C it only lifts about 25 tons. with temperatures at 42°C only 17 tons remain.

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commer ... 2lr3er.pdf

All of that shows, the 77L is not a stellar performer, especially at altitude.

For the standard (non 280t) A359 data shows that even at JNB altitude and 30°C outside temperature it easily lifts 270 tons and at 15°C it lifts the full 275 tons.

That, at 30°C is a payload reduction of 5 tons (A350) vs. 39 tons (77L) at JNB due to altitude and temperature.

That shows altitude and temperature aren't the problems for the 350, thats mostly its fuel capacity. At 5500 nautical miles it hits its fuel capacity limit.
To fly 7500nm it can only carry 40 tons and because that is still at MTOW, we need to sub the 5 tons from take-off. Leaving 35 tons of payload from JNB to ATL at 30°C

http://www.aircraft.airbus.com/fileadmi ... _Aug17.pdf

Final results
JNB>ATL; 30°C (86°F);
77L - 25 tons of payload (263 pax or 218 pax + 3,8t freight)
359 - 35 tons of payload (360 pax or 226 pax + 13t freight)

This explains why SAA recently turned down Boeings offer to take the A340's and replace with B77W's. It will be better to go with the A350's in the long run.

KDTWflyer wrote:

The A350 arrived at DTW today from ATL! It was / is doing extensive pattern work at CVG both before arriving at DTW and after leaving to head back to ATL. I hope they will through in some domestic revenue runs before the inaugural October 30 run from DTW-NRT. It seems crazy they would not do that in my opinion.

A350 arrival / departure in DTW today

https://youtu.be/I2P2-7cXSx0

Floated pretty far there no?

TransWorldOne wrote:

cx828 wrote:

How about sea-hkg, will it change to 359 eventually?

I'm sure it will eventually. In the near term? No. SEA-HKG is operated with the smallest possible equipment that has the legs for the route, the A332. In the winter months the route operates less than daily. The A350 would be a big jump in capacity for this new-ish route. DL has tinkered with using the 777 on SEA-HKG but it has never stuck.

DL stopped the 330 on the SEA HKG it is know all 777... I just booked my flight cant wait maybe DL will surprise us and tryt the 350 on SEA HKG, the 350 could do it mileage wise.

Armodeen wrote:

KDTWflyer wrote:

The A350 arrived at DTW today from ATL! It was / is doing extensive pattern work at CVG both before arriving at DTW and after leaving to head back to ATL. I hope they will through in some domestic revenue runs before the inaugural October 30 run from DTW-NRT. It seems crazy they would not do that in my opinion.

A350 arrival / departure in DTW today

https://youtu.be/I2P2-7cXSx0

Floated pretty far there no?

My first impression there was it's a new A350 pilot with a training Captain, getting a "feel" for the difference in the way the A350 lands. Especially if it's a pilot coming off the A330 fleet where standard practice is to land the rear axle first then bring the front one down rather than slamming the truck into the ground. That's a regular ankle-breaker move on the A330.

b777900 wrote:

TransWorldOne wrote:

cx828 wrote:

How about sea-hkg, will it change to 359 eventually?

I'm sure it will eventually. In the near term? No. SEA-HKG is operated with the smallest possible equipment that has the legs for the route, the A332. In the winter months the route operates less than daily. The A350 would be a big jump in capacity for this new-ish route. DL has tinkered with using the 777 on SEA-HKG but it has never stuck.

DL stopped the 330 on the SEA HKG it is know all 777... I just booked my flight cant wait maybe DL will surprise us and tryt the 350 on SEA HKG, the 350 could do it mileage wise.

Not in the near future, it is currently an A330-200 and is scheduled to remain an A330-200 certainly through the winter. I believe it may upgrade to a 777 in the Spring of 2018. Hopefully it will stick as a 777, because the A330-200 will reach max take off weight with barely a full passenger load and little or no cargo pretty much year round outbound SEA. A 777ER could carry a full passenger load and a lot of cargo. The question is though, whether it is too much aircraft for this route, it is another route that would be more suited to a 787.

[ngquote="A350"]Cool. I would have expected them to use it on a shorter route for the first weeks until the crew is more familiar with it and the second frame has arrived.[/quote]
I think they'll have to take the airplane long range if for no other reason that to gate fit the airplane and familiarize their foreign "troops" or contractors with the airplane. They'll also have to complete Proving Runs as it's a new fleet type to Delta. They've still got a damn lot of work to do before commercial rollout A new fleet type carries a damn lot of work.
And God bless them they've got 2 new fleet types coming through the door. I wouldn't wish that on anybody..

redtailmsp wrote:

b777900 wrote:

TransWorldOne wrote:

I'm sure it will eventually. In the near term? No. SEA-HKG is operated with the smallest possible equipment that has the legs for the route, the A332. In the winter months the route operates less than daily. The A350 would be a big jump in capacity for this new-ish route. DL has tinkered with using the 777 on SEA-HKG but it has never stuck.

DL stopped the 330 on the SEA HKG it is know all 777... I just booked my flight cant wait maybe DL will surprise us and tryt the 350 on SEA HKG, the 350 could do it mileage wise.

Not in the near future, it is currently an A330-200 and is scheduled to remain an A330-200 certainly through the winter. I believe it may upgrade to a 777 in the Spring of 2018. Hopefully it will stick as a 777, because the A330-200 will reach max take off weight with barely a full passenger load and little or no cargo pretty much year round outbound SEA. A 777ER could carry a full passenger load and a lot of cargo. The question is though, whether it is too much aircraft for this route, it is another route that would be more suited to a 787.

DL's SEA-HKG flight moves to a 777 on Saturday March 24.

Since DL doesn't have the 787, they can either go with the A330-200 which is about 235 seats or jump to the 777 at 291 seats or go all the way to the A350 at 306 or so seats.

As has been noted, it is not likely the A350 will show up on the west coast just because DL doesn't and won't have enough of them to spread them across multiple gateways to Asia. So far, DTW gets the 350 for the most flights with ATL getting one. That is probably all they can commit to right now unless there are several more deliveries in the first half of the year and Airbus is certain they can deliver them on time.

The 777 will heavily be used at LAX and whatever SEA to Asia flights are beyond the range of the 767s and A330s.

The good news is that this is the first capacity increases on SEA international flights since DL said it would not add capacity until there were improvements in the international arrivals facility.

Hopefully this is the first of several upgrades and new service for DL international at SEA.

MaxiAir wrote:

T54A wrote:

I wonder if the A359 can compete with the B772LR on the JNB-ATL-JNB route. JNB-ATL is a very long way to fly when the departure field is 5500' AMSL with temps regularly in the mid 20's. The same question will apply to SAA when they eventually replace their A346's on the JNB-JFK-JNB route.

Don't wonder anymore. It will be as capable as or better. No doubt. The 77W is a terrible hot and high performer and the 77L shares the same wing, so due to its lower weight its better then a 77W, but still not very capable.

If you look at the ACAPS data, you'll see the 77L is limited by the tire speed limit at every airport above ca. 3200ft.
On a standard day (not taking increased temperature into account!) it only lifts about 320 tons and therefore needs a 14000ft runway (thats more than 4 kilometers!)
Taking a day with +27°C (over standard conditions) the liftable weight drops to 300 tons. Which is about 47 tons below the MTOM of the 77L.

Considering the roughly 7500nm distance they are at the point where the 77L needs its max fuel capacity to fly its max payload over the whole distance.
Assuming a 145t OEW, it results in a 64t Payload it can carry at MTOW, with the restrictions that drops to just 17 tons.

These rough estimates show, that if JNB has temperatures of 15°C, the 77L can lift about 37 tons of payload from JNB to ATL, if temperatures rise to 30°C it only lifts about 25 tons. with temperatures at 42°C only 17 tons remain.

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commer ... 2lr3er.pdf

All of that shows, the 77L is not a stellar performer, especially at altitude.

For the standard (non 280t) A359 data shows that even at JNB altitude and 30°C outside temperature it easily lifts 270 tons and at 15°C it lifts the full 275 tons.

That, at 30°C is a payload reduction of 5 tons (A350) vs. 39 tons (77L) at JNB due to altitude and temperature.

That shows altitude and temperature aren't the problems for the 350, thats mostly its fuel capacity. At 5500 nautical miles it hits its fuel capacity limit.
To fly 7500nm it can only carry 40 tons and because that is still at MTOW, we need to sub the 5 tons from take-off. Leaving 35 tons of payload from JNB to ATL at 30°C

http://www.aircraft.airbus.com/fileadmi ... _Aug17.pdf

Final results
JNB>ATL; 30°C (86°F);
77L - 25 tons of payload (263 pax or 218 pax + 3,8t freight)
359 - 35 tons of payload (360 pax or 226 pax + 13t freight)

Thanks for this analysis.
The post-script I guess is that in those scenarios, the 77L will be tanking c.146t fuel, and the A350-900 c. 108t fuel

Rgds

johns624 wrote:

Speaking of LAX-SYD on the 77L. Does it always terminate at T-2 or does it ever come into TBIT?

Always went into TBIT back in the day.

I haven't seen it since the terminal move, but pretty sure T2 FIS isn't yet open at the time that DL's SYD arrives, so it'll probably be TBIT as well.

compensateme wrote:

#2) LAX-SYD is a marginal route for DL

And your source for that is _____?

MaxiAir wrote:

If you look at the ACAPS data, you'll see the 77L is limited by the tire speed limit at every airport above ca. 3200ft.

Trying to see if I can find an article from when they first launched, but those numbers wouldn't tell the whole story here, as DL, Boeing, and Goodyear worked to customize the tires on DL's 77Ls for increased tire rotation speed limits specifically for this flight.

It was offered to all, and a modified version was pitched to SA and IB when Boeing tried to sell them the 77W, though DL was IINM the only operator to take it.

N501DN hasn't moved in 8 hours, is it staying home or are they going to take it back to ATL?

flymco753 wrote:

N501DN hasn't moved in 8 hours, is it staying home or are they going to take it back to ATL?

it will go home to ATL tomorrow.

jumbojet wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

N501DN hasn't moved in 8 hours, is it staying home or are they going to take it back to ATL?

it will go home to ATL tomorrow.

I think we need to establish something, the A350s home is DTW because that's where it'll primarily be based.

She's going to Narita today

dtw9 wrote:

She's going to Narita today

On it's way: https://www.flightradar24.com/DAL9761/e87204d

Is she flying there empty or is it a press VIP flight?

flymco753 wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

N501DN hasn't moved in 8 hours, is it staying home or are they going to take it back to ATL?

it will go home to ATL tomorrow.

I think we need to establish something, the A350s home is DTW because that's where it'll primarily be based.

its a matter of semantics. I say Atlanta because for now, that's where she sleeps. When its time for her to move out and start daily DTW-NRT flying, then her home will be DTW but for now, its ATL.

jumbojet wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

it will go home to ATL tomorrow.

I think we need to establish something, the A350s home is DTW because that's where it'll primarily be based.

its a matter of semantics. I say Atlanta because for now, that's where she sleeps. When its time for her to move out and start daily DTW-NRT flying, then her home will be DTW but for now, its ATL.

Fair enough.

ElroyJetson wrote:

ASQ400 wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

Look...I get you like Airbus and the 359. But keep it real.....okay.

Look who's talking...

johns624 wrote:

thewizbizman wrote:

Personally, I hate Airbus and I hate that they are replacing the 772, but, bottom line, glad to have them in the fleet

Except that they aren't replacing the 772. They are replacing the 744.

They are also expected to replace / phase out the 772 as well.

thewizbizman wrote:

johns624 wrote:

thewizbizman wrote:

Personally, I hate Airbus and I hate that they are replacing the 772, but, bottom line, glad to have them in the fleet

Except that they aren't replacing the 772. They are replacing the 744.

They are also expected to replace / phase out the 772 as well.

This has never been communicated or even discussed. Where are you getting that information from?

Jeremy

For those that are interested, N501DN is back in the states, Detroit to be exact

I have a feeling that she will be soon running some sporadic domestic runs soon with revenue passengers. Obviously equip subs so it will be hard to book a cheap ticket on it.

thewizbizman wrote:

They are also expected to replace / phase out the 772 as well.

No. The LRs especially have years and years of service ahead.

The A359 is replacing the 744s and will constitute together with the 777s the backbone of DL's longest-haul fleet. 777s will be fitted with the same DL One mini J-cabins.

jumbojet wrote:

I have a feeling that she will be soon running some sporadic domestic runs soon with revenue passengers. Obviously equip subs so it will be hard to book a cheap ticket on it.

Not until it gets FAA certification it won't. FAA certification usually includes a diversion during flight testing which as far as i am aware hasn't happened yet. I think September will continue to see FAA cert flights and training flights followed by what you are suggesting in October before entering official service on the 30th.

I've heard of some rumblings about a few runs with no passengers SEA-DEN-SFO on the 18th.

N501DN is currently parked on the hardstand pad at the north end of Concourse C since returning from NRT on Monday. Ironically this evening its parked next to a B744.

From a distance, especially at night it low light it doesn't look all that much different than an A330.

The delivery flight for N502DN, DLs 2nd A350 is complete, it just landed in ATL

N501DN is competing a NRT-DTW flight with a diversion to ANC, its operating as DL 9762. It just left ANC and is scheduled to land at DTW around 1400 hours local time.

N502DN hasn't moved in a week. Didn't this bird have a problem with a tire burst and some subsequent damage to a wing?

Mentioned in the Detroit thread, but Delta flying the A350 DTW-AMS in addition to Asia. http://news.delta.com/delta-expands-flagship-a350-service-europe-and-china

Current scheduled routes:
DTW-NRT
DTW-ICN
DTW-PEK
DTW-PVG
DTW-AMS
ATL-ICN
http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/ ... 50-routes/
http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/ ... a-incheon/

Nice! That means the 77Ls will be concentrated at LAX and ATL, while DTW goes all 763/A330/A350 for long haul.

BENAir01 wrote:

Current scheduled routes:
DTW-NRT
DTW-ICN
DTW-PEK
DTW-PVG
DTW-AMS
ATL-ICN
http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/ ... 50-routes/
http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/ ... a-incheon/

so how many A350's will it take to fly all of those routes? I am guessing 5 or 6? I have no idea how aircraft rotations work.

jumbojet wrote:

BENAir01 wrote:

Current scheduled routes:
DTW-NRT
DTW-ICN
DTW-PEK
DTW-PVG
DTW-AMS
ATL-ICN
http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/ ... 50-routes/
http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/ ... a-incheon/

so how many A350's will it take to fly all of those routes? I am guessing 5 or 6? I have no idea how aircraft rotations work.

2 for TPAC and 1 for TATL generally. 9 frames I think will be needed at DTW.

jumbojet wrote:

BENAir01 wrote:

Current scheduled routes:
DTW-NRT
DTW-ICN
DTW-PEK
DTW-PVG
DTW-AMS
ATL-ICN
http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/ ... 50-routes/
http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/ ... a-incheon/

so how many A350's will it take to fly all of those routes? I am guessing 5 or 6? I have no idea how aircraft rotations work.

I'd guess it will take 9-10 frames, depending on which DTW-AMS flight switches to the A350 (I'm guessing it will be the early flight since the utilization appears to work better that way).

FSDan wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

BENAir01 wrote:

Current scheduled routes:
DTW-NRT
DTW-ICN
DTW-PEK
DTW-PVG
DTW-AMS
ATL-ICN
http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/ ... 50-routes/
http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/ ... a-incheon/

so how many A350's will it take to fly all of those routes? I am guessing 5 or 6? I have no idea how aircraft rotations work.

I'd guess it will take 9-10 frames, depending on which DTW-AMS flight switches to the A350 (I'm guessing it will be the early flight since the utilization appears to work better that way).

Thanks FSD, much appreciated.