Delta will lease Virgin Atlantic 4 767's in the months of October and November.

This is due to the ongoing issues with the RR T-1000's which are having several issues currently.

We are being told that the oil leaks are being caused by vibrations during cruise which in turn are shaking the pipes and causing leaks and damage.

G-VYUM has acquired 3 issues within the last 2 weeks.

The plan from what we are hearing, is that 2 787's at a time will be grounded and thoroughly checked over. There is also talk that RR will replace some of the defected engines or parts

OMAAbound

We should change the title to add "temporarily lease" - sounds like a long-term lease.

Either way, not good for the 787, I was hoping they would order more.

Dry or wet?

DL crews based at LHR?

jbs2886 wrote:

Either way, not good for the 787, I was hoping they would order more.

This sounds more like RR issues than anything 787 specific.

Polot wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

Either way, not good for the 787, I was hoping they would order more.

This sounds more like RR issues than anything 787 specific.

Absolutely, but still impacts the 787 (of course, they could switch engines).

I noticed on FR24 last week,a Virgin 789 from Seattle to Heathrow diverted to Keflavik and an A346 was sent out to collect the passengers. Was this also because of the engine issue ?

DL and VS hyped the 787 in SEA, so It will be interesting to see if that route is affected.

Yes, but aircraft relatively quickly back into service after ferry flight

Wonder if there will be a reshuffle to leisure fleet to continue to offer upper class product ex LHR... 744's to be seen again ?!

How does this work as Virgin Atlantic does not have any 767 Rated pilots as they do not have any other 767 in their fleet? Am I mistaken?

Has to be a wet lease then.

I'm thinking this has to be a wet lease, if it's true. Is there a source, even one that's not linkable?

Is there a published source?

This is very interesting but not surprising.

These would have to be wet leases. VS can't train its personnel on the 767 in enough time to benefit. I would bet that at most there will be a couple VS flight attendants on the flight but DL will still have to do the service; you can't even get FAs up to speed on a new aircraft fast enough to do good service for a couple month period of time. Perhaps DL and VS will come up w/ a program for VS FAs to learn the 767.

Also highlights once again how great of an aircraft the 767 is. DL's 767s are as well maintained as any aircraft.

btw, are we talking about 764s or 763s?

Apologies I should have stated that these will come on a wet lease, there will be a VS FSM onboard the flights but that's shall be it.

They'll mainly cover the MIA/JFK/IAD routes. With a few aircraft swaps on the routes to make it fit in

Varsity1 wrote:

Dry or wet?

DL crews based at LHR?

Yes the wet lease crews will be based at LHR as its the only airport virgin has its 787 based at.

RR needs to get a grip, they seem to be having a lot of issues with the Trent 1000/7000

by738 wrote:

Wonder if there will be a reshuffle to leisure fleet to continue to offer upper class product ex LHR... 744's to be seen again ?!

Doubt it, while the Upper Class Suite is certainly different to the Delta One seat, the Delta One seat is not exactly slumming it, however if I was booked in Premium, I would be having a conversation with VS, DL's Economy+ is nowhere near the level of VS's Premium economy.

jbs2886 wrote:

We should change the title to add "temporarily lease" - sounds like a long-term lease.

Either way, not good for the 787, I was hoping they would order more.

The A350 order killed any likely hood of further 787's imho

Delta's Economy Comfort/Comfort + product is not intended to compete with premium economy products; DL is introducing its own long-haul premium economy product specifically because of what it has learned from its partners.

As for the efficiency of the 767, it was really designed as a domestic widebody with the ability to fly 12+ hour flights in later models. Remember that the 767 was introduced over 35 years ago. Airbus didn't have a twin engine that could fly that far for years and the A340 never came close to approaching the economics of the 767.

Part of the appeal of the 767 is its smaller size including its ability to operate out of smaller airports.

But it still raises the question for this deal between DL and VS if these are 763s or 764s. The 764 is closer in size to the 789s. Given that the announcement is being made far enough in advance, they should be able to reduce their inventory to the size of the 764. If these are 763s, then VS capacity on these routes will drop fairly significantly.

Also, there is no reason to "base" DL crews at LHR. DL flies to LHR already. The difference on all of those routes is that the pairings will start in the US rather than the UK.

I don't think this is surprising. I've always thought the 767 would be a good fit at VX. Now, and more so in the past. A330 and 787 are a little too similar, for an airline the size of VX.

If VX didn't have that silly "four engines for longhaul" monniker, I like to believe they would have ordered 767s..

11725Flyer wrote:

DL and VS hyped the 787 in SEA, so It will be interesting to see if that route is affected.

Did they really? I'm a DL fanboy and live in SEA... didn't notice anything.

ghifty wrote:

I don't think this is surprising. I've always thought the 767 would be a good fit at VX. Now, and more so in the past. A330 and 787 are a little too similar, for an airline the size of VX.

If VX didn't have that silly "four engines for longhaul" monniker, I like to believe they would have ordered 767s..

11725Flyer wrote:

DL and VS hyped the 787 in SEA, so It will be interesting to see if that route is affected.

Did they really? I'm a DL fanboy and live in SEA... didn't notice anything.

Would the 767's really have been a good thing in the past? Did they have a need for them? They have always managed to fill the 747's to MCO. They always managed to fill the 747's out of Heathrow because of Bremuda II before the days of open skies. When Delta and Continental turned up at LHR and started eating away at the market and BA and AA chucking out multiple LHR-JFK's per day, only then they didn't have the need for the A340's and 747's hence the A330's being ordered being smaller and more fuel efficient, again same with the 787's. The A350's will make a nice fit for the slightly heavier routes and a good A346 replacement.

ikolkyo wrote:

RR needs to get a grip, they seem to be having a lot of issues with the Trent 1000/7000

Yes, issues with the Trent 1000 are a cause for concern admittedly, since these are fairly recent in it illustrious
service....why are we seeing them all of a sudden? I`d take issue with you over the T7000 though as this is a new
engine which is a few months behind schedule, & being based on the new Trent 1000-Ten which itself is some
12 months behind, it`s to be expected. After all RR don`t want to introduce to testing an engine which may cause
problems during the certification period......it`s not in their interest to do so.
Correct me if I`m wrong, but when the B787 was introduced, there were no RR engine problems reported for
quite sometime, only problems with the GEnx with several engine shut-downs due to icing. A few airlines were
inconvenienced ( namely JAL ) who had to fly at lower altitudes to avoid the issue. I mention this just to remind
people that it`s not just RR who aren`t the perfect engine producer.......there isn`t one!
There have been blade corrosion problems reported by ANA, & Thai if memory serves, this being blamed on
high sulphur fuel content, but I`ve seen no conclusive reports to make this definitive. I wonder if Virgins experience
in malfunctions is the same or similar to them or not? In any event RR will be working hard to rectify the problem
just as any other manufacturer would. "RR needs to get a grip" to me indicates you think RR aren`t concerned
about maintaining the quality of their product or what is supplied to them. Why would you suggest it?

ghifty wrote:

Did they really? I'm a DL fanboy and live in SEA... didn't notice anything.

This should help to refresh your memory.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/f ... /99725698/

Tedd wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

RR needs to get a grip, they seem to be having a lot of issues with the Trent 1000/7000

Yes, issues with the Trent 1000 are a cause for concern admittedly, since these are fairly recent in it illustrious
service....why are we seeing them all of a sudden? I`d take issue with you over the T7000 though as this is a new
engine which is a few months behind schedule, & being based on the new Trent 1000-Ten which itself is some
12 months behind, it`s to be expected. After all RR don`t want to introduce to testing an engine which may cause
problems during the certification period......it`s not in their interest to do so.
Correct me if I`m wrong, but when the B787 was introduced, there were no RR engine problems reported for
quite sometime, only problems with the GEnx with several engine shut-downs due to icing. A few airlines were
inconvenienced ( namely JAL ) who had to fly at lower altitudes to avoid the issue. I mention this just to remind
people that it`s not just RR who aren`t the perfect engine producer.......there isn`t one!
There have been blade corrosion problems reported by ANA, & Thai if memory serves, this being blamed on
high sulphur fuel content, but I`ve seen no conclusive reports to make this definitive. I wonder if Virgins experience
in malfunctions is the same or similar to them or not? In any event RR will be working hard to rectify the problem
just as any other manufacturer would. "RR needs to get a grip" to me indicates you think RR aren`t concerned
about maintaining the quality of their product or what is supplied to them. Why would you suggest it?

Don't know why you are suggesting things that I have never said. All I'm saying is that these many issues at once is not like RR of the past. Issues with T1000, delayed T7000 derivative and even EK was having issues with the T900 when they took delivery of their first RR A380 about 8-9 months ago.

Varsity1 wrote:

Dry or wet?

DL crews based at LHR?

They won't be "based" there. It'll be a 6+ day rotation from any domicile that presently serves LHR. Probably ATL or NYC.

jbs2886 wrote:

We should change the title to add "temporarily lease" - sounds like a long-term lease.

Either way, not good for the 787, I was hoping they would order more.

Funny when it comes to 320NEO groundings it's a P&W issue. When it comes to RR issues it's a 787 problem.

And in 2-3-2 seating, the seats are probably wider.

11725Flyer wrote:

ghifty wrote:

Did they really? I'm a DL fanboy and live in SEA... didn't notice anything.

This should help to refresh your memory.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/f ... /99725698/

This reads more like "Branson hyped up the Virgin Brand', not "AS/VS hyping up the 787".

7673mech wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

We should change the title to add "temporarily lease" - sounds like a long-term lease.

Either way, not good for the 787, I was hoping they would order more.

Funny when it comes to 320NEO groundings it's a P&W issue. When it comes to RR issues it's a 787 problem.

Are you suggesting that people arent blaming Airbus when they should be or that people are blaming the 787 when they shouldn't be?

Woah this sounds interesting! Is there any news of them using the 763ER or 764ER? And also not to ask a very stupid question, but I keep hearing "Dry" and "Wet" leases. Can anyone explain the difference between the 2?

This strikes me as bizzare. Why must DL wet lease the aircraft to VS? As I understand it the flights will be flown on Delta metal with Delta staff. Isn't the whole point of a joint venture is that routes can be flown by either participating airline with all costs and revenues shared? Why doesn't VS just allow DL to temporarily operate these routes until it gets its 787 issues sorted out?

Narfish641 wrote:

Woah this sounds interesting! Is there any news of them using the 763ER or 764ER? And also not to ask a very stupid question, but I keep hearing "Dry" and "Wet" leases. Can anyone explain the difference between the 2?

Wet Lease - Not as common as a dry lease but in this case it is what Delta is doing. Wet lease is where an airline (Delta) provides the aircraft, crew, maintenance and insurance for the lessee (Virgin Atlantic)

Dry Lease - This is the more common "lease" this would be where lessors like GECAS, AerCap and etc just lease out the plane to the airline and its the airline's job to staff it and take care of the aircraft

TransWorldOne wrote:

This strikes me as bizzare. Why must DL wet lease the aircraft to VS? As I understand it the flights will be flown on Delta metal with Delta staff. Isn't the whole point of a joint venture is that routes can be flown by either participating airline with all costs and revenues shared? Why doesn't VS just allow DL to temporarily operate these routes until it gets its 787 issues sorted out?

This is all happening on short notice, passengers have already been booked on these VS flights and switching them all around would be a bit of a hassle.

ikolkyo wrote:

Wet Lease - Not as common as a dry lease but in this case it is what Delta is doing. Wet lease is where an airline (Delta) provides the aircraft, crew, maintenance and insurance for the lessee (Virgin Atlantic)

Dry Lease - This is the more common "lease" this would be where lessors like GECAS, AerCap and etc just lease out the plane to the airline and its the airline's job to staff it and take care of the aircraft

Thanks for the info. Man RR has been having issues lately.

So will the service be VS or DL (food, bedding, etc)?

ikolkyo wrote:

TransWorldOne wrote:

This strikes me as bizzare. Why must DL wet lease the aircraft to VS? As I understand it the flights will be flown on Delta metal with Delta staff. Isn't the whole point of a joint venture is that routes can be flown by either participating airline with all costs and revenues shared? Why doesn't VS just allow DL to temporarily operate these routes until it gets its 787 issues sorted out?

This is all happening on short notice, passengers have already been booked on these VS flights and switching them all around would be a bit of a hassle.

Not really - a simple flight number change. What switching will they have to do with regards to the passengers? Change the flight number - voila! It's done. I always thought the benefit of a joint venture was that one airline could effectively sub for another as needed. I don't understand the need to wet lease 4 767's.

ASFlyer wrote:

I don't understand the need to wet lease 4 767's.

Is it possible that DL is asking VS to fly routes on their behalf that they believe VS would either have greater demand and/or serve at lower cost than DL, bringing more revenue to the table?

Doesn't Delta control 49% of Virgin Atlantic, including having some managerial say in the operations? *that* might have a lot to do with this...

I'll see if I can shed some Moreno light on the situation.

This was meant to happen earlier in the year but DL didn't have the spare capacity available. Our 787 is currently undergoing a "get well soon" project to sort out the issues the fleet is having.

I believe both 763 & 764 will be coming, no crews will be based at LHR, but will be something like 5/6 day rotation for them, especially with them mainly operating JFK/ATL/MIA routes.

TransWorldOne wrote:

This strikes me as bizzare. Why must DL wet lease the aircraft to VS? As I understand it the flights will be flown on Delta metal with Delta staff. Isn't the whole point of a joint venture is that routes can be flown by either participating airline with all costs and revenues shared? Why doesn't VS just allow DL to temporarily operate these routes until it gets its 787 issues sorted out?

Delta aircraft shall be flown by Delta pilots. And, as noted above, Virgin Atlantic doesn't have 767-qualified pilots or FAs.

Changing operating carriers in a joint venture is not just an exercise in filing a new flight number. The US DOT at least requires that codeshare flights have to properly highlight the operating carrier. Changing the operating carrier requires that DL and VS BOTH advise their customers of a change of operating carrier; reaccommodating alll of the passengers from a VS operated to DL flight would do it but that generates a schedule change notice which has to be communicated to passengers.

For all practical purposes, the flight will be a DL flight operated to DL standards and likely worked in the US by DL staff. In the early days of DL's codesharing operations, they did a FA exchange so that the crew was a mixed DL and codeshare partner crew but that requires that all FAs have to be trained on the safety procedures of the operating carrier which is a costly and burdensome process.

Further, there are production balances in many joint ventures that track the amount of flying that is done by each carrier. Clearly, Virgin Atlantic pilots lose in this situation to DL pilots which will fly at least for a period of time a higher percentage of the JV capacity. I don't know the specifics of VS' pilot or FA agreement but VS might have to or choose to pay their own pilots and FAs even if they don't operate the flight or risk labor discord.

And the obvious reason why VS is working with DL and not leasing capacity from someone else is because DL and VS already sell each other's products even though they are not the same. Leasing significant amounts of capacity from someone else with a different product harms the brand, something VS has worked very hard to build. Leasing capacity from another carrier might still result in VS having to pay its pilots or FAs for pilots for work they did not fly.

Given that DL has 767 crew bases in both ATL and JFK, it is not likely that most of the crew rotations for this extra flying have to be 5 or 6 days long if they aren't now. Most DL transatlantic flights are build around 3 day rotations and there is no reason the same wouldn't happen here. The difference is simply that DL trips would originate and end in the US while for VS crews, the trips would originate and terminate in the UK. Since DL does not have a pilot crew base in MIA, they might cover that flight with crews and aircraft from another base by doing a W pattern which could create a 6 day rotation. They could also deadhead pilots and/or FAs to/from MIA and ferry the aircraft from another base but deadheading and aircraft ferries are expensive. Although DL has a MIA FA base, they do not currently operate any longhaul international flights and may not be staffed sufficiently to be able to cover the flight even if DL wanted to give the trips to them.

I'd still like to see published confirmation of this.

Doubt you will see a B747 borrowed from Gatwick at LHR, they only have 14 UC seats, there would be a lot of downgrades on major routes, not good PR, the Delta lease would offer 36 J seats so makes sense. Get your finger out RR.

ghifty wrote:

I don't think this is surprising. I've always thought the 767 would be a good fit at VX. Now, and more so in the past. A330 and 787 are a little too similar, for an airline the size of VX.

If VX didn't have that silly "four engines for longhaul" monniker, I like to believe they would have ordered 767s..

11725Flyer wrote:

DL and VS hyped the 787 in SEA, so It will be interesting to see if that route is affected.

Did they really? I'm a DL fanboy and live in SEA... didn't notice anything.

Please use the correct airline code for the airline we are discussing as in VS for Virgin Atlantic and not VX as in Virgin America.

A damp lease would be a better trade-off. DL Pilots and VS Cabin Crew.

Four 767s for long haul.

(I'll get my coat!)

readytotaxi wrote:

Doubt you will see a B747 borrowed from Gatwick at LHR, they only have 14 UC seats, there would be a lot of downgrades on major routes, not good PR, the Delta lease would offer 36 J seats so makes sense. Get your finger out RR.

It's happened a couple of times over the last few months but won't happen over a longer period.

One of this 747's will be stored over the winter

7673mech wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

We should change the title to add "temporarily lease" - sounds like a long-term lease.

Either way, not good for the 787, I was hoping they would order more.

Funny when it comes to 320NEO groundings it's a P&W issue. When it comes to RR issues it's a 787 problem.

I have never made comments about the P&W A320neo issue. In fact, I would suggest that the engine issues are A320neo issues. No, in both cases the airframe manufacturers are not responsible for the engine, but there are consequences to the airframe manufacturer due to the engine.

I would venture to say this is being done for accounting reasons as all the London are metal neutral Delts could just fly the routes for Virgin as it doesn't matter which airlines flies the route in a metal neutral environment. I suspect either Delta wants to pad their bottom line at the expense of VS be leasing them the planes or they hold some kind of insurance on the 787 that is out of service but need to lease planes to cover the fact that the 787 is out of service so they do a lease transaction with VS so they can place a claim of losing revenue on the planes that are out of service. I think this is more corporate smoke and mirrors than anything else.

klm617 wrote:

I would venture to say this is being done for accounting reasons as all the London are metal neutral Delts could just fly the routes for Virgin as it doesn't matter which airlines flies the route in a metal neutral environment. I suspect either Delta wants to pad their bottom line at the expense of VS be leasing them the planes or they hold some kind of insurance on the 787 that is out of service but need to lease planes to cover the fact that the 787 is out of service so they do a lease transaction with VS so they can place a claim of losing revenue on the planes that are out of service. I think this is more corporate smoke and mirrors than anything else.

You of all people who post so much about DL giving away its flights to joint venture partners should be able to understand that VS has employees and unions that expect the company to honor its commitments to its employees. Saying that a metal neutral joint venture agreement gives VS the ability to give away its flying to DL to satisfy "corporate smoke and mirrors" seems like an attempt to play both sides of the joint venture/labor issue.

Instead, simply accept that VS apparently needs to take some of its 787s out of service, DL has capacity that it can use, and the two already jointly market either others' products which is not true for VS and any other airline.

Further, the chances are high that if any external party pays for all of this it is Rolls-Royce, not an insurance company. Remember also that DL is a major Rolls-Royce customer and will be one of RR's authorized maintenance providers for new generation large engines. Given that DL owns 49% of VS and is harmed by poor performance of RR products, I am betting that DL has probably helped escalate the situation and the damages that RR needs to pay to VS in order to get the situation right.

If I was betting, I would guess that RR will pay for the difference in value between the capacity on the 789s and whatever capacity DL flies, differences in costs between DL and VS for each flight, normal salaries for VS crews to stay home because they can't fly DL aircraft, and of course the repairs.

All of this is probably offset by the season in which this is all happening - not a peak travel period - as well as the weakness of the pound which might allow reduced capacity to help DL and VS.

Not my work but...