Far too many mindless calls for DL to favour Boeing because it is an American manufacturer. That way lies trade wars and losses for the world economy.

Trade wars are never good.

I would think the Pratt & Whitney engine would have been resolved by now. Delta should purchase the GE engine no matter what aircraft they order.

dc10lover wrote:

Delta should purchase the GE engine no matter what aircraft they order.

Which "GE engine" is an option on the A320 or 737?

airbazar wrote:

I guarantee you that the day DL buys an Airbus plane, there will be an anti-Delta tweet from the president and its shares will go tumbling down.

Like when they ordered even more Airbus planes a few weeks ago? Those planes will most likely be assembled and delivered from Mobile.

The reason for Delta and other Airlines are looking elsewhere is Boeing didn't invest in updating their products. The 767,757 they never made improvements and killed any MD products. They tried to make the 737 the Swiss Army knife of aircraft. Meanwhile the A330 sold well because it was updated so was the A320/321 No 757 so the A321 is selling like fire. The only thing boeing has done since 1994 was build and upgrade the 777 and Launch the 787 and waited to long to update the 747. Meanwhile they killed or failed to improve the 767,MD90,MD95,757. And what is the common factor with those planes. They were sought after very aggressively on the secondary market when a direct replacement was no where to be had. I don't feel bad for Boeing at all. They actually were Boeing by name but they
Operate like McDonnell Douglas used to

1337Delta764 wrote:

IMO the courts should grant an emergency injunction to suspend this RFP until the CSeries case is settled. That way fleet decisions are driven by technical merit and not by politics.

You want a court to issue an injunction against a private company's internal purchasing decisions? Good luck with that.

LAX772LR wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

There's simply no question that buying a Boeing airplane does more for America's economy than buying a foreign model.

"No Question".... how about some fact to that please. My guess is that you can't and you're suffering from the usual American protectionist attitude.


Let me enlighten you a bit to how some of the supply chain for an A320NEO would look.

Final Assembly in Alabama (USA)
Tires: Goodyear (USA)
Carbon Brakes: Safran (USA) and NO KIDDING also used on the 737MAX
Hydraulic Systems: Eaton (USA) or Parker (USA) again the 737 uses similar versions from the same companies!
The FMCG is probably still made by Honeywell (USA)
Most importantly engines: PW or CFM take your pick both made in the USA and one powers the 737MAX.

The list goes on... one more important note, the American transportation industry who delivers everything to the Mobile plant is also benefitting off of this (trains, truckers, etc.).

So chest thumping that Boeing is better for the American economy is a waste of time unless you support corporate greed and only care about the suits in Chicago getting paid instead of the workers who do their jobs so we can fly places!

dampfnudel wrote:

In other words, unless the price is really good and even then it's questionable, Boeing can't tempt Delta with its current offerings.

Delta bought 100 737-900ERs in 2011, even though the a.net narrative is the plane is garbage, as well as having 77 737-800s in service. I see no reason why the 737-8 would not be a viable contender for the RFP with the 737-9/737-10 also possible.

DL757NYC wrote:

The reason for Delta and other Airlines are looking elsewhere is Boeing didn't invest in updating their products. The 767,757 they never made improvements and killed any MD products. They tried to make the 737 the Swiss Army knife of aircraft. Meanwhile the A330 sold well because it was updated so was the A320/321 No 757 so the A321 is selling like fire. The only thing boeing has done since 1994 was build and upgrade the 777 and Launch the 787 and waited to long to update the 747. Meanwhile they killed or failed to improve the 767,MD90,MD95,757. And what is the common factor with those planes. They were sought after very aggressively on the secondary market when a direct replacement was no where to be had. I don't feel bad for Boeing at all. They actually were Boeing by name but they
Operate like McDonnell Douglas used to

LAX772LR wrote:

Then it wouldn't be too hard for you to demonstrate that math then, would it?

You can even keep it to percentages of production, aggregate wage on a micro scale, and tax to both state and federal government.

So go ahead, try.
After all, there's "no question".....

CFM565A1 wrote:

"No Question".... how about some fact to that please. My guess is that you can't and you're suffering from the usual American protectionist attitude.

It's simple outflow/inflow economics, but I'm not surprised that some people don't understand it. Not a subject many do understand. We'll start with the fact that Airbus and Boeing aircraft are highly competitive and interchangeable (as proven by DL and many airlines themselves), so the competitive advantage for either is very small to none. That's an important distinction to make. If one manufacturer made a product that was clearly superior - or unique without a substitute - then we'd have a different story.

Think of it in this simplistic way. DL pays Boeing or Airbus X amount for a new 737 or A320. With Boeing, a large amount of money DL pays stays and is invested in America and supports jobs all the way down the economic line to the factory cleaners and sandwich shops for workers. Only a portion of the entire process to design, create, and support a new 737 creation is outsourced to other countries. Even the profits are highly beneficial to America in a variety of ways. And as the airplane ages, that process continues to keep that plane in the air.

Now do the same analysis for Airbus. How much of that DL money (mostly American consumer money) stays in America? Only a small portion of it. Some parts are manufactured here and some A320 final assemblies now take place here, but largely the money goes overseas and supports their economies. Unless that money comes back to America in kind (it doesn't), buying Airbus instead of Boeing is detrimental to U.S. jobs. That's why DL (and similarly AA) is one big hypocrite for railing on the ME3 for destroying phantom U.S. jobs while mainly buying foreign aircraft.

MSPNWA wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Then it wouldn't be too hard for you to demonstrate that math then, would it?

You can even keep it to percentages of production, aggregate wage on a micro scale, and tax to both state and federal government.

So go ahead, try.
After all, there's "no question".....

CFM565A1 wrote:

"No Question".... how about some fact to that please. My guess is that you can't and you're suffering from the usual American protectionist attitude.

It's simple outflow/inflow economics, but I'm not surprised that some people don't understand it. Not a subject many do understand. We'll start with the fact that Airbus and Boeing aircraft are highly competitive and interchangeable (as proven by DL and many airlines themselves), so the competitive advantage for either is very small to none. That's an important distinction to make. If one manufacturer made a product that was clearly superior - or unique without a substitute - then we'd have a different story.

Think of it in this simplistic way. DL pays Boeing or Airbus X amount for a new 737 or A320. With Boeing, a large amount of money DL pays stays and is invested in America and supports jobs all the way down the economic line to the factory cleaners and sandwich shops for workers. Only a portion of the entire process to design, create, and support a new 737 creation is outsourced to other countries. Even the profits are highly beneficial to America in a variety of ways. And as the airplane ages, that process continues to keep that plane in the air.

Now do the same analysis for Airbus. How much of that DL money (mostly American consumer money) stays in America? Only a small portion of it. Some parts are manufactured here and some A320 final assemblies now take place here, but largely the money goes overseas and supports their economies. Unless that money comes back to America in kind (it doesn't), buying Airbus instead of Boeing is detrimental to U.S. jobs. That's why DL (and similarly AA) is one big hypocrite for railing on the ME3 for destroying phantom U.S. jobs while mainly buying foreign aircraft.

Still NO MATH in this... it's mostly opinion. Economies are not supported solely on return they're also supported by a supply chain for a product as it is manufactured. Are you honestly thinking that the money that the 737 makes for example is reinvested into the US Economy? I would argue it's invested in fancy foreign cars, trips to Bali and memberships for the Chicago Highlands Golf Club... the problem with what you're implying is it's too "simplistic" and not really correct.

MSPNWA wrote:

Now do the same analysis for Airbus. How much of that DL money (mostly American consumer money) stays in America? Only a small portion of it. Some parts are manufactured here and some A320 final assemblies now take place here, but largely the money goes overseas and supports their economies. Unless that money comes back to America in kind (it doesn't), buying Airbus instead of Boeing is detrimental to U.S. jobs. That's why DL (and similarly AA) is one big hypocrite for railing on the ME3 for destroying phantom U.S. jobs while mainly buying foreign aircraft.

except, as has been shown above, the A320 is heavily built with US built components and there is a final assembly plant for the A320 family in the USA.

The argument actually works against Boeing in Europe but not Airbus in the USA.

Further, aviation is a global industry. that is the whole point. Delta is an international airline - one of the largest in the world. There are very few international airlines that do not buy from multiple manufacturers.

I certainly believe in buy from the home team where possible but the aviation manufacturing industry is by nature global as are many of the airlines that fly their products.

Delta will buy the products that give them the best product at the best price - just as every other airline has done. Given DL's diverse fleet, they will have aircraft in similar sizes that have been made by different manufacturers.

MSPNWA wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Then it wouldn't be too hard for you to demonstrate that math then, would it?

You can even keep it to percentages of production, aggregate wage on a micro scale, and tax to both state and federal government.

So go ahead, try.
After all, there's "no question".....

CFM565A1 wrote:

"No Question".... how about some fact to that please. My guess is that you can't and you're suffering from the usual American protectionist attitude.

It's simple outflow/inflow economics, but I'm not surprised that some people don't understand it. Not a subject many do understand. We'll start with the fact that Airbus and Boeing aircraft are highly competitive and interchangeable (as proven by DL and many airlines themselves), so the competitive advantage for either is very small to none. That's an important distinction to make. If one manufacturer made a product that was clearly superior - or unique without a substitute - then we'd have a different story.

Think of it in this simplistic way. DL pays Boeing or Airbus X amount for a new 737 or A320. With Boeing, a large amount of money DL pays stays and is invested in America and supports jobs all the way down the economic line to the factory cleaners and sandwich shops for workers. Only a portion of the entire process to design, create, and support a new 737 creation is outsourced to other countries. Even the profits are highly beneficial to America in a variety of ways. And as the airplane ages, that process continues to keep that plane in the air.

Now do the same analysis for Airbus. How much of that DL money (mostly American consumer money) stays in America? Only a small portion of it. Some parts are manufactured here and some A320 final assemblies now take place here, but largely the money goes overseas and supports their economies. Unless that money comes back to America in kind (it doesn't), buying Airbus instead of Boeing is detrimental to U.S. jobs. That's why DL (and similarly AA) is one big hypocrite for railing on the ME3 for destroying phantom U.S. jobs while mainly buying foreign aircraft.

Airbus somewhat does offer a unique product to the 737, one that has a certain engine they have been very interested in and have basically endorsed with the help of the CS100 order, an engine they believe will have it issues sorted out and then in turn surpass the engine on the 737. I'm not saying they won't order the 737 though, I just think the A320 has the advantage based on what they have said.

Thinking of the economics in a simplistic way doesn't work because it's not a simple matter. Tracing where the money goes in a case like this is never simple. You mention people such as factory cleaners at Boeing, but not at Airbus, so does that mean the Mobile FAL doesn't have anyone cleaning it or doing anything there or do you think they brought the, all in from Europe? As for parts, many of them are American including the extremely expensive engines that take a lot of labor to build. If these parts are going to Europe, someone has to ship them. If they are going to Alabama, someone has to ship them. When a plane rolls out of the factory in Alabama, someone has to test it.

The tricky part is that when an airline orders aircraft, where does profit the airframer makes go? For Boeing that would be the guys in Chicago and while their making of money would possibly have a small effect on the economy, I'm not sure how the rich getting richer would really help the average person regardless of where it is. You don't know what those people do with their money, do they buy property in Europe, do they buy a exotic make of car, do they spend money here, or do they spend it there? In terms of raw money when looking at it in a simplistic way, it probably would measure higher in terms of American economic benefit to order from Boeing, but simplistic is far from realistic. By your logic, the 787 should be useless for the American economy.

Your argument for the ME3 is out of place here as not only is it a completely different subject, but it really is a weak case anyway. Regardless of business practice, in order for an airline to be an airline they have to have planes to fly, now where would they get those? Boeing or Airbus. Why would it be the case that if the ME3 changes their business practice they'll magically not operate or order Boeing aircraft anymore.

If you think that airlines should always order their homeland product, Airbus would have killed Boeing by now.

Both UA and AA have the 737MAX on order.

If DL sticks to A320NEO and says no to 737MAX if would be quite interesting....

global1 wrote:

I'm hoping for CS300.

I hope so too.

Perhaps exercising the options for 50 C series and ordering 25 A321's is an option for replacing MD90's and starting on replacing more 320's and 757's.

DDR wrote:

Tedd wrote:

airbazar wrote:

I just don't know how he can expect any support for his anti-ME3 campaign and then turn around and order a load of Airbus planes. It just doesn't look good. On the other hand, he could be leveraging this order to gain political support for his anti-ME3 campaign. This one will be interesting to follow.

With respect, what on earth has a prospective order for Airbus aircraft got to do with his anti-ME3 campaign, or anything else for
that matter. There seems to be so much suggestion lately that US airlines should buy Boeing & not consider the alternative. With
so many `foreign` airlines buying Boeing planes, isn`t there a hint of shame in that way of thinking? When all is said & done, each
of these the largest of plane makers source their components from all over, with many Airbus parts coming from the US, keeping
businesses there solvent. If the Delta CEO feels his company is best served buying Airbus, then he shouldn`t be subject to outside
influence regardless of views on other matters by either company or person(s). Put another way, how could such a person be deemed
in any way unpatriotic or un-American in not buying Boeing when he is responsible for the employment of so many American personnel.

He will not be viewed as unpatriotic if he doesn't buy Boeing. Airbus makes great aircraft and you need American workers to support those aircraft.

A and B both make excellent aircraft. While it's nice to have national pride, sometimes I think people get too wrapped up trashing one manufacturer over another.

No matter what DL chooses, I definitely see B737M's on this order. CS300 are already included on many DL maintenance documents.

DL757NYC wrote:

They tried to make the 737 the Swiss Army knife of aircraft. Meanwhile the A330 sold well because it was updated so was the A320/321 No 757 so the A321 is selling like fire.

What on Earth are you talking about?

Airbus also has a grand total of ONE model family in the 120-250 seat range; and over the past 20yrs, it's been updated a grand total of once whereas the 737 has been updated (including a new wing) twice.

DL757NYC wrote:

The only thing boeing has done since 1994 was build and upgrade the 777 and Launch the 787

Again, what point are you actually trying to make?
Both Airbus and Boeing have introduced a grand total of two new model families since 1994: 777 and 787, A380 and A350. Everything else has been updates and stretches of existing model families, for both manufacturers.

MSPNWA wrote:

It's simple outflow/inflow economics, but I'm not surprised that some people don't understand it.

What we understand, is that you cannot numerically substantiate the opinion that you're (poorly) attempting to pass off as fact. As has been demonstrated.

CFM565A1 wrote:

Still NO MATH in this... it's mostly opinion.

You noticed that too, eh? Funny, isn't it.

CFM565A1 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

There's simply no question that buying a Boeing airplane does more for America's economy than buying a foreign model.

"No Question".... how about some fact to that please. My guess is that you can't and you're suffering from the usual American protectionist attitude.


Let me enlighten you a bit to how some of the supply chain for an A320NEO would look.

Final Assembly in Alabama (USA)
Tires: Goodyear (USA)
Carbon Brakes: Safran (USA) and NO KIDDING also used on the 737MAX
Hydraulic Systems: Eaton (USA) or Parker (USA) again the 737 uses similar versions from the same companies!
The FMCG is probably still made by Honeywell (USA)
Most importantly engines: PW or CFM take your pick both made in the USA and one powers the 737MAX.

The list goes on... one more important note, the American transportation industry who delivers everything to the Mobile plant is also benefitting off of this (trains, truckers, etc.).

So chest thumping that Boeing is better for the American economy is a waste of time unless you support corporate greed and only care about the suits in Chicago getting paid instead of the workers who do their jobs so we can fly places!

I agree with this, besides, it's so much better giving the jobs to non-union Alabamians building better quality airplanes than union card carrying pot smoking gorillas in Washington...

airbazar wrote:

Tedd wrote:

airbazar wrote:

I just don't know how he can expect any support for his anti-ME3 campaign and then turn around and order a load of Airbus planes. It just doesn't look good. On the other hand, he could be leveraging this order to gain political support for his anti-ME3 campaign. This one will be interesting to follow.

With respect, what on earth has a prospective order for Airbus aircraft got to do with his anti-ME3 campaign, or anything else for
that matter.

All common sense has gone out the window in our current political environment. If you didn't realize that by now you should be paying more attention. I guarantee you that the day DL buys an Airbus plane, there will be an anti-Delta tweet from the president and its shares will go tumbling down. At the same time, Delta wants the government to intervene and put the breaks on the ME3's expansion in the U.S..

I think the frequency and quality of those tweets have influenced their weights in recent months.

LAX772LR wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

There's simply no question that buying a Boeing airplane does more for America's economy than buying a foreign model.

Then it wouldn't be too hard for you to demonstrate that math then, would it?

You can even keep it to percentages of production, aggregate wage on a micro scale, and tax to both state and federal government.

So go ahead, try.
After all, there's "no question".....

He also misses that the A320 series that are assembled in US are taxed based on US dollars. The final assembly area gets tax revenue if it's Boeing or Airbus. Just like if Boeing had a final assembly facility in Europe they would get tax from sales.

scbriml wrote:

dc10lover wrote:

Delta should purchase the GE engine no matter what aircraft they order.

Which "GE engine" is an option on the A320 or 737?

airbazar wrote:

I guarantee you that the day DL buys an Airbus plane, there will be an anti-Delta tweet from the president and its shares will go tumbling down.

Like when they ordered even more Airbus planes a few weeks ago? Those planes will most likely be assembled and delivered from Mobile.

Leap engine is manufactured by GE in US & Safran in Europe. Both companies own a part of it, both make it & both profit from it. As they did with the CFM56 series.

LAX772LR wrote:

DL757NYC wrote:

They tried to make the 737 the Swiss Army knife of aircraft. Meanwhile the A330 sold well because it was updated so was the A320/321 No 757 so the A321 is selling like fire.

What on Earth are you talking about?

Airbus also has a grand total of ONE model family in the 120-250 seat range; and over the past 20yrs, it's been updated a grand total of once whereas the 737 has been updated (including a new wing) twice.

DL757NYC wrote:

The only thing boeing has done since 1994 was build and upgrade the 777 and Launch the 787

Again, what point are you actually trying to make?
Both Airbus and Boeing have introduced a grand total of two new model families since 1994: 777 and 787, A380 and A350. Everything else has been updates and stretches of existing model families, for both manufacturers.

MSPNWA wrote:

It's simple outflow/inflow economics, but I'm not surprised that some people don't understand it.

What we understand, is that you cannot numerically substantiate the opinion that you're (poorly) attempting to pass off as fact. As has been demonstrated.

CFM565A1 wrote:

Still NO MATH in this... it's mostly opinion.

You noticed that too, eh? Funny, isn't it.

In all fairness the 737NG wing was a modified 737 classic wing with increase cord.

1337Delta764 wrote:

But making fleet decisions based on politics is not in shareholders' best interests. If I were a DL shareholder I would vote out the BOD.

If Boeing is complaining about the CSeries deal being unreasonably cheap then it looks like the Delta board have done well by their shareholders. Just as United did with the ultra cheap 737s that Boeing sold them to keep them away from the CSeries.

All this suggests that if Boeing are now involving Bombardier in their ongoing mud throwing exercise with Airbus then Bombardier have made the big league. At least it's a change from the usual EU launch aid v US defence pork barrel accusations that are rather tedious.

Delta (mainline) has always preferred to do it's own flying. It's former CEO had stated that a while back. We see that clearly here and how they are ordering aircrafts and how this decision is also affecting the regional contractors that operate as Delta Connection. They are focusing more domestically as well, as we see them expanding joint ventures with other Skyteam members for international routes and those airlines which Delta has 49% stake, and using the other airline's metal instead of Delta's own. We see that evidence with international flight reductions, and there are many within Delta, particularly pilots and flight attendants that oppose this, unhappy about losing these routes to other partner airlines. But this allowed them to avoid ordering oversized aircrafts like the 748s or 773ER that may be too large for their strategic markets. Why when we can send our PAX with codeshare partner and now jointv enture KE on their A380? That joint venture with KE was crucial for their TransPacific operations and market.

Recently they announced end of contract with Expressjet, which operated as Delta Connection. We see those regional jets owned by Delta shifted to wholly owned subsidiary Endeavor. Big changes with the regional airlines that contract with Delta, as the CS100, which covers the gap between the 76 regional jets to the 100+ domestic seater MD80s/B717s that will eventually be phased out in the coming years. With the CS100, why would Delta need contractors like Compass, Expressjet, Skywest etc. to do these "regional missions" when these planes can efficiently do the job and beyond that using our own mainline pilots and flight attendants? Compass Airline, which was HQ'd in MSP and a big Delta Connection carrier just closed MSP base, and about 3+years ago or so also closed DTW. We can see where Delta is going. It is becoming a little bit clear, that Delta is focusing more domestically and arming itself with aircrafts that will fit the domestic market needs to compete against WN, AA, etc. with "mainline" Delta aircrafts and employees, rather than the regional contractors. We saw this with Compass when mainline Delta swapped some of the Delta Shuttle between LAX-SFO, LAX-SEA, LAX-OAK, etc. from Compass DBA operated by E175 to mainline Delta B717. With the CS100 and possible option for CS300, Delta will slowly phase out "regional" contractors and do the flying themselves on their own metal and direct hire staffs. From what I can see about their strategy, instead paying contractors like Compass, Skywest, Expressjet, Shuttle America/Republic etc. to do our regional flying, why not do it ourselves? Endeavor can manage the 76 seater routes and they are totally owned by Delta. They state that Endeavor will eventually receive more "regional" aircrafts in the future. To me this is signaling the beginning of the end for the "regionals" which where designed for the short turbo props on those short 30+ minute to 1 hour hops. This makes Delta more efficient and by eliminating the regional contractors, it centralizes it's operational strategy down to the small 76 seater planes. I also believe that this was the only solution to the "SCOPE" problem with Delta pilots when possible orders for the Embraer E190 was circulating. It was a great move, and the CS100/300 will be the perfect aircraft to link the "regional" with the "mainline domestic" routes. There won't be anymore "regional" nonsense, it will be as it should "domestic."

Also, I don't see Delta ordering the 737MAX anytime soon as well. The 739 was a disappointment to Delta, and what ever the promises Boeing had made, it left a sour taste. It was supposed to do the 757 job as some of those older 757s in the fleet are phased out, and the 739s took on the job. So far it has been payload optimized/weight restricted and the range is just not doing it. I could see more A321s and more airbuses being ordered as some of the older 757/767 non ER exit the fleet.
Keep Climbing.

They'll end up ordering from both. Maybe they'll go full out NEO for the 757 replacements and current A321CEOs, and for smaller aircraft may go MAX.

DL757NYC wrote:

The reason for Delta and other Airlines are looking elsewhere is Boeing didn't invest in updating their products. The 767,757 they never made improvements and killed any MD products. They tried to make the 737 the Swiss Army knife of aircraft. Meanwhile the A330 sold well because it was updated so was the A320/321 No 757 so the A321 is selling like fire. The only thing boeing has done since 1994 was build and upgrade the 777 and Launch the 787 and waited to long to update the 747. Meanwhile they killed or failed to improve the 767,MD90,MD95,757. And what is the common factor with those planes. They were sought after very aggressively on the secondary market when a direct replacement was no where to be had. I don't feel bad for Boeing at all. They actually were Boeing by name but they
Operate like McDonnell Douglas used to

I really have no idea what you are talking about. I don't know where this unfounded myth came from that Airbus invests and updates its products more than Boeing. Both heavily invest in their products. The 767 had a MTOW increase of 46% between the original 767-200 and 767-400ER. JT9D/CF6-80A to PW4000/CF6-80C2 engines is a big engine upgrade too. 777 MTOW also went up 42%. That's way bigger of an MTOW increase than the 15% on the A330.

Both the 737 and A320 constantly are being upgraded






Since this thread is about the 737, since the A320 entered service in 1988, it got an extended wing, upgraded engines twice, new interior, carbon brakes, winglets, stretches or MTOW increases in the from of the 800/900/900ER/10, short field performance package, new tailcone, raised nose gear, raised main gear, fly by wire spoilers, large flight deck displays, Electronic Flight Bag, heads up display, cat IIIb autoland, optimized maintenance program, the list goes on. All of this was done while maintaining 99.7% reliability and having a significant number of common components that make repairs and overhaul of components on the 737 cheaper than almost any other in production passenger jet.

Both the 737MAX and A320NEO would serve Delta well. No one is entirely superior to the other. It depends on the operating environment and conditions in which Delta wants to use them across its vast network.

gatibosgru wrote:

They'll end up ordering from both. Maybe they'll go full out NEO for the 757 replacements and current A321CEOs, and for smaller aircraft may go MAX.

Delta is nowhere near ready to even begin thinking about planning to get ready to talk about replacing the A321CEOs.

sonnyville wrote:

Recently they announced end of contract with Expressjet, which operated as Delta Connection. We see those regional jets owned by Delta shifted to wholly owned subsidiary Endeavor. Big changes with the regional airlines that contract with Delta, as the CS100, which covers the gap between the 76 regional jets to the 100+ domestic seater MD80s/B717s that will eventually be phased out in the coming years.

A couple of points here: First of all, the CS100 at Delta will be configured with the same number of seats as the 717 - 110, so there will be no "gap" between the CS100 and 717. Also, Delta has not announced any plans to phase out the 717 "in the coming years." Of course the day will come when they are phased out, but I would expect to see the 717 fleet in the air for at least another 10-15 years.

sonnyville wrote:

With the CS100, why would Delta need contractors like Compass, Expressjet, Skywest etc. to do these "regional missions" when these planes can efficiently do the job and beyond that using our own mainline pilots and flight attendants?

Because not every market can sustain a 110-seater on multiple frequencies per day. I'm thinking about routes like MSP-BRD, DTW-MQT, ATL-BQK, etc. There will always be a need for a Delta Connection feeder service for markets that can't sustain a mainline gauge and cost structure. What Delta is doing with the CS100s (and already did with the 717s to a degree) is returning mainline to the markets they had traditionally served, while returning Delta Connection to its original intended purpose of serving smaller or marginal markets.

tlecam wrote:

I think it's interesting that they're going to take deliveries starting in 2020. Any idea what the backlogs look like for A and B?

Also, is this order aimed at replacing the MD's, or is this aimed at the older A320s that they inherited from NW?

Boeing and Airbus always leave some slots open and some airlines are flexible on their delivery dates. We always read of airlines deferring deliveries which allows new orders to move up toward the front of the assembly line.

sonnyville wrote:

The 739 was a disappointment to Delta, and what ever the promises Boeing had made, it left a sour taste. It was supposed to do the 757 job as some of those older 757s in the fleet are phased out, and the 739s took on the job. So far it has been payload optimized/weight restricted and the range is just not doing it. I could see more A321s and more airbuses being ordered as some of the older 757/767 non ER exit the fleet.
Keep Climbing.

Yes that's why DL kept ordering MORE 739s. Also, in case you haven't noticed, the A321s, so far, weren't purchased for range, the 739s are still doing the long routes.

rbavfan wrote:

Leap engine is manufactured by GE in US & Safran in Europe. Both companies own a part of it, both make it & both profit from it. As they did with the CFM56 series.

Exactly. LEAP is not a "GE engine", it's a CFM engine.

LAX772LR wrote:

DL757NYC wrote:

They tried to make the 737 the Swiss Army knife of aircraft. Meanwhile the A330 sold well because it was updated so was the A320/321 No 757 so the A321 is selling like fire.

What on Earth are you talking about?

Airbus also has a grand total of ONE model family in the 120-250 seat range; and over the past 20yrs, it's been updated a grand total of once whereas the 737 has been updated (including a new wing) twice.

What DL757NYC might be trying to say in a strangely worded way is how they think the 737NG for example spanned from a 100 seat to 200 seat aircraft while trying to be the optimal design for both ends as cheaply and quickly as possible. The short gear reduces weight which especially helped the 737-700 and 737-600, has hurt the 737-900 and 737-800 to some extent. Airbus had their go at the smaller sizes too, but they seemingly didn't bother to optimize as much. The engines thrust wise are optimal for the 737-700 and 737-800. The raw economics are most optimal on the 737-900ER. Really in the end 1 of the 4 has clearly lead the way. This is by far more so the case with the 737 MAX. This is my guess at what DL757NYC is maybe trying to say. Perhaps there is a point here, but I know the 737 is the way it is for more reasons that that.

To say that the A320 has been updated a grand total of once is not true. Airbus's philosophy when it comes to this is a bit different than Boeing. They focus less on generational improvements and more on incremental improvements. There is much more difference between a 1990 A320 and a 2010 A320 than their is between a 2010 A320 and A320neo. Between the newest build old engine A320s and the A320neo, basically the only difference for the most part is the engines. The difference between the newest build old engine A320 and a 1990 build one is quite large. There are systems differences, computer differences, structural differences, component differences, significant capability differences, and also different engines.

airbazar wrote:

I just don't know how he can expect any support for his anti-ME3 campaign and then turn around and order a load of Airbus planes. It just doesn't look good.

Airbus assembles planes in the US. Boeing is also using foreign made parts (especially Japanese) in their planes. So I don't really see a big difference when looking at it with a Made in America PoV.

With so many A321's and 737-900ER's on order I doubt they're going for them, and everyone has forgotten the A319neo and 737 MAX 7 exist. So between the A320neo and 737 MAX 8, that is a pretty interesting competition. This is a 50-50 chance.

Delta could invest in Bombardier. BBD could use that money to launch a CS500 earlier, with a big Delta launch order of course. Delta would benefit from an aircraft which is perfect for their needs, it replaces MD88/MD90, 737-800 and A320 capacity wise, has the range to fly coast-to-coast. One aircraft family could replace four aircraft families or seven aircraft types at mainline; 717, 737-700, 737-800, MD88, MD90, A319, A320.

And the best: it would all pay back with a rising BBD stock.

But now I should stop dreaming. I think Boeing could win this order, also to calm them down in the Bombardier issue and to retain a good relationship to them. (And last but not least because theyre planes are as good as Airbus').

Is this race considered purely A vs B? There has been constant rumor about Bombardier CS500. Would Delta be talking to Bombardier about that? I can see BBD willing to launch the type with a large order from Delta.

767333ER wrote:

To say that the A320 has been updated a grand total of once is not true. Airbus's philosophy when it comes to this is a bit different than Boeing. They focus less on generational improvements and more on incremental improvements. There is much more difference between a 1990 A320 and a 2010 A320 than their is between a 2010 A320 and A320neo. Between the newest build old engine A320s and the A320neo, basically the only difference for the most part is the engines. The difference between the newest build old engine A320 and a 1990 build one is quite large. There are systems differences, computer differences, structural differences, component differences, significant capability differences, and also different engines.

The graphics that I posted, shared by Leeham news a few years ago, show that Boeing and Airbus are simultaneously working on similar upgrades to both the A320 and 737. Neither has stood still. Airbus and Boeing have very similar philosophies.

The internal rumors is this order, like many is more dependent on the engine deal, not the airframe deal. The A350 was really an engine deal. DL got the Rolls Royce work for for the DL fleet and customer engines. That sealed the deal for the A350.

PW wants DL to be the North American shop for the GTF. The pricing has to be right and DL has to get the repair work included in the package. A good deal for the GTF could swing the bulk of the NB order to a airframe with that engine. If the deal falls flat look for a CFM engine to win the bulk of the order.

Everyone here seem to think this is always just an A vs B and maybe C series choice. There is way more to this than that. The engine package can be half of the purchase price and if in house work is included it could be worth more than the upfront cost of the planes.

Dalmd88 wrote:

The internal rumors is this order, like many is more dependent on the engine deal, not the airframe deal. The A350 was really an engine deal. DL got the Rolls Royce work for for the DL fleet and customer engines. That sealed the deal for the A350.

PW wants DL to be the North American shop for the GTF. The pricing has to be right and DL has to get the repair work included in the package. A good deal for the GTF could swing the bulk of the NB order to a airframe with that engine. If the deal falls flat look for a CFM engine to win the bulk of the order.

Everyone here seem to think this is always just an A vs B and maybe C series choice. There is way more to this than that. The engine package can be half of the purchase price and if in house work is included it could be worth more than the upfront cost of the planes.

If the PW GTF deal gets worked out, I could see DL shaking things up and going fro BBD CS500. It would instantly add a third player to the NB market (with the world airlines secretly sending DL thank you texts). Since DL wants the aircraft around 2020, a CS500 would not be ready by then,so I see a A320NEO order on the horizon with a PR celebration held at the Airbus Mobile facility with Alabama's congress delegation there of course.

sonnyville wrote:

Delta (mainline) has always preferred to do it's own flying. It's former CEO had stated that a while back. We see that clearly here and how they are ordering aircrafts and how this decision is also affecting the regional contractors that operate as Delta Connection. They are focusing more domestically as well, as we see them expanding joint ventures with other Skyteam members for international routes and those airlines which Delta has 49% stake, and using the other airline's metal instead of Delta's own. We see that evidence with international flight reductions, and there are many within Delta, particularly pilots and flight attendants that oppose this, unhappy about losing these routes to other partner airlines. But this allowed them to avoid ordering oversized aircrafts like the 748s or 773ER that may be too large for their strategic markets. Why when we can send our PAX with codeshare partner and now jointv enture KE on their A380? That joint venture with KE was crucial for their TransPacific operations and market.

Recently they announced end of contract with Expressjet, which operated as Delta Connection. We see those regional jets owned by Delta shifted to wholly owned subsidiary Endeavor. Big changes with the regional airlines that contract with Delta, as the CS100, which covers the gap between the 76 regional jets to the 100+ domestic seater MD80s/B717s that will eventually be phased out in the coming years. With the CS100, why would Delta need contractors like Compass, Expressjet, Skywest etc. to do these "regional missions" when these planes can efficiently do the job and beyond that using our own mainline pilots and flight attendants? Compass Airline, which was HQ'd in MSP and a big Delta Connection carrier just closed MSP base, and about 3+years ago or so also closed DTW. We can see where Delta is going. It is becoming a little bit clear, that Delta is focusing more domestically and arming itself with aircrafts that will fit the domestic market needs to compete against WN, AA, etc. with "mainline" Delta aircrafts and employees, rather than the regional contractors. We saw this with Compass when mainline Delta swapped some of the Delta Shuttle between LAX-SFO, LAX-SEA, LAX-OAK, etc. from Compass DBA operated by E175 to mainline Delta B717. With the CS100 and possible option for CS300, Delta will slowly phase out "regional" contractors and do the flying themselves on their own metal and direct hire staffs. From what I can see about their strategy, instead paying contractors like Compass, Skywest, Expressjet, Shuttle America/Republic etc. to do our regional flying, why not do it ourselves? Endeavor can manage the 76 seater routes and they are totally owned by Delta. They state that Endeavor will eventually receive more "regional" aircrafts in the future. To me this is signaling the beginning of the end for the "regionals" which where designed for the short turbo props on those short 30+ minute to 1 hour hops. This makes Delta more efficient and by eliminating the regional contractors, it centralizes it's operational strategy down to the small 76 seater planes. I also believe that this was the only solution to the "SCOPE" problem with Delta pilots when possible orders for the Embraer E190 was circulating. It was a great move, and the CS100/300 will be the perfect aircraft to link the "regional" with the "mainline domestic" routes. There won't be anymore "regional" nonsense, it will be as it should "domestic."

Also, I don't see Delta ordering the 737MAX anytime soon as well. The 739 was a disappointment to Delta, and what ever the promises Boeing had made, it left a sour taste. It was supposed to do the 757 job as some of those older 757s in the fleet are phased out, and the 739s took on the job. So far it has been payload optimized/weight restricted and the range is just not doing it. I could see more A321s and more airbuses being ordered as some of the older 757/767 non ER exit the fleet.
Keep Climbing.

Delta does seem to be reducing its regional partners, maybe there are going to do as you speculate and take on more of the flying themselves.

raylee67 wrote:

There has been constant rumor about Bombardier CS500.

william wrote:

If the PW GTF deal gets worked out, I could see DL shaking things up and going fro BBD CS500.

I don't see BBD being anywhere close to being ready to even start thinking about a potential CS500.

IMHO, they need hundreds more orders for CS100s and CS300s in order to start generating positive cash flow before they can spend even more money on another model.

For decades, Delta has mostly acquired the longest versions of narrow body aircraft. Offhand, I can think only of the 737-700 order (used for specific purposes) and the 737-800 order. (I know Northwest ordered the 319 and 320.) I don't know if the 737-900 was available when Delta ordered the 737-800 and the original 737-900 seemed to have been very deficient. I think the original 737-900 was limited to the same number of passengers as the 737-800, but I may be wrong. I will be surprised if Delta doesn't order the A321neo, possibly with some more CS 300's. I will be surprised if Delta orders the 320 or 737-8.

Dalmd88 wrote:

The internal rumors is this order, like many is more dependent on the engine deal, not the airframe deal. The A350 was really an engine deal. DL got the Rolls Royce work for for the DL fleet and customer engines. That sealed the deal for the A350.

PW wants DL to be the North American shop for the GTF. The pricing has to be right and DL has to get the repair work included in the package. A good deal for the GTF could swing the bulk of the NB order to a airframe with that engine. If the deal falls flat look for a CFM engine to win the bulk of the order.

Everyone here seem to think this is always just an A vs B and maybe C series choice. There is way more to this than that. The engine package can be half of the purchase price and if in house work is included it could be worth more than the upfront cost of the planes.

I could see Delta trying to get more than engine overhaul work. Component overhaul might also be something they are trying to get from both Airbus and Boeing. Delta does landing gear overhauls for 737s, 757s, 767s, MD80s and MD90s so they may be trying to get Landing Gear Overhauls.

ehaase wrote:

I will be surprised if Delta orders the 320 or 737-8.

Why? There is a significant number of ex NW A320s that are gettin' up there in the years. I think the "meat" of this RFP will be for 150-160 passenger aircraft. I have serious doubts about a potential CS500 order for now.

scbriml wrote:

raylee67 wrote:

There has been constant rumor about Bombardier CS500.

william wrote:

If the PW GTF deal gets worked out, I could see DL shaking things up and going fro BBD CS500.

I don't see BBD being anywhere close to being ready to even start thinking about a potential CS500.

IMHO, they need hundreds more orders for CS100s and CS300s in order to start generating positive cash flow before they can spend even more money on another model.

I am really surprised that people keep bringing up the CS500. There is virtually nothing to suggest that it is anything more than a future vision at this time. I'd love to see it, though.

DLHAM wrote:

Delta could invest in Bombardier. BBD could use that money to launch a CS500 earlier, with a big Delta launch order of course. Delta would benefit from an aircraft which is perfect for their needs, it replaces MD88/MD90, 737-800 and A320 capacity wise, has the range to fly coast-to-coast. One aircraft family could replace four aircraft families or seven aircraft types at mainline; 717, 737-700, 737-800, MD88, MD90, A319, A320.

And the best: it would all pay back with a rising BBD stock.

But now I should stop dreaming. I think Boeing could win this order, also to calm them down in the Bombardier issue and to retain a good relationship to them. (And last but not least because theyre planes are as good as Airbus').

that has been suggested and DL probably gave it some thought.

However, having an airline own a manufacturer was an issue for the early industry and I'm not sure those issues couldn't reappear if DL partly owned BBD.

Further, having an airline own part of a manufacturer likely would hurt sales of the plane because it would always be seen as DL's plane. Many airlines would want any other alternative than one that could potentially help a competitor.

Dalmd88 wrote:

The internal rumors is this order, like many is more dependent on the engine deal, not the airframe deal. The A350 was really an engine deal. DL got the Rolls Royce work for for the DL fleet and customer engines. That sealed the deal for the A350.

PW wants DL to be the North American shop for the GTF. The pricing has to be right and DL has to get the repair work included in the package. A good deal for the GTF could swing the bulk of the NB order to a airframe with that engine. If the deal falls flat look for a CFM engine to win the bulk of the order.

Everyone here seem to think this is always just an A vs B and maybe C series choice. There is way more to this than that. The engine package can be half of the purchase price and if in house work is included it could be worth more than the upfront cost of the planes.

absolutely,

DL has figured out that engine overhauls are a high margin business that it is well-qualified to do and no other US airline or MRO is as well-positioned to do the work as well as DL does.

PW also needs to get some solid hits after the rough start w/ its new generation engine. Flying it on both the C series and A320 would do wonders to confirm that PW does build solid engines - once the teething pains are resolved.

Dalmd88 wrote:

The internal rumors is this order, like many is more dependent on the engine deal, not the airframe deal. The A350 was really an engine deal. DL got the Rolls Royce work for for the DL fleet and customer engines. That sealed the deal for the A350.

PW wants DL to be the North American shop for the GTF. The pricing has to be right and DL has to get the repair work included in the package. A good deal for the GTF could swing the bulk of the NB order to a airframe with that engine. If the deal falls flat look for a CFM engine to win the bulk of the order.

Everyone here seem to think this is always just an A vs B and maybe C series choice. There is way more to this than that. The engine package can be half of the purchase price and if in house work is included it could be worth more than the upfront cost of the planes.

Bingo. This was actually mentioned at the townhall with the director of engine MX.

Something is going to have to take the place of the JT8 engine shop, why not put the GTF in its place, and if the deal falls through, the CFM shop is right next to it; just expand the CFM shop.

CFM565A1 wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Then it wouldn't be too hard for you to demonstrate that math then, would it?

You can even keep it to percentages of production, aggregate wage on a micro scale, and tax to both state and federal government.

So go ahead, try.
After all, there's "no question".....

CFM565A1 wrote:

"No Question".... how about some fact to that please. My guess is that you can't and you're suffering from the usual American protectionist attitude.

It's simple outflow/inflow economics, but I'm not surprised that some people don't understand it. Not a subject many do understand. We'll start with the fact that Airbus and Boeing aircraft are highly competitive and interchangeable (as proven by DL and many airlines themselves), so the competitive advantage for either is very small to none. That's an important distinction to make. If one manufacturer made a product that was clearly superior - or unique without a substitute - then we'd have a different story.

Think of it in this simplistic way. DL pays Boeing or Airbus X amount for a new 737 or A320. With Boeing, a large amount of money DL pays stays and is invested in America and supports jobs all the way down the economic line to the factory cleaners and sandwich shops for workers. Only a portion of the entire process to design, create, and support a new 737 creation is outsourced to other countries. Even the profits are highly beneficial to America in a variety of ways. And as the airplane ages, that process continues to keep that plane in the air.

Now do the same analysis for Airbus. How much of that DL money (mostly American consumer money) stays in America? Only a small portion of it. Some parts are manufactured here and some A320 final assemblies now take place here, but largely the money goes overseas and supports their economies. Unless that money comes back to America in kind (it doesn't), buying Airbus instead of Boeing is detrimental to U.S. jobs. That's why DL (and similarly AA) is one big hypocrite for railing on the ME3 for destroying phantom U.S. jobs while mainly buying foreign aircraft.

Still NO MATH in this... it's mostly opinion. Economies are not supported solely on return they're also supported by a supply chain for a product as it is manufactured. Are you honestly thinking that the money that the 737 makes for example is reinvested into the US Economy? I would argue it's invested in fancy foreign cars, trips to Bali and memberships for the Chicago Highlands Golf Club... the problem with what you're implying is it's too "simplistic" and not really correct.

Want some math? Boeing in Renton -12,000+ Jobs. Airbus in mobile - 400ish. So at an absolute minimum, an order for a 737 supports More than 11,500 us workers than an order for an a320. But let's dig deeper..

Boeings Annual US supplier spend ? $60 BILLION supporting 13,000 different us companies and 1.5 MILLION US jobs. Airbus annual us supplier spend ? 16.5Bn supporting 240k jobs.

It is utterly clear that an order for a Boeing brings far more benefit to the US than an order for an airbus. To think otherwise is simply ignorant, and I'm guessing willfully.

The mercantilist view of trade is about two hundred years out of date. A few people here ought to stop pretending they have any adequate formal education in economics.

SevenNineSeven wrote:

CFM565A1 wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

It's simple outflow/inflow economics, but I'm not surprised that some people don't understand it. Not a subject many do understand. We'll start with the fact that Airbus and Boeing aircraft are highly competitive and interchangeable (as proven by DL and many airlines themselves), so the competitive advantage for either is very small to none. That's an important distinction to make. If one manufacturer made a product that was clearly superior - or unique without a substitute - then we'd have a different story.

Think of it in this simplistic way. DL pays Boeing or Airbus X amount for a new 737 or A320. With Boeing, a large amount of money DL pays stays and is invested in America and supports jobs all the way down the economic line to the factory cleaners and sandwich shops for workers. Only a portion of the entire process to design, create, and support a new 737 creation is outsourced to other countries. Even the profits are highly beneficial to America in a variety of ways. And as the airplane ages, that process continues to keep that plane in the air.

Now do the same analysis for Airbus. How much of that DL money (mostly American consumer money) stays in America? Only a small portion of it. Some parts are manufactured here and some A320 final assemblies now take place here, but largely the money goes overseas and supports their economies. Unless that money comes back to America in kind (it doesn't), buying Airbus instead of Boeing is detrimental to U.S. jobs. That's why DL (and similarly AA) is one big hypocrite for railing on the ME3 for destroying phantom U.S. jobs while mainly buying foreign aircraft.

Still NO MATH in this... it's mostly opinion. Economies are not supported solely on return they're also supported by a supply chain for a product as it is manufactured. Are you honestly thinking that the money that the 737 makes for example is reinvested into the US Economy? I would argue it's invested in fancy foreign cars, trips to Bali and memberships for the Chicago Highlands Golf Club... the problem with what you're implying is it's too "simplistic" and not really correct.

Want some math? Boeing in Renton -12,000+ Jobs. Airbus in mobile - 400ish. So at an absolute minimum, an order for a 737 supports More than 11,500 us workers than an order for an a320. But let's dig deeper..

Boeings Annual US supplier spend ? $60 BILLION supporting 13,000 different us companies and 1.5 MILLION US jobs. Airbus annual us supplier spend ? 16.5Bn supporting 240k jobs.

It is utterly clear that an order for a Boeing brings far more benefit to the US than an order for an airbus. To think otherwise is simply ignorant, and I'm guessing willfully.

1) this thread is not the place for this discussion.
2) this even so far off from proper economics its pointless to respond to it.