Narfish641 wrote:

SLC actually has been using the 763 for a bit. And if I'm not mistaken on rare occasions they use a 763ER with the lie flat seats.

Yes, there is the permanent ATL-SLC-HNL flight on 763 (domestic). Now we're adding an additional ATL-SLC turn to it. So twice daily 763 (domestic) on the ATL-SLC segment.

LAX772LR wrote:

DL777200LR wrote:

cfichad wrote:

It looks like Delta will ultimately be an all Airbus carrier, is my estimation correct?

Sadly that seems to be where delta is leaning towards.

Yeah, gotta love those "Airbus 737-900ERs" that DL recent bought 130+ units of.
Oh, and that "Airbus C-Series" that they just bought too.

DL757NYC wrote:

I wonder if it would benefit Delta to pick up some second hand 777's

They've looked into several possibilities over the last decade, under different leadership, and each time have decided against doing so for pax service.

DL isn't particularly keen on purchasing used widebodies. It's been nearly two decades since they've taken any; and in their entire history, have only bought (not counting mergers) a VERY limited amount.

atl100million wrote:

while the 777-200ER can do 14 hour flights making it better suited for the Pacific.

For clarification: 14hrs isn't a limit-- they're 656,000lb birds that can, and have, done 16hr+ flights.

Heck, remember that DL used the -ERs to launch JFK-BOM nonstop, 14months before the first -LR arrived; and that was back when military no-fly zones forced longer routings than optimal... some of those flights went out planned for 17hrs on the westbound (though there was the occasional stop in MAN, due to winds).

I basically meant for wide body aircraft, not narrow body.

LAX772LR wrote:

atl100million wrote:

while the 777-200ER can do 14 hour flights making it better suited for the Pacific.

For clarification: 14hrs isn't a limit-- they're 656,000lb birds that can, and have, done 16hr+ flights.

Heck, remember that DL used the -ERs to launch JFK-BOM nonstop, 14months before the first -LR arrived; and that was back when military no-fly zones forced longer routings than optimal... some of those flights went out planned for 17hrs on the westbound (though there was the occasional stop in MAN, due to winds).

Of course DL's 777-200ERs can do 16 hour flights but they are unnecessarily pushing the limits when DL has even more 777-200LRs than 777-200ERs available and DL doesn't even that many flights that operate longer than 15 hours.

The point is that the 777-200ERs are better suited for the Pacific than flying JFK-TLV or Europe, MSP-Europe, or even LAX/MSP-HND.

I suspect that the reason why DL deferred the last 10 A350s is because they realize they have enough transpacific widebodies for several years of fairly aggressive growth to Asia - but they have to get the Asia-capable aircraft flying to Asia and can also fly a number of Asia routes with less costly A330s that can carry as many passengers as A350s and 777s but at a lower cost. The benefit of SEA as a hub is that it is close enough to be served by "Atlantic" aircraft while most routes from the US to Tokyo and even Seoul can be served by variants of the A330.

cfichad wrote:

I basically meant for wide body aircraft, not narrow body.

Except that (1) that's not what you actually wrote and (2) it's still not accurate.

Boeing was very much in DL's RFP, but had the weaker offering: couldn't give them the slots that they wanted, and offered larger and later-generation aircraft than requested. Airbus had the superior offer to what DL was asking for, so they got the order, simple as that.

atl100million wrote:

Of course DL's 777-200ERs can do 16 hour flights but they are unnecessarily pushing the limits

No they aren't. The model at that weight was designed to do that very thing, and a big part of the reason for giving the -ERs and -LRs nearly the same configuration is so that they could be used interchangeably when necessary.

LAX772LR wrote:

atl100million wrote:

Of course DL's 777-200ERs can do 16 hour flights but they are unnecessarily pushing the limits

No they aren't. The model at that weight was designed to do that very thing, and a big part of the reason for giving the -ERs and -LRs nearly the same configuration is so that they could be used interchangeably when necessary.

DL doesn't use the 777-200ER on 16 hour flights even though you and I know they could.

The point still remains that the majority of DL 777-200ERs aren't even flying 14 hour flights.



move on from theory to reality.

jbs2886 wrote:

Personally, I don't believe the 787 is out of the running for DL, DL is big enough and sophisticated enough to handle multiple aircraft types.

If Boeing offers the MOM plane, I think Delta would place a significant order someday to replace many 763ER's and 753's. I don't know what a 787 would accomplish for Delta that the 359 and 339 won't do.

What is N501DN doing in RJAA for so long?

ehaase wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

Personally, I don't believe the 787 is out of the running for DL, DL is big enough and sophisticated enough to handle multiple aircraft types.

If Boeing offers the MOM plane, I think Delta would place a significant order someday to replace many 763ER's and 753's. I don't know what a 787 would accomplish for Delta that the 359 and 339 won't do.

Much as it sucks to say, yeah, not really sure what the 787 brings to DL at this point.
Clean-sheet MOM seems like it might be a a very compelling contender though.

jbs2886 wrote:

The 789 is smaller than an A359 and could do longer range routes.

Not really, on that latter part. A359 has a lot more room for range growth, and payload over range, over the upcoming 3yrs than the 789.

atl100million wrote:

The point still remains that the majority of DL 777-200ERs aren't even flying 14 hour flights.

Yet they can.... and they have... and they very well could in the future.

atl100million wrote:

move on from theory to reality.

The only false theory involved here, is (instead of just admitting that you made a careless statement) you believing that protesting it is going to get me to back off of pointing that out, when it's only going to elicit the exact opposite effect.

pilotkev1 wrote:

What is N501DN doing in RJAA for so long?

Ground training for mechanics and the like.

LAX772LR wrote:

atl100million wrote:

The point still remains that the majority of DL 777-200ERs aren't even flying 14 hour flights.

Yet they can.... and they have... and they very well could in the future.

atl100million wrote:

move on from theory to reality.

The only false theory involved here, is (instead of just admitting that you made a careless statement) you believing that protesting it is going to get me to back off of pointing that out, when it's only going to elicit the exact opposite effect.

in your 6789234 need to prove a point, how about you go back and read what was actually written and you will see that absolutely NO ONE ever even raised the issue of the range of the 772ER. No one. The only thing careless is your running with a thought that no one even raised.

If you also backed off your keyboard and looked at actual DL schedules, you would see that DL's 777-200ER fleet THIS MONTH is scheduled for an average of 9.67 block hours per flight.

Instead of thumping your chest and trying to prove that you are right about a point that no one even challenged you on, let alone even raised, how about you accept that 1. either DL has enormous ability to operate a much larger longer haul Asia operation with its existing fleet than it is doing now or 2. they really don't think much of the 777-200 and are using it on the shortest possible flights and might well be thinking about getting rid of them at the earliest opportunity.

And if DL has no desire to use them on any longer flights, 333CEOs can fly everything the current 777-200ER fleet is doing.

I don't know what DL is thinking but I do know that either 1 or 2 are true.

and neither have anything to do with whether DL could fly 14 or 16 hour flights on their 777-200ERs which we all know are some of the highest performance 772ERs available.

atl100million wrote:

I don't know what DL is thinking

In all that blabbering, you finally made a cogent point.

Indeed, you don't know what their future fleet ops limitations/preferences/specifications actually are...hence why arguing limitations due to necessity, based on current use (which BTW you DID actually do), was so pointless.

LAX772LR wrote:

atl100million wrote:

I don't know what DL is thinking

In all that blabbering, you finally made a cogent point.

and neither do you....

Either DL has alot of longhaul capacity available via the 777-200ER fleet or they don't think much of the type and suggestions that they might be ripe for replacement have some validity

Feel free to let us know where anyone said anything about the range of the DL 777-200ERs that justified your multi-post response arguing about what it can do.

The quote function works nicely.

atl100million wrote:

and neither do you.

Nor do I (1) claim to, or (2) need to, in order to remind you that you don't. Heyyyy.

atl100million wrote:

The quote function works nicely.

No need, just review your first two sentences in Reply #53, then familiarize yourself with the fallacy of Appeal to Necessity.

you clearly don't understand or didn't bother to read the word "unnecessarily" ....

How about you drop your axe long enough to postulate on the future of the 777-200ER fleet that might have something to do with the thread. Or you could just walk away from the subject and admit - if only to yourself -that you argued a point that no one else even raised.

atl100million wrote:

you clearly don't understand or didn't bother to read the word "unnecessarily" ....

Guess the last 10words in the above post sailed completely past you. They're there for a reason.

atl100million wrote:

you argued a point that no one else even raised.

Refresh me as to why I would require someone else to raise a point that caught my interest, or more accurately: your carelessness with said point?

While you beat a dead horse of your own creation - or destruction - I'll go on record in saying that DL has nothing against the 777-200ER but rather is in the process of finding the right niche for its fleet and will use the 777-200ER in more appropriate roles to Asia - as evidenced by SEA-HKG. As such, DL has about 16 aircraft worth of Asia or long haul growth if you factor in the 8 A350s that are on order and beyond the A350 routes that have been announced plus the 8 777-200ERs, none of which are doing something A330s couldn't do.

Care to bury your hatchet and focus on the discussion?

Aircraft change effective 8/27:
- HNL-KIX additional seasonal flights on 763ER (low-J) cancelled (1x daily 333 continues)
<> JFK-LAX (1x daily - evening departure) swaps from 764 to 763ER (low-J)

Also, N851NW, the A332 that was involved in an accident in SEA, is back in service.

And N501DN, first A359, is on its way back to DTW from NRT after more than a week of testing.

jbs2886 wrote:

And there are still a lot of 767s coming up to replacement that we could see Boeing orders (at a minimum, Boeing will compete for those orders). Yes, I understand that capacity wise the existing orders do cover the replacement of most of the 767s, but I just don't see DL dropping routes - DL wants routes from multiple hubs and often wants frequencies in large markets (i.e., LHR, AMS, CDG). Personally, I don't believe the 787 is out of the running for DL, DL is big enough and sophisticated enough to handle multiple aircraft types.

This might sound stupid. And I know the newer narrowbody aircraft don't have the amount of passangers or range as a widebody body (Like a 767), but why don't just send the A321 and Boeing 737-900ER over the Atlantic. I know the both planes have a range on 3,200nm but I know that the can push the limits. It would be a surpise to see a Delta A321 going to London or a 737-900ER going to Spain. Because I know if other airlines can (WOW or SAS) then Delta can too.

Aircraft change effective 8/28:
+ ATL-ANC flights temporary upgrade to 763 (domestic) from 8/26-9/1; this is an unscheduled upgrade as the flights had switched to 757 effective 8/15
- MCO-GRU seasonal adjustment; decreases to 5x weekly from 1x daily effective 8/28 (operated by 763ER-high J)
<> 3rd daily DTW-AMS flight switching from 333 to 332 effective 8/28 following repairs on N851DW

Separately, N183DN (763ER-highJ) is performing a charter flight ATL-TLS this evening (DL 9770) to bring crew/employees to pick up N502DN, the second 359 which should fly home on Thursday.

LAX772LR wrote:

DL777200LR wrote:

cfichad wrote:

It looks like Delta will ultimately be an all Airbus carrier, is my estimation correct?

Sadly that seems to be where delta is leaning towards.

Yeah, gotta love those "Airbus 737-900ERs" that DL recent bought 130+ units of.
Oh, and that "Airbus C-Series" that they just bought too.

DL757NYC wrote:

I wonder if it would benefit Delta to pick up some second hand 777's

They've looked into several possibilities over the last decade, under different leadership, and each time have decided against doing so for pax service.

DL isn't particularly keen on purchasing used widebodies. It's been nearly two decades since they've taken any; and in their entire history, have only bought (not counting mergers) a VERY limited amount.

atl100million wrote:

while the 777-200ER can do 14 hour flights making it better suited for the Pacific.

For clarification: 14hrs isn't a limit-- they're 656,000lb birds that can, and have, done 16hr+ flights.

Heck, remember that DL used the -ERs to launch JFK-BOM nonstop, 14months before the first -LR arrived; and that was back when military no-fly zones forced longer routings than optimal... some of those flights went out planned for 17hrs on the westbound (though there was the occasional stop in MAN, due to winds).

I remember JFK - BOM the last LR arrived around 2010

If they are really going to try to grow the Pacific, they need to do it with A350s. Trying to build out marginal Pacific routes with 777-200ERs is going to be a profit bloodbath when all of the stateside competition is doing the same thing with 787-9s at 25% lower trip cost.

seabosdca wrote:

If they are really going to try to grow the Pacific, they need to do it with A350s. Trying to build out marginal Pacific routes with 777-200ERs is going to be a profit bloodbath when all of the stateside competition is doing the same thing with 787-9s at 25% lower trip cost.

When did UA and AA replace all TPAC flying with 787s?

seabosdca wrote:

If they are really going to try to grow the Pacific, they need to do it with A350s. Trying to build out marginal Pacific routes with 777-200ERs is going to be a profit bloodbath when all of the stateside competition is doing the same thing with 787-9s at 25% lower trip cost.

...and paying $X,000,000 per month on each one of those aircraft, against 77Es that have been paid off for a decade and fully amortized.

So yes you're saving on fuel costs, but you're also paying through the ass on acquisition costs.
Let's not get too caught up in melodrama to forget basic details.

LAX772LR wrote:

seabosdca wrote:

If they are really going to try to grow the Pacific, they need to do it with A350s. Trying to build out marginal Pacific routes with 777-200ERs is going to be a profit bloodbath when all of the stateside competition is doing the same thing with 787-9s at 25% lower trip cost.

...and paying $X,000,000 per month on each one of those aircraft, against 77Es that have been paid off for a decade and fully amortized.

So yes you're saving on fuel costs, but you're also paying through the ass on acquisition costs.
Let's not get too caught up in melodrama to forget basic details.

precisely.... although newer technology aircraft has a much higher payback on long flights compared to short flights.

A key indicator of DL's plans for the 772ERs will be whether they get the new D1 cabins and premium economy. If they do, then DL likely intends to use them for at least 5 more years. If they don't at the same time the 777LRs get them, then DL might be content to use them on the Atlantic and to S. America until they are parked.

given that ownership costs for new generation widebody aircraft are around $1 million/month, the costs of a new generation widebody to an older model like the 772ER are high. At the same time, the cost of fuel is relatively low and likely will be for the near future. As with the M80s on the domestic system, 772ERs can be flex capacity that can be pulled during economic downturns over the Pacific and used for growth during periods of strength. If an airline uses all new generation aircraft, they have few options to economically park aircraft in downturns.

Delta has widebodies?

jbs2886 wrote:

ehaase wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

Personally, I don't believe the 787 is out of the running for DL, DL is big enough and sophisticated enough to handle multiple aircraft types.

If Boeing offers the MOM plane, I think Delta would place a significant order someday to replace many 763ER's and 753's. I don't know what a 787 would accomplish for Delta that the 359 and 339 won't do.

I agree re: MOM. The 789 is smaller than an A359 and could do longer range routes. But, yes, there would be substantial overlap in capabilities - which is my point - DL can have aircraft in the same category. See A321 and 737-900ER (no question a 737-900ER can perform every route so far an A321 is on) and the A330HGW with 777s (a bit different in timing, but a comparable category). I think we focus too much on airlines can only have 1 aircraft per category - when it comes to this huge airlines, that theory doesn't always apply.

A350-900 has longer range than 787-9 at typical seating?

okie73 wrote:

Delta has widebodies?

laugh....

so many so that Delta is the 3rd largest widebody operator in the world based on block hours flown.

Emirates flies about 100,000 widebody block hours this month, United will fly about 74,000 and Delta will fly about 71,000

LAX772LR wrote:

...and paying $X,000,000 per month on each one of those aircraft, against 77Es that have been paid off for a decade and fully amortized.

So yes you're saving on fuel costs, but you're also paying through the ass on acquisition costs.
Let's not get too caught up in melodrama to forget basic details.

I suspect that, on a fully-allocated basis, a brand new 787 with far lower fuel burn and a maintenance holiday does, indeed, have a cost advantage over a 15-year-old 777 on both a seat and trip basis. But I agree it's not as large as just the fuel difference alone would imply. There is no question that much of the 787's fuel cost savings are offset by higher ownership costs. But I think the bigger issue with trying to deploy 777s in a lot of thinner transpacific markets isn't actually the costs at all, but rather the capacity-driven impact on yields. That is the area where, personally, I think the 787 becomes a real discriminator in some cases. Even if the cost penalty on a 777 is fairly small versus a 787, it's carrying around a lot of extra seats that, in many places, are likely unnecessary and/or uneconomical.

All that said, though, I am still skeptical about the true "need" for Delta to have 787s - at least at the moment, and at least in terms of Asia, specifically. The 787 has proven transformational for AA and United, but for different reasons. The 787 has been useful for AA as a tool to develop/solidify markets (Asia, ORD, etc.) where it is at a natural disadvantage. The 787 has been useful for United in developing new/novel transpacific markets where it's the only U.S. player. I don't think either of those dynamics really applies to Delta across the Pacific - Delta is at a natural, structural advantage to AA in terms of network and market presence in Asia, and it's U.S. hubs are unlikely to support lots of thinner transpacific nonstop markets (e.g., secondary China or SIN), anyway, with or without the 787.

The 787-9 and 772 carry about the same number of people so the yield impact is basically between 787-8s and 772ERs.

Further, DL operates 767-300ERs and A330-200 over the Pacific which are smaller on a combined basis than the 787-8 so the impact is not that great on yield.

Further, since AA and UA are not getting rid of 777-200ERs but rather just shifting them elsewhere on their route system, there isn't that much of a system gain. AA specifically is moving 777s to the Atlantic that you described where the same cost/size issue play out.

Interestingly, MSP-CDG is a 777, is this to accommodate MSP-HND in frame rotation?

flymco753 wrote:

Interestingly, MSP-CDG is a 777, is this to accommodate MSP-HND in frame rotation?

e

As I noted, MSP-HND and JFK-TLV are isolated routes for the 777 from those two hubs so the bridge is MSP-CDG, JFK-CDG, and JFK-BCN.

JFK-TLV is going to the 333 which frees up that pair of 777s and COULD remove the 777 from JFK if DL decides to use the other transatlantic 777s elsewhere.

seabosdca wrote:

If they are really going to try to grow the Pacific, they need to do it with A350s. Trying to build out marginal Pacific routes with 777-200ERs is going to be a profit bloodbath when all of the stateside competition is doing the same thing with 787-9s at 25% lower trip cost.

And even then the A359s size makes it a little more challenging to operate profitably compared to 788s/789s. I suspect a lot of feeding the new ICN hub with A350s. Marginal Pacific routes will be a challenge even with the A359.

LAX772LR wrote:

...and paying $X,000,000 per month on each one of those aircraft, against 77Es that have been paid off for a decade and fully amortized.

So yes you're saving on fuel costs, but you're also paying through the ass on acquisition costs.
Let's not get too caught up in melodrama to forget basic details.

Ah, more DL voodoo economics. If that were the most economical long-haul choice, you'd generally see airlines buy used long-haul widebodies and keep whatever they currently have until the wings fall off. Buying new would be the less preferred option.

Ironically, the first plane to fail to cover its variable costs, and therefore be expected to cut back on the route, is the older plane that isn't as economical. Let's not forget the whole details.

atl100million wrote:

The 787-9 and 772 carry about the same number of people so the yield impact is basically between 787-8s and 772ERs.

Further, DL operates 767-300ERs and A330-200 over the Pacific which are smaller on a combined basis than the 787-8 so the impact is not that great on yield.

The 772 is a significant touch larger when you compare apples to apples configurations. It's not big, but it's another 4-8% that has to be filled. Just like how the A330-200 is also a touch larger than the 788 when configured equally.

Interesting DL widebody flight:

- 2017-08-28: DL9770 ATL - TLS B763 N183DN dep. ATL 19:33 - arr. TLS 09:27am (next day)
- 2017-08-30: DL9931 TLS - AMS B763 N183DN dep. TLS 10.00 - arr. AMS 11:20
- 2017-08-31: DL8771 AMS - JFK B763 NXXXDN dep. AMS 14:30 - arr. JFK 16:49 (N183DN could interchange with other DL B763 at AMS)

MSPNWA wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

paid off for a decade and fully amortized.

LAX772LR wrote:

on acquisition costs.

you'd generally see airlines buy used long-haul widebodies and keep whatever they currently have until the wings fall off.

Let's see if you can figure out the two glaringly inherent flaws in that conclusion.

jbs2886 wrote:

factsonly wrote:

Interesting DL widebody flight:

- 2017-08-28: DL9770 ATL - TLS B763 N183DN dep. ATL 19:33 - arr. TLS 09:27am (next day)
- 2017-08-30: DL9931 TLS - AMS B763 N183DN dep. TLS 10.00 - arr. AMS 11:20
- 2017-08-31: DL8771 AMS - JFK B763 NXXXDN dep. AMS 14:30 - arr. JFK 16:49 (N183DN could interchange with other DL B763 at AMS)

Saw on twitter last night that the 763 on ATL-TLS was to bring crew to pick up the next A359. I find it interesting DL would send an entire flight over for that, but I guess its the most efficient method.

w

DL isn't sending an entire 767 over just to carry the crew.

LAX772LR wrote:

Let's see if you can figure out the two glaringly inherent flaws in that conclusion.

Going to be challenging for me to find a flaw in that logic when there isn't one.

If you're a wise as you attempt to front, it should be easy for you to tell us how you're right.

MSPNWA wrote:

Going to be challenging for me to find a flaw in that logic when there isn't one.

So in other words, you can't figure it out.
Gee, shocking.

First, that statement was particularly inane in its application, due to the fact that in general DELTA DOES NOT BUY USED WIDEBODIES. Or at least they haven't in the span of nearly two decades.

Thus, why you'd attribute some form of allegedly "voodoo economics" to DL, based on a practice that they don't even engage in, is anyone's guess.... but it is well in line with your history of anti-Delta concoctions that have no rational basis, so there's that.


As for the second, someone already gave it away:

jbs2886 wrote:

The flaw is that a fully paid-off aircraft is different from purchasing a used aircraft. For example, its cheaper for me to drive my car with no payments than it is to buy a used car with payments, even if those payments are half of what I would pay for a new car.

LAX772LR wrote:

seabosdca wrote:

If they are really going to try to grow the Pacific, they need to do it with A350s. Trying to build out marginal Pacific routes with 777-200ERs is going to be a profit bloodbath when all of the stateside competition is doing the same thing with 787-9s at 25% lower trip cost.

...and paying $X,000,000 per month on each one of those aircraft, against 77Es that have been paid off for a decade and fully amortized.

So yes you're saving on fuel costs, but you're also paying through the ass on acquisition costs.
Let's not get too caught up in melodrama to forget basic details.

The inability to grasp that fact alone kept multiple DC9 retirement threads flying furiously on a.net .

jbs2886 wrote:

The flaw is that a fully paid-off aircraft is different from purchasing a used aircraft. For example, its cheaper for me to drive my car with no payments than it is to buy a used car with payments, even if those payments are half of what I would pay for a new car.

Buying a used aircraft with payments isn't the premise. Read it all again closely. LAX772LR's counterargument stated that by having a paid-for long-haul aircraft without large payments, the overall economics of an older 777 are implied to be somewhere in the ballpark of competitive or maybe even better than that compared to buying a new aircraft and replacing it. I'll say it again. If that theory was accurate in the long-haul sector, in general we would be seeing airlines shy away from new aircraft, keep what they have until the wings fall off (no payments), and tend to look for used aircraft that have lost most of their value for fleet replacement/expansion. Clearly, that's not what we generally see in the industry. Inefficient long-haul aircraft have nowhere to hide unlike sometimes their short-haul brethren. There's no niche routes where the higher costs are greatly mitigated. New airplanes are still advanced enough to put most previous generations into early retirement because the overall economic picture is in favor of new aircraft at a certain point.

Economically what really matters on whether an aircraft is flown or not is if the revenue is higher than the variable costs. And that's where less efficient long-haul aircraft have difficulty in a competitive environment. They're the first to be trimmed, if the adjustment is made purely on the single route economics and not kept as a loss-leader for the "greater good of the network".

LAX772LR wrote:

So in other words, you can't figure it out.
Gee, shocking.

First, that statement was particularly inane in its application, due to the fact that in general DELTA DOES NOT BUY USED WIDEBODIES. Or at least they haven't in the span of nearly two decades.

Thus, why you'd attribute some form of allegedly "voodoo economics" to DL, based on a practice that they don't even engage in, is anyone's guess.... but it is well in line with your history of anti-Delta concoctions that have no rational basis, so there's that.

As for the second, someone already gave it away:

You don't know what you're talking about again. Another strike for you is that you jump on jbs2886's incorrect interpretation. Clearly you didn't understand the theory presented either. Read above. You also now correctly state that DL generally doesn't buy used widebodies. However that data point also runs contrary to the theory behind your argument that "paying through the ass" on acquisition costs flips the economics significantly back in the direction of older aircraft. Just a couple more nails in the coffin of whatever you were trying to fight back with against what seabosdca said. That's the real bottom line here. seabosdca's assessment was correct, and there wasn't a need to inaccurately defend against it.

MSPNWA wrote:

Buying a used aircraft with payments isn't the premise.

It's also an factor that cannot be summarily dismissed, as you appear to be doing.

MSPNWA wrote:

If that theory was accurate in the long-haul sector, in general we would be seeing airlines shy away from new aircraft, keep what they have until the wings fall off (no payments)

We DO see that.

Airlines like UA, BA, CX, TG, etc are all still flying 777s that are 23yrs old, with no immediate intention of retiring them.
AF, LH, SN, JL, NH, KE, OZ, etc are all flying longhaul widebodies age 20 and older, with again no immediate retirement at hand.

Heck, DL's oldest 77E is only 18, and some are a half-decade younger.

MSPNWA wrote:

and tend to look for used aircraft that have lost most of their value for fleet replacement/expansion.

Yet again, you're adding something that doesn't exist by the airline in question; and attempting to pass it off as a parallel.
Once you add acquisition cost of ANY kind to the equation, the economics significantly change.

As to why you have difficulty grasping it, after multiple people have brought it to your attention, I'm at a loss. But repeating it doesn't change the incongruity between the theoretical you're proposing, and the actual practice that DL and others are operating.

MSPNWA wrote:

Clearly, that's not what we generally see in the industry.

*buzz* Wrong. See above.

Aircraft change effective 8/29:
- MSP-HNL 3x weekly seasonal flight comes to an end effective 8/27 (was operated by 333)

LAX772LR wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

Buying a used aircraft with payments isn't the premise.

It's also an factor that cannot be summarily dismissed, as you appear to be doing.

MSPNWA wrote:

If that theory was accurate in the long-haul sector, in general we would be seeing airlines shy away from new aircraft, keep what they have until the wings fall off (no payments)

We DO see that.

Airlines like UA, BA, CX, TG, etc are all still flying 777s that are 23yrs old, with no immediate intention of retiring them.
AF, LH, SN, JL, NH, KE, OZ, etc are all flying longhaul widebodies age 20 and older, with again no immediate retirement at hand.

Heck, DL's oldest 77E is only 18, and some are a half-decade younger.

MSPNWA wrote:

and tend to look for used aircraft that have lost most of their value for fleet replacement/expansion.

Yet again, you're adding something that doesn't exist by the airline in question; and attempting to pass it off as a parallel.
Once you add acquisition cost of ANY kind to the equation, the economics significantly change.

As to why you have difficulty grasping it, after multiple people have brought it to your attention, I'm at a loss. But repeating it doesn't change the incongruity between the theoretical you're proposing, and the actual practice that DL and others are operating.

MSPNWA wrote:

Clearly, that's not what we generally see in the industry.

*buzz* Wrong. See above.

Just to add to your point, airlines have recently been retiring their 747-400 fleets because the cost of maintaining and fuel inefficiencies have reached a point where the cost of acquiring new generation aircraft is overcome.
Paid for 767s and 777s are still at a point where it is just as cheap to keep them while adding new generation aircraft for growth and to create an economy of scale as those older aircraft maintenance and fuel costs begin to make the cost of replacement worthwhile.
It sounded better in my head, but hopefully you guys get the gist of what I'm saying. It's been a long day.

jbs2886 wrote:

atl100million wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

Saw on twitter last night that the 763 on ATL-TLS was to bring crew to pick up the next A359. I find it interesting DL would send an entire flight over for that, but I guess its the most efficient method.

w

DL isn't sending an entire 767 over just to carry the crew.

I'm just reporting what I saw. Do you have information to contradict me?

It's bringing the crew, and the Chairman's Club nominees (recognized employees) to fly on the delivery flight.

777Mech wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

atl100million wrote:

w

DL isn't sending an entire 767 over just to carry the crew.

I'm just reporting what I saw. Do you have information to contradict me?

It's bringing the crew, and the Chairman's Club nominees (recognized employees) to fly on the delivery flight.

Nice touch, but at first thought it sounds quite expensive compared to a transfer at AMS or CDG on a regular DL flight. Is it to provide the best experience for a handful of recognized employees? That would be impressive on the part of DL. Or are we talking about 100+ recognized employees?