DeSpringbokke wrote:

With the A330-900 NEOs range reaching 6550 nm, it can cover all present SEA-Asia flying, LAX-HND/PVG, and MSP-HND. No need for such a long range aircraft as the A350-900. Combo of the 77L and A350 can handle everything 13+ hours. Think the talk of the A350-1000 is premature and will be made relevant when the 77L will eventually need to be retired.

Good luck flying an A339, even with 250t, US west coast to Far East , especially PVG, in winter with a decent payload. Japan sure, korea probably, PVG not likely. Airbus says the A333ceo can do 6350nm too, in real life operations its really a 5000+nm plane. Now an A338 would probably be fine for routes to the Asian mainland from LAX year round.

trex8 wrote:

DeSpringbokke wrote:

With the A330-900 NEOs range reaching 6550 nm, it can cover all present SEA-Asia flying, LAX-HND/PVG, and MSP-HND. No need for such a long range aircraft as the A350-900. Combo of the 77L and A350 can handle everything 13+ hours. Think the talk of the A350-1000 is premature and will be made relevant when the 77L will eventually need to be retired.

Good luck flying an A339, even with 250t, US west coast to Far East , especially PVG, in winter with a decent payload. Japan sure, korea probably, PVG not likely. Airbus says the A333ceo can do 6350nm too, in real life operations its really a 5000+nm plane. Now an A338 would probably be fine for routes to the Asian mainland from LAX year round.

Delta has already said it will be flying the A330-900 NEO on West Coast-Asia. Delta flies 767s, which has a good bit shorter range than the A330-900 NEO on SEA-ICN/PEK/PVG and in the past has flown it on LAX-HND and even briefly used it on MSP-NRT. Delta is currently flying the 242 tonne version of the A330-300 on JFK-TLV, which is slightly shorter than SEA-PVG. LAX-PVG/SEA-HKG would probably be pushing the plane to the limit. Delta is going to start flying the 777-200ER on SEA-HKG next Spring for good it appears. If the A330-900 NEO can't handle it, at least the 242 tonne version, the 777-200ER is probably going to stay until..... Delta's A330-200s have a slightly shorter range than the projected A330-900 NEO range and they've flown routes as long as DTW-PEK, which is really pushing the aircraft beyond its limits. In regards to payload, Airbus's projected range factors in higher capacity for the A330-900 NEO over the A330-300. Seeing as Delta's A330-300s are on the dense side, it shouldn't be too much of a push.

ctrabs0114 wrote:

Ronaldo747 wrote:

No doubt the first 100 will replace 757s and domestic 767s ops. The second 100 will replace (some of) the 737-800s. I would expect a A320neo order to replace the rest of the 738s, A319 and the MDs as well. Delta is slowly turning into an all Airbus-fleet including the C-Series.

It's your own fault, Boeing. Time to quickly stop the Bombardier rant and dissociate from the Trump administration or you will loose more customers.

Congrats to Airbus. It's a great deal.

Well, if that's the case, then I better get those DL 737 and 757 flights in soon. Because you couldn't pay me to fly on any Airbus jet.

And the best part is that no one would be stupid enough to pay you to fly on an Airbus anyway. You have to pay to fly in one just as you have to pay to fly on any plane, you just get a wider seat on a less noisy plane, that’s all. I honestly don’t get people that say this kind of stuff. On what are you basing this bias/opinion/whatever it is off of? I am genuinely curious.

OA412 wrote:

All signs point to DL been extremely aggressive on aircraft pricing, hence their willingness to purchase older aircraft to supplement their fleet. I can't imagine they didn't get a great deal on this order. So then, one has to ask about Kirby's comment re: UA not taking the A321NEO because of the MFN pricing with AA. I can't begin to imagine DL paid anything more than AA did for these aircraft, and if DL agreed to that price, then it must be pretty great.

Global demand for this A321NEO is high. There are 2500 in the backlog. Delta and Boeing needed this order more than Airbus. Likely Delta pays a reasonable price. Reality sucks.

Cactusjuba wrote:

Thanks AA737-823 and Cactusjuba for these 2 posts. Very informative and without the banter of either sides' fanboys.This is the stuff that a lot of people joined Anet for.

Well said, lets have more expertise on A.net, please

Are the proposed seats for their 2020 A321NEO's comparable to the present seating arrangements on their B763's?

Any A321neoLR in the mix? I was thinking it could enable DL to fly to smaller UK cities.

In sum total, DL buying 100 A321neo's comes to one very plausible reason: replace the aging 752 fleet. We'll see it on many transcon flights from ATL, for starters.

Delta obviously has reasons to be ticked off with Boeing. But that does not mean cutting off your nose to spite your face. However fleet planning for the future has a lot of imponderables. If they buy 737s we might do the future this way, if we buy 320s we do the future that way. So Delta may favor that second future because Boeing was not friendly. There is absolutely no paper trail as to the future Delta favored. And no decision based on spite. Loser: Boeing

Excellent decision Delta! People can say this had nothing to do with Boeing's behavior all they want, but if you are Boeing and you blatently screw over a huge parter (Delta) the way they did, how can you possibly expect it to result in anything but lost revenue.

I enjoy the 757, but the Dreamliner is an accident waiting to happen, and the 737 is, well, enough already..little pet peave about the 737-900 which I fly probably 10 or more times a year, the air seeps out of the overhead vents, unlike every other plane on earth where it blasts out. May seem like a little thing but its not for me, and just shows yet another way, the attention to detail from Boeing is lacking.

Cant wait to see more A350-9, eventually A350-1000XWB, all these A321neo beauties, and the wonderful Bombardiers flying in DL colors.
#BoeingGetitTogether

So Boeing screwed DL over by going after Bombadier, but DL did not screw Boeing over by cancelling the 787 order and placing a hit on the 777 residual value?? Ok, I don't agree with that logic but fine.

As for the USA protectionist theory which dominates, I would love to know who the foreigners are who despite USA ownership rule allowed US Airways, NW, UA and other USA carriers like Frontier, Spirit, JetBlue etc to become such large users of Airbus a/c? Some time ago US Airways was the largest operator of Airbus a/c, not sure if still the case but with AA now involved, I would not be shocked to see USA carriers fighting among themselves to see which one of them is the largest operator of Airbus a/c, this can occur because their fleet sizes are large.

DeSpringbokke wrote:

T773ER wrote:

DeSpringbokke wrote:

Care to share how you received this information?

It's what's being said internally from Delta.

Thanks. According the A350 site, 12 A350s are projected to be on the property by the end of next year. Interesting Delta wants an additional three. Maybe more than a few more 767-300ERs headed to the desert after next summer? If they can get those in, its the same as when the order was initially placed, six in 2017 and nine in 2018, except the rest are deferred (not really). I knew when they deferred the aircraft it was going to translate into a conversion into more A330-900 NEOs or A321 NEOs. With the announcement the other day, I can assume it will be more A330-900 NEOs. With the A330-900 NEOs range reaching 6550 nm, it can cover all present SEA-Asia flying, LAX-HND/PVG, and MSP-HND. No need for such a long range aircraft as the A350-900. Combo of the 77L and A350 can handle everything 13+ hours. Think the talk of the A350-1000 is premature and will be made relevant when the 77L will eventually need to be retired.

Not surprised at all of the CSeries. When it was announced that only the first 35 were guaranteed to be CS100s, I assumed the rest would be delivered as CS300s. Interesting Delta appears to headed to take on all 50 CS300 options. Possible pushing Airbus to move forward with the CS500? With all the aircraft ordered, by the end of 2023, it sounds like Delta will have retired the MD-90s, A320s, and domestic 757s. The NEO options sound like an eventual opening to the A320 NEO to replace the 737s by the end of next decade and possibly the LR version of the A321 NEO to replace the International 757s, assuming the LR performs in real life as well as the 75S fleet.

Part of the deal included heavily discounted sim time for the 350 to train more crews faster, possibility tied to AA deferring their order and freeing up very cheap sim time that airbus was able to offer.

par13del wrote:

So Boeing screwed DL over by going after Bombadier, but DL did not screw Boeing over by cancelling the 787 order and placing a hit on the 777 residual value?? Ok, I don't agree with that logic but fine.

Anderson merely pointed out the truth. If anything, he prevented a worse bubble scenario from happening.As to the 787 cancellation, I doubt Boeing was upset about the cancellation of launch-pricing 787s. The program is doing well, and the DL cancellation just means that slots were opened up for more profitable sales.

(this next part is just a general statement, and not for you specifically, par13del)

In general, I feel all this angst about US airlines not buying Boeing planes is misguided. It's a globalized world now. There's plenty of US parts in Airbus planes, and plenty of non-US parts in Boeing planes. In addition, there's plenty of majority-Boeing fleets at non-US airlines.

Corporations have grown bigger than countries. Just because the head office is in a particular country, it doesn't really say much about where the product is from. If you want to do something good for your country, don't waste your energy caring about what planes an airline is flying. Instead, be concerned about where your corporations are keeping/sending their money. Far too much currency is being locked up in tax dodging schemes, instead of being circulated inside the economies of companies' host countries.

keesje wrote:

OA412 wrote:

All signs point to DL been extremely aggressive on aircraft pricing, hence their willingness to purchase older aircraft to supplement their fleet. I can't imagine they didn't get a great deal on this order. So then, one has to ask about Kirby's comment re: UA not taking the A321NEO because of the MFN pricing with AA. I can't begin to imagine DL paid anything more than AA did for these aircraft, and if DL agreed to that price, then it must be pretty great.

Global demand for this A321NEO is high. There are 2500 in the backlog. Delta and Boeing needed this order more than Airbus. Likely Delta pays a reasonable price. Reality sucks.

The way Delta runs it’s campaigns is that once the technical qualifications are met, qualifying products are competed on price with some qualities like additional seats or lower maintenance costs assigned a value that helps price. The lowest priced product wins.

By most accounts, the gap between Airbus and Boeing was more than $500M, with most of that attributed to guarantees from PW, both on maintenance costs and overhaul revenue. If PW wasn’t struggling with market share, the outcome of the campaign could have been different as the acquisition price of the airplanes didn’t give a clear distinction.

aerolimani wrote:

Anderson merely pointed out the truth. If anything, he prevented a worse bubble scenario from happening.

No, Anderson made a complete fabrication on the 777 pricing. He tried to equate scrap value with actual working examples.

We don't know what went on behind the scenes beforehand, but publicly DL made multiple financial-based attacks on Boeing. Boeing eventually countered. You can only beat someone so long before it strikes back. This order in favor of Airbus has been in drying cement for years. It's finally set now.

MSPNWA wrote:

aerolimani wrote:

Anderson merely pointed out the truth. If anything, he prevented a worse bubble scenario from happening.

No, Anderson made a complete fabrication on the 777 pricing. He tried to equate scrap value with actual working examples.

We don't know what went on behind the scenes beforehand, but publicly DL made multiple financial-based attacks on Boeing. Boeing eventually countered. You can only beat someone so long before it strikes back. This order in favor of Airbus has been in drying cement for years. It's finally set now.

The one remark RA made about the used 777 pricing is multiple attacks? Not know how to count?? Any wonder why NWA is just a memory now.

sxf24 wrote:

keesje wrote:

OA412 wrote:

All signs point to DL been extremely aggressive on aircraft pricing, hence their willingness to purchase older aircraft to supplement their fleet. I can't imagine they didn't get a great deal on this order. So then, one has to ask about Kirby's comment re: UA not taking the A321NEO because of the MFN pricing with AA. I can't begin to imagine DL paid anything more than AA did for these aircraft, and if DL agreed to that price, then it must be pretty great.

Global demand for this A321NEO is high. There are 2500 in the backlog. Delta and Boeing needed this order more than Airbus. Likely Delta pays a reasonable price. Reality sucks.

The way Delta runs it’s campaigns is that once the technical qualifications are met, qualifying products are competed on price with some qualities like additional seats or lower maintenance costs assigned a value that helps price. The lowest priced product wins.

By most accounts, the gap between Airbus and Boeing was more than $500M, with most of that attributed to guarantees from PW, both on maintenance costs and overhaul revenue. If PW wasn’t struggling with market share, the outcome of the campaign could have been different as the acquisition price of the airplanes didn’t give a clear distinction.

Sxf24, all companies should do a present value analysis.

I wish I could claim Pratt wasn't having to under-price. Fuel burn is helping Pratt. Otherwise...

lightsaber wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

keesje wrote:

Global demand for this A321NEO is high. There are 2500 in the backlog. Delta and Boeing needed this order more than Airbus. Likely Delta pays a reasonable price. Reality sucks.

The way Delta runs it’s campaigns is that once the technical qualifications are met, qualifying products are competed on price with some qualities like additional seats or lower maintenance costs assigned a value that helps price. The lowest priced product wins.

By most accounts, the gap between Airbus and Boeing was more than $500M, with most of that attributed to guarantees from PW, both on maintenance costs and overhaul revenue. If PW wasn’t struggling with market share, the outcome of the campaign could have been different as the acquisition price of the airplanes didn’t give a clear distinction.

Sxf24, all companies should do a present value analysis.

I wish I could claim Pratt wasn't having to under-price. Fuel burn is helping Pratt. Otherwise...

Delta is somewhat unique in that there’s not really a technical competition. If the product meets the requirements it’s included in the competition. If it doesn’t, it is excluded. Delta doesn’t give value to a plane that can fly farther, etc.

Trying to say the A321 won at Delta because the A321 is a better plane is false. The A321 won because Delta received better commercial terms from Airbus and PW.

767333ER wrote:

jetjack74 wrote:

dash400 wrote:

LUCKY Delta Flight Attendants ! I sure wish we (at UNITED) ordered Airbus narrowbodies. I love working them , especially the A319s ! Can't stand working of 737s. I am happy though that we will be working to Tahiti from my home (and home base) of San Francisco. But still, would MUCH, MUCH rather work on Airbuses than 37s !! Hands down !

We’re not very excited about more Airbus aircraft because the company has decided to make our once great A320 fleet unworkable due mgmt putting the lavatories IN our aft galley. At least the 737 fleet gives us a work space

The same configuration as you describe is also available on the 737. See Air Canada’s seat map of the 737-8.

Well, then I imagine for our bigwigs its a tantalizing thought to do the same with those aircraft as well.

sxf24 wrote:

Trying to say the A321 won at Delta because the A321 is a better plane is false. The A321 won because Delta received better commercial terms from Airbus and PW.

Did you write to your congressman yet?

sxf24 wrote:

Trying to say the A321 won at Delta because the A321 is a better plane is false. The A321 won because Delta received better commercial terms from Airbus and PW.

I don’t think so. I think it won because of better payload-range, sfc, engines, cabin, cockpit, better noise levels and fleet commonality and lower risk. Therefor Delta was willing to pay a bit more than for the 737-10. Value for money.

keesje wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

Trying to say the A321 won at Delta because the A321 is a better plane is false. The A321 won because Delta received better commercial terms from Airbus and PW.

I don’t think so. I think it won because of better payload-range, sfc, engines, cabin, cockpit, better noise levels and fleet commonality and lower risk. Therefor Delta was willing to pay a bit more than for the 737-10. Value for money.

Delta doesn’t care about greater range, cockpit, cabin, noise level, or any other marketing stuff.

The A321 offers a few more seats, which would play into Delta’s analysis (and presumably be negated by a lower 737-10 price). Any SFC differential under Delta’s rules would also play into the analysis.

Both airplanes met all of Delta’s technical requirements, otherwise they wouldn’t have been evaluated. The A321 won because its NPV was the best, not because of any of the reasons you listed.

Oh no. Please don't tell me they're gonna use them for transcon flights like JFK-LAX and replace the 757/767's on those routes.

mikedelta720 wrote:

Oh no. Please don't tell me they're gonna use them for transcon flights like JFK-LAX and replace the 757/767's on those routes.

I'm sure they'll replace some of the 757's with the first round of NEO's (those built before '95) - but it looks like the top priority is the MD's. The Delta presentation from Thursday did not mention the 757's, just the 747's, MD-88/90's, and 50 seat RJ's for replacement. In addition, they only referred to "smaller" aircraft than the A321, which further makes me wonder if the 752's will last the next 10 years.

I don't know if they plan on to continue using the remaining 763ER's on transcon flights - but I doubt it will continue given the NEO's performance.

The early '90s A320's are likely to get the ax too - they'll be pushing 30 by the time the NEO's arrive .

questions wrote:

mat66 wrote:

Just looked at delta's A321 seat map. With the new door arrangement they could possibly go from 20 - 29 - 143 = 192 to 20 - 36 - 143 = 199 by installing 7 Y+ seats where doors 2 used to be. Or as their 757 highest configuration 20 - 29 - 150 = 199. Does Delta usually have 4 or 5 FA on the A321/757? I'm asking because of the 20 first class seats and the increased service/time those Pax get.

What new door arrangement?

replace the second door with two over wing exits.

sxf24 wrote:

keesje wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

Trying to say the A321 won at Delta because the A321 is a better plane is false. The A321 won because Delta received better commercial terms from Airbus and PW.

I don’t think so. I think it won because of better payload-range, sfc, engines, cabin, cockpit, better noise levels and fleet commonality and lower risk. Therefor Delta was willing to pay a bit more than for the 737-10. Value for money.

Delta doesn’t care about greater range, cockpit, cabin, noise level, or any other marketing stuff.

The A321 offers a few more seats, which would play into Delta’s analysis (and presumably be negated by a lower 737-10 price). Any SFC differential under Delta’s rules would also play into the analysis.

Both airplanes met all of Delta’s technical requirements, otherwise they wouldn’t have been evaluated. The A321 won because its NPV was the best, not because of any of the reasons you listed.

Sour grapes? The A321neo will fly the same payload a longer distance or a higher payload the same distance. You have to be a mental contortionist to declare that will not have an influence on a buyers decision. The moment you think about medium distance work the A321 is the obvious choice.
Why do you think airlines do not care about noise levels? Noise is one of the great points in the near future, some airports start to connect noise to airport fees.
So it goes with other advantages that are not primary, but can play a role if everything else is equal.
Boeing will have to offer a lower price for a 737-10 to beat out a A321neo.

Remember this is Anet where Airbus can only win orders due to low pricing and not because - heaven forbid - they just offer the better product

In the end I think the engine MRO deal was the decisive factor. Over the lifetime of the fleet it makes a big difference if you can do the overhauls in house and even offer the service to third parties or if you have to sent the engines for overhaul to the OEM.

mjoelnir wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

keesje wrote:

I don’t think so. I think it won because of better payload-range, sfc, engines, cabin, cockpit, better noise levels and fleet commonality and lower risk. Therefor Delta was willing to pay a bit more than for the 737-10. Value for money.

Delta doesn’t care about greater range, cockpit, cabin, noise level, or any other marketing stuff.

The A321 offers a few more seats, which would play into Delta’s analysis (and presumably be negated by a lower 737-10 price). Any SFC differential under Delta’s rules would also play into the analysis.

Both airplanes met all of Delta’s technical requirements, otherwise they wouldn’t have been evaluated. The A321 won because its NPV was the best, not because of any of the reasons you listed.

Sour grapes? The A321neo will fly the same payload a longer distance or a higher payload the same distance. You have to be a mental contortionist to declare that will not have an influence on a buyers decision. The moment you think about medium distance work the A321 is the obvious choice.
Why do you think airlines do not care about noise levels? Noise is one of the great points in the near future, some airports start to connect noise to airport fees.
So it goes with other advantages that are not primary, but can play a role if everything else is equal.
Boeing will have to offer a lower price for a 737-10 to beat out a A321neo.

Also let us not forget the projected resale value 10-15 years from now of an A321NEO vs a 737-10.

CFRPwingALbody wrote:

Look at the Delta Fleet, after 20-28 years planes have to be replaced. So the 717's have at least 3.9-11.9 years of service life to go. Delta's MD88's and 747-400 are really old. Then come the A320's, 767-300's 767-300ER's, MD90's, 757-200's.
I think the CS100 will go to Delta, only several years later. So the A321NEO's will replace: MD88, MD90, A320 and A321LR the 757-200 or a new MOM has to come to market within five years time.

Let's add a link to Delta's current A321's, removal of door-pair two adds 5 seats (1E+ & 4E) (and a lavatory).

No it adds 1 row of 6 & 1 seat that was an FA position no longer required as there is not a door there.

lightsaber wrote:

Channex757 wrote:

SCAT15F wrote:

The BR-710 engines used by the 717 are pretty new technology- definitely newer and more advanced than the CFM's on the 737NG /A320ceo and that's a big part of what makes the 717 so desired by airlines. The BR700 engine family keeps improving as well, with the BR-715 on the super successful G650

They are still a technology generation older than the latest motors. The PW especially has room to further reduce its fuel burn.

The most important qualifier in my post is the word "eventually". The 717 has a replacement already lined up, so eventually the C Series will be its replacement and fit nicely into the plans of Delta. It should be a deal like previous aircraft where as they come up against major overhauls then they get parked.

The BR-715 is not efficient by today's standard. As much as the 717 is loved on a.net, it didn't sell well as the A319 and 73G make more money.

The C-series has a larger, more aerodynamic wing, better engines, and even lower maintenance costs.

The 717 did not sell well because Boeing pushed airlines toward 737's. The 717-300 proposed specs showed it would have been quite good, but Boeing wanted to sell 737-600 & 700 series that had similar seating and commonality with their larger sister the -800. Turned out the 737-600 did not sell well as CASM was too close to the 737-700. So flying the larger plane was usually better if they could sell a few more seats. Friends worked sales back then and noted it was standard to steer it to the 737 and let the 717's extra line & different parts wither.

rbavfan wrote:

CFRPwingALbody wrote:

Look at the Delta Fleet, after 20-28 years planes have to be replaced. So the 717's have at least 3.9-11.9 years of service life to go. Delta's MD88's and 747-400 are really old. Then come the A320's, 767-300's 767-300ER's, MD90's, 757-200's.
I think the CS100 will go to Delta, only several years later. So the A321NEO's will replace: MD88, MD90, A320 and A321LR the 757-200 or a new MOM has to come to market within five years time.

Let's add a link to Delta's current A321's, removal of door-pair two adds 5 seats (1E+ & 4E) (and a lavatory).

No it adds 1 row of 6 & 1 seat that was an FA position no longer required as there is not a door there.

Sorry I still disagree. Let's post to links to Delta A321CEO and the A321NEO ACF order announcement.
The A321CEO has four door pares, 20F, 29E+ & 143E seats, so in total 192seats.
The A321NEO ACF has three door pares and two over wing exits, 20F, 30E+ & 147E, so in total 197 seats.
The difference between CEO & NEO ACF = 1x E+ & 4x E, and door pare 2 replaced by two over wing exits.
I agree there should be space for three additional seats. So Delta used this for a galley or lavatory module.
(Possibly Delta chose for the full aft galley and two wide lavatories at the rear)
We'll have to wait ~2years before we know for sure how Delta configured their A321NEO's.

I think the A321's are mostly replacements for 757-200 (757,75D, 75G, 75H).
I agree A321LR can't really replace the long range 757-200 (75S), it lags a bit of range. And there is on replacement for the 757-300 (75Y), though A322 (3-4m [~ 10-13'] stretch before wing) could replace it.
To reach the range and payload of the 757 Airbus has to develop larger wings for the A32xNEO.

I find it odd that Boeing only offers one engine option for the 737 and two engine options for the 787. Airbus offers two engine options on the A32xNEO and one on the A33xNEO and A35x. (The A380 will go to one engine option). I think Airbus would like to offer two engine options for the A330 & A350, but they screwed their relations with GE (Leeham). So GE prefers offering their engines (GEnx & GE90/9x) to Boeing.

I think the main factor for Delta preferring the A321NEO ACF with P&W GTF was the engine maintenance work.
But the wider A321 gives Delta the option for a wider aisle (faster boarding time) or wider seats (more comfort).
Delta's A321CEO's look to be optimized for boarding time.

Sancho99504 wrote:

My curiosity peaks to wonder if DL will take the opportunity that LR gives with the higher MTOW to be able to take the mail and cargo that the 757s do on transcons?

DL now has enough late model 757-200s (~35) to probably support a Transcon and TATL operation for the next 5 to 7 years. So DL has roughly 4-5 years before it has to make a firm 757 replacement strategy. At that point, I feel, DL has to made a decision between an A321LR/A339 plan vs. Boeing MOM plan. Over the past few years, Delta has been moving more and more towards a AMS/CDG hub strategy. An A321/A339 plan would seem to move more in that direction as the 321LR doesn't have the legs for really long routes and the 339 seems like it might be too much aircraft for routes that are marginal to DL, i.e. JFK/ATL to 3rd tier Europe, central and Eastern Europe, plus smaller DL markets like CPH, ARN, etc. In which case it would make sense for DL to look at the 321LRs as a Transcon/short TATL sub-fleet. Probably heavy on premium seating and therefore capable of holding more belly cargo.

Now, venturing away from your comment: If DL can get some A321LRs earlier, the DL could make a strong pre-strike offensive play against B6 (which I would argue BOS-DUB currently is) by adding more narrow body flights between BOS and JFK to Western Europe.

You can't fit a P&W GTF under a 737.You can even fit the full size GE engine the 737 is a cropped fan which is one of the reasons it's economics fall to pieces over longer duration routes compared to the 320 NEO.

From what I have read (depending on configuration) the A321NEO LR has all of the range of a 752 (little bit more in fact).But what it does lose is the ability to carry cargo.How important this is depends on the route in question.Of course this is not the case for shorter legs.
However on the plus side (and it's an enormous plus) is that it consumes up to 30% less fuel than a 752 in doing so.Thats absolutely massive $$$.

mjoelnir wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

keesje wrote:

I don’t think so. I think it won because of better payload-range, sfc, engines, cabin, cockpit, better noise levels and fleet commonality and lower risk. Therefor Delta was willing to pay a bit more than for the 737-10. Value for money.

Delta doesn’t care about greater range, cockpit, cabin, noise level, or any other marketing stuff.

The A321 offers a few more seats, which would play into Delta’s analysis (and presumably be negated by a lower 737-10 price). Any SFC differential under Delta’s rules would also play into the analysis.

Both airplanes met all of Delta’s technical requirements, otherwise they wouldn’t have been evaluated. The A321 won because its NPV was the best, not because of any of the reasons you listed.

Sour grapes? The A321neo will fly the same payload a longer distance or a higher payload the same distance. You have to be a mental contortionist to declare that will not have an influence on a buyers decision. The moment you think about medium distance work the A321 is the obvious choice.
Why do you think airlines do not care about noise levels? Noise is one of the great points in the near future, some airports start to connect noise to airport fees.
So it goes with other advantages that are not primary, but can play a role if everything else is equal.
Boeing will have to offer a lower price for a 737-10 to beat out a A321neo.

I don’t think Delta gives value for extra payload above their requirement or lower noise. Delta cares about its financial statements.

parapente wrote:

You can't fit a P&W GTF under a 737.You can even fit the full size GE engine the 737 is a cropped fan which is one of the reasons it's economics fall to pieces over longer duration routes compared to the 320 NEO.

From what I have read (depending on configuration) the A321NEO LR has all of the range of a 752 (little bit more in fact).But what it does lose is the ability to carry cargo.How important this is depends on the route in question.Of course this is not the case for shorter legs.
However on the plus side (and it's an enormous plus) is that it consumes up to 30% less fuel than a 752 in doing so.Thats absolutely massive $$$.

PW was willing to make a GTF that fit on the 737 but Boeing decided to stick with 1 engine OEM for the 737.

questions wrote:

ual763 wrote:

dash400 wrote:

LUCKY Delta Flight Attendants ! I sure wish we (at UNITED) ordered Airbus narrowbodies. I love working them , especially the A319s ! Can't stand working of 737s. I am happy though that we will be working to Tahiti from my home (and home base) of San Francisco. But still, would MUCH, MUCH rather work on Airbuses than 37s !! Hands down !

Agreed on your FA perspective, but love the 737 much much more from a pilot perspective. But then again, it's all subjective to our personal opinions anyway.

Just curious, can you explain some of the pros and cons. It seems like we hear a lot from passengers. Hearing from pilots would be interesting. Isn’t the 737 cockpit cramped and uncomfortable?

Thanks!

The 737 cockpit is smaller. But, as a pilot, it really doesn't matter to me. The seat is just as big. Really, it only matters for the jumpseat riders. I like how the 737, at least in our fleet, has wool seat covers. The 319/320 series, has standard cloth coverings. It's comfortable, but just not as comfortable to me.

But the main reason I like the 737 more, would have to be the flying characteristics. The 737 to me, feels a lot smoother in the control movements. The Airbus feels very computerized, because it is. I've flown both, and when making slight corrections in bank, like on a windy final for instance, the Airbus just doesn't seem as smooth to me.

As a pilot, I was just bored flying the Airbus. The preflight, for example, consisted of primarily loading the FMS, testing the fire systems, and pressing 6 buttons to turn on the fuel pumps. The 737 had a lot more fancy buttons for me to press, knobs to turn, and switches to flick. Starting an engine on the 737 is also a lot more involved than on the A320. I usually tell people the Airbus is like a car with an automatic transmission, whereas the 737 would be the equivalent of having a manual transmission. With the 737, I get a greater feeling of being one with the machine. With the Airbus, I didn't get that feeling.

Finally, I much prefer the yoke vs. sidestick. I often found my wrists would ache after hand flying long approaches in the 320. Again, it's all personal preference. The only thing I enjoyed about having the side stick, was subsequently having room for a pull out tray to eat my food.

They're both great planes, I just felt like more of a "pilot" on the Boeing aircraft.

mikedelta720 wrote:

Oh no. Please don't tell me they're gonna use them for transcon flights like JFK-LAX and replace the 757/767's on those routes.

I think the A321 is the best transcon platform available at this point. That is why Jetblue, AA use it there.


AA transcon A321

Is there a source (that's not the Boeing or Airbus page) that tracks and compares NEO & MAX orders to date? There used to be pdxlight, but it seems the site owner has stopped updating for a few years now.

keesje wrote:

mikedelta720 wrote:

Oh no. Please don't tell me they're gonna use them for transcon flights like JFK-LAX and replace the 757/767's on those routes.

I think the A321 is the best transcon platform available at this point. That is why Jetblue, AA use it there.


AA transcon A321

As someone who grew up in the widebody era, from a financial numbers perspective, I have to painfully agree.

parapente wrote:

You can't fit a P&W GTF under a 737.You can even fit the full size GE engine the 737 is a cropped fan which is one of the reasons it's economics fall to pieces over longer duration routes compared to the 320 NEO.

From what I have read (depending on configuration) the A321NEO LR has all of the range of a 752 (little bit more in fact).But what it does lose is the ability to carry cargo.How important this is depends on the route in question.Of course this is not the case for shorter legs.
However on the plus side (and it's an enormous plus) is that it consumes up to 30% less fuel than a 752 in doing so.Thats absolutely massive $$$.

As much as some of us love the 757 that much improvement in operating numbers just cannot be ignored.

I'm a bit late to the party, but congrats Airbus and Delta! The A321neo is an excellent choice. I understand some are disappointed they did not select the 737-10, but the PW GTF maintenance program is a huge deal. And Boeing's 300% Bombardier tariff was a slap in Delta's face. So this isn't really a surprise.

keesje wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

Trying to say the A321 won at Delta because the A321 is a better plane is false. The A321 won because Delta received better commercial terms from Airbus and PW.

I don’t think so. I think it won because of better payload-range, sfc, engines, cabin, cockpit, better noise levels and fleet commonality and lower risk. Therefor Delta was willing to pay a bit more than for the 737-10. Value for money.

I do think so, and I think we have a proof point. Last time around, DL chose to order 100 737-900s when they could have had a similar number of A321CEOs ( ref: https://web.archive.org/web/20120331094 ... &item=1428 ). If all those qualities you list were so meaningful, then they would have taken A321CEO over 737-900, but they didn't. Price matters a lot to DL, and this time around the PW engine deal ( and CFM's lack of a counter to that ) is what mattered.

parapente wrote:

You can't fit a P&W GTF under a 737.You can even fit the full size GE engine the 737 is a cropped fan which is one of the reasons it's economics fall to pieces over longer duration routes compared to the 320 NEO.

From what I have read (depending on configuration) the A321NEO LR has all of the range of a 752 (little bit more in fact).But what it does lose is the ability to carry cargo.How important this is depends on the route in question.Of course this is not the case for shorter legs.
However on the plus side (and it's an enormous plus) is that it consumes up to 30% less fuel than a 752 in doing so.Thats absolutely massive $$$.

Yep, it's all about the fish!

parapente wrote:

From what I have read (depending on configuration) the A321NEO LR has all of the range of a 752 (little bit more in fact).But what it does lose is the ability to carry cargo.How important this is depends on the route in question.

via viewtopic.php?t=775119

A321LR has 1t less max payload out to 3200nm
This shrinks with a crossover @3900nm expanding to a 5t advantage 4150nm.
Advantage ~about constant out to zero payload.

mjoelnir wrote:

questions wrote:

mat66 wrote:

Just looked at delta's A321 seat map. With the new door arrangement they could possibly go from 20 - 29 - 143 = 192 to 20 - 36 - 143 = 199 by installing 7 Y+ seats where doors 2 used to be. Or as their 757 highest configuration 20 - 29 - 150 = 199. Does Delta usually have 4 or 5 FA on the A321/757? I'm asking because of the 20 first class seats and the increased service/time those Pax get.

What new door arrangement?

replace the second door with two over wing exits.

I believe this shows the new configuration

WIederling wrote:

parapente wrote:

From what I have read (depending on configuration) the A321NEO LR has all of the range of a 752 (little bit more in fact).But what it does lose is the ability to carry cargo.How important this is depends on the route in question.

via viewtopic.php?t=775119

A321LR has 1t less max payload out to 3200nm
This shrinks with a crossover @3900nm expanding to a 5t advantage 4150nm.
Advantage ~about constant out to zero payload.

You have to be careful with this graph, it shows the 757-200 without winglets, you will find very few like that today. The point for the 757-200 with winglets moves to around 4.050nm instead of the 3.850nm your graph shows, perhaps even +4100nm if they use the new scimitar winglets. The A321neo will have the range and the MTOW, but is severely limited in cargo space with 3 ACTs.

mjoelnir wrote:

You have to be careful with this graph, it shows the 757-200 without winglets, you will find very few like that today.

It does? It says "757-200W".