From the earnings call. So, basically they are going to delay retirements to compensate for the C-Series delay. Not too surprising, but they could have used more regional flying or accelerated other deliveries to possibly patch the gap.

I would assume this strategy will drive a lot of C-Check and engine costs because DL is very good about making sure when an aircraft is parked it has little or nothing left in usable time on the engines and airframe. So extending aircraft will likely push a lot over the line and will require a lot of engine and maintenance expense.

I'm waiting for Delta to be the first large commercial airline to fly a 40 year old plane in the US

enilria wrote:

From the earnings call. So, basically they are going to delay retirements to compensate for the C-Series delay. Not too surprising, but they could have used more regional flying or accelerated other deliveries to possibly patch the gap.

more RJs from where exactly? Delta is at its RJ limits with exception of some 70 seaters but they have replacements ordered for them.
accelerating deliveries how? Delta already has a very aggressive delivery schedule for 739s/321s this year and next. I would be surprised if the training department could handle added 737/321s training by much with such short term forecast.

enilria wrote:

I would assume this strategy will drive a lot of C-Check and engine costs because DL is very good about making sure when an aircraft is parked it has little or nothing left in usable time on the engines and airframe. So extending aircraft will likely push a lot over the line and will require a lot of engine and maintenance expense.

This has been posted basically any thread about MD88 retirements.

And since it has been assumed for a while the CS will be pushed back you wont see a big spike in MX costs as the checks to extend service life has been on going.

even with that the 88s *should* still be done in 2020. It is just going to be more back ended then originally planned.

enilria wrote:

I would assume this strategy will drive a lot of C-Check and engine costs because DL is very good about making sure when an aircraft is parked it has little or nothing left in usable time on the engines and airframe. So extending aircraft will likely push a lot over the line and will require a lot of engine and maintenance expense.

deltal1011man wrote:

And since it has been assumed for a while the CS will be pushed back you wont see a big spike in MX costs as the checks to extend service life has been on going.

Later in the call they admitted there is a spike in maintenance cost as a result of this in an answer to an analyst.

deltal1011man wrote:

more RJs from where exactly? Delta is at its RJ limits with exception of some 70 seaters but they have replacements ordered for them.
accelerating deliveries how? Delta already has a very aggressive delivery schedule for 739s/321s this year and next. I would be surprised if the training department could handle added 737/321s training by much with such short term forecast.

Generally the options when there is a fleet delivery problem are:
1) Utilize a sub-contractor (regional carrier in this case)
2) Take other planes sooner
3) Keep old planes longer

They picked the third one, but those are always the three options if shrinking is off the table.

jubguy3 wrote:

I'm waiting for Delta to be the first large commercial airline to fly a 40 year old plane in the US

Some of the Northwest DC-9s were over 40 years old at the time of the Delta-Northwest merger (for example, N892SE).

Following the ITC flaw logics, a fourth option should have been obtaining more 737-700s, isn't it?

deltal1011man wrote:

And since it has been assumed for a while the CS will be pushed back you wont see a big spike in MX costs as the checks to extend service life has been on going.

even with that the 88s *should* still be done in 2020. It is just going to be more back ended then originally planned.

So we'll see IAE as happy campers overhauling V2500s for the MD-90 fleet. It's reported in other threads the retired MD-90s at BYH are not dead yet, just resting without engines. The recnt parked ones only have 40,000 ish hours on the airframe, so as long as engines are available it's not exactly a difficult thing to keep them flying longer.

Does anyone know how many C series were originally planned for 2018 delivery?

Capn wrote:

Does anyone know how many C series were originally planned for 2018 delivery?

15

enilria wrote:

enilria wrote:

I would assume this strategy will drive a lot of C-Check and engine costs because DL is very good about making sure when an aircraft is parked it has little or nothing left in usable time on the engines and airframe. So extending aircraft will likely push a lot over the line and will require a lot of engine and maintenance expense.

deltal1011man wrote:

And since it has been assumed for a while the CS will be pushed back you wont see a big spike in MX costs as the checks to extend service life has been on going.

Later in the call they admitted there is a spike in maintenance cost as a result of this in an answer to an analyst.

No doubt maintenance costs will go up because engine overhauls and C-checks aren't cheap, but I suspect it's also proportional to the amount of additional flying which will be done. Mostly it creates some extra work for analysts in ATL who will have to figure out a revised retirement schedule to shuffle which ones go first since the issue with the -88s certainly won't be airframe lifetime.

enilria wrote:

Generally the options when there is a fleet delivery problem are:
1) Utilize a sub-contractor (regional carrier in this case)
2) Take other planes sooner
3) Keep old planes longer

They picked the third one, but those are always the three options if shrinking is off the table.

Didn't DL float the idea of taking some used 737s from AM as part of sending the CS100s there?

So..... what aircraft are they extending, the MD88's?

I think in DL's interest they should've taken a few 737-700's in exchange for the CS with AM, therefore it'll allow DL to still draw down 50 seat RJ's and still grow.

Would they return the E190 Boeing deal again...although those have probably been sold by now.
I think the CS100 is better long term, but it almost fits better with DL's strategy.
Possibly even buy B6's E190s in exchange for selling the CS delivery slots to B6.
I know, very unlikely, to help a competitor like that, but its an option not somewhat like the Southwest/AirTran 717 deal.

B6 operating the CS would have the same problems as Delta operating CS: 298% tariffs

jubguy3 wrote:

I'm waiting for Delta to be the first large commercial airline to fly a 40 year old plane in the US

Pretty sure NW/DL had already done that with the DC9's.

SumChristianus wrote:

Would they return the E190 Boeing deal again...although those have probably been sold by now.

Delta took them...they were the ones who sold them off to others acting as a middleman when they decided they will not operate the aircraft.

My impression is that Delta's first batch of C series will replace regional jets, so I would think it would be regional jets, not MD88's, that would be staying little longer.

Super80Fan wrote:

So..... what aircraft are they extending, the MD88's?

MD-80 parts, in particular JT8D parts are in short supply outside of DL and AA. If they are extending MD-80 lives, I would love insight into their parts inventory.

The MD-80/JT8D supply chain was shut down. Vendors can make parts, but no one will like the terms.

Lightsaber

Perhaps WestJet can temporarily take the CSeries and lease some 737s to Delta. It could be part of the reason for their joint-venture.
It would be kind of ironic though...and Boeing would smirk
Some growth may have to be held off, as the CS100 would have been great for opening routes like ATL-BOI, ATL-GEG, SEA-IND, or IAH-LAX.
MD90s may be easier to extend, as there's some commonality with newer types (A320 IAE V2500 engines), right?

lightsaber wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

So..... what aircraft are they extending, the MD88's?

MD-80 parts, in particular JT8D parts are in short supply outside of DL and AA. If they are extending MD-80 lives, I would love insight into their parts inventory.

The MD-80/JT8D supply chain was shut down. Vendors can make parts, but no one will like the terms.

Lightsaber

Alright, how about the MD90's then, I know there were V2500 supplier issues as well, did they resolve it?

deltal1011man wrote:

the 88s *should* still be done in 2020. It is just going to be more back ended then originally planned.

Chapter 5 for new commercial aircraft applies from 31 December 2020. If the FAA follows past practice, will Chapter 4 be the minimum standard for aircraft on the register from the same date, and Chapter 3 gone?

Which aircraft are Chapter 3?.

enilria wrote:

I would assume this strategy will drive a lot of C-Check and engine costs because DL is very good about making sure when an aircraft is parked it has little or nothing left in usable time on the engines and airframe. So extending aircraft will likely push a lot over the line and will require a lot of engine and maintenance expense.

On the other hand they will not have to pay leasing costs or amortization expense.

burnsie28 wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

I'm waiting for Delta to be the first large commercial airline to fly a 40 year old plane in the US

Pretty sure NW/DL had already done that with the DC9's.

NW had a number of 1967-69 build D9S that made it well into the 00s. At least a handful of those (at least including 9929, 9948, and 9992 but perhaps others too) flew until late 2009 or early 2010, so they would have made it 40 years. The D95 were all substantially younger.

jubguy3 wrote:

I'm waiting for Delta to be the first large commercial airline to fly a 40 year old plane in the US

Their last few DC-9-51s they had were about that old!

I came in late of the miles conversation about the tariffs, etc. Simple ? Is DL going to take on the C-Series, or is it DOA? I would assume any U.S. carrier would be subject to the same rules.

AAvgeek744 wrote:

I came in late of the miles conversation about the tariffs, etc. Simple ? Is DL going to take on the C-Series, or is it DOA? I would assume any U.S. carrier would be subject to the same rules.

Simple version: Any USA carrier would be subject to the same tariffs, at least if the aircraft were sold for the same price as the DL deal. I'm not sure how the rules work if they paid a price deemed to be "fair." However, the tariff proposed by Commerce Department is still subject to final ruling by the International Trade Commission. I believe that the ITC ruling is due later this month.

If all goes well, the International Trade Commission, who will make the final ruling in February, will throw the tariffs out and Delta's C Series order can go forward. The tariff is extremely bad policy, very punitive of the medium-sized markets who stand to benefit the most from competitive-cost 100-125 aircraft, and should be thrown out. No corporate welfare for Boeing!

Isn't the 717 the closest approximation in Delta's fleet for the C Series? They're much younger than the DC-9's were , and offer an option to help that segment for a while. What are the terms of Delta's 717 lease agreement--any limit on how long to keep them? I didn't see in any of the articles I read from a Google search.

Jim

redzeppelin wrote:

AAvgeek744 wrote:

I came in late of the miles conversation about the tariffs, etc. Simple ? Is DL going to take on the C-Series, or is it DOA? I would assume any U.S. carrier would be subject to the same rules.

Simple version: Any USA carrier would be subject to the same tariffs, at least if the aircraft were sold for the same price as the DL deal. I'm not sure how the rules work if they paid a price deemed to be "fair." However, the tariff proposed by Commerce Department is still subject to final ruling by the International Trade Commission. I believe that the ITC ruling is due later this month.

Thanks for the response.

This is why I hate Boeing they kill innovation

I'm guessing that the higher maintenance costs will be more than offset by not having to pay for new airplanes. The reported deal they got on the CS100 was about 20 million per plane. No way as MD88 HMV in Mexico costs anywhere near that much. They are still going to retire SOME MD88s and that will generate some engine spares. Pretty sure they've accelered some A321 deliveries from their preferred supplier Airbus Industrie. All in all there appears to be a plan in place.

Imho its a sad day when industries are played as pawns against one another, but I guess all parties to a deal need to believe that the deal is equitable.

I have to believe it will be a collective effort to compensate for CSeries delays. I'd think any of the CR2, A320, MD-88, and MD-90 fleets will be called upon to stay in service longer.

burnsie28 wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

I'm waiting for Delta to be the first large commercial airline to fly a 40 year old plane in the US

Pretty sure NW/DL had already done that with the DC9's.

Indeed. I flew on multiple DC-93s and -94s in the 2009/10 era that were past 40 years old. I'm not sure if any of the -50s made it to 40 though.

The oldest MD 90 at Delta is about 23 years old. That is quite a bit away from 40 years. The oldest 717 is 19 years old.

The e190s are sitting out in KMZN pineal air park in Arizona they seem to be in good condition they are still on the ramp

Aviationconcept wrote:

The e190s are sitting out in KMZN pineal air park in Arizona they seem to be in good condition they are still on the ramp

Try that again. KMZJ, Pinal Airpark.
The post also suggests if Delta wanted to use the E190s they could simply just reactivate them.
There are training requirements at play as well.

redzeppelin wrote:

AAvgeek744 wrote:

I came in late of the miles conversation about the tariffs, etc. Simple ? Is DL going to take on the C-Series, or is it DOA? I would assume any U.S. carrier would be subject to the same rules.

Simple version: Any USA carrier would be subject to the same tariffs, at least if the aircraft were sold for the same price as the DL deal. I'm not sure how the rules work if they paid a price deemed to be "fair." However, the tariff proposed by Commerce Department is still subject to final ruling by the International Trade Commission. I believe that the ITC ruling is due later this month.

My interpretation is that the tariffs apply regardless the sale price. Assuming the tariffs were intended to correct the 'Delta price' to 80M per unit, selling to another customer at that price would still require adding the tariff (or another 240M per unit). Can anyone comment or confirm?

Aviationconcept wrote:

The e190s are sitting out in KMZN pineal air park in Arizona they seem to be in good condition they are still on the ramp

...except for the ones that went to Aeromexico Connect, Georgian Airways, or a parts dealer, which pretty much covers all of them.

DL also owns some quite geriatric A320s with 75,000 hours on them. These may also see an additional heavy check rather than retirement.

Bombardier's CS series 100 and the following are now owned by Airbus and being integrated into Airbus series of aircraft. Some will be final assembled in Mobile, Alabama. This should solve any tax problems. Both Boeing and Airbus use large fuselage and and wing assemblies that are built outside of their home country and no taxes are imposed. This is a global economy. Maybe Boeing will need to buy a controlling interest in Emberaer if the Brazilians consent. Currently neither A or B is producing an aircraft in the size of the CS-100.

Please keep the thread aviation related and on topic

NWAROOSTER wrote:

Bombardier's CS series 100 and the following are now owned by Airbus and being integrated into Airbus series of aircraft.

This deal won't close until late 2018 at the earliest...maybe later...and maybe never.

IPFreely wrote:

NWAROOSTER wrote:

Bombardier's CS series 100 and the following are now owned by Airbus and being integrated into Airbus series of aircraft.

This deal won't close until late 2018 at the earliest...maybe later...and maybe never.

If Boeing successfully takes over or collaborates with Embraer, I don't think Airbus will be sitting on the sidelines.

Spacepope wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

And since it has been assumed for a while the CS will be pushed back you wont see a big spike in MX costs as the checks to extend service life has been on going.

even with that the 88s *should* still be done in 2020. It is just going to be more back ended then originally planned.

So we'll see IAE as happy campers overhauling V2500s for the MD-90 fleet. It's reported in other threads the retired MD-90s at BYH are not dead yet, just resting without engines. The recnt parked ones only have 40,000 ish hours on the airframe, so as long as engines are available it's not exactly a difficult thing to keep them flying longer.

few things.
One IAE basically has nothing to do with it. Delta's engine overhaul agreement for the V2500's is currently with Pratt and Air New Zealand's joint venture, CHCEC. The issue is two fold
one CHCEC would rather dump D5 overhauls for more A5 work
OR
Keep doing D5 work (just for Delta) but at a very high price point. Delta had been able to play MTU, CHCEC and Lufthansa Technik against each other in bids but since Delta signed its last contract with CHCEC the other vendors have dropped D5 capability and are focusing on more A5 work.

The only way IAE actually plays into this is if they and/or Delta were going to try to reach a deal for TechOps to bring the motor in-house. The issue with that is 1) IAE has been unwilling to let TechOps have a V2500 overhaul license because TechOps would want a part of the A5 pie as well but Delta has gone nothing but CFM56 on its airbus. 2) Delta TechOps honestly doesn't have the space for a V2500 shop anyways.

enilria wrote:

enilria wrote:

I would assume this strategy will drive a lot of C-Check and engine costs because DL is very good about making sure when an aircraft is parked it has little or nothing left in usable time on the engines and airframe. So extending aircraft will likely push a lot over the line and will require a lot of engine and maintenance expense.

deltal1011man wrote:

And since it has been assumed for a while the CS will be pushed back you wont see a big spike in MX costs as the checks to extend service life has been on going.

Later in the call they admitted there is a spike in maintenance cost as a result of this in an answer to an analyst.

No. That is not what they said at all.

"And to that end we have had to invest in maintaining some aircraft, particularly MD88s to keep them around a little bit longer than we were otherwise anticipating. " is the quote from Ed on the issue.

They are seeing higher maintenance costs by keeping older airplanes than the maintenance cost of new airplanes. Thats not a "spike" as much as an obvious situation where they wont be getting the 2-6 year maintenance "holiday" one gets from a new airplane.
Delta had been planning on a short MD88 life extension for a while and has the spare parts pool to pull it off. As I said, this is stuff that has been in the works over the last year, not something we are going to see much of going forward.

enilria wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

more RJs from where exactly? Delta is at its RJ limits with exception of some 70 seaters but they have replacements ordered for them.
accelerating deliveries how? Delta already has a very aggressive delivery schedule for 739s/321s this year and next. I would be surprised if the training department could handle added 737/321s training by much with such short term forecast.

Generally the options when there is a fleet delivery problem are:
1) Utilize a sub-contractor (regional carrier in this case)
2) Take other planes sooner
3) Keep old planes longer

They picked the third one, but those are always the three options if shrinking is off the table.

and again I will ask you how do they do number 1 without relief from DALPA?

ScottB wrote:

enilria wrote:

enilria wrote:

I would assume this strategy will drive a lot of C-Check and engine costs because DL is very good about making sure when an aircraft is parked it has little or nothing left in usable time on the engines and airframe. So extending aircraft will likely push a lot over the line and will require a lot of engine and maintenance expense.

deltal1011man wrote:

And since it has been assumed for a while the CS will be pushed back you wont see a big spike in MX costs as the checks to extend service life has been on going.

Later in the call they admitted there is a spike in maintenance cost as a result of this in an answer to an analyst.

No doubt maintenance costs will go up because engine overhauls and C-checks aren't cheap, but I suspect it's also proportional to the amount of additional flying which will be done. Mostly it creates some extra work for analysts in ATL who will have to figure out a revised retirement schedule to shuffle which ones go first since the issue with the -88s certainly won't be airframe lifetime.

Has already been done basically.

ScottB wrote:

enilria wrote:

Generally the options when there is a fleet delivery problem are:
1) Utilize a sub-contractor (regional carrier in this case)
2) Take other planes sooner
3) Keep old planes longer

They picked the third one, but those are always the three options if shrinking is off the table.

Didn't DL float the idea of taking some used 737s from AM as part of sending the CS100s there

no. The only used 737s that have really been looked at are from GOL. Sounds like they have cooled off on taking many, if any, more.
This idea of AM taking the CS has been blown way out of proportion. IF AM "takes" any of Delta's CSs it will be some of the earlier delivery slots Delta has and Delta/BBD will replace them with slots a few years later for Mobile built CSs. Delta is still planning on taking all 75 CS's on order. Its just a matter of when do they get them.

flymco753 wrote:

I think in DL's interest they should've taken a few 737-700's in exchange for the CS with AM, therefore it'll allow DL to still draw down 50 seat RJ's and still grow.

Why would they take an airplane they don't want when they can just keep some M88s active for a few months and get the airplanes (CS100s) that they actually do want?

SumChristianus wrote:

Would they return the E190 Boeing deal again...although those have probably been sold by now.
I think the CS100 is better long term, but it almost fits better with DL's strategy.
Possibly even buy B6's E190s in exchange for selling the CS delivery slots to B6.
I know, very unlikely, to help a competitor like that, but its an option not somewhat like the Southwest/AirTran 717 deal.

yeah because Delta bought them.

I don't believe many are left at this point but it would be fairly stupid to add a type they are only going to keep for a few months to a year.

ehaase wrote:

My impression is that Delta's first batch of C series will replace regional jets, so I would think it would be regional jets, not MD88's, that would be staying little longer.

RJs will still go away
the capacity from those RJs going away will be picked up by a few 88s hanging around vs the CS.

lightsaber wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

So..... what aircraft are they extending, the MD88's?

MD-80 parts, in particular JT8D parts are in short supply outside of DL and AA. If they are extending MD-80 lives, I would love insight into their parts inventory.

The MD-80/JT8D supply chain was shut down. Vendors can make parts, but no one will like the terms.

Lightsaber

We are only talking a few months to a year here. The end date of MD88s hasn't changed, it till just be a little bit more back loaded than originally planned.

Super80Fan wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

So..... what aircraft are they extending, the MD88's?

MD-80 parts, in particular JT8D parts are in short supply outside of DL and AA. If they are extending MD-80 lives, I would love insight into their parts inventory.

The MD-80/JT8D supply chain was shut down. Vendors can make parts, but no one will like the terms.

Lightsaber

Alright, how about the MD90's then, I know there were V2500 supplier issues as well, did they resolve it?

no. I expect Delta will end up signing another contract with CHCEC when the current one ends. As a part of that deal will be the ending of MD90 operations.


FWIW my guess is we are going to see a similar issue with the CFM56-5A engine in the coming years. More and more MRO's are going to want to shift to just doing CFM56-5Bs and Delta is going to run into an issue with its large 5A fleet. IIRC that overhaul contract with Snecma ends in 2020. As does the PW4168 engine deal with Pratt.

Planesmart wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

the 88s *should* still be done in 2020. It is just going to be more back ended then originally planned.

Chapter 5 for new commercial aircraft applies from 31 December 2020. If the FAA follows past practice, will Chapter 4 be the minimum standard for aircraft on the register from the same date, and Chapter 3 gone?

....no.....

NWAROOSTER wrote:

Bombardier's CS series 100 and the following are now owned by Airbus and being integrated into Airbus series of aircraft. Some will be final assembled in Mobile, Alabama. This should solve any tax problems. Both Boeing and Airbus use large fuselage and and wing assemblies that are built outside of their home country and no taxes are imposed. This is a global economy. Maybe Boeing will need to buy a controlling interest in Emberaer if the Brazilians consent. Currently neither A or B is producing an aircraft in the size of the CS-100.

What has to do with the bad situation of Bombardier that has appealed to Airbus with Embraer ??? Can you explain me by kindness

IPFreely wrote:

NWAROOSTER wrote:

Bombardier's CS series 100 and the following are now owned by Airbus and being integrated into Airbus series of aircraft.

This deal won't close until late 2018 at the earliest...maybe later...and maybe never.

That's the thing. The deal requires anti-trust approvals. Any of the required approving entities could move slowly, or demand changes to the deal that Bombardier or Airbus won't accept. Bombardier said planes come off a prospective Mobile assembly line two years after they start to build a line. There's a lot of uncertainty. MD-88s (and parts) won't last forever.

Think anti-trust can't kill an aviation deal? Google 'GE buys Honeywell 2001.'

MIflyer12 wrote:

IPFreely wrote:

NWAROOSTER wrote:

Bombardier's CS series 100 and the following are now owned by Airbus and being integrated into Airbus series of aircraft.

This deal won't close until late 2018 at the earliest...maybe later...and maybe never.

That's the thing. The deal requires anti-trust approvals. Any of the required approving entities could move slowly, or demand changes to the deal that Bombardier or Airbus won't accept. Bombardier said planes come off a prospective Mobile assembly line two years after they start to build a line. There's a lot of uncertainty. MD-88s (and parts) won't last forever.

Think anti-trust can't kill an aviation deal? Google 'GE buys Honeywell 2001.'

I'm not sure what other progress has been made. News seems to be lacking. But, at least Germany's regulator has apparently approved the deal.

https://www.reuters.com/article/brief-g ... SL8N1O63M4