DL launches LAX-Europe on B77L on June 16th

factsonly · Sat Jun 16, 2018 7:33 am

Saturday June 16th, 2018 Delta launches daily LAX-Europe flights on its own B77L metal to expand frequencies LAX-Europe in cooperation with JV partners AF/KL.

- dep. LAX 12:00 PM - arr. CDG 7:55 AM DL156 B777-200LR Sat, Tue, Thu
- dep. LAX 12.00 PM - arr. AMS 8.00 AM DL78 B777-200LR Sun, Mon, Wed, Fri

These services take:

- LAX-CDG to 3x daily = AF 18x/week + DL 3x/week = 21x weekly
- LAX-AMS upto 3x daily = KL 14x/week + DL 4x/week = 18x weekly

DL will continue to operate these routes in W18.

https://news.delta.com/delta-launching- ... -and-paris

LAX772LR · Sat Jun 16, 2018 8:43 am

Do anything special in the terminal for it? Was wondering if they would.

factsonly · Sat Jun 16, 2018 5:53 pm

With these two additional LAX-Europe services, Delta will offer up to 85 daily departures from the United States to Europe in summer 2018.

Of these 85 departures:

- AMS has 20x daily DL departures = 24%
- CDG has 13x daily DL departures = 15%

devron · Sat Jun 16, 2018 6:59 pm

factsonly wrote:
- AMS has 20x daily DL departures = 24%
- CDG has 13x daily DL departures = 15%

Amazing, These JV are really paying off.

Am I correct 9 daily flights to LHR = 11%

Thus 3 destination =50% of all flights

DTWLAX · Sat Jun 16, 2018 7:21 pm

devron wrote:

Amazing, These JV are really paying off.

Am I correct 9 daily flights to LHR = 11%

Thus 3 destination =50% of all flights

Yes 9 daily DL departures. Much more if you include VS flights

flyingclrs727 · Sat Jun 16, 2018 8:09 pm

What advantage does the 77L have on these routes? Is it just availability?

Iloveboeing · Sat Jun 16, 2018 8:10 pm

What a waste of aircraft utilization; DL's 77Ls should be flying routes such as ATL-HKG, ATL-SIN, ATL-BKK, ATL-KUL, ATL-SYD and ATL-AKL. The 77L was built for long-haul runs such as the ones I described. They operate the largest hub in the world at ATL with endless connections throughout the USA and the world. Why waste it at a competitive bloodbath such as LAX?

MIflyer12 · Sat Jun 16, 2018 8:17 pm

Iloveboeing wrote:
DL's 77Ls should be flying routes such as ... ATL-SIN, ATL-BKK, ATL-KUL

And falling out of the sky or doing tech stops routinely, apparently. ATL is an IDIOTIC location for hubbing travel to SE Asia.

factsonly · Sat Jun 16, 2018 8:26 pm

DL156 is on its way to CDG:

https://www.flightradar24.com/DAL156/1ccbbec6

Routing of B77L N702DN over last few days, now operating LAX-CDG:

- DL157 Paris (CDG) Los Angeles (LAX)
- DL156 Los Angeles (LAX) Paris (CDG)
- DL88 Shanghai (PVG) Los Angeles (LAX)
- DL89 Los Angeles (LAX) Shanghai (PVG)
- DL40 Sydney (SYD) Los Angeles (LAX)
- DL41 Los Angeles (LAX) Sydney (SYD)
- DL88 Shanghai (PVG) Los Angeles (LAX)
- DL89 Los Angeles (LAX) Shanghai (PVG)
- DL691 Atlanta (ATL) Los Angeles (LAX)
- DL 296 Tokyo (NRT) Atlanta (ATL)
- DL295 Atlanta (ATL) Tokyo (NRT)

Iloveboeing · Sat Jun 16, 2018 8:28 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
Iloveboeing wrote:
DL's 77Ls should be flying routes such as ... ATL-SIN, ATL-BKK, ATL-KUL

And falling out of the sky or doing tech stops routinely, apparently. ATL is an IDIOTIC location for hubbing travel to SE Asia.

Yet, when I flew MCI-ATL-ANC, DL had no problem flying me there. Yes, I know ANC is not SE Asia, however ATL may not be as idiotic for hubbing travel to SE Asia as one may think. It could seem out of the way, but the efficiency of the ATL hub negates that challenge.

I really think that DL should stop building up an LAX hub and focus on ATL. ATL is their strength, their fortress, their crown jewel. I thought DL bought the 10 77Ls so they could do long-range missions with them, but it seems they're just floating around the system. They need to use them for which they were made; ULH operations.

yonikasz · Sat Jun 16, 2018 8:38 pm

Iloveboeing wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
Iloveboeing wrote:
DL's 77Ls should be flying routes such as ... ATL-SIN, ATL-BKK, ATL-KUL

And falling out of the sky or doing tech stops routinely, apparently. ATL is an IDIOTIC location for hubbing travel to SE Asia.

Yet, when I flew MCI-ATL-ANC, DL had no problem flying me there. Yes, I know ANC is not SE Asia, however ATL may not be as idiotic for hubbing travel to SE Asia as one may think. It could seem out of the way, but the efficiency of the ATL hub negates that challenge.

I really think that DL should stop building up an LAX hub and focus on ATL. ATL is their strength, their fortress, their crown jewel. I thought DL bought the 10 77Ls so they could do long-range missions with them, but it seems they're just floating around the system. They need to use them for which they were made; ULH operations.

They dominate ATL but it's not like it has as much O&D traffic like a coastal city does. I am curious btw why Delta downgraded their JFK-TLV to an A330. Didn't it run on a 777 after the 747. If they were able to fill a 747 (presumably) or at least profitably run it on the route for as long as I can remember before they retired it. Why such a drastic downgauge unless I'm missing something. The SFO-TLV route has been upgauged and now LY is joining UA on it. I wonder if LAX - TLV would work for DL I don't know how the LY loads are though.

jbs2886 · Sat Jun 16, 2018 8:43 pm

yonikasz wrote:
Iloveboeing wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:

And falling out of the sky or doing tech stops routinely, apparently. ATL is an IDIOTIC location for hubbing travel to SE Asia.

Yet, when I flew MCI-ATL-ANC, DL had no problem flying me there. Yes, I know ANC is not SE Asia, however ATL may not be as idiotic for hubbing travel to SE Asia as one may think. It could seem out of the way, but the efficiency of the ATL hub negates that challenge.

I really think that DL should stop building up an LAX hub and focus on ATL. ATL is their strength, their fortress, their crown jewel. I thought DL bought the 10 77Ls so they could do long-range missions with them, but it seems they're just floating around the system. They need to use them for which they were made; ULH operations.

They dominate ATL but it's not like it has as much O&D traffic like a coastal city does. I am curious btw why Delta downgraded their JFK-TLV to an A330. Didn't it run on a 777 after the 747. If they were able to fill a 747 (presumably) or at least profitably run it on the route for as long as I can remember before they retired it. Why such a drastic downgauge unless I'm missing something. The SFO-TLV route has been upgauged and now LY is joining UA on it. I wonder if LAX - TLV would work for DL I don't know how the LY loads are though.

I'm not sure how 2 ADDITIONAL seats (293) on the A333 is a downgrade from 291 seats on the 777.

SonomaFlyer · Sat Jun 16, 2018 8:50 pm

Iloveboeing wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
Iloveboeing wrote:
DL's 77Ls should be flying routes such as ... ATL-SIN, ATL-BKK, ATL-KUL

And falling out of the sky or doing tech stops routinely, apparently. ATL is an IDIOTIC location for hubbing travel to SE Asia.

Yet, when I flew MCI-ATL-ANC, DL had no problem flying me there. Yes, I know ANC is not SE Asia, however ATL may not be as idiotic for hubbing travel to SE Asia as one may think. It could seem out of the way, but the efficiency of the ATL hub negates that challenge.

I really think that DL should stop building up an LAX hub and focus on ATL. ATL is their strength, their fortress, their crown jewel. I thought DL bought the 10 77Ls so they could do long-range missions with them, but it seems they're just floating around the system. They need to use them for which they were made; ULH operations.

I'd keep in mind that DL is the most profitable and arguably successful airline based in the U.S. This is based on yields, RoI etc. The 77L may be able to do ULH but it also does well in a 10 hour mission profile. They should be able to max out on cargo volume on these routes if needed. They don't have very many 772ERs and comparatively few wide bodies compared to AA and UA so they mix and match as needed. Their JV arrangement with AF/KLM allows the to shunt lots of their passengers onto those airlines anyway.

IPFreely · Sat Jun 16, 2018 8:55 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
I'm not sure how 2 ADDITIONAL seats (293) on the A333 is a downgrade from 291 seats on the 777.

He's probably referring to the loss of 3 business class seats, not the addition of five economy class seats.

yonikasz · Sat Jun 16, 2018 8:55 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
yonikasz wrote:
Iloveboeing wrote:

Yet, when I flew MCI-ATL-ANC, DL had no problem flying me there. Yes, I know ANC is not SE Asia, however ATL may not be as idiotic for hubbing travel to SE Asia as one may think. It could seem out of the way, but the efficiency of the ATL hub negates that challenge.

I really think that DL should stop building up an LAX hub and focus on ATL. ATL is their strength, their fortress, their crown jewel. I thought DL bought the 10 77Ls so they could do long-range missions with them, but it seems they're just floating around the system. They need to use them for which they were made; ULH operations.

They dominate ATL but it's not like it has as much O&D traffic like a coastal city does. I am curious btw why Delta downgraded their JFK-TLV to an A330. Didn't it run on a 777 after the 747. If they were able to fill a 747 (presumably) or at least profitably run it on the route for as long as I can remember before they retired it. Why such a drastic downgauge unless I'm missing something. The SFO-TLV route has been upgauged and now LY is joining UA on it. I wonder if LAX - TLV would work for DL I don't know how the LY loads are though.

I'm not sure how 2 ADDITIONAL seats (293) on the A333 is a downgrade from 291 seats on the 777.

My bad I thought theirs were configured differently. But still begs the question would DL potentially do LAX TLV.

yonikasz · Sat Jun 16, 2018 9:00 pm

SonomaFlyer wrote:
Iloveboeing wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:

And falling out of the sky or doing tech stops routinely, apparently. ATL is an IDIOTIC location for hubbing travel to SE Asia.

Yet, when I flew MCI-ATL-ANC, DL had no problem flying me there. Yes, I know ANC is not SE Asia, however ATL may not be as idiotic for hubbing travel to SE Asia as one may think. It could seem out of the way, but the efficiency of the ATL hub negates that challenge.

I really think that DL should stop building up an LAX hub and focus on ATL. ATL is their strength, their fortress, their crown jewel. I thought DL bought the 10 77Ls so they could do long-range missions with them, but it seems they're just floating around the system. They need to use them for which they were made; ULH operations.

I'd keep in mind that DL is the most profitable and arguably successful airline based in the U.S. This is based on yields, RoI etc. The 77L may be able to do ULH but it also does well in a 10 hour mission profile. They should be able to max out on cargo volume on these routes if needed. They don't have very many 772ERs and comparatively few wide bodies compared to AA and UA so they mix and match as needed. Their JV arrangement with AF/KLM allows the to shunt lots of their passengers onto those airlines anyway.

I think DL competes not on price but on routes underserved on other airlines. Notice how small of an operation they have at ORD. Probably because they don't want to get in price wars with AA and UA. It seems like they go after cities dominated by local airlines. Like they have much more muscle than B6 so while B6 dominates Boston Delta can use its network and scale to win on price there. Same thing with SEA and AS.

IPFreely · Sat Jun 16, 2018 9:00 pm

Iloveboeing wrote:
Yet, when I flew MCI-ATL-ANC, DL had no problem flying me there. Yes, I know ANC is not SE Asia, however ATL may not be as idiotic for hubbing travel to SE Asia as one may think.

ATL as a hub for SE Asia is idiotic. The percentage of travelers who would accept the added travel time for a route like MCI-ATL-ANC is very small. And the percentage of premium travelers willing to pay full fare for premium class travel who would accept this amount of added travel time is essentially zero.

2Holer4Longhaul · Sat Jun 16, 2018 11:05 pm

Iloveboeing wrote:
What a waste of aircraft utilization; DL's 77Ls should be flying routes such as ATL-HKG, ATL-SIN, ATL-BKK, ATL-KUL, ATL-SYD and ATL-AKL. The 77L was built for long-haul runs such as the ones I described. They operate the largest hub in the world at ATL with endless connections throughout the USA and the world. Why waste it at a competitive bloodbath such as LAX?

Because, as we all know, the goal of this industry is to showboat aircraft's capabilities, not making money.

448205 · Sat Jun 16, 2018 11:36 pm

Iloveboeing wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
Iloveboeing wrote:
DL's 77Ls should be flying routes such as ... ATL-SIN, ATL-BKK, ATL-KUL

And falling out of the sky or doing tech stops routinely, apparently. ATL is an IDIOTIC location for hubbing travel to SE Asia.

Yet, when I flew MCI-ATL-ANC, DL had no problem flying me there. Yes, I know ANC is not SE Asia, however ATL may not be as idiotic for hubbing travel to SE Asia as one may think. It could seem out of the way, but the efficiency of the ATL hub negates that challenge.

I really think that DL should stop building up an LAX hub and focus on ATL. ATL is their strength, their fortress, their crown jewel. I thought DL bought the 10 77Ls so they could do long-range missions with them, but it seems they're just floating around the system. They need to use them for which they were made; ULH operations.

They bought them because they were cheap. Boeing was giving them away.

448205 · Sat Jun 16, 2018 11:38 pm

SonomaFlyer wrote:
Iloveboeing wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:

And falling out of the sky or doing tech stops routinely, apparently. ATL is an IDIOTIC location for hubbing travel to SE Asia.

Yet, when I flew MCI-ATL-ANC, DL had no problem flying me there. Yes, I know ANC is not SE Asia, however ATL may not be as idiotic for hubbing travel to SE Asia as one may think. It could seem out of the way, but the efficiency of the ATL hub negates that challenge.

I really think that DL should stop building up an LAX hub and focus on ATL. ATL is their strength, their fortress, their crown jewel. I thought DL bought the 10 77Ls so they could do long-range missions with them, but it seems they're just floating around the system. They need to use them for which they were made; ULH operations.

I'd keep in mind that DL is the most profitable and arguably successful airline based in the U.S. This is based on yields, RoI etc. The 77L may be able to do ULH but it also does well in a 10 hour mission profile. They should be able to max out on cargo volume on these routes if needed. They don't have very many 772ERs and comparatively few wide bodies compared to AA and UA so they mix and match as needed. Their JV arrangement with AF/KLM allows the to shunt lots of their passengers onto those airlines anyway.

DL is most profitable airline in the world by a wide margin. I'm not a fan of theirs, but it's hard to argue with the success.

If AF or KLM had not merged, I think DL would funnel almost all US traffic into one city in europe. It would be like Atlanta as well.

klakzky123 · Sun Jun 17, 2018 2:29 am

Varsity1 wrote:
SonomaFlyer wrote:
Iloveboeing wrote:

Yet, when I flew MCI-ATL-ANC, DL had no problem flying me there. Yes, I know ANC is not SE Asia, however ATL may not be as idiotic for hubbing travel to SE Asia as one may think. It could seem out of the way, but the efficiency of the ATL hub negates that challenge.

I really think that DL should stop building up an LAX hub and focus on ATL. ATL is their strength, their fortress, their crown jewel. I thought DL bought the 10 77Ls so they could do long-range missions with them, but it seems they're just floating around the system. They need to use them for which they were made; ULH operations.

I'd keep in mind that DL is the most profitable and arguably successful airline based in the U.S. This is based on yields, RoI etc. The 77L may be able to do ULH but it also does well in a 10 hour mission profile. They should be able to max out on cargo volume on these routes if needed. They don't have very many 772ERs and comparatively few wide bodies compared to AA and UA so they mix and match as needed. Their JV arrangement with AF/KLM allows the to shunt lots of their passengers onto those airlines anyway.

DL is most profitable airline in the world by a wide margin. I'm not a fan of theirs, but it's hard to argue with the success.

If AF or KLM had not merged, I think DL would funnel almost all US traffic into one city in europe. It would be like Atlanta as well.

It still worked out for them. Relying only on AMS would be a problem because of a lack of slots while relying only on CDG would be a problem because of all of the labor issues. Being able to distribute traffic between both hubs has allowed them to largely mitigate both issues.

Newbiepilot · Sun Jun 17, 2018 2:34 am

flyingclrs727 wrote:
What advantage does the 77L have on these routes? Is it just availability?

Probably availability since the 77L is needed for LAX-SYD and there is no reason for the plane to sit in LAX all day.

alfa164 · Sun Jun 17, 2018 2:36 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
What advantage does the 77L have on these routes? Is it just availability?

Probably availability since the 77L is needed for LAX-SYD and there is no reason for the plane to sit in LAX all day.

How many DL flights actually require (or are best served by; I know some AB fans contend that the 350 can match the 777L performance) this aircraft? I can think of ATL-JNB and LAX-SYD; with ATL-DXB no longer being flown, are there others?

factsonly · Sun Jun 17, 2018 6:28 am

As DL's rotation of B77L N705DN indicates, the LAX-Europe route permits an interchange between LAX and ATL B77L routes without using the ULH aircraft for a domestic sector.

DL B77L N705DN routing:

- DL73 Amsterdam (AMS) Atlanta (ATL)
- DL78 Los Angeles (LAX) Amsterdam (AMS)
- DL88 Shanghai (PVG) Los Angeles (LAX)
- DL89 Los Angeles (LAX) Shanghai (PVG)
- DL691 Atlanta (ATL) Los Angeles (LAX)
- DL2793 Orlando (MCO) Atlanta (ATL)
- DL2793 Atlanta (ATL) Orlando (MCO)
- DL73 Amsterdam (AMS) Atlanta (ATL)
- DL72 Atlanta (ATL) Amsterdam (AMS)
- DL73 Amsterdam (AMS) Atlanta (ATL)
- DL72 Atlanta (ATL) Amsterdam (AMS)
- DL201 Johannesburg (JNB) Atlanta (ATL)
- DL200 Atlanta (ATL) Johannesburg (JNB)
- DL73 Amsterdam (AMS) Atlanta (ATL)
- DL72 Atlanta (ATL Amsterdam (AMS)

factsonly · Sun Jun 17, 2018 5:11 pm

Delta LAX-Europe codeshares with:

- 9W 7782 Jet Airways LAX - AMS
- KL 6055 KLM LAX - AMS

- 9W 7780 Jet Airways LAX - CDG
- AF 3555 Air France LAX - CDG
- KL 6003 KLM LAX - CDG

factsonly · Mon Jun 18, 2018 3:18 pm

It seems the June 18 inaugural AMS-LAX DL79 B77L departure is delayed, as the aircraft looks to have returned to the gate........a/c tech??

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flig ... 9#1cd0deb8

DL B77L N709DN routings:

- 18 Jun 2018 DL41 Los Angeles (LAX) Sydney (SYD)
- 18 Jun 2018 DL79 Amsterdam (AMS) Los Angeles (LAX) - inaugural delayed
- 17 Jun 2018 DL72 Atlanta (ATL) Amsterdam (AMS)
- 17 Jun 2018 DL73 Amsterdam (AMS) Atlanta (ATL)
- 16 Jun 2018 DL72 Atlanta (ATL) Amsterdam (AMS)
- 16 Jun 2018 DL73 Amsterdam (AMS) Atlanta (ATL)
- 15 Jun 2018 DL72 Atlanta (ATL) Amsterdam (AMS)
- 15 Jun 2018 DL73 Amsterdam (AMS) Atlanta (ATL)
- 14 Jun 2018 DL72 Atlanta (ATL) Amsterdam (AMS)
- 13 Jun 2018 Dl201 Johannesburg (JNB) Atlanta (ATL)
- 12 Jun 2018 DL200 Atlanta (ATL) Johannesburg (JNB)
- 12 Jun 2018 DL73 Amsterdam (AMS) Atlanta (ATL)
- 11 Jun 2018 DL72 Atlanta (ATL) Amsterdam (AMS)
- 11 Jun 2018 DL73 Amsterdam (AMS) Atlanta (ATL)

airzona11 · Mon Jun 18, 2018 5:41 pm

Great use of aircraft and optimizing the JV.

BWIAirport · Mon Jun 18, 2018 6:18 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Do anything special in the terminal for it? Was wondering if they would.

That's usually reserved for a new route or entirely new aircraft type. Most pax couldn't tell the difference between a 763 and 772, let alone 772 and 77L.

winginit · Mon Jun 18, 2018 6:35 pm

BWIAirport wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Do anything special in the terminal for it? Was wondering if they would.

That's usually reserved for a new route or entirely new aircraft type. Most pax couldn't tell the difference between a 763 and 772, let alone 772 and 77L.

Indeed, and these European inaugurals are pretty close to the A350 being launched on LAXPVG, which I imagine will be met by an airport shindig of some kind.

FlyHappy · Mon Jun 18, 2018 6:50 pm

Iloveboeing wrote:
What a waste of aircraft utilization; DL's 77Ls should be flying routes such as ATL-HKG, ATL-SIN, ATL-BKK, ATL-KUL, ATL-SYD and ATL-AKL. The 77L was built for long-haul runs such as the ones I described. They operate the largest hub in the world at ATL with endless connections throughout the USA and the world. Why waste it at a competitive bloodbath such as LAX?

So basically, DL should emulate the ME3 and fly globally from ATL only?
OTOH, maybe the 230 million US residents who don't live in the southeast are better off being routed thru LAX/SEA/SLC/MSP/DTW/JFK , as they are now, yes?
because if not, then DL simply gives away much of those sales to competitors who can serve the source and destination more cost effectively and with far shorter overall travel time.......

PS: in this era, DL has shown no ability to compete from anywhere to BKK, KUL, and for heavens sake, is even abandoning HKG.

Flighty · Mon Jun 18, 2018 7:09 pm

airzona11 wrote:
Great use of aircraft and optimizing the JV.

Exactly. They don't always need to do ULH with their 777 unless that makes more money than this LAX-Europe type of alternative. And it probably does not. Delta knows their game better than we do.

strfyr51 · Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:29 pm

Iloveboeing wrote:
What a waste of aircraft utilization; DL's 77Ls should be flying routes such as ATL-HKG, ATL-SIN, ATL-BKK, ATL-KUL, ATL-SYD and ATL-AKL. The 77L was built for long-haul runs such as the ones I described. They operate the largest hub in the world at ATL with endless connections throughout the USA and the world. Why waste it at a competitive bloodbath such as LAX?

Cripes Dude!!
Delta has probably an extensive marketing department that assesses the viability of a route's success, If Not? Why didn't they just ask YOU??
What's your qualification that Delta SHOULDN'T do it?? Give it a Break, or Sate your reasoning and Method for disputing their reasoning!
Like the Blind man Said? This I'd like to SEE!! Delta is determined to carve out a piece of the LAX market, and I agree with them.
They would either have to go against United in the Pacific and every OTHER Asian region carrier (In places they've already abandoned) or go to Europe.
I personally think they made a mistake in NOT going to the Asia/Pacific.
However?? They didn't ask me, and they Sure as Shootin' Didn't ask YOU!!
Give it a Break!! They'll either make a Ton of money? Or not much. But they Are Trying.

LAX772LR · Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:33 pm

BWIAirport wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Do anything special in the terminal for it? Was wondering if they would.

That's usually reserved for a new route or entirely new aircraft type. Most pax couldn't tell the difference between a 763 and 772, let alone 772 and 77L.

Both of these are new routes for DL from this airport, hence asking. Nothing to do with aircraft type in this regard.

xdlx · Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:33 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
yonikasz wrote:
Iloveboeing wrote:

Yet, when I flew MCI-ATL-ANC, DL had no problem flying me there. Yes, I know ANC is not SE Asia, however ATL may not be as idiotic for hubbing travel to SE Asia as one may think. It could seem out of the way, but the efficiency of the ATL hub negates that challenge.

I really think that DL should stop building up an LAX hub and focus on ATL. ATL is their strength, their fortress, their crown jewel. I thought DL bought the 10 77Ls so they could do long-range missions with them, but it seems they're just floating around the system. They need to use them for which they were made; ULH operations.

They dominate ATL but it's not like it has as much O&D traffic like a coastal city does. I am curious btw why Delta downgraded their JFK-TLV to an A330. Didn't it run on a 777 after the 747. If they were able to fill a 747 (presumably) or at least profitably run it on the route for as long as I can remember before they retired it. Why such a drastic downgauge unless I'm missing something. The SFO-TLV route has been upgauged and now LY is joining UA on it. I wonder if LAX - TLV would work for DL I don't know how the LY loads are though.

I'm not sure how 2 ADDITIONAL seats (293) on the A333 is a downgrade from 291 seats on the 777.

ANY TIME you go from BOEING to AIRBUS is a DOWNGRADE!

gsg013 · Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:34 pm

yonikasz wrote:
SonomaFlyer wrote:
Iloveboeing wrote:

Yet, when I flew MCI-ATL-ANC, DL had no problem flying me there. Yes, I know ANC is not SE Asia, however ATL may not be as idiotic for hubbing travel to SE Asia as one may think. It could seem out of the way, but the efficiency of the ATL hub negates that challenge.

I really think that DL should stop building up an LAX hub and focus on ATL. ATL is their strength, their fortress, their crown jewel. I thought DL bought the 10 77Ls so they could do long-range missions with them, but it seems they're just floating around the system. They need to use them for which they were made; ULH operations.

I'd keep in mind that DL is the most profitable and arguably successful airline based in the U.S. This is based on yields, RoI etc. The 77L may be able to do ULH but it also does well in a 10 hour mission profile. They should be able to max out on cargo volume on these routes if needed. They don't have very many 772ERs and comparatively few wide bodies compared to AA and UA so they mix and match as needed. Their JV arrangement with AF/KLM allows the to shunt lots of their passengers onto those airlines anyway.

I think DL competes not on price but on routes underserved on other airlines. Notice how small of an operation they have at ORD. Probably because they don't want to get in price wars with AA and UA. It seems like they go after cities dominated by local airlines. Like they have much more muscle than B6 so while B6 dominates Boston Delta can use its network and scale to win on price there. Same thing with SEA and AS.

The A330-300 has a few more seats than the 777-200ER/LR the main reason to put the A330 is that the D1 seat is far superior to the 777 Layout I think the hardproduct on JFK-TLV on one of the most premium and popular business routes is the reason for putting the A330 vs 777

Iemand91 · Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:55 pm

Amsterdam today:

Source: https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/ ... 77-economy

IPFreely · Tue Jun 19, 2018 12:24 am

Iemand91 wrote:
Amsterdam today:

Looks like the celebratory AMS-LAX departed 4 hours late and is diverting to MSP.

BoeingGuy · Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:35 am

Varsity1 wrote:
Iloveboeing wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:

And falling out of the sky or doing tech stops routinely, apparently. ATL is an IDIOTIC location for hubbing travel to SE Asia.

Yet, when I flew MCI-ATL-ANC, DL had no problem flying me there. Yes, I know ANC is not SE Asia, however ATL may not be as idiotic for hubbing travel to SE Asia as one may think. It could seem out of the way, but the efficiency of the ATL hub negates that challenge.

I really think that DL should stop building up an LAX hub and focus on ATL. ATL is their strength, their fortress, their crown jewel. I thought DL bought the 10 77Ls so they could do long-range missions with them, but it seems they're just floating around the system. They need to use them for which they were made; ULH operations.

They bought them because they were cheap. Boeing was giving them away.

What information do you have to support that? I’m not aware that Boeing has ever given away 777s at ridiculously cheap prices.

727200 · Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:38 am

Is that correct AMS, CDG, and LHR are 50% of all DL flights to Europe? Wow, not a lot of coverage. No wounder the DL pilots are pissed. They keep screaming about JV and how those flights are going to foreign long haul carriers and not to them.

AirbusA322 · Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:51 am

Where did the 777L capacity come from to operate these?

audidudi · Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:29 am

The sooner the remaining 17 birds get modded, the better! The D1 cabin is an utter disgrace, so better that DL puts them on tourist routes like CDG, rather than premium routes like TLV!

SESGDL · Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:34 am

727200 wrote:
Is that correct AMS, CDG, and LHR are 50% of all DL flights to Europe? Wow, not a lot of coverage. No wounder the DL pilots are pissed. They keep screaming about JV and how those flights are going to foreign long haul carriers and not to them.

This is the same case for all US carriers. LHR, CDG,FRA and AMS represent the bulk of flights due to having either the greater demand and/or being the largest hubs for partners. DL is the single largest airline across the Atlantic. Outside of the markets you listed DL still maintains a massive number of flights between Europe and the US, rivaling UA and quite a bit larger than AA outside its core markets.

Jeremy

777Mech · Tue Jun 19, 2018 3:40 am

IPFreely wrote:
Iemand91 wrote:
Amsterdam today:

Looks like the celebratory AMS-LAX departed 4 hours late and is diverting to MSP.

Flagstop for customs clearance.

strfyr51 · Tue Jun 19, 2018 4:14 am

xdlx wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:
yonikasz wrote:

They dominate ATL but it's not like it has as much O&D traffic like a coastal city does. I am curious btw why Delta downgraded their JFK-TLV to an A330. Didn't it run on a 777 after the 747. If they were able to fill a 747 (presumably) or at least profitably run it on the route for as long as I can remember before they retired it. Why such a drastic downgauge unless I'm missing something. The SFO-TLV route has been upgauged and now LY is joining UA on it. I wonder if LAX - TLV would work for DL I don't know how the LY loads are though.

I'm not sure how 2 ADDITIONAL seats (293) on the A333 is a downgrade from 291 seats on the 777.

ANY TIME you go from BOEING to AIRBUS is a DOWNGRADE!

Come ON!!
your "Jingoism" is showing!!
I havent yet flown any large Airbus airplanes but I'd hardy call them Junk !
But I've worked a LOT of Airbus' A320/A319's and they're HARDLY "inferior". They're just different and Airbus worked Really hard to NOT infringe on Boeing Patents.
Although they did some "creative" stuff to NOT have to.

MSPNWA · Tue Jun 19, 2018 4:15 am

SESGDL wrote:
This is the same case for all US carriers. LHR, CDG,FRA and AMS represent the bulk of flights due to having either the greater demand and/or being the largest hubs for partners. DL is the single largest airline across the Atlantic. Outside of the markets you listed DL still maintains a massive number of flights between Europe and the US, rivaling UA and quite a bit larger than AA outside its core markets.

Not exactly the same case. By my quick count, UA has only 20-21 daily flights to its five largest JV partner airports at FRA, MUC, ZRH, GVA, and BRU. DL has that many to AMS alone. DL's TATL capacity is significantly skewed towards JV hubs (even if we take out LHR for everyone), causing that "virtual airline" look and feel. Outside of JFK and ATL (which are rivaled by just UA's EWR/IAD), DL operates just one year-round TATL flight that isn't to a JV hub. And if we exclude LHR and call it a spoke, there's still less than 10 peak summer daily flights outside of JFK/ATL. UA and DL are not the same TATL.

BA777300er · Tue Jun 19, 2018 4:32 am

what destination is that that is all year and not a jv hub?
And why can’t DL have more not iv hub destinations be all year if af and KLM can

TW870 · Tue Jun 19, 2018 4:43 am

777Mech wrote:
IPFreely wrote:
Iemand91 wrote:
Amsterdam today:

Looks like the celebratory AMS-LAX departed 4 hours late and is diverting to MSP.

Flagstop for customs clearance.

Why do they need the flag stop? Is it because with the delay that they just can't get this airplane a gate at LAX for customs clearance given how busy the Bradley terminal is in the late evening?

777Mech · Tue Jun 19, 2018 6:16 am

TW870 wrote:
777Mech wrote:
IPFreely wrote:

Looks like the celebratory AMS-LAX departed 4 hours late and is diverting to MSP.

Flagstop for customs clearance.

Why do they need the flag stop? Is it because with the delay that they just can't get this airplane a gate at LAX for customs clearance given how busy the Bradley terminal is in the late evening?

The stop was originally for a crew change, and it was decided to have pax clear customs in MSP.

Also with another 777 getting hit with multiple lightning strikes in SYD, the LAX-CDG-LAX flight for 6/19 has been cancelled due to unavailable equipment. Not a hot start for the LAX-EU flights

LAX772LR · Tue Jun 19, 2018 6:52 am

xdlx wrote:
ANY TIME you go from BOEING to AIRBUS is a DOWNGRADE!

Please try not to be ridiculous... you're currently failing.

factsonly · Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:07 am

The inaugural AMS-LAX passengers arrived at LAX at 00.24AM this morning, with a 7 hour delay.

- 18 Jun 2018 DL79 AMS dep. 7.55pm (4.15hrs late) -> LAX B77L (N709DN) - Diverted to MSP
- 18 Jun 2018 DL79 MSP dep. 11.28pm -> LAX arr. 00.24am B77L (N709DN)

OOoeepps.....

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net