Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
LAX772LR wrote:And before it gets inevitably said.... no, it's not likely that DL buys a bunch of used 77Ws as they come off leases, etc.
Contrary to popular A.net lore, DL has not been all that inclined to purchase used widebodies (other than for parts/spares) since the early '90s, with no sign of that changing any time soon.
Other than a leaked inquiry into potentially purchasing 777-212ERs off of SQ circa 2005, they haven't publicly shown the slightest interested in used longhaul aircraft.
LAX772LR wrote:Other than a leaked inquiry into potentially purchasing 777-212ERs off of SQ circa 2005, they haven't publicly shown the slightest interested in used longhaul aircraft.
KFTG wrote:How is the 77W (an aircraft currently in production and receiving warranty support through Boeing) "obsolete"?
77H wrote:Do you know why the US3 has largely shied away from purchasing second hand WB planes?
KFTG wrote:LAX772LR wrote:Other than a leaked inquiry into potentially purchasing 777-212ERs off of SQ circa 2005, they haven't publicly shown the slightest interested in used longhaul aircraft.
Delta also looked at taking the non-ER 777-300s off EK's hands about 4-6 years ago.
JetPilotMike wrote:Delta doesn't need it because they outsource a lot of their widebody flying via their joint ventures.
JetPilotMike wrote:Delta doesn't need it because they outsource a lot of their widebody flying via their joint ventures. Good (maybe great) for their balance sheet, but not so great for their pilots.
PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:The window for DL to obtain 77Ws effectively closed when they placed the A350 order to replace the remaining 744 capacity.
DL's network doesn't lend itself to a large number or >300 seat widebody aircraft. There not that many routes that can absorb the capacity / gauge size of a 77W in DL's network and they becoming increasingly more difficult to schedule and route profitability. This in comparison to 250-300 seat aircraft that are far more versatile in deployment and can fly multiple TPAC, TATL, and SA routes interchangeably.
Like it or not, DL leverages their JV partners in the select routes where they can fit >300 seat aircraft. Its a balancing act as there are other routes that DL can fly that are more appropriate 76W, A332, A330 sized aircraft that offset the handful of JV routes that require 744/77W/380 aircraft.
J343 wrote:I am not sure if this has been asked or discussed in this forum but why didn't Delta Airlines order the B777-300ER? If they did, will it work out for them? AA and UA seems happy with their B77W
77H wrote:Not to hijack the thread, but with all the 77Es headed to the desert/scrapper it’s surprising UA, being one of the largest 77A/E operators hasn’t picked up additional frames for cheap to use as people movers on trunk/leisure routes.
There was a thread awhile ago comparing fleetwide CASM for the network carriers and I remember seeing UA’s domestic 77A’s having one of the lowest CASM figures in their fleet. Having a few more cheap, low CASM, cargo hauling WBs seems like a win, especially at gate/airspace constrained airports like those found at many of the US3 hubs, during a time period with rapid domestic market growth.
77H
jfklganyc wrote:A captain that flew for Pan Am and Delta and retired once told me “delta doesnt like big planes.”
It held true 20 years ago and it holds true today.
And they may be on to something
PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:Going back to DL's overall strategy is that they would rather be able to obtain a revenue premium on the seats/capacity they offer in a market at the expense of spilling lower-margin Y/economy fares where feasible.
This the direct opposite strategy of the days when NW would rely heavily upon consolidator/heavily discounted/low-margin fares to fill up Y on the 744s on TPAC routes.
StudiodeKadent wrote:KFTG wrote:How is the 77W (an aircraft currently in production and receiving warranty support through Boeing) "obsolete"?
Its obsolete in the sense that the A350-1000 can play the exact same role in a fleet, but at much lower cost.
no longer in use or no longer useful
jayunited wrote:The only reason we have the 77W is because UA needed an aircraft larger than the A359, the A35J wasn't available and Boeing swooped in and reportedly offered UA an unbelievable deal on the 77Ws.
77H
Motorhussy wrote:It’ll be interesting to see if they eventually find a fit for the A350-1000 in their fleet now the 77W is obsolete.
zeke wrote:Waiting for someone to say because the 77W cannot fly LAX-SYD
J343 wrote:I am not sure if this has been asked or discussed in this forum but why didn't Delta Airlines order the B777-300ER? If they did, will it work out for them? AA and UA seems happy with their B77W
jfklganyc wrote:A captain that flew for Pan Am and Delta and retired once told me “delta doesnt like big planes.”
It held true 20 years ago and it holds true today.
And they may be on to something
J343 wrote:I am not sure if this has been asked or discussed in this forum but why didn't Delta Airlines order the B777-300ER? If they did, will it work out for them? AA and UA seems happy with their B77W
StudiodeKadent wrote:KFTG wrote:How is the 77W (an aircraft currently in production and receiving warranty support through Boeing) "obsolete"?
Its obsolete in the sense that the A350-1000 can play the exact same role in a fleet, but at much lower cost.
ScorpioMC3 wrote:Additionally, based on the giant illuminated "Airbus" sign in the Delta museum at ATL, I think it's safe to say Delta is likely to stick with Airbus for the foreseeable future.
ScorpioMC3 wrote:Additionally, based on the giant illuminated "Airbus" sign in the Delta museum at ATL, I think it's safe to say Delta is likely to stick with Airbus for the foreseeable future.
notdownnlocked wrote:Delta has morphed itself in the delight of management into mostly a shuttle service to AF/KL/KE to CDG/AMS/ICN. DL flies the routes from secondary tier two cities. This being a big reason for A350 deferrals. There is no DL flying ICN-JFK/LAX/ORD/SFO/DFW and others bur they are very proud of the new MSP-ICN flight. No need for 777W
TTailedTiger wrote:ScorpioMC3 wrote:Additionally, based on the giant illuminated "Airbus" sign in the Delta museum at ATL, I think it's safe to say Delta is likely to stick with Airbus for the foreseeable future.
Why would they put that in the museum? Aside from a handful of A310’s they got from the Pan Am acquisition Delta never operated any.
TTailedTiger wrote:ScorpioMC3 wrote:Additionally, based on the giant illuminated "Airbus" sign in the Delta museum at ATL, I think it's safe to say Delta is likely to stick with Airbus for the foreseeable future.
Why would they put that in the museum? Aside from a handful of A310’s they got from the Pan Am acquisition Delta never operated any.
JetPilotMike wrote:Delta doesn't need it because they outsource a lot of their widebody flying via their joint ventures. Good (maybe great) for their balance sheet, but not so great for their pilots.
WorldFlier wrote:Motorhussy wrote:It’ll be interesting to see if they eventually find a fit for the A350-1000 in their fleet now the 77W is obsolete.
What? The 777-300ER is obsolete?
You may want to tell that to United. You know, I'm sure they like their brand new, ridiculously discounted*, 777-300ERs.
I would be shocked if the CASM advantage of the A350-1000 was that significant over the 777-300ER when you consider the purchase price disparity (i.e Airbus probably isn't deeply discounting the A350s). Also fleet and pilot commonality as well as the ability to swap 300s and 200s if your Front section either oversells or doesn't sell well...
*I have no proof that they are ridiculously discounted except for the fact that a) United always gets big discounts and b) Boeing was desperate to fill the gap so they wouldn't ridiculous money between now and 777X production
WayexTDI wrote:TTailedTiger wrote:ScorpioMC3 wrote:Additionally, based on the giant illuminated "Airbus" sign in the Delta museum at ATL, I think it's safe to say Delta is likely to stick with Airbus for the foreseeable future.
Why would they put that in the museum? Aside from a handful of A310’s they got from the Pan Am acquisition Delta never operated any.
Sure, Delta Air Lines has ordered exactly 0 Airbuses since the DL-NW merger in 2008.
All the new Airbus planes DL is receiving these days were ordered by NW, even the ones that did not exist back then (like the A320neo, A330neo & A350).
[/sarcasm]
Delta is operating a very large fleet of Airbus aircraft, some acquired from NW, and some brand new straight from Airbus.
The Delta Museum has a dynamic content, and Delta history changes every day; so, why would it not have an Airbus sign?
TTailedTiger wrote:WayexTDI wrote:TTailedTiger wrote:
Why would they put that in the museum? Aside from a handful of A310’s they got from the Pan Am acquisition Delta never operated any.
Sure, Delta Air Lines has ordered exactly 0 Airbuses since the DL-NW merger in 2008.
All the new Airbus planes DL is receiving these days were ordered by NW, even the ones that did not exist back then (like the A320neo, A330neo & A350).
[/sarcasm]
Delta is operating a very large fleet of Airbus aircraft, some acquired from NW, and some brand new straight from Airbus.
The Delta Museum has a dynamic content, and Delta history changes every day; so, why would it not have an Airbus sign?
Delta doesn't own the museum.
WayexTDI wrote:TTailedTiger wrote:WayexTDI wrote:Sure, Delta Air Lines has ordered exactly 0 Airbuses since the DL-NW merger in 2008.
All the new Airbus planes DL is receiving these days were ordered by NW, even the ones that did not exist back then (like the A320neo, A330neo & A350).
[/sarcasm]
Delta is operating a very large fleet of Airbus aircraft, some acquired from NW, and some brand new straight from Airbus.
The Delta Museum has a dynamic content, and Delta history changes every day; so, why would it not have an Airbus sign?
Delta doesn't own the museum.
And? Delta's history didn't stop in 2008; and, as I said, is dynamic.
Delta Air Transport Heritage Museum has decided to add the Airbus sign to reflect the current (or recent) Delta's history; if you wish to change that, then get involved with the museum, get elected on its board and take the necessary decisions.
TTailedTiger wrote:WayexTDI wrote:TTailedTiger wrote:
Delta doesn't own the museum.
And? Delta's history didn't stop in 2008; and, as I said, is dynamic.
Delta Air Transport Heritage Museum has decided to add the Airbus sign to reflect the current (or recent) Delta's history; if you wish to change that, then get involved with the museum, get elected on its board and take the necessary decisions.
I simply asked why. You are putting words in my mouth. I never said I had an issue with it. It just seems out of place. Just like the current uniform would look out of place on display at the museum.
TTailedTiger wrote:ScorpioMC3 wrote:Additionally, based on the giant illuminated "Airbus" sign in the Delta museum at ATL, I think it's safe to say Delta is likely to stick with Airbus for the foreseeable future.
Why would they put that in the museum? Aside from a handful of A310’s they got from the Pan Am acquisition Delta never operated any.
Oliver2020 wrote:As I would screenshot the section of the Wikipedia link that provides the information on the A310, and I would appreciate if you or anyone else could PM me and explain how to post pictures on this website. Anyway the section is in the retired AC section.