Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
DL Love/hate MD & Airbus  
User currently offlineolddominion727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 377 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 6 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 17893 times:

Looking back at DL's history it seems quite fickle with all plane makers except Boeing. It owned A310's with the acquisition of PA routes, then got rid of those as soon as the 767's & L10 11's could fill the gaps. Then they merge with NW and keep their A320 fleet (which seems to be a good match), keeps the A332 & A333 fleet, also seemingly a good match, declined the A340 fleet (good call); owned DC10's dumped them, then acquired WA, dumped more, but then bought the MD11, dumped that them too (another good call), dumping the DC9's, MD80's, 88's and frothing at the mouth for more '90's. I guess some of it is fleet consoliation and modernization, but is it really that hard to train pilots and cabin to be crossed trained with other equipment? The only Boeing I can ever recall them dumping was the 747-100's. Yes, the 737's 727's because they'd flown thousands of miles over decades and they were tired and worn.

96 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10326 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 17875 times:

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
owned DC10's dumped them,

These were only a stopgap until the L-1011 came along.

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
The only Boeing I can ever recall them dumping was the 747-100's.

Don't forget that the 747 was the FIRST Boeing that DL ever operated. They dumped them because, at that time, there were no routes that they could fly, economically (except for the PanAm interchange). If they could have waited another two years, they could have used them on ATL-LGW.......20/20 hindsight.

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
Then they merge with NW and keep their A320 fleet (which seems to be a good match), keeps the A332 & A333 fleet, also seemingly a good match, declined the A340 fleet (good call);

Different crew in the driver's seat than when other previous orders were made.

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
Looking back at DL's history it seems quite fickle with all plane makers except Boeing.

You need to look at the history past the mid 70s to be accurate. They had a pretty good relationship with Douglas with the DC3/4/6/7/8/9 and even the MD-88.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinehomsar From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1148 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 6 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 17800 times:

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
declined the A340 fleet (good call)

What A340 fleet did DL decline?



I was raised by a cup of coffee.
User currently offlinemilesrich From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1988 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (2 years 6 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 17758 times:

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
Looking back at DL's history it seems quite fickle with all plane makers except Boeing. It owned A310's with the acquisition of PA routes, then got rid of those as soon as the 767's & L10 11's could fill the gaps. Then they merge with NW and keep their A320 fleet (which seems to be a good match), keeps the A332 & A333 fleet, also seemingly a good match, declined the A340 fleet (good call); owned DC10's dumped them, then acquired WA, dumped more, but then bought the MD11, dumped that them too (another good call), dumping the DC9's, MD80's, 88's and frothing at the mouth for more '90's. I guess some of it is fleet consoliation and modernization, but is it really that hard to train pilots and cabin to be crossed trained with other equipment? The only Boeing I can ever recall them dumping was the 747-100's. Yes, the 737's 727's because they'd flown thousands of miles over decades and they were tired and worn.

Sorry, but I think you explanation is a bit simplistic, not just on the 747 which was explained above but the DC-10, MD-11, MD-90 and the Airbus equipment.

First of all, Delta, replaced the Pan Am A-310's with new A-310's, then quickly dumped them, some to Air Jamaica, who they had serviced DC-8's for at the Tech Center. They continued to maintain the A-310's for a while too for Air Jamaica. I will address your comments on the other aircraft. Delta, in sort of surprise, chose the L-1011, over the DC-10. They only ordered five DC-10's which were immediately sold to United and then leased back as a stop gap and somewhat as insurance when the RB-211 ran into problems, Rolls Royce almost went bankrupt, and Lockheed went with them. I have never understood why Lockheed just didn't offer the L-1011 with GE CF-6 or PW JT-9's, or why it was difficult to do that they didn't do it. Once they had enough L-1011's, the Tens went to United. As far as Western's DC-10's, they sold them off for fleet simplification as the the small number of them made them uneconomical.

The MD-11's didn't meet their operational specs, so they were sold off. They couldn't fly PDX-NRT consistently nonstop with a full payload, and then the 777-ER/LR came along and why fly a three engine airplane when you can do the same or better job with a twin? American dumped them for the same reason. You say Delta dumped the DC-9's, I would disagree. The only aircraft they didn't keep for an extended period were the DC-9-14's as they turned out to be too small and they had all those 727-232A's coming, and replaced the DC-9-31's for the same reason, plus they didn't have two galleys like Delta's DC-9-32's and at time, they served full meals on flights such as ATL-ORD. Some DC-9-32's were sold over the years as newer 727's, 757's, and 767's arrived, but the last DC-9-32's were not retired until 1992, some 25 years after they entered service. Those last 25 or 30 ships became Valujet's initial fleet.

Delta still has almost ever MD-88 they ever received, and they have been in service since 1988, 23 years. Originally, they ordered over 100 MD-90's, but they had "bugs" when they were delivered and after the first 16, they cancelled the orders, but at the time, Boeing bought MDD and Delta chose the 737-832 and Boeing was just as happy. But now, after ironing out the small problems, mostly maintenance with the engines on the MD-90's and the fact that used ships can be picked up very cheaply, they have expanded their fleet.

After their so called bad experience with the A-310's, Delta was very anti Airbus, but that was under Ron Allen, and Leo Mullin. Richard Anderson came from NW and his Airbus experience was different. Delta had signed an exclusive aircraft arrangement with Boeing but I think that contract was rejected in the Chapter 11. Plus with NW's large fleet of A-319's and A-320's, it made economic sense to keep them, and they are sort of limited service life airplanes so the order ones in the fleet probably would have not brought all that much and replacing them with 737's would have been an unnecessary expense.

Yes, C.E. Woolman and Douglas had a great relationship. Delta bought operated more regular body DC-8 than any other airline except United. They bought the stretch 8, and their order from L-1011's was placed after Mr. Woolman died. Delta also operated the DC-2, DC-3 DC-4, DC-6 and DC-7. The DC-10 was the first Santa Monica-Long Beach product that they didn't choose if you don't count the five plane "insurance" order. But again, that was after the death of Mr. Woolman.

I would bet if there was an inexpensive way to re-engine the MD-88's, Delta would probably do it. Those airplanes fit many of their routes just perfectly. All they need is more efficient engines, plus they are getting up in years, but compared to the age of some of the DC-9-31's that NW had at the time of the merger, they are relatively young. Everyone writes about how American is saddled with high costs with their Super 80's but the fact that Delta was able to get lease concessions and cram down the amount owed on those airplanes in Chapter 11, and has better labor contracts makes operating them more acceptable to Delta. Fuel is huge expense, but new airplanes cost lots of money and labor is significant expense too. Delta dumped their pension plans, etc.


User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4216 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (2 years 6 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 17707 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting homsar (Reply 2):
What A340 fleet did DL decline?

It was NW that declined the 343 to replace its aging DC-10s.


User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3402 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 17622 times:

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
767's & L10 11's




You mean L1011& 767s. That weak twin jet, should never go before a great trijet.


User currently onlinen901wa From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 445 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 6 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 17627 times:

For the A310 fleet, From what I saw when they first showed up from PA, they were in bad shape. The Deferal MTC list ( OMI ) was long on every one I saw. In fact you could hold the Print out eye level, and the printout ran down to the deck and a few pages. Its the longest I ever saw to this day. They sucked a lot of Man power and time, Delta just got tired of throwing parts at it, and Airbus wanted to Keep Delta, and offered new A310 in exchange. But with the exAC L-1011-500 and new 767-300ERs that were showing up, the 310 was done.
I was not fond of the A310, and that had more to do with the shape they were in. The A320s and A330s that are in the Fleet now are in Great Shape and NWA had done a Great job keeping them that way. So it was Smart to keep then, and new Delta did not have to plan to replace them, like the A310's we first got. Let me say, I am glad they kept the Airbus, Once you get to learn the airplane you can see how good the Airplane is.

As for WA DC-10. I worked on the WAL DC-10's and they were in Good Shape, But you got to remember at that time DC-10 were worth their weight in Gold. Fed EX and AA were buying them up, and with such a small fleet of DC-10's It was a smart to make a buck on it, when they could easy swap them for a L-1011.

The MD-11 Order was made back in 1988 and was going to be the Int flagship. They had only 4 options at that time, the 747-400 , A330/340 or MD-11 ( I think the 777 was still on the board, and the A330/A340 was just launched). I have heard storys that Delta was not going to buy another 4 eng airplane after the 747-100 left, and Long Haul ETOPS was still new, so that left the MD-11. To be honest I loved the MD-11. I learned a lot on the bird. And I still think it is a Great Airplane with 14 years in service at Delta not bad ( I think they were pulled early to cut cost ).

Don't forget the DC-9's that Delta flew before they parked them were old too. They ran them out like the 727 and got their money out of it. The 88 will be here for a while, and the NWA DC-9's would have stayed longer if Fuel was not a issue.

Now don't forget the 737-332 that were ordered the same time as the MD-11, but Delta did not want them when they got them. So 1 or 2 sat before Delta sold them off. They never made it into service, and I think 1 was parked in ATL, but not sure ( Getting Old ).

Now this is just from what I have seen, and if anything Delta has been more of a Douglas / MDC airline to me. They stuck out the MD-11 and MD-90 thru its problems, and I think you will see them stick out the 88 as long as they can. Hope the above makes sense.


User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (2 years 6 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 17572 times:

Everyone has done a pretty good job so not much for me to add but ill address this:

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
dumping the DC9's, MD80's, 88's



DL is not dumping the 88s. The let go a few during BK but that's about it. They will remain till about 2018, which is the year that's currently being thrown around for their retirement.



What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlineolddominion727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 377 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 6 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 17519 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 5):

Yeah, I love L10 11's too, much more than the 767. I am sad to see them go. I wish they would've updated them... into the new century


User currently offlineolddominion727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 377 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 6 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 17497 times:

Quoting n901wa (Reply 6):

Makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the info


User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3402 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (2 years 6 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 17499 times:

Quoting milesrich (Reply 3):
Yes, C.E. Woolman and Douglas had a great relationship. Delta bought operated more regular body DC-8 than any other airline except United. They bought the stretch 8, and their order from L-1011's was placed after Mr. Woolman died. Delta also operated the DC-2, DC-3 DC-4, DC-6 and DC-7. The DC-10 was the first Santa Monica-Long Beach product that they didn't choose if you don't count the five plane "insurance" order. But again, that was after the death of Mr. Woolman.






The reason why DL originally turned down the DC-10, was because of delays with deliveries with their DC-8s and DC-9s. Delta thought they had a safe bet with Lockheed and their L1011, ( boy was they wrong) but the problem with RR engines, delayed the L1011 from entering the fleet. Due to delays with Lockheed, DL ordered DC-10s, and when the L1011s started entering the fleet, they sold the DC-10s to UA.


User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (2 years 6 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 17143 times:

Quoting olddominion727 (Reply 8):

The Tristar was regarded by many as an a/c well ahead of its time. Just read up on some stuff in TecchOps. You'll be amazed at how advanced it was and how good of a job Lockheed did relative to its peers.



What gets measured gets done.
User currently offline727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 6288 posts, RR: 17
Reply 12, posted (2 years 6 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 16789 times:

Didn't DL order 52 BOEING 737-300 & fhen canceled the order?


Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
User currently offlinetoltommy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3286 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (2 years 6 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 16503 times:

Quoting milesrich (Reply 3):
The MD-11's didn't meet their operational specs, so they were sold off. They couldn't fly PDX-NRT consistently nonstop with a full payload

Actually, it was LAX-HKG. MD promised the plane would be able to fly that route nonstop, but it only took a slight shift in winds to prevent it. Lot of fuel stops at TPE. I was PDX based, never had problems getting to Japan on the Mighty Dog.

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 12):
Didn't DL order 52 BOEING 737-300 & fhen canceled the order?

Yes, I think they actually took a few planes from the order, and then sold them off. They were referred to as the 73G because they were the first glass cockpit 737 at Delta.

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 11):
The Tristar was regarded by many as an a/c well ahead of its time.

No doubt. I've heard that Lockheed had to dumb down the advancements that the Tristar made, because they weren't sure the airlines and/or pilots would accept them.


User currently offlinejgrantco From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 44 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 6 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 16497 times:

I remember a large number of 737-200 in the fleet. I thought the 1st 737-300 showed up from Western in the merger.

User currently offlinemilesrich From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1988 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (2 years 6 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 16361 times:

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 12):

Didn't DL order 52 BOEING 737-300 & fhen canceled the order?

I think with options, their plan was to take more than 100 of them. As someone pointed out, only a few were delivered and sold before they were ever operated. There were plans to operate them because the Flight Attendant's manual had a section on them.

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 10):
The reason why DL originally turned down the DC-10, was because of delays with deliveries with their DC-8s and DC-9s. Delta thought they had a safe bet with Lockheed and their L1011, ( boy was they wrong) but the problem with RR engines, delayed the L1011 from entering the fleet. Due to delays with Lockheed, DL ordered DC-10s, and when the L1011s started entering the fleet, they sold the DC-10s to UA.

Delays with DC-8's, which ones, the later Series 51s? the Stretch Series 61s? The 11's were certainly delivered on time. In fact, I believe they entered service a few months before the date originally targeted by Douglas. I do know that Douglas had some production problems with the DC-9's and that led to their merger, sale to McDonnell, but Delta was the launch customer and I have never heard this story before. Furthermore, they didn't sell their DC-10's to United when the L-1011's came into the fleet. They made a deal to sell United the DC-10's and lease them back long before the first L-1011 was delivered, and Delta was the only airline to operate factory delivered - vs used - 747's, DC-10's, and L-1011's all at the same time.

As far as Lockheed, they didn't exactly have the stellar customer service record with airlines for service that Delta did, which is one of the reasons the DC-10 was built to begin with as United and American didn't want to order the Tristar which was announced first. While American had purchased Electras from Lockheed, the only airliner that United ever bought from them was the L-18 Lodestar that UAL operated for a few years on the West Coast routes. The thought was that Burbank based Lockheed was more interested in military sales than airline ones.

At the time, I think the fact that Lockheed only offered a Rolls Royce engine option was also a reason these two carriers ordered the DC-10. Yes, the Tristar was advanced airplane, so was the Stratocruiser, so was the Convair 880. Had the DC-10 not had a cargo door problem and had American not decided to use forklifts to change engines, the airplaine's reputation would have been untarnished until 18 years after it went into service when the real design flaw, the lack of real independent hydraulic systems, led to the disaster at SUX, however, if an RB-211 had an uncontrolled explosion in the rear fuselage of the L-1011, who knows what could have happened. In the US, three major airlines ordered the L-1011, two of which were big Constellation customers, Eastern and TWA, while all the rest except Braniff that skipped the jumbo jet wide body craze ordered the DC-10. (I know, Northeast ordered the L-1011. They the Bristol Britannia too.) And when it came to flying the aircraft, even on a used or cargo conversion basis, the DC-10 had a lot more customers. The DC-10 v L-1011 argument can go on forever, but I don't think anyone can argue that Lockheed won that battle anymore than the Constellation, no matter how beautiful it was, beat out the DC-6 and DC-7 series aircraft.


User currently onlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10326 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (2 years 6 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 16151 times:

Quoting n901wa (Reply 6):
The MD-11 Order was made back in 1988 and was going to be the Int flagship. They had only 4 options at that time, the 747-400 , A330/340 or MD-11 ( I think the 777 was still on the board, and the A330/A340 was just launched). I have heard storys that Delta was not going to buy another 4 eng airplane after the 747-100 left, and Long Haul ETOPS was still new, so that left the MD-11.

I heard that the reason the MD-11 was chosen over the 747-400 was purely monetary. It was said that you could buy 3 MD-11s for every two 747-400s and that's why they were chosen. 20/20 hindsight, but even at that, the 747s would probably been a better value, if chosen. I'd be willing to bet that if they had either kept the 747-100s long enough for the TATL routes to come along or if the routes had come earlier, you might have seen DL using them up into the 80s. DL's route system, at the time, just did not fit them.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently onlinen901wa From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 445 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 6 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 16087 times:

Quoting jgrantco (Reply 14):

Yea the first 737-347s showed up at the Western Merger. The 737-332 were ordered after the merger, and was the ones that were not put into service. The other second hand 300's showed up much later.

Quoting toltommy (Reply 13):

Yea I thought it was the LAX-HKG was the issue. I remember putting in the Extra Fuel Tanks in the aft end of the Fwd cargo hold ( I think they were 804, 805 & 806 that had 2 bladders installed ), and when they fulled the temp had to be right so the tanks would be completly full.


User currently offlineTOMMY767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (2 years 6 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 13053 times:

Delta had quite a few 737-232 ADVs which were delivered in the mid to late 1980s and then disposed of in the mid 2000s. Another interesting bird that DL had and kept around for a while until the economics weren't feasible any longer.

The 733s were from Western but eventually migrated on certain ATL routings. One loyal 733 routing for Delta was ABE-ATL. They were also dumped in the early mid 2000s but were delivered in the mid 1980s. IIRC, UA had younger 733s than DL but they were dumped around the same time as well.

The 762s had some very interesting routings towards the end but they never went international. Domestic only.

DL has ran a consistent game with the M88s, 738s, 763s, and 757s thus far. They seem to be the favorites, in addition to the A330s from NW. I think DL likes the A320 but in terms of overall cabin shape they are generally not the best, but the economics are likely fantastic.



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlinehomsar From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1148 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 6 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 11824 times:

So, what was DL's reasoning behind ordering 737-300s and then cancelling them, but keeping the ones around that they already had?


I was raised by a cup of coffee.
User currently offlineExL10Mktg From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 63 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 6 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 11744 times:

Quoting milesrich (Reply 3):
I have never understood why Lockheed just didn't offer the L-1011 with GE CF-6 or PW JT-9's

The L-1011 was offered with P&W engines to Pan Am although it would have involved re-engineering the S-duct for the center engine. I'm not sure in the early days if that was an option due to Lockheed's financial condition. The RB-211 was by far the shortest of the 3 engines so it fit well for the design. The P&W was longer but could be made to fit. The GE was simply too long.

Quoting milesrich (Reply 15):
Had the DC-10 not had a cargo door problem and had American not decided to use forklifts to change engines, the airplaine's reputation would have been untarnished until 18 years after it went into service when the real design flaw, the lack of real independent hydraulic systems, led to the disaster at SUX

AA 190 was the accident that revealed the hydraulic problems, not UA 232. The plane was brought down not by the engine falling off but by the consequences of losing corresponding hydraulic pressure on the slats causing them to retract on one side (actually exposing a secondary design flaw as well, that the loss of pressure caused retraction, rather than requiring pressure to extend AND retract as was the case with the L-1011.) The United accident happened because the DC-10 was ultimately re-certified (after the AA accident caused it's certificate to be revoked) without any major redesign/retrofit required. There was far more to that re-certification process than the public will ever know about.


User currently offlineFX1816 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1400 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (2 years 6 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 9985 times:

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 18):
The 733s were from Western but eventually migrated on certain ATL routings. One loyal 733 routing for Delta was ABE-ATL. They were also dumped in the early mid 2000s but were delivered in the mid 1980s. IIRC, UA had younger 733s than DL but they were dumped around the same time as well.

Not all of the 733's were from Western. They had a few that were with other carriers too like Western Pacific and Germania. The UAL 733's were not that much younger than that of the Western ones and DAL retired the 733 in 2005 and the 732 in 2006. UAL retired the 733 in October of 2009, less than a month after I flew on two of them.

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 5):
Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
767's & L10 11's




You mean L1011& 767s. That weak twin jet, should never go before a great trijet.

Try positing something worth while eh? You just keep on with the same old story about "weak" twins, seems to me that the twins are dominating the markets ok.

FX1816


User currently onlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10326 posts, RR: 14
Reply 22, posted (2 years 6 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8583 times:

Quoting ExL10Mktg (Reply 20):
AA 190

AA 191

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 18):
Delta had quite a few 737-232 ADVs which were delivered in the mid to late 1980s and then disposed of in the mid 2000s. Another interesting bird that DL had and kept around for a while until the economics weren't feasible any longer.

33 brand new birds, to be exact.......plus the ones received in the WA merger. WA had a handful that were also delivered, new, to WA before the merger was complete (delivered in DL colors, BTW).The 33 original DL ones were used for awhile on the Delta Express service, as long as that lasted.

Quoting milesrich (Reply 15):
The DC-10 v L-1011 argument can go on forever, but I don't think anyone can argue that Lockheed won that battle anymore than the Constellation, no matter how beautiful it was, beat out the DC-6 and DC-7 series aircraft.

I think that if you ask most pilots, specifically those that have flown both, they will tell you that the Tristar was more of a pilot's a/c than the DC-10. Lockheed lost money on them, more than likely because they were built to this standard.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinemilesrich From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1988 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 7611 times:

Quoting n901wa (Reply 17):
Yea the first 737-347s showed up at the Western Merger. The 737-332 were ordered after the merger, and was the ones that were not put into service. The other second hand 300's showed up much later.

Quoting toltommy (Reply 13):

Yea I thought it was the LAX-HKG was the issue. I remember putting in the Extra Fuel Tanks in the aft end of the Fwd cargo hold ( I think they were 804, 805 & 806 that had 2 bladders installed ), and when they fulled the temp had to be right so the tanks would be completly full.

There were 13 737-347's that Western had prior to the merger. These aircraft had conventional vacuum gauge cockpits. The Gernania 737-300's were glass cockpit aircraft that were leased in 1999, when Delta was short of aircraft, and they had glass cockpits. They were grounded rather quickly, when the cutbacks came after 9-11. At the time, the reasoning given was that they needed a separate flight deck crew, i.e, they couldn't be used to sub for the 737-347's, and since they were a small sub fleet, they went first.

The Delta 737-232A's were leased from Boeing in exchange for the first ten or so L-1011's in the fleet, that later ended up with ATA. When the pilots gave concessions, the Ron Allen management group agreed to keep the aircraft and they all became the fleet of Delta Express. After 9-11, Leo Mullin killed Delta Express, opening up the market door for Jet Blue.


User currently offlineBoeing773ER From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 413 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7594 times:

Quoting milesrich (Reply 23):

When the pilots gave concessions, the Ron Allen management group agreed to keep the aircraft and they all became the fleet of Delta Express. After 9-11, Leo Mullin killed Delta Express, opening up the market door for Jet Blue.

But I thought Song replace Delta Express a year latter?

Still interesting.



Work Hard, Fly Right.
25 mayor : IIRC, Song was started in response to JetBlue, using 757s.
26 FlyASAGuy2005 : Not quite. The transition was only a period of a few months between Express and SONG. Song was morphed from Delta Express to remain competative with
27 maxpower1954 : I've not flown the L-1011, but the DC-10 is very much a pilot's airplane, on par with the 727. Easy to fly and honest. BTW, airlines could care less
28 747400sp : If I dislike twins and decide to say so in my reply's, that is my business! If do not my reply's, do not read them, simple as that!
29 FX1816 : Yes I don't HAVE to read it and you are entitled to your opinion but is it really relevant to say it ALL of the time? It makes you sound silly especi
30 milesrich : Transition implies they moved from one to the other. Song was not started until after Express was gone for a while, but by the time Song got going. O
31 WA707atMSP : Miles, According to "The Sporty Game", by John Newhouse, Lockheed considered offering the L-1011 with CF-6s to win UA's order, but Lockheed's managem
32 747400sp : Are you kidding me, Lockheed mad a chance to buy Douglas and did not take it, now that very sad. Could you imagine how good a LD-10 could have been?
33 FlyASAGuy2005 : In your original post, you made it seem like Express completey ceased operations, thus allowing B6 to move in which in itself was inaccurate as they
34 WA707atMSP : Unfortunately, I'm not kidding. If you want to learn more, buy a copy of "The Sporty Game" at one of the used book websites like Alibris. The Sporty
35 FX1816 : What exactly do you mean that an L1011 is faster, do you have any proof? Most all of those planes cruise between .77 and .82 Mach when they fly throu
36 TSS : It certainly would have been interesting to see which company's overall design philosophy would have been implemented in their subsequent commercial
37 TrijetsRMissed : While not over-indulged yet in this thread, I want to add some notes on the MD-11 and MD-90, before the classic a.net myths make the thread. It's fair
38 Post contains images TrijetsRMissed : Indeed. As highly sophisticated as the Tristar was, it could never match the DC-10 in BOTH range and payload.
39 darksnowynight : Interesting. I was always under the impression that the 707s were relatively fast as airliners go. Or is it just that they do not climb as well? Or m
40 mayor : I was just going by the rumor going around at the time.......having said that, loyalty to who? Douglas? We had as much, if not more, business with Bo
41 Max Q : The answer was provided on September 22nd 1981 when an Eastern Airlines L1011 departing Newark for San Juan PR had an uncontained failure of the No.
42 FlyASAGuy2005 : I think that would have been wholy possible had 9/11 not happened. We started getting 738s, T7s, 764s, new build 757s and 763ERs all around the same
43 mayor : Well, if I'm not mistaken, that plan went down the toilet BEFORE 9/11.
44 FlyASAGuy2005 : Really? And when you look at it, all the old stuff was on the way out the door anyway. The TriStars were no longer doing any int'l stuff but a bunch
45 mayor : Just as an FYI, when I started with DL in '71, we had 173 a/c in the fleet......DC-8s, 9s, CV880s, 747s, L100s
46 westindian425 : I think someone already clarified the major differences between the DC-10 and the L1011, but one thing I'd like to point out is a catastrophic failur
47 SEPilot : There is another thread about this, and count me as one who deeply regrets that this did not happen. The worst thing that ever happened in the airlin
48 TrijetsRMissed : When an airline is the launch customer of two different aircraft types, placing orders for over 300+ frames (yes, options included) in a three year p
49 mayor : There again, that is what we were told......that they were going for fleet simplification with an ALL Boeing fleet. Probably the biggest mistake that
50 Max Q : I don't really understand your point. First of all, the 747 most certainly has four independent hydraulic systems. The A300 is a twin but still has t
51 Post contains images TrijetsRMissed : Perhaps I was not clear... It's pretty simple, the hydraulic systems in the aforementioned types are routed along the perimeter of the aircraft concu
52 Max Q : Sorry, I get a little carried away in my affection for the Tristar, you are correct, of course in your description of that fourth hydraulic system on
53 SEPilot : The 747 had four independent systems. Also, all of the other manufacturers took a lot more care in the routing of hydraulic lines than did MD on the
54 darksnowynight : Very true. I don't know why people fixate on the number of systems for those two incidents. I even remember instructors where I went to school tellin
55 Post contains images n901wa : Strange the tread talked about JL 123 aft P-dome. I know for a fact that the L-1011 had a incident where the Aft P-dome failed and the L-1011 was a li
56 Max Q : Fascinating, and another testament to the L1011's good design.
57 SEPilot : The problem with the JL 747 was that the pressure bulkhead had been repaired improperly; it was supposed to have two rows of rivets at every joint but
58 brilondon : The L1011 were not the greatest in terms of fuel efficiency, but I loved the sound of the RR spooling up on take off. These days you would get the "g
59 Post contains links and images FlyASAGuy2005 : Pollution? hehe View Large View MediumPhoto © Art Brett - Photovation Images
60 mayor : Wonder if anyone besides me remembers the CV880 at ORD in the early to mid 70s........at the time DL was in gates H6-8a/b-10a/b and 11a/b. TWA was di
61 FlyASAGuy2005 : There is a great back story to these photos. The member that owns? them laid it out quite well some time last year. I don't even remember what the th
62 mayor : That was me.......I got the story from Larry Pullen, the DL pilot that took the pics.
63 FlyASAGuy2005 : HAHA!! Imagine that! Do you still have a link to that thread? Or would you care sharing it again!?!!
64 Post contains links mayor : Here ya go............................ Iconic DL Convair 880 Photo Story (by catiii Aug 26 2010 in Civil Aviation)?threadid=4911454&searchid=4911
65 Post contains images FlyASAGuy2005 : GREAT story even reading it again fully almost 6 months later. And neat to see we have other members with close ties and to read their accounts as we
66 columba : For DL always was a MDD airline and never a Boeing airline. They had Dc 8s and Dc 9s instead of 737s and 707s later they choose the L1011 over the Dc
67 mayor : I wouldn't say that......we got our first Boeing with the delivery of the 747 in 1970 and at one time we had the world's largest fleet of 727s, plus
68 SEPilot : Don't you mean a Douglas airline? At that time the only Boeing available was the 377; which was hardly suitable for a strictly domestic airline. Ther
69 mayor : Yes, I did.....thanks for clearing up that slip.
70 Post contains links TrijetsRMissed : Apologies for the late responses... it has been a busy work week. As I clarified, the point wasn't 4 vs 3, but the design. Contrary to the above state
71 FlyASAGuy2005 : Unfortunately?
72 mayor : They weren't TOO old at the time, having been delivered in the mid 80s. Plus all the ones that Western had at the time of the merger. Only because of
73 TrijetsRMissed : We agree to disagree. I don't see how inheriting aircraft from acquisitions boosts a manufacturer as the preferred source for airplanes. Inheriting s
74 mayor : Uh, the fleet simplification plan was being thought of before there were a large amount of MD-88s in the fleet. I know......I was there. Then how can
75 FlyASAGuy2005 : Umm...no this was all before my time if you can't tell so I really don't care. However, I asked a simple question to which you didn't answer...
76 milesrich : First of all, Delta started paring their DC-8 Fleet down from 42 in 1974 when the 8 Pan Am DC-8-33's were grounded. 2nd, the fleet came down to 13 DC
77 TrijetsRMissed : Even if you were there, this does not make practical sense. Not every rumor through the grapevine is true and not every strategy discussed at the C-l
78 mayor : There was an informal plan to simplify the fleet floating around, sometime in the mid 90s, IIRC. This was abandoned before the Chapter 11 filing beca
79 Cargolex : Did they? A sizable number DL's "launch customer" deliveries of DC-9's (specifically DC-9's built before 1968) were off-loaded during the 1970s, as w
80 EMB170 : Yes...IIRC weren't they also on ATL-MDT, ATL-TOL, and ATL-FWA?
81 Post contains links TrijetsRMissed : Yes, they did. IIRC, DL took delivery of the first DC-9 in 1965. The last aircraft was officially retired 1/93. That is almost 28 years of service wi
82 1337Delta764 : And remember, DL was originally going to replace their 727s with MD-90s. This speaks a lot about DL's past loyalty to MDC. MDC did not offer any direc
83 DL_Mech : Nice informative post there, but your 737-332 info is a little off. Five airplanes were delivered and, I believe, that three were flown by DL for a s
84 mayor : Actually, IIRC, the 757s were supposed to be the 727 replacement. Technically, wrong. They bought 5 DC-10s in the mid 70s, sold them to UA and leased
85 1337Delta764 : Since when? Boeing marketed the 757 as a 727 replacement, however, that doesn't automatically mean that DL ordered them specifically for that role. I
86 mayor : What's your point......in some cases the 757s replaced 727s on certain domestic routes, i.e. ATL-SLC, CVG-SLC.
87 1337Delta764 : My point is that the 757s were mainly ordered to replace the DC-8s on domestic routes, not to replace the 727s. The MD-90 was the original intended 7
88 mayor : Good grief!! According to your profile, you weren't even born when this was happening. Where, pray tell, do you get your info?
89 1337Delta764 : Ask any Delta insider. It is an industry-known fact that DL was going to replace their 727s with MD-90s, but then switched to the 738. In fact, very
90 milesrich : Are you referring to the DC-8-71's? The DC-8-51's were long gone before the first 757 went into service with Eastern. Delta didn't receive their firs
91 milesrich : Northeast did not have any Convair Aircraft when Delta entered into merger negotiations with them. They were long gone. NE never owned those airplane
92 Post contains images mayor : Like me, perhaps?? True.........the DC-8s, with the exception of the -61s, were LONG gone before they ever ordered or got any 757s. I think the -71 "
93 dtw9 : I don't think the -71 was an "experiment". Delta had a hard time convincing themselves that they needed to buy a new 200 seater when they in fact had
94 mayor : And not long after the 767 was delivered, they removed a row of F/C seats because pax complained that it seemed cramped up there. I can remember them
95 milesrich : My last flights on the DC-8-71 were on Delta on the ATL-DTW route, non stop. If they operated them on the multistop DFW-ATL routes, it was not freque
96 mayor : That was after I left SHV for SLC, but I was told that it was a frequent occurrence until someone saw the light. There had been several blown tires a
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Did DL Buy Additional MD-90s To Replace Only DC-9s posted Thu Jan 5 2012 17:44:47 by 747400sp
The 'love/hate' Airports According To Fodor's posted Mon Mar 19 2007 08:39:07 by SQ452
DL And The MD-90 To GEG posted Mon Jul 10 2006 10:42:43 by ASMD11
Why I Love Boeing & Airbus (and What I Don't Like) posted Sun Mar 5 2006 22:40:44 by JAAlbert
DL To Start MD-88 Service To PHF On January 31 posted Sun Jan 2 2005 23:31:36 by IslipWN
Gotta Love Envelope Protection *Airbus Joke* posted Mon Nov 8 2004 17:08:59 by 2H4
DL And The MD-11 posted Tue Sep 21 2004 02:03:22 by DLKAPA
When Does DL Phase Out MD-11 posted Mon Sep 22 2003 17:27:17 by Soundtrack
Do You Have A Love/Hate Relationship With Flying? posted Thu Aug 28 2003 23:05:15 by Canadi>nBoy
Do You Love/Hate The 707? posted Mon Aug 25 2003 20:16:33 by Aaron747