questions From Australia, joined Sep 2011, 333 posts, RR: 0 Posted (9 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 11502 times:
DL has a strategy of using (mostly refurbished) older aircraft which have a lower acquisition cost that offsets higher maintenance and fuel. Other airlines have a strategy of new aircraft with higher acquisition costs but lower maintenance and fuel costs. DL's strategy is similar to NW's.
- How does DL balance the rate of new aircraft purchases with the acquisition of "pre-owned" aircraft and maintenance of older aircraft? In other words, if executed poorly DL could find itself in a position with too many older aircraft and prohibitive new aircraft acquisition costs -- implications: high maintenance costs, high fuel costs, customer perception.
- What other risks does DL have with this strategy?
- Which other airlines have a similar strategy? (not referring to airlines with simply older aircraft)
airliner371 From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 887 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 11336 times:
What is also interesting is DL while focusing on acquiring refurbished aircraft also is buying 100 737-900ERs.
There strategy is very different from any other major US carrier... AA, UA, WN, US and B6.
milesrich From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1859 posts, RR: 7 Reply 2, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 10997 times:
Delta has very cheap leases or loans if any on their MD-88's due to renegotiation through bankruptcy. Even though these aircraft burn more fuel than a 737-800, the costs of operation including ownership are competitive on most route segments and much less than any Regional Jet. The MD-90 is very fuel efficient and the cost of acquisition is very low. The MD-88 becomes more costly on longer flights but on 300-700 mile trips, the incremental cost difference is not that much. Northwest used to operate these stage lengths with DC-9-30's and 40's. With American's reduced labor costs and other savings in bankruptcy, they may keep the MD-83's for a longer period of time.
cosyr From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 221 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 10722 times:
One of the biggest risks Delta has is that they have the highest percentage of their aircraft owned or on capital leases (lease to own) of any major airline in the US. When the economy gets tough and and they park some planes, they are not returning them to a lessor to be "somebody else' problem." They own the plane and it is both their own cost to swallow and sort of a missed opportunity, owning a plane that is sitting on the ground. This was very much NW's strategy, and Anderson's background there seems to have brought that to DL. At one point NW owned 90% of their fleet, from one of their last 10k reports.
By comparison American and United own about 40-60% of their planes, giving them a lot of flexibility to get rid of bad planes, adjust to new strategies or just negotiate pricing. I think the trade off is the same as owning or leasing cars for yourself. Owning is cheaper in the long run, especially if you keep the car a long time, but also built up equity even if you don't, but if there's no market for used planes (like right now) then leasing allows you to stay flexible and up to date.
I personally think that 40-60% seems like a better balance for airlines that fly a lot of different plane types. On the other end of the spectrum, US owns only like 15-20% of their fleet, which has to be expensive.
mayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 9272 posts, RR: 13 Reply 4, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 10728 times:
Quoting cosyr (Reply 3): This was very much NW's strategy, and Anderson's background there seems to have brought that to DL. At one point NW owned 90% of their fleet, from one of their last 10k reports.
When I started with DL, in '71, we owned the ENTIRE fleet and prided ourselves on that fact. Now I know that has varied in the years since, but I don't think that particular strategy has necessarily been broung over from NW. It was always part of the strategy. Without looking at the figures, I would still bet that it's nowhere near NW's 90%.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
PPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8497 posts, RR: 42 Reply 5, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 10723 times:
They are doing this because they have a lot of debt to pay down. Also, buying a lot of new planes with a poor credit rating will cost you in interest some of the benefits of buying new planes.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
tommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6195 posts, RR: 9 Reply 6, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 10727 times:
Well it was just a matter of time before DL committed to the 739....
I think DL's strategy is quite noble. Getting M90s second hand was in ingenius idea as they are just as efficient as a 320, and more efficient than a M88. The 717s from AirTran are coming on board soon, and those will be replacing the D95s and I would think some M88s and older 320s. They apparently got a sweet lease deal on them as well.
When you compare that to say the former CO, it's a better deal. CO paid through the nose for brand new 737s for the last 15 years or so. The utilization rates were very high, and the preventative MX was also costly. However at the end of the day you have to figure that these new planes are going to break as some point anyway -- might as well fly an aircraft that is cheaper to aquire and mostly reliable in the end.
"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
n471wn From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1196 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 10727 times:
Delta and Allegiant are very smart in this area in taking on used a/c. Sadly, perfectly airworth and relatively new a/c are parked including 737-700's and 737-800's and Airbus 319's and 320's. It is inconceivable that these a/c are down to scrap value and that a smart airline or lossor would not pick them up....
mountainflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 378 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 10727 times:
One time I thought about a car buying strategy I thought would be kind of neat.
Let's say you made a rule that you could only spend $1,000 on a car per year including purchase and maintenance. Likely, you're going to get some pretty old, likely rundown cars, but if you can put up with a few inconveniences like inop A/C, windows, etc. you could get some decent working cars. The second part of the rule would be that you could not put any extra money into the car for repairs other than add fluids, etc. You drive it until it becomes undriveable for some reason, and then either sell it as a fixer upper, for parts, or scrap. Then you start over with another $1,000 car. I'm just guessing, but if you're really careful on what you find, you could likely get a $1,000 car to run on average for a year (maybe more) before it dies.
Not considering title fees, sales tax, etc, you could do this presumably once a year on average (maybe a little more or less?) for say twenty years for the price of one, brand-new, small car even if you realized zero return on the sale of each $1,000 car after you're done using it. Add in the insurance savings (skip any coverage besides basic liability since the car is worthless), registration savings (most states base registration taxes on a tax base value of the car, which declines by the year), etc, and the high likelihood that you could realize at least $100-$200 for each car when you're done with it even if you only sold it for parts, and you're still ahead after twenty years vs. buying one single, small, brand-new car.
Okay, so if you even cared to follow through my logic there, I guess it may have little to do with DL's strategy, but I guess what I thought of when the OP asked the question is, DL is probably a lot wiser than some people think by utilizing older fleets. This has already been pointed out by others. DL does it in a unique way using efficient orphan fleets that makes it even more cost effective.
The flip side of the coin is that not many airlines can use the same strategy. For one, orphan fleets are small enough that if they are split up much they loose their strategic value, and for two, if everyone was clamoring for used aircraft and nobody bought new, the value of used aircraft would be higher than new. DL has smartly put themselves in a good spot IMHO.
kaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2210 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 10728 times:
Lets not forget that Delta is replacing many domestic 757s with its new order of 100 737-900ERs.
Also, I really do not understand why Delta is planning on keeping their 747-400s for so much longer... I believe they are the only airline in the world with no 747-400 replacement planned or on order.
panamair From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4595 posts, RR: 25 Reply 10, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 10729 times:
Quoting cosyr (Reply 3): One of the biggest risks Delta has is that they have the highest percentage of their aircraft owned or on capital leases (lease to own) of any major airline in the US. When the economy gets tough and and they park some planes, they are not returning them to a lessor to be "somebody else' problem." They own the plane and it is both their own cost to swallow and sort of a missed opportunity, owning a plane that is sitting on the ground.
Quite the contrary actually...owning the planes and with fully depreciated "old" planes actually gives them more flexibility to handle economic downturns, hight fuel prices, etc. Having leased planes means you have to keep those planes flying to get at least some revenue (even if it is not profitable) because you still have to make lease payments. The airline has entered into a lease agreement with the lessors for a fixed period; they can't just reject the lease (outside of a Chapter 11 filing) when things turn sour, at least not without some sort of penalty. Until the lease expires, the leased plane is not 'someone else's problem' - it is the airline's problem.
PPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8497 posts, RR: 42 Reply 11, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 10727 times:
Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 9): Also, I really do not understand why Delta is planning on keeping their 747-400s for so much longer... I believe they are the only airline in the world with no 747-400 replacement planned or on order.
They've said that their plan is to focus on the short haul fleet first.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4285 posts, RR: 4 Reply 12, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 10724 times:
Quoting cosyr (Reply 3): One of the biggest risks Delta has is that they have the highest percentage of their aircraft owned or on capital leases (lease to own) of any major airline in the US. When the economy gets tough and and they park some planes, they are not returning them to a lessor to be "somebody else' problem." They own the plane and it is both their own cost to swallow and sort of a missed opportunity, owning a plane that is sitting on the ground.
This is a double-edged sword. Leases make for more flexibility at the end of the lease term, but less flexibility during the lease term. Airlines that lease most of their fleets have a hard time adjusting to short-term swings in market demand.
By contrast, when you own a lot of fully-paid-for older aircraft, it's easy to reduce costs immediately by parking them. We saw DL do this last winter with its very sharp TATL pulldown, in which a lot of older 763ERs loafed around with very low utilization.
Essentially, DL's strategy relies on 1) its continued ability to keep maintenance costs on aging aircraft relatively low (something it's very good at) and 2) no huge spike in the price of fuel. Personally, I think fuel could be their Achilles' heel in the end; I see much higher fuel prices whenever the global economy finally recovers from its hangover. But until then, they have a nice cost advantage.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
mayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 9272 posts, RR: 13 Reply 13, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 10722 times:
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 12): I see much higher fuel prices whenever the global economy finally recovers from its hangover. But until then, they have a nice cost advantage.
The refinery deal should alleviate some of that.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
lucky777 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 467 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 10731 times:
It will be interesting to see where things stand 5-10 years from now when the likes of UA/AA (i only mentioned those 2 as they are, or in the case of AA, will soon be similiar in size and route structure) are running much more modern fleets as compared to Delta. One has to wonder why Delta is the only one who sees long-term benefits of running an older fleet versus the afformentioned carriers. Somebody will be proven wrong in this case as one strategy will ultimately prove to be more beneficial than the other.
milesrich From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1859 posts, RR: 7 Reply 15, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 10720 times:
Quoting cosyr (Reply 3): One of the biggest risks Delta has is that they have the highest percentage of their aircraft owned or on capital leases (lease to own) of any major airline in the US. When the economy gets tough and and they park some planes, they are not returning them to a lessor to be "somebody else' problem." They own the plane and it is both their own cost to swallow and sort of a missed opportunity, owning a plane that is sitting on the ground. This was very much NW's strategy, and Anderson's background there seems to have brought that to DL. At one point NW owned 90% of their fleet, from one of their last 10k reports.
By comparison American and United own about 40-60% of their planes, giving them a lot of flexibility to get rid of bad planes, adjust to new strategies or just negotiate pricing. I think the trade off is the same as owning or leasing cars for yourself. Owning is cheaper in the long run, especially if you keep the car a long time, but also built up equity even if you don't, but if there's no market for used planes (like right now) then leasing allows you to stay flexible and up to date.
I personally think that 40-60% seems like a better balance for airlines that fly a lot of different plane types. On the other end of the spectrum, US owns only like 15-20% of their fleet, which has to be expensive.
Huh? Aircraft Leases are not weekly rent a plane contracts. When an airline parks a plane before a lease is up, the lease payments go on while the plane sits. Leases usually last 10, 15, or 20 years. If the plane is paid for, there are no payments that go on. There are two types of leases, operational leases and capital leases. Capital Leases show on the balance sheet as liabilities much the way long term debt does, and the FASB rules determine whether a lease is a capital or operational one. Some of the things that make a lease capital rather than operational are bargain purchase options at the end of the lease, paying 90% of the value of the aircraft during the lease, etc.
milesrich From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1859 posts, RR: 7 Reply 16, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 10716 times:
Quoting mayor (Reply 4): When I started with DL, in '71, we owned the ENTIRE fleet and prided ourselves on that fact. Now I know that has varied in the years since, but I don't think that particular strategy has necessarily been broung over from NW. It was always part of the strategy. Without looking at the figures, I would still bet that it's nowhere near NW's 90%.
One way airlines in the past have raised cash was to sell their aircraft and then lease them back. In some cases, the aircraft were going to be retired, and the sale price is thought to be a good deal to the seller. Delta did this with their DC-8-71's. Other times, they are leased back for a substantial period of time. Airlines that lease all their aircraft are usually at a financial disadvantage versus carriers that own their aircraft, especially when they have to park them because they no longer need them but choose not to sell them, or there is a glut on the used airliner market and they cannot sell them. Ask Delta what they are going to do with their owned 50 seat CRJ-100 and 200's?
airsmiles From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2009, 78 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 10717 times:
I didn't think leasing a high proportion of your fleet would save you much if you wanted to park some in a downturn. Can you really just hand them back to a lessor at short notice? I'm sure I read on here that American were paying lease rentals on MD80's, A300's and F100's that had been parked in the desert for some years.
lrgt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 710 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 10719 times:
I'm glad someone asked this question correctly, and not the usual "Are old aircraft cheaper or more expensive to operate?"
Key point... Delta has critical mass (economies of scale you could say) in terms of MX personnel, spare parts, and above all KNOWLEDGE and EXPERIENCE with these types, which overall SUBSTANTIALLY reduces MX expense on these old birds to perhaps lower than an early-2000's "modern" aircraft (namely because of cheap parts).
As for MX personnel, don't believe the hype.. their workers are not overpaid, and are likely knowledgeable and efficient. Airlines who outsourced MX overseas quickly realized they were not saving a dime.
A great deal of this strategy was inherited from NW, but DL did it themselves to an extent with the 737-200. In the 2000's both carriers were buying cheap parts for a song (DL with 737-200, NW with DC9). JT8D's were so cheap at one point, that NW bought snatched up almost every available unit on the market, raising the value of their spare JT8D portfolio substantially. Then they closed their JT8D overhaul shop and were able to just dispose/recycle (or store) an engine when it was due for overhaul, and just put an engine with time left on it that they snatched from the secondhand market until the time ran out. Much cheaper than overhauling an A319 engine!
The same level of success (where these old birds still SAVE them $$ even with $3 Jet-A and high-utilization) cannot be had by a newer/smaller high-utilization airline without a miracle, and with much more risk (think parts obsolescence and logistics, etc). Therefore, what works for Delta may not work for others. Also, the strategy works best when they have a near-monopoly on the type (they've had >50% of the world's operating DC9 fleet for some time now).
IMHO Delta should have refurbished their L1011's and did this, and perhaps would not have been in bankruptcy so quickly.
kaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2210 posts, RR: 3 Reply 19, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 10722 times:
Quoting lrgt (Reply 18): IMHO Delta should have refurbished their L1011's and did this, and perhaps would not have been in bankruptcy so quickly.
I see your point on the DC-9s, and how that applies now to their older 757s, 767s, and MD-80s. However, the L1011 was a different story. Spares were not as available, and manufacturer's support was also gone. At the end of the day, replacing them with the 767-400ERs, which seem to do very well for them, looks like it was the right choice.
There were a ton of other factors that brought them into bankruptcy, not just replacement of L1011s.
lrgt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 710 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 10718 times:
Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 19): There were a ton of other factors that brought them into bankruptcy, not just replacement of L1011s.
Very true... I digress! However, it undoubtedly would have put them in a better position to some degree.
It must be considered though, that DL burned a lot on lease payment for their domstic-flying fleet of 767-400 and 777 equipment in the early-2000's leading up to their Ch11 filing that could have been saved by doing an L1011 interior referb like NW did with the DC9's in 1999-ish. Also, the L1011 was not a huge fuel hog on short sectors at all, and pre-bankruptcy, Jet-A was much less than it is now.
Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 19): At the end of the day, replacing them with the 767-400ERs, which seem to do very well for them, looks like it was the right choice.
This could be true. Now they need the -400, but they still did not really need it in the years leading up the their bankruptcy filing. And to your point farther, even if getting the -400's so early was a mistake, it would not be one they are suffering from now, since it was pre-bankruptcy. They would still need the -400's now for transatlantic (they're finally on routes where where they belong).
A side note on the DL L1011 discussion, wouldn't the world have been a lot better the past 12 years with Delta L1011's still flying all over with AVOD and 100% new interiors, say from 2002 when they were putting and $150MM of wasted marketing into Song?
questions From Australia, joined Sep 2011, 333 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 10717 times:
Thanks for all the responses and robust discussion.
Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 9): Also, I really do not understand why Delta is planning on keeping their 747-400s for so much longer... I believe they are the only airline in the world with no 747-400 replacement planned or on order.
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 11): They've said that their plan is to focus on the short haul fleet first.
Does DL have a plan for wide body/long haul fleet replacement? If not, have they said when a plan would be developed? It seems they have a lot of 767's that will need to be replaced at some point. What long haul planes are currently on order other than the 2020 787?
Quoting lucky777 (Reply 14): Somebody will be proven wrong in this case as one strategy will ultimately prove to be more beneficial than the other.
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4285 posts, RR: 4 Reply 22, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 10715 times:
Quoting lrgt (Reply 18): IMHO Delta should have refurbished their L1011's and did this, and perhaps would not have been in bankruptcy so quickly.
Three-man crew would have been a disaster. And manufacturer support for the L-1011 essentially ended -- DL has the resources to work around that, but it would further increase costs.
Keeping L-1011s would have been a much worse idea than keeping 763As, older 757s, or MD-88s around as excess capacity.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
lrgt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 710 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 10716 times:
Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 19): Spares were not as available, and manufacturer's support was also gone.
This is your only point that is wrong. Lockheed had support up until the last L1011 was flying with an original operator. In reality, they actually kept support going several years longer than that.
Delta also knew the L1011 like the back of its hand, and maybe better than Lockheed!
As for spares, they may have been expensive when DL decided to retire the L1011, but they PLUMMETED very quickly (along with the L1011 resale value) thereafter with TW's retirements, post-2000 recession, etc. To the point where DL probably should have re-calculated their decision to retire them. Also, DL could have cannibalized their fleet for spares until it dwindled away like NW did with the 9's.
Parts became so cheap for the L10's that in the early-2000's that Air Atlanta in Iceland literally (and I do mean literally) GAVE AWAY an entire warehouse of L10 parts to anyone who wanted to stuff them into a shipping container and save them costs to grid up and bury the stuff, and many airframes have been demolished-whole (i.e. run over with a bulldozer) with few parts salvaged.
lrgt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 710 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 10715 times:
Quoting lrgt (Reply 23): Parts became so cheap for the L10's that in the early-2000's that Air Atlanta in Iceland literally (and I do mean literally) GAVE AWAY an entire warehouse of L10 parts to anyone who wanted to stuff them into a shipping container and save them costs to grid up and bury the stuff, and many airframes have been demolished-whole (i.e. run over with a bulldozer) with few parts salvaged.
Oh and the end of that story was that by 2004, they still had no takers, and the parts were all dumped in a landfill, into the Atlantic Ocean, or however Iceland disposes of their garbage
mayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 9272 posts, RR: 13 Reply 25, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 11275 times:
Quoting lrgt (Reply 18):
IMHO Delta should have refurbished their L1011's and did this, and perhaps would not have been in bankruptcy so quickly.
I don't remember what year it was, but Lockheed DID drop support for the Tristars. On top of that was the fact that the Tristar departure reliability was not very good the last few years of their service, IIRC.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
KGRB From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 627 posts, RR: 1 Reply 26, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 11351 times:
Quoting mayor (Reply 4): I don't think that particular strategy has necessarily been broung over from NW. It was always part of the strategy.
I might get flamed for this, but this is just my opinion. It seems that many on here are desperate to find some way in which NW "lives on" through DL. Delta has been well-run throughout most of its history and continues to be today. I think some people here think that DL was a slap-d*ck company and then NW came along and somehow saved them.
I also think that DL's strategy differs significantly from NW's. NW flew their DC-9s, DC-10s, and early 747s well after most airlines had retired them because those planes were paid off. NW couldn't afford newer equipment after their financial struggles in the early 1990s. Some may remember that NW had orders for the A340 in the late '80s and deferred them for more than a decade -- and converted them into A330 orders. Later NW refurbished their DC-9s, which were gas-guzzlers, but still cheaper to operate on short stage lengths than new A320s, due to their low cost of ownership.
DL, on the other hand, is acquiring MD-90s and 717s which are still relatively new designs, but have a low acquisition cost because they're orphan planes. These aircraft have modern turbofans and are very efficient (unlike the DC-9s and DC-10s toward the end of their life). Meanwhile, Delta has also ordered brand-new 737-900s to supplant their substantial MD-90 fleet and replace older 757s and A320s.
I'm not knocking either strategy, just pointing out that they're different. Richard Anderson has run both airlines well, but runs them differently.
NWAROOSTER From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 864 posts, RR: 3 Reply 27, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 11312 times:
Richard as Richard Anderson likes to be called ran both Northwest Airlines and now Delta Air Lines. There are differences between the two. I am not that familiar with Delta's history. I am sure Delta made its share of mistakes.
But one of them was not getting bought up by Alfred Chechi and his bandits and built into a state of financial disaster while the "Beverly Hill Billy Boys" lined their pockets as they laughed their way to the bank. As a 37 year employee of Northwest, I saw it order the A340 and A330 aircraft which it could not afford. It also had to cancel the delivery of two 747-451 aircraft which went to United Airlines. Northwest's main down fall was due to predators stealing the financial life of the airline. It had to cancel the A340 and A330 aircraft orders. It also had about ten A320 aircraft that delivery was stopped due its lousy financial condition. Delivery was eventually allowed and Northwest struggled on.
However it saw a gold mine in all the DC-9-30 aircraft that were being dumped by other airlines They were cheap to buy and parts were just as cheap. Northwest put the same basic interior in it's DC-9s as came with the 717s. They looked new and the passengers were happy. There never was an accident that involved fatalities with the DC-9-30. Engines were also cheap as there were a lot of permanently parked DC-9s and 727s that had the same JT8D engines with usable time left on them. UPS was also swapping out their 727s JT8D engines for Rolls Royce Tay engines which even increased the supply. It was a gift of manna that could not be turned down. Northwest was probably the largest ever DC-9 user that ever existed and never bought a new DC-9 aircraft. Their first DC-9 came with the merger of Republic Airlines and the feasting on and with the DC9 started.
Northwest also did this with the DC10-30 as the DC-10-40 were getting too expensive to maintain with its JT9D-20 Pratt and Whitney engines. Some of the engine parts were getting expensive and scarce as they were some differences with the JT9D engines used on the Boeing 747.
If it was not for the "buy out" of Northwest Airlines by Alfred Chechi and his pals, Northwest Airlines might still be around and Delta may not exist.
NorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2829 posts, RR: 40 Reply 28, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 11163 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting lrgt (Reply 24): Quoting lrgt (Reply 23):
Parts became so cheap for the L10's that in the early-2000's that Air Atlanta in Iceland literally (and I do mean literally) GAVE AWAY an entire warehouse of L10 parts to anyone who wanted to stuff them into a shipping container and save them costs to grid up and bury the stuff, and many airframes have been demolished-whole (i.e. run over with a bulldozer) with few parts salvaged.
Oh and the end of that story was that by 2004, they still had no takers, and the parts were all dumped in a landfill, into the Atlantic Ocean, or however Iceland disposes of their garbage
I heard that they payed Orient Thai or someone to take alot of it, rather than have to pay toxic waste disposal costs or some such? Only to have them refuse to accept it at the end for some bureaucratic nonsense?
Anyways, much as i love the L1011, I don't think DL could of kept them going much longer. Even with fairly aggressive preventative maintenance the dispatch rate was getting pretty bad by the end. And while parts for the airframe may be cheap, parts for RB.211s having been getting steeper and steeper since the late 90s, and the RB.211-22B is now no longer certified I believe?
Delta could of kept it's MD-11 fleet longer, but they got a good price for those as i recall?
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
usdcaguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 764 posts, RR: 2 Reply 29, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 10772 times:
The other side of the coin of this topic, beyond saving $$$, is the fact that DL flies an old fleet compared to most other carriers in the world. You cannot deny it. It is no longer a secret that many smart travelers avoid flying on the old 763s that have not been converted and that even the A330s are starting to appear tired. Yes, we have been told many times by DL that the flat beds in BusinessElite are on their way, but they made that announcement way too early and then delayed the roll-out for the 763s and A330s at least a year or two. It's safe and obviously financially sound to fly such used aircraft, but the global business travelers DL is targeting are way ahead of the curve ball and know the Asian and European carriers offer cleaner, more comfortable equipment and service by more polished crew. I'm sure DL does many things to keep those travelers from fleeing, but like the wife that lets herself go after having children, DL's older product has already forced many to look elsewhere.
Burkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4268 posts, RR: 2 Reply 30, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 10693 times:
From financial point, I assume it makes no big difference, prices and leases for old aircraft vs. new aircraft will be such that on a realistic estimate of fuel price it comes out very similar - otherwise there would be no market for new resp. old planes, and the prices would adjust rather fast.
Delta makes use of some opportunities - used 717 and MD90 will be below above market price because airlines will hesitate to introduce them now, so existing operators will be happy. And replacing a DC9-30 by a 717 is a fleet modernization by two generations.
FlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6539 posts, RR: 11 Reply 31, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 10418 times:
Where exactly is your data to prove all this? Quite the contrary, estimates are already showing that corporate businesses, ridership AND yield in the front cabin is rising on key routes BECAUSE of the interior upgrades that have been made over the past 2 years starting with the 777s, 764s, 763s (ongoing), 744s (almost complete less that a year after start) and soon to be the A330s...
CAM2:"Lightning coming out of that one." CAM1: "What?"
lrgt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 710 posts, RR: 0 Reply 32, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 10291 times:
Quoting usdcaguy (Reply 29): on the old 763s that have not been converted
Any aircraft in poor asthetic condition and with an inferior product will be avoided by any savvy traveler. However, if the 763's were refurbished, I and 99.999999999% of everyone else except maybe the crew would care if it's a 26-year-old 763 or a 26-day old 763. They've been good with paint, but I agree that inside is a different story.
Delta has a history of ratty airplanes. I flew a DL 763 in the late-90's that had a 70's style interior making it look like it belonged in a museum. Since the 763 didn't come out until 1986, I must assume it was one of the first builds with an interior that was already way out-of-date when new. I remember having to triple check that it was really a -300 and not a -200.
mayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 9272 posts, RR: 13 Reply 33, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 10175 times:
Quoting lrgt (Reply 32): However, if the 763's were refurbished, I and 99.999999999% of everyone else except maybe the crew would care if it's a 26-year-old 763 or a 26-day old 763. They've been good with paint, but I agree that inside is a different story.
Isn't that the plan? It isn't an easy thing to do........you can't put the entire fleet in for refurbishment, especially with something like the 767s, which have a pretty high utilization rate. You have to be patient. It takes awhile, but it will be done. Same with the A330s.
Quoting lrgt (Reply 32): Delta has a history of ratty airplanes. I flew a DL 763 in the late-90's that had a 70's style interior making it look like it belonged in a museum. Since the 763 didn't come out until 1986, I must assume it was one of the first builds with an interior that was already way out-of-date when new. I remember having to triple check that it was really a -300 and not a -200.
I call BS on this one. Give us more examples. You fly on ONE 763-300, where you think it's ratty (just may not have been as modern as you expected) and you say they have a "history" of this? Back then, DL was a very frugal airline.....not very flashy and the interiors were not, perhaps, very modern looking, even if they were newish. Then, again, I would imagine that the interiors on any legacy's a/c was all that flashy, back then, so DL was not alone in this.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
NWAROOSTER From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 864 posts, RR: 3 Reply 34, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 10169 times:
Quoting mayor (Reply 33): I call BS on this one. Give us more examples. You fly on ONE 763-300, where you think it's ratty (just may not have been as modern as you expected) and you say they have a "history" of this? Back then, DL was a very frugal airline.....not very flashy and the interiors were not, perhaps, very modern looking, even if they were newish. Then, again, I would imagine that the interiors on any legacy's a/c was all that flashy, back then, so DL was not alone in this.
Maybe these spoiled brats need to fly in aircraft with a 60s or 70s interior. They may be clean. There was no fancy entertainment such as avod. Passengers had to listen to music on rubber tubed head sets and watch movies on a screen 10 rows up, if it worked. Otherwise, it was read a book, magazine, take a nap or just sit here.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21679 posts, RR: 23 Reply 35, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 10104 times:
Quoting KGRB (Reply 26): NW flew their DC-9s, DC-10s, and early 747s well after most airlines had retired them because those planes were paid off.
Dozens of NW DC-9s (apart those inherited from the Republic merger) and all their DC-10-30s were acquired between the late '80s and mid-90s after the airlines that originally operated them retired them (or went bust). For example, NW acquired about 24 DC-9s retired by AZ and a similar number of ex-Eastern aircraft after EA's demise. And another 30 or so retired DC-9s were acquired from Swissair, SAS, Finnair and Austrian, among others.
usdcaguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 764 posts, RR: 2 Reply 36, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 9836 times:
Quoting mayor (Reply 33):
Isn't that the plan? It isn't an easy thing to do........you can't put the entire fleet in for refurbishment, especially with something like the 767s, which have a pretty high utilization rate. You have to be patient. It takes awhile, but it will be done. Same with the A330s.
The problem I have with this argument is that it ignores the fact that refurbishment started at DL much later than at other carriers such as BA at a time when other carriers were also investing in new aircraft such as the A330. My impression is that Delta's strategy of pulling a lot of 767s from domestic service and putting them into international markets was a rather uncomfortable switcheroo. Flying routes such as JFK to CAI and AMM, for example, they found themselves competing against other carriers' much newer 777s and A340s on incredibly long sectors. How many years did AF, for example, have AVOD while DL was still flying around their 763s with monitors that were broken half the time? And they are STILL flying around these aircraft years after announcing that they would be refurbished. I know very few other carriers who have had to apologize and excuse themselves by saying for months on end that "you can't pull them all out at once". A plan is just a plan until it materializes, so it's best to be quiet about it so people don't grow impatient. But that's likely another thread.
Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 34): Maybe these spoiled brats need to fly in aircraft with a 60s or 70s interior.
Give me a TW 747 with in-seat radio and wide-screen movies accompanied by TW crew and catering, and I will be perfectly happy!
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5375 posts, RR: 47 Reply 37, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 9793 times:
I'd argue that their strategy is kinda a mixture between the NW strategy and what most airlines do. DL is still buying new aircraft and retiring old aircraft (who knows what NW would have done) but the MD90 and 717 deal wasn't exactly buying really old, inefficient planes cheaply. In other words, it's not like NW holding onto the DC9s and DC10s for a long time. The MD90s and 717s are still relatively new, almost as efficient as new airframes, but dirt cheap. They really didn't have to trade too much efficiency for the pricing bonus, if that makes sense
FlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6539 posts, RR: 11 Reply 38, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 9750 times:
Quoting usdcaguy (Reply 36): And they are STILL flying around these aircraft years
A couple things. First, quantify "years" for me because everyone seems to have a different meaning.
-1608 was ferried to HKG December of 2010. I don}t know how much more materializing you want than that. It was suppose to be out of mods around March or April but didn}t make it back to Atlanta until August. Secondly. DL made the announcement in conjuction with the 777 and 764 upgrades.
What they said was that their entire long-haul fleet will be upgraded by 2013. Judging by how things are moving, they}re still pretty damn near on target. Again, aside from what "insiders" put out here on a.net, this was what was put out by Delta marketing. Period. We have 5 whole quarters to go before we}re done with 2013.
[Edited 2012-09-11 17:29:48]
CAM2:"Lightning coming out of that one." CAM1: "What?"
Alnicocunife From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 114 posts, RR: 0 Reply 40, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 9716 times:
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 5):
They are doing this because they have a lot of debt to pay down. Also, buying a lot of new planes with a poor credit rating will cost you in interest some of the benefits of buying new planes.
Yes Delta has debt ($10.5B) But what about the newer 777LR's paid with cash from revenue over the last few years? Buying new and VERY good deals on used efficient aircraft while paying down debt with revenue driven CASH? Does not sound too bad to me. Just wait until AA or UA has to make 300 aircraft lease payments during the next down turn when they will be wishing they could just park 200 "paid for" but older aircraft and still generate cash with the newest ones.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16932 posts, RR: 57 Reply 41, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 9679 times:
Somewhere, I read an interview with Mr. Anderson about this very topic. I cannot find it. Has anyone else read it? Know where it is?
Isn't that the plan? It isn't an easy thing to do........you can't put the entire fleet in for refurbishment, especially with something like the 767s, which have a pretty high utilization rate. You have to be patient. It takes awhile, but it will be done. Same with the A330s.
The problem I have with this argument is that it ignores the fact that refurbishment started at DL much later than at other carriers such as BA at a time when other carriers were also investing in new aircraft such as the A330. My impression is that Delta's strategy of pulling a lot of 767s from domestic service and putting them into international markets was a rather uncomfortable switcheroo.
Well, there was this little thing called a bankruptcy in there, somewhere that may have slowed things down. I think they were just a little busy trying to help the company survive, rather than buy some shiny new airplanes. DL MAY have been slow in doing it, but they ARE doing it, your doom and gloom, notwithstanding and when they are, I doubt if most customers will realize how old they really are. And all the while, DL will have paid its debt down even more (good business practice, eh?) and will be raking in even more profits, which is, after all, the name of the game. By that time, they will have made an order for something to replace those 767s you despise so much (or is it just DL?).
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
dtw9 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1054 posts, RR: 2 Reply 43, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 9551 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 41): Somewhere, I read an interview with Mr. Anderson about this very topic. I cannot find it. Has anyone else read it? Know where it is?
MSPNWA From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1590 posts, RR: 4 Reply 44, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 9559 times:
Right now the DL strategy can be competitive in the current high-priced fuel environment because the older aircraft they have and are acquiring are current generation technology. 717s and MD-90s are not the newest and best, but they carry modern engines on par with anything built new today. In DL's long-haul fleet, the 744 is the most challenging to operate, and it's a small part of the fleet. The rest are the same airplanes everyone else uses. Domestically only the few DC-9s and MD-88s work with old engine technology. The vast majority are the same models every other airline sues.
However what may work now may not work down the road. When the latest generation aircraft emerge (787, A350, 737 MAX, A320neo etc.), I believe DL will fall behind the curve and have difficulty competing against newer, more efficient aircraft. I go back to NW in the mid-2000s. Even though seeing and flying NW DC-9s, DC-10s, and 747 classics was awesome, the company went into bankruptcy even before fuel wen sky high. It would have been disastrous to be flying that fleet in 2008. I see Delta's strategy as running a treadmill that you will never fully catch up on. It's only a matter of time before you take a spill. Really DL hasn't had a choice to buy new because of their debt situation, but either way it's not a good spot to be in.
NWAROOSTER From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 864 posts, RR: 3 Reply 45, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 9518 times:
Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 44): However what may work now may not work down the road. When the latest generation aircraft emerge (787, A350, 737 MAX, A320neo etc.), I believe DL will fall behind the curve and have difficulty competing against newer, more efficient aircraft. I go back to NW in the mid-2000s. Even though seeing and flying NW DC-9s, DC-10s, and 747 classics was awesome, the company went into bankruptcy even before fuel wen sky high. It would have been disastrous to be flying that fleet in 2008. I see Delta's strategy as running a treadmill that you will never fully catch up on. It's only a matter of time before you take a spill. Really DL hasn't had a choice to buy new because of their debt situation, but either way it's not a good spot to be in.
One of the biggest reasons for Northwest Airlines to eventually file bankruptcy was Alfred E. Chechi's and his henchmen ability to "buy" Northwest Airlines in 1989 and strip the airline of its financial assets.
I have made this statement before and will continue with this statement.
FlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6539 posts, RR: 11 Reply 46, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 9255 times:
Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 44): However what may work now may not work down the road. When the latest generation aircraft emerge (787, A350, 737 MAX, A320neo etc.), I believe DL will fall behind the curve and have difficulty competing against newer, more efficient aircraft. I go back to NW in the mid-2000s. Even though seeing and flying NW DC-9s, DC-10s, and 747 classics was awesome, the company went into bankruptcy even before fuel wen sky high. It would have been disastrous to be flying that fleet in 2008. I see Delta's strategy as running a treadmill that you will never fully catch up on. It's only a matter of time before you take a spill. Really DL hasn't had a choice to buy new because of their debt situation, but either way it's not a good spot to be in.
I think the manufacturers have proven that the "technology" has reached sort of an apex and only time will allow further developments past the MAX and NEO. I mean, just look at the position the engine OEMs are in. Secondly, and this took me a while to realize, but DL and UA are doing pretty much the same thing although on a different scale. UA was already halfway there because of the rather robust 737 fleet they inhereted from CO. Everyone cried fowl when DL placed an order for 100 739ERs and not the MAX. Well, they need the frames now, not 5 years from now. Look at UA. They just placed a HUGE top off order for non man 739ERs. In fact there was a recent thread that said a very recent (as in days ago) conversion of 73Gs to 739s pushed Boeing over the 500 frame mark for the program. When the time is right, DL will get in line for "new technology". The 88´s days are numbered. Original benchmark set back in 2007 was 2017ish. In the airline fleet replacement world that´s right around the corner. And to think that all 117 will survive to 2017 or 18 is not accurate. Some will quietly retire or be returned to the lessor as MX costs increase and the value of the airplane itself and how much money it can make vs an HMV tips in the other direction. The older PMDL 752s are also numbered. As a friend of ours on the site has said already, many on a rolling basis (most were delivered pretty close to each other) are getting their very last PSVs. When the next one comes up they will be sent to the desert for good.
Look at AA. Although i}m not quite sure how they will pay for it (hell even they dont know; they're already selling and leasing back 77Ws that arent even on property yet) they are going to completely transform their fleet in just 3 years. DL will get there. I just dont see it as a disadvantage. Just a different way of doing business.
Theyre saving somewhere at the tune of $500M a year in interest payments on all the debt that will be paid down by next year. Thats a whole lot of cash that theyre basically giving away. I}m sure they could have found better use for half a BILLION dollars
[Edited 2012-09-11 21:06:51]
CAM2:"Lightning coming out of that one." CAM1: "What?"
PIEAvantiP180 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 481 posts, RR: 0 Reply 47, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 9137 times:
Actually that number is 1B per year on interest savings from paying down 7B in debt, I will try and post a link on where I read that number from but the article was directly quoting a DL exec when talking about the matter.
If all that was true then how come DL and UA have financially out preformed all those airlines with their shiny new planes with all that AVOD in them. 2010, 2011, and 2012 those two airlines are set to make more money them BA, AF-KLM, LH, LX, QS, SQ, CX, ANA, JL, KE, the only airline making more then them is Emirate. So all those airlines have a new and modern fleet and according to you that's what's needed to be successful. Yes all those airlines were ahead of all the US airlines in modernizing but they till now did not have to go thru the kind of restructuring that the legacies went thru in the middle of last decade. Now US legacy airlines are revamping their offering and slowly winning back the customers they lost last decade.
gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 48, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 9144 times:
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 5): They are doing this because they have a lot of debt to pay down. Also, buying a lot of new planes with a poor credit rating will cost you in interest some of the benefits of buying new planes.
Delta has a very solid credit rating.
Quoting tommy767 (Reply 6): The utilization rates were very high
Continental's domestic utilization was absurdly low. That's why they're now flooding 737s out to the United hubs to backfill the 100+ 737s UA had to ground.
Quoting usdcaguy (Reply 29): that even the A330s are starting to appear tired.
Those planes are, at oldest, about 10 years old.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 37): The MD90s and 717s are still relatively new
Well... some of them, on the flip, are pushing 17 years old.... by the time they start getting the 717s, many will be as old as 18. How long do they plan to fly them on? 12 more?
PIEAvantiP180 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 481 posts, RR: 0 Reply 49, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 9147 times:
The oldest 717 is around 12 years old. Airtran introduced the aircraft in October of 99. When DL gets all 88 on property the oldest will be 15 years old.
gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 50, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 9094 times:
You are right. That MD-95 part stuck in my head too literally.
FlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6539 posts, RR: 11 Reply 51, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 8963 times:
Quoting PIEAvantiP180 (Reply 47): Actually that number is 1B per year on interest savings from paying down 7B in debt, I will try and post a link on where I read that number from but the article was directly quoting a DL exec when talking about the matter.
I thought it was $1B but then I thought I heard $500M so I went with the conservative number...even better!
CAM2:"Lightning coming out of that one." CAM1: "What?"
bobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6029 posts, RR: 9 Reply 52, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8731 times:
Quoting Alnicocunife (Reply 40): Yes Delta has debt ($10.5B) But what about the newer 777LR's paid with cash from revenue over the last few years?
Are you confusing owned aircraft with paid cash for the aircraft? Very few aircraft are bought today that are not financed by some financial institution.
PPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8497 posts, RR: 42 Reply 53, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 8734 times:
Quoting gigneil (Reply 48): Quoting PPVRA (Reply 5):
They are doing this because they have a lot of debt to pay down. Also, buying a lot of new planes with a poor credit rating will cost you in interest some of the benefits of buying new planes.
Delta has a very solid credit rating.
"U.S.-based Delta Air Lines is generating free cash flow, and we believe its credit measures will gradually improve as the company repays debt."
FlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6539 posts, RR: 11 Reply 54, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8463 times:
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 53): "U.S.-based Delta Air Lines is generating free cash flow, and we believe its credit measures will gradually improve as the company repays debt."http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/25/idUSWNA814920120525Outlook is good, but they aren't there yet.
I would say that]s fairly solid for an airline...
I don{t see what Neil said as being contrary to what you yourself posted.
CAM2:"Lightning coming out of that one." CAM1: "What?"
PIEAvantiP180 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 481 posts, RR: 0 Reply 55, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 8368 times:
While that is correct for most airlines I don't think that DL did that with the 777lr and the upcoming 737-900er deliveries. Airlines can pay for airliners by issuing new debt, getting a loan, leasing, or sale lease back, and paying cash with free cash flow. Since DL did no financing, leading, or issued new debt for the 777 it means they paid for it in cash with free cash flow in 08 and 09 when they received them. Now that fee cash flow is going to paying down debt and capital expenditure by upgrading the fleet interiors and new airport facilities. At the end of next year all those upgrades and debt reduction programs will be coming to a close and the free cash flow will start flowing towards the 737 deliveries, coincides with the DL strategy of owning planes flying them for 25-30 years and not using any new dept to acquire them.
FlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6539 posts, RR: 11 Reply 56, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 8360 times:
Quoting PIEAvantiP180 (Reply 55): While that is correct for most airlines I don't think that DL did that with the 777lr
You{re right. Theyre nowhere on their SEC filings for a/c payments. However, the 738s, (some 757s) and the 77Es are showing as having bi-annual mortgage payments.
CAM2:"Lightning coming out of that one." CAM1: "What?"
PIEAvantiP180 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 481 posts, RR: 0 Reply 57, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 8303 times:
I though that was part of the reason they went into bankruptcy in the first place. Issuing all that debt to pay for all those 737, 757, 767, and 777 delivered in the late 90's and early 2000's and of course having all those planes fly low yielding vacationers to Disney.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16312 posts, RR: 52 Reply 59, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8234 times:
Quoting tommy767 (Reply 6): CO paid through the nose for brand new 737s for the last 15 years or so. The utilization rates were very high, and the preventative MX was also costly
CO got preferential prices for those 737s as part of their gentleman's agreement with Boeing. Also as mentioned their utilization rates were actually quite low, I can remember the days when CO was parking 737s all over EWR on the weekends. It wasn't that long ago. And they were able to realize huge maintenance savings by consolidating their domestic fleet to the 737NGs from the DC-9-30a, MD-81s, MD-82s, 737-100s, 737-200s, 737-300s, 727s etc.. they replaced. Huge savings by consolidating their fleet to one modern type, not to mention the huge fuel savings. The 738 on average burns 30% less fuel than an MD-80, 50% less fuel then the DC-9-30. That's huge savings, the new planes paid for themselves.
MSPNWA From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1590 posts, RR: 4 Reply 60, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8181 times:
Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 46): I think the manufacturers have proven that the "technology" has reached sort of an apex and only time will allow further developments past the MAX and NEO.
It has, that's true. The gains being made now are smaller than gains before. But a little gain is a gain nonetheless in an industry with thin margins. There will be a day very soon when DL will be competing against UA's (and others) new 787s. That's a tough fight with a 767 as your weapon.
PIEAvantiP180 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 481 posts, RR: 0 Reply 61, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8191 times:
As of right now DL is the only airline that has the corporate goal of becoming investment grade. They plan to be at 10B of debt at the end of next year. When asked by media what's next after 10B is reached Anderson replied to keep reducing debt but not at the pace of 2010-2013 time frame. Every dollar less in debt is less money paid every year on interest and more money in DL packet to pay employees, buy new assets, buy new planes, or finally start paying divident to DL's investors.
PIEAvantiP180 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 481 posts, RR: 0 Reply 62, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8133 times:
Well that comes back to the argument on how much cost advantage will a mortgaged 787 will have over a 767 with winglets that's paid for and running on short sectors such as US east cost to western Europe where majority of DL's 767 are deployed on. Also that 767 might be fueled with cheaper jet A produced at their refinery if their projected savings work out.
boilerla From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 263 posts, RR: 0 Reply 64, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7956 times:
Quoting PIEAvantiP180 (Reply 62):
Well that comes back to the argument on how much cost advantage will a mortgaged 787 will have over a 767 with winglets that's paid for and running on short sectors such as US east cost to western Europe where majority of DL's 767 are deployed on. Also that 767 might be fueled with cheaper jet A produced at their refinery if their projected savings work out.
UA can also make the same comparison though. UA and others will have 763s in their fleet well into the next decade, the same as Delta, and like DL, they will be paid off and will have winglets. But UA will also have 787s they can use to replace the 763 on routes that have margins too small to operate with a 763, even with winglets & no mortgage payment. If JetA goes up closer to $4 then $3, that'll be a lot more routes. Look at what UA is doing with their first 6 787s---putting them on 763 & 772 routes that had high CASM and/or low RASM due to competition, stage length, etc.
Fleet optimization--right plane for the right route--is what most airlines, including DL, go after.
usdcaguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 764 posts, RR: 2 Reply 65, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 7895 times:
Quoting PIEAvantiP180 (Reply 47):
If all that was true then how come DL and UA have financially out preformed all those airlines with their shiny new planes with all that AVOD in them. 2010, 2011, and 2012 those two airlines are set to make more money them BA, AF-KLM, LH, LX, QS, SQ, CX, ANA, JL, KE, the only airline making more then them is Emirate.
Yes, you make a valid point. DL and UA are, without a single doubt, outperforming many carriers around the world financially. Perhaps they made good financial decisions regarding capital investments, but the problem is that there is intangible value simply in having a good product. When you fly enviable aircraft with a good hard product, the employees take more pride in spending their lives working inside of them, the customers think more highly of you and are likely to complain less about flying with you. That builds a lot of brand equity and generally makes people feel better about giving you their money. No, that equity does not always directly translate into profits for the airline, but investing in or leasing new aircraft does not necessarily mean the end of the world for you either. Most of the losses around the world have been due to economic circumstances, the changing regulatory environment or low barriers to entry. Few of them had to do with investing in new equipment; most CFOs realize that such decisions cannot be taken lightly.
PIEAvantiP180 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 481 posts, RR: 0 Reply 66, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 7810 times:
You are absolutely correct, that's the point I was trying to make. Foreign carriers are just now starting to feel the competition the US airlines went thru at the end of 90's and early 00's from the LCC's. US airlines had allot of competition and could not make enough money to go thru all the upgrades the foreign carriers did, now they are catching up by buying new planes and upgrading their products. Don't forget that the US airlines are going thru the same global economic conditions that the foreign guys are going thru, but the pain they had to go thru in the middle of last decade has put them in a better position to ride out the bad times. You are also correct that buying new planes and interiors won't break the bank if done right but the losses are coming from a bad economy and in my opinion the biggest problem for those airlines is competition that did not exist a decade ago. In my opinion simply put is that European, Asian, and Australian airlines are in the same position US legacies were, just a decade later.
FlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6539 posts, RR: 11 Reply 67, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7682 times:
Quoting PIEAvantiP180 (Reply 57): I though that was part of the reason they went into bankruptcy in the first place. Issuing all that debt to pay for all those 737, 757, 767, and 777 delivered in the late 90's and early 2000's and of course having all those planes fly low yielding vacationers to Disney.
You could tell Delta was really in trouble when they made the decision to sell their hedges for a song (no pun intended). A little over $100M I believe. They were leasing everything. Brakes, tires, engines (pretty common actually), everything.
CAM2:"Lightning coming out of that one." CAM1: "What?"
NW was well into their fleet refurbishment prior to the merger with DL. It had ditched the 727's and DC10's and purchased A319's, B753's, and A330's through the early to mid 2000's, and in 2006 placed an order for 36 CRJ-900's and 36 E175's to replace a big chunk of the DC9 flying. They also placed an order for the 787 in 2005 and were supposed to be the North American launch customer for the aircraft.
tommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6195 posts, RR: 9 Reply 69, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 7444 times:
Quoting STT757 (Reply 59): CO got preferential prices for those 737s as part of their gentleman's agreement with Boeing. Also as mentioned their utilization rates were actually quite low, I can remember the days when CO was parking 737s all over EWR on the weekends
I thought the CO method was high utilization rates to offset new aircraft pricing costs -- hence why UA is struggling with the CO method right now. UA legacy aircraft now have higher utilization rates with lack of preventative MX (and more strain) leading to breakdowns at hubs with no parts stocked EG: the UA 763 at EWR, or the CO 738 at ORD.
Somehow I doubt the fact that you witnessed a bunch of 737s at EWR one weekend is the reason for CO's utilization rates. There was slack in the 737 fleet, mainly because of a crazy amount of new deliveries to speak for. Utilization rates were still very, very high.
"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
mogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 71, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 7318 times:
Quoting PIEAvantiP180 (Reply 47): 2010, 2011, and 2012 those two airlines are set to make more money them BA, AF-KLM, LH, LX, QS, SQ, CX, ANA, JL, KE,
Are they more profitable by % profit margin or just absolute profit ? Isn't that apples-to-oranges to compare a 10-hub airline to mostly single-hub airlines in your list ?
And are they more profitable because they were better at fuel hedge bets, or their operating margin was superior ?
lrgt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 710 posts, RR: 0 Reply 73, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 7156 times:
Quoting mayor (Reply 33): Quoting lrgt (Reply 32):
Delta has a history of ratty airplanes. I flew a DL 763 in the late-90's that had a 70's style interior making it look like it belonged in a museum. Since the 763 didn't come out until 1986, I must assume it was one of the first builds with an interior that was already way out-of-date when new. I remember having to triple check that it was really a -300 and not a -200.
I call BS on this one. Give us more examples. You fly on ONE 763-300, where you think it's ratty (just may not have been as modern as you expected) and you say they have a "history" of this? Back then, DL was a very frugal airline.....not very flashy and the interiors were not, perhaps, very modern looking, even if they were newish. Then, again, I would imagine that the interiors on any legacy's a/c was all that flashy, back then, so DL was not alone in this.
Nope.. just a good example. The DL 763's I've flown on since then, >10 years later were basically the same, but with a dollar-store grade refurbishment. Loose vinyl seat covers that look like the seats at a bad diner... and they're just slapped on, wallpaper stuck over anything that had the flower-power motif from the late-80's (that was already 20 years out-of-date when new). The outside of the overhead bins had 26-years of dirt ground into the outside (ever heard of 409?). They pissed away a lot of revenue and company image by neglecting their interiors just being stupid. Just more tasteful seat covers (if you're going to do vinyl or fake leather, it shouldn't be blue) and maybe deep-cleaning the overhead bins once every 10-years would have at least helped a little.
Isn't that the plan? It isn't an easy thing to do........you can't put the entire fleet in for refurbishment, especially with something like the 767s, which have a pretty high utilization rate. You have to be patient. It takes awhile, but it will be done. Same with the A330s.
The problem I have with this argument is that it ignores the fact that refurbishment started at DL much later than at other carriers such as BA at a time when other carriers were also investing in new aircraft such as the A330. My impression is that Delta's strategy of pulling a lot of 767s from domestic service and putting them into international markets was a rather uncomfortable switcheroo. Flying routes such as JFK to CAI and AMM, for example, they found themselves competing against other carriers' much newer 777s and A340s on incredibly long sectors. How many years did AF, for example, have AVOD while DL was still flying around their 763s with monitors that were broken half the time? And they are STILL flying around these aircraft years after announcing that they would be refurbished. I know very few other carriers who have had to apologize and excuse themselves by saying for months on end that "you can't pull them all out at once". A plan is just a plan until it materializes, so it's best to be quiet about it so people don't grow impatient. But that's likely another thread.
VERY well said... it's always too far down on their to-do list, and doesn't even appear there in the first place until it's 10 years overdue! By the time it's done, it's already far out-of date.
IMHO The only impressive/quick (and not TOO expensive) interior refurb delta did was the Song IFE in 2002. For 2002, it wasn't bad, and done quickly. The Song seat covers... another story! But they went along with the goofy brand-image I guess.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 37):
I'd argue that their strategy is kinda a mixture between the NW strategy and what most airlines do. DL is still buying new aircraft and retiring old aircraft (who knows what NW would have done) but the MD90 and 717 deal wasn't exactly buying really old, inefficient planes cheaply. In other words, it's not like NW holding onto the DC9s and DC10s for a long time. The MD90s and 717s are still relatively new, almost as efficient as new airframes, but dirt cheap. They really didn't have to trade too much efficiency for the pricing bonus, if that makes sense
Couldn't agree more.
Quoting gigneil (Reply 48): Delta has a very solid credit rating.
Very true. Better than any US airline other than WN, and only because WN has an obscene amount of cash laying around from previous success.
bobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6029 posts, RR: 9 Reply 74, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7032 times:
[quote=mogandoCI,reply=71]Are they more profitable by % profit margin or just absolute profit ? Isn't that apples-to-oranges to compare a 10-hub airline to mostly single-hub airlines in your list ?
And are they more profitable because they were better at fuel hedge bets, or their operating margin was superior ?
UA and DL only have a single hub? Suggest you check the facts before making a statement like that.
PIEAvantiP180 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 481 posts, RR: 0 Reply 75, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7022 times:
Just to play devils advocate all those airlines were always being compared to the US airlines like they are equals on these forums since I started reading them 8 years ago. But to answer your question I was just looking at their overall net profit. Looking at the financials it looks like the UA and DL would beat out BA-IB, AF-KLM, LH group, QS, JL, and NH with the % of profit margin. SQ, CX, and KE are looking better then UA and DL on % profit margin. If you look at each airline revenue LH group and AF-KL are on par with UA and DL and BA-IB are not to far behind. Last year LH, AF-KL had over 28B euros in revenue, that equates to over 36B $, all the other airlines I mentioned are as you pointed out way smaller and take in less revenue.
mayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 9272 posts, RR: 13 Reply 77, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6933 times:
Quoting lrgt (Reply 73): The outside of the overhead bins had 26-years of dirt ground into the outside (ever heard of 409?). They pissed away a lot of revenue and company image by neglecting their interiors just being stupid. Just more tasteful seat covers (if you're going to do vinyl or fake leather, it shouldn't be blue) and maybe deep-cleaning the overhead bins once every 10-years would have at least helped a little.
I don't believe that they were neglected for the amount of time you mentioned.
Don't know how the cleaning schedule is, now, but as late as the late 80s (up until the DL/WA merger), all the overnight a/c that we had at SLC (and most small stations) got a Phase III cleaning and, in other cases, if they were overnighting in a DL hub, with maintenance and a full cabin service department, they got a Phase IV, which included cleaning the ceilings and overheads. Even at that, when we did a Phase III, we wiped down the overhead bins, at least on the outside. Perhaps there was a period, there, when DL cabin service became contracted out, that things weren't up to par.......it's possible and more than likely, probable. Possibly, I didn't notice the condition of the interiors......I was just glad to get a seat....
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
FlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6539 posts, RR: 11 Reply 78, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6937 times:
Quoting lrgt (Reply 73): Nope.. just a good example. The DL 763's I've flown on since then, >10 years later were basically the same, but with a dollar-store grade refurbishment. Loose vinyl seat covers that look like the seats at a bad diner... and they're just slapped on, wallpaper stuck over anything that had the flower-power motif from the late-80's (that was already 20 years out-of-date when new). The outside of the overhead bins had 26-years of dirt ground into the outside (ever heard of 409?). They pissed away a lot of revenue and company image by neglecting their interiors just being stupid. Just more tasteful seat covers (if you're going to do vinyl or fake leather, it shouldn't be blue) and maybe deep-cleaning the overhead bins once every 10-years would have at least helped a little.
Dramatic much? LOL
And believ it or not, the seat covers are real leather. Yes, even in coach. I agree with the last poster. I call BULLSHIT. This whole statement is just way over the top and makes you, not Delta, "being stupid".
CAM2:"Lightning coming out of that one." CAM1: "What?"
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7501 posts, RR: 2 Reply 79, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 6829 times:
Delta is doing good work. This isn't all based on brand image shenanigans however; it is based on the overall sturdy platform provided by industry consolidation. Removal of competition. Delta now has a financial footing to stand up and make its (well conceived) fleet pipe dreams come true.
In other words, I hope we remember that it isn't "cleverness" or "genius" about its fleet strategy that is causing their profits. They could just lease new Airbuses and probably will get the same result. But the M90 and 717 situations are a hell of a lot of fun to witness.
questions From Australia, joined Sep 2011, 333 posts, RR: 0 Reply 80, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6771 times:
Quoting mayor (Reply 77): Don't know how the cleaning schedule is, now, but as late as the late 80s (up until the DL/WA merger), all the overnight a/c that we had at SLC (and most small stations) got a Phase III cleaning and, in other cases, if they were overnighting in a DL hub, with maintenance and a full cabin service department, they got a Phase IV, which included cleaning the ceilings and overheads. Even at that, when we did a Phase III, we wiped down the overhead bins, at least on the outside. Perhaps there was a period, there, when DL cabin service became contracted out, that things weren't up to par.......it's possible and more than likely, probable. Possibly, I didn't notice the condition of the interiors......I was just glad to get a seat....
I thought at one point, perhaps pre mid 80s DL was known for having extremely well maintained cabins (regardless of design features). I remember reading somewhere that a mechanic met each incoming plane (perhaps at a hub) to address maintenance issues. Cost-cutting stopped this routine. Can anyone clarify this?
I also recall reading somewhere that after Leo Mullin departed that there was a program where DL employees volunteered to perform deep cleaning on aircraft. Can anyone clarify this?
And back to topic... I'm still looking for info on long haul fleet plans, especially since the 787 was pushed back to 2020. It seems DL relies on a lot of 763's for their international network. Is a fleet renewal/replacement plan in the works or has it been announced. Also, 757s are used on thin routes to Europe. Can 739's replace them?
mayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 9272 posts, RR: 13 Reply 81, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6749 times:
Quoting questions (Reply 80):
I also recall reading somewhere that after Leo Mullin departed that there was a program where DL employees volunteered to perform deep cleaning on aircraft. Can anyone clarify this?
I seem to recall something like this but it was either just before I retired or right after.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
FlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6539 posts, RR: 11 Reply 82, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6722 times:
Quoting questions (Reply 80): I thought at one point, perhaps pre mid 80s DL was known for having extremely well maintained cabins (regardless of design features). I remember reading somewhere that a mechanic met each incoming plane (perhaps at a hub) to address maintenance issues. Cost-cutting stopped this routine. Can anyone clarify this?
Yes thats true but you have to remember that back then, fleet utilization was no where near what it is, or has been for the past 15 years. It was unheard of for an a/c to have more than 3 or 4 MELs because of the practice of what you described. Then again, you{d have to imagine that the ratio of MTC personnel to a/c was much higher. Today, Delta has an active fleet of approximately 726 mainline a/c. That}s not counting man hours put into MRO work for outside carriers AND the work on the RJ engines.
Quoting questions (Reply 80): And back to topic... I'm still looking for info on long haul fleet plans, especially since the 787 was pushed back to 2020. It seems DL relies on a lot of 763's for their international network. Is a fleet renewal/replacement plan in the works or has it been announced. Also, 757s are used on thin routes to Europe. Can 739's replace them?
There{s a plan. Its just not public yet. Trust and believe that they{re not going to get 7 years down the road and say, "Wow, we have 58 ERs what are we going to do with them now?" Nothing published. Youll know when the RFP goes out. Look how fast the plan materialized for the 739ERs. As for the 737-900s flying across the Atlantic. No. Not unless they leave half the bags and block bout 10-15 seats in Y. The 75Es will serve this purpose for years to come. None of the ETOPS 757s (minus the 4 75Vs that are on LAX-OGG/KOA) are slated for retirement anytime soon with the new batch of 739s coming online.
CAM2:"Lightning coming out of that one." CAM1: "What?"
B757forever From United States of America, joined May 2010, 254 posts, RR: 2 Reply 83, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6704 times:
Quoting questions (Reply 80): I also recall reading somewhere that after Leo Mullin departed that there was a program where DL employees volunteered to perform deep cleaning on aircraft. Can anyone clarify this?
Yes, that did take place and I was a part of it. After Mullins departure when Grinstein took over, there was an effort to rebuild (for lack of a better word) the pride of the DL people in their airline and to do something would would directly impact the customer experience. This was one of many similar activities aimed at achieving that goal. This was soon followed by the development of standardized scheduled deep cleaning of the aircraft by contractors at stations all over the system. Those deep cleans continue today.
bobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6029 posts, RR: 9 Reply 84, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6646 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 76): He was saying UA and DL had 10 hubs and "BA, AF-KLM, LH, LX, QS, SQ, CX, ANA, JL, KE" are single hubs and that it's comparing apples to oranges
You are right, I was reading it the other way around.
And we can make some pretty good educated guesses. There are 58 763ERs that will need replacement between 2020 and 2030. There are already 18 787-8s scheduled for delivery in 2020-2021. Depending on the desired capacity more 787s-8s could be added, or some 763ERs could be grown to 787-9s. If prices are cheap, the airline also has the option to obtain some used A330s, which would be a very Richard Anderson move.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10864 posts, RR: 100 Reply 86, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 6631 times:
What are DL's utilization rates? Does anyone have by sub-fleet?
In general, the more intense the user, the more 'inovation' (newer aircraft) they require. This is basic 'innovation theory.' Thus, we expect freight haulers, with their low utilization rate to trend towards older aircraft.
Quoting Burkhard (Reply 30): From financial point, I assume it makes no big difference, prices and leases for old aircraft vs. new aircraft will be such that on a realistic estimate of fuel price it comes out very similar - otherwise there would be no market for new resp. old planes, and the prices would adjust rather fast.
To a point. It depends on utilization and the buying airline's credit rating.
As utilization drops, the variable costs matter less and the fixed costs more. Hence why the trend is usually for high utilization airlines to sell to low utilization. The exception is for very short haul (high cycle). For very short haul (HA), typically it is better to buy used (depreciated) aircraft with lower cycles of a type proven to do well under high cycle conditions.
Higher interest rates also push airlines to lower capitol costs. IMHO this is driving DL. Let me be more specific, if DL bought too many new aircraft, their interest rates would go up (due to a higher debt burden). Thus, why they are buying 739ERs, they also are buying 717s. DL is insuring they do 'not Spook the credit markets.'
It also has to do with the cost of integrating the new type into the fleet. DL will have an unusually cheap time to bring in the 717s and MD-90s. In fact, no other airline could do so as economically as DL. Thus, the types have depreciated sales values that DL was able to take advantage of.
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 53): "U.S.-based Delta Air Lines is generating free cash flow, and we believe its credit measures will gradually improve as the company repays debt."
Excellent.
Quoting Flighty (Reply 79): They could just lease new Airbuses and probably will get the same result.
I wonder. After the AA Airbus deal, the cheap purchases of Airbus seemed to be reduced. DL was able to get a good deal on the 739ERs though. In 5 to 7 years, there is a good chance that Boeing and Airbus will make some even better deals. I think DL is trying to time the new aircraft market. They will certainly have time with the 717s.
n901wa From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 389 posts, RR: 0 Reply 87, posted (9 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 6532 times:
Yes back in the 80s and early 90s a Line Mech was assigned to 2 gates ( At My station) and we met the acft, checked the book and pushed the acft. I can say for a fact that the interiors were in good shape. I know all the old print and sidewalls looked dated, but we kept them in good shape. I can't tell you how many Seat Belts , Ash Trays, Tray Tables, Seat Cushions, Seat Covers, Carpet ( Loved the Red Carpet on the 727) and Seat assys I have changed back then. Even the Galley floor covers were done on over night checks.
Now I do admit the the interior suffered during the Bad years, but after they started Dept 206 and remodelled the interiors, they have been kept up. The seat covers are Leather, and when they are removed they are sent to a cleaning company that deals with leather. Floor carpets are replaced during overnight stays, and they do cleaning everynight, and if they do a repair the on a overhead bin, the repair is Painted.
The Interior of the 767 and 757 were Dated but that was what Delta Ordered when they Ordered the 767 & 757 back in the 70's and early 80's. The Newer ER from the later orders came in the Newer Grays, Red, and Blue. Now I might sound like a Delta Fan Boy, and I usally keep to myself when the post start to go south. But I am just writing what I have seeing over the years. I have seen the interiors go from being in real good shape ( BTW we had to keep up at least 6 different interiors back then) to being embarrasing, and now I can say the Interior look way better and really better then when I first started. Its funny, because I fly a lot for someone in Tech Ops, and the 767s I have been on look good to me. Yes they could use new style Overhaed Bins, and maybe they will get them, but that can't be done overnight.
Back on subject, I don't blame Delta from waiting the 787 out a bit. With the advancement in Tech, and seeing the delay into service, I think it might be smart to see what shakes out first. Maybe the -9 might be a better fit for Dellta. After seeing the MD-11, and MD-90 go thru growing pains, and issues why not be smart and wait a bit, and see what happens.
And I also think waiting on the MAX and NEO to see what happens is also a good thing. There are still MD-90s being brought into service, and the MD-88 is still a good aircraft.
I think getting the 717 was also a Good idea. A Mature acft with 100 seats, turn key, all mods brought up to date, cheap, and still have a lot of time on them. From the guys at AirTran & Hawaiin I have met like the acft, and I haven't heard any big issues. Sounds Sweet to me.
This is My humble opion
And FlyASAGuy2005 Your spot on. We had small OMIs back then, and the -900 order was quick, and they are already going to take some next year.
TVNWZ From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 2206 posts, RR: 1 Reply 88, posted (9 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 6506 times:
Quoting n901wa (Reply 87): But I have seen the interiors go from being in real good shape ( BTW we had to keep up at least 6 different interiors back then) to being embarrasing, and now I can say the Interior look way better and really better then when I first started. Its funny, because I fly a lot for someone in Tech Ops, and the 767s I have been on look good to me. Yes they could use new style Overhaed Bins, and maybe they will get them, but that can't be done overnight.
Maybe it is me--and I fly a lot--Delta interiors are just fine. Better than AA/US/old UA IMHO. But, I don't make my travel decisions on what the interior looks like.
MCOflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 8556 posts, RR: 14 Reply 89, posted (9 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 6451 times:
I think Delta is waiting to see how the reliability of 787 and 350 play out. I think DL did it smart be defering delivery til 2020. Had they not, they would have taken delivery of some of the earlier frames. However, it would not surprise me to see DL order 77W like AA did. I would expect to see an order for 5 firm plus 3 options. I say this as the 777LR fleet numbers 10 and the 772ER numbers 8.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5375 posts, RR: 47 Reply 91, posted (9 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 6418 times:
Quoting mayor (Reply 90): Anybody given any thought to re-engining the 747-400s, with a later powerplant, being more efficient?
As much as I love the 747s, I think it's not the airframe or it's current engines that are killing it, it's the fact that it has 4 engines. If they could develop a powerful enough engine that would enable the 747 to fly with only 2 engines I think it would be feasible... but with that kind of technology I think these powerful engines would still be more efficient on a 777 or other twin.
I doubt a re-engined 747-400 could be as good/better than a 748, and even the 748 is having trouble beating the 777 in efficiency. The 747 will always be the queen of the skies, but I think the queen will be soon put to rest
vatveng From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 893 posts, RR: 1 Reply 92, posted (9 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 6388 times:
Quoting mayor (Reply 90): Anybody given any thought to re-engining the 747-400s, with a later powerplant, being more efficient?
Don't they have to re-certify the model when they do a re-engine? I've always been told that the regulatory process is cost-prohibitive and is why most re-engine proposals don't get past the proposal stage.
B757forever From United States of America, joined May 2010, 254 posts, RR: 2 Reply 93, posted (9 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 6388 times:
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 85): Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 82):
(minus the 4 75Vs that are on LAX-OGG/KOA)
Those are going away? That seems surprising. They should be low on cycles (even though they are old) and the airline needs every ETOPS 757 it can get.
The 4 75Vs are quite old, all were delivered new in 1984, so they are now approaching 28 years old. DL is the third operator. It is time for them to go!
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4285 posts, RR: 4 Reply 94, posted (9 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 6369 times:
Quoting mayor (Reply 90): Anybody given any thought to re-engining the 747-400s, with a later powerplant, being more efficient or would it make more sense to just buy 747-8s
Given the timeframe for 747 replacement, it might well make more sense to just buy 777-9X. Or even A350-1000 if they want to continue pulling down capacity.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
tommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6195 posts, RR: 9 Reply 95, posted (9 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 6359 times:
Quoting questions (Reply 80): Also, 757s are used on thin routes to Europe. Can 739's replace them?
No way. The 739ERs are wusses range wise. They divert in the winter on transcons from time to time. And they aren't the most optimal aircraft from LAX to Hawaii. Save the 753, 752, and 763 for those missions.
Quoting n901wa (Reply 87): Now I might sound like a Delta Fan Boy, and I usally keep to myself when the post start to go south. But I am just writing what I have seeing over the years. I have seen the interiors go from being in real good shape ( BTW we had to keep up at least 6 different interiors back then) to being embarrasing, and now I can say the Interior look way better and really better then when I first started. Its funny, because I fly a lot for someone in Tech Ops, and the 767s I have been on look good to me. Yes they could use new style Overhaed Bins, and maybe they will get them, but that can't be done overnight.
I found someone's flicker account with all these old 80s and 90s aircraft interior photos. I couldn't believe Delta had 70s like interiors on new planes delivered into the late 1980s. They got a more conventional blue pattern sometime in the 1990s, but multi colored seats still prevailed on some aircraft into the 2000s. The blue leather interior is a huge improvement IMHO.
Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 88): Maybe it is me--and I fly a lot--Delta interiors are just fine. Better than AA/US/old UA IMHO. But, I don't make my travel decisions on what the interior looks like.
UA at this point needs to stick with one type of seat fabric. Right now the PMUA 757, 747, and 767 have the older UA blue and gray seat covers (gray in E+, light blue in coach). Then you have the ex-CO blue checkered seats, some random A320s with a gray leather interior, and the IPTE 777s which have a different fabic design altogether. I'm surprised they haven't made a decision to recover all the PMUA aircraft to blue checkered CO fabric, where a lot of the recent mods have been configured with.
"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 5819 posts, RR: 2 Reply 96, posted (9 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 6309 times:
Quoting tommy767 (Reply 95): I found someone's flicker account with all these old 80s and 90s aircraft interior photos. I couldn't believe Delta had 70s like interiors on new planes delivered into the late 1980s. They got a more conventional blue pattern sometime in the 1990s, but multi colored seats still prevailed on some aircraft into the 2000s. The blue leather interior is a huge improvement IMHO.
I know that the 762s and some of the domestic 763s had autumn-like colors such as red, orange, and tan. I flew on one of those aircraft on ATL-SJU in 1996. The bulkhead wallpaper had an autumn tree design, and the projection screens were of the retractable pull-down type, most likely for passengers to see the autumn tree bulkheads when they board. DL eventually scrapped this theme in in the late 1990s and early 2000s as part of a fleet-wide cabin unification of blue and white diamond pattern cloth and blue bulkheads with vertical white stripes. The retractable projection screens were also replaced by fixed screens.
The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
FlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6539 posts, RR: 11 Reply 97, posted (9 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 6215 times:
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 85): Those are going away? That seems surprising. They should be low on cycles (even though they are old) and the airline needs every ETOPS 757 it can get.
Sure, they have low hours because theyve been flyign back and forth netween the mainland and Hawaii for years but there are still MTC items that must be checked more and more as the cycles increase. If you get really close to one, you will see the many patches all over the hull from cracking with age and general ramp wear and tear (bumps and dings). HMVs and PSVs are also very expensive. The 75As are now doing the I-Port stuff but ETOPS really isnt required over there. Only 2 of the 8 75Ms were ETOPS certified. At this point, they have plenty of 180 757s to cover the job and some. As I understand it, going forward as the fleet rationalization continues, the 753s pretty much be standard equipment to HI for DL. Their interior upgrades are coming soon as well.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 86): What are DL's utilization rates? Does anyone have by sub-fleet?
They usually aren}t "scheduled" for more than 6 turns. Scheduled and picking up a swap is two totally different things. Ship{s routing for an 88 for today:
The 757s and 738s are interesting. Depending on where they are going, its common for one to fly from one day into the other. A 757 for today:
RDU-ATL
ATL-AUS
AUS-ATL
ATL-TPA
TPA-ATL
ATL-MCI
Sometimes they may do as little as 2 or 3 turns depending on the scheduled MTC on the a/c for the date. But usually, DL is flying the paint off of every last one of them.
CAM2:"Lightning coming out of that one." CAM1: "What?"
Quoting cosyr (Reply 3):[/quote]
This was very much NW's strategy, and Anderson's background there seems to have brought that to DL.
When I started with DL, in '71, we owned the ENTIRE fleet and prided ourselves on that fact.[/quote]
We hear this from both camps, PMDL & PMNW.
The fact of the matter is BOTH legacy carriers valued the strategy of acquiring older, reliable planes. And the combination of these cultures further influenced the way the merged DL applies this strategy. Do you think DL would ever operate the D95, MD-88, MD-90, & 717 nearly simultaneously if they had merged with US or CO?
Think of this: The fact that DL may someday operate a fleet of 75-80 MD-90s and 100-115 717s is both parts legacy DL's relationship and tech knowledge of the MD family - and NW's massive second-hand DC-9 acquisitions, which to this day is highly acclaimed in the industry. Practically textbook.
Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 9):
Also, I really do not understand why Delta is planning on keeping their 747-400s for so much longer... I believe they are the only airline in the world with no 747-400 replacement planned or on order.
Why??? Because the 744 fleet-renewal is among the least of DL's problems... Think it through fleet-wide. Now factor in the 744 reliability and durability - with the fleet usage - and it's clear the 744 is not a pressing concern.
It would not at all be a double-edged sword.., for most stable organizations... There are always exceptions to the rule. But generally, panamair hit the nail on the head.
TrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2102 posts, RR: 6 Reply 100, posted (9 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 6004 times:
Quoting lucky777 (Reply 14):
It will be interesting to see where things stand 5-10 years from now when the likes of UA/AA (i only mentioned those 2 as they are, or in the case of AA, will soon be similiar in size and route structure) are running much more modern fleets as compared to Delta. One has to wonder why Delta is the only one who sees long-term benefits of running an older fleet versus the afformentioned carriers.
No... trust me, it will not be fireworks display, which you're dramatizing it out to be. Keep it all in context and analyze deep..
DL did is not rolling the dice through more purchases of: aging 737 classics, 20+ year old A320s, or '80s-build 757s. Think of the Mid/Long Term 10-year plan for potential liability types.
-The 757 and A320 and DC-9 are addressed with the 739ER.
-The MD-88 while aging, is aging gracefully and will be parked when fuel costs get too extreme.
-The 763ERs are probably the biggest gamble. But they are well maintained and flown on long distance missions, keep cycle wear and tear down.
The obvious question are the future MD-90 and 717 fleets. Picture 160-200 total frames combined:
I estimate the MD-90 & 717 fleets will remain, near-full, through 2024. Despite their respected productions taking place post-Boeing "merger,".. both types are MD built through and through. They are less vulnerable to significant, unforeseen maintenance, 'ala the 737 classic. Each type is fuel efficient enough to address that concern. Therefore, DL realized a great opportunity with low liability. And seized both aircraft types.
TrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2102 posts, RR: 6 Reply 103, posted (9 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 6024 times:
Quoting lrgt (Reply 18): Delta has critical mass (economies of scale you could say) in terms of MX personnel, spare parts, and above all KNOWLEDGE and EXPERIENCE with these types, which overall SUBSTANTIALLY reduces MX expense on these old birds to perhaps lower than an early-2000's "modern" aircraft (namely because of cheap parts).
What NW did with the DC-9 parts was legendary.
But it's not always just parts.... A great exception to the rule is the MD-90 at DL. MX issues started with EIS, and then costs continued to rise, peaking through 1998-2005. Until recently, many at DL (teammate level) considered the MD-90 a dog.
With solutions provided from the outside, DL improved procedure and reduced the high MX cost. Enter the economies of scale plan: Savings were even better than anticipated, when the fleet grew up to 35-40 frames. And thus, the decision was made to continue to acquire more than originally planned.
Quoting gigneil (Reply 48): Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 37):
The MD90s and 717s are still relatively new
Well... some of them, on the flip, are pushing 17 years old.... by the time they start getting the 717s, many will be as old as 18.
Seventeen years old on a 30+ year frame is not bad. Nearly all acquired were built from 1997-2000 and had period of inactivity or low cycle use - diminishing the aging process further.
Quoting PIEAvantiP180 (Reply 57): I though that was part of the reason they went into bankruptcy in the first place. Issuing all that debt to pay for all those 737, 757, 767, and 777 delivered in the late 90's and early 2000's
You are correct PIE. DL outsmarted themselves when the Exec level decided to go toward an all-Boeing + MD-88 fleet; and to attempt at accomplishing this all at once.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 86): It also has to do with the cost of integrating the new type into the fleet. DL will have an unusually cheap time to bring in the 717s and MD-90s. In fact, no other airline could do so as economically as DL.
Agreed. And that's why the MD history (product experience and infrastructure), were key to these acquisitions happening.
Alnicocunife From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 114 posts, RR: 0 Reply 105, posted (9 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 5587 times:
Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 97): the 753s pretty much be standard equipment to HI for DL. Their interior upgrades are coming soon as well.
I believe the 753s will be going to HI but I think after the reconfiguration (new seats with AVOD, winglets) the seat count will go even higher and they will be used as a 767 domestic replacement as well.
FlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6539 posts, RR: 11 Reply 106, posted (9 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 5560 times:
Quoting Alnicocunife (Reply 105): I believe the 753s will be going to HI but I think after the reconfiguration (new seats with AVOD, winglets) the seat count will go even higher and they will be used as a 767 domestic replacement as well.
True that because they are going to be putting in slimline seats. The back cabin should be able to go up to about 210 from 200. Possibly more with lav and gally reconfigurations.
CAM2:"Lightning coming out of that one." CAM1: "What?"
bobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6029 posts, RR: 9 Reply 109, posted (9 months 1 week ago) and read 5441 times:
Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 108): If they did lease something it was temporary or a holdover for whatever reason.
I'm not saying that Delta leased the aircraft, but what I am saying is the every aircraft Delta bought rather than lease was financed by a financial institution. The idea of any airline paying cash for its aircraft in an Anet myth.
NWAROOSTER From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 864 posts, RR: 3 Reply 110, posted (9 months 1 week ago) and read 5445 times:
Quoting bobnwa (Reply 109): he idea of any airline paying cash for its aircraft in an Anet myth.
I could be wrong, but I think Northwest Airlines, in the days of Donald Nyrop, paid with a certified check, which was not borrowed money, for its new airplanes. The check was turned over to Boeing or Douglas by the acceptance flight crew when the aircraft was delivered.
mayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 9272 posts, RR: 13 Reply 112, posted (9 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5237 times:
Quoting bobnwa (Reply 107):
Are you saying that DL owned all their aircraft with zero mortgages. I an not aware of this being true for any airline.
Quoting bobnwa (Reply 109): The idea of any airline paying cash for its aircraft in an Anet myth.
I heard of this, at DL, LONG before I heard of A.net.
Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 110): I could be wrong, but I think Northwest Airlines, in the days of Donald Nyrop, paid with a certified check, which was not borrowed money, for its new airplanes. The check was turned over to Boeing or Douglas by the acceptance flight crew when the aircraft was delivered.
Same with DL.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
bobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6029 posts, RR: 9 Reply 113, posted (9 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5038 times:
Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 110): I could be wrong, but I think Northwest Airlines, in the days of Donald Nyrop, paid with a certified check, which was not borrowed money, for its new airplanes. The check was turned over to Boeing or Douglas by the acceptance flight crew when the aircraft was delivered.
I was at NWA during the Nyrop days and i do remember the story of paying for an aircraft with a certified check. What I am saying is that the money in the account the check was drawn from had significant borrowed funds. In fact NW at the time had a finance VP whose job at NW was negotiating whith banks and financial institutions for the most favorable rates for buying aircraft.
His name I believe was John Edwardson. NW and DL for many years running were the most profitable airlines. If any airline could have done it it would have been one of them, but I don't think it happened
mayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 9272 posts, RR: 13 Reply 114, posted (9 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4931 times:
Quoting bobnwa (Reply 113): If any airline could have done it it would have been one of them, but I don't think it happened
Well, if it was just a story at DL, it came from within. Obviously, there were no sites like A.net back then to spread rumors. I still stand by the story, although I have no actual proof available.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
Alnicocunife From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 114 posts, RR: 0 Reply 115, posted (9 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4814 times:
Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 106): True that because they are going to be putting in slimline seats. The back cabin should be able to go up to about 210 from 200. Possibly more with lav and gally reconfigurations.
I think they will be going to 234 with the new config
wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4585 posts, RR: 18 Reply 116, posted (9 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4779 times:
Quoting panamair (Reply 10): Until the lease expires, the leased plane is not 'someone else's problem' - it is the airline's problem.
Exactly. And nobody has mentioned the other issue: if it's leased, the lease is going to specify in detail the condition in which the aircraft must be returned, and the airline is going to have to meet those provisions, further reducing flexibility.
It is not correct to say that the airline has to fly the plane. It doesn't. But, like a sunk capital cost, if you are not using the aircraft, you are not generating revenue with it but still are paying for it. If the lease is at an above-market rate, the lessor is not going to want to take the aircraft back and lease it to someone else; they are going to make you honor the lease.
A good example was Delta's MD11s. Many of them were leased. When DL withdrew them from use, they parked them in Montreal and elsewhere, mothballed. However, they were still making regular lease payments on them. The MD11 market had tanked, and so lease prices for MD11 passenger airliners were a fraction of what DL had to pay. Accordingly, the lessors simply held DL to the lease. If the lease was below-market, the lessor would have been happy to take them back and re-lease them. Not here, though.
And this is key: when a decent market for MD11s as freighters arose, if DL owned the aircraft it could have converted them to freighters and leased them out, or simply sold them to someone who wanted to convert them to freighters. However, because the leases specified that the aircraft had to be returned as functional passenger aircraft, DL couldn't do that. So the aircraft sat, parked, for many years.
Finally, World Airways subleased three from DL as passenger aircraft. They paid a market rate, so DL didn't recover its full lease payment, but at least DL was able to recover a portion of the lease payments on those aircraft through the sublease.
When DL went bankrupt, one of the first things they did was reject all the MD11 leases (and World's subleases). The lessors demanded return in accordance with the conditions, whereas DL just said, "Go get them where they are." This usually gets hammered out between the lawyers. In any event, the lessors immediately sold the aircraft to FedEx and UPS. The three a/c that had been leased to World were now owned by UPS. UPS took mercy on World, and indicated that not enough conversion slots were available right away, so it converted its other MD11s first and did an interim lease with World that allowed them to fly the a/c as pax birds until the conversion slots became available. Then, one by one they left World's fleet and became UPS freighters.
TrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2102 posts, RR: 6 Reply 117, posted (9 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4500 times:
Quoting bobnwa (Reply 107):
Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 98):
When I started with DL, in '71, we owned the ENTIRE fleet and prided ourselves on that fact.
Are you saying that DL owned all their aircraft with zero mortgages. I an not aware of this being true for any airline.
That is actually mayor's quote... I botched the preview. But it's true that DL owned virtually all equipment, prior to deregulation. Think early '70s - not late '90s...
Quoting wjcandee (Reply 116): A good example was Delta's MD11s. Many of them were leased. When DL withdrew them from use, they parked them in Montreal and elsewhere, mothballed. However, they were still making regular lease payments on them.
The decision of which did not work out very well for DL.
Quoting wjcandee (Reply 116): Then, one by one they left World's fleet and became UPS freighters.
In a nutshell, you just described the MD-11's lasting legacy.
bobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6029 posts, RR: 9 Reply 118, posted (9 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4395 times:
Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 117): But it's true that DL owned virtually all equipment, prior to deregulation. Think early '70s - not late '90s...
I agree that DL did own all their fleet rather than leasing them, how we differ is that all the owned aircraft were financed by outside financial institutions,These institutions also had partial ownership of the aircraft as collateral. This was and is the situations with just about all carriers. This the same situations with buying a car or leasing it. Ifyou choose not to lease the car and own it, A bank usually provides the funds and the title belongs to them
TrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2102 posts, RR: 6 Reply 119, posted (9 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4153 times:
Quoting bobnwa (Reply 118): I agree that DL did own all their fleet rather than leasing them, how we differ is that all the owned aircraft were financed by outside financial institutions,These institutions also had partial ownership of the aircraft as collateral. This was and is the situations with just about all carriers. This the same situations with buying a car or leasing it. Ifyou choose not to lease the car and own it, A bank usually provides the funds and the title belongs to them
Sure, of course. I didn't say owned-outright, or paid in-full. I don't know at what point the 727s and Tristars were paid for completely. That was before my time.
infinit From Singapore, joined Jul 2008, 314 posts, RR: 0 Reply 120, posted (9 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4089 times:
I wasn't aware of this strategy but it is correct, then it's the opposite of what SQ does. SQ has the youngest fleet of any commercial airline. The average age of their crafts being 6-8 years. I heard they usually make quite a profit on the sale of their decommissioned planes given the frequent production delays from Boeing and Airbus.
TrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2102 posts, RR: 6 Reply 121, posted (9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3825 times:
Speaking of DL operating older aircraft, don't be surprised if DL give the DC-9 another reprieve. Baring fuel prices, I expect to see active D95s in DL colors in 2014. And 2015, maybe..who knows? (I know I'll get flamed for this). But I definitely see 2014 as a reality, pending internal announcement.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21679 posts, RR: 23 Reply 122, posted (9 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3535 times:
Quoting infinit (Reply 120): SQ has the youngest fleet of any commercial airline.
That's not correct. For example, the average age of EK's fleet (much larger fleet than SQ's) is about 6 months younger than SQ's. And other carriers such as EY and QR have younger fleets.
FlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6539 posts, RR: 11 Reply 123, posted (9 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3495 times:
Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 121): Speaking of DL operating older aircraft, don't be surprised if DL give the DC-9 another reprieve. Baring fuel prices, I expect to see active D95s in DL colors in 2014. And 2015, maybe..who knows? (I know I'll get flamed for this). But I definitely see 2014 as a reality, pending internal announcement.
Take it with a grain of salt but it was said by a TechOps big wig today that 2013 will in fact be the last year.
CAM2:"Lightning coming out of that one." CAM1: "What?"
infinit From Singapore, joined Jul 2008, 314 posts, RR: 0 Reply 124, posted (9 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3423 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 122): That's not correct. For example, the average age of EK's fleet (much larger fleet than SQ's) is about 6 months younger than SQ's. And other carriers such as EY and QR have younger fleets.
I knew about EK being about the same as SQ on this respect but EY and QR don't count.. they're such young airlines! SQ (and MH) started in 1947
B757forever From United States of America, joined May 2010, 254 posts, RR: 2 Reply 125, posted (9 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3222 times:
Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 123): Take it with a grain of salt but it was said by a TechOps big wig today that 2013 will in fact be the last year.
Not that lomg ago we were told 2012 would be the last year for the DL DC-9. I think it's an evil plot to foil all those a-netters who continue to ask the eternal question "when will the DC-9s be retired?"
NWAROOSTER From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 864 posts, RR: 3 Reply 126, posted (9 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3149 times:
Quoting B757forever (Reply 125): Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 123):
Take it with a grain of salt but it was said by a TechOps big wig today that 2013 will in fact be the last year.
Not that lomg ago we were told 2012 would be the last year for the DL DC-9. I think it's an evil plot to foil all those a-netters who continue to ask the eternal question "when will the DC-9s be retired?"
The DC-9-50s will probably retire when their next heavy check comes due or Delta has enough 717s to replace them.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21679 posts, RR: 23 Reply 127, posted (9 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3078 times:
Quoting infinit (Reply 124): Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 122):
That's not correct. For example, the average age of EK's fleet (much larger fleet than SQ's) is about 6 months younger than SQ's. And other carriers such as EY and QR have younger fleets.
I knew about EK being about the same as SQ on this respect but EY and QR don't count.. they're such young airlines!
Young airlines don't always mean young fleets. For example, EasyJet only began service in 1995 but for their first few years of service they operated a large number of used 737-300s, some of which were at least 10 years old when acquired by EasyJet.
Litz From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1745 posts, RR: 0 Reply 128, posted (9 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3034 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 127): Young airlines don't always mean young fleets. For example, EasyJet only began service in 1995 but for their first few years of service they operated a large number of used 737-300s, some of which were at least 10 years old when acquired by EasyJet.
And don't forget ValuJet with all those used DC9s ...
mcg From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 679 posts, RR: 0 Reply 130, posted (9 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2824 times:
Quoting B757forever (Reply 93): The 4 75Vs are quite old, all were delivered new in 1984, so they are now approaching 28 years old. DL is the third operator. It is time for them to go!
Are you saying that DL owned all their aircraft with zero mortgages. I an not aware of this being true for any airline.
Quoting bobnwa (Reply 109):
The idea of any airline paying cash for its aircraft in an Anet myth.
I heard of this, at DL, LONG before I heard of A.net.
Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 110):
I could be wrong, but I think Northwest Airlines, in the days of Donald Nyrop, paid with a certified check, which was not borrowed money, for its new airplanes. The check was turned over to Boeing or Douglas by the acceptance flight crew when the aircraft was delivered.
Same with DL.
It sure is a myth. Perhaps Nyrop purchased DC-6B's or Electra's with cash, but here is a link to Delta's current financials and the company has $14 BILLION in long term debt excluding capitalized leases and that includes about $2 Billion in the current portion of that long term debt, which means that this portion of the LTD is due and payable in the next twelve months.
TrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2102 posts, RR: 6 Reply 135, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2044 times:
Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 121):
Speaking of DL operating older aircraft, don't be surprised if DL give the DC-9 another reprieve. Baring fuel prices, I expect to see active D95s in DL colors in 2014. And 2015, maybe..who knows? (I know I'll get flamed for this). But I definitely see 2014 as a reality, pending internal announcement.
Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 123):
Take it with a grain of salt but it was said by a TechOps big wig today that 2013 will in fact be the last year.
Like I did with the 717, I'm going all-in on a further D95 reprieve and active service extension.
mayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 9272 posts, RR: 13 Reply 136, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2029 times:
Quoting milesrich (Reply 134): but here is a link to Delta's current financials and the company has $14 BILLION in long term debt excluding capitalized leases and that includes about $2 Billion in the current portion of that long term debt, which means that this portion of the LTD is due and payable in the next twelve months.
syncmaster From United States of America, joined Jul 2002, 1983 posts, RR: 14 Reply 137, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1990 times:
Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 31): Where exactly is your data to prove all this? Quite the contrary, estimates are already showing that corporate businesses, ridership AND yield in the front cabin is rising on key routes BECAUSE of the interior upgrades that have been made over the past 2 years starting with the 777s, 764s, 763s (ongoing), 744s (almost complete less that a year after start) and soon to be the A330s...
Not only that, but lets be realistic, Delta's fleet (and that of American carriers in general) is significantly larger than that of most European carriers.
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined Sep 2011, 333 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 887 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8497 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2009, 78 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2829 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4268 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21679 posts, 
It would not at all be a double-edged sword.., for most stable organizations... There are always exceptions to the rule. But generally, panamair hit the nail on the head. 
What NW did with the DC-9 parts was legendary.
From Singapore, joined Jul 2008, 314 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
