Jer32382 From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 34 posts, RR: 0 Posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3967 times:
I was readinng through some posts on another forum and I came across a psot in which a Delta 757/767 captain said there was rumor that Delta could possibly be getting the A340-500 for "ultra long haul" routes. However, with Delta's earnings announcement is this just a dream now? Interested to hear some people shed some light on this.
Jrlander From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 1108 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3348 times:
Delta has a contract with Boeing, but no exclusive agreement. Boeing undid that clause due to threats from the EU. Delta is not particularly happy with service from Boeing at the moment, and the 767-400's are already showing significant stress on the wings.
DeltaSFO From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2488 posts, RR: 21
Reply 4, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3311 times:
The rumor has been floated here and there but common sense dictates that the B777-200LR is the better choice. There are all kinds of rumors that spread like wildfire. Only a tiny percentage ever turn out to be true. Remember that.
Ordering an Airbus product would cause something of a rift in the relationship between Delta and Boeing, and as it is, the relationship between Delta and Airbus is for the most part nonexistent.
Delta has been looking at the B777-200LR and I suspect that when the time comes for a decision to be made on any ultra longhaul aircraft for the airline, the B777 derivatives will be the choice.
I don't think Delta really can justify more than 10, maybe as many as 14 or 15 B777-200LRs. The -232ER currently operated by Delta is the heaviest version of the 772ER available and can fly up to 7600 nautical miles nonstop (usually about 7200 with typical mission rules), which is more than enough for any existing route in the Delta system, as well as some significant expansion, such as JFK-DXB nonstop, JFK-BOM nonstop, and JFK-NRT nonstop.
Routes such as ATL-HKG, ATL-BOM, ATL-JNB, which start to get to the point where the 772ER will be taking weight restrictions, are routes where a 772LR might be a good choice.
It's a new day. Every moment matters. Now, more than ever.
ScottysAir From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3197 times:
Yeah, I would rather do think about that with B777-200LR will be longer-range nonstop from ATL-HKG, ATL-PEK, ATL-CPT-JNB, ATL-BOM, and anywhere will do with an nonstop on the flight and however, how about Delta will be fly new nonstop to SYD?!?! Any clue?? Thanks!
Donder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3153 times:
ATL-SYD is 9285 miles great-circle.I dont even the 772LR could do that nonstop especially Westbound.I can see DL ordering 6-8 772LRs down the line 8,but not till the 'economic recovery' is more substantiated.
Luisca From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3105 times:
"767-400's are already showing significant stress on the wings"
were did you get that from, could you explain sor show proff that delta actually said that it was anoid with boeing and had problems with the 767-400, if so, why doesnt continental, witch uses it on longer routs have any problems, I find your post hard to believe.
ScottysAir From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3047 times:
Will seen about one-stop from ATL-DFW-SYD flight on B777-200LR flight and it should be do that as for passengers and else about want to do something as for the good Delta flight will get an new nonstop as for longer-range flight. I think rumors as for you guys will be had to fly on the new routes from ATL-TLV, ATL-SVO, CVG-NRT, CVG-PEK flight. Are you planning will got an good idea as for the people. Thanks!
Wingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2582 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2828 times:
Hey Gerardo, the European airlines already support Airbus ten times more than their American counterparts support Boeing. Want the proof, check the numbers of frames each has sold to the opposite continent over the past ten years. You must be joking. Americans may be more obvious in their political interference, but the Europeans are the undisputed masters of that particular game.
National_757 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2763 times:
Wingman, don't turn this into an A vs. B war. However, I would have to agree with Staffan in saying where are the "numbers" that you have.?
Also, carriers don't primarily go for Boeing because they are American, or Airbus because they are European, they go one way or the other because of cost!
The bottom line is that cost matters more to the airlines than almost anything else. It's the same reason why I'll buy an import car if the cost is low enough. I perfer American cars but I would buy an import in a second if it was cheap enough.
MD88Captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1344 posts, RR: 19
Reply 19, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2716 times:
Before September 11th DAL was looking at the best long-range airplane for the future. Something that could fill some very long routes. Fred Reid, DAL's #2 man, mentioned the Airbus 340 as a possible fit along with the Sonic Criuser, 777 and a long range 747 type. Even then nothing was going to happen soon. Now (after 9-11) it will not happen at all. DAL will not add capacity until the industry consolidates, until DAL is very protfitable and can project future profits. In other words, DAL will not be buying Airbus or Boeing in the forseeable future.
IMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6462 posts, RR: 31
Reply 21, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2684 times:
I also await an explanation about the "significant" stress on the 767-400 wings.
But. The 767-400 is not an ultra long range aircraft by any stretch of the imagination. In regards to that issue, I doubt that DL has need for a 8000 nm range aircraft. For that matter, I doubt that any airline does. ATL-SYD/JNB/HKG etc are just too long to make sense. Just my opinion though.
I figure any flight longer than 6 hours is too damn long to be stuck in a dry, stuffy airplane. I'll take the stops where I can get off the airplane and look around a little.
I am glad I was around to fly before de-regulation.
FlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6913 posts, RR: 23
Reply 23, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2656 times:
This is definitely an exercise in futility given both DL's current economic state and DL's route structure. I don't see that DL (at least in the next 20years) will have any great need for a large fleet of 777's. They currently have 8 and will only take enough to replace the MD11's.
Most of DL's international routes cannot support a 777. Of course, LHR access would necessitate ordering a few more but overall I expect DL's 777 fleet to remain quite small. DL currently has the smallest 777 of the four US carriers that operate the 777 and I expect it will remain that way for a while.
As for long range 777's, I'm not sure what routes DL would use them on. ATL-JNB is better served by SAA, ATL-HKG doesn't really have enough demand, ATL-SYD definitely doesn't have enough demand.