rbavfan wrote:

Remember NW took over Republic that had both engines in their hacked together fleet.

Those aircraft never made it to DL though. DL's 757 fleet has always been PW powered.

rbavfan wrote:

Polot wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

They also flew 757's with RR engines. .

I'm pretty sure all their 757s have been PWs.

They have had some of both PW & RR. Remember NW took over Republic that had both engines in their hacked together fleet.

I think it is a stretch to contribute the fact that Northwest/Republic briefly (<2 years) operated a 5 RR 757s 20 years before they merged with DL to DL's history with RR.

It would be very remiss of a well run airline (let's forget the ATL meltdown) not to be ready to accept a new type and to have planned very carefully for all aspects of its introduction.

MartijnNL wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

14 hours at less-than-full payload is not long-haul in the standard sense.

14 hours in the air is not long haul? I once flew SIN-CDG on an Air France A380 in 13 hours. Wasn't that a long haul flight? And what about travelling in a KLM MD-11 for almost 11 hours, AMS-SFO? Also not long haul? What is the definition of a long haul flight? Has that definition, if there is one, changed in recent years?

I always thought it was considered long haul if there was a second crew on board to take over mid flight.

StTim wrote:

It would be very remiss of a well run airline (let's forget the ATL meltdown) not to be ready to accept a new type and to have planned very carefully for all aspects of its introduction.

Indeed. And if the posters think this aircraft will be flying the line by August, then the crew/aircraft basing will probably have already been put out for bid or on notice. Somebody ought to ask a current Delta pilot.

LAX772LR wrote:

compensateme wrote:

But Given that DL is the weakest performer on the route

ZK-NBT wrote:

and with DL being the weakest on the SYD route

What is this based on?

I would assume the figures they report to the DOT & Australian equivalent.

RetiredWeasel wrote:

StTim wrote:

It would be very remiss of a well run airline (let's forget the ATL meltdown) not to be ready to accept a new type and to have planned very carefully for all aspects of its introduction.

Indeed. And if the posters think this aircraft will be flying the line by August, then the crew/aircraft basing will probably have already been put out for bid or on notice. Somebody ought to ask a current Delta pilot.

I bet spares have already started to arrive. Pilot and flight crew training scheduled - including the initial domestic flights, All computer systems ready to accept the new type. Engineering, line and off line trained or undergoing training. Any new ground kit required on site or shortly to arrive. Te litany of what needs to be planned is astounding. Remember engineering, pilots and flight crew need to be certified on type, etc etc etc.

flyDTW1992 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

I know it hurts to admit, but I didn't make up the consensus.

Well, don't stop there... tell us: consensus of whom?
What's their accreditation? And why do they disagree with ACTUAL authoritative sources?

Like, say, Boeing for example-- who defined A-Market longhaul as beginning at 3900nm.

Or actual airlines, like Air France, who refers to its COI flights (several under 3700nm) as longhaul.
You can see it right here on their site, specifically defined as such:
http://www.airfrance.us/US/en/common/fa ... flight.htm


So who are you, as an abject nobody relative to the industry, to tell them that they don't know what they're talking about?
...especially using some cockamamie statement like "the world!" as your "evidence."

MSPNWA wrote:

It's the first long-haul Airbus for a U.S. carrier.

Repeating it isn't going to make it any less false than the first time it was said.

MSPNWA wrote:

If you're going to call DL's A332 as a long-haul aircraft, you'll have to call their 763 a long-haul aircraft as well.

*whispers* Psst, those do a lot of longhaul too.

What he said.

"Traffic flow, for which every airport-to-airport distance is more than to 4000 km."
Source: Eurocontrol https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/defau ... ecasts.pdf

"Long-haul flights usually last over five hours."
Source: Air France http://corporate.airfrance.com/index.php?id=248&L=1

"Any flight that covers over 3,500km is long-haul."
Source: UK CAA https://www.caa.co.uk/Passengers/Resolv ... ul-delays/

While these are probably on the low end of the various definitions out there, they're a far cry from 14 hours. Personally I'd regard 14 hours to be nearing ultra-long haul, considering the fact that many of the longest nonstops in existence, operated by ULH equipment like 77Ls and 77Ws, fall into the 15-16 hour range.

Also when the 747-100 with 4260nm range came out it was considered long haul.

rbavfan wrote:

Polot wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

They also flew 757's with RR engines. .

I'm pretty sure all their 757s have been PWs.

They have had some of both PW & RR. Remember NW took over Republic that had both engines in their hacked together fleet.

DL has never flown 757s with RR engines. NW, yes, DL, no.

Jeremy

For what its worth, many of the international/FIS and/or widebody capable gates in DTW on the even-side of A have been restriped to include stop lines for the 35-9.

LAX772LR wrote:

After introducing the new J cabin, redoing the interiors, becoming an approved MTX center for Rolls-Royce, and sourcing additional spares on the open market?

Fat chance. Those 77Es will likely be with DL for at least another 7-8yrs or more.

Just like the 744s, domestic 763s, and A320s, right? I'll take you up on that bet. We've heard those excuses before for keeping airplanes around. They deny reality.

When an airline has far more capacity on order than they want to use, something has to give. And what gives is the least economical/oldest fleet type. A badly needed refurbishment completed soon isn't going to save any type from necessary retirement in the foreseeable future. 7-8+ years yet for the 77E is crazy.

MSPNWA wrote:

Just like the 744s, domestic 763s, and A320s, right?

No, not right, at all. Unless you can tell us the last time they dumped any of the above after just completing a major agreement to provide regional mtx for their engine type.

MSPNWA wrote:

They deny reality.

Sorta like you're doing now

MSPNWA wrote:

When an airline has far more capacity on order than they want to use, something has to give.

And it has. New orders (read that: "CapEx") have been deferred, cancelled, and/or options not converted.

DL, and NW before it, were always prone to cut new incoming metal, in favor of retaining older metal, when times got tough.
You can't possibly have forgotten all the D9s, M88s, M11s, 763As, etc that were/are flying, long after most airlines have gotten rid of the types.

MSPNWA wrote:

7-8+ years yet for the 77E is crazy.

Based on what? Their longtime plan to do exactly that? Which BTW they've given no indication whatsoever that they plan on changing.

rbavfan wrote:

Polot wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

They also flew 757's with RR engines. .

I'm pretty sure all their 757s have been PWs.

They have had some of both PW & RR. Remember NW took over Republic that had both engines in their hacked together fleet.

That would only have been NW. By the time of the merger all the 757 fleet was PW.

RetiredWeasel wrote:

StTim wrote:

It would be very remiss of a well run airline (let's forget the ATL meltdown) not to be ready to accept a new type and to have planned very carefully for all aspects of its introduction.

Indeed. And if the posters think this aircraft will be flying the line by August, then the crew/aircraft basing will probably have already been put out for bid or on notice. Somebody ought to ask a current Delta pilot.

It seems the bid has NOT gone out yet, but rumors advanced by pilots expect the bid to go out in the next few days.

RL777 wrote:

Exciting times, I believe this will be the first time an American airline operate a true long haul Airbus. The A359 will look great in DL colors, should be seeing it at SEA soon enough. Its a strong candidate to take over for the A330 on the HKG route.

I thought I remembered Delta stating they would operate the new A-350s out of DTW on Asian routes and keep the A330s for the SEA to Asia routes.

rbavfan wrote:

Balerit wrote:

DL777200LR wrote:

The first maintenance A350 training classes were at the Airbus facility in Miami in October while the training department prepared for the A350 and since January Delta has been training technicians in house in the Atlanta training center.

Ah, okay. At SAA they used to send the first batch of engineers to the county of origin which was nice. When we got our B747-400's I attended a week long ground run course in BA's simulators at Heathrow, as our simulators weren't up and running. My course though was done in-house at SAA. These days I guess it's cheaper to send an instructor to the airline.

If they sent you to BA at Heathrow they did not send you to the country of origin for the 747-400. If they did you would have went to the Seattle or I believe Kansas City had a facility in US, not to London.

Note I said ground run course, not the same as the aircraft type course which I did at SAA. There had been a batch of guys that went to Seattle, unfortunately not me.

rbavfan wrote:

If they sent you to BA at Heathrow they did not send you to the country of origin for the 747-400. If they did you would have went to the Seattle or I believe Kansas City had a facility in US, not to London.

It really depends, we used to operate 744s that had either a FAA, UK, or EASA TCDS when they were imported. When importing aircraft there is a type acceptance data sheet which referenced the overseas TCDS that is was based upon. In some cases you can get more people onboard a UK TCDS aircraft than a FAA TCDS aircraft, even if the two aircraft came out of the same factory after each other. I am not sure what the political situation was back then in SA when that transaction was made, they make have had to purchase the aircraft that way due the political situation.

rbavfan wrote:

I always thought it was considered long haul if there was a second crew on board to take over mid flight.

In the EU flight time limit rules, long haul is over 10 hours, ultra long haul over 16 hours. I think the limiting factor for US airlines is in the contractual arrangements with the employee groups that exceed the FAA minimums.

mbmbos wrote:

RL777 wrote:

Exciting times, I believe this will be the first time an American airline operate a true long haul Airbus. The A359 will look great in DL colors, should be seeing it at SEA soon enough. Its a strong candidate to take over for the A330 on the HKG route.

I thought I remembered Delta stating they would operate the new A-350s out of DTW on Asian routes and keep the A330s for the SEA to Asia routes.

That is correct, DL will initially have the A359s op out of DTW however it shouldn't be long until it takes over at least the HKG route from SEA as the current A332 is being pushed quite hard on that route. DL have eluded that SEA is likely to A359 ops at some point, it remains to be seen when and under what capacity.

Any idea about the ship numbers of Delta's A350s?

The first three are MSN115, 135 and 149.

viasa wrote:

Any idea about the ship numbers of Delta's A350s?

N501DN-N525DN. Unless some of the suffixes vary.

-Rowen

mbmbos wrote:

RL777 wrote:

Exciting times, I believe this will be the first time an American airline operate a true long haul Airbus. The A359 will look great in DL colors, should be seeing it at SEA soon enough. Its a strong candidate to take over for the A330 on the HKG route.

I thought I remembered Delta stating they would operate the new A-350s out of DTW on Asian routes and keep the A330s for the SEA to Asia routes.

Here's specifically what they stated about the intended use of the A330-900neo's when they ordered them.

"The widebody A330-900neo, an enhancement of Airbus' successful A330 family featuring greater aerodynamic and economic efficiency, will be deployed on medium-haul trans-Atlantic markets as well as select routes connecting the U.S. West Coast and Asia."

And the A350's --
"The long-range Airbus A350-900 will continue Delta's optimization of its Pacific network, operating primarily on long-range routes between the U.S. and Asia. "

So I'd expect the SEA routes to mostly be A330's except for perhaps SEA-HKG which might fall under the "long-range" category.

michman wrote:

mbmbos wrote:

RL777 wrote:

Exciting times, I believe this will be the first time an American airline operate a true long haul Airbus. The A359 will look great in DL colors, should be seeing it at SEA soon enough. Its a strong candidate to take over for the A330 on the HKG route.

I thought I remembered Delta stating they would operate the new A-350s out of DTW on Asian routes and keep the A330s for the SEA to Asia routes.

Here's specifically what they stated about the intended use of the A330-900neo's when they ordered them.

"The widebody A330-900neo, an enhancement of Airbus' successful A330 family featuring greater aerodynamic and economic efficiency, will be deployed on medium-haul trans-Atlantic markets as well as select routes connecting the U.S. West Coast and Asia."

And the A350's --
"The long-range Airbus A350-900 will continue Delta's optimization of its Pacific network, operating primarily on long-range routes between the U.S. and Asia. "

So I'd expect the SEA routes to mostly be A330's except for perhaps SEA-HKG which might fall under the "long-range" category.

The bulk of the 350's will be going to DTW for NRT, PVG, ICN and eventually PEK, idk about NGO, the only reason it's still around is because of the auto industry.

The flight attendants just received the service bulletin update in our edocs FA manual the other day.

In regards to the A350-900 and SEA, other than SEA-HKG, I don't see the A350-900 being in the cards for SEA. The A330-900 NEO should have the range to cover everything else, including a hypothetical SEA-TPE. I'm guessing the A350-900 goes on DTW-NRT/ICN/PEK/PVG, ATL-NRT/ICN, and SEA-HKG.

michman wrote:

So I'd expect the SEA routes to mostly be A330's except for perhaps SEA-HKG which might fall under the "long-range" category.

Seems a fairly good chance they'll bring back DTW-HKG as well, which among finally increasing their presence in that market, will allow them to turn some aircraft around to SEA.

Or perhaps finally find their cajones and go for LAX-HKG against AA/CX, using an arguably more efficient and lower-risk platform? That'd be awesome. Heck, maybe all three, eventually.

LAX772LR wrote:

michman wrote:

So I'd expect the SEA routes to mostly be A330's except for perhaps SEA-HKG which might fall under the "long-range" category.

Seems a fairly good chance they'll bring back DTW-HKG as well, which among finally increasing their presence in that market, will allow them to turn some aircraft around to SEA.

Or perhaps finally find their cajones and go for LAX-HKG against AA/CX, using an arguably more efficient and lower-risk platform? That'd be awesome. Heck, maybe all three, eventually.

I assure you DTW-HKG is not coming back. To get SEA-HKG to where it is today was a struggle and they are not going to divert any of the eastern United States traffic over DTW and possibly hurt the SEA-HKG flight. As far as LAX-HKG they have a hard time making SEA work so why would they divert the LAX connections away from SEA

LAX772LR wrote:

michman wrote:

So I'd expect the SEA routes to mostly be A330's except for perhaps SEA-HKG which might fall under the "long-range" category.

Seems a fairly good chance they'll bring back DTW-HKG as well, which among finally increasing their presence in that market, will allow them to turn some aircraft around to SEA.

Or perhaps finally find their cajones and go for LAX-HKG against AA/CX, using an arguably more efficient and lower-risk platform? That'd be awesome. Heck, maybe all three, eventually.

If Delta won't use the A350-900 on LAX-SYD as apparently the 777-200LR will have better performance, I find it hard to believe they'll use it on DTW-HKG. I do think Delta will restart DTW-HKG, maybe with the new 777-200LR configuration, which will seat 28J/48W/220Y, a much better CASM configuration for the route than when they first tried DTW-HKG, 45J/224Y. DTW-HKG failed due to the route occurring during the worst economic conditions for Hong Kong since the 1997 East Asian Financial Crisis and Delta struggled to sell the front of the aircraft. With economic growth expected to be higher than last year, launching another route to Hong Kong makes sense for Delta. There were several on another forum who were genuinely surprised how AA, despite operational reliability issues with the 777-300ER, was able to force CX to downgauge LAX-HKG from quadruple daily to thrice daily. Delta's isn't moving to T2/T3 just for continued domestic growth expansion. With that said, Delta will probably add LAX-PEK, using their NRT-PVG slot, before considering launching LAX-HKG.

Its very obvious that if Delta is going to throw a 2nd flight into the HKG market, it will be from ATL. The 350 should have the legs for that and ATL is far enough away from SEA that it won't interfere with it. DL might even be able to steal some localized traffic away from AA's DFW-HKG flight. With DL running a far superior business class cabin over AA (350 VS 77W), DL should do OK.

jumbojet wrote:

Its very obvious that if Delta is going to throw a 2nd flight into the HKG market, it will be from ATL. The 350 should have the legs for that and ATL is far enough away from SEA that it won't interfere with it. DL might even be able to steal some localized traffic away from AA's DFW-HKG flight. With DL running a far superior business class cabin over AA (350 VS 77W), DL should do OK.

I'd be shocked if Delta ever launched an ATL-HKG flight. While Delta may have considered such a route when it was a stand alone carrier beginning to receive deliveries of the 77L, but now no. The market is smaller than DTW-HKG. Also, if Delta believes the 77L has better performance on a flight almost a thousand miles shorter, LAX-SYD, than the A350-900, I find it very hard to believe Delta would launch this flight unless its done from DTW-HKG. Alternatively, LAX-HKG has much better prospects despite the competition from AA/CX due to the size the local market and its in range of what Delta expects out of their A350-900 configuration. I'd bet Delta will launch JFK-HKG, which I consider extremely unlikely, before they launch ATL-HKG. ATL-NRT/ICN is likely it for ATL-Asia unless more PEK/PVG become available in which Delta would look to resume ATL-PVG.

klm617 wrote:

To get SEA-HKG to where it is today was a struggle and they are not going to divert any of the eastern United States traffic over DTW and possibly hurt the SEA-HKG flight.

Who the heck is adding all the time to fly eastern USA to HKG over SEA, other than bottom-barrel bargain hunters, or people contractually locked into DL?

DeSpringbokke wrote:

DTW-HKG failed due to the route occurring during the worst economic conditions for Hong Kong since the 1997 East Asian Financial Crisis and Delta struggled to sell the front of the aircraft.

Also the USA still being mired in the aftermath of the 2008 economic crash

DeSpringbokke wrote:

Delta's isn't moving to T2/T3 just for continued domestic growth expansion. With that said, Delta will probably add LAX-PEK, using their NRT-PVG slot, before considering launching LAX-HKG.

The two aren't really mutually exclusive

jumbojet wrote:

Its very obvious that if Delta is going to throw a 2nd flight into the HKG market, it will be from ATL.

How on Earth do you arrive at that conclusion? DL has never sustained any east Asian route out of ATL other than NRT, and that's not from lack of trying... and you're proposing their historically weakest Asian station of all??

LAX772LR wrote:

klm617 wrote:

To get SEA-HKG to where it is today was a struggle and they are not going to divert any of the eastern United States traffic over DTW and possibly hurt the SEA-HKG flight.

Who the heck is adding all the time to fly eastern USA to HKG over SEA, other than bottom-barrel bargain hunters, or people contractually locked into DL?

Millions of people fly out of their way every day just take for instance all the people in the upper Midwest who are routed over ATL everyday when flying internationally because Atlanta is the only option they are given by Delta. As far as the east coast goes Delta understands that they are uncompetitive against AA and UA from the eastern Untied States because of the better options both airlines offer to HKG UA from EWR and ORD and AA from DFW so yes the only passengers that they are getting are the ones who are locked into Delta and are happy to route them over SEA and don't want to erode that revenue. The issue is Delta is really short sighted because if they had not ended Detroit Hong Kong by now they would have carved out a decent market for themselves but I think they have waited to long and that market is pretty much captured by UA and AA. The logical thing today to build up a customer base in Hong Kong would have been to fly 4 weekly from SEA and 3 weekly from DTW that way giving all passengers in their network ease of service with one stop connections from all parts of the US but they chose not to chase that customer base. It's funny how they failed in Asia as a stand alone airline and even with the Northwest merger they are still failing to capture any significant market share to Asia. Perhaps it's time to rethink their Asia strategy.

LAX772LR wrote:

klm617 wrote:

To get SEA-HKG to where it is today was a struggle and they are not going to divert any of the eastern United States traffic over DTW and possibly hurt the SEA-HKG flight.

Who the heck is adding all the time to fly eastern USA to HKG over SEA, other than bottom-barrel bargain hunters, or people contractually locked into DL?

DeSpringbokke wrote:

DTW-HKG failed due to the route occurring during the worst economic conditions for Hong Kong since the 1997 East Asian Financial Crisis and Delta struggled to sell the front of the aircraft.

Also the USA still being mired in the aftermath of the 2008 economic crash

DeSpringbokke wrote:

Delta's isn't moving to T2/T3 just for continued domestic growth expansion. With that said, Delta will probably add LAX-PEK, using their NRT-PVG slot, before considering launching LAX-HKG.

The two aren't really mutually exclusive

jumbojet wrote:

Its very obvious that if Delta is going to throw a 2nd flight into the HKG market, it will be from ATL.

How on Earth do you arrive at that conclusion? DL has never sustained any east Asian route out of ATL other than NRT, and that's not from lack of trying... and you're proposing their historically weakest Asian station of all??

You are aware that ATL-ICN restarts in a few weeks. No reason that HKG can't work from the worlds largest airport. Also, isn't DL interested in starting ATL-PVG or ATL-PEK? Not so far fetched an idea when you have all that traffic being funneled through one airport. Having the right equipment helps. I've read that the 350 is 25% more economical than the 777.

jumbojet wrote:

You are aware that ATL-ICN restarts in a few weeks. No reason that HKG can't work from the worlds largest airport. Also, isn't DL interested in starting ATL-PVG or ATL-PEK? Not so far fetched an idea when you have all that traffic being funneled through one airport. Having the right equipment helps. I've read that the 350 is 25% more economical than the 777.

ATL-HKG is basically a pipe dream, albeit one I would love to see happen. The O&D is limited, to put it mildly, and while ATL is the world's biggest hub, it's poorly located to capture USA-HKG traffic, the majority of which already has access to a plethora of nonstops on AA, UA, and of course CX. Yes, DL could attract enough passengers for the right price, but that price would be incompatible with ULH economics. And unlike AA at DFW, DL has no partner on the HKG end to bolster connecting opportunities, unlike ATL-ICN or a hypothetical ATL-PVG.

If and when DL adds its next HKG flight, it will almost certainly be from DTW, which is over an hour closer to HKG and is better suited for connections to the East Coast and Southeast. In fact, I would say LAX and even JFK are more likely to see a HKG flight than ATL is.

jumbojet wrote:

You are aware that ATL-ICN restarts in a few weeks.

Quite aware. That doesn't change what I just said.

jumbojet wrote:

No reason that HKG can't work from the worlds largest airport.

You mean other than their historic weakness in that specific market, lacking a partner for feed or transfer, enormous distance, dearth of O&D, comparatively minuscule economic ties between the two cities/regions, limited VFR traffic...... ?

jumbojet wrote:

Also, isn't DL interested in starting ATL-PVG

Perhaps. If losing their shirt the last two times they tried and failed on that route weren't enough, I guess three might be the charm?

For some perspective, ATL-HKG is ~50nm shorter than SFO-SIN. DL will not be starting that route anytime soon.

I wonder if ATL to LAX gets the initial domestic training run for the 359? I would love to book my flight now. I wonder if Ortibz would have aircraft usauge this far out yet?

RL777 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

bluefltspecial wrote:

While we're aware that DL plans to put these on Asia routes, any guesses on what routes they will be doing pilot proving on?

Dunno, though 99% chance that LAX will be the terminal destination, as it almost always is for new widebodies.
Best guesses would be DTW-LAX and/or ATL-LAX.

RL777 wrote:

Exciting times, I believe this will be the first time an American airline operate a true long haul Airbus.

Hardly. DL's been flying Airbuses on 14hr+ flights for years now.
And since they weren't splashing down short of the destination.... they sound pretty "true" to me.

Fair enough, I've never really considered the A330 even the 200 to be a "true" long haul aircraft but your right. Many carriers, not only DL are operating the aircraft on some longer sectors.

Considering it was designed for routes like SVO-LAX and YVR-ATH...? No, that's not long haul at all...