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.
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
rbavfan wrote:Remember NW took over Republic that had both engines in their hacked together fleet.
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.
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?
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.
LAX772LR wrote:compensateme wrote:But Given that DL is the weakest performer on the routeZK-NBT wrote:and with DL being the weakest on the SYD route
What is this based on?
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.
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.
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.
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.
MSPNWA wrote:Just like the 744s, domestic 763s, and A320s, right?
MSPNWA wrote:They deny reality.
MSPNWA wrote:When an airline has far more capacity on order than they want to use, something has to give.
MSPNWA wrote:7-8+ years yet for the 77E is crazy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
rbavfan wrote:I always thought it was considered long haul if there was a second crew on board to take over mid flight.
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.
viasa wrote:Any idea about the ship numbers of Delta's A350s?
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.
michman wrote: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.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: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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
jumbojet wrote:Its very obvious that if Delta is going to throw a 2nd flight into the HKG market, it will be from ATL.
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?
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 crashDeSpringbokke 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 exclusivejumbojet 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??
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.
jumbojet wrote:You are aware that ATL-ICN restarts in a few weeks.
jumbojet wrote:No reason that HKG can't work from the worlds largest airport.
jumbojet wrote:Also, isn't DL interested in starting ATL-PVG
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.