Any Delta people have any input as to how Delta likes/dislikes their new A350s?

I don't understand why people have to be sarcastic/rude for a legitimate question. I'm also curious to know DL has any initial thoughts (if any) about the plane.

The inaugural flight event seemed to have gone well.

https://thepointsguy.com/2017/10/delta-a350-inaugural-detroit/

rta wrote:

I don't understand why people have to be sarcastic/rude for a legitimate question. I'm also curious to know DL has any initial thoughts (if any) about the plane.

Probably because it's not really a legitimate question. How can a bunch of aviation enthusiasts know whether or not an airline is pleased with a new aircraft type? As far as I'm aware, airlines don't pay much attention to most of the drivel that's posted here (thank goodness).

Well, 2 planes have been flying everyday for the past 20 days on the Tokyo route. I guess that’s the only judgement we can make about the plane so far.

sk736 wrote:

rta wrote:

I don't understand why people have to be sarcastic/rude for a legitimate question. I'm also curious to know DL has any initial thoughts (if any) about the plane.

Probably because it's not really a legitimate question. How can a bunch of aviation enthusiasts know whether or not an airline is pleased with a new aircraft type? As far as I'm aware, airlines don't pay much attention to most of the drivel that's posted here (thank goodness).

A lot of employees and industry insiders participate on these forums and might have information in regards to the question.

rta wrote:

sk736 wrote:

rta wrote:

I don't understand why people have to be sarcastic/rude for a legitimate question. I'm also curious to know DL has any initial thoughts (if any) about the plane.

Probably because it's not really a legitimate question. How can a bunch of aviation enthusiasts know whether or not an airline is pleased with a new aircraft type? As far as I'm aware, airlines don't pay much attention to most of the drivel that's posted here (thank goodness).

A lot of employees and industry insiders participate on these forums and might have information in regards to the question.

Without at the very least a full month of revenue data for the A350 that incorporates the CASM benefits even your average employee isn't going to have an informed opinion on how DL is finding the A350. The exception might be if it were showing signs of being a nightmare for either the maintenance teams or the in-flight staff, but even if that were the case it wouldn't be identified for a month or so at the very least. This is a premature question, which is why the thread is getting so much flak. It's like asking how someone likes their new iPhone X five minutes after they turn it on for the first time.

What will be immediately evident is the fuel burn savings. I have seen this personally with the 787 when it replaces existing legacy aircraft and I am sure DL saw the same thing immediately when the 350 replaced the 747. The numbers are staggering in some cases.

nutsaboutplanes wrote:

What will be immediately evident is the fuel burn savings. I have seen this personally with the 787 when it replaces existing legacy aircraft and I am sure DL saw the same thing immediately when the 350 replaced the 747. The numbers are staggering in some cases.

Without divulging the airline you work for, is it possible to see some numbers for comparison on this? Did you see the 787 replace a route previously flown by 767 or 777? There are so many great things said about the 787's fuel burn - it would be interesting to compare...

We know fuel burn will be way better. If dispatch reliability is high...(99% or better) than I would feel confident DL is very pleased. The technology is literally 30 years advanced on the 744.

rta wrote:

I don't understand why people have to be sarcastic/rude for a legitimate question. I'm also curious to know DL has any initial thoughts (if any) about the plane.

I`m with you, people should show a little more respect to the OP. Delta had their first bird for sometime before
first scheduled, they, some of the pilots & CC will have had useful experience of the plane & what it can do.
Fuel numbers will be well known, dispatch reliability is also well known to be brilliant virtually from the get-go. Delta
thought highly enough of the A330, that to order the A350 wouldn`t have been any kind of a risk. I also think the
vast majority of the American public will love it & that includes those people who thought Delta should have bought the
B787. A good plane is a good plane wherever it`s made. Oh & it looks superb in Delta livery!!

nutsaboutplanes wrote:

What will be immediately evident is the fuel burn savings. I have seen this personally with the 787 when it replaces existing legacy aircraft and I am sure DL saw the same thing immediately when the 350 replaced the 747. The numbers are staggering in some cases.

Apart from comfort, quiet cabin, etc.

rbrunner wrote:

Apart from comfort, quiet cabin, etc.

Exactly my thoughts.

Last year when I took the opportunity to plan two long legs there and two back, I was looking for A350 from the start, and had 3 legs out of 4 in A350. What I was surprised at the most, was how loud it was at the takeoff well sort of, famous roar, but even more at cruise quietness. Probably the most quiet plane ever to date. I was able to sleep uninterrupted on all three, without any earphones/earplugs. Plus, it was more helpful than I initially thought to have those adaptative color-light plans. Seats and space can be adjusted (more or less), but those two were planes attributes, not the carriers. And a good reason to think it's really good (especially since 4th leg was on 777, definitely not the quietest plane in the world).

Cheers,
Adam

Eyad89 wrote:

Well, 2 planes have been flying everyday for the past 20 days on the Tokyo route. I guess that’s the only judgement we can make about the plane so far.

They have already started the flight to Seoul. First flight was on the 18th, 2nd is on it's way right now:
https://www.flightradar24.com/DAL159/f974fee
The other days this flight is still on B744, so very good comparison for DL bu there shouldn't be to many surprises.

I think it's more relevant to ask if it has EXCEEDED expectations. All the benefits of the A350 above, ie quieter ride/saves fuel etc. were "known knowns" which come with the airplane. Having said that, I think it's a little premature to ask anything about DL's reactions to the A350. Have they even had 3-digits customer flights yet?

winginit wrote:

rta wrote:

sk736 wrote:

It's like asking how someone likes their new iPhone X five minutes after they turn it on for the first time.

There were thousands of posts on that exact topic including videos and reactions. More people care about initial reaction than in-depth analysis a quarter after the fact. This post is very interesting because the A350 is replacing the B747 which brings a lot of operational and financial questions into play.

The reduction of capacity in 50 seats is what is interesting to me. On multiple flights to Seoul the 744s were oversold and needed volunteers. Wondering how the reduction is accommodating demand.

sk736 wrote:

rta wrote:

I don't understand why people have to be sarcastic/rude for a legitimate question. I'm also curious to know DL has any initial thoughts (if any) about the plane.

Probably because it's not really a legitimate question. How can a bunch of aviation enthusiasts know whether or not an airline is pleased with a new aircraft type? As far as I'm aware, airlines don't pay much attention to most of the drivel that's posted here (thank goodness).

Of course it’s a legitimate question! Did you ever stop to consider there are DL employees on this site who may have the answer to the question.

They would know straight away how efficient these aircraft are by just calculating the first few flight plans and fuel loads compared to what they previously used.

DL only just added the A350. It'll take some time before they get a quality feedback from passengers and employees.

Everybody seems to think that fuel is the only consideration. Last quarter, fuel only accounted for 16 percent of Delta's operating costs. There is a lot more than fuel that'll determine whether Delta expectations are met or not, and that's just on the cost side. It'll take a much longer time to know how it affects their broader cost structure and revenue earnings.

evanb wrote:

Everybody seems to think that fuel is the only consideration. Last quarter, fuel only accounted for 16 percent of Delta's operating costs. There is a lot more than fuel that'll determine whether Delta expectations are met or not, and that's just on the cost side. It'll take a much longer time to know how it affects their broader cost structure and revenue earnings.

It’s certaily not the only but it is probably the biggest consideration. Product and amentity changes will drive some revenue but reduced operating cost driven by lower fuel onsumption and reduced maintenance needs will be the biggest contributors.

The A350 fuel burn DTW NRT is aprox 75,000 lbs than the B747-400 each way. Aprox $28,000 savings each direction.

nutsaboutplanes wrote:

It’s certaily not the only but it is probably the biggest consideration. Product and amentity changes will drive some revenue but reduced operating cost driven by lower fuel onsumption and reduced maintenance needs will be the biggest contributors.

I wouldn't say fuel is the biggest consideration at all. It's a new aircraft worth $300 million each, replacing an aircraft which has been depreciated to zero. The biggest consideration is the cost of capital, cost of cash flow, and decisions on how to finance the aircraft and handle it on the balance sheet. The difference in depreciation costs alone is probably $20 to 30 million per year if they depreciate over 10 years if financed on their balance sheet. That's significantly more than the fuel savings per aircraft per year and creates a much bigger need to maximize aircraft utilization which brings with it other consequences.

It's an especially different calculus for Delta this time since it's the first new aircraft type they've introduced since the merger, and a significant departure from their previous long haul fleet acquisition strategy which involved a bigger mix of aircraft age and thus balance sheet outcomes. Maintenance is indeed likely to be one of the biggest contributors, and that'll take several years to determine (possibly as long as time to next D check).

Again, only 16% of their operating cost is fuel, call that 16% of the calculus of just the cost side of the airline.

beerbus wrote:

The A350 fuel burn DTW NRT is aprox 75,000 lbs than the B747-400 each way. Aprox $28,000 savings each direction.

Those numbers don't add up... a359 fuel burn is 6t per hour vs 10 for the 744. At avg block time of 12hrs the difference will be closer to 100000lbs

Must be good. ATL-ICN is scheduled.

DTW fans will say this is the end of DTW as the 359 will end up in ATL, LAX, MSP, & SEA and DTW will get the Ford Pintos of the fleet.

Flew on inaugural DTW-NRT-DTW flight #275/276 on October 30/31st. Best long haul airbus ride so far. Employees/passengers I met felt the same. Have not heard any specific feedback from DAL regarding aircraft’s appeal/performance. Several You Tube videos available with pros/cons on DAL’s A359. DAL seem to be very happy with them as other A359 operators. Hope this helps.

globalcabotage wrote:

Must be good. ATL-ICN is scheduled.

DTW fans will say this is the end of DTW as the 359 will end up in ATL, LAX, MSP, & SEA and DTW will get the Ford Pintos of the fleet.

Given the state of Detroit and it’s environs nowadays, that’s probably a bit logical. It’s not really a healthy/growing metro region it would seem, so leave the older guzzling airliners on shorter routes serving the geographic-middle/declining hubs.

Id like to know how DAL and its crews like the A350. If I'm not mistaken aren't they the first US carrier to take delivery.

texl1649 wrote:

globalcabotage wrote:

Must be good. ATL-ICN is scheduled.

DTW fans will say this is the end of DTW as the 359 will end up in ATL, LAX, MSP, & SEA and DTW will get the Ford Pintos of the fleet.

Given the state of Detroit and it’s environs nowadays, that’s probably a bit logical. It’s not really a healthy/growing metro region it would seem, so leave the older guzzling airliners on shorter routes serving the geographic-middle/declining hubs.

You don't do sarcasm, do you? You also don't know anything about DTW.

evanb wrote:

nutsaboutplanes wrote:

It’s certaily not the only but it is probably the biggest consideration. Product and amentity changes will drive some revenue but reduced operating cost driven by lower fuel onsumption and reduced maintenance needs will be the biggest contributors.

I wouldn't say fuel is the biggest consideration at all. It's a new aircraft worth $300 million each, replacing an aircraft which has been depreciated to zero. The biggest consideration is the cost of capital, cost of cash flow, and decisions on how to finance the aircraft and handle it on the balance sheet. The difference in depreciation costs alone is probably $20 to 30 million per year if they depreciate over 10 years if financed on their balance sheet. That's significantly more than the fuel savings per aircraft per year and creates a much bigger need to maximize aircraft utilization which brings with it other consequences.

.

This may surprise some people who only look at list prices: When Delta added the 25 A339 and the 25 A359 to its order book, even if allowing for the typical sub 3% deposit that airlines with the credit caliber of Delta are required to place, these 50 aircraft only cost them about $5.4 to $5.5bn in total. That means about $215mm in total for one A339 PLUS one A359. I have heard from sources they got launch pricing on the A339's, roughly about $88mm each plus or minus 5mm. This means that the A359 cost them about $127mm each plus or minus $5mm. This information is derived from an analysis of their 10K and 10Q financial reports filed with the government. I have been maintaining a spreadsheet since 2010, which I update each quarter as the detailed financial reports are filed with the SEC. I will repeat, Delta is paying about $127mm for each A359 give or take $5mm or so-- a lot less than the $300mm list price. Delta typically seems to be depreciating their new aircraft over 20 years (and as we know, seem to on average operate them for 25 years!). So only about 6-7mm in annual depreciation on each new A359!

FWIW From the same spreadsheet I deduced Delta has been paying about 42MM for each 737-900ER and for each A321 delivery)

For the past 5 years Delta has been paying cash for 2/3 to 3/4 of its aircraft deliveries. This past year they took on some additional debt to prepay some pension obligations, but they are still paying cash for well over half of their deliveries, as their debt levels trend line continues to show a pronounced downward slope.

I will say since the 350's have been introduced as well as the 77L on the PVG flight, the number of IROPs dropped overnight.

coronado wrote:

This may surprise some people who only look at list prices: When Delta added the 25 A339 and the 25 A359 to its order book, even if allowing for the typical sub 3% deposit that airlines with the credit caliber of Delta are required to place, these 50 aircraft only cost them about $5.4 to $5.5bn in total. That means about $215mm in total for one A339 PLUS one A359. I have heard from sources they got launch pricing on the A339's, roughly about $88mm each plus or minus 5mm. This means that the A359 cost them about $127mm each plus or minus $5mm. This information is derived from an analysis of their 10K and 10Q financial reports filed with the government. I have been maintaining a spreadsheet since 2010, which I update each quarter as the detailed financial reports are filed with the SEC. I will repeat, Delta is paying about $127mm for each A359 give or take $5mm or so-- a lot less than the $300mm list price. Delta typically seems to be depreciating their new aircraft over 20 years (and as we know, seem to on average operate them for 25 years!). So only about 6-7mm in annual depreciation on each new A359!

You'll note that I said "worth", not "cost". They depreciate based on what is allowable based on the tax deduction. Any more rapid depreciation is an impairment, it's a subtle difference but one that has meaning nonetheless.

My example was simply indicative, and showing the much broader calculus that is less dependent on fuel than some expect. Much of Delta's success in recent years has been it's particularly detailed asset management.

Eyad89 wrote:

Well, 2 planes have been flying everyday for the past 20 days on the Tokyo route. I guess that’s the only judgement we can make about the plane so far.

Well, in the last 12 days of DTW-NRT that means 24 total flights, and only 8 out of 24 have arrived on time. So something is wrong. It might be the airplane or it might be the operator, who knows?

IPFreely wrote:

Eyad89 wrote:

Well, 2 planes have been flying everyday for the past 20 days on the Tokyo route. I guess that’s the only judgement we can make about the plane so far.

Well, in the last 12 days of DTW-NRT that means 24 total flights, and only 8 out of 24 have arrived on time. So something is wrong. It might be the airplane or it might be the operator, who knows?

That sure beats the completion factor of those Horizon Air flights that never took off...

johns624 wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

globalcabotage wrote:

Must be good. ATL-ICN is scheduled.

DTW fans will say this is the end of DTW as the 359 will end up in ATL, LAX, MSP, & SEA and DTW will get the Ford Pintos of the fleet.

Given the state of Detroit and it’s environs nowadays, that’s probably a bit logical. It’s not really a healthy/growing metro region it would seem, so leave the older guzzling airliners on shorter routes serving the geographic-middle/declining hubs.

You don't do sarcasm, do you? You also don't know anything about DTW.[/quote

Okay - we need to get the discussion back on the rails whether it's a legitimate discussion or not.

I can remember when the first question about a new fleet addition would be "What kind of IFE does it have?"
Btw, I've flown both the 788 and 789 and wish there were more of them routed domestically. They're a hit with the elites.

No doubt the 350 also has great customer appeal.

Ignore the negativity and the obnoxious retort. Of course it's a legitimate question, and one I'd like to hear an answer to myself! I would think that those of us who are members have a wealth of knowledge and resources among us, and we might just be surprised at who reads (and answers) questions here... Thanks for the question and hopefully we'll get some feedback!

coronado wrote:

That means about $215mm in total for one A339 PLUS one A359.

DL is getting a free plane with every Airbus purchase, meanwhile they don't even offer buy 1 get 1 free sales on Snickers bars at my grocery store. If only Walmart offered discounts as good as those you get why you buy an A350...

If the assumptions underlying that price calculation are correct, it's no wonder Airbus won the Delta order. For an airline that's not operationally limited by the 339, there is no way the 789 at any price Boeing is currently going to offer could compete with a 339 under $90M. Even a 359 at $130M is something Boeing will have to be aggressive to match.

sk736 wrote:

rta wrote:

I don't understand why people have to be sarcastic/rude for a legitimate question. I'm also curious to know DL has any initial thoughts (if any) about the plane.

Probably because it's not really a legitimate question. How can a bunch of aviation enthusiasts know whether or not an airline is pleased with a new aircraft type? As far as I'm aware, airlines don't pay much attention to most of the drivel that's posted here (thank goodness).

You are false on this. I work witbin the industry and can say, that most of the time it is the normal people working on and around an aircraft that can let you know about the ups and downs in daily operstions. A CEO sees all these ups and downs only in numbers, and only if they are reported in the right way and manner. I know airlines thar communicate to be very about the introduction of one type, and if you talk to the CEO, he knows nothing about the reality. This may sbow itself with a minor increase of delays, less cargo being transported, a few more techdelays...

So the question is legitimate.

Oh... and it takes airlines about a year to fix decisions that so much affect ops, that in many cases are the reasons for even major delayed flights. This is partly because headquarters tend to not understand what they are doing and don't listen to the average ramp dude, flight attendant or captain, and partly because they can't loose their face.

So, bow happy are the guys working with the A350? What seem to be the improvements?

I’ll be flying from incheon to dtw next week! Delta one cabin! I’ll give an update then

IPFreely wrote:

Well, in the last 12 days of DTW-NRT that means 24 total flights, and only 8 out of 24 have arrived on time. So something is wrong. It might be the airplane or it might be the operator, who knows?

None of the last seven days appear particularly worrying, at worst 38 mins late, probably not helped by departures delayed by up to 31 mins. In fact the common theme is 30-40 mins delay on departure, which DL are unable to catch up in flight. Or if they do catch-up in flight, they are further delayed by ATC on arrival.

As with all scientific assessments, we need a benchmark to start with.
How did the same flight run before the change of a/c type?
Is this pattern of late departures/late arrivals simply normal for this service? Possibly due to congestion at either end, or unusual weather patterns (particularly the jetstream)
Or is Delta not allowing for any slack in the system?

I thought I might find some answers by comparing another NRT-(USA) flight over the same period. ORD would probably have been the most appropriate, but trying to match times of arrival/dep at NRT, after a very quick search, I ended up with UA32/UA33 to LAX, which is B789
Either UA build more slack into the schedule, or their flights have been blessed.
Every day for the last week, they took off ~30 minutes late, but arrived ~20 minutes early(*). Both directions, both with & against the jetstream, if indeed it has any effect at all.
But as it stands, UA are out-performing DL. I suspect there is slightly more to it than that.

I know we are not supposed to resurrect threads but has there been any official word on how the A350's are going with Delta?

StTim wrote:

I know we are not supposed to resurrect threads but has there been any official word on how the A350's are going with Delta?

Well, two months ago I posted that only 8 of the first 24 A350 flights between DTW and NRT arrived on time.

Out of the most recent 24 A350 flights between DTW and NRT, only 14 out of 24 have arrived on time. On one hand, things are getting better. On the other hand, something is still wrong. Hard to know if it's the airplane or the operator, though.

IPFreely wrote:

StTim wrote:

I know we are not supposed to resurrect threads but has there been any official word on how the A350's are going with Delta?

Well, two months ago I posted that only 8 of the first 24 A350 flights between DTW and NRT arrived on time.

Out of the most recent 24 A350 flights between DTW and NRT, only 14 out of 24 have arrived on time. On one hand, things are getting better. On the other hand, something is still wrong. Hard to know if it's the airplane or the operator, though.

As a fairly frequent flyer I am aware that frame issues tend to cause the big delays and not the general delays often seem to cause the bulk of delays.

IPFreely wrote:

StTim wrote:

I know we are not supposed to resurrect threads but has there been any official word on how the A350's are going with Delta?

Well, two months ago I posted that only 8 of the first 24 A350 flights between DTW and NRT arrived on time.

Out of the most recent 24 A350 flights between DTW and NRT, only 14 out of 24 have arrived on time. On one hand, things are getting better. On the other hand, something is still wrong. Hard to know if it's the airplane or the operator, though.

Those stats mean nothing if you can’t compare them with stats from before the A350 started on the route.

Airbus claims very good dispatch reliability for the A350 and I’ve seen no hard evidence to suggest their claim is inaccurate.

When I spoke with CX cabin crew about their A350 fleet transition, those I spoke with loved it with the exception of the rear galley which they didn't like as passenger walked right through it at the end of the aeroplane (compare with the A330 and 777). I wonder if DL crew will have the same issue?

scbriml wrote:

IPFreely wrote:

StTim wrote:

I know we are not supposed to resurrect threads but has there been any official word on how the A350's are going with Delta?

Well, two months ago I posted that only 8 of the first 24 A350 flights between DTW and NRT arrived on time.

Out of the most recent 24 A350 flights between DTW and NRT, only 14 out of 24 have arrived on time. On one hand, things are getting better. On the other hand, something is still wrong. Hard to know if it's the airplane or the operator, though.

Those stats mean nothing if you can’t compare them with stats from before the A350 started on the route.

Airbus claims very good dispatch reliability for the A350 and I’ve seen no hard evidence to suggest their claim is inaccurate.

Absent something more specific, I think we have to discount random delays and assume that things are going well. It was fairly mature at introduction, it has had a seemingly smooth entry to service, and it’s essentially a no-brainer when compared to flying the venerable 744’s. I’m sure they love it.

Eyad89 wrote:

Well, 2 planes have been flying everyday for the past 20 days on the Tokyo route. I guess that’s the only judgement we can make about the plane so far.

The only critique you can make on the plane? Is it solidly built or is it Junk?? And That will come to light in it's reliability. I'm SURE there are 12 factory Reps in site at ////delta hubs on any occasion around the system.

Before drawing any conclusions using departure and arrival stats, you would have to determine root cause of the delays. So many reasons that are not attributed to the aircraft, at the very least weather.

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

Before drawing any conclusions using departure and arrival stats, you would have to determine root cause of the delays. So many reasons that are not attributed to the aircraft, at the very least weather.

Is weather likely to be an issue at DTW in Jan/Feb?