Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
jbs2886
Posts: 2362
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:14 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Boeing needs a large MAX order. Perhaps offer DL a -9ER (new gear) or -8 at good pricing, with engine and gear refurbishment and good spares. I will be shocked if Delta doesn't order 100 to 200 MAX by year end 2021. We need another thread to discuss delivery timeline.

I expect DL to order more A220. With their options, they can take time negotiating.

Will Airbus counter?


Agree we will see a DL MAX order and more A220s.
 
N649DL
Posts: 972
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:54 pm

The A320 were recently refurbished nose-to-tail AVOD but most importantly life extension projects. The M90 and M88 didn't receive those projects (for the M90 likely because parts were scarce) but also the A320 is better for "hot and high" destinations (EG: SLC hub) and overall are slightly younger and have better range as well.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1272
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Fri Jun 12, 2020 7:05 pm

ethernal wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
What benefit would DL (or really any airline) receive by replacing a 130+ unit fleet, whose average age is barely 3yrs-old, with an A320N or A321N?


Commonality, but only if they found buyers for all their B737-900ER. Which at this point is obviously impossible.


There's a concept in economics called minimum efficient scale... basically the earliest point where greater scale drives no or only trivial reductions in cost.

While admittedly the 738s and 737s will eventually be retired, right now Delta has 217 737NGs and 219 A32Xceos (if you include the A321 still being delivered).

Each of those fleets on their own would put Delta in the top 25 airlines in the world by fleet size.

Fleet commonality at that scale won't drive much value. Would it drive some? Maybe, but it would be trivial.. we're talking about maybe a 1-2% reduction in costs. Which sounds like a lot, but to get there would require a lot of investment. And, there are less measurable costs to consider. What happens if the A320 family has a MAX-like issue (or vice-versa) that grounds the fleet? How does having only one airline type impact negotiating power? And all these other issues that basically neutralize whatever tiny savings you could drive from commonality.

Point is, Delta is already at minimum efficient scale with 200+ aircraft subfleets. The value of commonality below that is de minimus.

Before someone raises Southwest or Ryanair as a counterpoint, keep in mind that Delta's business model is fundamentally different. When you eliminate ALL OTHER types you gain an extra scale point - you eliminate an entire administrative overhead apperatus and business processes associated with multi-type management. My scheduling system can be completely dumb (ala WN... their systems are out of the stone age, but it works because.. well, all their planes and pilots are essentially identical cogs). Delta is going to have to manage multiple types regardless, so the simplification from consolidation from 7 types to 6 is far less compelling. Going from 2 to 1 (or vice versa) is a much bigger step change than 7 to 6 from a business operations perspective.


True that, but we also need to realized that by going all Airbus, they would acquire Airbus-only operator discounts for their purchase. We are talking about up to hundreds of millions in savings to purchase brand new aircraft. This is probably gonna be the main reason for them to go All Airbus in the next decade or so.
 
xdlx
Posts: 964
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:29 pm

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Fri Jun 12, 2020 7:18 pm

The objective is to retire all non Airbus First...... those will be swapped for more Airbus 321......

Not your father’s DL anymore
 
tnair1974
Posts: 304
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:37 pm

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Fri Jun 12, 2020 8:37 pm

DylanHarvey wrote:
I also am curious if the engines are gonna have anything to do with this. IIRC the oldest ones have 25k engines, while the newer ones have 26.5k engines. They don’t go on any performance taxing routes so I’m not sure if that plays any part.

The oldest batch of DL A320s are indeed powered by the earlier vintage/lower thrust -5A1 version of the CFM56 engines while the newer DL A320s have the -5A3 subtype. DL A320s have been flying more shorter routes in recent years anyway, so perhaps the lower thrust of the -5A1s may not be too consequential.

Somebody more knowledgeable can confirm/correct/expand on this, but think I heard that -5A1 parts will be in sufficient supply for the relatively short time DL will continue operating their most elderly A320s (pre-pandemic, the oldest DL A320s were reportedly going to start exiting the fleet in roughly 2023). Still, how interchangeable are -5A1 and -5A3 parts? Has some support for the -5A1 been discontinued?
 
tnair1974
Posts: 304
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:37 pm

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Fri Jun 12, 2020 9:10 pm

N649DL wrote:
The A320 were recently refurbished nose-to-tail AVOD but most importantly life extension projects. The M90 and M88 didn't receive those projects (for the M90 likely because parts were scarce) but also the A320 is better for "hot and high" destinations (EG: SLC hub) and overall are slightly younger and have better range as well.


Interesting comparison. Even without the pandemic, DL's oldest A320s might have still had had a fair number of cycles and hours remaining upon their eventual retirement; seems rising maintenance costs associated with any older plane were going to dictate phaseout, less so hours/cycles. This is unlike Lufthansa's oldest A320s that have recently been retired; they on average flew shorter hops thus racking up the cycles. These LH birds were close enough to running out of lifetime cycles (even with life extension) that it probably would not have been cost effective to put them through another heavy check.

A major factor in the relatively high number of DL MD-90s being used at MSP had to do with the 90's shorter range. The MD-90 could still reach lots of destinations in the lower 48 from MSP.
 
dstblj52
Posts: 459
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:38 pm

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Fri Jun 12, 2020 9:29 pm

ewt340 wrote:
ethernal wrote:
ewt340 wrote:

Commonality, but only if they found buyers for all their B737-900ER. Which at this point is obviously impossible.


There's a concept in economics called minimum efficient scale... basically the earliest point where greater scale drives no or only trivial reductions in cost.

While admittedly the 738s and 737s will eventually be retired, right now Delta has 217 737NGs and 219 A32Xceos (if you include the A321 still being delivered).

Each of those fleets on their own would put Delta in the top 25 airlines in the world by fleet size.

Fleet commonality at that scale won't drive much value. Would it drive some? Maybe, but it would be trivial.. we're talking about maybe a 1-2% reduction in costs. Which sounds like a lot, but to get there would require a lot of investment. And, there are less measurable costs to consider. What happens if the A320 family has a MAX-like issue (or vice-versa) that grounds the fleet? How does having only one airline type impact negotiating power? And all these other issues that basically neutralize whatever tiny savings you could drive from commonality.

Point is, Delta is already at minimum efficient scale with 200+ aircraft subfleets. The value of commonality below that is de minimus.

Before someone raises Southwest or Ryanair as a counterpoint, keep in mind that Delta's business model is fundamentally different. When you eliminate ALL OTHER types you gain an extra scale point - you eliminate an entire administrative overhead apperatus and business processes associated with multi-type management. My scheduling system can be completely dumb (ala WN... their systems are out of the stone age, but it works because.. well, all their planes and pilots are essentially identical cogs). Delta is going to have to manage multiple types regardless, so the simplification from consolidation from 7 types to 6 is far less compelling. Going from 2 to 1 (or vice versa) is a much bigger step change than 7 to 6 from a business operations perspective.


True that, but we also need to realized that by going all Airbus, they would acquire Airbus-only operator discounts for their purchase. We are talking about up to hundreds of millions in savings to purchase brand new aircraft. This is probably gonna be the main reason for them to go All Airbus in the next decade or so.

There is no magic airbus only operator discount you get discounts by negotiating hard having other options and ordering in large volumes dealing with delta is kind of a necessary evil for both Airbus and Boeing in that they will take end of the line and second-hand jets, which is a necessary part of the market especially for the lessors who are buying large numbers of jets for airlines with questionable financial stability because they know that is AirAsia collapses tomorrow there are few companies who might pick up the aircraft at lower than ideal price points yes but its better having no one interested in picking up the jets.
 
Boof02671
Posts: 2106
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:15 am

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Fri Jun 12, 2020 9:44 pm

N649DL wrote:
The A320 were recently refurbished nose-to-tail AVOD but most importantly life extension projects. The M90 and M88 didn't receive those projects (for the M90 likely because parts were scarce) but also the A320 is better for "hot and high" destinations (EG: SLC hub) and overall are slightly younger and have better range as well.

That means nothing, they just refurbished the 777s and they retired them.
 
N649DL
Posts: 972
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Fri Jun 12, 2020 9:50 pm

tnair1974 wrote:
N649DL wrote:
The A320 were recently refurbished nose-to-tail AVOD but most importantly life extension projects. The M90 and M88 didn't receive those projects (for the M90 likely because parts were scarce) but also the A320 is better for "hot and high" destinations (EG: SLC hub) and overall are slightly younger and have better range as well.


Interesting comparison. Even without the pandemic, DL's oldest A320s might have still had had a fair number of cycles and hours remaining upon their eventual retirement; seems rising maintenance costs associated with any older plane were going to dictate phaseout, less so hours/cycles. This is unlike Lufthansa's oldest A320s that have recently been retired; they on average flew shorter hops thus racking up the cycles. These LH birds were close enough to running out of lifetime cycles (even with life extension) that it probably would not have been cost effective to put them through another heavy check.

A major factor in the relatively high number of DL MD-90s being used at MSP had to do with the 90's shorter range. The MD-90 could still reach lots of destinations in the lower 48 from MSP.


There are definitely some ex-NW A320s from the early 1990s that are so likely so cycle heavy that they're past the point of no return. However, NW received A320 deliveries well into the early 2000s so those are perfectly fine for use in the future. Planespotters.net says N310NW to N318NW (7) from 1990-1991 are totally parked for good, so don't expect those to come back to use. That leaves 62 A320s for DL (all of which planespotters says are parked right now) which are 1990 to 2003 deliveries. I would think that the A320s built between 1990 and 1993 are most at risk for retirement, but I have no idea what the logistics are for which A320s are worth redeemable versus ready for retirement.

With regards to the M90s, recall that only 16 of them were legacy DL which means 59 of them are second hand recent acquisitions which had to be hell for them to keep up with maintenance-wise (mostly all from 2nd hand from LCC Asian Carriers.) It has to be a lot easier considering all of the A320s are ex-NW: Meaning Maintenance Best Practices are consistent across the board from Northwest and now have a decade of being well-integrated into Delta's fleet.

The M90s on the other hand have to be all over the place because so many are second hand. I used to fly them a lot connecting in MSP and ATL when I lived in DEN and never had a problem with them though. This was back in 2016-2017.

Boof02671 wrote:
N649DL wrote:
The A320 were recently refurbished nose-to-tail AVOD but most importantly life extension projects. The M90 and M88 didn't receive those projects (for the M90 likely because parts were scarce) but also the A320 is better for "hot and high" destinations (EG: SLC hub) and overall are slightly younger and have better range as well.

That means nothing, they just refurbished the 777s and they retired them.


Likely because they're being replaced 1:1 with the A350s. DL was never a major 777 carrier like AA or UA.
 
777Mech
Posts: 972
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 10:54 pm

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Fri Jun 12, 2020 11:51 pm

lightsaber wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
Because they didn't order any MAX. In the future, B737-700, B737-800 and B737-900ER would be replaced by A320neo + A321neo instead.

By looking at that strategy, it would be more useful to keep their A320 rather than retiring them. Even though they are old, they're still extremely fuel efficient, otherwise they would have been retired like the MDs.


No idea why you are jumping to the conclusion that because DL has not ordered the MAX now that they never will. Your own example belies the conclusion, DL ordered A321s only after 737 orders.

DL negotiates hard. With 130 739ER that will be around forever, DL can afford to play of Boeing and Airbus and CFM vs. Pratt. The engine service costs are rumored to be a huge part of DL buying contracts.

DL has the right to service any CFM-56, Trent 1000, 7000, XWB, or PW1500, or PW1100 for anyone, including bidding on the engine vendor power by the hour. Note the T1000, which is for the 787, as part of the A330NEO purchase.

If CFM offers the LEAP-1A and -1B as well as Boeing offering the deals I'm reading about.

Delta must renegotiate A321 (CEO and NEO) contracts. You had better believe Delta signed up every inspector in AAB's short course on carpet inspection. Pratt will be put on notice to cut costs. CFM will be informed of an opportunity. Delta isn't stupid, they know Pratt sells engines at a loss, but is going to lower cost 3D printed parts. So perhaps take spares cheaper.

Boeing needs a large MAX order. Perhaps offer DL a -9ER (new gear) or -8 at good pricing, with engine and gear refurbishment and good spares. I will be shocked if Delta doesn't order 100 to 200 MAX by year end 2021. We need another thread to discuss delivery timeline.

I expect DL to order more A220. With their options, they can take time negotiating.

Will Airbus counter?


CFM had better step their game up and let DL work on those motors, or else its another order for the A220/A320. Not a good look for Boeing.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20029
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Fri Jun 12, 2020 11:52 pm

dstblj52 wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
ethernal wrote:

There's a concept in economics called minimum efficient scale... basically the earliest point where greater scale drives no or only trivial reductions in cost.

While admittedly the 738s and 737s will eventually be retired, right now Delta has 217 737NGs and 219 A32Xceos (if you include the A321 still being delivered).

Each of those fleets on their own would put Delta in the top 25 airlines in the world by fleet size.

Fleet commonality at that scale won't drive much value. Would it drive some? Maybe, but it would be trivial.. we're talking about maybe a 1-2% reduction in costs. Which sounds like a lot, but to get there would require a lot of investment. And, there are less measurable costs to consider. What happens if the A320 family has a MAX-like issue (or vice-versa) that grounds the fleet? How does having only one airline type impact negotiating power? And all these other issues that basically neutralize whatever tiny savings you could drive from commonality.

Point is, Delta is already at minimum efficient scale with 200+ aircraft subfleets. The value of commonality below that is de minimus.

Before someone raises Southwest or Ryanair as a counterpoint, keep in mind that Delta's business model is fundamentally different. When you eliminate ALL OTHER types you gain an extra scale point - you eliminate an entire administrative overhead apperatus and business processes associated with multi-type management. My scheduling system can be completely dumb (ala WN... their systems are out of the stone age, but it works because.. well, all their planes and pilots are essentially identical cogs). Delta is going to have to manage multiple types regardless, so the simplification from consolidation from 7 types to 6 is far less compelling. Going from 2 to 1 (or vice versa) is a much bigger step change than 7 to 6 from a business operations perspective.


True that, but we also need to realized that by going all Airbus, they would acquire Airbus-only operator discounts for their purchase. We are talking about up to hundreds of millions in savings to purchase brand new aircraft. This is probably gonna be the main reason for them to go All Airbus in the next decade or so.

There is no magic airbus only operator discount you get discounts by negotiating hard having other options and ordering in large volumes dealing with delta is kind of a necessary evil for both Airbus and Boeing in that they will take end of the line and second-hand jets, which is a necessary part of the market especially for the lessors who are buying large numbers of jets for airlines with questionable financial stability because they know that is AirAsia collapses tomorrow there are few companies who might pick up the aircraft at lower than ideal price points yes but its better having no one interested in picking up the jets.

Agreed. Sometimes loyal customers were guaranteed best pricing, but IIRC with Boeing the WTO ruled such practices uncompetitive and that airlines were freed of their obligations of that part of the contract (Airbus cannot enforce).

Delta is an airline with effectively 3 large subfleets
1. High utilization. This is what the A321NEOs are for.
2. Mid utilization. Usually end if line (739, A321CEO) heavily discounted or bought used.
3. Low utilization. This is what the MD-90s and 717s were brought in for (not original MD-90s, but later purchases).

In general, Delta places a high risk on debt. If an airline is deep in debt, the opportunities are missed. So Delta places more emphasis on keeping fixed costs low while accepting higher variable costs. Delta has disciplined yield management coupled with good capacity management. However, they react with an allergy if high profit routes are threatened.

I will be surprised if Boeing and CFM do not offer Delta good engine spare part pricing with a low initial price. Right now, I speculate, Boeing would accept lower profit than Airbus and CFM would match the Pratt engine service contact terms to allow Delta to service all LEAP just as DL gets to service the GTF fleet. As much of a Pratt fan as I am, the business case for Delta TechOps to break in to LEAP service before the CFM-56 sunset is just too lucrative an opportunity to be ignored.

Delta opperates 217 of the 737NG, none on order.
Delta opperates 219 A32x (all CEO) with 127 on order (27 A321CEO, 100 A321NEO) + options.

While Airbus pulled a coup on widebodies, much due to RR allowing T1000, T7000, and Txwb overhaul at a profit and allowing DL to bid power by the hour work from RR, I see no reason a bid from Boeing wouldn't be considered.

I see DL probably buying 100 to 200 MAX plus used aircraft. If Boeing isn't able to secure a DL order by 3Q2021, shame on them.

I have flown DL A319s, A321s, 752s, and 739s and honestly, as long as I'm not in the very back, I like them all. This is about money. For Delta, the -8, -9, and -10 MAX could all replace the A320s.

I personally do not see the A320s leaving soon. But it is time to age them into a lower utilization role. I would also expect DL to buy used (but newer, say end of line to 12 years old CEOs) A320CEO.

WN and the MAX debacle boosted 738 prices above long term trend. Now, they both dropped. At best a CEO or 737NG lost 14% of value so far in Covid19.

https://leehamnews.com/2020/06/10/hotr- ... more-33677

So bargain or DL has no reason not to buy used and could buy used Pratt NEOs. That should scare both Boeing and Airbus. It will be 18 to 30 months before enough recovery happens to soak up enough past generation aircraft to stabilize pricing.

I see Boeing offering compensation that would make the MAX competitive for Delta. I have not seen similar discounting by Airbus. I think DL will have no trouble replacing shed aircraft with economical used if that is the plan.

Discussion on Aircraft values should continue here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1440991&start=50

Lightsaber
Flu+Covid19 is bad. Consider a flu vaccine, if not for yourself, to protect someone you care about.
 
dstblj52
Posts: 459
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:38 pm

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sat Jun 13, 2020 12:28 am

lightsaber wrote:
dstblj52 wrote:
ewt340 wrote:

True that, but we also need to realized that by going all Airbus, they would acquire Airbus-only operator discounts for their purchase. We are talking about up to hundreds of millions in savings to purchase brand new aircraft. This is probably gonna be the main reason for them to go All Airbus in the next decade or so.

There is no magic airbus only operator discount you get discounts by negotiating hard having other options and ordering in large volumes dealing with delta is kind of a necessary evil for both Airbus and Boeing in that they will take end of the line and second-hand jets, which is a necessary part of the market especially for the lessors who are buying large numbers of jets for airlines with questionable financial stability because they know that is AirAsia collapses tomorrow there are few companies who might pick up the aircraft at lower than ideal price points yes but its better having no one interested in picking up the jets.

Agreed. Sometimes loyal customers were guaranteed best pricing, but IIRC with Boeing the WTO ruled such practices uncompetitive and that airlines were freed of their obligations of that part of the contract (Airbus cannot enforce).

Delta is an airline with effectively 3 large subfleets
1. High utilization. This is what the A321NEOs are for.
2. Mid utilization. Usually end if line (739, A321CEO) heavily discounted or bought used.
3. Low utilization. This is what the MD-90s and 717s were brought in for (not original MD-90s, but later purchases).

In general, Delta places a high risk on debt. If an airline is deep in debt, the opportunities are missed. So Delta places more emphasis on keeping fixed costs low while accepting higher variable costs. Delta has disciplined yield management coupled with good capacity management. However, they react with an allergy if high profit routes are threatened.

I will be surprised if Boeing and CFM do not offer Delta good engine spare part pricing with a low initial price. Right now, I speculate, Boeing would accept lower profit than Airbus and CFM would match the Pratt engine service contact terms to allow Delta to service all LEAP just as DL gets to service the GTF fleet. As much of a Pratt fan as I am, the business case for Delta TechOps to break in to LEAP service before the CFM-56 sunset is just too lucrative an opportunity to be ignored.

Delta opperates 217 of the 737NG, none on order.
Delta opperates 219 A32x (all CEO) with 127 on order (27 A321CEO, 100 A321NEO) + options.

While Airbus pulled a coup on widebodies, much due to RR allowing T1000, T7000, and Txwb overhaul at a profit and allowing DL to bid power by the hour work from RR, I see no reason a bid from Boeing wouldn't be considered.

I see DL probably buying 100 to 200 MAX plus used aircraft. If Boeing isn't able to secure a DL order by 3Q2021, shame on them.

I have flown DL A319s, A321s, 752s, and 739s and honestly, as long as I'm not in the very back, I like them all. This is about money. For Delta, the -8, -9, and -10 MAX could all replace the A320s.

I personally do not see the A320s leaving soon. But it is time to age them into a lower utilization role. I would also expect DL to buy used (but newer, say end of line to 12 years old CEOs) A320CEO.

WN and the MAX debacle boosted 738 prices above long term trend. Now, they both dropped. At best a CEO or 737NG lost 14% of value so far in Covid19.

https://leehamnews.com/2020/06/10/hotr- ... more-33677

So bargain or DL has no reason not to buy used and could buy used Pratt NEOs. That should scare both Boeing and Airbus. It will be 18 to 30 months before enough recovery happens to soak up enough past generation aircraft to stabilize pricing.

I see Boeing offering compensation that would make the MAX competitive for Delta. I have not seen similar discounting by Airbus. I think DL will have no trouble replacing shed aircraft with economical used if that is the plan.

Discussion on Aircraft values should continue here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1440991&start=50

Lightsaber

I suspect we might well see some whitetail neo's and max's over the next few years as both Airbus and Boeing have large orders placed by airlines in markets like India and Southeast Asia where the airlines were not looking all that healthy before COVID and are now at rather substantial risk of bankruptcy or possible liquidation. So I am guessing delta is probably talking with both airbus Boeing and the major leasing companies all of whom have jets the most likely suspect they will get returned or never delivered over the next year or two. That's going to be some brutal negotiations with just how many parties are involved and how desperate some of them are going to be to get anything for those aircraft.
 
Boof02671
Posts: 2106
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:15 am

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sat Jun 13, 2020 2:46 am

777Mech wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:

No idea why you are jumping to the conclusion that because DL has not ordered the MAX now that they never will. Your own example belies the conclusion, DL ordered A321s only after 737 orders.

DL negotiates hard. With 130 739ER that will be around forever, DL can afford to play of Boeing and Airbus and CFM vs. Pratt. The engine service costs are rumored to be a huge part of DL buying contracts.

DL has the right to service any CFM-56, Trent 1000, 7000, XWB, or PW1500, or PW1100 for anyone, including bidding on the engine vendor power by the hour. Note the T1000, which is for the 787, as part of the A330NEO purchase.

If CFM offers the LEAP-1A and -1B as well as Boeing offering the deals I'm reading about.

Delta must renegotiate A321 (CEO and NEO) contracts. You had better believe Delta signed up every inspector in AAB's short course on carpet inspection. Pratt will be put on notice to cut costs. CFM will be informed of an opportunity. Delta isn't stupid, they know Pratt sells engines at a loss, but is going to lower cost 3D printed parts. So perhaps take spares cheaper.

Boeing needs a large MAX order. Perhaps offer DL a -9ER (new gear) or -8 at good pricing, with engine and gear refurbishment and good spares. I will be shocked if Delta doesn't order 100 to 200 MAX by year end 2021. We need another thread to discuss delivery timeline.

I expect DL to order more A220. With their options, they can take time negotiating.

Will Airbus counter?


CFM had better step their game up and let DL work on those motors, or else its another order for the A220/A320. Not a good look for Boeing.

Delta already overhauls the CFM56s

https://www.deltatechops.com/services/e ... intenance/
 
Dalmd88
Posts: 3139
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 3:19 am

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sat Jun 13, 2020 3:36 am

Boof02671 wrote:

True, but not the LEAP. the big block to this happening is not the overhaul work but the repair work. CFM (GE) is more than happy to let Delta disassemble and assemble the new LEAP engine. They just don't want to give Delta the capability to repair any of the parts. That is where the money comes from in the engine overhaul.

GE's offer is, you guys take the motor apart and ship all the parts that need rework to a GE facility. GE will rework everything and send the parts back and your put them back together. Pratt and Rolls allow Delta to rework the parts. Pratt and Rolls through their PTH, Total Care programs pay Delta to rework those parts.

The money is made by reworking the parts for less than the customer pays. Delta has been very good at that. How good? Last year Delta made almost as much from repair capability as it spent on maintaining the entire Delta fleet of airplanes.
 
777Mech
Posts: 972
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 10:54 pm

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:42 am

Boof02671 wrote:
777Mech wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
DL negotiates hard. With 130 739ER that will be around forever, DL can afford to play of Boeing and Airbus and CFM vs. Pratt. The engine service costs are rumored to be a huge part of DL buying contracts.

DL has the right to service any CFM-56, Trent 1000, 7000, XWB, or PW1500, or PW1100 for anyone, including bidding on the engine vendor power by the hour. Note the T1000, which is for the 787, as part of the A330NEO purchase.

If CFM offers the LEAP-1A and -1B as well as Boeing offering the deals I'm reading about.

Delta must renegotiate A321 (CEO and NEO) contracts. You had better believe Delta signed up every inspector in AAB's short course on carpet inspection. Pratt will be put on notice to cut costs. CFM will be informed of an opportunity. Delta isn't stupid, they know Pratt sells engines at a loss, but is going to lower cost 3D printed parts. So perhaps take spares cheaper.

Boeing needs a large MAX order. Perhaps offer DL a -9ER (new gear) or -8 at good pricing, with engine and gear refurbishment and good spares. I will be shocked if Delta doesn't order 100 to 200 MAX by year end 2021. We need another thread to discuss delivery timeline.

I expect DL to order more A220. With their options, they can take time negotiating.

Will Airbus counter?


CFM had better step their game up and let DL work on those motors, or else its another order for the A220/A320. Not a good look for Boeing.

Delta already overhauls the CFM56s

https://www.deltatechops.com/services/e ... intenance/


We're talking about the MAX. The 56s aren't on the MAX.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:13 am

lightsaber wrote:
Mid utilization. Usually end if line (739, A321CEO) heavily discounted or bought used.

Which of these was bought used?

...contrary to A.net lore, that's not modern DL's style.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
MUCaviation76
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon May 18, 2020 4:45 pm

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sat Jun 13, 2020 8:57 am

I really do not understand why so many people here have a problem with DL going more or less all Airbus. It is the same as UA going more or less all Boeing. I also do not understand why so many people do state here that DL will order 737s soon. Perhaps DL will shock some people here and just order some 320s.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1272
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sat Jun 13, 2020 12:50 pm

dstblj52 wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
ethernal wrote:

There's a concept in economics called minimum efficient scale... basically the earliest point where greater scale drives no or only trivial reductions in cost.

While admittedly the 738s and 737s will eventually be retired, right now Delta has 217 737NGs and 219 A32Xceos (if you include the A321 still being delivered).

Each of those fleets on their own would put Delta in the top 25 airlines in the world by fleet size.

Fleet commonality at that scale won't drive much value. Would it drive some? Maybe, but it would be trivial.. we're talking about maybe a 1-2% reduction in costs. Which sounds like a lot, but to get there would require a lot of investment. And, there are less measurable costs to consider. What happens if the A320 family has a MAX-like issue (or vice-versa) that grounds the fleet? How does having only one airline type impact negotiating power? And all these other issues that basically neutralize whatever tiny savings you could drive from commonality.

Point is, Delta is already at minimum efficient scale with 200+ aircraft subfleets. The value of commonality below that is de minimus.

Before someone raises Southwest or Ryanair as a counterpoint, keep in mind that Delta's business model is fundamentally different. When you eliminate ALL OTHER types you gain an extra scale point - you eliminate an entire administrative overhead apperatus and business processes associated with multi-type management. My scheduling system can be completely dumb (ala WN... their systems are out of the stone age, but it works because.. well, all their planes and pilots are essentially identical cogs). Delta is going to have to manage multiple types regardless, so the simplification from consolidation from 7 types to 6 is far less compelling. Going from 2 to 1 (or vice versa) is a much bigger step change than 7 to 6 from a business operations perspective.


True that, but we also need to realized that by going all Airbus, they would acquire Airbus-only operator discounts for their purchase. We are talking about up to hundreds of millions in savings to purchase brand new aircraft. This is probably gonna be the main reason for them to go All Airbus in the next decade or so.

There is no magic airbus only operator discount you get discounts by negotiating hard having other options and ordering in large volumes dealing with delta is kind of a necessary evil for both Airbus and Boeing in that they will take end of the line and second-hand jets, which is a necessary part of the market especially for the lessors who are buying large numbers of jets for airlines with questionable financial stability because they know that is AirAsia collapses tomorrow there are few companies who might pick up the aircraft at lower than ideal price points yes but its better having no one interested in picking up the jets.


There is no magic obviously. But Airbus would be more keen to keep Delta as their All Airbus customer during negotiations if they said they are looking to order MAXes or other boeing aircraft. To say there is 0 benefits from striking such deals with Airbus would be unreasonable.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sat Jun 13, 2020 2:01 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Mid utilization. Usually end if line (739, A321CEO) heavily discounted or bought used.

Which of these was bought used?

...contrary to A.net lore, that's not modern DL's style.


Ed doesn't seem to like used like Richard did. But then again, up until Covid-19, Ed had a lot of resources (money) that Richard didn't have.
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1152
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sat Jun 13, 2020 4:36 pm

MUCaviation76 wrote:
I really do not understand why so many people here have a problem with DL going more or less all Airbus.


Beacuse it isn't American. It really is that simple.

The MD90/V2500 combo is a FOD magnet which is what trashes the engines and makes them expensive to maintain and overhaul.

IAE(Pratt) threatened us with litigation claiming we weren't running our engines at average 10% derate as per contract. EGT deterioration due to FOD damage meant engines were lasting less than a year on wing.
 
VictorKilo
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 7:39 am

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sat Jun 13, 2020 4:58 pm

SteelChair wrote:
Ed doesn't seem to like used like Richard did. But then again, up until Covid-19, Ed had a lot of resources (money) that Richard didn't have.


Richard also didn’t have the opportunity to buy what currently stands at a combined 230 brand new, end of production, largest variant versions of the 737NG and A32Xceo, more than a quarter of the DL fleet, at good prices.

DL likes to be agile, keeping its options open, and then moving quickly when there’s an opportunity. So when there’s a chance to reduce fleet types it moved quickly, but with no benefits from that with the older 320s, it will keep its options open to see where demand goes in the future as well as the used market and the desperation of both Boeing and Airbus to make DL and offer it can’t refuse to generate more orders.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8068
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:09 pm

MUCaviation76 wrote:
I really do not understand why so many people here have a problem with DL going more or less all Airbus. It is the same as UA going more or less all Boeing.


No, it isn't.

It would be like AF and LH going more or less all Boeing. Can you imagine that? Really, can you?

Lots of Americans live with AA (417) and DL (310) flying lots of Airbus aircraft. Spirit and Frontier, too. Going exclusively Airbus on the part of the country's first, second, or third-largest carrier would be quite something different.

And yes, I am one of those people expecting DL to buy 737MAX at some point - to bring supplier balance to the narrowbody fleet as the 717s and 757s are retired.
 
Oliver2020
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:39 am

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:28 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
MUCaviation76 wrote:
I really do not understand why so many people here have a problem with DL going more or less all Airbus. It is the same as UA going more or less all Boeing.


No, it isn't.

It would be like AF and LH going more or less all Boeing. Can you imagine that? Really, can you?

Lots of Americans live with AA (417) and DL (310) flying lots of Airbus aircraft. Spirit and Frontier, too. Going exclusively Airbus on the part of the country's first, second, or third-largest carrier would be quite something different.

And yes, I am one of those people expecting DL to buy 737MAX at some point - to bring supplier balance to the narrowbody fleet as the 717s and 757s are retired.


What about the fact that Ryanair is a European airline, and their fleet consist of 441 Boeing 737 AC and they have 149 Boeing AC on order?
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4470
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:13 pm

Oliver2020 wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
MUCaviation76 wrote:
I really do not understand why so many people here have a problem with DL going more or less all Airbus. It is the same as UA going more or less all Boeing.


No, it isn't.

It would be like AF and LH going more or less all Boeing. Can you imagine that? Really, can you?

Lots of Americans live with AA (417) and DL (310) flying lots of Airbus aircraft. Spirit and Frontier, too. Going exclusively Airbus on the part of the country's first, second, or third-largest carrier would be quite something different.

And yes, I am one of those people expecting DL to buy 737MAX at some point - to bring supplier balance to the narrowbody fleet as the 717s and 757s are retired.


What about the fact that Ryanair is a European airline, and their fleet consist of 441 Boeing 737 AC and they have 149 Boeing AC on order?


Or KLM. Or LOT. Or Icelandair. Or the majority of BAs long haul widebody fleet. Or Norwegian in its entirety. Or Czech Airlines/SmartWings.

If MIflyer is suggesting some sort of unfairness, it clearly isn't the case. You win some, you lose some. If Boeing is losing ground on both sides of the Atlantic, it probably suggests that Boeing didn't invest enough in its products.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sat Jun 13, 2020 7:06 pm

VSMUT wrote:
Oliver2020 wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:

No, it isn't.

It would be like AF and LH going more or less all Boeing. Can you imagine that? Really, can you?

Lots of Americans live with AA (417) and DL (310) flying lots of Airbus aircraft. Spirit and Frontier, too. Going exclusively Airbus on the part of the country's first, second, or third-largest carrier would be quite something different.

And yes, I am one of those people expecting DL to buy 737MAX at some point - to bring supplier balance to the narrowbody fleet as the 717s and 757s are retired.


What about the fact that Ryanair is a European airline, and their fleet consist of 441 Boeing 737 AC and they have 149 Boeing AC on order?


Or KLM. Or LOT. Or Icelandair. Or the majority of BAs long haul widebody fleet. Or Norwegian in its entirety. Or Czech Airlines/SmartWings.

If MIflyer is suggesting some sort of unfairness, it clearly isn't the case. You win some, you lose some. If Boeing is losing ground on both sides of the Atlantic, it probably suggests that Boeing didn't invest enough in its products.


And maybe they didn't have any governments willing to give them loans like their European competitor. I believe there was a ruling on that wasn't there.

Then again, Boeing has no one to blame but themselves for the MAX problems.
 
Oliver2020
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:39 am

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sat Jun 13, 2020 7:15 pm

SteelChair wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
Oliver2020 wrote:

What about the fact that Ryanair is a European airline, and their fleet consist of 441 Boeing 737 AC and they have 149 Boeing AC on order?


Or KLM. Or LOT. Or Icelandair. Or the majority of BAs long haul widebody fleet. Or Norwegian in its entirety. Or Czech Airlines/SmartWings.

If MIflyer is suggesting some sort of unfairness, it clearly isn't the case. You win some, you lose some. If Boeing is losing ground on both sides of the Atlantic, it probably suggests that Boeing didn't invest enough in its products.


And maybe they didn't have any governments willing to give them loans like their European competitor. I believe there was a ruling on that wasn't there.

Then again, Boeing has no one to blame but themselves for the MAX problems.


Boeing receives money through military contracts, remember the high ranking military person who went to jail for giving Boeing the inside track to win orders from Airbus. As a US citizen and tax payer I would prefer that the USA spends our tax money on the best deal, not pride.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sat Jun 13, 2020 7:19 pm

Oliver2020 wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
VSMUT wrote:

Or KLM. Or LOT. Or Icelandair. Or the majority of BAs long haul widebody fleet. Or Norwegian in its entirety. Or Czech Airlines/SmartWings.

If MIflyer is suggesting some sort of unfairness, it clearly isn't the case. You win some, you lose some. If Boeing is losing ground on both sides of the Atlantic, it probably suggests that Boeing didn't invest enough in its products.


And maybe they didn't have any governments willing to give them loans like their European competitor. I believe there was a ruling on that wasn't there.

Then again, Boeing has no one to blame but themselves for the MAX problems.


Boeing receives money through military contracts, remember the high ranking military person who went to jail for giving Boeing the inside track to win orders from Airbus. As a US citizen and tax payer I would prefer that the USA spends our tax money on the best deal, not pride.


Agree. But Boeing won the case about the subsidies.
 
Oliver2020
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:39 am

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sat Jun 13, 2020 7:20 pm

Oliver2020 wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
VSMUT wrote:

Or KLM. Or LOT. Or Icelandair. Or the majority of BAs long haul widebody fleet. Or Norwegian in its entirety. Or Czech Airlines/SmartWings.

If MIflyer is suggesting some sort of unfairness, it clearly isn't the case. You win some, you lose some. If Boeing is losing ground on both sides of the Atlantic, it probably suggests that Boeing didn't invest enough in its products.


And maybe they didn't have any governments willing to give them loans like their European competitor. I believe there was a ruling on that wasn't there.

Then again, Boeing has no one to blame but themselves for the MAX problems.


Boeing receives money through military contracts, remember the high ranking military person who went to jail for giving Boeing the inside track to win orders from Airbus. As a US citizen and tax payer I would prefer that the USA spends our tax money on the best deal, not pride.


Btw some of The A220's and A321 are assembled in the state of Alabama, and to clarify as an aviation enthusiast I would enjoy seeing additional Boeing AC in Deltas livery but I understand business as well.
 
LHA320
Posts: 123
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:57 pm

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sat Jun 13, 2020 7:47 pm

SteelChair wrote:
Oliver2020 wrote:
SteelChair wrote:

And maybe they didn't have any governments willing to give them loans like their European competitor. I believe there was a ruling on that wasn't there.

Then again, Boeing has no one to blame but themselves for the MAX problems.


Boeing receives money through military contracts, remember the high ranking military person who went to jail for giving Boeing the inside track to win orders from Airbus. As a US citizen and tax payer I would prefer that the USA spends our tax money on the best deal, not pride.


Agree. But Boeing won the case about the subsidies.


Yes, because the WTO only finished investigation in the Airbus case. The Boeing investigation was planned to be finished in Autumn 2020 and it was expected that the final result will be the same as the Airbus case.
AB6 - A319 - A320 - A321 - A333 - A388 - AT42 - 733 - 734 - 735 - 73H - 738 - 752 - 753 - 763 - 772 - DC10 - MD83
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:50 pm

SteelChair wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Mid utilization. Usually end if line (739, A321CEO) heavily discounted or bought used.

Which of these was bought used?

...contrary to A.net lore, that's not modern DL's style.

Ed doesn't seem to like used like Richard did. But then again, up until Covid-19, Ed had a lot of resources (money) that Richard didn't have.

Even then, Richard's penchant for used acquisitions was greattttttttly exaggerated by this (and other) fora.

They found good deals on consolidating two oddball MD80 variants... and people started acting like "Got used aircraft? DL will want 'em!"

Heck, it's been a quarter century since DL last purchased a used widebody for pax service, yet AvGeeks still automatically speculate that whenever AirlineX puts a widebody up for sale, DL will somehow be their go-to default.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sat Jun 13, 2020 10:06 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Which of these was bought used?

...contrary to A.net lore, that's not modern DL's style.

Ed doesn't seem to like used like Richard did. But then again, up until Covid-19, Ed had a lot of resources (money) that Richard didn't have.

Even then, Richard's penchant for used acquisitions was greattttttttly exaggerated by this (and other) fora.

They found good deals on consolidating two oddball MD80 variants... and people started acting like "Got used aircraft? DL will want 'em!"

Heck, it's been a quarter century since DL last purchased a used widebody for pax service, yet AvGeeks still automatically speculate that whenever AirlineX puts a widebody up for sale, DL will somehow be their go-to default.


Don't forget 4 737-800s and at least 23 ETOPS capable 757s. And they signaled many times their love for the 753 and 764, though those days appear to be over.

Richard said that the economics of used widebodies was very different than narrowbodies. Thus the preference for used narrowbodies only.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4470
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:57 am

Oliver2020 wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
VSMUT wrote:

Or KLM. Or LOT. Or Icelandair. Or the majority of BAs long haul widebody fleet. Or Norwegian in its entirety. Or Czech Airlines/SmartWings.

If MIflyer is suggesting some sort of unfairness, it clearly isn't the case. You win some, you lose some. If Boeing is losing ground on both sides of the Atlantic, it probably suggests that Boeing didn't invest enough in its products.


And maybe they didn't have any governments willing to give them loans like their European competitor. I believe there was a ruling on that wasn't there.

Then again, Boeing has no one to blame but themselves for the MAX problems.


Boeing receives money through military contracts, remember the high ranking military person who went to jail for giving Boeing the inside track to win orders from Airbus. As a US citizen and tax payer I would prefer that the USA spends our tax money on the best deal, not pride.


They also get a free ride on much of NASA's work, and similar with military research programs. Lots of subsidies and aid from individual US states and the federal government too, often in the form of tax breaks and the ex-im bank.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3620
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired????????

Sun Jun 14, 2020 8:25 am

DocLightning wrote:
Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
I think it comes down to engines. The MD88 and MD90 engine maintenance costs are very high since there are limited spare parts and competition among overhaul shops.


The MD-90 uses V2500s, though. DL's A320s use CFMs, but there are still a lot of V2500 powered A320s in the world. I think the showstopper for the MD-90 was the other parts.


The cost to maintain the MD90 version of the V2500 was the issue. Only 1 repair center for that engine model was in New Zealand and parts for the engine model more expensive than A320 V2500 model.
Last edited by rbavfan on Sun Jun 14, 2020 8:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3620
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired????????

Sun Jun 14, 2020 8:29 am

OA412 wrote:
Boeing757100 wrote:
The 737-700 can do what the A319s do

Except they only have 10 73Gs vs. 57 A319s. The 73G was brought into the fleet to handle very specific routes that were a challenge for other aircraft in the fleet. They were purchased well before the merger with NW. The future in this size category is the A220, and DL has plenty of those on order.
Boeing757100 wrote:
and if they really need an upgauging from the 321, they have their 757s. Is it because of fleet commonality??

Except the future in this segment is the A321, not the 757 which hasn't been produced in 16 years. The 757 won't be around forever at DL, so it's not really feasible to rely on it for upgauging, which is why DL has order the A321neo.
Boeing757100 wrote:
Plus, the 737 series as a whole is 9.5 years old according to planespotters. And the A320 series is 18.4 years old as a whole!! I

That's more a function of the fact they've received a large number of brand new 739s in the last several years. DLs 738s are quite a bit older, some of the oldest are past the 20 year mark. The A321 fleet is young, but the A320s and A319s purchased from NW are older (some of the NWs A320s were among the earliest produced), and DL hasn't ordered additional aircraft since the merger.


They have not ordered additional airframes? A321neo & CS100/CS300 are not aircraft?
 
Oliver2020
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:39 am

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sun Jun 14, 2020 8:39 am

VSMUT wrote:
Oliver2020 wrote:
SteelChair wrote:

And maybe they didn't have any governments willing to give them loans like their European competitor. I believe there was a ruling on that wasn't there.

Then again, Boeing has no one to blame but themselves for the MAX problems.


Boeing receives money through military contracts, remember the high ranking military person who went to jail for giving Boeing the inside track to win orders from Airbus. As a US citizen and tax payer I would prefer that the USA spends our tax money on the best deal, not pride.


They also get a free ride on much of NASA's work, and similar with military research programs. Lots of subsidies and aid from individual US states and the federal government too, often in the form of tax breaks and the ex-im bank.


I would like to add the 127-A321-200 had 2 engine selections RR (a European engine) or CFM ( a US engine). Delta chose the CFM engine, and
given it was probably a commonality situation with the A319 and A320 fact is Delta chose the US engine. Also the 242ton A330-300 was also
purchased with GE engines. The 50 widebody order that the 25-A339 and 25-A359 won was due to Delta tech ops approved as an approved maintenance
care center. I'm sure the fact that Delta was awarded an approved maintenance facility that that provided several additional jobs for American citizens.
 
LHA320
Posts: 123
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:57 pm

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sun Jun 14, 2020 9:46 am

Oliver2020 wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
Oliver2020 wrote:

Boeing receives money through military contracts, remember the high ranking military person who went to jail for giving Boeing the inside track to win orders from Airbus. As a US citizen and tax payer I would prefer that the USA spends our tax money on the best deal, not pride.


They also get a free ride on much of NASA's work, and similar with military research programs. Lots of subsidies and aid from individual US states and the federal government too, often in the form of tax breaks and the ex-im bank.


I would like to add the 127-A321-200 had 2 engine selections RR (a European engine) or CFM ( a US engine). Delta chose the CFM engine, and
given it was probably a commonality situation with the A319 and A320 fact is Delta chose the US engine. Also the 242ton A330-300 was also
purchased with GE engines. The 50 widebody order that the 25-A339 and 25-A359 won was due to Delta tech ops approved as an approved maintenance
care center. I'm sure the fact that Delta was awarded an approved maintenance facility that that provided several additional jobs for American citizens.


IIRC DL choose the CFM because they use the A321 on shorter routes. In general the CFM engine is the better option for shorter routes (under 2 hours) while the IAE engine is more efficient on routes longer than 2 hours. DL choose to order the very base model A321 which is more than sufficient for the routes they fly it on!
AB6 - A319 - A320 - A321 - A333 - A388 - AT42 - 733 - 734 - 735 - 73H - 738 - 752 - 753 - 763 - 772 - DC10 - MD83
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4470
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sun Jun 14, 2020 10:01 am

Oliver2020 wrote:
I would like to add the 127-A321-200 had 2 engine selections RR (a European engine) or CFM ( a US engine). Delta chose the CFM engine, and
given it was probably a commonality situation with the A319 and A320 fact is Delta chose the US engine. Also the 242ton A330-300 was also
purchased with GE engines. The 50 widebody order that the 25-A339 and 25-A359 won was due to Delta tech ops approved as an approved maintenance
care center.


The IAE V2500 was a consortium between Pratt & Whitney, MTU, Rolls Royce, FiatAvio and JAEC. Fiat pulled out early. Workshare was spread out more or less equally among the partners. Rolls Royce sold it's remaining stake in the venture in 2011, so it is now 50% P&W, ergo half US owned. It is also headquartered in the US, while the assembly line is in Germany.

CFM is a French-American venture between SNECMA (now Safran) and GE. Like the V2500, it is roughly 50% european built, with assembly lines located in both the US and France.

So there isn't any indication that one engine is more American than the other or provides more jobs in the US. There could very well be French assembled engines on Delta A321s. It is also wrong to say Delta had a choice between RR and CFM, since RR never held a majority of IAE, and was completely out of it when Delta started ordering A32Xs in 2013.

AFAIK, the P&W GTF has a similar share of work done abroad as the V2500, and that's the engine Delta selected for the A321neo.


Oliver2020 wrote:
I'm sure the fact that Delta was awarded an approved maintenance facility that that provided several additional jobs for American citizens.


I'm not an expert on the subject, but I'm fairly certain that the big engine manufacturers all have service facilities in the US catering to North American customers. It doesn't make sense to ship engines or spare parts over great distances for a market as big as the US. Even if Delta had ordered A330s with RR engines and didn't have the ability to maintain it themselves, the work would still be done in the US.
 
Oliver2020
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:39 am

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sun Jun 14, 2020 10:42 am

LHA320 wrote:
Oliver2020 wrote:
VSMUT wrote:

They also get a free ride on much of NASA's work, and similar with military research programs. Lots of subsidies and aid from individual US states and the federal government too, often in the form of tax breaks and the ex-im bank.


I would like to add the 127-A321-200 had 2 engine selections RR (a European engine) or CFM ( a US engine). Delta chose the CFM engine, and
given it was probably a commonality situation with the A319 and A320 fact is Delta chose the US engine. Also the 242ton A330-300 was also
purchased with GE engines. The 50 widebody order that the 25-A339 and 25-A359 won was due to Delta tech ops approved as an approved maintenance
care center. I'm sure the fact that Delta was awarded an approved maintenance facility that that provided several additional jobs for American citizens.


IIRC DL choose the CFM because they use the A321 on shorter routes. In general the CFM engine is the better option for shorter routes (under 2 hours) while the IAE engine is more efficient on routes longer than 2 hours. DL choose to order the very base model A321 which is more than sufficient for the routes they fly it on!


I didn't know that was the specific reason thank you for the clarification. The maintenance I was referring to was the 100-A321Neo plus 100options-Pratt and Whitney tech ops deal.
 
Oliver2020
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:39 am

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sun Jun 14, 2020 11:10 am

VSMUT wrote:
Oliver2020 wrote:
I would like to add the 127-A321-200 had 2 engine selections RR (a European engine) or CFM ( a US engine). Delta chose the CFM engine, and
given it was probably a commonality situation with the A319 and A320 fact is Delta chose the US engine. Also the 242ton A330-300 was also
purchased with GE engines. The 50 widebody order that the 25-A339 and 25-A359 won was due to Delta tech ops approved as an approved maintenance
care center.


The IAE V2500 was a consortium between Pratt & Whitney, MTU, Rolls Royce, FiatAvio and JAEC. Fiat pulled out early. Workshare was spread out more or less equally among the partners. Rolls Royce sold it's remaining stake in the venture in 2011, so it is now 50% P&W, ergo half US owned. It is also headquartered in the US, while the assembly line is in Germany.

CFM is a French-American venture between SNECMA (now Safran) and GE. Like the V2500, it is roughly 50% european built, with assembly lines located in both the US and France.

So there isn't any indication that one engine is more American than the other or provides more jobs in the US. There could very well be French assembled engines on Delta A321s. It is also wrong to say Delta had a choice between RR and CFM, since RR never held a majority of IAE, and was completely out of it when Delta started ordering A32Xs in 2013.

AFAIK, the P&W GTF has a similar share of work done abroad as the V2500, and that's the engine Delta selected for the A321neo.


Oliver2020 wrote:
I'm sure the fact that Delta was awarded an approved maintenance facility that that provided several additional jobs for American citizens.


I'm not an expert on the subject, but I'm fairly certain that the big engine manufacturers all have service facilities in the US catering to North American customers. It doesn't make sense to ship engines or spare parts over great distances for a market as big as the US. Even if Delta had ordered A330s with RR engines and didn't have the ability to maintain it themselves, the work would still be done in the US.


The A339 Neo has RR engines along which along with the tech ops deal for the A339NEO and A359 RR engines if I'm not mistaken is in the neighborhood/estimated 2 billion dollars per year or for the life time of the engines. Also the A221 and A223 have/won the same deal for the Pratt and Whitney engines. Hopefully someone with more knowledge on the Delta tech ops can provide exact information.

No excuse for my mistake, but CFM is normally associated with the US, and RR is associated with Europe.
 
Boof02671
Posts: 2106
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:15 am

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sun Jun 14, 2020 1:24 pm

Oliver2020 wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
Oliver2020 wrote:

Boeing receives money through military contracts, remember the high ranking military person who went to jail for giving Boeing the inside track to win orders from Airbus. As a US citizen and tax payer I would prefer that the USA spends our tax money on the best deal, not pride.


They also get a free ride on much of NASA's work, and similar with military research programs. Lots of subsidies and aid from individual US states and the federal government too, often in the form of tax breaks and the ex-im bank.


I would like to add the 127-A321-200 had 2 engine selections RR (a European engine) or CFM ( a US engine). Delta chose the CFM engine, and
given it was probably a commonality situation with the A319 and A320 fact is Delta chose the US engine. Also the 242ton A330-300 was also
purchased with GE engines. The 50 widebody order that the 25-A339 and 25-A359 won was due to Delta tech ops approved as an approved maintenance
care center. I'm sure the fact that Delta was awarded an approved maintenance facility that that provided several additional jobs for American citizens.

CFM is a 50% venture with GE and SAFRAN of France and Rolls doesn’t offer an Engine for the Airbus narrowbody. The other company was/is IAE which is a joint venture of Pratt and Whitney and MTU a Japanese company and Japan Aero.

So there are no “US” engines.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sun Jun 14, 2020 2:04 pm

Oliver2020 wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
Oliver2020 wrote:

Boeing receives money through military contracts, remember the high ranking military person who went to jail for giving Boeing the inside track to win orders from Airbus. As a US citizen and tax payer I would prefer that the USA spends our tax money on the best deal, not pride.


They also get a free ride on much of NASA's work, and similar with military research programs. Lots of subsidies and aid from individual US states and the federal government too, often in the form of tax breaks and the ex-im bank.


I would like to add the 127-A321-200 had 2 engine selections RR (a European engine) or CFM ( a US engine). Delta chose the CFM engine, and
given it was probably a commonality situation with the A319 and A320 fact is Delta chose the US engine. Also the 242ton A330-300 was also
purchased with GE engines. The 50 widebody order that the 25-A339 and 25-A359 won was due to Delta tech ops approved as an approved maintenance
care center. I'm sure the fact that Delta was awarded an approved maintenance facility that that provided several additional jobs for American citizens.


I would challenge characterization of CFM as a US engine. The company is 50% European.
 
Dalmd88
Posts: 3139
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 3:19 am

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sun Jun 14, 2020 2:08 pm

For the CFM build engines I believe every aircraft is delivered with one US built and one European built engine. I think that is true for both Boeing and Airbus. As for them truly being a US or European engine, they are all the same. Parts for every engine come from all over the world. It really doesn't matter what the name plate says.

The choice between manufactures rarely comes down to following the flag. It is more about hitting performance targets, price and MRO capabilities.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sun Jun 14, 2020 2:55 pm

Dalmd88 wrote:
For the CFM build engines I believe every aircraft is delivered with one US built and one European built engine. I think that is true for both Boeing and Airbus. As for them truly being a US or European engine, they are all the same. Parts for every engine come from all over the world. It really doesn't matter what the name plate says.

The choice between manufactures rarely comes down to following the flag. It is more about hitting performance targets, price and MRO capabilities.


Thus, by "built" I think you mean "assembled."

As I recall, the high pressure section is assembled in Evendale, the low pressure in Villaroche, and the complete engines are assembled at both locations. However, I think the LEAP has some different assembly points.
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1152
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sun Jun 14, 2020 3:23 pm

LHA320 wrote:
In general the CFM engine is the better option for shorter routes (under 2 hours) while the IAE engine is more efficient on routes longer than 2 hours.

The IAE is more efficient on all sector lengths.

Where do you guys get this stuff from?

If you don't know, don't make it up!
 
Oliver2020
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:39 am

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:10 pm

Directly from the Delta website. Regarding the 100 a321neo announcement, and Trent 1000 MRO services.
https://news.delta.com/delta-selects-ai ... et-renewal

Regarding the RR Trent 1000 and Trent XWB

https://news.delta.com/new-delta-techop ... ne-service

As the largest aviation maintenance group in North America, Delta TechOps's highly skilled workforce of over 10,000 technicians, engineers and other support employees provide full-service maintenance to more than 850 Delta aircraft and their engines as well as maintenance services to more than 150 other operators, cargo operators and the military and government, through the airline's Maintenance Repair and Overhaul business.

Through expanded capabilities and new facilities, Delta expects to grow the top line of the MRO business by $1 billion a year in the next five years.

Provided this was before the covid 19 pandemic.
 
Boof02671
Posts: 2106
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:15 am

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:32 pm

Chaostheory wrote:
LHA320 wrote:
In general the CFM engine is the better option for shorter routes (under 2 hours) while the IAE engine is more efficient on routes longer than 2 hours.

The IAE is more efficient on all sector lengths.

Where do you guys get this stuff from?

If you don't know, don't make it up!

I doubt that and the CFM56 outsells the V2500, if what you is the case the V2500 would outsell the CFM56.

And the CFM56 has better reliability and lower emissions.
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1152
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:27 pm

Boof02671 wrote:
Chaostheory wrote:
LHA320 wrote:
In general the CFM engine is the better option for shorter routes (under 2 hours) while the IAE engine is more efficient on routes longer than 2 hours.

The IAE is more efficient on all sector lengths.

Where do you guys get this stuff from?

If you don't know, don't make it up!

I doubt that and the CFM56 outsells the V2500, if what you is the case the V2500 would outsell the CFM56.

And the CFM56 has better reliability and lower emissions.


I've flown both IAE and cfm fleets. At the time, the IAE aircraft I flew operated the longest sector lengths in Europe. More recently, I flew one of the few act equipped A320ceo (CFM) fleets. I know the numbers.

And careful with your generalisations. The V2500 has lower egt deterioration and lower maintenance costs at the higher thrust ratings (30k+).
 
Oliver2020
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:39 am

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:36 pm

Under Fleet strategy in this article, Deltas ex CEO Richard Anderson explains the cost savings regarding Deltas MRO, and
purchasing spare engines.
https://airwaysmag.com/interview/the-vi ... -anderson/
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20029
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sun Jun 14, 2020 7:32 pm

Chaostheory wrote:
Boof02671 wrote:
Chaostheory wrote:
The IAE is more efficient on all sector lengths.

Where do you guys get this stuff from?

If you don't know, don't make it up!

I doubt that and the CFM56 outsells the V2500, if what you is the case the V2500 would outsell the CFM56.

And the CFM56 has better reliability and lower emissions.


I've flown both IAE and cfm fleets. At the time, the IAE aircraft I flew operated the longest sector lengths in Europe. More recently, I flew one of the few act equipped A320ceo (CFM) fleets. I know the numbers.

And careful with your generalisations. The V2500 has lower egt deterioration and lower maintenance costs at the higher thrust ratings (30k+).

The CFM-56 was clearly the better engine on the A319. It is lighter vand back when A319s sold, had a longer overhaul interval. We need to be careful on absolute statements on lowest fuel burn without considering what was available when Aircraft were ordered. The CFM provided lower fuel burn on the A319 when most operators originally ordered.

The later V2500, after the Select One PiP, but even more so after the Select Two PiP became the favored on the A321CEO. of course, many CFM56-5 customers stayed loyal. The V2500 was better sized for the A321, conversely, worse sized for the A319.

Because Delta has CFM powered A321, they will be able to economically keep the A320s.

CFM offered DL a sweet engine overhaul deal. Discussing why Delta buys or keeps anything needs to include TechOps in the reasoning.

Lightsaber
Flu+Covid19 is bad. Consider a flu vaccine, if not for yourself, to protect someone you care about.
 
777Mech
Posts: 972
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 10:54 pm

Re: Why have DL's A320-200s not been retired?

Sun Jun 14, 2020 9:42 pm

SteelChair wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
Oliver2020 wrote:

What about the fact that Ryanair is a European airline, and their fleet consist of 441 Boeing 737 AC and they have 149 Boeing AC on order?


Or KLM. Or LOT. Or Icelandair. Or the majority of BAs long haul widebody fleet. Or Norwegian in its entirety. Or Czech Airlines/SmartWings.

If MIflyer is suggesting some sort of unfairness, it clearly isn't the case. You win some, you lose some. If Boeing is losing ground on both sides of the Atlantic, it probably suggests that Boeing didn't invest enough in its products.


And maybe they didn't have any governments willing to give them loans like their European competitor. I believe there was a ruling on that wasn't there.

Then again, Boeing has no one to blame but themselves for the MAX problems.


Does EXIM banking ring a bell?

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos