TObound wrote:

dstblj52 wrote:

Charters737 wrote:

the only way Delta can counter almost guaranteed success of Breeze is to get a lot more A220s.

The advantages of 2ndary airports are no congestion meaning they can offer more frequencies with A220s than with B738s/A320-21

VA in Australia, have a problem in that they don't have enough B777-300ers to do BNE, SYD & MEL/LAX all daily, while at same time, QF is going into SFO & ORD nonstop from BNE.

Surely DL could fly some Australian routes apart from LAX/SYD & so need more B777s.

The other factors are how long will it take flights to China to recover after Coronavirus & will worldwide recession kill off all future orders of new aircraft for next 5 years or so, while the used market gets flooded with hundreds of relatively new aircraft.

You realize breeze is doing what allegiant has been doing for years and it seems far from a guaranteed success at this point

You willing to bet against Neeleman?

He seems to be the only real advantage they have so I'm only 50 50 it's going to succeed personally

keesje wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

What missions can the 757 do that the A321XLR won’t be able to?

Can an A321XLR fly SNA -ATL with all seats occupied?

There is also a 20% capacity gap between the 191 seat A321 and 234 seat 757-300.

SNA-ATL? Yes & back. Without refueling. https://epsilonaviation.files.wordpress ... jpg?w=1000
And way quieter than anything else flying from Orange County.

Most people prefer to land at their destination and takeoff. What is the payload and range from SNA’s short runway? Can it make ATL?

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

reltney wrote:

Right on. It’s almost like you were in the briefing. As stated by Delta, nothing in production comes close to the 757-200 and 300. The 321 neoLRwhatever is the stopgap but can’t quite do the job but is the closest out there. They were banking on the 797 but that’s not working out presently either. Naysayers say what you want but I saw their lips move in the briefing. Can you say that....... it was left with.....we have to be flexible and are....the 757 will stay at present numbers or greater if we can find them thru 2026 as that was the replacement aircraft date of entry into service.

I am waiting with popcorn....

Cheers

What missions can the 757 do that the A321XLR won’t be able to?

Can an A321XLR fly SNA -ATL with all seats occupied?

There is also a 20% capacity gap between the 191 seat A321 and 234 seat 757-300.

There are altogether 55 757-300 in operation, 16 at Delta. I thing the exact replacement of the 757-300 is hardly a main concern. Sometime in the next years I expect a stretch of the A321, if there is a market for that size of frame.

If the 757-200 is able to do SNA-ATL with all seats occupied, the A321XLR will be able to do it and the normal A321neo will be able to do it too, assuming a similar number of seats.

The A321neo has actually a very good runway performance, still better than the A321ceo. A very effective wing coupled with very effective high lift devices.
In landing the A321neo and 757-200 have very similar final approach speeds 136 kt and 137 kt respectively.

reltney wrote:

ethernal wrote:

reltney wrote:

Right on. It’s almost like you were in the briefing. As stated by Delta, nothing in production comes close to the 757-200 and 300. The 321 neoLRwhatever is the stopgap but can’t quite do the job but is the closest out there. They were banking on the 797 but that’s not working out presently either. Naysayers say what you want but I saw their lips move in the briefing. Can you say that....... it was left with.....we have to be flexible and are....the 757 will stay at present numbers or greater if we can find them thru 2026 as that was the replacement aircraft date of entry into service.

I am waiting with popcorn....

Cheers

As noted above, the NMA has nothing to do with the 757 and the 757 gap is already completely filled with the A321neo.

The 752 gap has already been filled by the A321neo. I'm not sure why anyone thinks that is still an issue. The only exception are maybe 5 routes max in Delta's portfolio that need the short runway capability of the 752 that would likely require material payload restrictions certain times of the year on the A321neo (think routes like SNA-ATL, JAC-ATL). The 753 does not have any unique performance abilities and is economically replaced fully by the A321neo (the 753 has better CASM than A321ceo and 739NG - at the expense of larger capacity - but is out-CASM'd by both the MAX and A321neo at a smaller gauge).

The NMA is meant to deal with the 767, not the 757.

The 321 New does not fill the gap...well according to Delta. In fact there is a big gap between the neo and 757 . Gee. If the vp of ops says the 321 neo can come close to the 757 but you say it does...I guess Delta is wrong.... mmmmmm. Yup..that’s it, they are wrong.

In that case Delta Better passes on the A321XLR and replaces the 757 feet with the Boeing NMA. A321s seem sold out anyway.

reltney wrote:

ethernal wrote:

reltney wrote:

Right on. It’s almost like you were in the briefing. As stated by Delta, nothing in production comes close to the 757-200 and 300. The 321 neoLRwhatever is the stopgap but can’t quite do the job but is the closest out there. They were banking on the 797 but that’s not working out presently either. Naysayers say what you want but I saw their lips move in the briefing. Can you say that....... it was left with.....we have to be flexible and are....the 757 will stay at present numbers or greater if we can find them thru 2026 as that was the replacement aircraft date of entry into service.

I am waiting with popcorn....

Cheers

As noted above, the NMA has nothing to do with the 757 and the 757 gap is already completely filled with the A321neo.

The 752 gap has already been filled by the A321neo. I'm not sure why anyone thinks that is still an issue. The only exception are maybe 5 routes max in Delta's portfolio that need the short runway capability of the 752 that would likely require material payload restrictions certain times of the year on the A321neo (think routes like SNA-ATL, JAC-ATL). The 753 does not have any unique performance abilities and is economically replaced fully by the A321neo (the 753 has better CASM than A321ceo and 739NG - at the expense of larger capacity - but is out-CASM'd by both the MAX and A321neo at a smaller gauge).

The NMA is meant to deal with the 767, not the 757.

The 321 New does not fill the gap...well according to Delta. In fact there is a big gap between the neo and 757 . Gee. If the vp of ops says the 321 neo can come close to the 757 but you say it does...I guess Delta is wrong.... mmmmmm. Yup..that’s it, they are wrong.

Delta said so a long time before the A321XLR was an option. I haven’t seen anything myself proving that they still feel this way. United has shown the opposite as they’ve ordered these A321s to replace their 757s essentially one for one where needed.

MIflyer12 wrote:

NWAROOSTER wrote:

Remember Delta is no fan of Boeing right now due to Boeing's interference about the Bombardier C100s that Boeing tried to get a 30% tax on Delta's importing of them from Canada. Boeing shot themselves in the foot with that stunt. Boeing will need to build a better aircraft than Airbus and basically give it to Delta.

I call BS. DL has a fleet of over 1,400 DL and DL Connection aircraft. There are only two vendors. DL is going to play nice with both. This is a multi-$ Billion business, not grade school playground nonsense.

It was grade school nonsense and Boeing started it. Boeing is going to have prove to Delta it has the better aircraft. Like it or not that is the way it is. Delta is a large airline. Delta is no wannabe airline that is not important to sales of aircraft. The garbage that Boeing pulled is one of the reasons Airbus took control of Bombardier. Airbus is going to laugh all the way to the bank over this.

When Airbus offered the A321NEO, Delta should have responded first to order the A321NEO. Don't bother ordering the A321CEO

MIflyer12 wrote:

NWAROOSTER wrote:

Remember Delta is no fan of Boeing right now due to Boeing's interference about the Bombardier C100s that Boeing tried to get a 30% tax on Delta's importing of them from Canada. Boeing shot themselves in the foot with that stunt. Boeing will need to build a better aircraft than Airbus and basically give it to Delta.

I call BS. DL has a fleet of over 1,400 DL and DL Connection aircraft. There are only two vendors. DL is going to play nice with both. This is a multi-$ Billion business, not grade school playground nonsense.

4.....well 3 technically now.... vendors but you are correct.

If/When Boeing and CFM offer Delta a deal similar to what Airbus and Pratt offered on MAXs, Delta will order them. The idea that one of the largest 737 operators, CFM56 operators and most importantly CFM56/737 MROs in the world is going to suddenly go away is laughable. But as is most of the crap posted on ole a.net these days.

keesje wrote:

reltney wrote:

ethernal wrote:

As noted above, the NMA has nothing to do with the 757 and the 757 gap is already completely filled with the A321neo.

The 752 gap has already been filled by the A321neo. I'm not sure why anyone thinks that is still an issue. The only exception are maybe 5 routes max in Delta's portfolio that need the short runway capability of the 752 that would likely require material payload restrictions certain times of the year on the A321neo (think routes like SNA-ATL, JAC-ATL). The 753 does not have any unique performance abilities and is economically replaced fully by the A321neo (the 753 has better CASM than A321ceo and 739NG - at the expense of larger capacity - but is out-CASM'd by both the MAX and A321neo at a smaller gauge).

The NMA is meant to deal with the 767, not the 757.

The 321 New does not fill the gap...well according to Delta. In fact there is a big gap between the neo and 757 . Gee. If the vp of ops says the 321 neo can come close to the 757 but you say it does...I guess Delta is wrong.... mmmmmm. Yup..that’s it, they are wrong.

In that case Delta Better passes on the A321XLR and replaces the 757 feet with the Boeing NMA. A321s seem sold out anyway.

Good to see you are still taking every negative Airbus comment like someone shot your dog.

ethernal wrote:

...When the 763s retire, some routes will probably terminate because the A339 is just too much plane - both in terms of legs and capacity...

Would the A338 work?

dc10lover wrote:

When Airbus offered the A321NEO, Delta should have responded first to order the A321NEO. Don't bother ordering the A321CEO

Why the CEO was certainly cheaper and for short out and back hops especially from ATL where a lot of the MD 80's and MD90's that they were replacing fuel consumption is not that big of an issue on those short flights

asr0dzjq wrote:

ethernal wrote:

...When the 763s retire, some routes will probably terminate because the A339 is just too much plane - both in terms of legs and capacity...

Would the A338 work?

No, Delta will not buy the A338 as it is not economical. The marginal cost of the A339 is virtually zero. You get 12% more seats for 4% more OEW (which you can roughly translate into fuel burn).

The A338 only makes sense if you need the range which Delta does not need because they already have the A359 for any longer routes; the A339 range is more than adequate for the routes that Delta wants to use them on.

There is a difference between right-sizing a plane for a route versus locking yourself into a bad CASM. Same reason why Delta and most other airlines will never order an A319neo. The marginal cost of the next size up is just not much relative to what you gain.

ethernal wrote:

asr0dzjq wrote:

ethernal wrote:

...When the 763s retire, some routes will probably terminate because the A339 is just too much plane - both in terms of legs and capacity...

Would the A338 work?

No, Delta will not buy the A338 as it is not economical. The marginal cost of the A339 is virtually zero. You get 12% more seats for 4% more OEW (which you can roughly translate into fuel burn).

The A338 only makes sense if you need the range which Delta does not need because they already have the A359 for any longer routes; the A339 range is more than adequate for the routes that Delta wants to use them on.

There is a difference between right-sizing a plane for a route versus locking yourself into a bad CASM. Same reason why Delta and most other airlines will never order an A319neo. The marginal cost of the next size up is just not much relative to what you gain.

Not at new pricing especially but I could see some 332 if they can get them cheap enough but we will see, the problem with shrinks is that their casm is higher then the base or the stretch but they can't be sold at low enough prices to make up the difference especially today when production slots are so valuable. But used shrinks like a319's have their place if they can be bought at the right price

mjoelnir wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

RalXWB wrote:

Sad to read that the same old 757-myths are still repeated here. The A321Neo and especially the XLR flies the same payload further than the fossil 757 while being up to 30 percent more efficient...

The other issue is performance on short runways, or at hot and high aerodromes. The new PW1135G may help there though.

The next myth is regarding runway performance:
The A321neo has actually a similar or slightly better take off performance as the 757-200. 1988 m against 2070 m take off run.

The only advantage the 757-200 still has against the A321LR or A321-200XN, is more volume for freight on long flights.

Measured against the A321-200YN, the 757-200 will be inferior in every way.

What number are you using? The A321neo would be weight restricted off a 1988 meter runway. It would have weight restrictions of about 40K lbs. It has abou An A321neo needs about 2700 meter runway at MTOW.

No one is flying A321s out of SNA for a reason

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

The other issue is performance on short runways, or at hot and high aerodromes. The new PW1135G may help there though.

The next myth is regarding runway performance:
The A321neo has actually a similar or slightly better take off performance as the 757-200. 1988 m against 2070 m take off run.

The only advantage the 757-200 still has against the A321LR or A321-200XN, is more volume for freight on long flights.

Measured against the A321-200YN, the 757-200 will be inferior in every way.

What number are you using? The A321neo would be weight restricted off a 1988 meter runway. It would have weight restrictions of about 40K lbs. It has abou An A321neo needs about 2700 meter runway at MTOW.

The higher thrust PW1100G hasn’t yet been tested at SNA; it was only announced last year. As it is, the A320neo should be able to take off at MTOW as that functions in roles similar to the A319.

reltney wrote:

Right on. It’s almost like you were in the briefing. As stated by Delta, nothing in production comes close to the 757-200 and 300. The 321 neoLRwhatever is the stopgap but can’t quite do the job but is the closest out there. They were banking on the 797 but that’s not working out presently either. Naysayers say what you want but I saw their lips move in the briefing. Can you say that....... it was left with.....we have to be flexible and are....the 757 will stay at present numbers or greater if we can find them thru 2026 as that was the replacement aircraft date of entry into service.
...
The 321 New does not fill the gap...well according to Delta. In fact there is a big gap between the neo and 757 . Gee. If the vp of ops says the 321 neo can come close to the 757 but you say it does...I guess Delta is wrong.... mmmmmm. Yup..that’s it, they are wrong.

With all due respect, I believe in facts: DL has a large 757 fleet today, not because of the capabilities of the aircraft, but because a) it and NW purchased more late production aircraft than any other passenger airline in the world, b) it made a decision during its bankruptcy in 2006 to add second-hand aircraft rather than buy new and c) it accelerated retirement of the MD-88/MD-90. While DL does not formally publish fleet plans, reputable leaks indicated that, just a few years ago, the airline intended on investing in and keeping most of its MD-88/MD-90 fleet for the long-term, while phasing out older 757. That DL choose to recycle interiors from aircraft that had been renovated (Song) into mid-90s deliveries (largely ex-NW) somewhat supports this.

Further, DL has 129 321 (including 100 NEO) on order, as well 66 A220 ... all to be delivered within a few years. That's a large amount of capacity coming into the system, dwarfing known retirements (MD-88/MD-90) and expansion plans. Undoubtedly... most of these 321 will be used to phase out much of the 757 fleet. Yes, there's a few routes, such as SNA and some Latin America markets, in which the 321 is not a suitable replacement... but DL management is on the record saying a) as labor rates continue to swell, the economics of narrowbody and short capacity widebodies continues to deteriorate and b) ideally, it would like to reduce the number of fleet types it operates. Yet given that, somehow, someway, people actually believe DL is begging Boeing to build a 757 replacement? Whatever the "vp of ops" said... isn't supported by facts/reality.

Of course, the irony is that NW ordered many of the late production 757 and all of the 753... and it didn't even want the aircraft -- it wanted the 321. But Boeing wouldn't let NW out of a 1980s order that had been deferred for years, so NW made what it could of it. But I guess, some a.netters are so desperate for DL to order Boeing, they'll take whatever crumb they can get.

DL has said that it doesn't intended the keep up with the record-breaking new aircraft deliveries of the last couple years, and we know it continually monitors the market for used aircraft and has predicted that late production 737NG and 320CEO values would freefall as more MAX and NEO are delivered. My bets: more 321NEO, more 220 ... and used 32X and 737NG.

When the aircraft in DL's fleet entered into passenger service for their original carrier (excludes MD-88/MD-90):
1989, 04: 4 B757 (all NBA)
1990, 14: 1 A320, 7 B757 (3 NBA), 6 B763
1991, 18: 4 A320, 8 B757 (4 NBA), 6 B763
1992, 33: 20 A320, 10 B757, 3 B763
1993, 17: 10 A320, 5 B757, 2 B763
1994: -none-
1995, 07: 4 B757, 3 B763
1996, 17: 15 B757, 2 B763
1997, 19: 10 B757, 9 B763
1998, 35: 13 A320, 5 B738, 8 B757, 9 B763
1999, 55: 2 A319, 7 A320, 8 B717, 11 B738, 12 B757, 8 B763, 7 B777
2000, 84: 7 A319, 24 B717, 22 B738, 13 B757, 6 B763, 12 B764,
2001, 85: 13 A319, 3 A320, 26 B717, 27 B738, 8 B757, 2 B763, 6 B764
2002, 63: 22 A319, 2 A320, 20 B717, 6 B738, 2 B757, 7 B753, 3 B764, 1 B777
2003, 30: 13 A319, 2 A320, 5 A330, 1 B717, 9 B753
2004, 18: 11 A330, 4 B717, 3 B757
2005, 10: 2 A330, 6 B717, 2 B757
2006, 08: 6 A330, 2 B717
2007, 08: 4 B73G, 4 B777
2009, 12: 6 B73G, 6 B777
2010, 01: B738
2011, -0-
2012, 01: B738
2013, 14: 2 B738, 12 B739
2014, 20: 1 B738, 19 B739
2015, 23: 4 A330, 19 B739
2016, 37: 14 A321, 4 A330, 19 B739
2017, 48: 20 A321, 2 A330, 6 A350, 20 B739
2018, 63: 31 A321, 5 A350, 23 B739, 4 A220
2019, 79: 31 A321, 4 A330, 2 A350, 18 B739, 24 A220
2020, 03: 2 A321, 1 A220

WidebodyPTV wrote:

reltney wrote:

Right on. It’s almost like you were in the briefing. As stated by Delta, nothing in production comes close to the 757-200 and 300. The 321 neoLRwhatever is the stopgap but can’t quite do the job but is the closest out there. They were banking on the 797 but that’s not working out presently either. Naysayers say what you want but I saw their lips move in the briefing. Can you say that....... it was left with.....we have to be flexible and are....the 757 will stay at present numbers or greater if we can find them thru 2026 as that was the replacement aircraft date of entry into service.
...
The 321 New does not fill the gap...well according to Delta. In fact there is a big gap between the neo and 757 . Gee. If the vp of ops says the 321 neo can come close to the 757 but you say it does...I guess Delta is wrong.... mmmmmm. Yup..that’s it, they are wrong.

With all due respect, I believe in facts: DL has a large 757 fleet today, not because of the capabilities of the aircraft, but because a) it and NW purchased more late production aircraft than any other passenger airline in the world, b) it made a decision during its bankruptcy in 2006 to add second-hand aircraft rather than buy new and c) it accelerated retirement of the MD-88/MD-90. While DL does not formally publish fleet plans, reputable leaks indicated that, just a few years ago, the airline intended on investing in and keeping most of its MD-88/MD-90 fleet for the long-term, while phasing out older 757. That DL choose to recycle interiors from aircraft that had been renovated (Song) into mid-90s deliveries (largely ex-NW) somewhat supports this.

Further, DL has 129 321 (including 100 NEO) on order, as well 66 A220 ... all to be delivered within a few years. That's a large amount of capacity coming into the system, dwarfing known retirements (MD-88/MD-90) and expansion plans. Undoubtedly... most of these 321 will be used to phase out much of the 757 fleet. Yes, there's a few routes, such as SNA and some Latin America markets, in which the 321 is not a suitable replacement... but DL management is on the record saying a) as labor rates continue to swell, the economics of narrowbody and short capacity widebodies continues to deteriorate and b) ideally, it would like to reduce the number of fleet types it operates. Yet given that, somehow, someway, people actually believe DL is begging Boeing to build a 757 replacement? Whatever the "vp of ops" said... isn't supported by facts/reality.

Of course, the irony is that NW ordered many of the late production 757 and all of the 753... and it didn't even want the aircraft -- it wanted the 321. But Boeing wouldn't let NW out of a 1980s order that had been deferred for years, so NW made what it could of it. But I guess, some a.netters are so desperate for DL to order Boeing, they'll take whatever crumb they can get.[/quote

.great thoughts.


Cheers

WidebodyPTV wrote:

DL has said that it doesn't intended the keep up with the record-breaking new aircraft deliveries of the last couple years, and we know it continually monitors the market for used aircraft and has predicted that late production 737NG and 320CEO values would freefall as more MAX and NEO are delivered. My bets: more 321NEO, more 220 ... and used 32X and 737NG.

When the aircraft in DL's fleet entered into passenger service for their original carrier (excludes MD-88/MD-90):
1989, 04: 4 B757 (all NBA)
1990, 14: 1 A320, 7 B757 (3 NBA), 6 B763
1991, 18: 4 A320, 8 B757 (4 NBA), 6 B763
1992, 33: 20 A320, 10 B757, 3 B763
1993, 17: 10 A320, 5 B757, 2 B763
1994: -none-
1995, 07: 4 B757, 3 B763
1996, 17: 15 B757, 2 B763
1997, 19: 10 B757, 9 B763
1998, 35: 13 A320, 5 B738, 8 B757, 9 B763
1999, 55: 2 A319, 7 A320, 8 B717, 11 B738, 12 B757, 8 B763, 7 B777
2000, 84: 7 A319, 24 B717, 22 B738, 13 B757, 6 B763, 12 B764,
2001, 85: 13 A319, 3 A320, 26 B717, 27 B738, 8 B757, 2 B763, 6 B764
2002, 63: 22 A319, 2 A320, 20 B717, 6 B738, 2 B757, 7 B753, 3 B764, 1 B777
2003, 30: 13 A319, 2 A320, 5 A330, 1 B717, 9 B753
2004, 18: 11 A330, 4 B717, 3 B757
2005, 10: 2 A330, 6 B717, 2 B757
2006, 08: 6 A330, 2 B717
2007, 08: 4 B73G, 4 B777
2009, 12: 6 B73G, 6 B777
2010, 01: B738
2011, -0-
2012, 01: B738
2013, 14: 2 B738, 12 B739
2014, 20: 1 B738, 19 B739
2015, 23: 4 A330, 19 B739
2016, 37: 14 A321, 4 A330, 19 B739
2017, 48: 20 A321, 2 A330, 6 A350, 20 B739
2018, 63: 31 A321, 5 A350, 23 B739, 4 A220
2019, 79: 31 A321, 4 A330, 2 A350, 18 B739, 24 A220
2020, 03: 2 A321, 1 A220

Thanks for breaking that all down.

I think we'll see something A225 and/or 320neo on the narrow-body side. On the widebody side I think we could see a 788 or NMA. There will be some routes that DL will want to keep that would be too much plane to be flying on a 339 (DTW-NGO)

asr0dzjq wrote:

ethernal wrote:

...When the 763s retire, some routes will probably terminate because the A339 is just too much plane - both in terms of legs and capacity...

Would the A338 work?

No. It is way too heavy.

WidebodyPTV wrote:

reltney wrote:

Right on. It’s almost like you were in the briefing. As stated by Delta, nothing in production comes close to the 757-200 and 300. The 321 neoLRwhatever is the stopgap but can’t quite do the job but is the closest out there. They were banking on the 797 but that’s not working out presently either. Naysayers say what you want but I saw their lips move in the briefing. Can you say that....... it was left with.....we have to be flexible and are....the 757 will stay at present numbers or greater if we can find them thru 2026 as that was the replacement aircraft date of entry into service.
...
The 321 New does not fill the gap...well according to Delta. In fact there is a big gap between the neo and 757 . Gee. If the vp of ops says the 321 neo can come close to the 757 but you say it does...I guess Delta is wrong.... mmmmmm. Yup..that’s it, they are wrong.

With all due respect, I believe in facts: DL has a large 757 fleet today, not because of the capabilities of the aircraft, but because a) it and NW purchased more late production aircraft than any other passenger airline in the world, b) it made a decision during its bankruptcy in 2006 to add second-hand aircraft rather than buy new and c) it accelerated retirement of the MD-88/MD-90. While DL does not formally publish fleet plans, reputable leaks indicated that, just a few years ago, the airline intended on investing in and keeping most of its MD-88/MD-90 fleet for the long-term, while phasing out older 757. That DL choose to recycle interiors from aircraft that had been renovated (Song) into mid-90s deliveries (largely ex-NW) somewhat supports this.

Further, DL has 129 321 (including 100 NEO) on order, as well 66 A220 ... all to be delivered within a few years. That's a large amount of capacity coming into the system, dwarfing known retirements (MD-88/MD-90) and expansion plans. Undoubtedly... most of these 321 will be used to phase out much of the 757 fleet. Yes, there's a few routes, such as SNA and some Latin America markets, in which the 321 is not a suitable replacement... but DL management is on the record saying a) as labor rates continue to swell, the economics of narrowbody and short capacity widebodies continues to deteriorate and b) ideally, it would like to reduce the number of fleet types it operates. Yet given that, somehow, someway, people actually believe DL is begging Boeing to build a 757 replacement? Whatever the "vp of ops" said... isn't supported by facts/reality.

Of course, the irony is that NW ordered many of the late production 757 and all of the 753... and it didn't even want the aircraft -- it wanted the 321. But Boeing wouldn't let NW out of a 1980s order that had been deferred for years, so NW made what it could of it. But I guess, some a.netters are so desperate for DL to order Boeing, they'll take whatever crumb they can get.

That's the first I'm hearing of that. The A321 back when NWA placed their last 757 order was not nearly as capable as it is now. Also, if NWA only needed the capacity of the A321 then why did they order the 753? From what I was told NWA ordered the 753 to replace the domestic DC-10 fleet.

tjerome wrote:

I think we'll see something A225 and/or 320neo on the narrow-body side. On the widebody side I think we could see a 788 or NMA. There will be some routes that DL will want to keep that would be too much plane to be flying on a 339 (DTW-NGO)

I agree that future narrowbody orders will continue to be the A220 family and the A321. But let's not forget that nearly two-thirds of the current mainline fleet will have reached at least 30yo by the end of the decade, and will likely have been replaced by then. It's incredibly unlikely DL will take delivery of that many new aircraft to replace them. For starters, Bastian has said that DL would've preferred Boeing to have built a clean sheet 737 replacement, rather than the MAX. Secondly, DL has long commented that it expects pricing on late model NG and CEO to freefall as more MAX and NEO enter service, and remarked not long ago that problems with both types has lead to late model NG and CEO maintaining their current pricing. Alas, I expect DL will seek late model NG and CEO to plug its immediate needs.

And neither the 788 nor the NMA are likely. DL has said that a) the economics of long-haul narrowbody and short capacity widebodies is becoming increasingly challenging as labor costs swell and b) it would like to reduce the number of types within its fleet. An NMA would have a limited market, which means that the price will be high given that Boeing would have few aircraft to spread the developmental costs across. While the operating costs may be better than an A338, the acquisition cost + costs of maintaining an additional fleet type would far outweigh the NMA. It just isn't a realistic option. And let's not forget that DL has 49 widebodies on order, for delivery within five years - and as A330CEO have become available, DL's name is continually mentioned as suitors. Quite honestly, I think DL's needs are far different than what the Boeing fan base on a.net would prefer.

TTailedTiger wrote:

That's the first I'm hearing of that. The A321 back when NWA placed their last 757 order was not nearly as capable as it is now. Also, if NWA only needed the capacity of the A321 then why did they order the 753? From what I was told NWA ordered the 753 to replace the domestic DC-10 fleet.

NW's last true 757 order was placed in the 1980s. Financial problems lead to the order's continued deferral, although 15 aircraft (now operating for DL with interiors recycled from ex-Song aircraft) were delivered in the mid-1990s. By 2000, NW was focused on simplifying its narrowbody fleet to the A319 / A320 / A321. But if it were to have cancelled the remaining 757, it would've lost tens of millions in deposits. It then placed a "new" 757 order, replacing the prior order that was on both it and Boeing's books, that was split between the 752 and 753. Allegedly, Boeing gave NW a very favorable deal on converting some of the 752 into 753 -- but NW pointed out from the beginning that it was still evaluating the 753, and maintained the rights to convert the type back to the 752, which it ultimately exercised on two orders (reducing the total from 18 to 16).

Even when NW announced the "new" 753 order, it indicated that it intended to operate a limited number of the DC-10-30 long-term as DC-10-40 replacements (and even included them in the fleet plan), converting them into a domestic configuration. NW likely saw the DC-10-30 as a more flexible, better fit for its domestic network, and the 753 was about making the most of an unwanted order. It was only at the 11th hour that plans were made to prepare the 753 for use to Hawaii (including the installation of drop-down LCD TVs, which were not included on the 752 and not initially used on the 753), and ultimately there was only a small lag from the time NW cancelled its West Coast DC-10 routes (due to swelling fuel prices) and replaced them with the 753.

WidebodyPTV wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

That's the first I'm hearing of that. The A321 back when NWA placed their last 757 order was not nearly as capable as it is now. Also, if NWA only needed the capacity of the A321 then why did they order the 753? From what I was told NWA ordered the 753 to replace the domestic DC-10 fleet.

NW's last true 757 order was placed in the 1980s. Financial problems lead to the order's continued deferral, although 15 aircraft (now operating for DL with interiors recycled from ex-Song aircraft) were delivered in the mid-1990s. By 2000, NW was focused on simplifying its narrowbody fleet to the A319 / A320 / A321. But if it were to have cancelled the remaining 757, it would've lost tens of millions in deposits. It then placed a "new" 757 order, replacing the prior order that was on both it and Boeing's books, that was split between the 752 and 753. Allegedly, Boeing gave NW a very favorable deal on converting some of the 752 into 753 -- but NW pointed out from the beginning that it was still evaluating the 753, and maintained the rights to convert the type back to the 752, which it ultimately exercised on two orders (reducing the total from 18 to 16).

Even when NW announced the "new" 753 order, it indicated that it intended to operate a limited number of the DC-10-30 long-term as DC-10-40 replacements (and even included them in the fleet plan), converting them into a domestic configuration. NW likely saw the DC-10-30 as a more flexible, better fit for its domestic network, and the 753 was about making the most of an unwanted order. It was only at the 11th hour that plans were made to prepare the 753 for use to Hawaii (including the installation of drop-down LCD TVs, which were not included on the 752 and not initially used on the 753), and ultimately there was only a small lag from the time NW cancelled its West Coast DC-10 routes (due to swelling fuel prices) and replaced them with the 753.

Boeing convinced Northwest to switch some 757-351s back to 757-251s That was the story when I worked at Northwest. If I am not mistaken Boeing got Icelandic to drop their order of a about three 757-300s to just one. For all I know Boeing might have had problems building the 757-300. I do know the the 737 was also creeping into the 757 territory and Boeing pushed the 737 while discouraging any future orders of the 757. as the demand for the 757 was decreasing as the airlines did not know the real potential of the 757.

NWAROOSTER wrote:

Boeing convinced Northwest to switch some 757-351s back to 757-251s That was the story when I worked at Northwest. If I am not mistaken Boeing got Icelandic to drop their order of a about three 757-300s to just one. For all I know Boeing might have had problems building the 757-300. I do know the the 737 was also creeping into the 757 territory and Boeing pushed the 737 while discouraging any future orders of the 757. as the demand for the 757 was decreasing as the airlines did not know the real potential of the 757.

It wasn't Boeing. When NW reaffirmed its remaining 1980s 757s order (packaged as a new order, which replaced the old order on both NW and Boeing's books), as a split 752/753, it made it clear that it maintained full flexibility to convert the -300 to -200. Eventually -- before any 753 were on property -- it converted two -300 to -200, reducing the order from 18 to 16. It was Continental that requested to convert its remaining 753 to 738, and the lack of new orders, which prompted Boeing to close the 757 line. Icelandair, which had deferred its (two or three) remaining 753, converted them to 738 as well.

Much like the 717, the 757 has a larger than life narrative on a.net. Delta has a large fleet of 757 not because there's no suitable replacement -- it's probable the additional 129 A321 currently being rapidly delivered will eventually make good headway into phasing out the 757 -- but because both it and NW ordered more late model aircraft than any other airline in the world. And when DL made the decision to add second-hand aircraft to grow its fleet, it chose the MD-90 and 757 because they offered "the most bang for the buck" (e.g. adding 738 didn't make as much financial sense). Of course, the 757 has been a solid, reliable aircraft... but to insist there's no suitable replacement is silly.

DL's isn't going to add an additional fleet type just to serve a few markets. It's far more likely that SEA, SLC and MSP would be upgaguged from SNA, and DTW & ATL downgauged, to maintain and grow capacity, than DL adding a 757-NG. Heck, part of the reason DL is actively chasing more slots from LGB could be to attract travelers from Northern Orange County who currently use SNA, offering another route for DL to grow within the region.

seabosdca wrote:

While some A320s will be older, I think the remaining domestic 757s have to be the first priority for narrowbody replacement. They have fewer remaining cycles and their economics are increasingly difficult. But I think the first tranche of A321neos already on order should deal with most of them.

Even DL's oldest A320s still have a fair number of cycles/hours left thanks to the life extension. Although this info may be a few years dated, N309US (the oldest at near 30 years) was around 40k cycles/90k hours; the current limits for older A320s with the life extension are 60k cycles/120k hours. Delta has further good fortunate in that their A320s have not done a ton of shorter hops throughout their lives. So it may be a close call whether they ultimately run out of cycles first or hours. This compares to LH which has used their A320s on many shorter flights. Thus Lufthansa has recently been retiring those older A320s that were closing in on 60K cycles (even with the extension). Still, LH got about thirty years of good use out of them.

This said, it will be interesting to see if DL decides that the rising maintenance costs associated with any aging plane may warrant the most elderly A320s exiting the fleet before they zero out on hours/cycles.

Also, the oldest batch of DL A320s have the more vintage -5A1 version of the CFM56 engines (the newer DL A320s uses the -5A3). Will -5A1 spare parts be an issue down the road for DL?

TTailedTiger wrote:

ethernal wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

While not the subject of this article, DL also doesn't really have a suitable replacement for the P&W B763s and some of them will time out in the next 3-4 years. I could see narrow-bodies replacing some, and you have the B753s as well to account for.

I don't think they'll get one. They'll run the 763s into the ground and then replace most of them with A330s of some type (most likely likely A339s). When the 763s retire, some routes will probably terminate because the A339 is just too much plane - both in terms of legs and capacity - but I think Delta will be able to keep most of them, although some year-round routes will likely go seasonal. And of course the domestic D1 routes currently run with a 767 will go A321neo in some sort of International J config.

Yes Delta really messed up on dropping the 788 order. They would have been perfect 763 replacements. It seems as if even LH may eventually operate the 787 leaving DL as the sole mega airline without it. DL passengers will be seeing much more of AMS and CDG when the 763 leaves.

Right now the Delta 767 replacement looks to be the A339; which they probably got for significantly less than they would have gotten a 788.

delimit wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

ethernal wrote:

I don't think they'll get one. They'll run the 763s into the ground and then replace most of them with A330s of some type (most likely likely A339s). When the 763s retire, some routes will probably terminate because the A339 is just too much plane - both in terms of legs and capacity - but I think Delta will be able to keep most of them, although some year-round routes will likely go seasonal. And of course the domestic D1 routes currently run with a 767 will go A321neo in some sort of International J config.

Yes Delta really messed up on dropping the 788 order. They would have been perfect 763 replacements. It seems as if even LH may eventually operate the 787 leaving DL as the sole mega airline without it. DL passengers will be seeing much more of AMS and CDG when the 763 leaves.

Right now the Delta 767 replacement looks to be the A339; which they probably got for significantly less than they would have gotten a 788.

But entirely inappropriate for many of Delta's 767 cities. The A339 is nearly twice as large as the 763.

TTailedTiger wrote:

delimit wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

Yes Delta really messed up on dropping the 788 order. They would have been perfect 763 replacements. It seems as if even LH may eventually operate the 787 leaving DL as the sole mega airline without it. DL passengers will be seeing much more of AMS and CDG when the 763 leaves.

Right now the Delta 767 replacement looks to be the A339; which they probably got for significantly less than they would have gotten a 788.

But entirely inappropriate for many of Delta's 767 cities. The A339 is nearly twice as large as the 763.

Agree that it is too much plane but twice as large is a bit extreme. Even taking the most divergent stat (OEW), the A339 is only 50% larger than the 767-300ER. Taking other metrics (typical seating, MTOW), it is more like 35% larger. Double in size would be more like an 777-300ER.

TTailedTiger wrote:

delimit wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

Yes Delta really messed up on dropping the 788 order. They would have been perfect 763 replacements. It seems as if even LH may eventually operate the 787 leaving DL as the sole mega airline without it. DL passengers will be seeing much more of AMS and CDG when the 763 leaves.

Right now the Delta 767 replacement looks to be the A339; which they probably got for significantly less than they would have gotten a 788.

But entirely inappropriate for many of Delta's 767 cities. The A339 is nearly twice as large as the 763.

Airlines around the world have replaced most of their 767 with larger capacity aircraft, including AA in recent years. And let's not forget that 20 years ago, DL intended the 777 to be its primary long-haul aircraft -- many of the 767 in the fleet today were initially ordered and operated as domestic aircraft. And we've seen many of DL's trunk 767 routes, including those used to initially build SEA, progress to larger capacity aircraft. That said, DL has other options, including ordering the 338 and/or adding second-hand late model 332. Ultimately, operating a mix of 338/339 mix on traditional 767 routes may be a financially better option than adding 788 (heck, even AA's 788 labor domestically and to places like CUN and Hawaii) or a new aircraft.

DL management has said several times that swelling labor costs are stressing the economics of long-haul narrowbody and short capacity widebodies (e.g. 763). I think it's far more likely that the 763 are not replaced, and fringe flying is eliminated, than DL pay through the nose on a new aircraft type + the additional costs of adding such.

You are drawing arbitrary lines. The 788 is also significantly larger. And, of course, there are A339s coming into Delta as 767s are being retired, but no 787s so...

338

Seems to be a dog. No one is ordering them.

TTailedTiger wrote:

[
But entirely inappropriate for many of Delta's 767 cities. The A339 is nearly twice as large as the 763.

By what measure? Not seat count in common Delta configs.

delimit wrote:

You are drawing arbitrary lines. The 788 is also significantly larger. And, of course, there are A339s coming into Delta as 767s are being retired, but no 787s so...

338

Seems to be a dog. No one is ordering them.

Correct. Both the A332 and 338 are very heavy shrinks and only appropriate for a handful of routes. Same reason why the A319neo and 73M-7 have sold so poorly. Outside of 2-3 routes they just have lackluster economics.

ikolkyo wrote:

Contrary to others, I have always felt the MAX 8 has a place in the DL fleet.

My completely opinionated tea leaves say that Delta will not order the MAX. TechOps has a significant contract in place with Pratt and Whitney as an MRO provider for the GTF. I believe the A320NEO or hypothetical A225 are the more likely fleet additions.

NW747-400 wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

Contrary to others, I have always felt the MAX 8 has a place in the DL fleet.

My completely opinionated tea leaves say that Delta will not order the MAX. TechOps has a significant contract in place with Pratt and Whitney as an MRO provider for the GTF. I believe the A320NEO or hypothetical A225 are the more likely fleet additions.

I feel Delta is not going to order ANY 737 MAX aircraft. Delta already has about 170 737-900 aircraft on the property and about 75 737-800s of which the last four or so were bought on the used market. Delta may acquire a few more used non MAX 737s, but that is my speculation.. Delta is NOT happy with Boeing trying to get a 30% surtax on the CS100 aircraft that they ordered from Bombaier and Delta might just stick with Airbus until Boeing get it's head out of the sand and comes up with a NEW aircraft that exceeds what Airbus has to off at a very good price.

NWAROOSTER wrote:

NW747-400 wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

Contrary to others, I have always felt the MAX 8 has a place in the DL fleet.

My completely opinionated tea leaves say that Delta will not order the MAX. TechOps has a significant contract in place with Pratt and Whitney as an MRO provider for the GTF. I believe the A320NEO or hypothetical A225 are the more likely fleet additions.

I feel Delta is not going to order ANY 737 MAX aircraft. Delta already has about 170 737-900 aircraft on the property and about 75 737-800s of which the last four or so were bought on the used market. Delta may acquire a few more used non MAX 737s, but that is my speculation.. Delta is NOT happy with Boeing trying to get a 30% surtax on the CS100 aircraft that they ordered from Bombaier and Delta might just stick with Airbus until Boeing get it's head out of the sand and comes up with a NEW aircraft that exceeds what Airbus has to off at a very good price.

I find it highly unlikely that Delta will hold any meaningful grudge against Boeing. If Boeing offers the right price, Delta will buy. This idea that Delta suddenly hates Boeing is mostly manufactured nonsense. Agree that Delta was annoyed by the Bombardier crap, but memories fade quickly when it comes to making major capex decisions. Dollars and cents ultimately wins the day. The reality is that Airbus products have better fit Delta's needs in recent years, and the MRO piece for the A321neo definitely had a big part to play in the decision.

The issue is that Boeing won't offer the right price. Why? Because they don't have any delivery slots to sell. They're already going to be 2 years behind on the backlog, so even if a few airlines cancel, they are still just catching up on their existing commits. And airlines won't cancel, because their alternative is to get an even later slot for an A321neo. The only way that Boeing cuts Delta a deal is if there is a significant recession that forces airlines to cut their order books significantly and all the sudden Boeing needs to shore up their delivery slots.

In which case.. Delta might as well buy Airbus if the discounts and delivery slots are going to be similar.

In the event that there is a major air travel recession, then I could see Delta opportunistically buying the MAX at firesale prices. But that's a big if.

Can the A321neo do DCA-SLC fully loaded?

slowroll wrote:

Can the A321neo do DCA-SLC fully loaded?

Easily, assuming the main north/south runway is open. If only 15/33 or 4/22 is available it would struggle, but so would any other plane (including the 757).

ethernal wrote:

The issue is that Boeing won't offer the right price. Why? Because they don't have any delivery slots to sell. They're already going to be 2 years behind on the backlog, so even if a few airlines cancel, they are still just catching up on their existing commits. And airlines won't cancel, because their alternative is to get an even later slot for an A321neo. The only way that Boeing cuts Delta a deal is if there is a significant recession that forces airlines to cut their order books significantly and all the sudden Boeing needs to shore up their delivery slots.

In which case.. Delta might as well buy Airbus if the discounts and delivery slots are going to be similar.

In the event that there is a major air travel recession, then I could see Delta opportunistically buying the MAX at firesale prices. But that's a big if.

Completely agree that DL will get the MAX only with firesale pricing. But I can see DL getting firesale pricing short of an air travel recession, in a scenario where the MAX returns to the air and Boeing feels that they need to get a large order in order to show confidence in the program for PR reasons. Perhaps the deal could even include the planes that went to or would have gone to 9W or IG had those airlines not folded.

TTailedTiger wrote:

Correct. Both the A332 and 338 are very heavy shrinks and only appropriate for a handful of routes. Same reason why the A319neo and 73M-7 have sold so poorly. Outside of 2-3 routes they just have lackluster economics.

Yet, while the Max7 and A319neo have sold poorly, UA has opportunistically added A319 and 737-700 planes to their fleet, as the acquisition cost of the smaller variant is lower, which makes the higher per seat operating costs worth it.

And in a world where there is strong demand for 763 frames as feedstock for P2F conversion, the A332 may be the best widebody value in the medium term. This would make sense the most on the shorter 763 routes - there are 7 frames currently dedicated just for JFK-LAX flying.

RalXWB wrote:

Sad to read that the same old 757-myths are still repeated here. The A321Neo and especially the XLR flies the same payload further than the fossil 757 while being up to 30 percent more efficient...

https://thepointsguy.com/news/delta-wan ... build-nma/

Bastian is on the record saying he isn't convinced that the 321XLR is the right replacement for the 757, at least for the TATL market.

Read The article, he Said he is Not convinced that the XLR is The right plane for the Transatlantic Market. Surprisingly it is for quite a few other Airlines.

AZORMP wrote:

RalXWB wrote:

Sad to read that the same old 757-myths are still repeated here. The A321Neo and especially the XLR flies the same payload further than the fossil 757 while being up to 30 percent more efficient...

https://thepointsguy.com/news/delta-wan ... build-nma/

Bastian is on the record saying he isn't convinced that the 321XLR is the right replacement for the 757, at least for the TATL market.

Bastian never said that.. the article is a bit misleading since it is forcing a comparison to the 757.

If you read the full transcript, Bastian's comments were that he saw pressure on any narrowbody TATL traffic due to labor costs. He's basically saying that senior pilot salaries for the block hours on a narrowbody are too high relative to the seats. He wants a bigger plane to carry more seats to shred that cost. This has nothing to do with 757 vs. A321 and everything to do with a 155-160 seats not being enough for Delta's longer haul operations (Delta's 75S is 168 seats, but since Delta wants Premium Select as a standard offering, drop that down another 10 seats). In this regard, the A339 is actually a much better replacement for the 767 fleet than it seems if labor costs are where Delta sees most of the future cost pressures.

Note that this economic issue is unique to legacies with generous pilot salaries.. the LCC tend to have much lower labor cost curves and so for them, narrowbody economics is much more ideal.

Delta doesn't even really use the internationally configured 757 much for TATL anymore. I can't think of any routes that run them. I'm sure there are a few, but they are far and inbetween. They use them a bit more for longer South America routes and then the domestic transcons.

RalXWB wrote:

Read The article, he Said he is Not convinced that the XLR is The right plane for the Transatlantic Market. Surprisingly it is for quite a few other Airlines.

I did....that's kinda why I said "he isn't convinced that the 321XLR is the right replacement for the 757, at least for the TATL market.

ethernal wrote:

Bastian never said that.. the article is a bit misleading since it is forcing a comparison to the 757.

If you read the full transcript, Bastian's comments were that he saw pressure on any narrowbody TATL traffic due to labor costs. He's basically saying that senior pilot salaries for the block hours on a narrowbody are too high relative to the seats. He wants a bigger plane to carry more seats to shred that cost. This has nothing to do with 757 vs. A321 and everything to do with a 155-160 seats not being enough for Delta's longer haul operations (Delta's 75S is 168 seats, but since Delta wants Premium Select as a standard offering, drop that down another 10 seats). In this regard, the A339 is actually a much better replacement for the 767 fleet than it seems if labor costs are where Delta sees most of the future cost pressures.

Note that this economic issue is unique to legacies with generous pilot salaries.. the LCC tend to have much lower labor cost curves and so for them, narrowbody economics is much more ideal.

Delta doesn't even really use the internationally configured 757 much for TATL anymore. I can't think of any routes that run them. I'm sure there are a few, but they are far and inbetween. They use them a bit more for longer South America routes and then the domestic transcons.

If you have a link to the transcript, I'd love to read it. Either I'm stone-blind or it isn't in the article.

AZORMP wrote:

RalXWB wrote:

Read The article, he Said he is Not convinced that the XLR is The right plane for the Transatlantic Market. Surprisingly it is for quite a few other Airlines.

I did....that's kinda why I said "he isn't convinced that the 321XLR is the right replacement for the 757, at least for the TATL market.

ethernal wrote:

Bastian never said that.. the article is a bit misleading since it is forcing a comparison to the 757.

If you read the full transcript, Bastian's comments were that he saw pressure on any narrowbody TATL traffic due to labor costs. He's basically saying that senior pilot salaries for the block hours on a narrowbody are too high relative to the seats. He wants a bigger plane to carry more seats to shred that cost. This has nothing to do with 757 vs. A321 and everything to do with a 155-160 seats not being enough for Delta's longer haul operations (Delta's 75S is 168 seats, but since Delta wants Premium Select as a standard offering, drop that down another 10 seats). In this regard, the A339 is actually a much better replacement for the 767 fleet than it seems if labor costs are where Delta sees most of the future cost pressures.

Note that this economic issue is unique to legacies with generous pilot salaries.. the LCC tend to have much lower labor cost curves and so for them, narrowbody economics is much more ideal.

Delta doesn't even really use the internationally configured 757 much for TATL anymore. I can't think of any routes that run them. I'm sure there are a few, but they are far and inbetween. They use them a bit more for longer South America routes and then the domestic transcons.

If you have a link to the transcript, I'd love to read it. Either I'm stone-blind or it isn't in the article.

You're not stone blind. The points guy is just fighting for clicks and intentionally taking things out of context and not making it easy to notice it. Ed Bastian wasn't even the speaker of the quote - it was actually Glen Hauenstein. But I didn't think that was overly relevant to my point. You can see the investor day transcript here.

Here's the relevant quote from Glen:

And what was your second question? 321XLR, we don't know whether or not – we fly the 757 today in the transatlantic, and we really don't know with the labor rates where they are today, whether or not narrow-bodies in the transatlantic makes sense. We're studying that. And the XLR is really just a 321neo with a tank on it. And so we can always move some of our orders to that. But really, we see the application more for working on our cost structure in Europe, serving the big cities and lowering our carbon profile at the same time, bringing more efficiency to our transatlantic fleet. And we're not convinced going with a long and narrow plane is where that is – the evolution is going.

RalXWB wrote:

Sad to read that the same old 757-myths are still repeated here. The A321Neo and especially the XLR flies the same payload further than the fossil 757 while being up to 30 percent more efficient...

I agree with you Ral - the XLR is the best replacement for the 752.

However, will you admit the A320 CEO will be a "fossil" in 6 years?

ethernal wrote:

NWAROOSTER wrote:

NW747-400 wrote:

My completely opinionated tea leaves say that Delta will not order the MAX. TechOps has a significant contract in place with Pratt and Whitney as an MRO provider for the GTF. I believe the A320NEO or hypothetical A225 are the more likely fleet additions.

I feel Delta is not going to order ANY 737 MAX aircraft. Delta already has about 170 737-900 aircraft on the property and about 75 737-800s of which the last four or so were bought on the used market. Delta may acquire a few more used non MAX 737s, but that is my speculation.. Delta is NOT happy with Boeing trying to get a 30% surtax on the CS100 aircraft that they ordered from Bombaier and Delta might just stick with Airbus until Boeing get it's head out of the sand and comes up with a NEW aircraft that exceeds what Airbus has to off at a very good price.

I find it highly unlikely that Delta will hold any meaningful grudge against Boeing. If Boeing offers the right price, Delta will buy. This idea that Delta suddenly hates Boeing is mostly manufactured nonsense. Agree that Delta was annoyed by the Bombardier crap, but memories fade quickly when it comes to making major capex decisions. Dollars and cents ultimately wins the day. The reality is that Airbus products have better fit Delta's needs in recent years, and the MRO piece for the A321neo definitely had a big part to play in the decision.

The issue is that Boeing won't offer the right price. Why? Because they don't have any delivery slots to sell. They're already going to be 2 years behind on the backlog, so even if a few airlines cancel, they are still just catching up on their existing commits. And airlines won't cancel, because their alternative is to get an even later slot for an A321neo. The only way that Boeing cuts Delta a deal is if there is a significant recession that forces airlines to cut their order books significantly and all the sudden Boeing needs to shore up their delivery slots.

In which case.. Delta might as well buy Airbus if the discounts and delivery slots are going to be similar.

In the event that there is a major air travel recession, then I could see Delta opportunistically buying the MAX at firesale prices. But that's a big if.

I think the real game-changer is if GE will give delta an MRO license on the leap-1b they ordered pratts on the neo specifically because pratt was willing to give them that license so unless they get a decent number of missions where the 737 max is significantly better delta is not ordering the leap until they get their mro license

ethernal wrote:

AZORMP wrote:

RalXWB wrote:

Read The article, he Said he is Not convinced that the XLR is The right plane for the Transatlantic Market. Surprisingly it is for quite a few other Airlines.

I did....that's kinda why I said "he isn't convinced that the 321XLR is the right replacement for the 757, at least for the TATL market.

ethernal wrote:

Bastian never said that.. the article is a bit misleading since it is forcing a comparison to the 757.

If you read the full transcript, Bastian's comments were that he saw pressure on any narrowbody TATL traffic due to labor costs. He's basically saying that senior pilot salaries for the block hours on a narrowbody are too high relative to the seats. He wants a bigger plane to carry more seats to shred that cost. This has nothing to do with 757 vs. A321 and everything to do with a 155-160 seats not being enough for Delta's longer haul operations (Delta's 75S is 168 seats, but since Delta wants Premium Select as a standard offering, drop that down another 10 seats). In this regard, the A339 is actually a much better replacement for the 767 fleet than it seems if labor costs are where Delta sees most of the future cost pressures.

Note that this economic issue is unique to legacies with generous pilot salaries.. the LCC tend to have much lower labor cost curves and so for them, narrowbody economics is much more ideal.

Delta doesn't even really use the internationally configured 757 much for TATL anymore. I can't think of any routes that run them. I'm sure there are a few, but they are far and inbetween. They use them a bit more for longer South America routes and then the domestic transcons.

If you have a link to the transcript, I'd love to read it. Either I'm stone-blind or it isn't in the article.

You're not stone blind. The points guy is just fighting for clicks and intentionally taking things out of context and not making it easy to notice it. Ed Bastian wasn't even the speaker of the quote - it was actually Glen Hauenstein. But I didn't think that was overly relevant to my point. You can see the investor day transcript here.

Here's the relevant quote from Glen:

And what was your second question? 321XLR, we don't know whether or not – we fly the 757 today in the transatlantic, and we really don't know with the labor rates where they are today, whether or not narrow-bodies in the transatlantic makes sense. We're studying that. And the XLR is really just a 321neo with a tank on it. And so we can always move some of our orders to that. But really, we see the application more for working on our cost structure in Europe, serving the big cities and lowering our carbon profile at the same time, bringing more efficiency to our transatlantic fleet. And we're not convinced going with a long and narrow plane is where that is – the evolution is going.

Thank you for clarifying this subject by stating facts. Unfortunately, I am afraid that a new Anet-myth is born..."DL said that the XLR can never ever replace the 757" #sigh

NWAROOSTER wrote:

Delta is NOT happy with Boeing trying to get a 30% surtax on the CS100 aircraft that they ordered from Bombaier and Delta might just stick with Airbus until Boeing get it's head out of the sand and comes up with a NEW aircraft that exceeds what Airbus has to off at a very good price.

DL will buy from whomever best fits their RFQ. They could care less about the above at this point. Businesses don't hold grudges about things that didn't even happen.

RDUDDJI wrote:

NWAROOSTER wrote:

Delta is NOT happy with Boeing trying to get a 30% surtax on the CS100 aircraft that they ordered from Bombaier and Delta might just stick with Airbus until Boeing get it's head out of the sand and comes up with a NEW aircraft that exceeds what Airbus has to off at a very good price.

DL will buy from whomever best fits their RFQ. They could care less about the above at this point. Businesses don't hold grudges about things that didn't even happen.

Yep, Ed is on-record wanting to be the first on the NMA line.

Lootess wrote:

RDUDDJI wrote:

NWAROOSTER wrote:

Delta is NOT happy with Boeing trying to get a 30% surtax on the CS100 aircraft that they ordered from Bombaier and Delta might just stick with Airbus until Boeing get it's head out of the sand and comes up with a NEW aircraft that exceeds what Airbus has to off at a very good price.

DL will buy from whomever best fits their RFQ. They could care less about the above at this point. Businesses don't hold grudges about things that didn't even happen.

Yep, Ed is on-record wanting to be the first on the NMA line.

No, he's not. Bastian has never made any comments in official capacity regarding the extent of DL's interest in the NMA. He has played the PR circuit, in response to questions about DL's recent Airbus orders, and said 'we have nearly 200 757 and 767 up for replacement, the ball's in Boeing's court.' Of course, DL has 128 A321 and 49 A339/A350 on order, many of which will logically replace the B757 and B767, making a big dent in that 200 number. Let's put some numbers into perspective:

- DL has 64 B757 that entered service after its first B738; collectively, these aircraft are slightly younger than DL's original 71 B738.
- 32 A330 were originally delivered to NW. The last 32 B767 delivered to DL average just over 4.5 years older. These aircraft are younger than the entire B77E fleet.

Let's recap: DL has stated on multiple occasions the economics of narrowbody and short capacity widebodies needed to be evaluated, as labor costs continue to swell. DL has 121 A321 and 49 A339/A350 scheduled for delivery within the next five years or so -- the latter support DL's weariness of short capacity widebodies, as most of these aircraft will undoubtedly replace B763. DL has over 100 B757 and B767 that, status quo, will fly through or close to the end of the decade. And yet the logic on a.net is that the reason DL doesn't have a replacement on the books yet is because there's no suitable replacement? DL's already picked the A321 and A339/A359 to replace the aircraft nearing the end of their service life...

I don't get it. I guess it's Boeing fanboyism at its best -- ignoring facts, logic and reason, cradling to wishful thinking...

WidebodyPTV wrote:

Lootess wrote:

RDUDDJI wrote:

DL will buy from whomever best fits their RFQ. They could care less about the above at this point. Businesses don't hold grudges about things that didn't even happen.

Yep, Ed is on-record wanting to be the first on the NMA line.

No, he's not. Bastian has never made any comments in official capacity regarding the extent of DL's interest in the NMA. He has played the PR circuit, in response to questions about DL's recent Airbus orders, and said 'we have nearly 200 757 and 767 up for replacement, the ball's in Boeing's court.' Of course, DL has 128 A321 and 49 A339/A350 on order, many of which will logically replace the B757 and B767, making a big dent in that 200 number. Let's put some numbers into perspective:

- DL has 64 B757 that entered service after its first B738; collectively, these aircraft are slightly younger than DL's original 71 B738.
- 32 A330 were originally delivered to NW. The last 32 B767 delivered to DL average just over 4.5 years older. These aircraft are younger than the entire B77E fleet.

Let's recap: DL has stated on multiple occasions the economics of narrowbody and short capacity widebodies needed to be evaluated, as labor costs continue to swell. DL has 121 A321 and 49 A339/A350 scheduled for delivery within the next five years or so -- the latter support DL's weariness of short capacity widebodies, as most of these aircraft will undoubtedly replace B763. DL has over 100 B757 and B767 that, status quo, will fly through or close to the end of the decade. And yet the logic on a.net is that the reason DL doesn't have a replacement on the books yet is because there's no suitable replacement? DL's already picked the A321 and A339/A359 to replace the aircraft nearing the end of their service life...

I don't get it. I guess it's Boeing fanboyism at its best -- ignoring facts, logic and reason, cradling to wishful thinking...

Here is what you don't get:

Delta Air Lines and Boeing have discussed the possibility of the carrier launching the proposed New Mid-market Airplane (NMA), as Delta seeks a replacement for more than 100 ageing mid-market aircraft.

"We've had discussions with Boeing about being a potential launch customer," says Ed Bastian, chief executive of Delta, at the National Press Club in Washington DC today.

https://www.flightglobal.com/fleets/delta-in-talks-with-boeing-to-launch-nma-bastian/128621.article