ElroyJetson wrote:

enilria wrote:

Regardless of aircraft capability, just because of the decline in fleet count I expect Australia, JNB, and India won’t be back for years.

I have heard a number of people claim the ATL-JNB route was the most profitable in DL's network. If true, I cannot image they would let that one go.

ATL has the largest South African population of any northern hemisphere city other than LHR I believe. It’s a big reason that route won’t go anywhere

FLALEFTY wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

Yeah, at a high level I've always known the 777 has had a strange history with DL, unlike where its been a backbone and mainstay of the AA and UA fleets.
Can you elaborate a bit more since I didn't follow DL as closely before the merger.
What was the driver for the initial 77E order?
What were the original plans to grow the fleet much larger?
Didn't they end up doing a lot of ATL-Florida / domestic flying in the early 2000s?
What led to the 77L order?

The story really goes back to DL buying the MD-11, I think. The Tristar was not a great performer ex-PDX to Asia and could not do ATL-NRT. The MD-11s could do all of the PDX TPAC flying without restrictions and could do ATL-NRT, albeit restricted. The 77E was an MD-11 replacement, but something like two thirds of the MD-11 fleet was used for PDX, so when the economy in East Asia tanked in the late 90s and DL dismantled the PDX hub, the 77E was left as somewhat of an orphan. It basically did ATL-NRT and TATL flying. Between Europe runs there was a fair amount of ATL-Florida flying, largely but not exclusively to MCO. (Keep in mind that in the early 00s, DL had a lot more capacity on ATL-Florida. ATL-JAX, for example, rarely saw anything smaller than a 752 and routinely saw widebodies.)

When DL needed more widebody range in the mid-00s, the 77L was really the only game in town. The 330 was much less capable then, and the 77Ls do have some commonality with the 77E.

This is true. The MD-11 was supposed to be the L-1011 replacement for Delta. They originally ordered 9, with an option for a further 39, which if exercised would have been roughly a one-for-one replacement. However, disappointment with the early payload/range performance of the MD-11, along with a rash of software gremlins in the avionics suite that gave the type fair-to-poor dispatch reliability, led to Delta only taking a total of 17 of these aircraft. Ironically, the aerodynamic fixes Mac made to get the MD-11 up to spec on the range/payload also made it notoriously difficult to fly in low-speed approach/landing flight modes. Still, Delta kept the MD-11's around for 13 years. The problem is that they also had to keep the L-1011's around throughout the 1990's due to the MD-11's dispatch issues.

The B77E's were bought to replace both the MD-11's and the last of the L-1011-500's. The base order was for 8, but they had purchase rights for more. However, due to issues with the pilot contract amendment to add the B77E (the pilots wanted something similar to United's B744-level hourly rates to fly the 777), and later the business collapse aftermath caused by 9/11, put future orders for the type on ice. By the mid-2000's, business recuperated and the TPAC markets were heating up, so Delta went to Boeing looking for more B777's and purchased 10 brand-new B77L's, thanks the variant's better TPAC payload/range performance from their ATL hub.

As for domestic usage of Delta's widebody fleet, the frequent appearance of the L-1011, MD-11, B767 and B777 at MCO over the years were done for longhaul tag-ends (e.g. there used to be a MCO-LAX-NRT MD-11 flight in the 90's), seasonal capacity bumps and for "showing the flag" for Delta at one of its most important and competitive destination markets. And like all big international airlines, they still do hub-to-hub runs with their big jets.

FWIW, the 777 trips from ATL to say MCO were not tag ends but rather stand alone pairings that were created specifically to generate landings for new crews transitioning to the airplane. Prior to the 777, DL flew the MD-11 between LAX and PDX for same purpose. LAX-MCO was similar.

I think you will find that any LSAS mods were and handling qualities were mostly applicable to the F models which have higher landing weights and thus higher Vref speeds.

MSPNWA wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

We also know that DL explicitly stated that enhancements will be made in order to allow JNB and SYD to operate as required.

Show us where in that memo it means JNB-ATL. It looks like you're missing the context of the memo and debate about it.

First, show me where I said "JNB-ATL". I didn't. Regardless, second, reading the memo in context (posted above) highly suggests JNB-ATL: "With the retirement of the 777, we have made the decision to open two new bases in ATL and LAX. Enhancements to the 350 now allow it to operate key long-haul markets (SYD and JNB) at a lower operating cost than the 777."

WidebodyPTV wrote:

My best guess is that DL believes that freight companies will readily acquire the 77L for their peak resale price. They ran the numbers and the conclusion was to cash out now and add newer more efficient aircraft later, rather than paying to park the aircraft. Storing the fleet for years when there's already more efficient aircraft available now just doesn't make a lot of financial sense.

However there currently isn't a 772/L conversion program and may never be one. And with a likely glut of passenger airplanes soon becoming available, it's not like they will have to pay top dollar for planes or especially new conversion programs.

What doesn't make financial sense is permanently retiring 10-12 year-old airplanes with new interiors if the point to have to replaced them with expensive new aircraft when cash reserves are at a low point. That's why I think what will happen instead is DL is looking at a long-term shift in the amount of very long-haul flying they operate.

Nicknuzzii wrote:

Does the A350 have the legs to cover the 777?

For the for the 772? Most definitely. Even if DL might have purchased a lower gross weight model of the A350, the gross weight is, IIRC, not a structural limit but a paper one. They only need to pay Airbus a certain fee and voila!, the A350s have a higher gross weight.

For the 77L? Probably not absolutely, but for almost any route that DL flies, yes. DL never used the 77L for its massive range, but rather for its ability to carry a huge payload over a longer range than the 772 and its ability to operate out of airports like JNB with fewer restrictions on payload and range.

But the fuel burn of the 772/77L per ASM is pretty high as compared to the 787 or A350. The JNB-ATL service might be one of DLs few routes that would really benefit from the 77L as opposed to the A350, but would it make sense for DL to keep the 77L around just for that route?

As for posters claiming that the A359 cannot do LAX-SYD without restrictions, nor can the 744, 77W or the 772. Only the 744ER, 77L, A345, and A388 can go past 6,500nm without hitting the first inflection point on the payload-range chart. I wonder how often the 77L would actually fly LAX-SYD at MZFW.

winginit wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

BBDFlyer wrote:

Sydney is payload restricted with an alternate on the A350. It usually is not restricted with a 777.

Do we know that? I’m not sure anyone has flown an A350 on the route.

I had thought for a time the drama around the 359 being able to operate LAXSYD without penalty came down to the alternate airport. I'd heard in the past 24 months approvals had been put into place to change that alternate airport between I think BNE and CBR, and the consequence of that change is that the 359 can now operate the route without issue. Don't quote me on any of this, but I recall a detailed discussion on A.net when the change was made.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I wonder if JFK-BOM might come back on the A359, as that should be possible with the 280t A359s. That said, given that the B77Ls are owned outright, I'm surprised they're being retired.

Oh I suspect JFKBOM is never coming back. That was a route that DL never actually wanted to fly really even before Jet Airways went bust back in good times, but they did it in tandem with their whole ME3 spat, which I'm sure will also be completely forgotten now that US carriers have all been bailed out by their own governments.

Would BOM really be ditched permanently a mere 6-8 months after it was restarted following a 6 year or so stop and also a painful DOT approval process? Remember that JFK-BOM was supposed to restart like mid summer last year and didn’t start til Nov/Dec.

jbs2886 wrote:

First, show me where I said "JNB-ATL". I didn't. Regardless, second, reading the memo in context (posted above) highly suggests JNB-ATL: "With the retirement of the 777, we have made the decision to open two new bases in ATL and LAX. Enhancements to the 350 now allow it to operate key long-haul markets (SYD and JNB) at a lower operating cost than the 777."

You didn't, and you didn't have to. I specifically said JNB-ATL, and you responded to it in the context of JNB-ATL.

I believe you're making a hasty conclusion. And it's for the reasons I've already stated. You can believe what you want to believe. But I will be believing in real-world data about the A359 in relation to the challenges the JNB-ATL route offers and the unspecific language in an unreliable pilot memo before I state that JNB-ATL will return in the foreseeable future. And before you make the conclusion that the new bases mentioned must mean the SYD/JNB destinations will be flown out of those bases, remember what base the pilots for JFK-BOM came from.

PepeTheFrog wrote:

Statement from Ed Bastian: https://twitter.com/e_russell/status/12 ... 6106342401

The entire 777 fleet will be retired at the end of 2020. DL just pumped millions into refurbishing the fleet.

Wow. Knock my socks off. If they still had 747's or A380's, that wouldn't surprise me. I realize this is their biggest plane besides the a350 with the most seats, a relatively small fleet, 18? but for some reason I am still surprised to see this announcement. I guess the A350 has the range to cover anything DL would use the 777 to fly. I know there had, pre-Covid19, been talk of someone flying SEA-SYD. From my vantage point, I don't think there was enough demand for such a flight, but if I was wrong, I guess losing the 777 just makes it that much less likely DL would start that route.

Pi7472000 wrote:

UA has different strengths than Delta. When economy recovers SFO is a great hub to SYD. This may take a while though. I see UA returning to SYD if and when the virus gets under control. UA also has better hubs to return to India.

United is still flying SFO-SYD, UA863/UA870 are still operating although UA did retime UA863 SFO-SYD from a night time departure to a late morning departure. UA863 now departs SFO at 11:15am. It may be sometime before LAX-SYD and/or IAH-SYD return but UA is still serving the SYD market.

I think DL's A359s in time will take over their LAX-SYD and JFK-BOM routes. While the A359 can handle ATL-JNB the problem I see is with the return leg JNB-ATL many people have been posting for years DL printed money on this route and I believe them the 77L could take off from JNB with a full passenger cabin all their bags and a lot of cargo. However I don't see the A359 being able to handle the return to ATL without a sever weight restriction. For sure DL would have to jettison the cargo they may even have to block some rows. The question is can DL turn a profit on ATL-JNB-ATL with a A359 if they have to block rows on the return leg?

FLALEFTY wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

Yeah, at a high level I've always known the 777 has had a strange history with DL, unlike where its been a backbone and mainstay of the AA and UA fleets.
Can you elaborate a bit more since I didn't follow DL as closely before the merger.
What was the driver for the initial 77E order?
What were the original plans to grow the fleet much larger?
Didn't they end up doing a lot of ATL-Florida / domestic flying in the early 2000s?
What led to the 77L order?

The story really goes back to DL buying the MD-11, I think. The Tristar was not a great performer ex-PDX to Asia and could not do ATL-NRT. The MD-11s could do all of the PDX TPAC flying without restrictions and could do ATL-NRT, albeit restricted. The 77E was an MD-11 replacement, but something like two thirds of the MD-11 fleet was used for PDX, so when the economy in East Asia tanked in the late 90s and DL dismantled the PDX hub, the 77E was left as somewhat of an orphan. It basically did ATL-NRT and TATL flying. Between Europe runs there was a fair amount of ATL-Florida flying, largely but not exclusively to MCO. (Keep in mind that in the early 00s, DL had a lot more capacity on ATL-Florida. ATL-JAX, for example, rarely saw anything smaller than a 752 and routinely saw widebodies.)

When DL needed more widebody range in the mid-00s, the 77L was really the only game in town. The 330 was much less capable then, and the 77Ls do have some commonality with the 77E.

This is true. The MD-11 was supposed to be the L-1011 replacement for Delta. They originally ordered 9, with an option for a further 39, which if exercised would have been roughly a one-for-one replacement. However, disappointment with the early payload/range performance of the MD-11, along with a rash of software gremlins in the avionics suite that gave the type fair-to-poor dispatch reliability, led to Delta only taking a total of 17 of these aircraft. Ironically, the aerodynamic fixes Mac made to get the MD-11 up to spec on the range/payload also made it notoriously difficult to fly in low-speed approach/landing flight modes. Still, Delta kept the MD-11's around for 13 years. The problem is that they also had to keep the L-1011's around throughout the 1990's due to the MD-11's dispatch issues.

The B77E's were bought to replace both the MD-11's and the last of the L-1011-500's. The base order was for 8, but they had purchase rights for more. However, due to issues with the pilot contract amendment to add the B77E (the pilots wanted something similar to United's B744-level hourly rates to fly the 777), and later the business collapse aftermath caused by 9/11, put future orders for the type on ice. By the mid-2000's, business recuperated and the TPAC markets were heating up, so Delta went to Boeing looking for more B777's and purchased 10 brand-new B77L's, thanks the variant's better TPAC payload/range performance from their ATL hub.

As for domestic usage of Delta's widebody fleet, the frequent appearance of the L-1011, MD-11, B767 and B777 at MCO over the years were done for longhaul tag-ends (e.g. there used to be a MCO-LAX-NRT MD-11 flight in the 90's), seasonal capacity bumps and for "showing the flag" for Delta at one of its most important and competitive destination markets. And like all big international airlines, they still do hub-to-hub runs with their big jets.

Thanks; I couldn’t remember the details of the pilot pay issue.

It’s worth underscoring that other than ATL-NRT, which only used two of the 8 aircraft, DL basically used the 77E as a big 767, not really taking advantage of the aircraft’s capabilities.

FLALEFTY wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

Yeah, at a high level I've always known the 777 has had a strange history with DL, unlike where its been a backbone and mainstay of the AA and UA fleets.
Can you elaborate a bit more since I didn't follow DL as closely before the merger.
What was the driver for the initial 77E order?
What were the original plans to grow the fleet much larger?
Didn't they end up doing a lot of ATL-Florida / domestic flying in the early 2000s?
What led to the 77L order?

The story really goes back to DL buying the MD-11, I think. The Tristar was not a great performer ex-PDX to Asia and could not do ATL-NRT. The MD-11s could do all of the PDX TPAC flying without restrictions and could do ATL-NRT, albeit restricted. The 77E was an MD-11 replacement, but something like two thirds of the MD-11 fleet was used for PDX, so when the economy in East Asia tanked in the late 90s and DL dismantled the PDX hub, the 77E was left as somewhat of an orphan. It basically did ATL-NRT and TATL flying. Between Europe runs there was a fair amount of ATL-Florida flying, largely but not exclusively to MCO. (Keep in mind that in the early 00s, DL had a lot more capacity on ATL-Florida. ATL-JAX, for example, rarely saw anything smaller than a 752 and routinely saw widebodies.)

When DL needed more widebody range in the mid-00s, the 77L was really the only game in town. The 330 was much less capable then, and the 77Ls do have some commonality with the 77E.

This is true. The MD-11 was supposed to be the L-1011 replacement for Delta. They originally ordered 9, with an option for a further 39, which if exercised would have been roughly a one-for-one replacement. However, disappointment with the early payload/range performance of the MD-11, along with a rash of software gremlins in the avionics suite that gave the type fair-to-poor dispatch reliability, led to Delta only taking a total of 17 of these aircraft. Ironically, the aerodynamic fixes Mac made to get the MD-11 up to spec on the range/payload also made it notoriously difficult to fly in low-speed approach/landing flight modes. Still, Delta kept the MD-11's around for 13 years. The problem is that they also had to keep the L-1011's around throughout the 1990's due to the MD-11's dispatch issues.

The B77E's were bought to replace both the MD-11's and the last of the L-1011-500's. The base order was for 8, but they had purchase rights for more. However, due to issues with the pilot contract amendment to add the B77E (the pilots wanted something similar to United's B744-level hourly rates to fly the 777), and later the business collapse aftermath caused by 9/11, put future orders for the type on ice. By the mid-2000's, business recuperated and the TPAC markets were heating up, so Delta went to Boeing looking for more B777's and purchased 10 brand-new B77L's, thanks the variant's better TPAC payload/range performance from their ATL hub.

As for domestic usage of Delta's widebody fleet, the frequent appearance of the L-1011, MD-11, B767 and B777 at MCO over the years were done for longhaul tag-ends (e.g. there used to be a MCO-LAX-NRT MD-11 flight in the 90's), seasonal capacity bumps and for "showing the flag" for Delta at one of its most important and competitive destination markets. And like all big international airlines, they still do hub-to-hub runs with their big jets.

The MD-11 debacle was perhaps the undoing of Ronald W. Allen's tenure as Delta CEO. Keep in mind Delta had a VERY cozy relationship with MDD dating back into the founding Woolman era. This no doubt contributed to such a corporate gaff at the time. In an alternate history one can only wonder if Delta shouldn't have held out and gone in with United as a 777 launch customer. Boeing was sadly corrupted by the MDD culture when the latter merged with them during the late 1990's. It contributed to some serious mistakes by Boeing that have hurt them with U.S. and other flag carriers around the world. 2000-2004 Boeing should've focused on an upgraded 757neo but rather focused too much on a larger 737 with greater capacity. Now Airbus has taken that market away with the A321LR and longer haul versions. The MAX was the capstone disaster for Boeing since it's also carried over to the next-generation 777. The dysfunction at Boeing is driving the post NW-merger Delta corporate leaders increasingly to go with Airbus as we've seen with rejections of any 787 models and instead going with A330 next-generation models (A33neo, A339) and now rejecting the 777 in favor of the A350.

workhorse wrote:

ethernal wrote:

I believe the 777 seats are slightly wider than the A350 (and certainly A330) seats

I know nothing about Delta's seats, but the width available per passenger in row in a 330 is certainly bigger than in a 350. In other words, in principle, you can put better seats into a 330 compared to a 350 (and, of course, even better ones in a 9-abreast 777). Don't know if Delta actually does it though. Maybe they use the same seat across the fleet and have bigger aisles in wider cabins. A lot of airlines do just that.

(Edited: grammar and clarity)

the width available per passenger in row in a 330 is certainly bigger than in a 350 XWB. Are you sure about that??? Hint XWB stands for Extra wide bodied you know!

'In other words, in principle, you can put better seats into a 330 compared to a 350.' Er no you can't. The A350 cabin is bigger than the A330 cabin.

SLCUT2777 wrote:

The dysfunction at Boeing is driving the post NW-merger Delta corporate leaders increasingly to go with Airbus as we've seen with rejections of any 787 models and instead going with A330 next-generation models (A33neo, A339) and now rejecting the 777 in favor of the A350.

This is a very incorrect statement.

Delta considered both 787-9s and A330NEOs. A330NEOs were chosen due to delivery slot availability.

At NO POINT did Delta ever make a choice between 777s and A350s. The 777s showed up in the fleet long before the A350 was even a concept. It is a different generation of aircraft. Had there been no Covid-19 traffic downturns, the 777 fleet would have at some point been retired before the A350 anyways. They are older aircraft.

If delta converted a few of their A350 orders to A350-900ULR would this solve the problems?

That version of the 350 flys longer routs than ATL-JNB

mxaxai wrote:

nicode wrote:

So DL will have an only Airbuses widebodies fleet.

Conveniently ignoring the large 767 fleet? DL would have to give up many TATL destinations without a small widebody.

I think they may be forced to temporarily give some up and have to focus on their SkyTEAM partner hubs for other European destinations. I think UA will have to do the same.

GSP psgr wrote:

Probably a nonstarter in this environment, but do you think there might be any interest in UA's 764 fleet if they could get those frames at a rock bottom price (maybe to phase out some much older 763 frames)? Under normal circumstances, it would be a very Delta thing to pick up additional frames for an oddball fleet they already have.

I can't see UA, even in the position they are in, taking their 764 fleet and knowingly dumping them so DL can take them over.

Keith2004 wrote:

If delta converted a few of their A350 orders to A350-900ULR would this solve the problems?

That version of the 350 flys longer routs than ATL-JNB

Post #186 gave us the answer, DL says the problem is solved:



It's not clear exactly clear what 'enhancements' they are referring to (probably higher MTOW), but it is clear they feel the problem is not only solved, but solved with improved operating cost.

LightChop2Chop wrote:

My bet. with SAAs collapse, DL moves ATL JNB to JFK JNB and put a 350 on it. JFK is closer to JNB than ATL and SAA was already doing it with a 350. No reason DL couldn't.

ElroyJetson wrote:

I have heard a number of people claim the ATL-JNB route was the most profitable in DL's network. If true, I cannot image they would let that one go.

Then why not both ATL-JNB and JFK-JNB? I know this is no time for expansion, but as traffic grows - and if SAA does, indeed, recede to nothingness (or something close to that) - DL might find a golden opportunity to serve two of the biggest markets from the USA to South Africa. If, indeed, JNB is a real money-maker for DL, doing both might also help alleviate the weight restrictions that seem to be a problem going to ATL, with the shorter route to JFK picking up some of the slack.

SLCUT2777 wrote:

The MD-11 debacle was perhaps the undoing of Ronald W. Allen's tenure as Delta CEO. Keep in mind Delta had a VERY cozy relationship with MDD dating back into the founding Woolman era. This no doubt contributed to such a corporate gaff at the time. In an alternate history one can only wonder if Delta shouldn't have held out and gone in with United as a 777 launch customer.

If the MD11’s were replacements for the L1011’s, could DL have waited for the launch of the 777?

MIflyer12 wrote:

If Virgin Australia survives and maintains its JV with Delta, DL will very likely keep flying to SYD. I'm not so confident about JNB or anything in India.

I'm thinking that SYD would come back quicker if Virgin Australia doesn't make it. DL couldn't just give up on that whole area of the globe.

questions wrote:

SLCUT2777 wrote:

The MD-11 debacle was perhaps the undoing of Ronald W. Allen's tenure as Delta CEO. Keep in mind Delta had a VERY cozy relationship with MDD dating back into the founding Woolman era. This no doubt contributed to such a corporate gaff at the time. In an alternate history one can only wonder if Delta shouldn't have held out and gone in with United as a 777 launch customer.

If the MD11’s were replacements for the L1011’s, could DL have waited for the launch of the 777?

Sure, with perfect hindsight we know MD11 was worse than anticipated and 777 improved more rapidly than anticipated. But of course no one at the time knew that's how it would play out, and as written above, DL had a close relationship with McDD so were inclined to give MD-11 a go.

jbs2886 wrote:

1337Delta764 wrote:

ethernal wrote:

Spirit (and sort of jetBlue): Am I a joke to you?

Assuming Delta is still an airline as know it after this, that is highly unlikely. Delta is an opportunistic buyer and Boeing will eventually offer them a deal they can't say no to. The current 739 fleet (which Delta loves) will be around for at least 20 years. They only finished delivery on them a year or two ago.

As I said, while DL's CEO wants us to believe that they are an opportunistic buyer, actions speak more than words and I just don't buy it. It would only be a miracle if it actually happens.

Not sure why I'm responding to your conspiracy theories, especially after you suggested the SEC get involved. But to be clear, DL's CEO has *NOT* made these statements - NO ONE in the company has made these statements.

It is us fans who call Delta an opportunistic buyer. They have been with the 739, used MD-90, B717, A330NEO, and C-series (errr... A220).

But that doesn't change how the 739ER economically plays a role at Delta.

After the 777s, I expect the next departures to be certain 757 subfleets (but not all), some 767s (but not all), and the oldest A320s.

I expect many A319s to be parked, but only a few scrapped (to avoid engine overhaul costs, but engines coming from older frames near a heavy maintenance visit).

The 777s going prove their are no sacred cows.

The opportunistic buyer knows, if they track the market well, that they can buy before the competition sees the opportunity.

When the time comes, it will be an A220 vs. A32xNEO vs. MAX vs. used bid. There will be a surplus of used aircraft available for years.

So what replaces lost widebody capacity could be anything.

Lightsaber

phatfarmlines wrote:

Sad to see the 777s go. This is an easy way for DL to get out of the 3x3x3 coach configuration without PR impact.

DL was never looking to get out of the 3x3x3 configuration. If they were, they would have addressed that during the 777 refurbishment.

Pi7472000 wrote:

Nicknuzzii wrote:

enilria wrote:

Regardless of aircraft capability, just because of the decline in fleet count I expect Australia, JNB, and India won’t be back for years.

Do you think the same stands for UA’s routes?

UA has different strengths than Delta. When economy recovers SFO is a great hub to SYD. This may take a while though. I see UA returning to SYD if and when the virus gets under control. UA also has better hubs to return to India.

UA never left SYD....they have been operating passenger service on SFO-SYD this entire time with a 789. UAs also operating cargo only SYD-LAX with a 789.

UA and DL don't have a history of working well together....on anything....but desperate times right. I wonder if UA and DL might end up working out a trade 16 764s for 10 772LRs. I'm fairly certain UA will end up dumping some of their 777s but the LRs would be a good addition to replace some of the new they plan on keeping. The engines are also not an orphan type at UA as UA has the 77W in their fleet.

johns624 wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

If Virgin Australia survives and maintains its JV with Delta, DL will very likely keep flying to SYD. I'm not so confident about JNB or anything in India.

I'm thinking that SYD would come back quicker if Virgin Australia doesn't make it. DL couldn't just give up on that whole area of the globe.

I could even see DL start service to MEL and/or a second flight to SYD if VA goes under.

chonetsao wrote:

Ryefly wrote:

They should trade with American. Delta 777's for American's A330 fleet.

Hahaha! the thought came through my mind too! AA's 15 A332 and 9 A333 to part exchange DL's 18 B777-200 (8 ER and 10LR)...Could work for both airlines.

Only if AA refurbishes all the A330s before such a deal were to happen.

United1 wrote:

Pi7472000 wrote:

Nicknuzzii wrote:

Do you think the same stands for UA’s routes?

UA has different strengths than Delta. When economy recovers SFO is a great hub to SYD. This may take a while though. I see UA returning to SYD if and when the virus gets under control. UA also has better hubs to return to India.

UA never left SYD....they have been operating passenger service on SFO-SYD this entire time with a 789. UAs also operating cargo only SYD-LAX with a 789.

UA and DL don't have a history of working well together....on anything....but desperate times right. I wonder if UA and DL might end up working out a trade 16 764s for 10 772LRs. I'm fairly certain UA will end up dumping some of their 777s but the LRs would be a good addition to replace some of the new they plan on keeping. The engines are also not an orphan type at UA as UA has the 77W in their fleet.

I’m betting no one is looking to do anything but dump aircraft right now, but that makes a lot of sense as a trade. United could benefit from the added cargo they could fly with on the 200LR, and Delta loves their 764’s.

DTWLAX wrote:

phatfarmlines wrote:

Sad to see the 777s go. This is an easy way for DL to get out of the 3x3x3 coach configuration without PR impact.

DL was never looking to get out of the 3x3x3 configuration. If they were, they would have addressed that during the 777 refurbishment.

Yes, if anything, preserving the 3x3x3 was what put the final nail in the coffin for the birds. Delta's ops and finance teams might have been able to find a use for them in some capacity if they had moved to 10-abreast.

Delta configured their 772s... very luxuriously. As a passenger, I only got to fly on the refurbed 777s once but it was great and I loved it. Unfortunately when you compare Delta's 772 configured with only 288 seats, the economics of a 296 seat A350 is far superior. Delta has 8 more seats on a plane that weighs 15,000 pounds less empty with better aero and an engine at least half a generation more advanced than the 777... the math becomes pretty simple on operating economics there. The ex-capital cost CASM of the A350 is easily 25-30% less than the 777 (considering capital costs/depreciation starts to balance things a bit more). With 10-abreast and maybe a few less C+ seats, you could easily cram another 30 seats in there which starts to balance the equation a bit more.

How much cargo was Delta carrying on LAX-SYD or JNB-ATL?

inkjet7 wrote:

I wonder if AF/KL will also retire their 777-200's..

No way. Unlike DL, AF/KL have way more 772s.

MSPNWA wrote:

We can't forget that the only viable alternative for some 772 routes in the DL fleet is the currently smaller A359 fleet. The A339 can cover a few more, but combined with the A359 that fleet is currently only the same size as the 777 fleet. In order to truly replace the 777 fleet and retain the long-haul markets that the 777 was used for now and potentially in the future, it means DL will have to acquire that aircraft in the coming years. Talk about using working capital in a suspect manner.

In the short term there will absolutely be network cuts, but there's plenty of fat to trim even if DL doesn't want to eliminate too many destinations. MSP-AMS, DTW-AMS, and ATL-AMS are all 3x-4x daily in the summer. SEA-AMS, DTW-CDG, ATL-CDG, JFK-CDG, JFK-AMS, JFK-ATH, JFK-TLV, BOS-CDG, and BOS-AMS were all scheduled to be 2x daily this summer, with many of them seeing additional frequencies on AF/KL. I'd say there are easily 10+ frequencies that could be cut from that group of flights, with no route drops and little overall affect on the network, if DL so chooses.

Making some cuts from the above routes and maybe rearranging aircraft types on a few other TATL routes could free up enough of the newest batch of 10 HGW A330-300s to cover for the majority of 77E flying (the only 77E route those 333s might not be able to cover is ATL-HND, which I'd expect to go to the 359). That leaves the 77L routes, which would need to be cut or replaced with 359s. I think ATL-PVG will be cut. DL probably doesn't need to send their own metal on ATL-ICN either, and could move that frame to cover LAX-PVG or something. The 359s that were slated to serve MSP-AMS, DTW-AMS (x2), and ATL-AMS could be repurposed to cover 77L flying. I think there are many possibilities, and I expect DL network planners have the requisite creativity to think of them too.

As things start to recover over the coming years, DL will still be slated to receive 24 A350s, which should allow for plenty of re-expansion into gaps where routes need to be dropped temporarily.

I see a number of poster's repetitively commenting on the loss of the 77L from JNB and being replaced by a A350 is not going to work. As a previous poster mentioned there is a paper MTOW increase on the A350 that DL could exercise if they're willing to pay Airbus, as it's not a structural issue; problem solved?

AC is another operator of the 77L with only six units, should be interesting to see if they meet the same fate.They, like DL have them primarily for two routes, YVR - SYD and YYZ - HKG. Both AC and DL on their two extreme routes would be giving up overall payload for efficiency.

Luftymatt wrote:

the width available per passenger in row in a 330 is certainly bigger than in a 350 XWB. Are you sure about that??? Hint XWB stands for Extra wide bodied you know!

'In other words, in principle, you can put better seats into a 330 compared to a 350.' Er no you can't. The A350 cabin is bigger than the A330 cabin.

Are you sure about your statement?
A330 has 8 seats in a row in economy, while the A350 has 9 seats in a row.

CX747 wrote:

Tough call but international flying is going to be smaller and the 777s are older and easier to retire.

Wonder if this assists the 777P2F program? Whole bunch of 777s now available and not a lot of demand on the pax side.

they will get used and probably by another pax carrier which might include Iran. They'll have to buy parts on the secondary market as Trump will notvalow Boeing to supply them. Looks like Delta will be going all Airbus for Long Haul. It should be interesting.

ethernal wrote:

DTWLAX wrote:

phatfarmlines wrote:

Sad to see the 777s go. This is an easy way for DL to get out of the 3x3x3 coach configuration without PR impact.

DL was never looking to get out of the 3x3x3 configuration. If they were, they would have addressed that during the 777 refurbishment.

Yes, if anything, preserving the 3x3x3 was what put the final nail in the coffin for the birds. Delta's ops and finance teams might have been able to find a use for them in some capacity if they had moved to 10-abreast.

Delta configured their 772s... very luxuriously. As a passenger, I only got to fly on the refurbed 777s once but it was great and I loved it. Unfortunately when you compare Delta's 772 configured with only 288 seats, the economics of a 296 seat A350 is far superior. Delta has 8 more seats on a plane that weighs 15,000 pounds less empty with better aero and an engine at least half a generation more advanced than the 777... the math becomes pretty simple on operating economics there. The ex-capital cost CASM of the A350 is easily 25-30% less than the 777 (considering capital costs/depreciation starts to balance things a bit more). With 10-abreast and maybe a few less C+ seats, you could easily cram another 30 seats in there which starts to balance the equation a bit more.
That's a Fancy way of saying Nothing!!
Delta configured their airplanes the way they did even though they could have added more seats, Why they did it? Obviously their Marketing strategy had them doing that and Delta rarely follows any other marketing strategy. Delta has been making money so obviously? It works. Would I follow their Plan? Probably Not. But? if they make it work? who can fault them? They should get a pretty penny for those 777's but do not be surprised when they see them at their door in new colors.

is it possible for them to "grab" the seats and other detachable cabin features from these 777's. I'm asking this because the 777s were recently refurbished in all classes. Could they shift all these seats from the 777s into the future A350's? If so, it would save them a decent amount of $$.

At least, economy class has the same 9-abreast configuration on their A350s.

Nicknuzzii wrote:

Does the A350 have the legs to cover the 777?

We'll soon find out won't we?

acavpics wrote:

is it possible for them to "grab" the seats and other detachable cabin features from these 777's. I'm asking this because the 777s were recently refurbished in all classes. Could they shift all these seats from the 777s into the future A350's? If so, it would save them a decent amount of $$.

At least, economy class has the same 9-abreast configuration on their A350s.

How would they market them with no seats? If they're leased? they couldn't even return them. That's just money delta is going to have tp EAT!

I know this is very out there thinking and has no facts to it but does anyone think Delta and American could have struck a deal in regards to Delta 777s and American 330s? Logically it would allow both to park current airplanes but as demand returns they could bring those airplanes out of storage configure them and both carriers would accomplish a fleet simplification goal since American fly's a small 330 fleet and big 777 fleet and the opposite for Delta.

strfyr51 wrote:

acavpics wrote:

is it possible for them to "grab" the seats and other detachable cabin features from these 777's. I'm asking this because the 777s were recently refurbished in all classes. Could they shift all these seats from the 777s into the future A350's? If so, it would save them a decent amount of $$.

At least, economy class has the same 9-abreast configuration on their A350s.

How would they market them with no seats? If they're leased? they couldn't even return them. That's just money delta is going to have tp EAT!

Market what? The 777's that they just retired?

I was asking if DL could take the seats out of these 777's (before they are scrapped) and putting them in some of the to-be-delivered A350's. DL wouldn't have to buy brand new seats for these A350's, meaning that they could save some money.

I don't see them marketing the -200ER's for sure. Those are approaching 20 y/o and I doubt that anyone would want to buy them. However, the ER's still have the new seats, which means that the airline could take the seats from those 8 772's and put them in 8 A350's.

MSPNWA wrote:

WidebodyPTV wrote:

My best guess is that DL believes that freight companies will readily acquire the 77L for their peak resale price. They ran the numbers and the conclusion was to cash out now and add newer more efficient aircraft later, rather than paying to park the aircraft. Storing the fleet for years when there's already more efficient aircraft available now just doesn't make a lot of financial sense.

However there currently isn't a 772/L conversion program and may never be one. And with a likely glut of passenger airplanes soon becoming available, it's not like they will have to pay top dollar for planes or especially new conversion programs.

What doesn't make financial sense is permanently retiring 10-12 year-old airplanes with new interiors if the point to have to replaced them with expensive new aircraft when cash reserves are at a low point. That's why I think what will happen instead is DL is looking at a long-term shift in the amount of very long-haul flying they operate.

For whatever reason? Delta has been risk averse to long haul flying, They even got into other airlines long haul flying. After United picked up the Pan-Am Pacific division, Delta tried to block it and claim they had a right to some of those routes, they then went and bought Pan-Am's south American division. Delta has made money for sure, But their Aversion to risk? Baffles me.

Luftymatt wrote:

the width available per passenger in row in a 330 is certainly bigger than in a 350 XWB. Are you sure about that??? Hint XWB stands for Extra wide bodied you know!

'In other words, in principle, you can put better seats into a 330 compared to a 350.' Er no you can't. The A350 cabin is bigger than the A330 cabin.

Max. cabin width of A330 = 5.26m
Passengers each row = 8
Width available per passenger in a row = 0.66m

Max. cabin width of A350XWB = 5.61m
Passengers each row = 9
Width available per passenger in a row = 0.62m

Hint XWB stands for Extra Wide Body, and not Extra Wide Seats.
So the poster is correct when he says width available per passenger in a row in a A330 is bigger than in a A350XWB.

Triple7Lr wrote:

MrBren wrote:

That's excellent news. 777s are too noisy and too thirsty.

To Noisy?? They sound beautiful

IMHO the B777 [all models] are very noise in the passenger cabin and the roughest riders through the ITC of any wide body and worse even than the DC-8!

Gemuser

FlyGuyNash wrote:

I know this is very out there thinking and has no facts to it but does anyone think Delta and American could have struck a deal in regards to Delta 777s and American 330s? Logically it would allow both to park current airplanes but as demand returns they could bring those airplanes out of storage configure them and both carriers would accomplish a fleet simplification goal since American fly's a small 330 fleet and big 777 fleet and the opposite for Delta.

There has been some widespread speculation about that. Nothing certain as of now. It would be nice to see some Trent 700 powered A330's in DL livery.

acavpics wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

acavpics wrote:

is it possible for them to "grab" the seats and other detachable cabin features from these 777's. I'm asking this because the 777s were recently refurbished in all classes. Could they shift all these seats from the 777s into the future A350's? If so, it would save them a decent amount of $$.

At least, economy class has the same 9-abreast configuration on their A350s.

How would they market them with no seats? If they're leased? they couldn't even return them. That's just money delta is going to have tp EAT!

Market what? The 777's that they just retired?

I was asking if DL could take the seats out of these 777's (before they are scrapped) and putting them in some of the to-be-delivered A350's. DL wouldn't have to buy brand new seats for these A350's, meaning that they could save some money.

I don't see them marketing the -200ER's for sure. Those are approaching 20 y/o and I doubt that anyone would want to buy them. However, the ER's still have the new seats, which means that the airline could take the seats from those 8 772's and put them in 8 A350's.

DL is retiring the aircraft from their fleet. It does not mean it is the end of the aircraft life. DL can still sell the aircraft if there is a buyer (even if the possibility of a buyer in the near future is remote). And if there is a buyer, why will they buy an aircraft with no seats?

MSPNWA wrote:

winginit wrote:

Has any airline expressed the desire to retain what had been their standard long-haul markets pre-covid? That's a pipe dream, and should most certainly not be the expectation anywhere. DL has 26 359s and 32 339s on order, which is more than enough to cover various iterations of a long-haul network anytime in the next several years.

But yes, understood that that flies in the face of the "wait wait wait don't compliment Delta on their low debt levels Delta is actually gonna have comparable debt to AA and UA because they need to place a big widebody order" narrative that you've been chirping

Different obstacles. We have the shorter-term Coronavirus collapse and expected slow recovery, and no airline is coming out of this the same size. But the decision DL made with the 777s is roughly for the next decade. This causes a long-term shift in their network unless they spend the money (when they have the least to spend) to acquire the aircraft (presumably new, such as what they have on order) to return or expand their long-haul network to pre-crisis levels. There's major consequences to the news today. And if that's their plan, fine, there's nothing wrong with not having long-haul be a significant portion of the network. But that is the situation they are putting themselves in with decisions made years ago and up to today. It's not a narrative. It's the reality that it appears some fail to accept without making it personal and spreading falsehoods about that person. We can have an honest and respectful debate here, right?

He has a point though every Delta thread you are negative. As if you can or do make better decisions than their fleet planners. Obviously this was delta plan to replace 777 with 359 (with 39 total in fleet or on order). Whose to say they can’t sell them now get the cash then finance the 359s when needed?

DTWLAX wrote:

Luftymatt wrote:

the width available per passenger in row in a 330 is certainly bigger than in a 350 XWB. Are you sure about that??? Hint XWB stands for Extra wide bodied you know!

'In other words, in principle, you can put better seats into a 330 compared to a 350.' Er no you can't. The A350 cabin is bigger than the A330 cabin.

Max. cabin width of A330 = 5.26M
Passengers each row = 8
Width available per passenger in a row = 0.66m

Max. cabin width of A350XWB = 5.61m
Passengers each row = 9
Width available per passenger in a row = 0.62m

Hint XWB stands for Extra Wide Body, and not Extra Wide Seats.
So the poster is correct when he says width available per passenger in a row in a A330 is bigger than in a A350XWB.

Just for clarification / context... my comment was about D1 seats which would be 4 abreast regardless of the plane. The D1 seats on the A330 are noticeably more narrow than on the A350/777.

The new D-1 suites in A350 and B777 are slightly different, where the 777 suites have extra plugs. Not sure if the width is different between the two. If the size is the same and the extra plug does not cause a problem for A350s (voltage concerns?) I don't see why DL would not take those seats from 777 and ship them to Airbus to install them on new A350s.

The more I think about it, DL is just smart... No wondering they're the most profitable out of the 3 legacy carriers. DL is using this "opportunity" to simplify their fleet, where their long-haul fleet will be the newest out of the US3 after this pandemic is over with. Right now, UA and AA are not flying their 777s much and are paying $$$ for maintenance and storage for those birds. We do not know when all of these 777s will be needed again... maybe 3, 4, even 5 years from now will international, long-haul travel will return to pre-COVID levels where the 777 kind performance will be needed, which means those 777s will be that many years older while AA and UA have to pay for storage/maintenance on them.

Let's assume long haul international travel returns to pre-COVID levels in 2025, where all of the UA/AA 777s are utilized again, DL would have the youngest, most efficient planes out of the US3 for long haul routes (Assuming they continue to receive A339/A350s). By then, 777's numbers, no matter how great they are, will not be able to compete on a 1-1 basis with A339 and A350. Given DL's past record with smart/shrewd purchases, I would not be surprised if DL approach Boing for a few rock bottom 788/789s, along with 737 Maxes if they can really stop the cash burn rate by end of 2020.

For ATL-JNB - remember, DL might not need to carry the same amount of passenger/cargo as 77L to make the same amount of profit per flight, due to better economics of A350. If DL made $15K of profit per round trip between ATL-JNB with a full 77L, they might make the same $15K with A350, even if restrictions on JNB-ATL leg. So, for DL, no loss there.

ethernal wrote:

Just for clarification / context... my comment was about D1 seats which would be 4 abreast regardless of the plane. The D1 seats on the A330 are noticeably more narrow than on the A350/777.

I think Luftymatt's post was in response to Workhorse's comment since he quoted him and not you.
I agree D1 seats on the A330 will be narrower and feel tighter (even if the seat is the same) than on a A350. But the older A330s do not have the D1 Suites either that are on the A350 and the B777.

DTWLAX wrote:

acavpics wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

How would they market them with no seats? If they're leased? they couldn't even return them. That's just money delta is going to have tp EAT!

Market what? The 777's that they just retired?

I was asking if DL could take the seats out of these 777's (before they are scrapped) and putting them in some of the to-be-delivered A350's. DL wouldn't have to buy brand new seats for these A350's, meaning that they could save some money.

I don't see them marketing the -200ER's for sure. Those are approaching 20 y/o and I doubt that anyone would want to buy them. However, the ER's still have the new seats, which means that the airline could take the seats from those 8 772's and put them in 8 A350's.

DL is retiring the aircraft from their fleet. It does not mean it is the end of the aircraft life. DL can still sell the aircraft if there is a buyer (even if the possibility of a buyer in the near future is remote). And if there is a buyer, why will they buy an aircraft with no seats?

Because the new owner of those planes would probably retrofit the 77E/77Ls with their own seats?

flyinghippo wrote:

DTWLAX wrote:

acavpics wrote:

Market what? The 777's that they just retired?

I was asking if DL could take the seats out of these 777's (before they are scrapped) and putting them in some of the to-be-delivered A350's. DL wouldn't have to buy brand new seats for these A350's, meaning that they could save some money.

I don't see them marketing the -200ER's for sure. Those are approaching 20 y/o and I doubt that anyone would want to buy them. However, the ER's still have the new seats, which means that the airline could take the seats from those 8 772's and put them in 8 A350's.

DL is retiring the aircraft from their fleet. It does not mean it is the end of the aircraft life. DL can still sell the aircraft if there is a buyer (even if the possibility of a buyer in the near future is remote). And if there is a buyer, why will they buy an aircraft with no seats?

Because the new owner of those planes would probably retrofit the 77E/77Ls with their own seats?

Realistically the new owner of the ex-DL 777s is likely to be Coke.