Delta's upcoming order for wide-bodies

[jcw]

So a DL 333 can fly any route almost possible but a US 333 can't

 

[WorldTraveler]

I didn't say anything about US' 333s.

and I don't know what they can or can't do. they are still very low CASM aircraft - that isn't an option that one carrier can select but others can't. and it is the reason why Airbus has been as successful with the A330 family. it is a capable aircraft that is light compared to its competitors, including the 777.

DL's latest batch of 333s are the highest weight versions available. They are capable of flying 13+ hour flights which will make them capable of flying large chunks of the Pacific. The only DL current route from SEA that is in the air consistently longer than 13 hours is SEA-HKG. Many of DL's NRT flights are not in the air for that long.

I love the 777 but DL is not going to buy a bunch of 777s to do routes that lighter, lower cost aircraft can fly.

DL will buy 777s to fly the 25-30% of routes that the 330 can't do.

 

[yoyodyne]

Airbii don't fly thru the sky, they ungracefully slosh thru the air...

 

[737823]

So a DL 333 can fly any route almost possible but a US 333 can't

The US 333s are early builds and lack the same range as the DL/NW 333s some of which are 2007 builds.

Josh

 

[700UW]

US did an upgrade on them all when they cycled through HMV, upgraded landing gear and PIP improvements.

 

[yoyodyne]

US did an upgrade on them all when they cycled through HMV, upgraded landing gear and PIP improvements.

 
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it still remains a pig...

 

[Kev3188]

Just like clockwork...  

 

[737823]

The A330s were the only adequate aircraft in NWs fleet the rest were tired, worn and dumpy. Even their "modern" 319/320s were (and remain) in terrible condition along with the 757s.

Josh

 

[WorldTraveler]

The A330s were the only adequate aircraft in NWs fleet the rest were tired, worn and dumpy. Even their "modern" 319/320s were (and remain) in terrible condition along with the 757s.

Josh

don't worry, Josh.

DL is fixing up the 319s and 320s as fast as they can.

the last one I was on was indeed in need of some major TLC.

and since I flew on NW A319s/320s very soon after the merger was announced, I know what shape they were in when DL inherited them. I've been on worse and I've been on better at the point that DL took them over.

all aircraft need regular maintenance. NW just took a much more stripped down approach to transportation... not unlike US.

and whether someone here likes Airbus aircraft or not, DL has found the current versions, like NW did, to be very capable aircraft. DL dumped a fleet of Airbus aircraft before. They've got several dozen due for delivery over the next few years.

just curious, dyne, what DL Airbus aircraft do you regularly work?

 

[yoyodyne]

don't worry, Josh.

DL is fixing up the 319s and 320s as fast as they can.

the last one I was on was indeed in need of some major TLC.

and since I flew on NW A319s/320s very soon after the merger was announced, I know what shape they were in when DL inherited them. I've been on worse and I've been on better at the point that DL took them over.

all aircraft need regular maintenance. NW just took a much more stripped down approach to transportation... not unlike US.

and whether someone here likes Airbus aircraft or not, DL has found the current versions, like NW did, to be very capable aircraft. DL dumped a fleet of Airbus aircraft before. They've got several dozen due for delivery over the next few years.

just curious, dyne, what DL Airbus aircraft do you regularly work?

 
 

 
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it still remains a pig...

 

[topDawg]

funny how for years DL's route network WAS predominantly NRT focused - that's what they bought from NW - and yet the 333 can fly from every one of DL's US gateways except for ATL and perhaps JFK (it might even be able to do that route too).

It can't fly JFK-NRT (at least not full) 

DTW-Japan is about as far as it can do. Maybe, big maybe, DTW-ICN. 

the 333 is a TPAC airplane just as the 767 is. both are capable of doing at least some of the Pacific. The 772ER can also do SOME of the Pacific but not even all of it. Who are you to say that MSP-PVG is a sufficient enough route to be called a TPAC route because a 772ER can do it but yet a 772ER can't do ATL-BKK?

lets be a little clear. first only the 242t aircraft is really a some what TPAC airplane. The other 333s in Delta's fleet are basically limited to SEA-NRT and thats it. the Pratt powered 333s can't even do LAX-NRT with a full load. 
 
and if you call an airplane with 6,000nms of range that can basically only do Japan flying a true TPAC airplane then cool for you. I have a feeling your only doing it because Delta ordered them, if AA had them on order all we would be hearing about is the limited range of the bird. 
 
Putting a burning widget on the tail of an airplane doesn't make it some super plane. You saying a 767 can do EWR-HKG shows that your knowledge about aircraft and range are very limited.  
 

and as much as you don't want to admit it, the 333 will be part of DL's TPAC network because it is the lowest CASM widebody available. when you factor in its lower acquisition price compared to the 787 and 350, the 333 is a clear advantage that DL will have in the market that other carriers will not.

huh? Your putting words in my mouth. I couldn't give a rats behind what airplane does what as long as its a mainline airplane doing it. I am simply pointing out that the 242t 333 is basically a Japan airplane. Highly likely that you see it go to LAX/MSP/DTW-NRT so the 777 can take DTW-ICN/PVG back over to park the 744. 
 

and lest you wonder why the DL-AF-KL is so profitable, you might want to consider the multiple 333 flights that operate across the Atlantic with a CASM that is lower than any other aircraft... and the 764 is next in line. the 333 and 764 form a large portion of DL's TATL flying.

cool story bro. 
 

the lesson for how well a low CASM aircraft can transform the market is not lost on DL as it restructures its TPAC network and refleets based on the revised network.

............................................ Do you just like posting for posting? 
 

So a DL 333 can fly any route almost possible but a US 333 can't

the majority of Delta's 333 fleet is the same as the US 333 fleet. SEA-NRT and Europe is about it for them. 
 

US did an upgrade on them all when they cycled through HMV, upgraded landing gear and PIP improvements.

Still not getting them to 242t MTOW. 
 
and they still have Pratts on the wings.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I specifically have noted that the 333s are US-Japan aircraft. Given that the 744 can't even do routes across the Pacific that the 772ER or 772LR can do, does that mean the 744 isn't a true Pacific aircraft?

The high gross weight 333 is enough aircraft for DL to use to replace 744s on a number of US-Japan routes. I would agree that LAX, MSP, and DTW are the most likely possibilities. and I completely agree that the current 333s aren't 12 plus hour aircraft which is why DL took off the separate crew beds but left them on the 332s which still do not have the range that a HGW 332 could have. Given that the 332 either CEO or NEO is the smallest aircraft available that can replace 767-300ERs other than the 787-8 which DL has said is too expensive, the chances are real high that will order more 330s unless Boeing is willing to dramatically reduce prices for 787s.

The HGW 333 is also capable of flying LAX and MSP-ICN and SEA to China and TPE. Given that there will only be 10 of them unless DL orders more as part of this RFP, they have the potential to cover significant portions of DL's TPAC network.

and whether you find it funny or not, the 333 has the ability to make parts of DL's US-Japan network viable at current yields where they won't work with 744s or 772s.

of course if low fuel prices remain thru next summer, the economics of the 744s look a whole lot better than they did this past summer.

 

[topDawg]

I specifically have noted that the 333s are US-Japan aircraft. Given that the 744 can't even do routes across the Pacific that the 772ER or 772LR can do, does that mean the 744 isn't a true Pacific aircraft?

huh? Stop WT, just stop. 
 
UA has, and they have pretty heavy 744s compared to the DL 744s (but the DL 744s have slightly lower MTOW), ran JFK-HKG with the 744. 
 
so what realistic TPAC route can a 77E do that a 744 can't?
 
 
and no nothing compares to the LR.  
 

The high gross weight 333 is enough aircraft for DL to use to replace 744s on a number of US-Japan routes. I would agree that LAX, MSP, and DTW are the most likely possibilities. and I completely agree that the current 333s aren't 12 plus hour aircraft which is why DL took off the separate crew beds but left them on the 332s which still do not have the range that a HGW 332 could have.

which is what I am saying. It is a Japan airplane. Limited China. 
 
I call a true TPAC airplane one that can hit places like HKG from the US. The 332 can do so (just so from SEA but still). The 333, 242t or not, would be swimming. 
 

Given that the 332 either CEO or NEO is the smallest aircraft available that can replace 767-300ERs other than the 787-8 which DL has said is too expensive, the chances are real high that will order more 330s unless Boeing is willing to dramatically reduce prices for 787s.

I'm willing to take that bet. 
unless something changes it will be a mix order of 787-9s and A350-9s. No 777s. No 330, ceo or neo. 
 

The HGW 333 is also capable of flying LAX and MSP-ICN and

LAX-ICN yes, MSP is pushing it but possibly.  
 

SEA to China

PEK? yes
PVG? yes
CAN? not full. 
HKG? not full. 

 

Given that there will only be 10 of them unless DL orders more as part of this RFP, they have the potential to cover significant portions of DL's TPAC network.

Of the current network (minus Japan-Asia/Hawaii) the 242t can handle they can handle around 10 or so routes.
 
when Japan is taken out of that it drops down to 3 routes.
 
 
and when you look at where Delta will likely expand your only talking about 2 maybe 3 routes out of many the 242t 333 can do.  
 

and whether you find it funny or not, the 333 has the ability to make parts of DL's US-Japan network viable at current yields where they won't work with 744s or 772s.

So now your saying the routes operated on 777 and 744s to Japan aren't profitable? 
 
 

of course if low fuel prices remain thru next summer, the economics of the 744s look a whole lot better than they did this past summer.

 
not really. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

UA takes payload restrictions on ORD-HKG and they took even larger ones on the 744.

the 763ER could fly JFK-Asia if you were willing to payload restrict it enough.

YOU can just stop with your attempts to disqualify the 333 as a TPAC aircraft. I never tried to say it could fly the entire Pacific. I said from the beginning it was an aircraft that is capable of replacing the 744 on many of the routes where DL - not UA's 744s - are used - and not even what they could do.

DL doesn't fly SEA-CAN; it does fly SEA-PEK and PVG. the 333s could do both but realistically PVG is most likely if DL decides to upgrade.

only you came to the conclusion that I said the 744 and 777s aren't profitable but given the 333 burns almost half the fuel of a 744 and 25% less than the 777 while carrying about the same number of passengers, the 333 will have a profit advantage esp given that Airbus undoubtedly sold them at pretty low prices.

and yes lower fuel prices improve the economics of the industry for all aircraft types and for all airlines. The only reason why low fuel prices become a bad thing is if they indicate that the global economy is falling apart.

given that low fuel prices now are being caused by producers trying to push others out of business, then low fuel prices are and will be a good thing for all airlines.

the only downside of sustained low fuel prices is that the increased cost of replacing older aircraft or even winglets have a much longer ROI compared to older aircraft

 

[topDawg]

UA takes payload restrictions on ORD-HKG and they took even larger ones on the 744.

the 763ER could fly JFK-Asia if you were willing to payload restrict it enough.

YOU can just stop with your attempts to disqualify the 333 as a TPAC aircraft. I never tried to say it could fly the entire Pacific. I said from the beginning it was an aircraft that is capable of replacing the 744 on many of the routes where DL - not UA's 744s - are used - and not even what they could do.

DL doesn't fly SEA-CAN; it does fly SEA-PEK and PVG. the 333s could do both but realistically PVG is most likely if DL decides to upgrade.

only you came to the conclusion that I said the 744 and 777s aren't profitable but given the 333 burns almost half the fuel of a 744 and 25% less than the 777 while carrying about the same number of passengers, the 333 will have a profit advantage esp given that Airbus undoubtedly sold them at pretty low prices.

and yes lower fuel prices improve the economics of the industry for all aircraft types and for all airlines. The only reason why low fuel prices become a bad thing is if they indicate that the global economy is falling apart.

given that low fuel prices now are being caused by producers trying to push others out of business, then low fuel prices are and will be a good thing for all airlines.

the only downside of sustained low fuel prices is that the increased cost of replacing older aircraft or even winglets have a much longer ROI compared to older aircraft

..........no it can't. I mean maybe if you want to put in a BBJ config, but in the real world you can restrict it enough to get 1500nms of extra range. 
 
and do you have proof United took restrictions?
 
the rest of your post is dribble I don't feel the need to go over again. Its painfully clearly your talking just to talk.