Rumor has it DL PHL-LHR

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

is AA's 757 subpar too?

 
I think the answer to this question is the same for a DL 757 as well as an AA 757 - and that answer would be 'it depends'.  If you're sitting in 2A then the 757 on PHL-LHR, be it AA or DL, is not subpar.  However the answer will be definitely different if you're sitting in 28A.
 
 

the reason why DL is doing it on AMS-BOM is not market driven but because of security/regulatory restrictions.

 
It may have been pointed out before, but NW operated the route for years.  Were they stupid?
You're spinning out of control on this topic.
 
 

as for DTW, I can tell you that DTW as an airport has managed to grow and increase int'l service despite the downturn in the city of Detroit.

I don't know where you live, but Detroit is typical of a lot of northern cities and atypical of the south.

The city of Detroit is a smaller part of the total Detroit region compared than cities in the south are.

DL has consistently kept DTW's capacity and revenues in line with its other hubs. Further, while the real estate market in DTW has collapsed, how many of the people who are affected were airline customers to begin with? how many companies have totally left Michigan and how many new jobs have been created elsewhere to balance out cuts in the city of Detroit?

and as a reminder, DTW is not owned or operated by the City of Detroit.

DTW as an airport is a lot less affected by the problems with the city of Detroit as you and others think.

 
The Oct. 2014 unemployment rate for MI is 7.1% compared to 5.8% for the USA.  You're kidding yourself by stating that DTW is not affected by the economy of the city of Detroit, the surrounding counties and the state of Michigan. When was the last time you stepped out of the McNamara terminal?  Granted there are some affluent counties around DTW (Oakland, Livingston, Washtenaw), but at the same time you're underestimating the role that the auto industry and Detroit play in the economy of MI.

 

[eolesen]

I have noted many times what AA has done well and I don't mind admitting what DL has done wrong...

I must have missed those posts.

 

[WorldTraveler]

frugal,
there is nothing different between a 3-3 coach configuration in coach on a 757 vs. a 3-3-3 on a 777.

DL's int'l 757s have the same amenities as their widebodies. Note that AA's additional LHR-PHL flight will be operated by US which is most certainly a "lesser" plane than DL's int'l 757s.

yes, I like a bigger widebody aircraft but a 757 is a decent enough aircraft.

I am truly not sure why you can't grasp the concept that the shootdown of MH over the Ukraine changed a whole lot of thinking about where it is safe to operate in war zones. ICAO did not ban Ukraine overflights at the time MH was shot down. US carriers did not overfly that part of Ukraine but ICAO allowed it - until the MH incident.

DL overflew Iran and Ukraine for years. It isn't a NW thing.

It all changed when MH was shot down.

The no-fly zones have increased dramatically in the past six months.

if you don't understand words, the links I posted from flightaware comparing AF's route from BOM to CDG vs. DL's BOM to AMS should make it very clear.

I can't help you if you can't look at those two routes, know even a little bit about geography and global affairs, and understand the problem.

perhaps the problem is that you, like a lot of Americans don't know geography or world events.

I dunno.

DL's flight control people understand the need to add an hour of flying time... and marketing says "we can't compete if it takes us an hour longer than European carriers"

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

frugal,
there is nothing different between a 3-3 coach configuration in coach on a 757 vs. a 3-3-3 on a 777.

DL's int'l 757s have the same amenities as their widebodies. Note that AA's additional LHR-PHL flight will be operated by US which is most certainly a "lesser" plane than DL's int'l 757s.

yes, I like a bigger widebody aircraft but a 757 is a decent enough aircraft.
 

 
You're not correct. 
The seats on the 767s are 17.9 x 31-32 inches
The seats on the 777s are 18.5 x 31-32 inches
The seats on the 757s are 17.2 x 31-32 inches
These are the numbers straight off the DL www site.
 
Yes, it is a minor difference, but a difference nevertheless. 
 
And I'm aware the 757 is capable of flying the PHL-LHR route (with respect to range).  And I'm aware that AA, DL and UA utilize them over the Atlantic.  In my opinion the 757 is not intended to be flow across the Atlantic.  It's analogous to towing a trailer with a Ford Mustang - it can be done, but it just doesn't feel / look right.  I think there is something 'psychological' about flying a narrow body vs a wide body over the Atlantic.  Up front, there may not be a difference, but I assure you that is not the case back in coach. 

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

I am truly not sure why you can't grasp the concept that the shootdown of MH over the Ukraine changed a whole lot of thinking about where it is safe to operate in war zones. ICAO did not ban Ukraine overflights at the time MH was shot down. US carriers did not overfly that part of Ukraine but ICAO allowed it - until the MH incident.

DL overflew Iran and Ukraine for years. It isn't a NW thing.

It all changed when MH was shot down.

The no-fly zones have increased dramatically in the past six months.

if you don't understand words, the links I posted from flightaware comparing AF's route from BOM to CDG vs. DL's BOM to AMS should make it very clear.

I can't help you if you can't look at those two routes, know even a little bit about geography and global affairs, and understand the problem.

perhaps the problem is that you, like a lot of Americans don't know geography or world events.

I dunno.

DL's flight control people understand the need to add an hour of flying time... and marketing says "we can't compete if it takes us an hour longer than European carriers"

 
I believe MH was shot down sometime in the summer (July?)?
So it took DL this long to figure out, as you allege, that now all of a sudden the added flight times due to geography make the flight uncompetitive?
I'm sorry but your narrative just doesn't pass the smell test.
 
Spin away!

 

[WorldTraveler]

first, do some research and you will find out that the Iran no-fly zone did not exist until after MH was shot down.

second, yes, DL has maintained service even while trying to adjust the schedule to maintain a competitive schedule. the schedule was for 590 minutes from BOM to AMS - just under 10 hours in Sept. compared to 570 minutes in July. For November, it is 650 minutes - an increase of 80 minutes over the summer figure. For November 2013, it was 2013. For this November, AF schedules 600 minutes - 10 hours - for BOM-CDG compared to 575 minutes for July 2014.

You can argue the point all day long but nearly an hour longer flight time by DL compared AFTER all of the no fly zones were implemented and the charts to show that DL cannot fly the same direct route that AF does should be obvious...

but there will always be those who will argue the truth despite the fact that it is staring them in the face.

that is what this board is all about, right?


 

You're not correct. 
The seats on the 767s are 17.9 x 31-32 inches
The seats on the 777s are 18.5 x 31-32 inches
The seats on the 757s are 17.2 x 31-32 inches
These are the numbers straight off the DL www site.
 
Yes, it is a minor difference, but a difference nevertheless. 
 
And I'm aware the 757 is capable of flying the PHL-LHR route (with respect to range).  And I'm aware that AA, DL and UA utilize them over the Atlantic.  In my opinion the 757 is not intended to be flow across the Atlantic.  It's analogous to towing a trailer with a Ford Mustang - it can be done, but it just doesn't feel / look right.  I think there is something 'psychological' about flying a narrow body vs a wide body over the Atlantic.  Up front, there may not be a difference, but I assure you that is not the case back in coach.

you can make the case that the 757 is not a suitable longhaul aircraft but the argument goes up in smoke when you compare seat width for DL's 757s to AA's 773ERs. can you tell us the width for those seats?

it is also noteworthy - and I have no idea whether it was part of DL's decision - but DL has so far not chosen to equip its 777s with 10 abreast seating and the A350 can support 9 abreast seating with an 18 inch seat while to do that on the 787 requires reducing seat width to below what the 350 will provide.

 

[jcw]

Translation:
 
I can't point out anything negative about DL - so now I have moved to asking questions - "can you tell us the width for those seats?"  See when I get confronted with facts I have to change the subject and the new method I just learned is "asking questions" - since I won't answer questions posted by others

 

[WorldTraveler]

you really need to spend time learning basic reading and critical thinking.

I haven't read a single one of your "translations" that even closely resembles what is being said in the conversation.

in case you missed it, Einstein, someone posted that a 757 is a subpar aircraft for longhaul flights based on seat width but somehow managed to forget that AA's 777-300ER fleet has the narrowest seats in standard economy of any US carrier fleet and AA's 772ERs are all being converted to the same 10 abreast configuration.

anyone including you that can't realize that HIS argument blew up in his face.

the 757 is good for 9 flights and not much more. The 777 can stay in the air for 16 hours or more... check the flight time for AA's DFW-HKG flight and tell me what fleet with what airline is a subpar product if you are stuck in coach.

either seat width doesn't matter after all or AA has made a decision that neither DL or UA have to install the narrowest seats on a major portion of their long haul fleet. How many 777s -200ERs and 300ERs - does AA have in its fleet anyway?

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

I'm not even sure where to begin to un-wind the dear pastor Judas' sermon:
 

in case you missed it, Einstein, someone posted that a 757 is a subpar aircraft for longhaul flights based on seat width but somehow managed to forget that AA's 777-300ER fleet has the narrowest seats in standard economy of any US carrier fleet and AA's 772ERs are all being converted to the same 10 abreast configuration.

anyone including you that can't realize that HIS argument blew up in his face.
 

 
Yes, somebody did post that a 757 is subpar.
However, that was when it was just going up against what AA/BA were offerring on PHL-LHR prior to the AA announcement of the new morning PHL-LHR flight (on a 757).
 
Sometimes the truth is difficult to grasp.
 
 

It will be going up against a BA 787, BA 767, and 2 US A330's - so the DL B757 will drive this down to probably one A318 flown by BA in a years time as DL has a strong position in any market in enters or flies

 

It will not be difficult for DL to keep a 757 busy to LHR.

 

Correct - it will be easy to fill a subpar 757 into LHR

 
Following several attempts at digression, pastor Judas said the following:
 

it is no more subpar that AA's 321s on a transcon market.

 
Then ofcourse denied it.
(hmmmm, maybe I should change his name to pastor Peter?)
 

I have NEVER said that the A321T product isn't a great product.

 
And the sermon continued with more lecturing:
 

frugal,
there is nothing different between a 3-3 coach configuration in coach on a 757 vs. a 3-3-3 on a 777.
 

 
Ofcourse once it was pointed out that he is wrong, the snobbish lecturing and attempt to deflect begins and we are where we are.
 
 
I'm sure there is a 1000+ word condescending post coming up by WT, which will have nothing to do with the topic at hand PHL-LHR by DL.

 

[WorldTraveler]

there is NO other US carrier longhaul aircraft that flies to Asia, Europe, or Latin America that has narrower seats in standard economy than what AA has on its 777-300ERs and what will be on its entire fleet of 777-200ERs.

there are foreign carriers that have 10 abreast coach seating on their 777s. US carriers don't.

You can either acknowledge that one route on PHL to LHR is completely insignificant in the scope of a fleet of 50-60 AA 777s or that seat width really doesn't matter.

and since you mention the transcons. the majority of DL's JFK-LAX flights are on 767s which have wider seats than the 757s and comparable to Airbus seats.

it's not hard to see the choices. does seat width matter and if it does then AA is in a whole lot worse shape than DL with one PHL-LHR flight or it doesn't matter at all.

what is your choice?

plz speak clearly into the microphone.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

there is NO other US carrier longhaul aircraft that flies to Asia, Europe, or Latin America that has narrower seats in standard economy than what AA has on its 777-300ERs and what will be on its entire fleet of 777-200ERs.

there are foreign carriers that have 10 abreast coach seating on their 777s. US carriers don't.

You can either acknowledge that one route on PHL to LHR is completely insignificant in the scope of a fleet of 50-60 AA 777s or that seat width really doesn't matter.
 

 
I think AA's plans for the renovated 777-200's are to have 18x31-32 seats in coach, the same width as they currently have (which is still 0.5 less than DL's 777s).
 
The AA 777-300's seat dimensions in coach are 17x31.
 
It isn't the largest seat width, but definitely not 3rd world as some would have us believe.  If you compare the seat width of several of the carriers that operate the B777s, AA is not as generous as SN or CX or KE, but would be considered 'normal' to what several EU carriers offer.
 
Asian carriers:
NH seat width on their B777s is:  16-18 inches
CZ seat width on their B777s is:  17.2 inches
JL seat width on their B777s is:  17.5 inches
KE seat width on their B777s is:  18 inches
UA seat width on their B777s is:  18-18.3 inches
CX seat width on their B777s is:  18.5 inches
SN seat width on their B777s is:  17-19 inches
 
European carriers:
AZ seat width on their B777s is:  16.5 inches
AF seat width on their B777s is:  17 inches
BA seat width on their B777s is:  17 inches
KL seat width on their B777s is:  17.5 inches

 

[WorldTraveler]

I believe several people have posted that the AA 772s are going to 10 abreast in standard economy which means a 17 inch pitch.
18 inch or higher requires 9 abreast on the 777.

thanks for going to the effort to do the homework but several Asian carriers have 10 abreast on regional/intra-Asia routes and 9 abreast across the Pacific. Since AA competes in the TPAC segment, that is the relevant fleet to compare.

Yes, I know that AF/KL/AZ have 10 abreast in coach on their 777s. I have flown on them; fortunately, the most recent time, I have an empty middle seat so I didn't get the "true experience". other than the 757, DL has no aircraft in its int'l fleet that has seat width that narrow.

FWIW, I happen to prefer the Airbus narrowbodies over Boeing for the very reason of seat width. you can't change seat width - it is a function of the width of the airframe = but seat pitch is up to carrier choice. DL doesn't take away any seat pitch just because they use a wider cabin aircraft like the 320 series. some carriers do.

again, even on a 6 hour flight within the US or Asia, 17 inch is not a huge deal. on a 12-16 hour flight, it is noticeable and becomes a bigger issue.

it is absolutely true that a 767 would provide a wider seat, cargo capacity, and a widebody feel on PHL-LHR but DL chose the smallest aircraft possible - the 757.

thanks for the pleasant and fact-based discussion.
back at ya.

 

[phllax]

AA and UA were the last 757 holdouts, AA jumped in early 2009 and UA gained a large fleet through the CO merger.

Due to insurance restrictions put on the 757 fleet after 9/11, UA could not fly them on trans-oceanic missions.

 

[WorldTraveler]

that is the first I have heard regarding that. can you explain?

 

[eolesen]

Could have been insurance, but it may also have been a lienholder/lessor restriction.

At AA, there were a bunch of aircraft post 9/11 which had geographic restrictions placed on them (e.g. not to be flown outside US/MX/CA/Carib) because the owner didn't want their asset out of their reach for repo purposes. That said, none of the US4 have ever had aircraft repo'd, but the restrictions exist(ed) nevertheless.