RaflW

Tomato/"tomahhhto" but I see it as the airlines pushing the a/c towards the edge of performance limits, not an underpowered aircraft. Boeing designed the a/c the airlines wanted (well, they did want it, but now Airbus is kicking their butts in next gen orders - I'm not a 'Bus fanboi but the numbers say what they say, the 321neo orders are accelerating ahead of MAX orders).

Anyway: If that means a long roll and some runways are weight restricted for the 739, I say "hah" because Boeing delivered the beancounters efficient airplane, too bad it isn't a great multi-role bird. No customer wanted to pay for a multi-role a/c.

I suspect in a few years we'll be hearing about how lousy the 321neoLR is for TATLs v. the venerable 757. If it can fly the mission safely, it's just a plane doing its job. If the passenger experience sucks, that's on the airline.

mother-

And my like or dislike for the inside of a plane is only relevant in a "and it also sucks to be on it for so long" kind of way. The fact is that the 739ER was not designed to operate these kinds of flights without weight restrictions because it needs more runway than exists.

Basically I agree with all that you just wrote. The 739 is an aircraft designed to meet specifications created in a vacuum by beancounters. How could that possibly go wrong?
(Anyone making odds on this becoming a case study for B-School in a decade?)

The only color I'll throw back is that my holding the opinion that the bird is underpowered came from conversing with a pilot who was currently flying them for a different carrier.

Yellowjj

Where was the argument? Other than the fact that most of your comments were debunked. Your talk with the Alaska/United pilot could have answered some of your previous questions and explain de-rated takeoffs among other things to you. The pdf you linked to previously is for un-wingletted 738's powered by 24K. Now add winglets + Scimitars and 8K more thrust and the scenario is quite different. Obviously the dispatchers and fleet planners feel the same way after running the numbers. After all Hawaii flights require additional fuel reserves due to the vast distance between any airports. So obviously its not weight restricted, or if it is for it to be a concern as you constantly imply.

mother-

I seriously don't think you have any idea what you're argument is other than "mother- is wrong". So no, I've not responded to your "arguments" because I don't think you've "debunked most of my arguments" and I was trying to take the high road and ignore the obvious trolling.
(Not the least of which is somehow adding to the list of my supposed offenses me sharing a pdf from the manufacturer of the aircraft in question because some of the data on other aircraft contained in that document might understate my position on the relative suitability of the 739ER to fly from Hawaii to the mainland US.)

MCO Flyer

3Cforme

They did, and they are. I'm not sure DL will keep a 739 on LAX-KOA into winter winds.

JA610

It is also on KOA / SEA in November 2019. Was downgraded from the 757.

MCO Flyer

JA610

When we booked in March we did the same thing. We were willing to pay more to avoid flying the 737. We were on it a few years ago flying LAX / KOA and return. An we now do what we can to avoid flying them from and to Hawai'i.

3Cforme

Do you know that they're going to use a 739 through the winter? Delta schedules ten months in advance are firm like warm JELL-O but LAX-KOA in January (for the 3 dates I checked) stills shows a 757.

DL is heading to 130 739s (with 123 in the fleet at present). It won't be a burden to keep a few dozen with ETOPS.

ethernal

This is my guess.. Delta will use a subfleet of 739s with ETOPS to fly West Coast-Hawaii routes to HNL/KOA from late Spring to early Fall when fleet demand is at its highest. In the winter when they need the range of a 757, they pull 757s from CONUS routes and swap in either with other 739s or with 767s since they have plenty of capacity outside of peak summer season.

DLATL777

I agree, as usual. My issue is that Im on the verge of losing DM because of this very reason, Im voting with my wallet. Flying to Europe, choosing SQ business and LH First returning. Why the heck I would stick myself on a 767 with Delta when I could have that comfort, service, and luxury?

Im just over Delta outside the US. I will still use them domestically and sometimes on JFK-LAX unless Im booking AA First, which DL cant compete with. Business Ill still give to DL on the A330 for that route.

To Hawaii, if Im east-coast I will do the A330 from ATL, but otherwise Im going HA as well. To be frank, I dont see much value in status when you're paying for F/J.

enoscabell

Agreed that Delta planes are sub-par for international travel, but why not book on Delta partners? Virgin Atlantic is nice, as are KLM and Air France if you book the right planes. I never have a problem finding a nice Skyteam plane to get me where I need to go in Europe.

For me, the biggest sore spot is still Asia. Sure, Korean Air can get you where you need to go, but most of my options are the lesser business class seats that don't compare favorably to other carriers.

DLATL777

I will use the AF77W sometimes (but no wifi) In F or J, or the 787 with KLM. Virgin is nice and I love their day flight, but only to London, so that is quite limiting.

Tomorrow is just a good example though of voting with your wallet. Im doing JFK-FRA on SQ, then my return is iST-JFK. To use ST Id have to take a 6am on Air France and connect in CDG. With LH I have a 2pm, through FRA, and 747-800 F for the last leg.

To Asia Ive been using SQ/CX or honestly a LOT of EK. Last year got Gold on EK through some purchased J/F fares.