readywhenyouare

^ The man has shown us time and time again that he is not to be trusted. He also claimed he didn't want an aircraft that "over-performs" its intended mission. Using an A330 to replace a 767 is like replacing a Toyota Corolla with a GMC Yukon.

Are some of you really that dense that you can't see just how great of an aircraft the 767 is? Maybe, just maybe stop and look at the facts. Delta has been able to step in on routes such as ORD-CDG (replacing AF), EWR-CDG (replacing AF), EWR-AMS (replacing KLM), and LAX-LHR (replacing Virgin) using the 767. Do you wonder why? It's because the A330 is too big for AF, KLM, and Virgin to operate these routes. You just can't operate many markets with a near 300 seat aircraft.

PLeblond

Fact: Delta pushed back its delivery slots of 787s to 2020
Fact: Delta leased 88 Boeing 717s from Southwest/Airtran. The descendant of the fuel guzzling Mad Dog (that I believe they still 180+ of)
Fact: Delta was flying a DC-9 in 2014. A DC 9!!!!!!!!!

Obviously with a fleet of old, expensive to operate planes, they eventually need to replace them, and unless Allegiant wants to sell their fleet, they will be forced (kicking and screaming it would appear) into the present.

SJC ORD LDR

I'm pretty sure that the 717s came at a great discount, plus WN paid to convert the interiors to DL's standards. WN wanted them gone at any cost and DL was there to take advantage. Plus, they make a lot of sense for routes like ATL - SAV and other smaller cities that aren't too far from ATL.

IIRC, RA worked on the DC-9 life extension program at NW, so he took that lesson going forward and has kept planes for as long as possible. As long as they are safe and the interior is comfortable, I don't need to be on a brand new plane.

The original 787 delivery slots would have happened right during the merger, it was probably best to not add a new plane to the fleet at that time. I could see the 788's having a use on some of thinner missions that DL operates or for some SEA - Asia runs that the longer range is needed. We'll see in 6 years what happens with the deliveries.

PLeblond

I understand the philosophy. Keep old planes longer, but older planes for really cheap and run them as long as possible.

It keeps acquisition and financing costs low and helps cashflow and debt/equity ratios, which Wall Street likes. The downside is increased fuel costs, higher maintenance costs and one would also assume higher level of maintenance related delays/cancellations, which wall street doesn't care as much about.

I just disagree with that philosophy. In my opinion it works well for charter operators and marginal LCC startups like Allegiant, not Mainline international airlines with a progressive vision.

But thats just me.

WestSideBilly

The difference is that Delta Tech Ops is quite good at keeping old birds flying (fairly) reliably. Big difference between them and an LCC or Charter.

DL2SXM

Delta has said that the 350-900XWB will be the 747 replacement. The 350-900 has nearly 65 fewer seats then the 747. These flights will undoubtedly go out packed.

SJC ORD LDR

The old vehicle strategy works with me and my car. Even if I got a more fuel efficient car, I like having it paid off with no additional expenses. As long as maintenance costs and delays aren't too bad, it works quite well.

Plus, the cost of fuel has been going down, so the savings in buying less fuel isn't as great as predicted. Hey, they might be right in 5 - 10 years, but not right now.

SJC ORD LDR

Maybe, but DL isn't looking to get a 747 load of people out to NRT and then disburse them around Asia. It's now going to be done from SEA. So, a 747 sized plane might have never been needed with the current strategy.