Originally Posted by WWads (Post 26521022)

The new Airbuses can't come soon enough. It's kind of ridiculous that DL runs 767s on TPAC flights.

Originally Posted by WWads (Post 26521022)

The new Airbuses can't come soon enough. It's kind of ridiculous that DL runs 767s on TPAC flights.

Originally Posted by MSPeconomist (Post 26520554)

MSP-HND on the 767 D1 seats? ick!

Originally Posted by 3Cforme (Post 26521176)

Because you would rather have a narrower coach seat in 3x3x3 config on a UA or AA 787 (or 3x4x3 on a 777) than 2x3x2 on a Delta 767?

Originally Posted by 3Cforme (Post 26521176)

The set of low-probability hypotheticals about which you can complain is infinite.

Originally Posted by WWads (Post 26521022)

The new Airbuses can't come soon enough. It's kind of ridiculous that DL runs 767s on TPAC flights.

Originally Posted by ashill (Post 26518926)

It wouldn't shock me if DL is engaging in some gamesmanship here, thinking that ATL is their strongest case (since they knew that AA would also apply for LAX) and thus likely to be awarded anyway. I wonder if it will come back to bite them if the DOT has had enough of DL's shenanigans with HND in general and awards LAX-HND to AA, then sees MSP as a bogus request with very little local traffic. And if DL didn't get their second choice, why give them their third?

Although maybe MSP does make sense since ATL doesn't have a ton of local traffic anyway and, as jrkmsp pointed out, MSP serves more connecting cities logically. In fact, with only MSP and DFW requested in the interior of the country and MSP being better-located geographically for connections, maybe MSP does stand a chance after all.

I'm surprised that neither DL nor AA requested JFK and that nobody requested ORD.

Originally Posted by WWads (Post 26521022)

The new Airbuses can't come soon enough. It's kind of ridiculous that DL runs 767s on TPAC flights.

Originally Posted by MSPeconomist (Post 26521277)

DL uses 767s on all of its LHR routes. You would think these birds would be noncompetitive.

Originally Posted by MSPeconomist (Post 26521277)

DL uses 767s on all of its LHR routes. You would think these birds would be noncompetitive.

Originally Posted by WWads (Post 26521022)

The new Airbuses can't come soon enough. It's kind of ridiculous that DL runs 767s on TPAC flights.

Originally Posted by sbm12 (Post 26518424)

SEA would have stood zero chance given the recent dropping IMO.

Originally Posted by Austin787 (Post 26521422)

I think the DOT considers the alliance, not just the airline, when awarding the HND slots. UA and AA have alliance partners in Japan, while HA and DL don't. I can see DL getting 2, or perhaps all 3, of it's requested routes. I think DL is a slam dunk for LAX-HND and likewise HA for HNL-HND.




The 767 is the best long haul plane for those flying in Y. 2-3-2 is somewhat better than 2-4-2 and much better than 3-3-3 and 3-4-3.

Originally Posted by MSPeconomist (Post 26521767)

I guess at LHR VS flights are under the JV, so DL doesn't much care whose aircraft are better.

Originally Posted by MSPeconomist (Post 26521767)

BA/AA have some battered old planes, but I don't know how often they appear on the LHR routes.

Originally Posted by MSPeconomist (Post 26521767)

Yes, but it's the worst current DL wide body aircraft for D1 seats.

Originally Posted by 3Cforme (Post 26521176)

Not gonna happen. MSP-HND is about 250sm farther than the longest 767 route DL has operated. The set of low-probability hypotheticals about which you can complain is infinite.