Delta to retire its entire Boeing 777 fleet by the end of the year
May 14, 2020, 7:47 pm
#151
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orlando, FL Area
Programs: Delta SkySponge ExtraAbsorbent, SPG Gold
Posts: 29,988
Agreed, but those families of aircraft will be smaller as well. All of DL's A320's are currently parked and I can see them being permanently retired and the A320 family becoming A319, A321, and A321NEO's.
For the 737 family I think we'll eventually see some 738's retired and possibly even the 737-700. If they're replaced by MAX aircraft or something completely different, who knows.
For the 737 family I think we'll eventually see some 738's retired and possibly even the 737-700. If they're replaced by MAX aircraft or something completely different, who knows.
May 14, 2020, 7:55 pm
#152
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: San Antonio
Programs: DL DM, Former AA EXP now AY Plat, AC 75K, NW Plat, Former CO Gold, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 27,042
Wow, this is nuts. I spend most of my time in the United forum so I'm not super familiar with delta. However they just retrofitted all of those planes, that would be like United retiring their brand new Polaris retrofit aircraft(their are rumors about this). Times are crazy.
May 14, 2020, 7:58 pm
#153
Join Date: Feb 2017
Programs: DL DM, UA Gold, Alaska MVP, Bonvoy (lol) Ambassador
Posts: 2,994
Planes are lighter, significantly safer, and with better aerodynamics than before. All of these things take time to design, and increase complexity which increases lead time.
The 777 has been in service for 25 years, has had 1600 deliveries, and only 1 fatal crash not caused by hijacking / missiles - and that crash had fatalities that can be counted on one hand. The original 747 variants had over a dozen hull losses over the same time from non-hostile actors with less than a third of the deliveries.
The 787 has had over a 1000 deliveries and been in the air for 12 years. 0 people have died on it.
I realize the 737MAX is the "counterpoint" to this, but if anything, it exactly proves the point. We have grounded hundreds (effectively thousands looking at the original production schedule) because modern airliners simply aren't supposed to fall out of the sky. And when they do have issues on landing, they are expected to be survivable. A plane is not expected to fall apart and engulf in a fireball if the landing parameters are exceeded. Even the seats themselves are engineered for safety, with airbags in bulkhead and business class seats. There is a massive amount of engineering that goes into the seats alone (admittedly a lot of this is done by parties outside of Boeing, but you get the idea).
And safety is just one example. When the 747 was built, it was basically all aluminum, steel, and a bit of titanium - all things that were well understood by the 70's. Planes are now a complex mix of composites and other materials including esoteric alloys in the engines and other select components - all rigorously tested to ensure they will survive a lifetime in the air.
Anyways, knock yourself out jumping on a 747-100. It's an incredibly inefficient deathtrap compared to modern jets. Turns out it's harder to design and build highly efficient and incredibly safe jets.
May 14, 2020, 8:10 pm
#154
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orlando, FL Area
Programs: Delta SkySponge ExtraAbsorbent, SPG Gold
Posts: 29,988
Regression using what basis? I am confident that Beoing could design and build a 747 with the same safety standards and same performance characteristics in a year if they wanted to. The difference is we have progressed, not regressed.
Planes are lighter, significantly safer, and with better aerodynamics than before. All of these things take time to design, and increase complexity which increases lead time.
The 777 has been in service for 25 years, has had 1600 deliveries, and only 1 fatal crash not caused by hijacking / missiles - and that crash had fatalities that can be counted on one hand. The original 747 variants had over a dozen hull losses over the same time from non-hostile actors with less than a third of the deliveries.
The 787 has had over a 1000 deliveries and been in the air for 12 years. 0 people have died on it.
I realize the 737MAX is the "counterpoint" to this, but if anything, it exactly proves the point. We have grounded hundreds (effectively thousands looking at the original production schedule) because modern airliners simply aren't supposed to fall out of the sky. And when they do have issues on landing, they are expected to be survivable. A plane is not expected to fall apart and engulf in a fireball if the landing parameters are exceeded. Even the seats themselves are engineered for safety, with airbags in bulkhead and business class seats. There is a massive amount of engineering that goes into the seats alone (admittedly a lot of this is done by parties outside of Boeing, but you get the idea).
And safety is just one example. When the 747 was built, it was basically all aluminum, steel, and a bit of titanium - all things that were well understood by the 70's. Planes are now a complex mix of composites and other materials including esoteric alloys in the engines and other select components - all rigorously tested to ensure they will survive a lifetime in the air.
Anyways, knock yourself out jumping on a 747-100. It's an incredibly inefficient deathtrap compared to modern jets. Turns out it's harder to design and build highly efficient and incredibly safe jets.
Planes are lighter, significantly safer, and with better aerodynamics than before. All of these things take time to design, and increase complexity which increases lead time.
The 777 has been in service for 25 years, has had 1600 deliveries, and only 1 fatal crash not caused by hijacking / missiles - and that crash had fatalities that can be counted on one hand. The original 747 variants had over a dozen hull losses over the same time from non-hostile actors with less than a third of the deliveries.
The 787 has had over a 1000 deliveries and been in the air for 12 years. 0 people have died on it.
I realize the 737MAX is the "counterpoint" to this, but if anything, it exactly proves the point. We have grounded hundreds (effectively thousands looking at the original production schedule) because modern airliners simply aren't supposed to fall out of the sky. And when they do have issues on landing, they are expected to be survivable. A plane is not expected to fall apart and engulf in a fireball if the landing parameters are exceeded. Even the seats themselves are engineered for safety, with airbags in bulkhead and business class seats. There is a massive amount of engineering that goes into the seats alone (admittedly a lot of this is done by parties outside of Boeing, but you get the idea).
And safety is just one example. When the 747 was built, it was basically all aluminum, steel, and a bit of titanium - all things that were well understood by the 70's. Planes are now a complex mix of composites and other materials including esoteric alloys in the engines and other select components - all rigorously tested to ensure they will survive a lifetime in the air.
Anyways, knock yourself out jumping on a 747-100. It's an incredibly inefficient deathtrap compared to modern jets. Turns out it's harder to design and build highly efficient and incredibly safe jets.
May 14, 2020, 8:22 pm
#155
Join Date: Feb 2017
Programs: DL DM, UA Gold, Alaska MVP, Bonvoy (lol) Ambassador
Posts: 2,994
I'm not sure how you can blame those crashes on the 747 and call it a "deathtrap". Maybe you are thinking of the 707. I'm not aware of any fatal flaws except for the JAL crash and TWA 800. And those weren't design flaws but improper maintenance. There was a cargo door issue that blew a hole in a UA 747 but they were able to land the plane in HNL. You should be blaming the pilots. They crashed a bunch of perfectly good 747's.
It's not like any of those 747 pilot error crashes today wouldn't be more survivable because of intense focus on certifying planes in high-G crashes and reducing the likelihood of rapid fires. And it's certainly not like the complex systems analysis that proactively identifies potential failure modes - including improper maintenance that could have been prevented by using alternative installation methods or clearer instructions - could have impacted any of those crashes either.
You're obviously right. The 747-100/200 is just as safe as the 787. All of the 747 crashes were just pilot error. Just like the 737MAX crashes were pilot error too, right?
May 14, 2020, 8:55 pm
#156
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Paradise
Posts: 1,617
It's also easier to retire owned aircraft. Those leases on the A350/A330 still needs to be paid regardless, unless DL files for bankruptcy and rejects them.
I wonder whether Ed has a deal worked out to sell the LR's for cargo conversion.
I wonder whether Ed has a deal worked out to sell the LR's for cargo conversion.
May 14, 2020, 9:54 pm
#157
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orlando, FL Area
Programs: Delta SkySponge ExtraAbsorbent, SPG Gold
Posts: 29,988
Sometimes. Other times it may be better to file Ch 11 and get out of the expensive aircraft and fly the wings off the aircraft you own. That's what NWA did with the DC-9 and DC-10. I think it's foolish to not file Ch 11 in this circumstance. Everything starts new. Judges will usually rubber stamp whatever the airline wants.
May 14, 2020, 10:44 pm
#158
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: CONUS
Posts: 947
$100 million on new 777 interiors. Last one came out of China in February.
Wow -- unfortunate given they just spent the money doing the refurbs (I enjoyed my D1 trip on ICN - MSP this past fall).
Can't imagine this bodes well for Boeing and the 777X program. I know DL isn't a 777X customer but if they are retiring 777s they already own (I don't believe they lease any of the 777s, I believe they are all wholly owned by DL) that's a very bad sign for the 777X program because who is going to buy new 777Xs if they don't even want perfectly good 777s with brand new interiors?
It is key to note that the press release (in the below post states):More specific details of the timing of the 777’s exit from the fleet will be disclosed at a later date.
And since DAL wholly owns these planes there is of course the (remote) possibility that they reverse this decision if air travel finds a way to recover in the short-term (again remote possibility).
Can't imagine this bodes well for Boeing and the 777X program. I know DL isn't a 777X customer but if they are retiring 777s they already own (I don't believe they lease any of the 777s, I believe they are all wholly owned by DL) that's a very bad sign for the 777X program because who is going to buy new 777Xs if they don't even want perfectly good 777s with brand new interiors?
It is key to note that the press release (in the below post states):More specific details of the timing of the 777’s exit from the fleet will be disclosed at a later date.
And since DAL wholly owns these planes there is of course the (remote) possibility that they reverse this decision if air travel finds a way to recover in the short-term (again remote possibility).
May 14, 2020, 10:47 pm
#159
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: CONUS
Posts: 947
Sorry but that's simply not true with NWA and the DC9, D10 aircraft. In fact the D10 was gone by the time NWA filed for Chapter 11. The DC9 fleet was long ago paid for. The NWA Ch 11 was brought on by several factors, including the AMFA strike.
Sometimes. Other times it may be better to file Ch 11 and get out of the expensive aircraft and fly the wings off the aircraft you own. That's what NWA did with the DC-9 and DC-10. I think it's foolish to not file Ch 11 in this circumstance. Everything starts new. Judges will usually rubber stamp whatever the airline wants.
May 14, 2020, 10:56 pm
#160
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orlando, FL Area
Programs: Delta SkySponge ExtraAbsorbent, SPG Gold
Posts: 29,988
No. NWA entered bankruptcy in 2005. The DC-10 was retired in 2006. NWA rejected both A319 and A320 leases and orders in Ch 11.
May 14, 2020, 11:23 pm
#161
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Western Europe
Programs: Yeah, well, don’t really care anymore
Posts: 845
But it is indeed a hypothetical question, because a passenger 777 - in any disguise - does not lend itself easily to conversion. The major difference between the 777F and her lessers sisters is the main-deck floor. The 777 pax versions have a CFRP floor, which has inadequate load capacity for general freight. That's why the only proposed conversion is based on the -300ER, trading weight in favour of volume and is only really viable for integrators such as DHL, TNT, FedEx and UPS.
Replacing the CFRP floor with one made of AlLi will make the proposition economically unviable, and the -200s (A, ER or LR) does not have enough volume to justify the expense either.
Thus the future of the -200s is not being converted to freighters, but rather to the proverbial beer cans.
So to the poster upthread who'd place money on them being converted to freighters, I'd be very happy to take that bet.
May 14, 2020, 11:39 pm
#162
Join Date: Sep 2014
Programs: IHG Platinum
Posts: 629
Given Delta’s love affair with Airbus the last couple years i’m going to go out on a limb and say the A320NEO. But, Boeing will probably throw all they can in discounts to land a MAX order.
May 15, 2020, 6:36 am
#163
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: PHX
Programs: Delta DM, Marriott Lifetime Titanium, HHonrs Diamond
Posts: 1,336
May 15, 2020, 7:11 am
#165
Join Date: Feb 2017
Programs: DL DM, UA Gold, Alaska MVP, Bonvoy (lol) Ambassador
Posts: 2,994
Hypothetically speaking, why would that be sad? Retiring from the arduous task of hauling obnoxious SLF around in favour of the far more noble task of transporting goods is, in my book, a major step up in the world.
But it is indeed a hypothetical question, because a passenger 777 - in any disguise - does not lend itself easily to conversion. The major difference between the 777F and her lessers sisters is the main-deck floor. The 777 pax versions have a CFRP floor, which has inadequate load capacity for general freight. That's why the only proposed conversion is based on the -300ER, trading weight in favour of volume and is only really viable for integrators such as DHL, TNT, FedEx and UPS.
Replacing the CFRP floor with one made of AlLi will make the proposition economically unviable, and the -200s (A, ER or LR) does not have enough volume to justify the expense either.
Thus the future of the -200s is not being converted to freighters, but rather to the proverbial beer cans.
So to the poster upthread who'd place money on them being converted to freighters, I'd be very happy to take that bet.
But it is indeed a hypothetical question, because a passenger 777 - in any disguise - does not lend itself easily to conversion. The major difference between the 777F and her lessers sisters is the main-deck floor. The 777 pax versions have a CFRP floor, which has inadequate load capacity for general freight. That's why the only proposed conversion is based on the -300ER, trading weight in favour of volume and is only really viable for integrators such as DHL, TNT, FedEx and UPS.
Replacing the CFRP floor with one made of AlLi will make the proposition economically unviable, and the -200s (A, ER or LR) does not have enough volume to justify the expense either.
Thus the future of the -200s is not being converted to freighters, but rather to the proverbial beer cans.
So to the poster upthread who'd place money on them being converted to freighters, I'd be very happy to take that bet.
I don't know if there would be pilot pool issues with that or not (assume there is still type commonality between a 777F and 772), but I don't see 10 year old 772s that just went through a D-check going to the scrapyard. Someone somewhere will find a use for them.