BenA

After thinking on this for a few days, I think an A321XLR order is likely to replace the 767s. DL has too many TATL routes that need small international aircraft to give up all the 767s without a replacement; the 330Neo is just too much airplane, and the 330-800 is pretty inefficient.

A fleet of XLRs configured with lieflat J would let Delta introduce a quality transcon product competing with Mint and cover a wide variety of ATL/JFK-Europe point to point routes efficiently at reduced traffic levels.

I think it makes more sense than picking up a 787 sub fleet at this point, unless Delta sees an opportunity on the used market they can’t pass up.

Yellowjj

Have to think it got the retrofit done, or at least partially done.

Mountain Explorer

My thinking as well. I think DL would love an efficient narrowbody that can serve a whole bunch of secondary markets in Europe from ATL/JFK.

787 is a great plane, but it would be an oddball subfleet, and if there's one thing that's become crystal clear in the last few months, DL doesn't like oddball subfleets (farewell 777, 717, 737-700).

ethernal

Agree that in principal it sounds good but the only challenge is labor economics. Delta is on the record saying they do not like narrowbody long-haul economics due to labor costs. I can't find the specific quote but I believe it was the head ops that said this.

Who knows what the world will look like post-COVID though so maybe their position has changed.

Mountain Explorer

Oh, I don't remember that one. They are on record saying that they don't like aircraft which can go much further than the routes they're used on. That would make 787 unattractive for shorthaul TATL

meh130

I could see the A321XLR in a role in DL's fleet, but realize in a config with lie-flat J seats it would likely hold about 160-165 pax max. The next step up will be the A330-200 at 234 pax. That is a significant gap, but not unmanageable. Given DL's previous decisions to purchase/lease used aircraft I could see DL picking up some more A330-200s. I think the capital costs of new A330-800s does not make sense.

cmd320

The reality is that at some point, someone is going to have to make a ~200-220 seat aircraft. It's by far the largest gap in the aircraft market and it's something that will eventually need to be filled. The big question is whether or not DL is going to be able to wait for that to happen. With the recent success rate of Airbus and Boeing launching new aircraft being quite poor, even if something were announced tomorrow (which it likely won't for a while at this point) I would give it about a zero % chance of being available in 2025 when the 767s are on the way out the door. The A321XLR, while fine for tertiary cities/routes like BOS-MAN, JFK-EDI, etc. isn't going to be enough aircraft to replace the 767 on most of the European network.

ethernal

That's not entirely true. Someone doesn't "have" to make a 200-220 seat (multi-class) aircraft. There's a reason there is a hole in the market there.

The reason for this is there are natural efficiency points of single and dual aisle aircraft. This just has to do with seat space relative to aisle space relative to weight. A 7-abreast airplane is absolutely wonderful for passengers but terrible for airlines. You have to carry around significantly extra cross section for only a few more seats - the aisle space is "wasted". That wasted space means more structure (more weight) and a bigger cross section (more drag). Both of those mean more fuel and, therefore, more cost. And if you make them "stubbier" (ala 8-abreast A330/9-ish abreast 787) that helps the seat:floor ratio but doesn't fix your drag issue (big cross-section, stubby aircraft).

If a manufacturer makes one, it will almost certainly be an even further stretch of the A321 frame (the 737 would be tough to get that big due to clearance issues meaning smaller engines and tail strikes). The challenge here, of course, is that to make a true 200-220 multi-class aircraft would be a significant stretch. To get the range + extra weight + maintain good enough field performance may require another generation of engine tech to achieve (theoretically, a niche aircraft that only works on long runways and no high and hot airports is potentially possible with today's engine tech).

readywhenyouare

The XLR does not have sufficient range for much of Europe from ATL. Even the 757 struggles with some routes from JFK/EWR. This has been discussed at length. The routes will be dropped and you'll have to connect in AMS/CDG once the 767 is gone.

readywhenyouare

In what universe is ~90 717's a subfleet?

MSPeconomist

PMNW did pretty well with offering connections on KLM to smaller EU markets. In fact, I was skeptical when I switched from TWA (that did serve a lot of European airports nonstop from JFK) but I basically liked the arrangement. Eastbound, the flights arrived at the destination late enough in the day that hotel rooms were usually available upon arrival. OTOH, I hated all of the 6 am connecting flights, although in high season I could usually connect to the last (of three) AMS-MSP nonstops of the day, sometimes by paying a slightly higher fare for the convenience and sometimes by taking a less desirable aircraft type for the long segment.

DL could decide to offer TATL service to a smaller number of airports beyond AMS and CDG; perhaps FRA, MXP, MUC, BCN/MAD perhaps as a triangular route or on alternating days, TLV,FCO, and LHR of course, with everything else being connections even from JFK or ATL. It's similar to the ICN/KE strategy for Asian routes.

ethernal

Since the XLR has ~800 nautical miles more range, any route achievable from JFK/EWR should be achievable with the A321XLR. This is doubly so since the payload-range curve on next gen engines is more sensitive than the 757 and the XLR would be operating in a low density configuration.

That said, 757 routes from EWR are notorious for tech stops in the winter for any of the farther off locations so that isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.

Out of JFK/EWR it can hit most of (relevant) Europe though. Still, I don't see Delta doing it. You're spot on with saying that Delta will rely on their partners. I could potentially see some interesting routes out of BOS (which doesn't have the O&D of NYC) but there is no way Delta would maintain a subfleet just for those routes. That said, they may use the low density subfleet for JFK-SFO/LAX/etc type routes. Who knows.

BenA

Are you sure you aren't confusing the LR and the XLR? I'd like to see a link to those discussions, when you get a chance, because that doesn't match with Airbus's published specifications. The XLR is advertised at 4700 nautical miles of range, which covers almost all of continental Europe from ATL. We all know manufacturer estimates are a little overoptimistic, but Airbus specifically calls out Miami to Buenos Aires as a commercially viable route, and that distance (4400 mi) puts at a minimum Spain, Portugal, Ireland, the UK and France in play.

Of course, it's much more likely that smaller A330s would be redeployed to ATL and the A321XLRs would primarily serve JFK - the extra time from ATL means a widebody is more comfortable, and the hub and spoke model at ATL can probably fill a larger plane more easily. I also agree that the role of AF/KL/VS will grow post pandemic. But the flexibility is there if Delta needs it.

BenA

This is basically the life I've been living in Seattle the last decade, and it's fabulous for this corner of the country; hop on a nice widebody plane, enjoy a comfortable 9-10 hour flight, land early morning in AMS/CDG, clear Schengen, take a shower, relax, and be at your destination by early afternoon.

The return direction is a lot more miserable, since you need to get up at the crack of dawn to make the connecting bank in AMS, but all in all I think the arrangement beats a point-to-point flight on a suboptimal plane. I'd do this instead of 8+ hours on an A321XLR any day of the week.

readywhenyouare

See the Delta fleet retirement thread on airliners.net. The members there have much more knowledge and experience on the subject than I do and none of them seem to believe ATL to anything other than Western Europe is doable with a meaningfull load.