2StgTurbine

You are comparing apples and oranges. Those airlines have an enormous amount of debt, pay their crews much less, or only serve niche markets.

Varsity

So Delta has more in common with Iran air and Air Asia (two largest A330neo orders)?

2StgTurbine

You are right. Because Delta has the same plane as Iran Air, that means they are comparable

As I said before, the type of plane an airline uses does not dictate the success of that airline. The A330neo is a capable airplane and I am sure Delta can figure out how to make money with it. Could Delta make money with a 787, sure, but for whatever reason, they decided the A330neo was a better fit.

Assuming the 787 is a better airplane (for Delta), then you could argue that Delta should have held on to the NWA 787 order. That is history though and arguing about it is pointless. Not to mention, the launch of the 787 was rough. United spent a lot of money for an expensive plane that then had to set around while they figured out the battery fire problem. During that time, Delta got an awesome deal on some 717s.

If the 787 was really such a game changer, then please explain how Delta has been doing so well without it?

Tinpusher007

If you look at how our network to Asia in particular has changed; and our decision to make SEA a hub where we play second fiddle to Alaska, a plane the size of a 787-8 would seem ideal to replace the capacity we previously ran through NRT with larger wide bodies. I cited SEA-HKG and SEA-SIN as routes that we could have flown with 787s that CX and SQ beat us to the punch on. Another example is MSP-HND which has had poor loads with a 777 that the 787 would be better suited to. The 787-10 also has unbeatable CASM, superior to the A330 which Delta has claimed is our most profitable wide body. I realize our mgt cares mostly about the capex involved with new airplanes, but there is also something to be said for missed revenue opportunities because we lack the right aircraft for certain routes.

Tinpusher007

There's nothing silly about it, it's true. RA did not hide his personal distaste for Boeing during his tenure. Why would he send their stock plummeting with his claims about buying cheap 777s knowing full well they'd only be parted out. That was deliberate because he was ****ed at them for catering to the ME3 and the EX-IM bank. His ire could not have been more obvious.

Tinpusher007

It's not that we can't be successful without it, but we don't have an equivalent aircraft to the 787-8 we had on order that can serve certain markets profitably other than hub to hub routes to our JV partners.

freightguy

I agree. After talking to a few senior management peeps over the last few years about the 787/350 decision: clashing egos (RA vs Boeing) were definitely a huge reason for the Airbus decision. A350 is a very capable machine. But it is not a bit too big to overfly Narita to point to point destinations.

We have become quite weak in Asia. And the lack of something like the 787s is glaring. It is an efficient small wide body- which could have helped us launch some longer thinner routes... or hold onto the likes of HKG. (United does 5 daily flights to HKG).

Delta does have the right sized airplanes for major hubs. We can fill 330s and 350s to major sky team airports like CDG, AMS, ICN, PVG etc. But when it comes to overflying NRT to TPE, SIN etc- 350s are too big. Same with our much awaited India launch. We can't fill a 777/350 without a strong sky team presence to those destinations. Which is one reason why we are weak in Asia. We just don't have the right sized airplanes... to compete with star alliance in Asia.

But EB has publicly stated that international expansion is our next play. Maybe they will do it with the new 330s. They are capable- and they have long legs. Maybe a little too big- seating capacity wise? But we will see. Delta management has done a good job making money... so I have trust in them.

iaflyer

My worry is that the international expansion he keeps talking about is with Other People's Airplanes (OPA). He likes his JVs, and I understand the attraction. Someone else does all the hard work and we just get a percentage without doing much more than throwing our code on the flight.

But we miss out on the big profits too and flying with a Delta product (that they keep saying generates a premium)

JamesBond

LOL. So Mr Anderson cut off his nose to spite his face.

Yeah, your statement was silly. And it shows how much shiny new airplane bias you have. I'd rather have 25 'old' A330s than 12 'new' 787s. ymmv

Gunfighter

There has been a fair amount of speculation on 330NEO vs 787 and being technical types, we love to go to the performance specs. Set the slide rules down for a minute and pick up a P&L that includes crew training costs and the 330NEO looks pretty good.

The training footprint from a 73N or A320 to 7ER, 765, 777, or 787 (if we had them) is 19 training days. The footprint from 320 to 330 is 9 days. We are building a HUGE Airbus narrowbody fleet, so from a training perspective, we will see reduced training costs and higher throughput on the A330 vs 787. This is a consideration given the stress load placed on the training center for the next decade.