Details on Delta TA

Reply Subscribe

Page 826 of 1030

826

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

06-12-2015, 07:21 PM

#8251

Cubdrick

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Jul 2009

Position: #41

Posts: 283

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor

No smaller aircraft in our fleet now or in the future can even do JFK to Europe.

75s fly JFK-DKR. It is feasible to see 75s start flying the traditionally ER served routes or take the 764 LHR flying. Can the 739 or A-321 fly those legs?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

06-12-2015, 07:28 PM

#8252

forgot to bid

veut gagner à la loterie

Joined APC: Apr 2008

Position: Light Chop

Posts: 23,286

Cubdrick, if I ever meet you, I'm going to be disappointed if you don't look like your avatar picture.

06-12-2015, 07:28 PM

#8253

cornbeef007

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Jan 2010

Position: Representing the REAL Delta

Posts: 857

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cubdrick

75s fly JFK-DKR. It is feasible to see 75s start flying the traditionally ER served routes or take the 764 LHR flying. Can the 739 or A-321 fly those legs?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sounds like the 737max would be able to.

06-12-2015, 07:30 PM

#8254

slowplay

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Feb 2008

Posts: 2,539

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cubdrick

75s fly JFK-DKR. It is feasible to see 75s start flying the traditionally ER served routes or take the 764 LHR flying. Can the 739 or A-321 fly those legs?

Neither the A321 or B739 in Delta's configuration have the range even empty to do JFK-LHR eastbound. On a VFR day the 739 might be able to do KEF (5+45). Westbound would be daily technical stops.

06-12-2015, 07:30 PM

#8255

notEnuf

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Mar 2015

Position: stake holder ir.delta.com

Posts: 10,456

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bananie

You missed the first sentence of 1E:

Section 1 C. will not apply to international partner flying under Section 1 E.

This new language provides that same protection for international partner flying on the discretion of the MEC. This is a gain.

Thanks, does the 1.C.3. requirement need full MEC approval (19 member or majority) versus MEC chairman discretion? Or are they to be read as the same requirement?

Last edited by notEnuf; 06-12-2015 at 07:48 PM.

06-12-2015, 07:47 PM

#8256

forgot to bid

veut gagner à la loterie

Joined APC: Apr 2008

Position: Light Chop

Posts: 23,286

Scambo1, instead of a Cessna 150 example you should use a Cessna 182 as an example because this particular registration number is the most appropriate :

06-12-2015, 07:47 PM

#8257

80ktsClamp

Da Hudge

Joined APC: Oct 2006

Position: Poodle Whisperer

Posts: 17,473

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cubdrick

75s fly JFK-DKR. It is feasible to see 75s start flying the traditionally ER served routes or take the 764 LHR flying. Can the 739 or A-321 fly those legs?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The 321NEO-LR will be able to do those.

06-12-2015, 07:50 PM

#8258

Cubdrick

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Jul 2009

Position: #41

Posts: 283

Quote:

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp

The 321NEO-LR will be able to do those.

Fantastic! I'm sure the language was intended with good will and not a present/future loophole.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

06-12-2015, 07:52 PM

#8259

80ktsClamp

Da Hudge

Joined APC: Oct 2006

Position: Poodle Whisperer

Posts: 17,473

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cubdrick

Fantastic! I'm sure the language was intended with good will and not a present/future loophole.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's a ways out, but you have to plan for the future. The company has expressed significant interest in that airframe, too.

06-12-2015, 07:53 PM

#8260

slowplay

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Feb 2008

Posts: 2,539

Quote:

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

Scambo1, instead of a Cessna 150 example you should use a Cessna 182 as an example because this particular registration number is the most appropriate :

Isn't that a P-47?