Delta TechOps signs A330 deal with Virgin Atlantic

[topDawg]

ATLANTA, October 13, 2015 – Delta TechOps, Delta Air Lines’ maintenance division and Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul (MRO) provider business, is extending its relationship with Virgin Atlantic 
to include a new three-year agreement to provide exclusive MRO services. Under the new agreement, Delta TechOps will provide airframe maintenance support, including aircraft modifications and C-Checks, for Virgin Atlantic’s fleet of 10 Airbus A330 aircraft at Delta TechOps’ A330 Center of Excellence in MSP.
 
http://www.deltatechops.com/news/view/delta-techops-grows-a330-coe-with-three-year-virgin-atlantic-mro-services-a
 
 
 
Another big win for TechOps. Congrats to the MSP team and hopefully more to come. 
 
Now we just need to get some Airbus engines going in-house and keep adding to the growing list of Airbus components 

 

[WorldTraveler]

outstanding. Congrats to the DL Tech Ops team.

and let's be clear that DL won this bid because they provided the best service at the best price.

It also continues to show that DL is building its presence in MSP.

just outstanding evidence of the growth of DL's MRO business.

 

[topDawg]

outstanding. Congrats to the DL Tech Ops team.

and let's be clear that DL won this bid because they provided the best service at the best price.

It also continues to show that DL is building its presence in MSP.

just outstanding evidence of the growth of DL's MRO business.

I think Delta is finally starting to make some progress into the airbus MRO game. 
 
airlines generally don't send work to MROs who don't have a lot of experience in what they are offering but I imagine HA having nothing but positives to say is helping Delta a lot now.  (DL has been doing HA's 330 checks for a while, even before they were doing the Delta work in-house) 
 
Still don't see a ton of A320 work at least on the airframe side. Would be nice if we could get a big deal there too. 

 

[eolesen]

Not to dispute the quality of work being done by Tech Ops, but there's no question that it was DL's business to lose.  The ownership stake in VS gives them a lot of influence in who VS does business with, and keeping money within the family is a natural byproduct of that.
 
The HA contract is far more significant than any deals done with a JV partner.  

 

[topDawg]

Not to dispute the quality of work being done by Tech Ops, but there's no question that it was DL's business to lose.  The ownership stake in VS gives them a lot of influence in who VS does business with, and keeping money within the family is a natural byproduct of that.
 
The HA contract is far more significant than any deals done with a JV partner.  

Not at all. 
 
example, Delta does very little (other than some line stuff none) work for AF/KL/AZ 
 
Delta had to complete for this contract just like any other airline they bid for. 

 

[eolesen]

There's no meaningful investment between DL and AF/KL/AZ, Dawg. There's a commercial JV, but no co-mingling of ownership from what I recall.

OTOH, DL is I believe the largest single shareholder in VS.

If you think that bears no weight, you're mistaken. Even if the contracts are executed at fair market rates, there's still a benefit of paying a commonly owned entity vs. a competitor or a third party.


And that's why I find the fact HA is contracting with DL to be more significant than anything with VS. HA has no problems paying DL for services, especially when the ferry cost of HNL-MSP or HNL-ATL isn't significantly lower than taking it to a MRO in HKG or PEK would be.

 

[WorldTraveler]

VS would have to be in violation of its other shareholders in order to do business with a company that is not providing the best and lowest cost service.

it is true that AM, G3, and VS are all Tech Ops customers but DL has 145 other customers in which it has no investment. DL has no investment in WestJet but just signed them for a new customer.

To argue that DL got the business for 145 airlines without an investment but couldn't get it for its JV partners is just, E kind of silly.

And it also doesn't change that DL actually SEEKS that kind of business. AA and UA do not come anywhere close to seeking that kind of business from their partners. AA could have won the business for every one of DL's equity partners if they tried... AA has a large presence in each market and also operates every one of the aircraft or engines that are part of the contract

DL won the business because it competes for it and offers a service that those carriers want. AA and UA make DL's job a lot easier in gaining new business.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

Good news for DL TechOps in MSP.
 
So does that mean that VS may be coming to MSP, or will the A330s just be ferried there?

 

[topDawg]

There's no meaningful investment between DL and AF/KL/AZ, Dawg. There's a commercial JV, but no co-mingling of ownership from what I recall.

Okay but you said "The HA contract is far more significant than any deals done with a JV partner. "
 

OTOH, DL is I believe the largest single shareholder in VS.

49% which means they control all of


well nothing.

 

If you think that bears no weight, you're mistaken.

No weight? I didn't say that. But it bears very very very little weight 
 
As i have told you and WT before, MRO doesn't work via the airlines like you guys think it does. Airlines are going to pick the best MRO (Price, quality, safety and time) and it means next to nothing if it is an airline with ownership or its biggest competitor.
 
TechOps had to bid on this contract the same exact way any other MRO did. The simple fact is Delta TechOps supports the largest fleet of 330s in the world, its pretty easy to understand, like the 757/767 and 737, how Delta keeps rolling in the contracts for these birds. 
 

Even if the contracts are executed at fair market rates, there's still a benefit of paying a commonly owned entity vs. a competitor or a third party.

Right I mean that is why Delta does so much airframe work for airlines it has ownership in. Virgin and......thats all. 

Delta does zero airframe work for G3, MU and AM. All of which have plenty of types (pretty sure MU has 330s) that Delta works on for its self and others.

And that's why I find the fact HA is contracting with DL to be more significant than anything with VS. HA has no problems paying DL for services, especially when the ferry cost of HNL-MSP or HNL-ATL isn't significantly lower than taking it to a MRO in HKG or PEK would be.

 The HA contract is more significant because its a CompletelyFleet contract. Basically making the aircraft (as far as Maintenance goes) Delta aircraft.

These will not be under a CompleteFleet contract.

Oddly enough you would think if what you are saying is correct this would be a CompleteFleet deal. Oh and wouldn't be for 3 years which is very short for MRO contracts (generally 5-10 years). I guess Virgin is expecting Delta to park its A330s in 3 years or something.
 

Good news for DL TechOps in MSP.
 
So does that mean that VS may be coming to MSP, or will the A330s just be ferried there?

Probably not.
Just like HA it should be ferry flying.

FWIW there should be another 330 deal coming. (might have already happened and not announced.)

 

[WorldTraveler]

not sure why you felt you need to stick WT in your comment about what MROs do. perhaps you could find a post where I disagreed with your statement.

I do, however, take issue with your statement that DL doesn't do airframe work for several of its partners because, it conveniently fails to note that DL DOES DO engine work.

I have noted multiple times that DL Tech Ops is NOT focused on airframe work but IS focused on engines, components, and.... well you can read Tech Ops home page to describe what they do.

 

[topDawg]

not sure why you felt you need to stick WT in your comment about what MROs do. perhaps you could find a post where I disagreed with your statement.

I do, however, take issue with your statement that DL doesn't do airframe work for several of its partners because, it conveniently fails to note that DL DOES DO engine work.

I have noted multiple times that DL Tech Ops is NOT focused on airframe work but IS focused on engines, components, and.... well you can read Tech Ops home page to describe what they do.

Way to miss the point yet again. 
 
Why is it with you I have to point out all these stupid meaningless to the conversation facts? 
Yes Delta does plenty of engines for plenty of airlines (partners and competitors) Woo hoo get someone a cookie
 
This thread is about an airframe contract. Nothing to do with engines, Virgin will keep sending its Trents to whatever vendor they send them too. That is the end of the engine conversation.
 
If TechOps got this AIRFRAME contract because of the partnership then TechOps would have other AIRFRAME partner contracts as well. 
they don't because Delta doesn't use its ownership to force carriers into deals with TechOps.
 
Oh and most (all?) of the engine contracts with the other ownership carriers were started before Delta bought into them. (I know Aeromexico was well before Delta bought a part of it.)  

 

[WorldTraveler]

you continue to want to argue when we are on the same page.... Delta bids for ALL contracts and other airlines give DL absolutely no preference in the bidding prócess, ownership or not. I said that.

Your statement that DL doesn't do airframe maintenance doesn't mean much because DL doesn't do as much airframe work on its own fleet and the majority of its MRO work is on engines and components.

Your point about DL not doing airframe work for other partners is correct but it misses the fact that DL doesn't do airframe work to anywhere near the degree it does engine work - which it does do for more of its partner carriers than it does engine work.

to validate your point vs. mine, let us know how many MRO airframe visits vs. engine visits DL Tech Ops had last year.

 

[topDawg]

you continue to want to argue when we are on the same page.... Delta bids for ALL contracts and other airlines give DL absolutely no preference in the bidding prócess, ownership or not. I said that.

Your statement that DL doesn't do airframe maintenance doesn't mean much because DL doesn't do as much airframe work on its own fleet and the majority of its MRO work is on engines and components.

Your point about DL not doing airframe work for other partners is correct but it misses the fact that DL doesn't do airframe work to anywhere near the degree it does engine work - which it does do for more of its partner carriers than it does engine work.

to validate your point vs. mine, let us know how many MRO airframe visits vs. engine visits DL Tech Ops had last year.

Once again
I am not talking about engines. At all. 
second you are proving with your post you don't know what you are talking about. 

 

[700UW]

Dawg he is a legend in his own mind and the author of WT's Fabricated Facts.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Once again
I am not talking about engines. At all. 
second you are proving with your post you don't know what you are talking about.

dawg,
I understand that you are referring only to airframe maintenance.

I am simply saying that the vast majority of DL's MRO revenue and work hours are for engine and component maintenance. DL Tech Ops says that.

We get that airframe MRO work is important to you and I absolutely hope that DL does pursue it as well as growing its own in-house airframe work.

given that DL's competitors are losing the insourcing work that they do have while DL is increasing it, the momentum at DL is completely in the right direction.

I also believe that the overall economics of MRO work will improve as a number of more unionized carriers simply do not want to do anything more in-house than they have to - reflected on the high amounts of outsourcing at UA, WN, and US, and what is rumored to be on the table for AA. There just aren't enough qualified mechanics and there will be some very talented people who will leave the industry rather than be thrust into another major life change that comes with increased outsourcing.

again, we are both cheering for the same thing. The semantics of under which column you put your responses vs. mine doesn't change that.