Trans-atlantic 757 & 767-400

JFK777,
Delta's 767-300ERs were not flying the Atlantic in 1988. DL has 767-300s of 1988 vintage but they are not ERs. DL bought the 767-400s as high density domestic replacements for the L1011s, not for international routes. DL could convert them to international use but that is highly unlikely in the next year. DL has 767-300ERs in domestic configuration that would likely be converted to international use first just because there are already domestic and internationally configured 767s now.

PHX,
DL does not serve any destinations in Great Britain or Ireland from the NE. If DL acquires 757s, they would very likely be placed in those markets first.

The additional revenue that is obtained from a 767-400 vs a 767-300 is very small when the conversion costs are backed out. With proper revenue management, the highest revenue passengers should be accommodated on a 767-300 and there are few airports in Europe that DL serves where slots are not reasonably available.
Part of the reason DL has not bought a significant number of large widebodies is undoubtedly because it is very likely that there will be consolidation in the industry and because several players are operating in bankruptcy. It makes blending fleets together much less complicated if there are alot less big airplanes. I consider it highly likely that there will be consolidation in the legacy segment of the industry in the next few years, possibly as few as six months, and that DL will participate, if not lead that consolidation. While DL needs a couple years to get itself back on its feet financially, it has pushed back nearly all aircraft acquisitions for the next 3 years, has reduced debt to very manageable levels, and has said it will take advantage of legislation that allows it to push back much of its pension funding for several years. Given the continued overcapacity in the industry and the need to rationalize hubs (of which DL still has several in small cities which could easily be replaced with larger ones from other carriers) and the fact that DL has few international routes outside of fairly competitive regions of the world, I think you will see DL move to acquire another carrier or its international assets as part of its turnaround plan. There are already indications that other airlines are thinking the same thing.

Good fleet planning is done in the context of a 15-20 year horizon and while considering all possibilities that could affect DL's business plan.
 
Worldtraveler,

I could care less when Delta operated 763(noER) domestically. They ordered 763ER's before Pan AM in 1988, when these particular airplanes started operating, I don't know. Probably before Pan Am, because DAL started operating them out of ATL to Europe.

You atre right that the 764 were purchased to replace the DOMESTIC L-1011's. I'M TALK ING ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL L-1011-500'S I expect people on this board to recognize the difference of airplanes types & sub-types. Any self respecting contributor to this board should know L-1011-1( the domestic version) could not fly to Europe. Only the L-1011-500( the international one) could fly accross the Atlantic from Atlanta. L-1011-500 started with Delta in the late 1970's, this was the backbone of the European fleet for a decade and one half, this planes also started Delta to Japan with the ATL-PDX-NRT route in 1988. That's when the MD-11 were ordered and the rest is another post. 763ER came along about 1989 or 1990, right before Pan AM, then became the core of the fleet internationally until today.
 
WorldTraveler said:
JFK777,
While DL needs a couple years to get itself back on its feet financially, it has reduced debt to very manageable levels..........
[post="197683"][/post]​

Your kidding right?
Not UAL. nor AMR or DAL have reduced their debt to VERY manageable levels.
What the " " are you talking about?
 
Only the L-1011-500( the international one) could fly accross the Atlantic from Atlanta.

Actually, ATL-FRA and –LGW are well within the max payload range of the L-1011-200, which has the same fuselage size as the -1 (although I admit that Delta never operated that type). That being said, DL did operate the -250 (which I believe was essentially -1 with the -500’s engines) and flew them across the Atlantic from time to time, but I do not know if they were the “scheduledâ€￾ equipment or a substitution.
 
In the early 1990's, we had scheduled Trans-Atlantic service using the L1011-250 in a 12/45/203 configuration. I believe that there were six of them, ships 736-741. I think that these same ships were also used on ATL-HNL in a different configuration.

I think that we began to introduce the 767-332 ER into Trans-Atlantic service in 1991. While I do not remember the start date, I am fairly certain that we were not using it to Europe in 1990 or before.

ah
 
JFK777,
There’s quite a difference between ORDERING and OPERATING. Delta ordered the SSC but never flew them so I wouldn’t exactly call them an SSC operator. The 767-300ERs began service in 1990, shortly before Delta bought Pan Am. That is why Airbus was so excited when they could place the A310 with Delta – although not one but two sets of planes were find unsuitable by DL.

Since you’re making a big deal about dates and how OLD DL’s 767s are, dates DO matter. A 14 year old airplane is far from ready for the grave. While at some point, DL may operate the 7E7, those 767s will be plying the Atlantic for the rest of this decade.

Aislehopper is exactly right. The L1011-250 was a unique Delta aircraft that flew both to Europe and Hawaii. If you are talking about international aircraft, then why the F*** are you talking about the 764 other than to ramble and perhaps try to baffle us with your BS? The 764 is a domestic airplane and will be until and if Delta decides to fly it in international markets. Go back to airliners.net where people get worked up and pound their chests over this stuff. This board has more decorum.

Mistified,
DL’s debt, just like AA’s, CO’s, and NW’s is MANAGEABLE. That means these companies can pay it and have business plans built around paying their debt instead of trying to dump it in bankruptcy as the U* airlines are doing. The group of four solvent airlines also have pension obligations which they have in their business plans to pay. Doesn’t mean they like having the expense – just that they intend to pay them. Responsible companies like responsible individuals understand and honor their obligations.
 
WorldTraveler,

Since you take such pride in yourself you must know your name means coach at British Airways. I travel internationally only in Business Class. You take of "SST" and other planes never built, I'm only comparing L-1011 of different stripes, my post concern only L-1011 & 767's. I never said Delta 763ER's were "old" or some othe derogatory description, DAL's are the same age as any other "major" north american operator of the type.
 
WorldTraveler said:
JFK777,
Mistified,
DL’s debt, just like AA’s, CO’s, and NW’s is MANAGEABLE. That means these companies can pay it and have business plans built around paying their debt instead of trying to dump it in bankruptcy as the U* airlines are doing.
[post="198030"][/post]​

WorldTraveler
You said their debt was VERY MANAGEABLE. I say they are just barely hanging on.
I guess it just a matter of what one thinks the meaning of "is" is.

mistified
 
My opinions on this post have been about L-1011 & 767's, debt has been disscussed by others not me.
 
JFK777 said:
My opinions on this post have been about L-1011 & 767's, debt has been disscussed by others not me.
[post="198355"][/post]​

I understand that. However I was just commenting on what WorldTraveler said about DAL and AMR having VERY MANAGEABLE debt levels.
I think that is a stretch.
I think a more accurate description is BARELY MANAGEABLE debt levels.
 
British Airways is a fine airline and their coach/economy product is very competitive in the industry. The fact that we use the same title is coincidental; actually BA's class is spelled "Traveller".

Manageable means that DL is capable of paying their debts; I've never said it is ideal or that they are happy with it, only that they could pay it - and they will to the tune of $500-750 million per year for many years to come.
 
British Airways is a fine airline and their coach/economy product is very competitive in the industry. The fact that we use the same title is coincidental; actually BA's class is spelled "Traveller".

Manageable means that DL is capable of paying their debts; I've never said it is ideal or that they are happy with it, only that they could pay it - and they will to the tune of $500-750 million per year for many years to come.