During the recent Q3 2025 Delta Air Lines earnings call, a senior executive at the airline made some interesting comments about the types of planes the airline will fly across the Atlantic, which can only be described as a swipe at United. However, do the comments actually make sense? Let’s take a look… thanks to Matt for flagging this.
In this post:
Delta’s strange stance on long haul narrow body flying
During Delta’s recent earnings call, Sheila Kahyaoglu, an Analyst at Jeffries, asked Delta President Glen Hauenstein the following about transatlantic flying:
“How do we think about Atlantic capacity next year, Glen, you mentioned more evenly dispersed. I guess how are you thinking about that? And maybe secondly, given your competitor just announced some new additions, how are you thinking about competitive capacity, your own network planning, as well as the A330, A350 product?”
Here’s part of how Hauenstein responded:
“Well, I think our product is best in class in the transatlantic. We continue to monitor our relative performance in terms of Net Promoter Scores. It’s leading right now, and it’s going to get much better as we continue to deliver new airplanes with the Delta One suites and with the enhanced Delta Premium Select and larger Delta C+ cabin. So I’m really excited about the product that we’re putting in market.”
“We’ve chosen not to fly narrow bodies in the transatlantic because of product and brand issues. And so we’re not going to go in that direction.”
Before I share my thoughts, let me provide a bit of context here:
- Hauenstein is presumably referencing how United is increasingly flying Boeing 737 MAXs in transatlantic markets, where the forward cabin is being sold as premium economy
- Hauenstein could also be referencing how United flies Boeing 757s in some transatlantic markets, where the forward cabin is marketed as Polaris business class, making it among the only non-direct aisle access long haul business class of any US airline
- It’s also possible that Hauenstein is indirectly referencing how Delta hasn’t ordered the Airbus A321XLR, while both American and United are going big on that plane, including for transatlantic flying
- Arguably what Hauenstein is saying isn’t actually accurate — Delta does fly Boeing 757s seasonally to Iceland, and I think most people would generally categorize that as a transatlantic flight
Are there product and brand issues with narrow bodies?
There’s no denying that some consumers don’t like the idea of flying narrow body planes on long haul flights — I’ve written about the pros and cons of this in the past. With the A321XLR being one of the newest aircraft in service, we’re going to see more transatlantic flights with single aisle planes.
That being said, of all the reasons to not fly narrow body planes on longer haul flights, product and brand issues seems like some of the more unusual justifications.
If we’re looking at United’s 737 MAX Europe expansion, for example, the key point to understand is that all of these flights are to destinations you wouldn’t otherwise be able to reach nonstop from the United States. For example, it’s not like United is flying 737 MAXs from Newark (EWR) to Frankfurt (FRA). Instead, the airline is flying them to places like Santiago de Compostela, Spain (SCQ), an airport that isn’t even served by any SkyTeam airline.
So do the perceived “product and brand issues” outweigh offering service to an airport that’s otherwise hard to get to? If you ask me, that seems like a stretch. It’s not like the airline is selling the forward cabin as business class. And if there are brand issues with this, then how does Delta explain flying 757s to Iceland?
There’s also an irony to Delta being concerned about product issues, when the carrier’s 767-300ERs have the worst international wide body business class product of any of the “big three” carriers, and those are used on all kinds of routes to Europe.
Regarding the A321XLR, I can totally understand if Delta has just decided it can’t make the economics of the jet work, given the low capacity of these planes, plus the labor costs at US airlines. At the same time, in the long run (once 767-300ERs are taken off transatlantic flights), Delta’s smallest long haul aircraft will be the A330. That means there will be all kinds of markets that American and United can make work with their A321XLRs, which Delta can’t make work, simply from a capacity standpoint. Will that turn out to be a competitive disadvantage for Delta?
Bottom line
In recent times, we’ve seen United increasingly use narrow body planes for its long haul expansion. This isn’t to replace existing routes, but instead, to add service to markets that simply couldn’t be served with wide body planes.
Delta executives claim the airline won’t move in that direction due to “product and brand issues,” though one certainly wonders about that logic. For one, Delta does use 757s for flights to places like Iceland. Furthermore, do the “product and brand issues” outweigh being able to offer service to destinations in the first place?
What do you make of Delta’s stance on long haul flying with narrow body planes?
I'm going to ask the same rhetorical question I ask often. Why do so many people who comment on airline blogs tend to argue that every airline has to have precisely the same business model?
they don't need to be the same.
The difference is in accurately and truthfully noting the difference between products and not Teflon-like trying to argue against product reality which only a relatively few really believe - or state.
When I read Delta thinks they have the best transatlantic nearly shot Woodford out my nose laughing so hard.
Delta may win the award for the most inconsistent transatlantic product, but not the best. There is not a single reputable travel writer who would go on record calling DL’s TATL product tops. There is no overcoming DLs 767s. They are crap. They are awful. They are the worst hard product crossing the sky, with...
When I read Delta thinks they have the best transatlantic nearly shot Woodford out my nose laughing so hard.
Delta may win the award for the most inconsistent transatlantic product, but not the best. There is not a single reputable travel writer who would go on record calling DL’s TATL product tops. There is no overcoming DLs 767s. They are crap. They are awful. They are the worst hard product crossing the sky, with the exception of the MAX that US is planning.
That said, the MAX will be on. Few UA routes, unlike DL and their 60 767s they fly across the pond.
where did DL itself say that they have the best transatlantic product?
and since you want to talk facts, DL doesn't even have 60 767s remaining and that is before supposedly 7 more will be retired this winter.
at least 20 are used for domestic routes including transcons and Hawaii.
and the 764s and 763s have different products and the 764 gets far better ratings than the 763 by, wait, wait, actual customers.
...where did DL itself say that they have the best transatlantic product?
and since you want to talk facts, DL doesn't even have 60 767s remaining and that is before supposedly 7 more will be retired this winter.
at least 20 are used for domestic routes including transcons and Hawaii.
and the 764s and 763s have different products and the 764 gets far better ratings than the 763 by, wait, wait, actual customers.
and ANY 767 has the highest percentage of aisle seats compared to not just any other widebody but most certainly compared to the 737 or 320 families.
The fixation on an inch of business class seat space to the exclusion of every other seat on an aircraft.
and the DL 767s are leaving the fleet with a possible 787 order accelerating the 767 exit while UA seems committed to growing its MAX TATL usage.
Why didn't DL put Delta One Suites on their 767s?
I'd like to understand the perception issues. In coach, a A321XLR will give you more space than a 9-abreast 787 or 10-abreast 777 (the norm, unfortunately).
Apart from that, quicker boarding and deplaning, shorter bursts of people at overseas border patrols, there are only advantages to a smaller plane. Of course, it must be fit accordingly, you can't just repurpose a domestic plane (and call the domestic first premium economy).
Why people think less...
I'd like to understand the perception issues. In coach, a A321XLR will give you more space than a 9-abreast 787 or 10-abreast 777 (the norm, unfortunately).
Apart from that, quicker boarding and deplaning, shorter bursts of people at overseas border patrols, there are only advantages to a smaller plane. Of course, it must be fit accordingly, you can't just repurpose a domestic plane (and call the domestic first premium economy).
Why people think less of a brand when they see a smaller plane? Would they rather fly French Bee (A350) than La Compagnie (A321LR)?
I would just like to add that there are some commentors calling Polaris "suites", which is misleading. Suites have doors, and if you want to go toe-to-toe, UA has zero widebodies with suites, AA has just a few B789P, and DL has almost all their a339neos and a359s. So who's really in front here?
Nothing like a three foot door to provide privacy on an airliner. Sorry, but if you'd ever sat/slept in a Polaris Suite you would understand how silly that is, but worry not. UA is putting three foot doors on their new and enhanced Polaris Suites and Studios that start arriving this year. If only people weren't five or six feet tall. ;)
2 thoughts:
1. When OMAAT has an article about another A321XLR long haul a lot of comments talk about how uncomfortable it would be, but when this article comes up suddenly a bunch of people defend these long haul narrowbody flights. So what gives?
2. If you're reading this article, you are not an 'average' customer for any airline. When 'average' customers approach the gate and go "oh wow, that's a small plane", that does...
2 thoughts:
1. When OMAAT has an article about another A321XLR long haul a lot of comments talk about how uncomfortable it would be, but when this article comes up suddenly a bunch of people defend these long haul narrowbody flights. So what gives?
2. If you're reading this article, you are not an 'average' customer for any airline. When 'average' customers approach the gate and go "oh wow, that's a small plane", that does far more to their perception of the airline than the actual product. Similar to maintaining the inflight entertainment screens.
I'm no fan of DL, as I've traditionally been an AA flyer, but I feel like I understand the point they are trying to make.
I barely tolerated the switch from the 762 to the A321T's on American for their trans on flights. Any flight time of 4 hours or longer, and I really would prefer not being on a narrowbody. You can put beautiful suites in the front like JetBlue Mint but If the...
I'm no fan of DL, as I've traditionally been an AA flyer, but I feel like I understand the point they are trying to make.
I barely tolerated the switch from the 762 to the A321T's on American for their trans on flights. Any flight time of 4 hours or longer, and I really would prefer not being on a narrowbody. You can put beautiful suites in the front like JetBlue Mint but If the rest of the cabin is stuffed to the gills with seats, that's not very luxury.
While accessing smaller market destinations with the A321XLR is a great thing, it's not something that I would end up doing. In the example Ben used, I would rather fly to MAD on a wide body and then use Spain's excellent high speed rail network to get to Asturias and Galicia. Ultimately, people have their preferences and I think DL has a point to their aversion to narrowbody TATL flights (the 757 to DUb not withstanding).
good points but DL does not fly narrowbodies to DUB or any other city further east of Iceland.
In fact, DL uses 763s from JFK to KEF but a domestic configured 757 from DTW (and sometimes MSP) to KEF (competitive with Icelandair's 738 which is essentially domestically configured)
DL uses widebodies to many cities that UA serves with 757s or 737s.
There is no planet on which any of UA's existing narrowbodies are superior...
good points but DL does not fly narrowbodies to DUB or any other city further east of Iceland.
In fact, DL uses 763s from JFK to KEF but a domestic configured 757 from DTW (and sometimes MSP) to KEF (competitive with Icelandair's 738 which is essentially domestically configured)
DL uses widebodies to many cities that UA serves with 757s or 737s.
There is no planet on which any of UA's existing narrowbodies are superior to DL 763s but only in the minds of UA fan brats that can't admit reality that UA is not at all focused on being a consistently premium airline or even premium services on all flights despite claiming that premium is where they get their profits.
When will DL exceed 50% of its wide-bodies having Delta One Suites?
If it's a 5-10 hour flight, there's no reason any 'premium' carrier can't install lie-flat up-front, whether it's single-aisle or wide-body. Even Delta has had lie-flat (2-2) on its older 75S, sometimes used for trans-Atlantic, but mostly transcontinental flights. With the 737max and a321neo, already other carriers are using these aircraft across the Atlantic with premium cabins (B6, SAS, TAP, etc.) With the a321XLR, carriers could fly to smaller airports in Europe and to South...
If it's a 5-10 hour flight, there's no reason any 'premium' carrier can't install lie-flat up-front, whether it's single-aisle or wide-body. Even Delta has had lie-flat (2-2) on its older 75S, sometimes used for trans-Atlantic, but mostly transcontinental flights. With the 737max and a321neo, already other carriers are using these aircraft across the Atlantic with premium cabins (B6, SAS, TAP, etc.) With the a321XLR, carriers could fly to smaller airports in Europe and to South America. Recliners for a 6+ hour flight is not great. There should be greater comfort and consistency in that segment.
I would imagine that coach even on the 321XR would really suck. Three small lavs for a 7-8 hour flight?
Aer Lingus A321XLR coach: 18" width, 32" coach. American / United B789 coach: 17.1" width, 31" pitch.
The branding issues are real: this is about the ongoing "Spirit-ization" of airlines since the start of COVID, the increasing focus on down-market leisure. AA is basically indistinguishable from Spirit/Frontier at this point, and UA is not far off. And this is true on intl routes too: EWR-SCQ is clearly a leisure market, and even in premium cabins on formerly core business trunk routes you are as likely to see sweatpants and micro-dogs as you...
The branding issues are real: this is about the ongoing "Spirit-ization" of airlines since the start of COVID, the increasing focus on down-market leisure. AA is basically indistinguishable from Spirit/Frontier at this point, and UA is not far off. And this is true on intl routes too: EWR-SCQ is clearly a leisure market, and even in premium cabins on formerly core business trunk routes you are as likely to see sweatpants and micro-dogs as you are corporate-issued laptops. DL is clearly trying to put a stake in the ground and say "we are still a premium/business airline," which is a legitimate branding position to take. There is an increasing split between the crowd that will basically endure anything for a nonstop to their final destination and those that value the flying experience itself, or at least want it to be civilized. Most of the newly-minted leisure travelers are in the former camp; serving the latter can be a point of differentiation.
Chas says "The branding issues are real"
What effect does having only 77 of 178 wide-body aircraft with Delta One Suites on branding? Is Basic Economy on all flights part of the "ongoing Spirit-ization of airlines since the start of Covid"?
Chas says "AA is basically indistinguishable from Spirit/Frontier at this point"
AA is almost nothing like Spirit/Frontier, but feel free to tell us how you came to that conclusion.
in other words, you focus on the speck in someone else's eye because you cannot see the log in your own
When do you think DL will exceed 50% of its wide-bodies having Delta One Suites?
Ben,
One thing you didn't mention is how Delta's pilot scope fits in with this. Delta has to keep equivalent TATL flying with their JV partners but only widebodies count for that scope. There's little incentive to fly narrow bodies, for now. But as SAS likely joins the Delta JV, it seems likely Delta pilots will fix that oversight and want some type of equivalent flying (widebody or narrow body) to match the SAS A321LRs
When paying with my own money, I would fly a 757 or A321 in domestic first-class seats (assuming there was sufficient legroom) if it was reasonably priced for short JFK-LHR flights than pay $5,000 for maybe 6 hours in lie-flat seats. You lose almost 2 hours because they serve 2 meals. If you're lucky, you get 4 hours of sleep.
FTN, meals are not obligatory, not at least on a World Class Airline. Telling the FA’s that one only be disturbed in an emergency, works a treat and ensures a restful night …. weather permitting …. :-)
Sure but it's difficult to sleep when with all the noise and all the lights on. Some of the airlines outrageously turn the lights on and start serving breakfast more than an hour before the scheduled landing time.
Personally, I think this is really just a negotiating tactic for Delta with respect to Airbus.
Delta's negotiating prowess and creativity to score planes on the cheap is well known.
They find themselves between a rock and a hard place with the a321xlr, as there's simply no competitor in the market. The best they can do is act like they don't want the plane's performance capabilities in the first place, and hope that eventually Airbus...
Personally, I think this is really just a negotiating tactic for Delta with respect to Airbus.
Delta's negotiating prowess and creativity to score planes on the cheap is well known.
They find themselves between a rock and a hard place with the a321xlr, as there's simply no competitor in the market. The best they can do is act like they don't want the plane's performance capabilities in the first place, and hope that eventually Airbus will eventually cut them a deal. It ain't the greatest position to be negotiating from, but it's the only card DL has to play. And obviously DL views these potential 321XLR routes as being of marginal overall benefit at any rate, otherwise they'd pay the going rate.
And there is some truth that your typical (clueless) passenger will be surprised to the downside to learn that they're flying on a single aisle plane when they were expecting a "big plane" based on the simple fact that it's a TATL route. But over the long term, DL is going to have to engage in more narrowbody TATL flying to compete.
Lars says "Delta's negotiating prowess and creativity to score planes on the cheap is well known. They find themselves between a rock and a hard place with the a321xlr, as there's simply no competitor in the market. The best they can do is act like they don't want the plane's performance capabilities in the first place, and hope that eventually Airbus will eventually cut them a deal. It ain't the greatest position to be negotiating...
Lars says "Delta's negotiating prowess and creativity to score planes on the cheap is well known. They find themselves between a rock and a hard place with the a321xlr, as there's simply no competitor in the market. The best they can do is act like they don't want the plane's performance capabilities in the first place, and hope that eventually Airbus will eventually cut them a deal. It ain't the greatest position to be negotiating from, but it's the only card DL has to play."
And that worked well before the post-Covid supply chain and Boeing issues. UA's massive orders in 2022 were either genius or extremely fortuitous. Advantage UA.
Unless Airbus can fix the range cut taken by the A321XLR in connection with the fuel tank fix, what's the point of Delta acquiring it for TATL missions? The plane won't be very helpful for unlocking expanded TATL flying from the Sunbelt, and that's where Delta would find the greatest potential upside.
Ben Schlappig, you are a naughty, naughty man! Almost as bad as I am at winding up the natives. One simply loves the spats between the rival brainwashed contestants …. very entertaining Ben, thank you …. :-)
Ben is a master at reader engagement and this story is a perfect example.
UA execs have been spouting off endlessly about how great they are relative to every other airline except for DL who they think they are just like.
DL has started swinging at UA to put it back in its place - not just w/ the LAX int'l expansion plus ORD but also at comments like this that show that UA is...
Ben is a master at reader engagement and this story is a perfect example.
UA execs have been spouting off endlessly about how great they are relative to every other airline except for DL who they think they are just like.
DL has started swinging at UA to put it back in its place - not just w/ the LAX int'l expansion plus ORD but also at comments like this that show that UA is not really focused at being premium.
It is also clear that there are a segment of UA fan nuts that cannot admit reality and hypocritically twist and manipulate to avoid admitting that
1. UA's international longhaul fleet is far from consistent including w/ its 757s.
2. UA is adding even more low-class mass transportation with its MAXs which like the 757 do not even have a true premium economy product comparable to UA's widebodies. UA's 757s are inferior in every cabin to DL's 763s.
3. AA and DL use international widebodies to Hawaii while UA uses its high density 777s which are just 2 A320s or 738s joined at the hip.
It is one thing to be loyal to a brand but it is quite another to have the Tulip shoved so far up your backside that you can't even see the truth let alone admit it.
Without talking about their 767s, here’s the thing, United can get away with flying the 737 and 757 to Europe because they’re able to provide a full long haul service in economy and premium economy. (1 main hot meal with 3 options and an arrival hot snack) since their entire mainline fleet is equipped with enough ovens in the back. Meanwhile delta’s 757 routes to KEF (even the long ones) only get a cold sandwich...
Without talking about their 767s, here’s the thing, United can get away with flying the 737 and 757 to Europe because they’re able to provide a full long haul service in economy and premium economy. (1 main hot meal with 3 options and an arrival hot snack) since their entire mainline fleet is equipped with enough ovens in the back. Meanwhile delta’s 757 routes to KEF (even the long ones) only get a cold sandwich and that’s it due to their lack of ovens.
Yes a 737 isn’t a pleasant ride for that long, but you’re still getting the same service you’d be getting on a wide body on United at least, if anything one of the best UA meals I’ve had was flying out of greenland
LMFAO Delta's 767s are way worse than any of the narrow body products with proper J class currently being flown.
I think this calls for an article where you compare the various transatlantic options and rate and compare them based on your experience! I wouldn't stop at the American carriers but include AF, KLM, BA (maybe split LHR/LGW as that's an almost perfect CS vs older seats split), Virgin, SAS and LH group all at once.
My parents are the opposite of me; know little to nothing regarding aircraft and hard product differentiation.
I booked them JFK-AMS in Mint this past summer, and they loved it. That said, they both commented on "why were we on a Frontier-sized plane to go all the way to Amsterdam? We would never fly this in coach to Europe"
I also flew Mint to Europe and thought the product was good. However, if the price difference is not too large I would choose a wide body flight with more extensive meal service.
Ben clearly needs the at least once a week Delta vs. United bashfest so he copies the exact same, tired arguments that the UA fan kids use.
No, Ben, it isn't a DL vs. UA thing. first, AA is also ordering the XLR. Second, AA and UA are unique among large global airlines in using the XLRs
Second, there is a big difference between Iceland - which has LONG had narrowbody service to N. America...
Ben clearly needs the at least once a week Delta vs. United bashfest so he copies the exact same, tired arguments that the UA fan kids use.
No, Ben, it isn't a DL vs. UA thing. first, AA is also ordering the XLR. Second, AA and UA are unique among large global airlines in using the XLRs
Second, there is a big difference between Iceland - which has LONG had narrowbody service to N. America and continental Europe which AA and UA intend to serve with XLRs while UA currently serves Ireland, the UK and continental Europe with narrowbodies that are nowhere comparable to UA's widebody levels of service.
and finally, it is actually very accurate to note the brand confusion that UA ALONE creates by offering service to CONTINENTAL Europe on domestic configured aircraft. and the justification that it will be nonstop for somebody is about as accurate as arguing that using a 50 seat RJ on 1000 flight is ok because someone will be able to fly nonstop. Tell us the percentage of passengers on UA's flights to Nuuk and the islands of Portugal that originate their travels in New York (actually NJ) and I can assure you that the percentage is well south of a majority.
Given how much UA loves to talk about how close they are to DL, it is opportunities like this where the evidence is clear and DL gets to take a well-earned swipe at UA given how much UA execs love to take a swipe at UA.
UA has no brand consistency in its TATL fleet NOW, is making it worse by adding MAXs to its TATL schedule, and there is nothing premium about a MAX over the Atlantic and that will be apparent in UA's financial results which will fall short of DL's - even though the UA yappers will tell us they fly more ASMs than DL.
Oh, and DL's entrance into move multiple LAX TPAC markets has resulted in UA's exit and DL is not through growing UA at UA's expense, just as was true in LAX domestic at AA's expense.
A lot of cover your ass by Tim, when Delta screwed up and didn't order XLR.
again, if the XLR was so great, why haven't BA, AF, KL, VS, and all of the LH Group airlines ordered it?
It speaks volumes that AA and UA among the largest global airlines are the two that HAVE ordered the XLR or even the LR (B6 doesn't even have XLRs in service)
and while product is part of the reason for DL's decision, costs for narrowbody TATL ops are too high at US carrier labor costs which are some of the highest in the world.
you realize you don't actually have to take the bait and write a dissertation on this topic every time it comes up?
TD says "UA has no brand consistency in its TATL fleet NOW"
UA: 206 Int'l wide-bodies ALL with Polaris suites, Premium Plus & Economy Plus
DL: 178 Int'l wide-bodies: 77 have D1 suites
That dog don't hunt.
and you, rebel, aren't smart enough to admit that UA's 757s have no brand consistency to their widebodies and the MAXs certainly don't.
IOW, UA is only brand consistent if you exclude the types that fly as many flights as DL's 763s.
Your dog is comatose on the front porch
and you, max, prove you are incapable of discussing the facts of the topic - which I, once again, accurately note - so you...
and you, rebel, aren't smart enough to admit that UA's 757s have no brand consistency to their widebodies and the MAXs certainly don't.
IOW, UA is only brand consistent if you exclude the types that fly as many flights as DL's 763s.
Your dog is comatose on the front porch
and you, max, prove you are incapable of discussing the facts of the topic - which I, once again, accurately note - so you resort in your first post on this article to discussing me.
DL's statement IS correct. UA has no brand consistency. AA at least retired the 767s and is waiting for the XLR to venture back across the Atlantic w/ narrowbodies.
Here's a OMAAT blast from the past that demonstrates a gross lack of DL int'l brand consistency within its wide-body fleet's hard product.
https://onemileatatime.com/guides/delta-one-business-class-suites/
UA does an amazing job of matching the product to the market especially when developing new markets. CAL developed these long-thin Western European markets from EWR and UA obviously sees the value on continuing to serve these markets eventually with a great narrow-body product, A321-XLRs.
UA's entire wide-body fleet (206 aircraft)...
Here's a OMAAT blast from the past that demonstrates a gross lack of DL int'l brand consistency within its wide-body fleet's hard product.
https://onemileatatime.com/guides/delta-one-business-class-suites/
UA does an amazing job of matching the product to the market especially when developing new markets. CAL developed these long-thin Western European markets from EWR and UA obviously sees the value on continuing to serve these markets eventually with a great narrow-body product, A321-XLRs.
UA's entire wide-body fleet (206 aircraft) has had Polaris suites, PP & EP seats for years. Why is DL so far behind after so long in this regard? Pretty astounding considering DL is so well managed in other areas.
no. You're just an idiot and while you seem to have time to rewrite the same drivel 1000x per week, I don't feel the need to remind you of obvious things you just omit and mischaracterize
but in short.
1. Do I want to take a MAX8 to Galicia? No, but it's economy and premium economy. Anyone that purchases premium economy won't be too surprised when they hop on a max8. Like I've...
no. You're just an idiot and while you seem to have time to rewrite the same drivel 1000x per week, I don't feel the need to remind you of obvious things you just omit and mischaracterize
but in short.
1. Do I want to take a MAX8 to Galicia? No, but it's economy and premium economy. Anyone that purchases premium economy won't be too surprised when they hop on a max8. Like I've said ad nauseam. domestic first is quite literally the same seat as most premium economy seats. Just doesn't have the foot rest (that I've never used in W anyway...)
2. UA has much more brand consistency in J TATL vs Delta. The 757s are different, sure. but You're busy defending Delta when they've been flying around those crap LATAM A350s with no aisle access either or wifi, to say nothing of the 767s.
Just chill out, dude. Do you even realize how stupid you sound when you spend your entire day responding to articles?
Dog don’t hunt - Hysterical! Although UA did announce 2 of the 4 2026 summer destinations will be served by 737-8MAX.
While UA may have more WB with Polaris - I find myself avoiding the 777-HD and the MAX west coast flights to Hawaii. I backtrack to ORD to get on the 787-10s.
AA/DL both fly their premium cabin airplanes in the Hawaii market.
I’m in Houston - just dying for HA/AS to serve ANY of the islands non-stop from IAH.
M. Casey says "AA/DL both fly their premium cabin airplanes in the Hawaii market."
Which great for customers, but a gross mismatch of limited premium resources to a leisure market. Then again, I am not sure a DL 767 can be considered 'premium'.
I mean idk what you’re taking about, the meal service level is the same on the max as a 777 on United. I do agree the legroom is the only issue here. But compare this to delta, delta’s Iceland flights get a cold sandwich in economy and that’s it, while UA’s greenland flight (also shorter) get a full hot meal with 3 options in economy, and an arrival hot snack. I love the max but...
I mean idk what you’re taking about, the meal service level is the same on the max as a 777 on United. I do agree the legroom is the only issue here. But compare this to delta, delta’s Iceland flights get a cold sandwich in economy and that’s it, while UA’s greenland flight (also shorter) get a full hot meal with 3 options in economy, and an arrival hot snack. I love the max but pushing it that long is too much I’ll agree, the experience in economy is very close to comparable to what United currently has. As all of UA’s mainline fleet is in theory capable of doing a long haul service (except the Neo but that one they went way too overboard with how much they could stuff on it).
UX which is part of Skyteam flies daily to SCQ
They only go to VGO.
I rather not fly any US airline across the Atlantic.
I mean he makes an extremely valid point… Not forcing customers to transit through Atlanta so they can fill wide bodies would be extremely ‘off brand’ for what we have come to expect from Delta.
As passenger levels increase, there's a fundamental operational challenge: primary hubs have only so many slots and can provide for only so many connecting passengers. At a point, airlines need to look to non-stop flights to secondary/tertiary airports. But, is there enough demand going to those airports for an all wide-body strategy to work financially?
In the 90s, Boeing's CEO expressly acknowledged the issue and said it would focus on point-to-point. While Airbus was focused on mega-hubs and the A380. Boeing would have a substantial advantage over Airbus. But, at the time, the customers didn't follow and Boeing missed its chance at an XLR-type offering. Now, seemingly, the positions are flipped and Boeing is playing catch-up.
the 767 opened secondary routes across the Atlantic and was heavily bought by US airlines. The 777 did the same across the Pacific.
US airlines now are in the position of upgauging to larger routes or to use smaller aircraft with poor per-seat metrics across the Atlantic.
the majority of global airlines are not adding narrowbody TATL flights; AA and UA are the exception. Airlines at Ireland and Iceland have long used narrowbodies to reach...
the 767 opened secondary routes across the Atlantic and was heavily bought by US airlines. The 777 did the same across the Pacific.
US airlines now are in the position of upgauging to larger routes or to use smaller aircraft with poor per-seat metrics across the Atlantic.
the majority of global airlines are not adding narrowbody TATL flights; AA and UA are the exception. Airlines at Ireland and Iceland have long used narrowbodies to reach the US.
DL is upgauging and will replace 763s with 764s and 332s and, for at least the next 10 years, be upgauging its TATL flights rather than using narrowbodies.
Maybe in 10 years, Airbus or Boeing will produce a 763 sized aircraft that will change economics but that is nowhere to be seen on the horizon.
TD says "the majority of global airlines are not adding narrowbody TATL flights"
Because, other than maybe BA, no other airlines have a connecting hub within range of feasible destinations like EWR that lends itself so well to such flights. Advantage UA.
It's just a matter of time.
One has to wonder if political pressure is being applied to DL and others to resist buying Airbus aircraft? Certainly the latest buzz from the right side of the pond is speculating upon such a scenario.
The CEOs of the three primary US-based legacy carriers have taken positions and made statements that are acquiescing to the current administration. But, administrations change.
We hope
…. and I thought that Mr Trump, was the ‘bees knees’ according to the world press corps today. After all he has achieved in weeks what his predecessor failed to do in almost two years. Perhaps the IDF and the Israeli government helped a little too with the end of Hamas/Israeli hostilities?
I still like to know why delta got rid of the 777s every airline in the world uses those aircraft' I just never understood it
Fuel efficiency and life cycle costs. The 777 is a late-1980s design. Subsequently, the 787 and various Airbus models made huge advances. In 2011, Boeing knew an updated 777 was needed. And, had delivery of the 777X actually started in 2017, when originally projected, airline fleets would likely be different today. But, as it stands, deliveries start in 2027.
DL seems to want to cut off their nose to spite their face. I will take Some Service to new markets over No Service.
DL can also soon say Bye Bye to their margins too with their smaller route network and retreating from key routes, tail between legs.
as usual, UA devotee, actual facts, not your personal bias argue against what you believe to be the case.
DL has long had higher margins than UA and that will continue to be the case.
UA can't argue that they are trying to be a premium airline and then add service on a plane that doesn't even have a competitive premium economy product, let alone not even their supposedly vaunted Polaris product that isn't...
as usual, UA devotee, actual facts, not your personal bias argue against what you believe to be the case.
DL has long had higher margins than UA and that will continue to be the case.
UA can't argue that they are trying to be a premium airline and then add service on a plane that doesn't even have a competitive premium economy product, let alone not even their supposedly vaunted Polaris product that isn't even direct aisle access in business class and only 1/3 get aisle seats in coach.
Either UA is engaged in double speak or they aren't really focused on being premium which is what UA and DL say are generating their margins.
The reality is that A and B are both correct.
UA is focused on size and they are willing to cheapen their product in order to be able to tout their size.
If you care about your brand, you don't sell a product that is below your brand standards no matter how many more people it attracts.
TD say, "If you care about your brand, you don't sell a product that is below your brand standards no matter how many more people it attracts."
See Basic Economy, possibly DL's greatest competitive innovation.
It's just a matter of time.
In the past delta flew 757s from jfk-Edi jfk-dub they were good going over coming back with heavy head winds diversions to Bangor or gander to gas and go or sometimes even Boston they couldn't make it back to jfk without stopping for fuel
Stockholm too.
Except Delta has until quite recently flown 757s with domestic first-class seats marketed as premium economy to Iceland and Ireland. I believe they were also using these for London-Gatwick. Weren't they also using the 757 with Delta One 2x2 seating for Raleigh to Paris?
You are correct. RDU-CDG was a 752 cycled in from ATL
He really thinks the ghetto 767-300 Premium Economy Plus business class is "best in class across the Atlantic"? Is this guy T*m D*nn?
Yes, his intelligence level seems to be around mine, where I think replacing the e at the end of my name with an a makes me a different person.
Delta's TATL network is significant, and very large (though I believe UA has passed DL as the #1 US carrier across the Atlantic, not that this metric means much or should be relevant, because frankly, it's not). Delta still relies on aged 767-300ERs and aging 767-400ERs for a number of TATL routes. These planes have subpar products, from nose to tail. In fact, DL's premium products, specifically Delta One, is so disparate across the fleet...
Delta's TATL network is significant, and very large (though I believe UA has passed DL as the #1 US carrier across the Atlantic, not that this metric means much or should be relevant, because frankly, it's not). Delta still relies on aged 767-300ERs and aging 767-400ERs for a number of TATL routes. These planes have subpar products, from nose to tail. In fact, DL's premium products, specifically Delta One, is so disparate across the fleet (only the A339 and A359 actually have the best and latest), that Delta must compensate for this with the ground experience and the hubris it creates. It's not a premium airline. No US carrier is. America doesn't have a service culture of that kind. It's not in its DNA. Delta's premium push makes sense of course from a marketing spin and differentiation tactic, though having just flown two roundtrips on Delta to Europe in the last month, while it all looks like it should be good, I've found the flight attendants badly groomed, unpleasant, and the food and service disgusting and mediocre. Delta relies very much on US POS to fill its planes to Europe and when the US economy tanks (and it will), Delta will be left on the sidelines without narrow body jets to run some flights to markets where frankly, the 339 is too large.
DL flies more WIDEBODY capacity to Europe than any other airline. UA's capacity advantage on TATL is because of their use of narrowbodies and their service to India and DXB.
and just stop w/ the nonsense about the inconsistency of the DL fleet; even Ben notes that UA's 757s have the worst business class product among US carriers. DL's 767-300ERs have direct aisle lie flat in business class; UA's 757s do not and UA's MAXs...
DL flies more WIDEBODY capacity to Europe than any other airline. UA's capacity advantage on TATL is because of their use of narrowbodies and their service to India and DXB.
and just stop w/ the nonsense about the inconsistency of the DL fleet; even Ben notes that UA's 757s have the worst business class product among US carriers. DL's 767-300ERs have direct aisle lie flat in business class; UA's 757s do not and UA's MAXs do not even have a true premium economy product.
and EVERY widebody in the DL fleet has a much higher percentage of aisle seats than any current narrowbody. Product is not just about business class; 2/3 of coach passengers can't stand up on a 737 or 320 family aircraft w/o asking someone
don't forget that DL is retiring 767-300ERs at a pretty rapid pace and has not flown the 757 to Ireland or beyond for years. AA is in the same boat. Life consists of now and the future, not the past. DL's comparisons are valid.
and you can talk about your anecdotal experiences all you want but DL does manage to put the ingredients together in its total service package better than any US airline - BASED ON THE BOTTOM LINE. DL can certainly offer offer an even higher quality product but they still generate the most revenue and profit.
as earnings season rolls out, it will be clear that DL has accomplished what its competitors can only wish they had.
Delta must be paying you to be this much of a fool.
Delta will likely be the launch customer of Boeing's newer narrowbody jet and you can be sure that from a cabin width and length point of view, one size variant will be designed to work for DL as a TATL/transcon product.
The 321XLR is just too new and the A32x assembly lines are too full for DL to be able to find reasonably priced frames. If they have to wait 10 years anyway, why...
Delta will likely be the launch customer of Boeing's newer narrowbody jet and you can be sure that from a cabin width and length point of view, one size variant will be designed to work for DL as a TATL/transcon product.
The 321XLR is just too new and the A32x assembly lines are too full for DL to be able to find reasonably priced frames. If they have to wait 10 years anyway, why buy into a product that's old already ? They might as well put their focus on the the newer one that will have higher cabin pressure and moisture, better fuel economy, possibly sl. larger cabin width, higher capacity with maintained turnaround times, freight etc.
Delta either buys strategic or opportunistic. The A321XLR is not a strategic buy and there's no cheap opportunities. So they have to do windows dressing until they have something more interesting to say.
One could agree with that assessment… except with Boeing you’re rolling the dice that waiting 10 years won’t turn into 20 or even longer and Delta’s fleet cannot survive that long.
A number of airlines hung themselves out to dry committing to expansion and fleet renewal based on a 777x. There will be no more ‘cheap acquisition opportunities’ for the foreseeable future baring a major recession (already predicted to have less effect on air...
One could agree with that assessment… except with Boeing you’re rolling the dice that waiting 10 years won’t turn into 20 or even longer and Delta’s fleet cannot survive that long.
A number of airlines hung themselves out to dry committing to expansion and fleet renewal based on a 777x. There will be no more ‘cheap acquisition opportunities’ for the foreseeable future baring a major recession (already predicted to have less effect on air travel than previous), a massive terrorist attack or China managing to produce a commercially viable Airplane. You can no longer count on a cyclical downturn or major bankruptcy creating a glut of cheap planes.
Delta seems to spout more disingenuous BS than other airlines. They're fine flying their mediocre 767 product right now...
What will Delta use when the 767-300s have to be retired, or will they leave all the leisure markets that could support only that smaller plane’s capacity?
Time will tell if the Delta long term narrow body plan will work out for them …. I’m sure that Tim will put his spin on the situation quite soon.
Truly don’t understand why Delta didn’t bug the 321xlr.
How are they going to run flights they operate now once the 767-300 goes away? For example, JFK to Porto, JFK to Catania and JFK to Shannon.
the 764 which will be around for five years after the 763 or the 332 which probably still has another decade left in it
Being able to fly point to point nonstop is such a huge win in favour of the XLR. Who in their right mind wants to transfer in FRA or LHR when they can hop straight to Ibiza or Olbia? Widebodies are generally more comfortable but getting to your holiday in 8 hours vs 11 or 12 is a major benefit of the XLR.
A very valid argument there JK, let us see if the naysayers try to shoot you down …. :-)
I strongly agree with you, JK - provided that the XLR has a decent onboard product. Flying 8 hours in a standard recliner on a daytime flight might be ok. For an overnight flight, I definitely prefer a widebody plan with a proper business class cabin.