It’s a fascinating time for Alaska Air Group, given the merger between Alaska and Hawaiian, which is causing a major strategy shift. We’re seeing Alaska Airlines create a long haul hub out of Seattle-Tacoma (SEA), using former Hawaiian Airlines jets. Along those lines, there’s an interesting update…
In this post:
Alaska modifies its Boeing 787 Dreamliner order
Pre-merger, Hawaiian had placed a firm order for 12 Boeing 787-9s, and the long term plan is for these to fly for Alaska, out of Seattle. Just a couple of months ago, Alaska revealed it would boost this order, adding five additional frames, meaning there are now 17 of these jets on order.
That’s not all that has changed, though. Alaska has also swapped the variants for some of these orders — five of the 787-9 orders have been swapped to the larger 787-10 variant. That means Alaska now has 12 787-9s and five 787-10s on order.
This was initially reported by Seeking Alpha last week, but at the time, many of us weren’t sure if it was accurate, since it wasn’t reported elsewhere, and seemingly wasn’t based on any public filings. So there’s now an update, as Alaska has confirmed that it has converted some 787-9 orders into 787-10s. The airline states it will share more details about this in the near future.
For those not familiar, the 787-10 is the largest variant of the Dreamliner. While it has the least range of any Dreamliner variant, the per-seat economics are great, given how it’s “stretched.” Furthermore, the plane’s range has nicely been expanded since it first launched, thanks to incremental improvements.
Among US airlines, United operates the 787-10, Delta is expected to order the 787-10, and I have to imagine that at some point, American will also order the 787-10 (as it eventually makes a decision about 777 replacement plans).
This seems like a logical development for Alaska
The Boeing 787-10 seems like the perfect plane for Alaska, especially given Seattle’s geography. For context, the 787-9 officially has a range of 8,700 miles, while the 787-10 officially has a range of 7,300 miles. Of course let me emphasize that doesn’t mean the planes can fly routes quite that long, since it doesn’t factor in fuel reserves, winds, variations between configurations, etc.
Still, 7,300 miles from Seattle covers a vast majority of destinations that Alaska could want to serve, including everything in Europe, as well as much of Asia. The only thing that potentially wouldn’t be within range is destinations like Australia, India, and Singapore, but those can be flown by the 787-9.
Given the great per-seat economics, plus Alaska’s ability to eventually fill long haul seats given its strong hub, upgrading to the larger plane makes sense.
I think the only challenge is going to be to have two relatively small subfleets, which isn’t ideal in terms of aircraft scheduling, spares in the event of irregular operations, etc. A fleet of just five planes doesn’t offer much scale. Then again, who knows, maybe Alaska will significantly increase its Dreamliner fleet over time, beyond what has been announced so far.
Bottom line
Alaska Air Group recently boosted its Boeing 787 order from 12 to 17 frames. Not only that, but Alaska has made those incremental orders for the 787-10, rather than the 787-9. That makes perfect sense, given the 787-10’s great unit costs. Ideally you’d have a larger and more uniform fleet, but at the margins, this order is logical.
What do you make of Alaska ordering the Boeing 787-10?
Obviously Alaska would want to assess market potential but, if Air NZ can run more or less daily non stop 787-9s to North American destinations such as LAX, Vancouver, Chicago and JFK (a c. 17- hour trip westbound against the jet stream), might there be opportunity to open a new route to connect Auckland and Seattle either directly or with one stop in Hawaii? Must be some potential for both tourist and business revenue.
Interesting.. 5 planes is basically what it takes to serve 2 routes with daily service, or multiple routes with less-than-daily service. (3 days a week to one place and 4 to another).
It will be fascinating what markets AS has identified to this sub-fleet.
All I know is those 25K Certs for having the Atmos Rewards Card better be worth something.
Cool. Reduce the 737s. Super uncomfortable in every class.
Living in Kelowna this is great news. Being 80 this is sad news. To get to Bkk at a reasonable cost still requires 2 stop - this year SEA, NRT. Last year was brutal SEA,SFO,LHR,VIE,IST,MCT,BKK on points but with UA going market cheap points at any routing are gone. Please start flying to BKK, DPS ASAP while I can still travel
Though it's worth noting that the opposite can also be true.
The PER-LHR nonstop on Qantas exceeds the 787-9's brochure range. And yet, the aircraft does it nonstop, due to a lite configuration + recent software upgrades.
Alaska is working that S curve very well in SEA and the share gap has grow since 2019. Bad news for DL in SEA and especially TPAC.
the S curve cannot fix the hypercompetitive nature of many markets like TPE, the inability to get into HND and China, or the very concentrated nature of the ICN market.
No airplane can fix those problems. AS is simply coming late to the party in many of the international markets that matter and, in the case of FCO, DL jumped right into the market and added BCN.
Interesting that despite being ‘late’ to the international market Alaska has grown their already enormous market share gap in SEA while being as profitable as UA and DL and enjoying leading customer loyalty. Sorry, Alaska doesn’t need to defend six other hubs, only one in which they have overwhelming advantages. And as you like to point out when it suits you they will engender good will from DOT and others as a source of competition...
Interesting that despite being ‘late’ to the international market Alaska has grown their already enormous market share gap in SEA while being as profitable as UA and DL and enjoying leading customer loyalty. Sorry, Alaska doesn’t need to defend six other hubs, only one in which they have overwhelming advantages. And as you like to point out when it suits you they will engender good will from DOT and others as a source of competition with the big 4 when additional access to markets becomes available.
first, AS' 2nd quarter net income margin was 4.6% compared to DL's 12.8% so it is patently false that AS is as profitable as UA, let alone DL.
AS had more market share at SEA even before DL started its hub; no one disputes that has remained.
We don't know how profitable any airline's hubs are because they don't report it.
The issue is about whether AS can successfully break into the longhaul international market...
first, AS' 2nd quarter net income margin was 4.6% compared to DL's 12.8% so it is patently false that AS is as profitable as UA, let alone DL.
AS had more market share at SEA even before DL started its hub; no one disputes that has remained.
We don't know how profitable any airline's hubs are because they don't report it.
The issue is about whether AS can successfully break into the longhaul international market and generate REVENUES comparable to DL and other international carriers.
Your statement was about the S curve which is true - but it still can't overcome that AS is entering multiple international markets not as the dominant carrier - which it is in the SEA domestic arena - but in international markets where it will be 4th or 5th carrier.
and it is precisely those 6 other hubs that DL and UA and AA have that make breaking into TATL markets that much more difficult.
your last sentence makes no sense. Goodwill doesn't fix a lack of competitiveness which is where AS is in many international markets.
A bigger plane will lower costs - if AS can fill those bigger planes with fares that are as high or higher than what other airlines get on smaller, equally cost effective aircraft - such as other airlines are already using from SEA.
Alaska had this little transaction you might have heard about. They bought a money-losing airline called Hawaiian that they are in the process of reorganizing and integrating into their operation/network. Their short term financials have predictably dipped as a result, but unlike the VA merger this will only make Alaska and their grip on SEA stronger. Bad news for DL.
Tim only ever talks about generating revenue. Revenue revenue revenue, there’s an entire category of airline management called COST, something Alaska excels at. 787-10 has some of the best unit economics out there. If the A350 was that much better, delta wouldn’t order the 787-10 (nor would any airline). SEA is a geographically advantageous hub and the 787-10 should work great. Keep costs low and you can afford to keep fares low
YR,
I said in my first comment to this article - just as I have multiple other places - that the 787-10 has the best per seat economics of any widebody on the market today.
But airplanes don't generate revenue; managements have to do that. And, quite frankly, we really do not know how well AS will do in the longhaul intercontinental market flying against multiple other competitors in most markets and at least...
YR,
I said in my first comment to this article - just as I have multiple other places - that the 787-10 has the best per seat economics of any widebody on the market today.
But airplanes don't generate revenue; managements have to do that. And, quite frankly, we really do not know how well AS will do in the longhaul intercontinental market flying against multiple other competitors in most markets and at least in every one of them - with that one other carrier being at least Delta in widebody markets.
and SEA is geographically advantaged for flights to E. Asia from the CONTUS but not to Europe and not even to the S. Pacific
I wonder if DL will eventually cry uncle and bail from SEA as a transpac hub. They have already made some rumblings in LAX, which is still not dominated by anybody.
And while there are some geographic disadvantages of LAX over SEA, perhaps their numbers show that a far larger origination market, even as competitive as LAX is, and the greater distance to Asia, is worth dealing with compared to being eternally #2 in SEA.
"Interesting that despite being ‘late’ to the international market Alaska has grown their already enormous market share gap"
Growing their domestic market doesn't mean much to long-hauls.
"while being as profitable as UA and DL"
How? Even adjusted for size difference, both Delta and United have higher earnings and eps than Alaska.
"and enjoying leading customer loyalty."
Based on what? Seattle's flying public is loyal to NON-STOPS more than they are to brand, as evidenced...
"Interesting that despite being ‘late’ to the international market Alaska has grown their already enormous market share gap"
Growing their domestic market doesn't mean much to long-hauls.
"while being as profitable as UA and DL"
How? Even adjusted for size difference, both Delta and United have higher earnings and eps than Alaska.
"and enjoying leading customer loyalty."
Based on what? Seattle's flying public is loyal to NON-STOPS more than they are to brand, as evidenced with the fact that Alaska does NOT demonstrate an inelastic grip on market share on the (admittedly few) routes where Delta matches it in capacity or frequency.
Before the merger Alaska was right there with UA and DL and they will rebound. You need the feed to have profitable international flights from a hub and Alaska is almost three times the size of DL in SEA.
"You need the feed to have profitable international flights from a hub"
Except that they're actually REDUCING connecting flights at Seattle, in order to make room for the gates they need for international service. They've said this multiple times.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/why-alaska-air-wants-portland-to-be-its-sea-tac-relief-valve/
Alaska is indeed growing its hub operations, but at Portland, not Seattle. The plurality of the non-origin growth Alaska has experienced in the last two quarters has come from Portland.
"You need the feed to have profitable international flights from a hub"
Except that they're actually REDUCING connecting flights at Seattle, in order to make room for the gates they need for international service. They've said this multiple times.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/why-alaska-air-wants-portland-to-be-its-sea-tac-relief-valve/
Alaska is indeed growing its hub operations, but at Portland, not Seattle. The plurality of the non-origin growth Alaska has experienced in the last two quarters has come from Portland.
From the article you posted. "In Seattle, connecting traffic was up 15% in the first quarter of this year as compared to last year."
Type rating is the biggest factor here. A pilot rated on a B787-8 can handle a -9 & -10. And there will be a 95% commonality of parts among these jets which will be stationed at SEA.
As for the A330 fleet (24 PAX & 10 Amazon freighter), they stay at HNL with their own crew base, maintenance, etc. The cash flow from the Amazon contract makes it difficult to just walk away from...
Type rating is the biggest factor here. A pilot rated on a B787-8 can handle a -9 & -10. And there will be a 95% commonality of parts among these jets which will be stationed at SEA.
As for the A330 fleet (24 PAX & 10 Amazon freighter), they stay at HNL with their own crew base, maintenance, etc. The cash flow from the Amazon contract makes it difficult to just walk away from the A330.
Similar situation with Sun Country, B737NG, and its approx 18 Amazon freighters.
except HA sent its 330s off the islands for heavily maintenance; at one time, it was DL.
and, yes, the cargo operation is separate from the passenger operation and AS doesn't seem interested in getting rid of it.
Maybe Amazon pays for the heavy maintenance on the freighters so it's their decision, not Hawaiian's.
Amazon publicly reported that they leased the A330s (at least the initial 10 frames, not sure about subsequent orders), and I'd imagine it's structured as a long-term capital lease, so they effectively own them. They would be on the balance sheet as equipment. And to that end, I would imagine that they have the final say on maintenance.
I had heard Delta TechOps still does some work for Alaska on the passenger 330s but it...
Amazon publicly reported that they leased the A330s (at least the initial 10 frames, not sure about subsequent orders), and I'd imagine it's structured as a long-term capital lease, so they effectively own them. They would be on the balance sheet as equipment. And to that end, I would imagine that they have the final say on maintenance.
I had heard Delta TechOps still does some work for Alaska on the passenger 330s but it was pretty minimal, something related to avionics.
Although Amazon could easily shift the 330 cargo contract (ATSG is onboarding its own 330s and could pick up the work), I'd imagine the relationship between Amazon and Alaska runs pretty deep, as both are Seattle companies with airline ops.
I don’t understand this order. They are already fitting 300 on the 787-9 which is substantial and it gives them flexibility.
Only reason to get the 787-10 is to fly between the mainland and Hawaii !!
Why (or better yet: how) are you jumping to such a conclusion, when you have no idea what their needs, or even wants, in long-haul capacity are.
Anyway, the most commonly alleged answer, is because Alaska is working on a premium economy, but doesn't want to sacrifice the density that it already has in business and coach. The obvious solution is therefore a longer version of the aircraft they already have.
That's an interesting point.. But the 300-seat -9 has no premium economy, which is definitely where the action is, so those will be in line for reconfiguration.
I'm just not sure AS is going to make a huge investment in 787's to Hawaii. If they had a -10, or a -9 as they have already shown, they aren't using it to Hawaii to replace A330's.
As nice as it would be to think of a...
That's an interesting point.. But the 300-seat -9 has no premium economy, which is definitely where the action is, so those will be in line for reconfiguration.
I'm just not sure AS is going to make a huge investment in 787's to Hawaii. If they had a -10, or a -9 as they have already shown, they aren't using it to Hawaii to replace A330's.
As nice as it would be to think of a -10 to Hawaii, I think those days are gone. The future is the A321's.
AS said at the beginning that when all the dust settles, all Hawaii service will be Hawaiian Airlines branded. Since they no longer have to throw capacity in a market to compete with AS, when their A321 fleet is fully up to speed after the engine issues, I think that's going to be their future.
With 24 A330's, there has to be some big fleet shake up happening.
The bait is thrown.
Tim's BA alter ego bot is its way to say that "if it's Boeing I ain't going" again.
I am your alter ego bot
Hi fake Eskimo.
Your bait was too stupid that even AeroB13a didn't take it.
Better luck next time.
I don't get a hat tip for mentioning it a few days ago?! lol
yoloswag420 gave me crap 2 months ago because I was questioning if the -10 would work for them lol
"I wonder if the -10 would work for them. The -10s range seem to be adequate for them, while the -9s size works for them too."
"Why would they want more seats, when they can't fill the smaller gauge right now?"
I...
I don't get a hat tip for mentioning it a few days ago?! lol
yoloswag420 gave me crap 2 months ago because I was questioning if the -10 would work for them lol
"I wonder if the -10 would work for them. The -10s range seem to be adequate for them, while the -9s size works for them too."
"Why would they want more seats, when they can't fill the smaller gauge right now?"
I guess they can use the extra seats later on. And you really don't need the range of the 9.
Anywho, the -10 is a great aircraft even without the updates; once BA increases the MTOW, it'll be comparable to to the current 772ER which seems to be the sweet spot for a lot carriers; not everyone needs the range of the 359 while retaining a comparable configuration.
the 787-10 makes alot of sense. As I have accurately noted, it has the lowest CASM of any widebody right now. It has a 12+ hour range which is enough to fly a big chunk of the Pacific Rim plus Europe from SEA.
UNITED ahead of the curve on that one
Greg, exactly. UA set the trend on US carriers for that one. Anyone else will following UA's lead.
and the MAX 10 and yet UA is well behind the curve on the A350 which is superior in economics and performance to its 787 counterpart.
Try and fly a 787-10 on a 17 hour flight and let us know how it works out. With a full passenger load, btw
Not every airline wants to wack an airplane for 17hrs straight and how many 17 hr flights will one airline fly when you’re not Qantas which is exactly why the 787 is almost double in sales versus the 350.
350 is great. It can do everything but at the edge of the envelope it’s really useless for most airlines because most airlines don’t need all that.
So the premium Airbus charges for that...
Not every airline wants to wack an airplane for 17hrs straight and how many 17 hr flights will one airline fly when you’re not Qantas which is exactly why the 787 is almost double in sales versus the 350.
350 is great. It can do everything but at the edge of the envelope it’s really useless for most airlines because most airlines don’t need all that.
So the premium Airbus charges for that comes back to bite them because it makes the aircraft price uncompetitive to most airlines. But they’ve beefed up that jet to be able to do that so they have to charge that. That’s the problem vs the 787. Plus on most routes the 787 will burn less fuel and is cheaper to operate with its lower MTOW
UA operates more ultra long haul flights than any other US airline even though the AVERAGE DL TPAC flight length is longer than UA's.
It is simply false that UA would not take a 17+ hour plane; the 787 just cannot do that range without cutting seats down to 225 or lower and then the economics probably don't work - but that might not stop UA from trying.
DL simply chose the A350 from...
UA operates more ultra long haul flights than any other US airline even though the AVERAGE DL TPAC flight length is longer than UA's.
It is simply false that UA would not take a 17+ hour plane; the 787 just cannot do that range without cutting seats down to 225 or lower and then the economics probably don't work - but that might not stop UA from trying.
DL simply chose the A350 from the outset and that airframe was built to grow larger and keep if not expand range. The 787 is a smaller and less capable plane so does burn less fuel but it is, wait, wait, smaller and less capable.
Airbus is making money - not a lot of it - selling commercial aircraft while Boeing has lost tens of billions by not delivering what it promised.
and it is doubtful that DL is paying Airbus' average prices any more than UA is paying the same from Boeing.
and, there is as decent of a chance that UA will operate the A350 as DL will the 787 because both planes have their advantages.
What did Boeing not deliver that it promised? Certainly not performance. Timing yes they’ve missed that big time. But everything Boeing has sold performance wise. It has delivered for planes delivered so far.
Yes UA has those routes. BUT HOW MANY ARE THERE? Compared to their other routes where the 787 does just fine.
You’re missing the point. And it’s funny because the sales numbers tell the story I’m trying to tell.
...What did Boeing not deliver that it promised? Certainly not performance. Timing yes they’ve missed that big time. But everything Boeing has sold performance wise. It has delivered for planes delivered so far.
Yes UA has those routes. BUT HOW MANY ARE THERE? Compared to their other routes where the 787 does just fine.
You’re missing the point. And it’s funny because the sales numbers tell the story I’m trying to tell.
If I have 6 ultra long haul routes of the 100 long haul routes I fly. I would invest in an aircraft that is optimised for the 94 routes and make do with what I can for the remaining 6. That’s how airlines buy jets.
Especially given the fact that the 787 is cheaper because yes it’s smaller and less capable. But the extra ULH capabiltiy of the a350 is useless to most airlines. Which is why the value proposition of a 787 is and will always be stronger. It can fly up to 15 hours on a -9 which is more than enough. The -10 in its current format will give you about 12.5 hours of flying on a full load. Which is enough for most destinations, see how Korean uses their -10s. They wack them on routes that it’s not even optimised for, but the economics of that jet are just that good.
This year it has actually passed the 787-8 and 777-200ER in sales numbers and that’s not even counting Delta and how many United end up taking.
Boeing has sold about 2200 787s, I think Airbus has sold about 1450 A350s, even if you add the 330neo order book together with the 350 you still won’t reach those numbers. Why? Because the 787 clears the widebody market. Same way the 321neo clears the narrowbody market.
Sit back and think about how many airlines do without the 350 and how many do without the 787. They’re a shit tonne more who do without the 350.
ANA
United (let’s be serious)
Gulf air
Oman air
Saudia
American
Air Canada
LATAM
West Jet
El Al
Now A350:
Delta (till the end of the year)
Finnair
SAS
Starlux.
The A350s biggest customers all have 787s. Even Air France for Goodness sake.
"UNITED ahead of the curve on that one"
Not really. Delta somewhat publicly rejected the aircraft in 2018, when a team led by Justin Hale was basically told by Boeing to not come back without a 787 order from them. From what I understand, they threw everything against a wall, but Delta still ordered more Airbuses instead, citing the Trent engine issues and the lesser capabilities of the 787-10 back then.
United on the other...
"UNITED ahead of the curve on that one"
Not really. Delta somewhat publicly rejected the aircraft in 2018, when a team led by Justin Hale was basically told by Boeing to not come back without a 787 order from them. From what I understand, they threw everything against a wall, but Delta still ordered more Airbuses instead, citing the Trent engine issues and the lesser capabilities of the 787-10 back then.
United on the other hand, was willing to accept those limitations, while at the same time, continually delaying its A350 order. I don't have their numbers, but in hindsight, that looks like a dumb move.
Now, 2 engine PIPs, a software upgrade, an MTOW increase, and a potential -IGW on the way, it seems like Delta is looking at the 787-10 in a new light. As would be expected. United on the other hand, is stuck with having the 787-9 as its longest ranged aircraft, which limits it from doing routes like L.A. to Singapore with the payload it was previously expecting.
So if anything, Delta is leading the way by having the A350, which lets it do routes that the other 2 can't, assuming it gets off its behind and actually tries them, versus flying to a partner hub. Bringing back L.A. to Hong Kong is a good start. There's nothing that United's 787-10 can do however, that Delta's A330/A350 or even American's 772/773 can't replicate though.
well said, immortal
Embarrassingly hilarious
Yah, UA is really having trouble with two full SFO- SIN flights/day, DEL, JNB, CPT, HKG, SYD, MEL…. If only they airplanes that could handle long haul flying.
"Yah, UA is really having trouble with two full SFO- SIN flights/day, DEL, JNB, CPT, HKG, SYD, MEL"
Nice cope.
But back in the real world, they cancelled LAX-SIN, because the 787-9 couldn't do the west-bound without blocking 20 seats+ in N/W, and nil for cargo.
They're going out at 243 TOW (that's an 11 tonne restriction) on the N/W west-bound from JNB, because the 787-9 struggles with the elevation more than the A350-900NPS does.
..."Yah, UA is really having trouble with two full SFO- SIN flights/day, DEL, JNB, CPT, HKG, SYD, MEL"
Nice cope.
But back in the real world, they cancelled LAX-SIN, because the 787-9 couldn't do the west-bound without blocking 20 seats+ in N/W, and nil for cargo.
They're going out at 243 TOW (that's an 11 tonne restriction) on the N/W west-bound from JNB, because the 787-9 struggles with the elevation more than the A350-900NPS does.
And modern long-haulers have been able to do CPT, HKG, SYD, and MEL with no problem since the 1980s, so not sure the relevance you seem to believe those bring to a convo about restrictive capability.
243 what? US airlines use pounds not ton(nes) and weight restrictions other than aircraft max weights are dynamic based on departure density altitude, winds, runway conditions, etc and arrival airport weather.
Give us a list of markets that Delta is serving with A350s that 787s can't serve.
"US airlines use pounds not ton(nes)"
Since when, on intercon load manifests?
Since Orville and Wilbur. 787-9 MTOW = 561,500 lbs.
Since ever. We use LBs, for weights and fuel. Not kilos, not tons. You obviously don’t fly professionally in the US. Or at all, just a hobbyist.
"and weight restrictions other than aircraft max weights are dynamic based on departure density altitude, winds, runway conditions, etc and arrival airport weather."
No sh!t sherlock, but the specific example given at hand was JNB, where the 787-9 (and previously, Delta's first 11-delivered A359s) often have to go out restricted as hell due to the combination of every single one of those factors, particularly the first.
P.S. you're not very good at distracting, via rambling...
"and weight restrictions other than aircraft max weights are dynamic based on departure density altitude, winds, runway conditions, etc and arrival airport weather."
No sh!t sherlock, but the specific example given at hand was JNB, where the 787-9 (and previously, Delta's first 11-delivered A359s) often have to go out restricted as hell due to the combination of every single one of those factors, particularly the first.
P.S. you're not very good at distracting, via rambling with superfluous information, so can we be done with that? Thanks.
"...the specific example given at hand was JNB, where the 787-9 (and previously, Delta's first 11-delivered A359s) often have to go out restricted as hell due to the combination of every single one of those factors, particularly the first."
Thanks for making my case. Who knows what point you are trying to make?
rebel,
you pick some of the longest flights operating from one an airport at 5500 ft MSL and think you prove anything?
At the margins, both airplanes will perform differently from each other depending on the margin but the A350 is still a far more capable aircraft and, in the case of the largest member of each family, the A350-1000 simply blows the 787-10 away in performance; but most airlines, including AS, do not need...
rebel,
you pick some of the longest flights operating from one an airport at 5500 ft MSL and think you prove anything?
At the margins, both airplanes will perform differently from each other depending on the margin but the A350 is still a far more capable aircraft and, in the case of the largest member of each family, the A350-1000 simply blows the 787-10 away in performance; but most airlines, including AS, do not need an 18 hour airplane which is why the 787-10 is a good airplane for 12 hour missions.
and to add, DL also has said they got a much better deal from Airbus for the A350s because they also helped Airbus launch the A330NEO and also got the MRO contract which will keep DL's maintenance costs well below its US peers for years to come.
The A330NEO replaced the 767-300ERs which DL used to open SEA TPAC routes; now that DL's 359 fleet has gotten as large as it is - including...
and to add, DL also has said they got a much better deal from Airbus for the A350s because they also helped Airbus launch the A330NEO and also got the MRO contract which will keep DL's maintenance costs well below its US peers for years to come.
The A330NEO replaced the 767-300ERs which DL used to open SEA TPAC routes; now that DL's 359 fleet has gotten as large as it is - including w/ the ex-Latam 350s, DL is shifting the 339s large to the Atlantic and Latin America.
and all of AA, AS, DL and UA will likely all fly the 787-10 just as they will fly the MAX10.
Airbus and Boeing both design very capable airplanes. DL proved it was willing to switch from Boeing during Boeing's worst years, Airbus has more than delivered for DL while Boeing slipped for AA and UA, and DL will buy a higher percentage of its aircraft from Boeing in the next decade.
AS, OTOH, will figure out how to operate multiple aircraft types from both Airbus and Boeing and they will go for the biggest 787s just as they have with other models because economics of large aircraft matter.
Tim Dunn says, "you pick some of the longest flights operating from one an airport at 5500 ft MSL and think you prove anything?"
I didn't pick anything. It was ImmortalSynn who picked JNB and ended up 'prov(ing)' the opposite of his intended point. Maybe, you can point out the Delta markets served in which 787s are inadequate since ImmortalSynn hasn't.
Tim Dunn says."DL also has said they got a much better deal from Airbus...
Tim Dunn says, "you pick some of the longest flights operating from one an airport at 5500 ft MSL and think you prove anything?"
I didn't pick anything. It was ImmortalSynn who picked JNB and ended up 'prov(ing)' the opposite of his intended point. Maybe, you can point out the Delta markets served in which 787s are inadequate since ImmortalSynn hasn't.
Tim Dunn says."DL also has said they got a much better deal from Airbus for the A350s"
Much better than what? What were the favorable terms of the deal exactly or are you just guessing? I guess UA got some great deals on those massive orders in the middle of the Covid pandemic, right? Those backlogs aren't getting any shorter. Advantage UA.
UA: 1,049 aircraft, (227 WB), 187 WB/484 NB on order, 15.6 average fleet age
DA: 990 aircraft, (177 WB), 28 WB/244 NB on order, 14.9 average fleet age
AA: 1,000 aircraft, (137 WB), 26 WB/292 NB on order, 14.1 average fleet age