While it’s anyone’s guess if this ends up materializing, there’s an interesting rumor swirling around…
In this post:
Delta reportedly interested in A350-1000
The always knowledgable @xJonNYC reports on a rumor that I’ve heard independently as well, that I thought would be fun to discuss. Delta Air Lines is allegedly interested in acquiring Airbus A350-1000s, with 20 being the target number of jets that the Atlanta-based airline is considering.
For context, Delta’s flagship aircraft is currently the Airbus A350-900. The airline has 24 of these in its fleet, with another 20 on order, including the secondhand A350s that Delta is acquiring from partner LATAM. The A350-1000 is the largest version of the A350, so it has higher capacity.
Delta’s other primary new long haul jet is the Airbus A330-900neo, as Delta has 18 of these in its fleet, with a further 20 on order. During the pandemic, Delta retired its fleet of Boeing 777-200s, which was the carrier’s longest range aircraft.
Keep in mind that Airbus recently canceled Qatar Airways’ order for 19 Airbus A350-1000s, as the two companies are at war over Qatar Airways’ issues with the jet. This frees up 19 future A350-1000 deliveries, though no new customer has been confirmed for them.
It sounds like Delta might be one of the airlines interested in picking up these jets. However, there have also been rumors of other airlines, like Air India, considering picking up these planes.
My take on Delta possibly getting A350-1000s
Delta has no doubt historically been a very opportunistic buyer of jets. Unlike other airlines, Delta isn’t obsessed with having a young fleet, but rather is more concerned about getting good deals on planes, and then maintaining them well (including the interiors).
I could definitely see merit to Delta picking up some A350-1000s, if the price is right. While airlines are generally going for lower capacity long haul jets than in the past, I imagine there are all kinds of routes where Delta could easily fill A350-1000s, especially given the economics of this fuel efficient jet.
As we see a recovery in long haul travel, I imagine there could be demand for these planes on routes to London, Tokyo, etc. That’s especially true when you look at the big picture, and consider that many airports are slot restricted, yet demand will continue to grow over time.
For example, it’s interesting to me how Delta primarily flies Boeing 767s to London. London is one of the most competitive aviation markets in the world, yet 767s have Delta’s worst business class product. I assume Delta flies 767s to London simply because Delta’s Airbus wide body fleet isn’t big enough to send A330-900neos or A350-900s on these flights, as they’re needed for longer range missions.
You’d think that Delta could be successful simply flying A350-1000s on Atlanta, Detroit, and New York, to Amsterdam, London, and Paris routes, given the huge amount of business and connecting traffic in these markets.
Bottom line
Delta is rumored to be interested in picking up 20 Airbus A350-1000s. At this point this is only a rumor, though what avgeek doesn’t like to talk about these kinds of things?
Personally I see merit to this — Qatar Airways’ A350-1000 order has just been canceled, so presumably Airbus is looking to resell these jets. Meanwhile it seems like Delta could use some more Airbus wide body capacity, especially in markets where the Boeing 767 doesn’t really cut it.
Do you think we’ll see Delta order Airbus A350-1000s?
Delta needs to find a solution to the performance issues that the A330 has in Salt Lake City, particularly in the summer. Beachside SLC is located deeper in the interior of the United States I would venture that the A350-(900 or 1000) could be a better fit given the added range that the location of Salt Lake City would require. Delta has been talking about the A330 in Salt Lake City for a long time,...
Delta needs to find a solution to the performance issues that the A330 has in Salt Lake City, particularly in the summer. Beachside SLC is located deeper in the interior of the United States I would venture that the A350-(900 or 1000) could be a better fit given the added range that the location of Salt Lake City would require. Delta has been talking about the A330 in Salt Lake City for a long time, but hasn’t pulled the trigger on it, probably waiting for the Salt Lake airport to finish its construction and expansion, while also watching the economy, which is on a razors edge. The state of the economy is so unpredictable that Delta can only speculate 1/4 year at a time, hence their reluctance he to commit to a wide-body in SLC. Having said that, the A350 just seems like a better fit than the A330 and coupled with Qatar’s orders on the 1000 series falling through, it seems extremely possible that the A350-1000 could be Delta’s next move in Salt Lake City.
I’m booked on a Delta Flight on 11/14/22 from LHR to ATL on a 350-1000. Guessing that means they acquired at least 1
I suspect that the fact that London is so competitive specifically explains why they run these old 767s. I bet it is cheaper per passenger mile and that is what a competitive route gets you.
Delta should’ve updated their business class product on their a330-200/300s and 767-300s!
Great choice, the 777-300 ER is old and comparatively lesss efficient and the 777-9 will be too big and heavy.
... rumor has it, it is Airbus that approached Delta marketing the now canceled Qatar jets.
Now if Delta did beat Air India or others to some or all of these jets and their Business class product aside, wouldn't they have to wait awhile to fill them on trans-Atlantic routes verses keeping B767's on these routes? Those routes are jammed packed with frequency over slot maximizing larger widebodies.
I am puzzled as to why Delta is not buying Boeing 787s instead of A350s. Buy American !
When DL acquired a fairly sizeable Airbus fleet with their merger with NW several years ago, it put them in a position where they could make real-world decisions regarding future fleet development, and Airbus apparently fit the bill.
Richard Anderson, the former CEO of NW under whom the acquisition of Airbus products had gained momentum, became the CEO of DL after a short spell away from the airline industry. Presumably, his decisions at NW...
When DL acquired a fairly sizeable Airbus fleet with their merger with NW several years ago, it put them in a position where they could make real-world decisions regarding future fleet development, and Airbus apparently fit the bill.
Richard Anderson, the former CEO of NW under whom the acquisition of Airbus products had gained momentum, became the CEO of DL after a short spell away from the airline industry. Presumably, his decisions at NW were held in high regard at DL, to include the continuing transition to largely Airbus fleet.
A small tidbit, NW was actually the North America launch customer for the Dreamliner back in 2008. Boeing had delivery issues and got push back until more 242t A330 was ordered. By then the 787 was out of the plan and A350 was all in.
Who knows what DL would look like today if Boeing did deliver the 787s on time.
Could possibly be 77W and 77X in the plan and the A330s retired instead.
As expressed elsewhere, it's ignorant thinking.
787s are partially manufactured in everywhere from Japan, to Italy, to Australia, to Korea, and snapped together in the USA.
A350s are partially manufactured with more than 40% American materials (nearly double that in vital avionics) and snapped together in France.
Modern production supersedes all these 1970s-ish notions of "foreign" versus "domestic." It's just as dumb as calling a Toyota made in Kentucky at an American factory,...
As expressed elsewhere, it's ignorant thinking.
787s are partially manufactured in everywhere from Japan, to Italy, to Australia, to Korea, and snapped together in the USA.
A350s are partially manufactured with more than 40% American materials (nearly double that in vital avionics) and snapped together in France.
Modern production supersedes all these 1970s-ish notions of "foreign" versus "domestic." It's just as dumb as calling a Toyota made in Kentucky at an American factory, an "import."
I'm puzzled as to why Air france, Lufthansa, British airways, KLM, Iberia and the list goes on don't just buy Airbus....really sir why is it with people and this buy American thing. Buy whatever is good for your business
787 smaller than A350-1000.
Is it possible that the figure of 20 simply represents a change (upgrade) to 20 of the -900s already on order? That would seem to make sense.
DL cannot make LHR work beyond what it offers today, because Brits are all about BA and Virgin. Names with cache is a Brit thing. American works due to the obsession with America. Brands are everything back home.
It's all in a name. IF DL could fill bigger jets to LHR, with the yields on offer, it would happen. They see the economics of VS planes, they know!
DL is not sexy in the eyes of the British, and sex appeal and perception is a big thing there.
.....LOL
That's the extent of response this "analysis" merits.
you do realize that UA uses 767-300ERs which seat even fewer passengers than DL's aircraft and that DL is adding the A330-900 with a very similar cabin to VS on some of its LHR flights?
What a load of old cobblers!
I've nothing else to add as I'm still reeling from the shallowness of such a comment (although I do personally agree that Delta is not a sexy brand).
I guess is a good thing that Delta owns 49% of Virgin Atlantic
The sexy half is the other 51%
Delta lacks leadership in corporate scheduling of routes, with their wide body aircraft. They have the greatest percentage of A330 and A350's, dedicated to only the Amsterdam route, from the majority of their hubs. With the disaster that is Schipol airport, Delta should be making a statement, by reducing flights there, until they get their act together.
Delta also has a SERIOUS lack of seats going to a European Hotspot, that being Lisbon Portugal....
Delta lacks leadership in corporate scheduling of routes, with their wide body aircraft. They have the greatest percentage of A330 and A350's, dedicated to only the Amsterdam route, from the majority of their hubs. With the disaster that is Schipol airport, Delta should be making a statement, by reducing flights there, until they get their act together.
Delta also has a SERIOUS lack of seats going to a European Hotspot, that being Lisbon Portugal. They only offer once daily service, on a 767, from JFK, on a route that is bustling with traffic. There are simply not enough seats for the amount of business this destination craves. Delta has twice daily service to Rone from JFK, on the 330 and 350, but can only muster up an inadequate smaller jet. They need to up their game on this route, and also to another favorite of travelers, Prague.
.......orrrrrrr, could it be that Delta has the numbers (which you don't), and despite the difficulties, are still making more money (relative to cost, both Real and Opportunity) by continuing to space each ship where they have it?
Hmm, I know which source I'd bet on.
They also offer service to LIS from BOS albeit seasonal, FCO as well from DTW, BOS, and ATL. I believe out of the US3 they offer the most capacity to both markets. Not really sure what you’re talking about.
What I'm talking about is, the LIS route is under utilized. That route is on the same customer numbers as flights to FCO, but Delta only committing a 767-4 once daily from JFK, and once daily from BOS, leaves them losing substantial passenger and revenue loss. When shoulder season comes, NOW, and the flight load numbers are still in the negative, you're missing a great opportunity to capture market share. Not hard to ascertain!
Good for Delta. I can also see the 1000s being used on the South Africa route as well as the possibility to Australia.
Agree 100%. The A350s are perfect for the extra-long routes...
Delta flies the 764 to LHR which has an amazing interior. It is the new Delta One Suite less the door. Great plane.
A350-1000's....pls also include the long awaited - Atlanta to Sydney Nonstop!
YES a350 1000 DELTA
The trip costs would be considerably higher but the CASM would likely be better. Larger wing area and it's 23 feet longer increasing induced drag versus it's smaller sibling which also means more FAs. OEW is 13t heavier as well as 36t higher MTOW. It also has a higher thrust version of the Trent XWB which should require more maintenance. Trip costs are not similar but the A35K is a far more capable aircraft. Originally...
The trip costs would be considerably higher but the CASM would likely be better. Larger wing area and it's 23 feet longer increasing induced drag versus it's smaller sibling which also means more FAs. OEW is 13t heavier as well as 36t higher MTOW. It also has a higher thrust version of the Trent XWB which should require more maintenance. Trip costs are not similar but the A35K is a far more capable aircraft. Originally the A35K was to be a simple stretch but that was changed and the triple bogey gear was added for the extra weight.
Induced drag is direct proportional to the aspect ratio of the wing. The A35K has a slightly higher aspect ration, what would result in lesser induced drag. The higher MTOW of the A35K requires more lift, what might be accomplished through higher AoA. A higher AoA especially during take off and ascent will add significant more induced drag. Induced drag is indirect proportional to the flight speed, therefor the higher MTOW of the A35K won't...
Induced drag is direct proportional to the aspect ratio of the wing. The A35K has a slightly higher aspect ration, what would result in lesser induced drag. The higher MTOW of the A35K requires more lift, what might be accomplished through higher AoA. A higher AoA especially during take off and ascent will add significant more induced drag. Induced drag is indirect proportional to the flight speed, therefor the higher MTOW of the A35K won't have a big impact during travel.
Granted, the A35k has some optimization potential since the wing is almost identical to the A359 wing, although it will be minimal.
I still agree, that trip cost will be slightly higher then the A359, it's mainly the cost of additional fuel to lift it to travel height. The cost increase might be proportional to the MTOW increase.
And lifting the extra weight to travel height will also be the challenge of the 777-9 compared to the A35K, since the 777-9 will be more then 20t heavier then the A35K.
39T higher MTOW, and the triple axle was engineered into the frame almost immediately into development. The "simple stretch" was vaporware.
In fact, a simple-strink came closer to reality, with the original A359R (for "range," which would eventually become the much less complex A359ULR) prior to the much less capable A359R concept ("regional") offered a few years after EIS.
Well that "vaporware stretch redesign" was enough for Emirates to cancel their original order for 70 A350.
❤️
I would love Delta to acquire the a350-1000! Like mentioned, AA & UA both fly the 777-300ER with respectively 20 & 22 units per carrrier so likewise it makes perfect sense! Both a350’s share the same pilot type and maintenance regiments too! (Being true that Delta Tech-ops do in fact maintain other airlines’ a350k’s when contacted) furthermore the extra payload will make sense to better match up to their retired 777-200LR’s while keeping the a350-900’s...
I would love Delta to acquire the a350-1000! Like mentioned, AA & UA both fly the 777-300ER with respectively 20 & 22 units per carrrier so likewise it makes perfect sense! Both a350’s share the same pilot type and maintenance regiments too! (Being true that Delta Tech-ops do in fact maintain other airlines’ a350k’s when contacted) furthermore the extra payload will make sense to better match up to their retired 777-200LR’s while keeping the a350-900’s on thinner long haul services.
It’s possible maybe they could bring back discontinued routes like BOM-JFK/ATL and expand to services in the pacific from SEA/LAX. Wishful thinking maybe
I thought they used the 767s for london routes cause they prioritised frequency over capacity as it's a primarily business market. Supplemented by Virgin ofc.
I have to piggyback Tim Dunn's comments regarding the 767. I don't think Delta flies any 767-300 NYC to London - they are all refurbed 767-400, along with A330-330. Having flown both to Europe, both are adequate products for business class. Delta's JV partners may fly slightly nicer planes in some cares to Europe, so they still can benefit for those that want an upgrade from those markets. I don't see a big value for...
I have to piggyback Tim Dunn's comments regarding the 767. I don't think Delta flies any 767-300 NYC to London - they are all refurbed 767-400, along with A330-330. Having flown both to Europe, both are adequate products for business class. Delta's JV partners may fly slightly nicer planes in some cares to Europe, so they still can benefit for those that want an upgrade from those markets. I don't see a big value for doors on 6-8 hour flights to Europe. The A350 will probably be used for longer flights.
I didn't realize load factors were "lower" for London than other European flights - is this a Delta comment, or an overall market comment? Which European destinations have higher load factors?
Now the 767-300 shouldn't be used for transatlantic flights, yet Delta does use the plane on a number of JFK-Europe routes. They should be refurbished, replaced or retired
Anthony,
every global airline from both the US and UK must serve LHR with a decent amount of service so there is disproportionately more seats between the US and LHR than any other foreign airport, even considering the larger US-UK market. 5 or more airlines offering 10 or more flights/day is alot of capacity.
Fares between the US and LHR are higher than other destinations in part because of the higher business demand...
Anthony,
every global airline from both the US and UK must serve LHR with a decent amount of service so there is disproportionately more seats between the US and LHR than any other foreign airport, even considering the larger US-UK market. 5 or more airlines offering 10 or more flights/day is alot of capacity.
Fares between the US and LHR are higher than other destinations in part because of the higher business demand and because LHR is slot-controlled so it is difficult for other carriers to compete - reference B6' challenge to get into LHR.
"Fares between the US and LHR are higher than other destinations"
Actually, the exact opposite is true. JFK-LHR has some of the historically LOWEST average fares, particularly in the Y cabin... and that's due in no small part to the amount of capacity on the route, relative to just about anywhere else. CDG and FRA tend to have higher p.o.s. pricing power than LON.
The reason every airline and their mother HAS to be on...
"Fares between the US and LHR are higher than other destinations"
Actually, the exact opposite is true. JFK-LHR has some of the historically LOWEST average fares, particularly in the Y cabin... and that's due in no small part to the amount of capacity on the route, relative to just about anywhere else. CDG and FRA tend to have higher p.o.s. pricing power than LON.
The reason every airline and their mother HAS to be on the LON route, is that you'd have no chance of scoring contractual traffic to anywhere *else* by an NYC/LON based company, if you couldn't offer a plethora of London options whenever they'd need it.
DOT data shows that average fares between the US and LHR by all 5 global carriers are higher on a mileage adjusted basis than other European markets and load factors are lower.
I see the issue here, you're talking nationwide, whereas I'm more responding to the OP's focus on NYC... my bad for conflating US with NY in that quotation.
@ConcordeBoy
And I've seen under $300 west coast to Tokyo.
LHR has been an is still expensive.
Ah yes, because there's no empirical evidence quite like random spot checks....... brilliant logic.
Lisbon has a huge load factor, but under utilized passenger space. This route is off the charts, even during shoulder season, and seats are impossible to get. Delta is either blind, or making very bad business decisions here. They need to SERIOUSLY up their game from JFK and BOS, with 2 a days, on their biggest aircraft.
@Robert
"Full" doesn't automatically equate to "profitable," directly or in the aggregate.
If the route merited more capacity relative to the opportunity cost, they'd do it... particularly seeing as anything in their fleet bigger than a 739ER can fly it.
If they're not [yet] doing so, there's a reason. Just because YOU (who lack numbers on both revenue and cost) can't see it, doesn't make THEM blind.
No way these fly to LHR. Loads are way too weak, especially in winter. Much more likely they do ICN or AMS/CDG where there is a massive amount of connecting traffic thanks to their JVs.
Maybe Delta will just start buying up gently used A350s from other airlines, as they did with LATAM. Delta received billions in subsidies from Uncle Sam. The airline should be buying the Boeing 787. That aside, Delta’s decision to ground its 777s and even 747s seems incredibly shortsighted. I don’t like the Delta A350, not least because the number of lavatories per passenger is significantly less than the 747 and 777 that it replaced.
The 747-400 was grounded by both DL and UA because the FAA required significant fuel tank upgrades which neither airline considered worth the investment.
UA turned around and bought late production cycle 777-300ERs as replacements for the 747-400s while AA ordered them also even without a 747 fleet.
The 787 and 350 were already in service by the time the 744s were grounded and both were expected to be stretched. The 350-1000 burns...
The 747-400 was grounded by both DL and UA because the FAA required significant fuel tank upgrades which neither airline considered worth the investment.
UA turned around and bought late production cycle 777-300ERs as replacements for the 747-400s while AA ordered them also even without a 747 fleet.
The 787 and 350 were already in service by the time the 744s were grounded and both were expected to be stretched. The 350-1000 burns 30% less fuel per seat than the 777-300ER. Since AA and UA's 777-300ERs are only a few years old, Delta will be competing against AA and UA in that size class with airplanes that are much more fuel efficient on longhaul routes where fuel efficiency matters the most.
The A350 in both versions is much more capable and larger than similar B787 models.
You probably do have a point about the lav ratio but every lav on every plane is full for about 30 minutes after meal service and before landing.
Is the 77W so inefficient? China Southern still operates those for their JFK flights..... Seems somewhat logical though as the current CX strategy is, can we find and replace every 77W we got with 350?
Leo,
there are plenty of 777-300ERs in service but most weren't acquired new at the end of the 777W production cycle. Boeing was already producing the 787-9 and was planning for the -10 and the 777X and the A350 was in service, also to be expanded.
When a competitor has a machine that is 30% less efficient and that difference will remain for 10 or more years, that is significant. Some times buying...
Leo,
there are plenty of 777-300ERs in service but most weren't acquired new at the end of the 777W production cycle. Boeing was already producing the 787-9 and was planning for the -10 and the 777X and the A350 was in service, also to be expanded.
When a competitor has a machine that is 30% less efficient and that difference will remain for 10 or more years, that is significant. Some times buying end of production models doesn't pay esp. on widebody aircraft. Delta has calculated that it does make sense to do that on narrowbody aircraft which have much lower differences in fuel efficiency between successive models
Donna,
the ex-Latam A350s operate on locked routes and the seat charts are known at the time tickets are sold. If Delta swaps those aircraft with their standard A350s, then you would be right but they have not done that and very likely will not.
And you do realize that UA still has multiple versions of business cabins on its fleet and that is true for many airlines?
Oh, you mean those gently used A350s acquired from LATAM with the antiquated J cabins with six across seating that DL has in use today? Wowza! Brilliant for Delta, bad for premium passengers who are Delta loyalists. I’ll pass until I can be assured I won’t end up paying for Delta One and ending up on a LATAM A350 or a 767 in a swap. Fleet consistency matters for premium passengers.
What an absurd comment completely detached from the realities of a global supply chain. Both 787 and A350 use a mix US and international components. US suppliers benefit from both aircraft. Boeing is a hot mess snd DL has been better off that UA/AA because they weren't impacted by Boeing's 787 production woes. Your thinking sounds a lot like telling Aeroflot to buy Ilyushins.
@Donna - the 6 across seating on the ex-LATAM aircraft lacks...
What an absurd comment completely detached from the realities of a global supply chain. Both 787 and A350 use a mix US and international components. US suppliers benefit from both aircraft. Boeing is a hot mess snd DL has been better off that UA/AA because they weren't impacted by Boeing's 787 production woes. Your thinking sounds a lot like telling Aeroflot to buy Ilyushins.
@Donna - the 6 across seating on the ex-LATAM aircraft lacks privacy as but the seats are much larger/wider than D1 Suites so it's not at all as bad as you make it sound. Personally find the Suites claustrophobic and seats too narrow.
"The airline should be buying the Boeing 787."
You mean the aircraft whose wingtips were made in Korea, wing spars and doors in Japan, flap tracks in Canada, flaps in Australia, and batteries in France?
....why bother with that, when they can get a nice A350 made with nearly 40% USA-manufactured materials, including nearly double that percentage in USAmerican avionics?
Jon NYC is about 2 weeks after I wrote on this forum about this order.
A decision could come when Delta announces its 3rd quarter earnings next week or the following.
The A350-1000 has very similar trip costs as the -900 which means more seats just makes the -1000 more efficient per seat. Delta is on track to have a much more fuel efficient widebody fleet than many other global carriers and the -1000...
Jon NYC is about 2 weeks after I wrote on this forum about this order.
A decision could come when Delta announces its 3rd quarter earnings next week or the following.
The A350-1000 has very similar trip costs as the -900 which means more seats just makes the -1000 more efficient per seat. Delta is on track to have a much more fuel efficient widebody fleet than many other global carriers and the -1000 will make that even more so; compared to the similarly sized 777-300ER, the A350-1000 burns about 30% less fuel per seat. It isn't a surprise that DL is looking an at A350-1000 fleet about the same size as AA and UA have for their 777-300ER fleets which are fairly young so will be around for 10 plus years.
If acquired, the -1000s will predominantly be Pacific airplanes esp. to HND and ICN. ATL and DTW to Tokyo and Seoul had DL's highest revenue per flight pre-covid. Asia is coming back, DL has a great position at Haneda and the Korean/Asiana merger is in the final stages which will make ICN an even stronger hub. Just as happens with the 350-900s, some transatlantic flights can be done between Pacific rotations.
Load factors to Heathrow have historically been lower than for other European destinations which is why the 767 makes sense. The 767-400 has a different cabin than the 767-300ER and Delta knows full well what corporate travel requires for 8 to 9 hour flights which are much of US to LHR flights.
Credits to @Timm Dunn for leaking this, while I do think I've first seen it about a week ago not 2 but regardless, credits to you before @JonNYC.
Tim,
I'm interested in your take on Delta under utilizing the Lisbon route, from JFK. Having only a 767-400, when traffic to this Hotspot, is through the roof, makes zero sense. When they fly twice daily to Rome, with the A330 and A350, but snub Lisbon, boggles the mind. The distance between the two, is only a few hundred miles, yet they put all their eggs in one basket. Lisbon is short seats on that route, even into shoulder season.
How does it "boggle the mind?" Seems pretty straightfoward to me, if they thought they'd make more money there than someone else, they'd add more service.
as others have repeatedly noted, for-profit airlines exist to maximize profits. DL is currently - as it was pre-covid- the most profitable global airline in the world.
And Delta does serve Lisbon from Boston at least for part of the year.
A350-1000's are the nicest planes in the skies... sorry Boeing... so anytime another airline gets them, I'm onboard!