While no final decision has been made yet, signs are pointing to Delta Air Lines placing a large order for Airbus A330neo and A350 aircraft, as part of its long haul fleet renewal plan.
In this post:
Delta plans Airbus wide body aircraft order
Bloomberg is reporting that Delta and Airbus are in negotiations over a new wide body aircraft order. While exact details remain to be seen, Delta is reportedly planning on ordering both A330neo and A350 aircraft.
In October 2022, there were rumors that Delta was planning on picking up A350-1000s. While nothing was finalized at the time, I’d imagine that these latest discussions are an extension of that.
Delta has historically acquired aircraft opportunistically, and the airline has often opted to purchase used planes, or wait until it could get a great deal on new planes. However, with the recovery that we’ve seen in demand, airlines are placing orders even if they can’t get amazing deals, in order to secure delivery slots.
How this would fit into Delta’s current long haul fleet
For context, Delta’s flagship aircraft is currently the Airbus A350-900. The airline has 28 of these in its fleet, with another 16 on order, including the secondhand A350s that Delta has acquired from partner LATAM.
Delta’s other primary new long haul jet is the Airbus A330-900neo, as Delta has 22 of these in its fleet, with a further 16 on order. During the pandemic, Delta retired its fleet of Boeing 777-200s, which was the carrier’s longest range aircraft.
Beyond the A330neo and A350-900, Delta’s long haul fleet also consists of older generation A330s and 767s. The airline has 66 Boeing 767s, including 45 767-300ERs and 21 767-400ERs. These simply don’t offer a great premium cabin passenger experience, especially in business class. Furthermore, Delta has 42 older generation A330s, including 11 A330-200s and 31 A330-300s.
This is purely speculation on my part, but here’s how I see this playing out:
- I think Delta will place a substantial Airbus A330-900neo order, as these jets will be used to replace most existing Boeing 767s and older generation Airbus A330s; I don’t see the airline ordering the A330-800neo, since the economics of the jet don’t make sense for Delta
- I think Delta will expand its Airbus A350-900 fleet, as this will continue to be the backbone of the carrier’s long haul fleet
- I also think we’ll see Delta finally order some A350-1000s; this plane has amazing range and economics, and could be used in many of Delta’s most important high demand markets
Bottom line
Delta is expected to place a wide body aircraft order with Airbus in the near future. This is reportedly going to include both the A330neo and A350, though the number of aircraft that will be ordered remains to be seen. Given Delta’s aging long haul fleet of 767s and older generation A330s, this makes sense.
I suspect we’ll see Delta pick up more A330-900neos, A350-900s, and also maybe finally some A350-1000s.
What are you expecting from Delta’s prospective Airbus order?
That's a great idea. Keep flying high Delta. 777 is also a great plane.
I could see DL ordering the A350-1000. Both AA and UA fly the 777-300ER.
I could see the A330-900.
One thing I think that would fit in DL's fleet to address the 767-300ERs is used A330-200s. I think DL really wants a Boeing NMA, and the A330-800 is more of a low-density A350-900 alternative, so I do not see the fit, especially given the new airplane cost. But an A330-200 could handle the longest of...
I could see DL ordering the A350-1000. Both AA and UA fly the 777-300ER.
I could see the A330-900.
One thing I think that would fit in DL's fleet to address the 767-300ERs is used A330-200s. I think DL really wants a Boeing NMA, and the A330-800 is more of a low-density A350-900 alternative, so I do not see the fit, especially given the new airplane cost. But an A330-200 could handle the longest of 767-300ER routes at a very low acquisition cost, and could be a stop-gap until there is some other aircraft in that category.
Other than AA, who has a bunch of A332s sitting around that are even in semi-decent condition?
No sarcasm, seriously wondering. Even the lessors don't appear to have all that many.
But more importantly: why bother building a fleet out of those, when there'll be a ton of relatively decent A333s capable of 238tonnes+ on the market, in a few years?
I’m so done with these legacy airlines. They bring nothing exciting! Will there be a bar area or a better business class offered on the 350-1000? No. Just continued devaluation of loyalty and miles. Just flew to Asia and back in paid Delta One! And no comments. Our FAs need ages to learn what hospitality is about. Soft/hard products are already obsolete. Korean - while their service is amazing, the integration with Delta or joint...
I’m so done with these legacy airlines. They bring nothing exciting! Will there be a bar area or a better business class offered on the 350-1000? No. Just continued devaluation of loyalty and miles. Just flew to Asia and back in paid Delta One! And no comments. Our FAs need ages to learn what hospitality is about. Soft/hard products are already obsolete. Korean - while their service is amazing, the integration with Delta or joint venture is not functional. Ditching my 2MM, Diamond and Reserve card, moving to Amex platinum card and will fly those “medium cost” airlines to Europe / Asia with easier upgrade paths or added on services when and where it makes sense. Loyalty is obsolete. New flyers will never sign up for it.
Delta is going to have Balance this Airbus Aircraft Order.
The Flexibility of Point to Point between Hawaii and South America is what Ed Bastian is analyzing Right Now.
Ed You Better Go BIG and You Better Go LONG!!!
50 or 25 A330-900neo’s. Maybe
25 Airbus A350-900’s/25 Airbus A330-900neo’s ( The Richard Anderson Order Approximately of 10 Years ago .) This I think is the Surefire Bet.
25 Airbus A350-900’s/25 Airbus A350-1000’s Maybe
Delta is going to have Balance this Airbus Aircraft Order.
The Flexibility of Point to Point between Hawaii and South America is what Ed Bastian is analyzing Right Now.
Ed You Better Go BIG and You Better Go LONG!!!
50 or 25 A330-900neo’s. Maybe
25 Airbus A350-900’s/25 Airbus A330-900neo’s ( The Richard Anderson Order Approximately of 10 Years ago .) This I think is the Surefire Bet.
25 Airbus A350-900’s/25 Airbus A350-1000’s Maybe
50 Airbus A350-900 or 50 Airbus A350-1000’s. Maybe
Delta is only ordering more A350-900s if Airbus enhances the performance of that aircraft to turn it into a hot rod like the 777LR. DL execs have acknowledged that part of the reason they have not started India is because they don't have the right aircraft -which could mean not even of the highest current performance A350-900s but likely also means ones that have much more powerful engines. The A350-1000 has more powerful engines than...
Delta is only ordering more A350-900s if Airbus enhances the performance of that aircraft to turn it into a hot rod like the 777LR. DL execs have acknowledged that part of the reason they have not started India is because they don't have the right aircraft -which could mean not even of the highest current performance A350-900s but likely also means ones that have much more powerful engines. The A350-1000 has more powerful engines than the -900 even adjusted for the max weight of the aircraft.
The economics AND performance of the A350-1000 are better than the A350-900 even in the best configurations.
India is a big market with a lot of demand from the U.S., especially in Economy Class. The A350-1000 would be great for India because it has only slightly higher operating costs than the A350-900 but has more Economy seats. I doubt flying a 787-8 or A330-900 from the U.S. to India would be profitable, especially as the demand for higher capacity jets is present.
I don't think Delta wouldn't go to India any time soon.
Why deploy a 35K there when you can charge double flying to Australia.
Same reason they dehub NRT. It's not only about demand, it's the yield.
this is BILLONS of $ worth of planes, and reality since the US taxpayers are always bailing out the airlines, perhaps Delta should be buying some Boeing planes?
I don’t know if you know this, but Airbus builds plenty of planes that have gone to DL right in Alabama. Creating US jobs and using US suppliers.
What "reality" does that exist in?
An A321 (as an example) uses more than 40% US-produced metal, more than 80% US-made avionics, and (if built in Mobile, which most of DL's are) is made in an American factory, by American workers, unionized under American labor law, paying American property/materials/fuel taxes.
Meanwhile, a Boeing 787 has a center fuselage made in ITALY (Alenia); main landing gear and power conversion system both made in FRANCE (Messier-Dowty...
What "reality" does that exist in?
An A321 (as an example) uses more than 40% US-produced metal, more than 80% US-made avionics, and (if built in Mobile, which most of DL's are) is made in an American factory, by American workers, unionized under American labor law, paying American property/materials/fuel taxes.
Meanwhile, a Boeing 787 has a center fuselage made in ITALY (Alenia); main landing gear and power conversion system both made in FRANCE (Messier-Dowty and Thales, respectively); lighting system components made in GERMANY (Diehl Luftfahrt Elektronik); doors made in SWEDEN (Saab); wingtips made in S.KOREA (KAA); wing fairings made in CANADA (Boeing Canada); outboard trailing-edge flaps made in AUSTRALIA (Boeing Australia); and a whole slew of engine, fuselage, empennage, and flight deck avionics parts made in JAPAN (Mitsubishi, Kawasaki, Fuji, and GS Yuasa).... assembled worldwide, amalgamated into 7 large pieces, then flown to South Carolina to be snapped together.
So with that in mind, point to the "American made" plane. We'll wait.
Delta isn’t buying A321’s. Doesn’t Airbus source from the same group of global companies?
Delta isn’t buying A321’s.
Tell that to Delta, as they seem to believe they have 120+ outstanding orders....
You switch to named parts when analyzing the Boeing. .
That's because the point, which one would've hoped you'd have the wherewithal to figure out on your own, was that modern Boeings can in no way be considered "American" to the exclusion of an Airbus, as the majority of their components by type are also internationally...
Delta isn’t buying A321’s.
Tell that to Delta, as they seem to believe they have 120+ outstanding orders....
You switch to named parts when analyzing the Boeing. .
That's because the point, which one would've hoped you'd have the wherewithal to figure out on your own, was that modern Boeings can in no way be considered "American" to the exclusion of an Airbus, as the majority of their components by type are also internationally manufactured and/or sourced.
It wasn't to compare the two types tit for tat.
I understand Delta owns A321’s. This specific purchase is not for A321’s, however, so your argument about US content from Alabama on this purchase is not correct. Airbus pretends to be an American company when it suits them, or a Brazilian company, or a Canadian company, and the list goes on and on. It’s a French company, and one that uses its political might effectively in Europe to restrict US competition. Boeing at least doesn’t...
I understand Delta owns A321’s. This specific purchase is not for A321’s, however, so your argument about US content from Alabama on this purchase is not correct. Airbus pretends to be an American company when it suits them, or a Brazilian company, or a Canadian company, and the list goes on and on. It’s a French company, and one that uses its political might effectively in Europe to restrict US competition. Boeing at least doesn’t try to be anything but an American company, even if it has a global supply chain.
@John
What on Earth are you babble about?
Do you have the slightest CLUE how corporate structure works?
(psst, no need to answer-- we can already tell)
Airbus doesn't "pretend" to be anything other than what it is: a multinational corporation that takes advantage of individual countries' legal/vocational landscapes to better serve and advantage its production needs.
And ya know who else is, and does, the same thing? ...Boeing.
If you're...
@John
What on Earth are you babble about?
Do you have the slightest CLUE how corporate structure works?
(psst, no need to answer-- we can already tell)
Airbus doesn't "pretend" to be anything other than what it is: a multinational corporation that takes advantage of individual countries' legal/vocational landscapes to better serve and advantage its production needs.
And ya know who else is, and does, the same thing? ...Boeing.
If you're having difficulty processing that, then please take all the time you need to explain the purpose of Boeing Canada, Boeing Australia, Boeing UK, Boeing Aerospace Malaysia, Boeing Singapore, Boeing Brasil, etc.
And if you're laughably naive enough to believe that Boeing doesn't also attempt to use political influence to stifle competition, then kindly explain to us why the CS100/300 are now called A220....... because there's a bit o' history there.
Damn statistics. You focus on percentages when analyzing the Airbus. You switch to named parts when analyzing the Boeing. I suggest an equal comparison or you have proven nothing.
Your actually wrong the center fuselage is made in Charleston, South Carolina, it was the aft fuselage that was made in Italy, but they screwed it up so badly that it's now made in Charleston as well. The 787-10 fuselage is to big to be flown on the Dream lifter and that is why they consolidated all 787 production to Charleston.
@Ozzy,
You have it backwards. Aft (for the 789 anyway) was made in the USA, center made in Italy.
If you disagree, then kindly contact Boeing and tell them that they don't know where their parts were made, because the diagrams are still in their archives:
https://gdb.voanews.com/92FE0BEC-A16E-4D52-8F73-B271B402892E_w1597_n_r1_st_s.jpg
Did DL not just order 100 737-10s?
you apparently don't know how much of the 787's components come from Asia and EUrope
Parnel, if you don't like airline bailouts, put the blame where it belongs. Write your Congresscritter and tell him or her to stop giving away your money. Don't forget to also mention the unearned billions also given away to Boeing.
I'm Tim Dunn and I approve this order.
Paid for by Tim's Action Committee.
How is the A350 the backbone of the fleet? I think you can argue that it is the flagship aircraft, but when combining the subtypes, there are many more A330s and 767s.
While the 767-300ER premium cabins are seriously dated, when flying in coach, I actually prefer the 767. It is nice to have the 2-3-2 layout for a long haul flight.
Isn't Delta also trying to pickup AA's retired A330-200s & -300s?
No, lol.
The -200s would add a fourth A330 engine type to the fleet, which they certainly don't want/need; and the -300s are older than sand without much life left in them.
it is possible that the AA 330-200s could be acquired as the replacement for 767s on transcon flights.
The AA 330-200s are fairly young and have good enough economics the way AA configured them w/ a fairly small forward cabin.
Delta can find enough RR 700 engines (which also power some A330s) if they believe the economics of a very cheap aircraft acquisition are worth it.
The AA 330-200s aren't going anywhere. If DL offers anything, AA is likely to take it.
Delta needs to replace the 767-300ER. While they were significantly overhauled nose to tail following the merger, they feature outdated premium cabins with narrow seats and the dispatch reliability is increasingly problematic. More A330 and A350s seem like the right solution.
feel free to let us know the stats on DL's maintenance reliability by fleet type. and since UA also operates both versions of the 767, throw thus in to back up your statement.
yes, this order will be A330-900s and A350-1000s
Congratulations to Delta - hoping this leads to substantial international expansion compared to their otherwise lacklustre network where they really lag behind United on this.
You should read financial statements.
Delta's transatlantic and Latin revenue was within a couple percent of UA's for the most recent quarter. It has half of the transpacific revenue of UA but has dozens more NEW transpacific capable planes on firm order over the next few years than UA.
UA's international size advantage is not near as much as some people believe and the rate of growth that DL has just with its...
You should read financial statements.
Delta's transatlantic and Latin revenue was within a couple percent of UA's for the most recent quarter. It has half of the transpacific revenue of UA but has dozens more NEW transpacific capable planes on firm order over the next few years than UA.
UA's international size advantage is not near as much as some people believe and the rate of growth that DL has just with its current order book could close the gap in size. A new order for much more efficient aircraft like the A350-1000 alone would more than put DL over the top. There is nothing in UA's fleet that can compete with the economics of the A350-1000.
DL might force UA to finally take delivery of their own A350-1000s and DL will end up doing engine maintenance on those UA engines - or UA will be forced to order the 777X and add EVEN MORE DEBT to its books in order to have a large new generation twin.
Read the point I made again. I agree with A350-1000's superiority but DL would need a significant number of A350-1000s to even make a dent in UA's vastly superior network. This is without even getting into (as others rightly pointed out) Polaris's overwhelming superiority vs DL's current international product for the most part. I think i've called this out previously as well, Tim - A lot of these arguments are coulda shouda wouda. I'm eager...
Read the point I made again. I agree with A350-1000's superiority but DL would need a significant number of A350-1000s to even make a dent in UA's vastly superior network. This is without even getting into (as others rightly pointed out) Polaris's overwhelming superiority vs DL's current international product for the most part. I think i've called this out previously as well, Tim - A lot of these arguments are coulda shouda wouda. I'm eager to see what order book eventually gets announced. And lastly, to repeat myself i'll say the one thing you hopefully always love hearing agnostic of facts - Congratulations to Delta.
UA has more dots on its route map but it really doesn't generate that much more international revenue.
It certainly doesn't deliver more passenger revenue on a system basis.
Being fixated with dots on maps may look good for aviation nuts but that is not necessarily what it takes to run a good business.
I am happy to see everyone grow. But there are a whole lot of people that think that UA...
UA has more dots on its route map but it really doesn't generate that much more international revenue.
It certainly doesn't deliver more passenger revenue on a system basis.
Being fixated with dots on maps may look good for aviation nuts but that is not necessarily what it takes to run a good business.
I am happy to see everyone grow. But there are a whole lot of people that think that UA has a corner on the international market and the ability to grow it and that is simply not the case.
What's so "vastly superior" about UA's network?
It has a definitive advantage to southeast Asia, mostly due to the power of the SFO hub, but that's about it. Even then, it only manages to serve a grand total of 1 destination. Not like UA is offering nonstops to the likes of Thailand, Vietnam, etc.
In Europe, the airlines are more or less on equal footing, with UA having been willing to jump into several...
What's so "vastly superior" about UA's network?
It has a definitive advantage to southeast Asia, mostly due to the power of the SFO hub, but that's about it. Even then, it only manages to serve a grand total of 1 destination. Not like UA is offering nonstops to the likes of Thailand, Vietnam, etc.
In Europe, the airlines are more or less on equal footing, with UA having been willing to jump into several Spanish tertiary markets, while quietly winding down its regional UK/Nordic/German ops.
The only area in N.America where UA's definitive offering exceeds DL is Mexico, which is of course no worry to the latter for an obvious reason.
S.America, again, more or less equal footing.
DL's network is to Africa is significantly larger than UA's. UA gets the job done to South Africa, but definitely nothing "vastly superior" there.
Inverse to Australia/Oceania. DL gets the job done to the largest markets, though with less frequency.
Completely incorrect assessment.
1. UA flies to India, arguably the biggest growing aviation market for next couple of decades. It's being hurt temporarily by Russian airspace restrictions but once that goes away, you have SFO-DEL, ORD-DEL, EWR-DEL and EWR-BOM back on the market and potential resumption of SFO-BLR. Good luck to Delta in trying to match this without a local partner (UA has Vistara). Then there's Singapore which currently only UA flies to from...
Completely incorrect assessment.
1. UA flies to India, arguably the biggest growing aviation market for next couple of decades. It's being hurt temporarily by Russian airspace restrictions but once that goes away, you have SFO-DEL, ORD-DEL, EWR-DEL and EWR-BOM back on the market and potential resumption of SFO-BLR. Good luck to Delta in trying to match this without a local partner (UA has Vistara). Then there's Singapore which currently only UA flies to from the big 3. Delta has had a stop-start approach in Tokyo too with some late additions in summer and even here UA has already resumed service from SFO, EWR and even Denver and often to both NRT and HND.
2. UA is the top North American carrier to Australia and New Zealand and it's further expanding to destinations like Christchurch and Brisbane. I also don't get the argument of 'getting the job done with lower frequency'. I wasn't talking about checking a box but more addressing serviceable demand. https://onemileatatime.com/news/united-airlines-australia-new-zealand-expansion/
3. UA definitely has more tier 2 or 3 destinations in Europe (think Tenerife, Venice, Stockholm etc.) but I am not sure where you are getting the quietly winding down market argument in those other markets. UA flies daily to both FRA and MUC from ORD, EWR, SFO, IAH. Wherever there's blind spots I don't see where anyone else has a leg up. I will agree that Europe is a bit of a moot point because there seems to be demand to fill seats for all airlines.
4. As for South America, more than frequency it's the LATAM garbage that is competing against Polaris which gives United a leg up but even so, American's vast presence in South America probably packs a punch here.
5. All this is even without getting into the partner benefits due to Star Alliance which is overwhelmingly more powerful than Skyteam.
UA flies to India
From a quarter of its previous gateways, without being able to charge a price premium despite severe decrease in direct competition. Great, let's emulate that.
I also don't get the argument of 'getting the job done with lower frequency'.
Then simply look to UA's strategy in Africa, where you'll see them doing the same thing vis-a-vis DL.
UA definitely has more tier 2 or 3 destinations in Europe (think Tenerife,...
UA flies to India
From a quarter of its previous gateways, without being able to charge a price premium despite severe decrease in direct competition. Great, let's emulate that.
I also don't get the argument of 'getting the job done with lower frequency'.
Then simply look to UA's strategy in Africa, where you'll see them doing the same thing vis-a-vis DL.
UA definitely has more tier 2 or 3 destinations in Europe (think Tenerife, Venice, Stockholm etc.)
Do you not realize that you've only repeated what I've already said?
but I am not sure where you are getting the quietly winding down market argument in those other markets.
Probably because you're choosing to be obtuse, rather than take the 5 seconds needed to figure it out.
Where's BGO, OSL, CPH, BHX, MAN, GLA, BFS, HAM, DUS, etc? How are they all doing on UA?
Because (like DL) UA has *dropped* the majority of the tertiary European destinations that it ever tried, and in recent periods at that...
...sure they're trying a few new ones, as these airlines do, but again: what makes what they're doing so "vastly superior" than anything else, when it's more or less par for the course?
As for South America, more than frequency it's the LATAM garbage that is competing against Polaris which gives United a leg up but even so
So not only did you deflect away from the actual issue in discussion (network comparison), but you made an assumption that I defy you to show any tangible cooperation for. I'll wait.
That statement was particularly inane, seeing as no style of seat is going to overcome the combination of anti-trust immunity with LATAM, plus cooperation with Aerolineas, thus providing a plurality of US-S.Am nonstop traffic.
All this is even without getting into the partner benefits due to Star Alliance which is overwhelmingly more powerful than Skyteam.
"More powerful" at WHAT, measured HOW?
Do you not understand that throwing size-related adjectives in front of blanket statements, doesn't equate to a meaningful comparison?
United’s route system is unparalleled and while they’re going through a major international expansion, it’s yet to be seen how profitable they will be in the current business climate.
"United’s route system is unparalleled"
People keep repeating that, but there's really not all that much substance to it. Their network has some strengths (Europe and Australia) and it has some weaknesses.
I'll admit that internationally, United was truly in a league of its own at China and India. Was. Neither is really the case anymore. Nobody's doing well at China, so that's a wash. United has both east and west coast service to India,...
"United’s route system is unparalleled"
People keep repeating that, but there's really not all that much substance to it. Their network has some strengths (Europe and Australia) and it has some weaknesses.
I'll admit that internationally, United was truly in a league of its own at China and India. Was. Neither is really the case anymore. Nobody's doing well at China, so that's a wash. United has both east and west coast service to India, but it'll never be what it was, so long as Russian airspace remains closed.
Those were its strengths. Internationally United is nothing special to South America and Africa, two of the fastest emerging general markets alongside India, which American and Delta dominate respectively. Domestically, United is practically useless if you're in the south or southeast. No airline can be all things to anyone, and United is no exception.
The A350-1000 is the most economical, longest range large widebody in service. Delta will add them - and they will compete with 25% better seat costs with AA and UA's 777-300ERs and, in a few cases, UA's 787-10s.
The A33-900 is delivering operating economics as good as or better than the 787-9 but with much lower acquisition costs.
There will be no more new A330-900s beyond the current orders and DL could convert some...
The A350-1000 is the most economical, longest range large widebody in service. Delta will add them - and they will compete with 25% better seat costs with AA and UA's 777-300ERs and, in a few cases, UA's 787-10s.
The A33-900 is delivering operating economics as good as or better than the 787-9 but with much lower acquisition costs.
There will be no more new A330-900s beyond the current orders and DL could convert some of them to -1000s.
The -1000s will be heavily used to expand and grow in Asia as their first job; some will end up over the Atlantic.
The A330-900 is the de facto replacement for the 767 fleet. the -300ERs will leave later this decade - which is why Delta is ordering now - while the 767-400s and older A330 300s will start leaving in the late 2020s and early 2030s.
Airbus and Boeing both have tremendous capacity to accept large orders - contrary to what Scott Kirby said in justifying the size of the UA 787 order.
Why do you think Delta will have no more new A339 orders?
"The A33-900 is delivering operating economics as good as or better than the 787-9"
That is patently false. The A339 has fine economics for routes under 4000NM, and competes ok against the 787-9 in those routes. But longer than 4000NM and the economics of the A339 get obliterated by the 787-9. There is a reason that so many airlines are buying 787's to replace their A330s.
Big problem is DL won't have a niche widebody, like the 787-8 or even a XLR, they are just running huge 290-330 plus pax all over the place if they replace the 767-3/4s. Hubs like MSP, SLC and even DTW won't be able to support point to point and it will be ATL, JFK and LAX. UA Polaris is way better hard product then what DL offers and AA's new suites in the XLR look amazing, plus more 787's a huge win for both AA and UA.
The economics of narrowbody transatlantic flights just don't work. All AA and UA will be doing is trading fuel costs of 757 flights with much higher labor costs for a similar number of seats. AA and UA are two of the rare global carriers that are committing to aggressive A321NEO transatlantic operations - and there is good reason why the Euro flags and DL are not.
The 787-8 has horrible per seat economics. There is...
The economics of narrowbody transatlantic flights just don't work. All AA and UA will be doing is trading fuel costs of 757 flights with much higher labor costs for a similar number of seats. AA and UA are two of the rare global carriers that are committing to aggressive A321NEO transatlantic operations - and there is good reason why the Euro flags and DL are not.
The 787-8 has horrible per seat economics. There is no reason to fly a smaller version of a more capable plane that is less capable than its larger sibling, the 787-9. If adding 40 more seats make or break a route, it wasn't viable to begin with
I look closely when I fly to Europe at the Delta equipment being used. I would rather fly a more expensive, inconvenient route than to fly a Delta 767-300, The 400 is ok, I’m flying it several times this year.
If Delta offered drinkable wine on any of their flights in D1, it would make even flying the 767-300 tolerable.
Wine is a big pain point with Delta in general these days. Last decent wine I had on a Delta flight was Decemebr 2019.
I agree. They serve canned wine in domestic F and I won't touch it.
Agree with Anthony, I just caught a ride on a Delta 767-400 and the DeltaOne cabin is dramatically nicer than Delta's 767-300s and a totally acceptable J product with almost all of the hallmarks of the DeltaOne seats except for the sliding door. Having said that I was on a short hop from ATL:MCO, the plane had come in that morning from EZE on a MUCH longer flight where an A350 would have been a much more comfortable ride up front.
A couple of comments
1) The 767-400 experience in business class is actually fine, with the possible exception of a narrow seat in the shoulder
2) The 767-300s will eventually be retired, but I don't see the 767-400 or most of the older A330s being retired. Those will replace the 767-300 on the transcon and Hawaii routes. And honestly, A330 and 767-400 will be superior to what most competitors will be offering on domestic long haul routes.