We don’t AF/KLM/Virgin/xxxx can do it for us and not violate the scope agreement.

That’s quite the red herring.

While true, none of our partners fly NB over the NAT. Considering the congestion at AMS/CDG/LHR, I doubt they plan to “downgauge” to a NB.

Not to mention, if the scope agreement had included the non-existent NB transoceanic flying from our partners, what would stop Delta from using our NB (and lower paying) aircraft to do ocean crossings within the agreement?

Delta can do all the ocean crossings they want on a NB, but it doesn’t factor into our share of flying within global scope.

This horse is dead and buried. We all argued it prior to the GS vote. For anyone that wants the opposing view this is the summary.

I’m not saying they would down gauge a route. In a senario that a NB trans Atlantic route made economic sense: it would make sense for our partner airline prior to it making financial sense for Delta. The reasons are:

We have higher pilot costs already.

Delta operating that route with a NB would trigger our “sucker insurance” clause in the PWA

Delta can fill up to 30% of the seats and not violate scope.


The fact the no routes currently exist ignores the potential for these routes in the future. It also ignores that we made sure to set scope rules for an aircraft that doesn’t even exist, but failed to make rules for one that does exist.

The fear is that we cede the oddball routes to our partners. Routes that many would enjoy. NYC to random European cities. Liverpool, Lyon, Rotterdam, Bordeaux….

The point is moo now, but fixing this is on my list of requests for the next PWA negotiation. To me the answer is a 50/50 NB agreement added to our WB agreement.

Agree if you have ever done ocean crossings single Aisle it sucks, we used to do Dakar, Malaga, Paris a couple more.

Just the wrong plane for the job, I did a bunch it was substandard at best,. (All though Malaga was amazing!)

Eh... https://viewfromthewing.com/jetblue-...n-partnership/

Has anyone heard any updates on the 350 delivery schedule? I thought I heard we were taking delivery of 7 new planes in 2024, but it seems like we would have seen more vacancies for FO’s if this was the case. Maybe we are overstaffed on the 350?

I think you right, there are supposed to be 7 deliveries this year. We're supposed to get 2 next month and 3520 has done 5 test flights so far. As for vacancies for FOs, the vast majority of 350 flights require 4 crew members.

LAX350B went from 100 to 126 since last fall.

edit: meant to quote 4fans

I suspect that as the new planes are delivered, the older 350s will be pulled to go through heavy checks and cabin retrofits to match the new 275 seat configuration coming on the next delivery. As a result, I suspect the operating numbers will stay roughly the same for the summer and maybe the categories will start to see an uptick this fall? And I wouldn't be surprised if the LATAM birds are at the front of the re-fit line. I hear that quick cabin install has awful quality. Lots of seat and IFE issues for passengers paying big $$ and the new Viasat Wi-Fi isn't usable on some portions of European legs nor over the Pacific (until 4Q24 if their satellite launch goes well) so those birds might as well get new cabins waiting for Wi-Fi functionality.

Yeah, that makes sense. Thank you for the thoughtful answer. It has been many months since I’ve seen many vacancies on the 350B side but there are still back fills here and there. I guess LAX got a few to support the new flying out there.