DAL has always been a follower with "innovations." On the surface, this may seem smart, you save money by not buying into a scheme that doesnt make you money. However, DAL goes a step futher, by buying from the lowest bidder. In flight entertainment - lowest bidder - problems with the system for years; Lie flat seats - late to the game and mod lines continue to be full; Cockpit tablet; Every airline has gone with Apple, DAL seems intent to again go with a different one - one that isn't yet faa approved - Save a penny, but in the end it costs them more.

 

I think in that instance whoever gets them later will have the advantage. Supposedly the A models aren't meeting specs and the true cost including financing is at or above the cost of moving peeps in 76ER's with winglets on any route that massive range isn't an issue. I think we are waiting for the bugs to get worked out as well as for the second gen 787 (-900?) to come out as it supposedly has much better numbers financially and odds are far better reliability issues up front.

In addition, I'd hope we got a pretty penny for our very generous decade long deferral as well as several years worth of compounding penalties we were owed as well. I'm sure the 737-900ER's were deeply, deeply discounted and possibly other deals in the works like very favorable 717's and/or 777's or cheaper 787's down the road. If we were really smart we'd lock in bargain prices in today's dollars for planes to come 5+ years down the road and pay those puppies off with inflation funny money.

 

Not to mention we are a relatively diverse mix of Boeing and Airbus, the next big orders could go to either company. It would behoove Boeing to try and keep us a customer as Airbus has been beating them in market share over the past year.

 

It's operated by Atlas Air.

 

This is so true.

Case in point: The infamous MD-11. Carriers that were serious about US to Asia service bought the 747-400. Delta (under Ron Allen's "leadership") went with the MD-11 as it was cheaper.

So how did that work out? It didn't live up to the range/performance guarantees from McDonnell Douglas (are you stunned?) which required additional fuel stops.

...You buy a ticket on Delta to fly nonstop to Tokyo and then the pilots make a PA saying "sorry folks we've got to stop for fuel and we'll be an hour or two late". Meanwhile your buddies (who booked on UAL or NWA) flew in a 747 and made it all the way. Would you book on Delta the next time?

My viewpoint is if Delta goes with the iPad instead of some "el-cheapo" alternative (that the manufacturer claims is just as good) that would signify a shift in management philosophy about looking for "value" instead of "price".

 

The fuel stops were urban legend on the MD11. It never stopped for fuel going to Tokyo. The stops made were crew swaps in PDX when they did not have a bunked aircraft for the over 12 flights. It stopped perhaps half a dozen times during the LAX-Hong Kong operation however every time we stopped the Cathy 747 on the route stopped also.

 

I remember reading in the paper about a DAL crew that stopped in Nome, AK due to pilot fatigue. If I recall, it doubled the population of the city when the aircraft landed. Had to bunk pax in the school gym, on cots or something. Can anybody fill in some details????

 

I also remember maybe half a dozen times passing over a DAL MD-11 on NWAs NRT-MSP route (DAL was probably going to JFK, or maybe ATL?) when the MD-11 was at FL270 till fuel was burned off, and enabling a climb. We were usually 4,000' above them, sometimes more. That's gotta' be expensive

 

^^^^ note the sign ^^^^

 

more to come...