See the new MoM from Boeing. A 737max-10. Do a little research before calling someone out. You my friend, are guilty of poor strategic planning.

Ask yourself why management would want to change our existing EASK to block hours instead. Gee you don't think they plan on buying a new narrowbody that can fly from Chicago to Rome...

 

There is no narrow body planned that can fly Chigago Rome with any degree of reliability. What Delta has been doing is upsizing the fleet going to Europe. In order to get a acceptable seat mile cost across the pond with a narrow body it has to be no frills with high density seating. Delta is going in the opposite direction. A few years ago in AMS you could look down the terminal and see half a dozen 767's with 218 seats and even a 757 or two. Been there lately?
The MAX 10 if they build it still won't have the range of a 757 with winglets. You also overlook the problem with gate availability and capacity at many of the airports. That's only going to get worse, in fact it's predicted to become a critical issue in transatlantic air travel within 10 years. JFK and EWR are maxed out already in the international departure window.

 

JV Scope is the most misunderstood contract item. The AF/KLM JV is an emotional topic for many but when you sit down an analytically look at the scope of Delta international flying very little if any damage was done to Delta pilots. That's why the payout was so small.

The AF/KLM JV provides European theatre protection outside of the UK. The company agreed to a baseline that was above what they were currently flying. European markets took a dive and the company smartly and rightfully added flying to Latin Amerand the Pacific instead. Sure the European flying baseline was never met. But on a global scale the impact to pilot jobs was minor.

In conclusion, some common sense and reason need to be taken with this issue. Set a baseline for theatre protection flying that protects jobs but also gives the company flexibility to move jets where the money is. Let Global protection language in the Virgin JV agreement supercede any theatre protection. This should not be an problem for pilots unless you just want to layover in Europe no matter what the profitability is.

Global Protection Trumps Theatre Protection

 

Sailing,

Why would management twice now, try and push away from the EASK metric to a block hour metric. It certainly isn't because they want bigger and bigger airframes. You would be wrong on the 737- Max 10. Boeing is talking about 4500 NM range. Chicago to Rome is 4200 NM. That leaves many city pairings in between. East coast to many cities in Europe is well within the range.

 

Probably because it's simpler and easier to manage. Why do they have 52 293 seat and larger airframes on order if this is their plan? The article I read on the purely paper max 10 said they hope to match the A321 NEO in range. When you quote range there is the number in ads and then there is the real range. They are very different numbers when you have a 150 knot headwind over the Atlantic all winter and need alternates on arrival. Seat mile costs are higher on narrow bodies verses wide bodies. You need bigger Lav tanks, bigger water tanks and if you decide to have meals and put galleys in your seat mile cost will suck as will your range with the extra weight. Note the seating in our international 757's.
You also completely overlook the twin aisles protections the company has not tried to change.

 

That ain't happening. That only exists in the alternative world of Boeing press releases. No 737 could fly FCO to ORD in any configuration that is remotely desirable to the crowd we want flying on our airplanes. Maybe on a RyanAir cattle car, nothing else.

We got 777s, 765s, and A330s aplenty flying internationally and that isn't changing anytime soon.

 

Soon, perhaps 5-10 years from now? The planing boeing is discussing is a 737 in name only. Larger wing, gear, etc. I guarantee a new narrowbody will be flying between US and Europe within 5-10 years! But then we can be revisionists and say remember when.... Ryanair , NOA, Jetblue And others are already discussing these options. How long before Delta says we need to do it as well, in order to compete?

Nobody on this board can say for certain Delta doesn't want to continue with mission flexibilty and that includes down gauging. Why give the EASK's. If management is asking, its for a reason...

 

Why would Delta compete with a airframe with a higher seat cost? There will certainly be a new narrow body flying some limited routes and ultra low cost tickets. Won't be Delta, they would lose money on every flight. By the way the MEC got a pretty good idea of managements future fleet plan. Since 2007 those briefings from management have if anything been conservative however accurate.

 

They would have to change the twin aisle protections. Why are they not asking?

 

A rational pay methodology will fix that. If they want to pay me $350/hour to fly a 737 to FCO, bring 'em on. It would cost even more next year, and the year after and the year after.

That being said, the loss of economy of scale would be staggeringly stupid, and much to the chagrin of the forums, management isn't stupid.