Great news
Karma is a b——-

 

Karma? I know several guys who went over last decade when their major airline here furloughed them and they were jobless. Or were stuck in the regional world with Age 65 and a recession. I'm not convinced Emirates has put US pilots out of business. They have on the other hand taken a lot of US pilots. I guess I haven't joined the ALPA ME3 bandwagon yet.

 

You should join the bandwagon if you want a job in the States

 

Overall they seem to be. The plane has been in revenue service for a year now so things seem to be flowing more smoothly. I think mgmt wishes it could do LAX-SYD under the current rules. If Canberra becomes an approved alternate, the talk is it will be used on that route and the B777 re-assigned to a more cargo sensitive route.

In the end, it looks like DL will end up with 15 rather than the 25 initially contemplated based on market economics rather than aircraft issues (other than 350 price versus the 330NEO).

I do know the DL A350 Captains are ecstatic with the plane.....or its pay, anyway. A lot of those guys will be posting big 2018 W2 numbers which will make for a very happy 2019 Valentine's Day when the next profit sharing checks are distributed.

 

Meanwhile our, blue water lav, 757s will still be flying across the pond. Are older 777s that much costlier to fly than 757s? Hell, reconfigure them, send them DCA-DUB. I know...just wishful thinking.

 

You are using an unrelated circumstance to discredit a pretty well accepted position.

 

I disagree on the payload/range/and especially the seating capacity when talking in terms of a 777-200 replacement. The 777-8 is roughly is 13 feet shorter then the current 777-300, designed to go ULH (think of it as an updated 777LR for range but much larger which means it is overbuilt except for certain niche routes. There is a reason why not many LR have been ordered, nor the -8) and the -9 is 10 feet longer then a 777-300 with Boeing touting it as a 400 seater. The A350 would be roughly 290-300 seats in a UAL configuration.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/777x/

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/777/

So if UAL cancels the 359’s and gets just 787 or 777x as replacements for the 777-200’s then there will be a big seat gap between the 787-9 and the 787-10 (currently it is 66 seats). The 777x’s will have even more capacity.

Yes from a commonality perspective an all 787/777 fleet saves some $$. But also at a cost of not having the most efficient plane flying a certain route. Either not enough seats or too many to fill. A fleet of 45 A350’s is certainly large enough to not to be an orphan fleet, and would allow the route planners to pair an appropriate aircraft to a market.

 

The 66 seat gap between 787-9s & -10s is exaggerated by the dramatically different seating allocations tailored to the markets they serve.

787-9: 48BF/88E+/116Y
787-10: 44BF/21PE/45E+/208Y (Polaris)

Now that the 787's battery issues are fixed it blows the competition away on cost and can replace 777s in most of the markets they serve. Operating an additional fleet of less efficient aircraft based on a seating gap that is easily addressed by reconfiguring existing aircraft is not compelling as UA management understands.

https://simpleflying.com/boeing-787-vs-the-airbus-a350/

It is amazing to me that DAL is not able to operate A350s on LAX-SYD when UAL has done it with 747s, 777s, & 787s. Must be an ETOPS authorization issue.

 

It's not an ETOPS issue as Delta routinely runs 180 min ETOPS on its Pacific A350 legs. It's an A350 issue.
306 passengers plus cargo plus fuel (to include the 450 mile away Brisbane alternate) puts you over the max T.O. weight. I believe Delta is looking into having Airbus increase the max TO weight so they can fly this route...all for a small fee, of course.

 

Wow, if that is true then Airbus overpromised and under delivered. Again. Airbus and Pratt and Whitney should get married. Match made in heaven.