Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What's Up With DL 170 SLC-CDG?  
User currently offlineHaggis79 From Germany, joined Jun 2006, 1096 posts, RR: 1
Posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 8111 times:

DL 170 (SLC-CDG) made an en-route stop in CVG on 06/14 and again today - what's up with that flight? Do they have takeoff perfomance problems already? It's not that hot yet over here in SLC - if this is gonna be the standard, they will have to make an en-route stop nearly every day in July/August...


300 310 319/20/21 332/3 343 AT4/7 143 B19 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 742/4 752/3 763/4 77E/W CR2/7/9 D95 E45/70 F50 F70 100 M11 M90
70 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFlynavy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 8052 times:



Quoting Haggis79 (Thread starter):
DL 170 (SLC-CDG) made an en-route stop in CVG on 06/14 and again today - what's up with that flight? Do they have takeoff perfomance problems already? It's not that hot yet over here in SLC - if this is gonna be the standard, they will have to make an en-route stop nearly every day in July/August...

Too bad we don't have any MD-11s to send to CDG from SLC. A few friends of mine were talking about this earlier. Maintenance issues and fuel consumption aside, the M11 would have been the ideal type for legs such as this. She certainly had the legs for it and then some.

Keep in mind I'm a bit biased. I loved our MD-11s (and MD-11s in general).  cloudnine 


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jay Piboontum
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Lee Archer



User currently offlineHaggis79 From Germany, joined Jun 2006, 1096 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8042 times:

well, if the flight still exist and the merger goes through, can we expect DL to send the 332 on that route next summer? I think it's hot-n-high performance is a bit better compared to the 763ER....


300 310 319/20/21 332/3 343 AT4/7 143 B19 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 742/4 752/3 763/4 77E/W CR2/7/9 D95 E45/70 F50 F70 100 M11 M90
User currently offlineRcardinale From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 190 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8007 times:

I think that they should re schedule this flight and operate it at a later time. Isnt it scheduled to leave SLC when the temps are usually at their peak during the day? Also if the merger goes through i dont see DL deploying the 330 on this route and i dont think that there is enough demand

User currently offlineFanoftristars From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1608 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7898 times:

I doubt it's a fuel issue, since they're flying westbound. Then again, it looks like it went out pretty much a full load. Maybe cargo pushed them over the edge?

I know that Sunday the 15th when I walked past D6 the GIDS was showing 35 checked in for BE, and 9 open seats in coach. I'm not sure how many were on the stand by list, but I'll bet it went out full too.



"FLY DELTA JETS"
User currently offlineSkibum9 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1229 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7822 times:

14th looks like it was a planned stop before departing SLC as it was the typical SCL to CVG routing. Today, the 17th, looks more like it was unplanned as they were up by ORD before heading to CVG, which is not the typical routing.


Tailwinds!!!
User currently offlineJkudall From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 615 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7753 times:

Quoting Skibum9 (Reply 5):
14th looks like it was a planned stop before departing SLC as it was the typical SCL to CVG routing. Today, the 17th, looks more like it was unplanned as they were up by ORD before heading to CVG, which is not the typical routing.


Both diversions (today and last Saturday) to CVG were planned before the flight departed. They are indeed fuel stops. Expect them to continue on the SLC-CDG leg unless DL restricts the flight more.

Maybe this will get the airport to speed up their plans to extend the center runway.

[Edited 2008-06-17 20:28:31]

User currently offlineHaggis79 From Germany, joined Jun 2006, 1096 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7651 times:

Quoting Jkudall (Reply 6):
Both diversions (today and last Saturday) to CVG were planned before the flight departed. They are indeed fuel stops. Expect them to continue on the SLC-CDG leg unless DL restricts the flight more.

well, that means that I will not take this flight in summer... it's scheduled to arrive in CDG at 11:20, my connecting flight to NUE leaves typically at 12:55. With that fuel stop I wouldn't make the flight, leaving me with the next flight to NUE which leaves at about 18:30. I don't fancy a 5h wait at CDG...

PS: I just noted the fuel stop today took more than two hours... what makes a fuel stop last that long?

[Edited 2008-06-17 21:14:39]


300 310 319/20/21 332/3 343 AT4/7 143 B19 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 742/4 752/3 763/4 77E/W CR2/7/9 D95 E45/70 F50 F70 100 M11 M90
User currently offlineCatIII From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3029 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 7434 times:



Quoting Rcardinale (Reply 3):
think that they should re schedule this flight and operate it at a later time.

I think the issue if you operate it later is that it doesn't meet the necessary connection bank in CDG.

Quoting Haggis79 (Reply 7):
well, that means that I will not take this flight in summer... it's scheduled to arrive in CDG at 11:20, my connecting flight to NUE leaves typically at 12:55. With that fuel stop I wouldn't make the flight, leaving me with the next flight to NUE which leaves at about 18:30. I don't fancy a 5h wait at CDG...

Unless the fuel stop is built into the schedule and the flight arrives at 11:20, as scheduled.


User currently offlineMayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10397 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 7415 times:

I wondered if this might happen but why, now? Temps aren't that high, yet, in SLC. I did notice that as of July 1, the number of seats available were adjusted, I imagine for just this reason.


My mistake. Just looked at the SLC forecast. Highs in the high 80's to high 90's for the next 10 days. Probably that warm yesterday, too. That'll put a crimp in your lift.

[Edited 2008-06-18 06:45:44]


"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineRL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4663 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 7390 times:

The sched stop eastbound doesnt make much sense... wouldn't the range issue be more of a problem for CDG-SLC? (headhind vd tailwind). Elevation is 1,200 ft lower than DEN, Runway is 12,000ft, just seems a bit odd. Can anyone tell if they are picking anything up in CVG?


Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
User currently offlineDelta11 From Germany, joined May 2007, 58 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 7338 times:

Hello, I was in CVG on teh 14th and 17th and the SLC to CDG was scheduled both days for a fuel stop. No pasgenger boarding or exiting. The plane was cleared as an int flight so no one was allowed on board. Once you start your int flight, teh int beverage carts are open. These beverages are on international flights and are not taxed, also there are several security factors once you dispatch your flight. The extra cargo loads ( Weight Factors ) are why dispatch set up teh CVG safe guard and factored it in. Yes its a long haul for this metal. As for coming west in bound, different flight plans and less cargo allow for it, but they do sometimes schedule a feul stop once again prior to dispatch. These are all items behind teh scenes.

User currently offlineSketty222 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1778 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 7329 times:

Another thing Ive noticed is that DL170's full routing is PDX-CDG with a stop in SLC and an aircraft change. Why do airlines do this? Is there a specific reason for keeping the same flight number even though there has been an aircraft change from a 757 to a 767

This further stop is unfortunate if your travelling from PDX through to CDG

Lee



There's flying and then there's flying
User currently offlineWeb From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 427 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 7311 times:

Aren't there more convienient stops than CVG? It's not exactly on the way, per se, or are they using it simply because DL owns CVG?

Also, how can routes such as SVO-LAX (763 on SU) or ATH-ATL (763 on DL) go nonstop when those routes are significantly longer and one end is in a hot place? Granted, LAX and ATH are at about sea level but SLC has 12000 ft runways; is altitude still a problem?



Next flight: GRR-ORD-PDX-SEA-ORD-GRR
User currently offlineSac From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 98 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 7282 times:

A few years back when CO flew from DEN-LGW on the DC10-30 we would have to wait until it cooled off enough during the hot summer months for us to take off. I think the flight was scheduled to leave around 8pm and it would have until the temp. dropped enough to get a full plane airborne. In DL's case, I guess they view the fuel stop for about 30-45 minutes better then waiting a few hours for a temp. change.

User currently offlineHaggis79 From Germany, joined Jun 2006, 1096 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 7270 times:



Quoting CatIII (Reply 8):
Unless the fuel stop is built into the schedule and the flight arrives at 11:20, as scheduled.

no it's not... today it arrived around 2pm at CDG...

Quoting Sketty222 (Reply 12):
Why do airlines do this? Is there a specific reason for keeping the same flight number even though there has been an aircraft change from a 757 to a 767

yes there is - fooling customers into believing they are booking a one-stop, when in fact it's a connection...



300 310 319/20/21 332/3 343 AT4/7 143 B19 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 742/4 752/3 763/4 77E/W CR2/7/9 D95 E45/70 F50 F70 100 M11 M90
User currently offlineHaggis79 From Germany, joined Jun 2006, 1096 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 7241 times:



Quoting Sac (Reply 14):
I guess they view the fuel stop for about 30-45 minutes better then waiting a few hours for a temp. change.

if it only were just about 30-45 minuntes... yesterday it was on the ground in CVG for exactly two hours, so the delay including the longer flight path and approach and take-off in CVG added up to roughly three hours.... still been on the ground for more than one hour on the 14th...



300 310 319/20/21 332/3 343 AT4/7 143 B19 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 742/4 752/3 763/4 77E/W CR2/7/9 D95 E45/70 F50 F70 100 M11 M90
User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2821 posts, RR: 45
Reply 17, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 7223 times:



Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 10):
The sched stop eastbound doesnt make much sense... wouldn't the range issue be more of a problem for CDG-SLC? (headhind vd tailwind). Elevation is 1,200 ft lower than DEN, Runway is 12,000ft, just seems a bit odd.

There's nothing odd about it. It isn't a winds aloft problem, it's a takeoff weight problem. It is irrelevant how the field elevation at SLC compares with DEN; SLC suffers from huge weight penalties due to density altitude restrictions, especially in the summer when temperatures are, obviously, highest.


User currently offlineBlatantEcho From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1904 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 7187 times:

yikes, as a pax, I can't imagine how mad I would be if the airline is planning a stop for 1-3 hours somewhere along my 'non-stop' route.

That's the whole point of a non-stop, to avoid that garbage.

If with high fuel costs, the responsible thing, especially for a new route, would be to restrict the plane so it can make the flight. Build up a good reputation for completion and service, and then find new metal that has the legs to do the trip.


We all ripped US when they could get the planes to run US-China, and this seems equally ridiculous.

Average temperatures are going to be a known quantity, range, payload is known..

and here we have a new, non-stop international flight planning stops in the middle of the country.

As another poster said, with that factored in, why not take any other routing?



They're not handing trophies out today
User currently offlineSlcDeltaRUmd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3444 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 7090 times:

very dissapointing. DL better figure this out quickly or they are going to loose the loyal customer base which makes a flight like this successful.

The simple solution seems to fill it with less cargo, but that hurts the profits  Sad


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25170 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6881 times:



Quoting BlatantEcho (Reply 18):
and here we have a new, non-stop international flight planning stops in the middle of the country.

As another poster said, with that factored in, why not take any other routing?

SLC-CVG-CDG is about 450 nm further than the nonstop great circle route, so you're also looking at about one hour additional flying time plus what someone said was 2 hours on the ground at CVG. I expect they pick CVG where they can use their own staff, although a simple fuel stop with no passengers boarded doesn't require much handling apart from the fuel truck. They could stop at YWG in Canada which is almost exactly on the great circle route. It would seem to me that total costs would be lower doing that (assuming similar fuel prices) since they're saving the cost of flying those extra 450 nm. Even a fuel stop at YEG or YYC would be over 200 nm shorter than via CVG.


User currently offlineHaggis79 From Germany, joined Jun 2006, 1096 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6836 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 20):
SLC-CVG-CDG is about 450 nm further than the nonstop great circle route,

well, flights from the western US to Europe don't necessarily take the great circle route... a lot depends on winds and the location of the NATs in that particular night...

see for instance http://flightaware.com/live/flight/D...0/history/20080616/2321Z/KSLC/LFPG - this flight didn't make a stop and still came very close to CVG. But of course, even with the interim stop exactly on your planned route and no time spent on the ground you'd sill loose at least 45 minutes just for approach and departure.



300 310 319/20/21 332/3 343 AT4/7 143 B19 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 742/4 752/3 763/4 77E/W CR2/7/9 D95 E45/70 F50 F70 100 M11 M90
User currently offlineAQ737 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 612 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6790 times:

So customers might be better off booking a SLC-CVG flight with an hour or so connection to a CVG-CDG flight if they want to save time? Makes no sense to me.

Aq737


User currently offlineTWA902fly From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6760 times:

Just wondering... why did it spend 2 hours on the ground just to re-fuel?

'902



life wasn't worth the balance, or the crumpled paper it was written on
User currently offlineHaggis79 From Germany, joined Jun 2006, 1096 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6661 times:



Quoting AQ737 (Reply 22):
So customers might be better off booking a SLC-CVG flight with an hour or so connection to a CVG-CDG flight if they want to save time? Makes no sense to me.

well, that depends on if the SLC-CDG makes a fuel stop or not... I'm just glad that I booked SLC-SFO-CDG for my trip this Friday (wanted to fly AF and their 744)... knowing Murphy and my luck I'd spend a couple of hours at CDG otherwise...



300 310 319/20/21 332/3 343 AT4/7 143 B19 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 742/4 752/3 763/4 77E/W CR2/7/9 D95 E45/70 F50 F70 100 M11 M90
25 CatIII : More like SLC better extend the runway, lest they lose their onky European nonstop.
26 TWAL1011727 : DL170/17JUN had a mechanical on top of the fuel stop. A bleed isolation valve was repaired and the flt dept'd a little later. KD
27 Boston92 : Just slap some JATO's on it before it leaves SLC. That'l get the damn thing in the air.
28 Dragon6172 : If fuel prices are cheaper in CVG than SLC, they wouldn't schedule the stop on purpose to save some green backs would they? (I know, a conspiracy theo
29 Planefxr : When temp hits 89 deg. it starts taking a hit, and 1700 is about the hottest time of the day. I have heard that they are trying to move the departure
30 Alitalia744 : the route needs rework, significant rework.
31 Skibum9 : That is just so the airplane won't hit them as it is so fat that it can barely get airborne by the end of the runway!
32 WorldTraveler : the flight is timed for the best connections on both ends. It is apparently operating fairly full so that is a good sign but I'm sure DL will tell SL
33 Planefxr :
34 OA412 : Hmm, that's too bad! Is cancellation a possibility or does it look like they can rework it enough to keep it around?
35 Haggis79 : I'm not so sure if winglets help takeoff performance.... they save fuel, but they also make the aircraft heavier....?
36 Planefxr : I am not sure either. The fuel saved would then not need to added, which would then give a few hundred lbs of wiggle room, maybe?
37 Mir : Three letters: AMS. Wow. You know you're in trouble when you have to lower the approach lights at the other end of the runway to meet takeoff require
38 Post contains links Haggis79 : hmm.... are you sure that runway length is the only determining factor here...? I'm quoting some excerpts from the SLC airport master plan update fro
39 Haggis79 : I guess the best solution would be to reschedule.... if the flight departs at about 1pm or 2pm, it would arrive in CDG at about 8am the next morning,
40 Planefxr : I talked to a DL 767 Captain about the CDG flight after it was announced, let's just say he was less than complimentary about the decision to start t
41 Boston92 : It was 92 degrees at time of takeoff today, and it seems there are no scheduled fuel stops, albeit it is only 30 minutes into flight.
42 Jkudall : Flight 170 left the gate 7 mins early today and is operating non-stop to CDG. At 1700, the temperature was 90 degrees at the airport. Not sure what th
43 Planefxr : It only had 8 empty seats as well. 202 pax and 4 non-revs.
44 Haggis79 : well, the Tuesday flight might just be emptier than the Monday one...?
45 Boston92 : Full flight, hotter than yesterday...that birdie should be making a stop!
46 Haggis79 : the values they give is the maximum possible TOW with the existing runway and the MTOW with an extended runway... - they don't state the absolute MTO
47 Planefxr : Actually Tuesday had 9 empty seats 190 pax and 15 non-revs.
48 Haggis79 : is it possible to check how much cargo they had loaded? Or can those 8 pax make a difference, assuming it was completely full yesterday?
49 Planefxr : I think you are right!
50 Haggis79 : I guess you mean "Monday"...? Speaking of scheduled.... I was just looking at flightaware - tomorrow's flight is scheduled with the same departure ti
51 Jkudall : Both of the last two fuel stops were scheduled prior to leaving the gate.
52 Mir : I'm sure they've done their homework on it. I do know that the 343 was used to fly JNB-LHR, which is a longer route than SLC-CDG. And JNB is higher i
53 Haggis79 : well, as much as I love the A340, but that also could have something to do with the fact that the longest runway in JNB is 14.500 ft long....
54 Boston92 : Right, which means this flight should too have had the scheduled stop for fuel.
55 Post contains links Boston92 : Is it just me, or does it seem like it is making a turn for CVG? http://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL170
56 UPSMD11 : At 1027pm EDT it is well over Canada and looks like it won't have to make a fuel stop today. It's very interesting when you look at all of the factors
57 Jkudall : Looks like it is flying its filed route to CDG to me. Again, this flight is not stopping in CVG today. If the flight was going to need a fuel stop, t
58 KirkSeattle : I remember the announcement of this flight and discussions about this exact issue. I bet it's frustrating for passengers and crew alike. Just think of
59 Mason : Practicality aside, could DLs 777s make it nonstop without restrictions? I highly doubt we'll ever see this equipment on this route, just an interesti
60 Mayor : Actually, there is....it's at the top of D concourse. Well, it's not much of a connection.......from D-10 to D-6. Hardly an inconvenience to the pax.
61 Flynavy : Yes, it can.
62 Brons2 : The MGTOW is also given in the article's analysis on page 2-11 and it clearly indicates that they calculated with the non-ER 763 (323,900 lbs) and 77
63 Haggis79 : once again, table 2.2 on page 2-11 (page 27 of the pdf) does NOT list the absolute MTOW of the respective planes, but rather the maximum possible TOW
64 Post contains links MastaHanky : Today's Salt Lake Tribune has a brief blurb on the fuel stops too. Wonder if this will prod SLC into lengthening their runway finally. http://www.sltr
65 AirCop : Reminds me of AA's non-stop service from SJC-NRT, due to a short runway the DC-10 had to stop in OAK to fuel up to make it to Japan.
66 Post contains links Delta11 : From the SLC paper, Delta Air Lines' much publicized Salt Lake City-to-Paris flight has run into unexpected turbulence since it was launched earlier t
67 Mason : What? I can't believe this!
68 MaverickM11 : Is there really a business case for this? I know they think they're in for tons of new European and maybe Asian service but they basically had to buy
69 SlcDeltaRUmd11 : I think that the flight is back to running non stop and decently on time?? Loads look pretty good so far on the flight.
70 Skibum9 : Got to love the press. Different sized 'engines' would normally be used on the route? 'more fuel because the air is thinner' and this is coming from
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What's Up With DL In SLC? posted Mon Dec 1 2003 20:47:06 by Alexinwa
What's Up With DL's Nonstop LAX-ANC? posted Sat Nov 24 2007 11:10:47 by AA737-823
What's Up With DL's Pilots? posted Mon May 2 2005 06:34:18 by RwSEA
What's Up With CDG? posted Fri Dec 30 2005 19:34:11 by Pilot kaz
What Is Up With DL's Plans For TLV? posted Thu Dec 22 2005 16:46:32 by ELAL 744
What Is Up With DL Cancellations At PHL posted Sun Jan 23 2005 19:44:26 by Skibum9
What's Up With ORD ATC Today 03 Jun 08? posted Tue Jun 3 2008 14:59:53 by GatorAvionics
DL Begins SLC-CDG Today posted Mon Jun 2 2008 10:48:10 by Mason
What's Up With This A380? posted Wed May 21 2008 03:16:31 by LH4116
What's Up With The KLM Aberdeen-Houston Plan? posted Sun Mar 23 2008 05:09:42 by KL911