Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
DL B77L Performance: BOM-ATL, JNB-ATL  
User currently offlineFlyyul From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 4969 posts, RR: 51
Posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 9220 times:

If there any DL insiders on this site, can you please advise if there any payload restrictions from JNB or BOM to ATL. The block times Westbound are above 16 hours, and in the case of JNB, a potential heat/altitude restriction might be in place.

Given how expensive the 77L is on unit cost, one would have to imagine that anything short of a full pax/cargo payload, could marginalize some of these routes.

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 9148 times:



Quoting Flyyul (Thread starter):
Given how expensive the 77L is on unit cost

says who? what data do you have to support that?

people have posted here that the 77L has lower costs than the 77E because of the increased performance and newer technology - on top of its ability to carry more payload.

It has been posted that DL has recently left BOM with flights of 730K lbs with no problems and been able to climb directly to more than 30K feet in altitude which indicates they are carrying significant cargo loads on top of the reported full cabins. Even when BOM had runway restrictions back in March due to construction, DL was leaving with full pax, bags, and 20K or more of cargo on the flight to JFK.

JNB is not known but multiple posters have agreed with me that DL should be able to carry full passengers and bags but might not be able to carry much cargo. Since no other aircraft is able of flying nonstop from JNB to the US with full passenger loads, the 77L is clearly in a class by itself.

If DL ever decides to enter the US-SE Asia nonstop market, it is clear that the 77L will be more than able to substantially outperform the 345s that have been or are now serving nonstop routes to that region.


User currently offlineAlitalia744 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 4741 posts, RR: 45
Reply 2, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 9066 times:



Quoting Flyyul (Thread starter):
Given how expensive the 77L is on unit cost, one would have to imagine that anything short of a full pax/cargo payload, could marginalize some of these routes.

Well, while it may be expensive on a per unit cost to acquire, I can tell you Delta absolutely loves the aircraft. So much so that the fleet will grow  Wink



Some see lines, others see between the lines.
User currently offlineArabAirX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week ago) and read 8977 times:



Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 1):
says who? what data do you have to support that?

Probably refers to list price I imagine?


User currently offlineOA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5231 posts, RR: 25
Reply 4, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week ago) and read 8960 times:



Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 2):
Well, while it may be expensive on a per unit cost to acquire, I can tell you Delta absolutely loves the aircraft. So much so that the fleet will grow  

That was definitely a given especially now with the merger. I'm betting we'll eventually see a 77W order as well.



Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
User currently offlineFlyyul From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 4969 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week ago) and read 8863 times:

The 77L is a great aircraft as it can access premium markets all over the world on a non-stop while providing the most reasonable costs for an aircraft of its capability.

Relative to the 772ER or 773ER, it does have higher unit costs as it burns significantly more fuel per seat. The 77L is on the only aircraft that can fly over 7700 miles and carry full payloads.. hence why its a key airplane.


User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5283 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week ago) and read 8819 times:



Quoting Flyyul (Reply 5):
Relative to the 772ER or 773ER, it does have higher unit costs as it burns significantly more fuel per seat.

Widebodyphotog, some time ago, posted data suggesting that the 77L burns less fuel than an equivalently loaded 77E on long missions (>5000 nm IIRC), because the reduced drag from the raked wingtips and the improved SFC of the GE90-11xB outweighed the effect of the higher empty weight.

I won't argue on the 77W because the 77W has many more seats...



Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
User currently offlineAirbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8162 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (5 years 5 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 8710 times:



Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 6):
Widebodyphotog, some time ago, posted data suggesting that the 77L burns less fuel than an equivalently loaded 77E on long missions (>5000 nm IIRC),

That is obvious. The 77L was built specifically for ULH routes so it's a given that it would be more efficient than the 77E. I don't think the OP is implying that there is a better aircraft for the route. Seems to me that he was just inquiring whther DL's 77L suffers any restrictions on those routes.


User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (5 years 5 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 8618 times:



Quoting Flyyul (Reply 5):
Relative to the 772ER or 773ER, it does have higher unit costs as it burns significantly more fuel per seat.

DL's own experience shows that the 77L burns very similar amounts of fuel to the ERs, which is significant in that the LR carries much more cargo. So on an equal basis, DL's observations bear out what widebodyphotog says.

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 7):
Seems to me that he was just inquiring whther DL's 77L suffers any restrictions on those routes.

the answer is no. we don't know about JNB since the route hasn't operated yet but since no other aircraft can even come close to flying to the US with a full passenger load, even the slightest restrictions will make the 77L do things that put it in a league by itself.
the remainder of the fleet this summer will be deployed on routes to East and Southwest Asia where they will offer signficant improvements in cargo capability and much stronger hot weather performance. Since DL has been able to operate ERs from PVG and DXB to ATL (and RT) with minimal if any restrictions, the LR will be able to carry massive amounts of cargo with no problem.

for comparison, on the dates in March when DL was operating the ER and LR on separate days off of the 9000 foot runway at BOM during construction, the ER was taking 50 passenger payload restrictions while the LR was operating full plus carrying cargo.
The LR's operational performance is absolutely phenomenal and it does it at costs competitive with other aircraft.

As Alitalia 744 says, there will be more 777LRs and the 77W is a very likely candidate for replacing or adding to the 744 fleet.


User currently offlinePnh2atl From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 53 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 5 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 8407 times:

Ive flown the 727, 757, 767, MD-88, MD-11, Bae-146 and the F-28 and the 777 is by far the greatest plane I've ever flown. I transitioned from the 767 and it was so smooth moving over. Everything works like it should and works like you think it should. We operate the 777 at or close to max gross on almost every city pair we fly. While the ER cant compare to the LR it is still a great plane. They only time we have and weight restrictions tends to be when we carry a lot of freight. We did ATL-NRT last month and left people behind because we had a lot of freight and that is one of the shortest legs we fly. Ive never flown an Airbus so I can't compare the two but Boeing has done a great job with the 777.

User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3184 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (5 years 5 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 7756 times:



Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 1):
and been able to climb directly to more than 30K feet in altitude which indicates they are carrying significant cargo loads on top of the reported full cabins

While the 772LR is a great performer, it most definitely cannot climb directly to altitude at full load. Like any other widebody at MGTOW, it is prone to the very same needs of a step climb, though seemingly less-pronounced than other planes.

I can check the exact DL performance figures for a 772LR with an ATOG north of 720,000# but I'd venture a wild guess that their initial level-off would be no higher than FL280-FL300 followed by the subsequent step-climbs to final cruising altitude as fuel burns off.



A340-500: 4 engines 4 long haul. 777-200LR: 2 engines 4 longer haul
User currently offline9V-SPJ From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 748 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 5 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7420 times:

Don't now what our ATOG was from BOM, but on our 17:24 Bom-ATL flight, with a full load, initial cruising altitude was FL310.

9V-SPJ

[Edited 2009-02-07 07:55:53]

User currently offlinePnh2atl From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 53 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 5 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 6853 times:



Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 10):
I can check the exact DL performance figures for a 772LR with an ATOG north of 720,000# but I'd venture a wild guess that their initial level-off would be no higher than FL280-FL300 followed by the subsequent step-climbs to final cruising altitude as fuel burns off.

We took off last week in BOM at 732,306 and climbed to FL310. The FMS gives you your optimum altitude and your max altitude. Our opt was a little over FL300. The FMS looks at several thing to determine the optimum altitude including temperature and wind direction & velocity. It weighs that information with a cost index which a measure of how efficient you want to operate. If time is more critical then economy then you would have a higher cruise mach and lower altitude. If efficiency was your main concern you would fly at a lower mach and higher altitude all things being equal. Our cost index on this particular flight was relatively low (efficient). On the previous leg we were late and had a high cost index. Our mach was .81 vs .83 on the 2 flights. With the higher cost index and a takeoff weight 80K # lighter our opt altitude was FL310.

Clear as mud right!


User currently offline9V-SPJ From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 748 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 years 5 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 6811 times:

Hello Pnh2atl,

Nice to see a 777 pilot on the forum! Quick question, I flew back in the second week of January and our flight time was 17:24. I was just looking at the flights in the next week of January, and DL185 was arriving almost 1.5 hrs early into ATL. Was there a big change in the routing? When I flew, we went over Finland then the southern tip of Greenland then into Canada.

9V-SPJ


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30418 posts, RR: 84
Reply 14, posted (5 years 5 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 6769 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Flyyul (Thread starter):
Given how expensive the 77L is on unit cost, one would have to imagine that anything short of a full pax/cargo payload, could marginalize some of these routes.

The 777-200LR sees a bit steeper average discounts then the 777-200ER does (I expect GE might be helping out here to ensure a GE-powered 77L is sold instead of a RR or PW-powered 77E), so actual pricing for the two is quite close.


Now it is important to remember that DL's birds will have different OEW and MZFW figures then the ones Boeing gives in their ACAPS, but since DL is a two-class operator I do not expect the variance is significant.

But with an MZFW of 209t, a 77L can fly 14,000km. ATL-JNB and ATL-BOM under ETOPS-207 rules are just under there, but I understand that JNB is at an altitude of 1700m and average temps are in the 20's and 30's C so that is going to affect performance. BOM and ATL are even warmer, though ATL is only at ~300m and BOM is almost at sea-level.

Anyone know if DL has ordered the "thrust-bump" option on the GE-11xB engines? That would help at all the airports year-round.


User currently offlinePnh2atl From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 53 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 5 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6593 times:



Quoting 9V-SPJ (Reply 13):
Was there a big change in the routing?

Winds aloft is what is different day to day. If you look at the tracks (North Atlantic Tracks) and over lay the winds you will see that eastbound they try to find the best tailwinds and westbound the look for the least headwinds. There are some websites that have the tracks available but I don't know them off hand. I'm sure someone on here knows. We carry a polar chart on BOM-ATL leg just in case we need to go that far north. The 2 times I did it this month we went over ARN, just north of Iceland and south central Greenland on the way back.

I forgot to turn in the flight plans from the last trip so I have all these numbers. But going we were at 49 North and 65 North coming back and there was only 94 miles difference between the two routing. The flight times were about 2 hours different so winds make the big difference.


User currently offlineShanxz From Singapore, joined Apr 2006, 242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (5 years 5 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6114 times:



Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 1):
If DL ever decides to enter the US-SE Asia nonstop market, it is clear that the 77L will be more than able to substantially outperform the 345s that have been or are now serving nonstop routes to that region.

 checkmark  Would love to see a DL 77L doing JFK-SIN or ATL-BKK



Airlines are in the service business, not transport. Brand matters...
User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4810 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (5 years 5 months 4 days ago) and read 5733 times:



Quoting Pnh2atl (Reply 12):
We took off last week in BOM at 732,306 and climbed to FL310. The FMS gives you your optimum altitude and your max altitude.

Pnh2atl . Can you give an indication of the passenger ready weights of DL's 772's and 77L aircraft ? The Boeing ACAP documents list them at 304.5K lbs and 320K lbs respectively. Most carriers are above these numbers although DL 's seating is less than the standards used by Boeing to arrive at the above weights.


User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5283 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (5 years 5 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5624 times:



Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 17):
Can you give an indication of the passenger ready weights of DL's 772's and 77L aircraft ?

That is almost certainly confidential information that Delta would have no interest in sharing with its competitors.



Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
User currently offlineFlydreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 19, posted (5 years 5 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5594 times:



Quoting Flyyul (Thread starter):
Given how expensive the 77L is on unit cost, one would have to imagine that anything short of a full pax/cargo payload, could marginalize some of these routes.

Actually, for DL, they what, 8 remaining 77E's on the books with Boeing to be delivered - Boeing and GE approached DL and offered to upgrade them to 77L's for the price of the 77E's. DL, very obviously took it. The idea, I think, was to get the 77L in the fleet to get another major using the type - and to get further sales of both 77L's and 77Ws.

Quoting Shanxz (Reply 16):

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 1):
If DL ever decides to enter the US-SE Asia nonstop market, it is clear that the 77L will be more than able to substantially outperform the 345s that have been or are now serving nonstop routes to that region.

checkmark Would love to see a DL 77L doing JFK-SIN or ATL-BKK

Given how well SQ and TG have done on nonstops from BKK and SIN to the continental US, I would say that no one is going to try either anytime soon. DL has much better places to use those 77Ls.



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineMpdpilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 988 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 5 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5416 times:



Quoting Flydreamliner (Reply 19):
Given how well SQ and TG have done on nonstops from BKK and SIN to the continental US, I would say that no one is going to try either anytime soon. DL has much better places to use those 77Ls.

Well given how well DL has been able to make some odd routes work, not to mention the connecting PAX that DL would have access to. DL might be able to make BKK and SIN work non-stop. Also, not that I know a whole lot about the operation, but it seems to me that there is more feed on the US side of the route than the SIN, BKK side of the route.



One mile of highway gets you one mile, one mile of runway gets you anywhere.
User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5283 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (5 years 5 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5378 times:

Quoting Flydreamliner (Reply 19):

Given how well SQ and TG have done on nonstops from BKK and SIN to the continental US, I would say that no one is going to try either anytime soon. DL has much better places to use those 77Ls.

  

If they're going to try a backbreakingly long ULH flight to a faraway place in Asia, they'll try ATL-HKG first.

Low yield + the enormously high cost of ULH = disaster. BKK in particular is a low-yielding destination.

And SIN is so far away from ATL that it would present a serious challenge to even the mighty 77L.

[Edited 2009-02-09 12:59:07]


Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
User currently offlinePackcheer From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 326 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (5 years 5 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5253 times:

Just throwing out ideas... Offer a second departure ATL - BOM, and continue it on to SIN?


Things that fly, Girls and Planes...
User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4810 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (5 years 5 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4967 times:



Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 18):
That is almost certainly confidential information that Delta would have no interest in sharing with its competitors.

I appreciate this, hence my use of the word "indication".


User currently offlineRj111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (5 years 5 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4873 times:

I'm pretty certain that DL got to upgrade existing ER options to LR for no additional cost, because they would become the US launch of the type, and an early customer. Good news for all parties, except RR.

25 FlyDreamliner : Here is the thing - DL's major strength in opening odd routes lays largely with its ability to harness the unbelievable feeder capacity of the ATL hu
26 Post contains links Viscount724 : The current day's eastbound and westbound North Atlantic tracks are shown on the weather maps in the Europe section (middle column) of the following
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...
NW Metal To DL Metal Out Of ATL posted Tue Dec 2 2008 06:00:15 by MSYtristar
DL Non Stop ATL JNB: Implications For SAA posted Wed Nov 12 2008 23:29:45 by CV990Coronado
DL E75 Route 9/08 ATL-MDW posted Mon Jul 21 2008 18:03:54 by Bpat777
DL 764 Incident At ATL Last Night posted Tue Mar 18 2008 08:28:24 by Gokmengs
Will DL Resume Shannon To ATL In 2008 posted Thu Nov 29 2007 01:46:39 by Gwyire
DL Rumored ASE To ATL posted Thu Nov 1 2007 21:27:14 by ASEFlyer
DL Connection Concourse C In ATL posted Sun Aug 12 2007 00:48:48 by Evan767
What Ship # Is Running DL Flt 1097 MCO-ATL 20JUL? posted Thu Jul 19 2007 17:00:01 by Dazed767
DL Upgrades MSY (more ATL; LGA Goes Mainline) posted Sun Jul 8 2007 05:58:04 by MSYtristar
DL Adding Additional CID-ATL Flight posted Mon Mar 5 2007 23:41:30 by CIDflyer
DL E75 Route 9/08 ATL-MDW posted Mon Jul 21 2008 18:03:54 by Bpat777
DL 764 Incident At ATL Last Night posted Tue Mar 18 2008 08:28:24 by Gokmengs
Will DL Resume Shannon To ATL In 2008 posted Thu Nov 29 2007 01:46:39 by Gwyire
DL Rumored ASE To ATL posted Thu Nov 1 2007 21:27:14 by ASEFlyer
DL Connection Concourse C In ATL posted Sun Aug 12 2007 00:48:48 by Evan767
What Ship # Is Running DL Flt 1097 MCO-ATL 20JUL? posted Thu Jul 19 2007 17:00:01 by Dazed767
DL Upgrades MSY (more ATL; LGA Goes Mainline) posted Sun Jul 8 2007 05:58:04 by MSYtristar
DL Adding Additional CID-ATL Flight posted Mon Mar 5 2007 23:41:30 by CIDflyer