Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
DL SLC-NRT To Operate With Scheduled Weight Limit  
User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3208 posts, RR: 13
Posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 13136 times:

Hey all,

Just thought it might be to the interest of some folks that the new SLC-NRT route at DL is going to be operated with a scheduled weight limit of 202 pax out of an avilable 243 seats. The NW A330-200 configuration is 32J/211Y - the flights themselves will only be sold to 32J/170Y

As in the past when NW operated routes with scheduled weight limits, I'd imagine there will be some last-second changes on a day-to-day basis. That is, if the headwinds are weaker than forecast, the flight can take additional pax, etc.

Also, I'll correct anyone before they start assuming, the NW A330-200's are not reduced-MGTOW models, nor are do they have de-rated engines, as they sport the PW4168A at 70,000# thrust-rate.

That having been said, I think this is the first concrete indication of the challenges in flying transpac from a hot & high airport. Given how DEN is even more challenging during the summer with it's hot & high as well as the rockies immediately to the west, it's no wonder UA never tried to launch a DEN-NRT with the 777.

In any case - best of luck to DL on this route, I'm definitely going to try to nonrev on it on or around the inaugural flight!!  bigthumbsup 

68 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineChootie From Germany, joined May 2007, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 13087 times:

Have fun and N-joy the ride. I just hope for your sake (and only your sake) that the full fares do not take that 202seat and leave you out..  cheerful   cheerful 


chootie
User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5467 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 13008 times:



Quoting Transpac787 (Thread starter):
Also, I'll correct anyone before they start assuming, the NW A330-200's are not reduced-MGTOW models, nor are do they have de-rated engines, as they sport the PW4168A at 70,000# thrust-rate.

Not de-rated per se, but the non-existence of the PW4172 is costing them at least a few of those seats. I bet DL really wishes those aircraft had Trents right about now.

Quoting Transpac787 (Thread starter):
it's no wonder UA never tried to launch a DEN-NRT with the 777.

The 772ER has a much greater payload/range cushion than the A332... its only challenge on DEN-NRT would be tire speed on hot days. I think the lack of a DEN-NRT route has more to do with UA's skepticism that it can fill a 772 with reasonable yields.


User currently offlineEnilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7191 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12973 times:



Quoting Transpac787 (Thread starter):
scheduled weight limit of 202 pax out of an avilable 243 seats.

That is horrible. The best they can ever do is an 83% LF. I'm assuming this is SLC altitude driven. I wonder if they realized this when it was announced. Also, is it better at other times of the year?


User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12975 times:



Quoting Transpac787 (Thread starter):
Just thought it might be to the interest of some folks that the new SLC-NRT route at DL is going to be operated with a scheduled weight limit of 202 pax out of an avilable 243 seats.

I predicted months ago that the 332 could not make the flight with full passengers due to SLC's elevation and normal SLC summer temps. They probably can reduce the weight restrictions in the fall but restrictions (day of departure related) might limit available seats due to slush on winter weather days.

This is not the first indication of the difficulties of flying long haul int'l flights from high and hot airports. DL had the same issues with SLC-CDG when it started; it will be interesting to see how it might change now that the wingletted 763ERs are available.

Also, the weight restrictions on SLC-NRT's 332 still allow DL to fill the plane to 80% of true capacity - more than high enough to make a profit. Since cargo will flow into SLC FROM NRT, the flight will be restriction free on the most important leg. Clearly DL believes the weight restrictions and lower costs on the 332 are a better financial solution than putting a much more powerful 772ER (if DL had them) given that the 772ER only carries about 10% more passengers.

It is noteworthy that DL is using the 332s on the first regular transpac flight that doesn't originate on the west coast, pushing a brand new aircraft type to DL to do more than NW asked of the aircraft. I fully expect that you will see DL push the 332 even further in the years ahead just as DL has done with the 767s across the Atlantic.


User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3208 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12955 times:



Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 2):
The 772ER has a much greater payload/range cushion than the A332... its only challenge on DEN-NRT would be tire speed on hot days.

Incorrect.

At MGTOW, the single-engine driftdown altitude for the 777 is something in the range of 14,000 feet. Obviously UA would have to method-2 dispatch the aircraft with driftdown alternates on the westbound flights, but given the lagging climb performance on a heavy 777 they won't have much extra altitude crossing over the mountains anyway and that could easily lead to additional weight limits just given required performance for crossing over the mountains while carrying a full payload and 12 hours of gas out of a hot & high airport.


User currently offlineBigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2924 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12854 times:

I assume the eastbound NRT-SLC will be sold unrestricted?

User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3208 posts, RR: 13
Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 12834 times:



Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 6):
I assume the eastbound NRT-SLC will be sold unrestricted?

Correct, it will be sold unrestricted to 32J/211Y


User currently offlineCba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 12782 times:



Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 4):
I fully expect that you will see DL push the 332 even further in the years ahead just as DL has done with the 767s across the Atlantic.

 checkmark 

With a listed range of 6600nm, the A332 is a very capable aircraft and I am frankly surprised that more airlines do not use it to its full potential. As per DL's decision to put a 772 on the ATL-LOS route, I am surprised that they didn't place the A332 on this route.


User currently offlineMastaHanky From United States of America, joined May 2006, 264 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 12735 times:

Quoting Transpac787 (Thread starter):
In any case - best of luck to DL on this route, I'm definitely going to try to nonrev on it on or around the inaugural flight!!

If you can, get on the inaugural flight and come say hi - I'm in 17H.  

[Edited 2009-05-01 07:57:35]

User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17501 posts, RR: 45
Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 12700 times:



Quoting Enilria (Reply 3):
That is horrible. The best they can ever do is an 83% LF. I'm assuming this is SLC altitude driven. I wonder if they realized this when it was announced. Also

Keep in mind PDX/SEA/DTW<>NRT and DTW<>NGO/KIX have all run much higher load factors and have been downgauged or axed.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinePhollingsworth From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 825 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 12619 times:



Quoting Cba (Reply 8):
With a listed range of 6600nm, the A332 is a very capable aircraft and I am frankly surprised that more airlines do not use it to its full potential. As per DL's decision to put a 772 on the ATL-LOS route, I am surprised that they didn't place the A332 on this route.

The A332 is a great airplane, but there are several reasons that DL may not have used it.

1. There is, currently, a greater availability of B77Es than A332s, due to the way the schedule was built and evolved

2. The A332 is going to be weight limited out of ATL on hot days, not hugely, but it will take a TOW penalty. Something that might not be the case with the B77E or B763ERs out of ATL. The B764 would probably also take a TOW penalty on the same days.


User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3208 posts, RR: 13
Reply 12, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 12600 times:



Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 10):
Keep in mind PDX/SEA/DTW<>NRT

SEA-NRT? It was upgraded from daily A332 to daily A333 - a greatly needed upgrade.

Quoting Cba (Reply 8):
With a listed range of 6600nm, the A332 is a very capable aircraft

It is indeed very capable, but not even CLOSE to 6600nm capable.

Quoting Cba (Reply 8):
and I am frankly surprised that more airlines do not use it to its full potential.

Because their "full potential" is most definitely not what Airbus quotes it to be  Wink

Quoting Cba (Reply 8):
I am surprised that they didn't place the A332 on this route.

Currently no A332's are rotated through ATL. Further, they would do no better than a winglet 763.


User currently offlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5955 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 12541 times:



Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 12):
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 10):
Keep in mind PDX/SEA/DTW-->NRT

SEA-NRT? It was upgraded from daily A332 to daily A333 - a greatly needed upgrade.

Kind of, wasn't the A333 that operated three or 4 days a week alongside the daily A332 flight cut? If so that's a capacity cut....

Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 12):
Quoting Cba (Reply 8):
With a listed range of 6600nm, the A332 is a very capable aircraft

It is indeed very capable, but not even CLOSE to 6600nm capable.

6600nm is a little far for an A332 to fly with any meaningful payload, however the A332 is an incredibly capable aircraft and I am, as others are, surprised that operators are just now discovering this. Something tells me that SLC-NRT will be one of the first routes to receive a 787 when those come on line, assuming of course that the route makes it that long.



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3208 posts, RR: 13
Reply 14, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 12448 times:



Quoting United1 (Reply 13):
Kind of, wasn't the A333 that operated three or 4 days a week alongside the daily A332 flight cut? If so that's a capacity cut....

3x weekly, summer-only seasonal. The route is now daily A333 year-round.


User currently offlineCaryjack From United States of America, joined May 2007, 332 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 12453 times:



Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 5):
At MGTOW, the single-engine driftdown altitude for the 777 is something in the range of 14,000 feet.

Drift-down is a new term for me. Are you saying that if this 777 loses an engine above 14,000 feet that it will "drift down" to 14,000 feet? scratchchin  This drift-down may not allow sufficient clearance over the nearby mountains which would force a reduction in TOW. Is that about right?

Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 5):
Obviously UA would have to method-2 dispatch

Not so obvious to me. biggrin  Please, what is a method-2 dispatch?
Thanks,
Cary  smile 


User currently offlineMastaHanky From United States of America, joined May 2006, 264 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 12445 times:

I know the SLC master plan includes lengthening one of the runways to 14,000 feet. I wonder if this will nudge the airport into getting this done sooner than later. I haven't heard a peep on it lately.

I had (and still do have) my reservations about the viability of this route, but it's also worth noting that Utah pitched in a decent amount of money to subsidize and promote it (I think it was around $1.5 million - same as it was for SLC-CDG). Perhaps it will stick around after all.


User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3208 posts, RR: 13
Reply 17, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 12396 times:



Quoting Caryjack (Reply 15):
Drift-down is a new term for me. Are you saying that if this 777 loses an engine above 14,000 feet that it will "drift down" to 14,000 feet?

Yes - all aircraft will have to drift-down to a lower altitude after they lose an engine. A heavy widebody will have to descend quite far until it can maintain altitude after an in-flight-shutdown.

Quoting Caryjack (Reply 15):
Not so obvious to me. Please, what is a method-2 dispatch?

You almost answered your own question Big grin

See below:

Quoting Caryjack (Reply 15):
This drift-down may not allow sufficient clearance over the nearby mountains which would force a reduction in TOW. Is that about right?

Method-1 dispatch means that an aircraft is light enough (or strong enough) that even in the event of an engine failure, it still has sufficient clearance above all enroute terrain and obstructions.

If an airline wants to carry extra payload that would make the aircraft too heavy to maintain an altitude with sufficient clearance above all enroute terrain and obstructions, an airline can method-2 dispatch their aircraft. This means that along the route of the flight, there are "drift-down" alternate airports. So, in the event of an engine failure during any point of flight over terrain or obstructions, the plane has an airport it can safely descend down into for emergency divert.

For a flight like DEN-LAX (for example), drift-down alternates may include GJT, SLC, LAS, etc. In the case of a hypothetical DEN-NRT flight on a method-2 dispatch, all the driftdown alternate airports would have to have facilities to handle a heavy 777.

Hope that explains it!!


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17501 posts, RR: 45
Reply 18, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 12384 times:



Quoting United1 (Reply 13):
Kind of, wasn't the A333 that operated three or 4 days a week alongside the daily A332 flight cut? If so that's a capacity cut....



Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 12):
SEA-NRT? It was upgraded from daily A332 to daily A333 - a greatly needed upgrade.



Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 14):
3x weekly, summer-only seasonal. The route is now daily A333 year-round.

The net result is a reduction in seats YOY through at least OCT09.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 12302 times:



Quoting Cba (Reply 8):
With a listed range of 6600nm, the A332 is a very capable aircraft and I am frankly surprised that more airlines do not use it to its full potential. As per DL's decision to put a 772 on the ATL-LOS route, I am surprised that they didn't place the A332 on this route.



Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 12):
Currently no A332's are rotated through ATL. Further, they would do no better than a winglet 763.

I expect the 332 will eventually fly ATL-LOS but DL can't afford to tick off the Nigerian government with a plane that cannot fully produce year round. The 777ER should be more than enough airplane to calm the Nigerian government. At some point in the future, DL can switch airplanes.

In reality, the winglets on the 767 would have dramatically improved capabilities on ATL-LOS but DL made the decision to put more capability into the market without getting into a technical capability argument with the Nigerian gov't.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 18):
The net result is a reduction in seats YOY through at least OCT09.

When you consider ALL FIVE - yes FIVE - of the DL/NW gtateways in the western US, DL has an increase in capacity.


User currently offlineFxramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7298 posts, RR: 85
Reply 20, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 12203 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Articles suggest that this flight will be a success because the other international flight (CDG) from SLC is doing well. Do they really think this is going to work? Visions of a AA at SJC with CDG and NRT. It's an unfair comparison, but it came to mind.

User currently offlineAp305 From India, joined Jan 2000, 556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 12118 times:

There was a RR ad for the trent 772 in Flight a few years ago that said something like "why take off load when you can take of quickly" Big grin

User currently offlineEnilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7191 posts, RR: 13
Reply 22, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 11836 times:



Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 10):
Keep in mind PDX/SEA/DTW<>NRT and DTW<>NGO/KIX have all run much higher load factors and have been downgauged or axed.

This route came with a multi-million dollar subsidy per the newspapers. For them to hamper it right off the bat in such a way that it will almost certainly draw down the subsidy is extremely questionable ethically. Alternatively, if the people paying the subsidy knew the airplane would be that limited and still agreed to the subsidy they are morons.

IMHO either this is a short term assignment while they build the market in which case it won't hurt as much or if it is the long term plan it doesn't bode well at all for the route staying past the end of the subsidy period.


User currently offlineCba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 11690 times:



Quoting Phollingsworth (Reply 11):
2. The A332 is going to be weight limited out of ATL on hot days, not hugely, but it will take a TOW penalty. Something that might not be the case with the B77E or B763ERs out of ATL. The B764 would probably also take a TOW penalty on the same days.

How would the A332 be weight limited but not the 763? I thought that the A332 had an equal or better thrust:weight ratio than the 763. Are the PW engines on NW's A332 really that de-rated?

Airbus lists the A332's range at 6600nm, now this of course is in ideal conditions, and with a full payload it will be considerably less. However, that of the 763ER is 6100nm, thus the A332 is a more capable aircraft range (and payload) wise.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 19):
In reality, the winglets on the 767 would have dramatically improved capabilities on ATL-LOS but DL made the decision to put more capability into the market without getting into a technical capability argument with the Nigerian gov't.

I think a big part of DL's decision to put the 772 on the route was probably driven by cargo. They appeased the government in Nigeria, but also probably calculated that they could make more money off of a full cargo bay with a lighter load factor upstairs. Win win for both sides.


User currently offlineJkudall From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 615 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 11640 times:

I assume this weight restriction will only apply in July and August, just like SLC-CDG is restricted in those months. Also, just because it is capped at that level, doesn't mean they won't oversell above that level and also doesn't mean they won't be able to take more than the 202. They will run the numbers for each flight every day and if conditions allow, they will certainly take the most passengers they can. I think they are just trying to play it safe and want to wait and see how much actual payload they can actually get.

Hopefully this will get SLC airport to start working on that runway extension a little quicker.


25 MaverickM11 : Of course, but it's a little hard, if not improbable to take reservations for those undetermined seats.
26 Transpac787 : No!! See the OP... Both the NW A330-223 and NW A330-323X have the PW4168A with 70,000# thrust-rate. And Boeing lists the 772ER's range at 7700nm. Bot
27 WorldTraveler : The 332 and 767 would not be limited because of thrust. They would be limited to TOW and much of that is related to the heavy bag weights out of LOS.
28 Transpac787 : With a statement like that, perhaps you'd then like to share the respective thrust-rates and MGTOW's for both the GE-power DL 767-332ER and NW A330-2
29 Transpac787 : UA DEN-LHR *raises eyebrow* You consider 700ft MSL to be a challengingly high elevation for takeoff performance??
30 Ap305 : Tell that to QF and AF.
31 SeaBosDca : I've never seen a 763 regularly scheduled on a route as long as AKL-LAX.
32 Mir : More the combination of altitude and heat during the summer. Couldn't you just route over the lower mountains in Montana? It's not too far out of the
33 Transpac787 : With pleasure. AF's longest was CDG-NRT at 6048mi. DL's longest is now LAX-GRU at 6156mi. How many other A330 routes that long have you seen, just ba
34 Fxramper : What is the initial proposed frequency? Summer seasonal 4x week (did I see that above)?
35 Mir : Which then brings back the point that what kept the route from being started was an economic issue, not a performance issue. To be fair, the winds on
36 Ap305 : The a330-200 even at 233tons mtow has a longer range at a higher payload than the 767-300. Boeing would hardly have to build a whole new airplane fam
37 WorldTraveler : Apparently you haven't worked in operations or planning. 700 ft does cause some limits to kick in. When a plane is already being operated toward the
38 Caryjack : Sure did!! I'd bet that drift-down has been accounted for for a very long time but as I now understand it, drift-down acts like an ETOPS function. I'
39 Flavio340 : I think AA proved a couple of months ago that DEN-NRT is viable. When DFW-NRT diverted to DEN for a medical, it then went on to NRT, non-stop IIRC.
40 Eghansen : It may well be true that 767s operate longer routes than the A330. But is more an act of desperation on the part of certain carriers than a testament
41 Transpac787 : 5x weekly Some aircraft have seemingly had a 'second-coming' recently, especially with regard to the 757 and 767. When Boeing designed the 757, they
42 Mayor : Which makes me think that this is strictly a summer operation fix and, for the most part, won't have any affect in the other months......except for t
43 DocLightning : I thought the CASM was horrendous, though.
44 Ap305 : The a330-200 has a range of 12500 km and the 767-300er 11070 km according to the manufacturers. While both figures can be termed as "marketing range"
45 Eghansen : "Save for the one QF route, 767's seem to consistently operate longer routes than the A330." That was your quote. I said the reason that the A330 doe
46 Cba : I stated that Airbus lists the range at 6600nm but, that the figure is not realistic and is with a low payload in "ideal" operating conditions... I a
47 Phollingsworth : Interesting, because while I keep hearing about this PW4168A (Note: PW4000 series engines to be installed on Airbus aircraft are all 41XX engines) wi
48 Phollingsworth : See my post above: You cannot really compare two aircraft from two different manufacturers using "Marketing Range" as the assumptions are completely
49 WorldTraveler : I used max available for the 332 and available engines. If NW doesn't have the highest MTOW or highest thrust engines, the favor could tilt even more
50 Phollingsworth : I wasn't clear, but the 507 an 514 klb TOW limits are for the A332, the B763 would be 406 and 412 respectively. Will the A332 MTOW upgrades be retrof
51 Flylku : Could they now (technically - forget whether the market exists) with the 15k foot runway?
52 DocLightning : I don't think there's any terrain there that goes up to 14,000 feet. And if there is, it's a single peak somewhere, not something unavoidable. So I'm
53 Transpac787 : DL 767-332ER (PW4060) 120,000# combined thrust for 506,000# MGTOW. Thrust to weight ratio of 0.237 DL 767-332ER (GE CF6) 122,000# combined thrust for
54 Viscount724 : LH's MUC hub is 1,487 ft. and the LX ZRH hub is 1,416 ft. And QF operates the 332 SYD-BOM which is longer than both of those, and not much shorter th
55 Caryjack : The terrain around DEN, or SLC, may not reach 14,000 feet but a quick look at my Atlas shows quite a bit in the 9,000 to 13,000 foot range. Add to th
56 WorldTraveler : yes, I know and anyone who knew the 767 would have recognized that I incorrectly typed the 5 from your quotation and the 06 and 12 from actual 767 pe
57 Phollingsworth : NP, I was just trying to prevent any miss use of the numbers. Which I see did not work. Oh well, it is really neither here nor there. As I noted and
58 WorldTraveler : And it is also possible that since DL seems to have provided indications that it likes the 330s, they may buy some RR powered 332s at the higher TOW
59 AA777223 : I'm shocked that an A332 can't make that trip. It shows you how much more capable a 777 is and how much hot and high affect performance. If AA can fly
60 Phollingsworth : B77Es have a significant range advantage over the A332, and about a 10,000-13,000 lb maximum payload advantage over the A332. The A332 is really kind
61 Mir : If you try to go straight west, it would be an issue. But the great circle route from DEN-NRT starts off going north anyway, so it just makes sense t
62 Sancho99504 : I think DL would be well off to place an interim order for A332 with RR power as an interim in lift. However I do think DL needs to figure out what to
63 Slcdeltarumd11 : So the restrictions are only from SLC to NRT not from NRT to SLC? The SLC-CDG flight is that sold with any passenger restrictions? Will that flight be
64 Fanoftristars : So how are the pre-bookings doing on this flight? It seems like there has been much less advertising and publicity for the SLC-NRT flight than when th
65 Goldenshield : You forgot part of that definition: mainly the part of if being from V1 to touchdown. And from what I've read so far, you also lack understanding on
66 MastaHanky : No idea what the pre-bookings are looking like, but I was thinking just the opposite on the advertising - I've seen much more for the NRT flight than
67 PHXtoDCAtoMSP : Bookings are fairly solid. Nothing to worry about but nothing to jump for joy over. I hear they are running roughly 5 points lower than the average of
68 Slcdeltarumd11 : What will come next London or AMS? Would those be scheduled weight restricted on a 767 in the summer from SLC? Is the CDG flight weight restricted in
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...
Swiss To Operate With Franchise Partners? posted Mon Feb 21 2005 15:36:39 by RJ100
Routes That UAL Used To Operate With The 742? posted Thu Jul 5 2001 23:03:25 by Crank
DL To Operate LAX GRU For 7 Weeks Only In S09 posted Thu Apr 30 2009 21:27:24 by HB-IWC
DL Decides To Stick With Its FC Meal Service posted Mon Mar 23 2009 07:12:41 by Burnsie28
Media Report DL May Launch SLC-NRT posted Fri Oct 10 2008 05:07:25 by SalMonela
ATA To Operate DC-10 In Scheduled Service posted Tue Dec 11 2007 03:43:46 by IFlyATA
Better For DL To Merge With NWA And Not UA? posted Sun Nov 18 2007 08:11:59 by BoeingFever777
What Happened To DL's SLC-Cancun Route? posted Sun Jun 24 2007 18:40:10 by Haggis79
DL SLC To OGG Restarted Effective 12/22/2007 posted Sun Jun 24 2007 17:42:51 by Happydad
Eurofly To Operate Scheduled FCO-DEL Flights posted Wed Sep 27 2006 21:40:07 by Airdolomiti