Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
DL SLC-NRT: Possible With Winglet 767-300ER?  
User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3194 posts, RR: 13
Posted (4 years 6 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 9388 times:

Hey all,

Last summer, I posted a thread about how DL's newly-launched SLC-NRT route would operated at a scheduled weight restriction on the A330-200 on the westbound flight out of SLC. Thread can be found here with those unfamiliar with it:

DL SLC-NRT To Operate With Scheduled Weight Limit (by Transpac787 May 1 2009 in Civil Aviation)

So far, it seems DL plans to operate the route as a summer-seasonal service. Though, I was wondering - with DL's decision to go ahead and equip the entire 767-300ER flight with winglets and refurbish their cabins with lie-flat beds in J and AVOD in Y, would a winglet 767-300ER be able to make the flight?? I'd imagine SLC-NRT has very low cargo demand compared to both the east coast hubs and the west coast port cities of SEA, PDX, SFO, and LAX. So if they focused primarily on passenger and bag loads, I'd imagine a 763 could profitably operate the route as well as have the performance to do it, yes??

Given the 763's relatively slow cruise speeds the route would most likely go north of 12:00 blocktime year-round, thus requiring one of the ships with crew rest bunkrooms (ships 1607 to 1613). But beyond the logistical issues of using the proper ships, is there any probability to DL starting to use 763's on SLC-NRT??





A340-500: 4 engines 4 long haul. 777-200LR: 2 engines 4 longer haul
29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDLPhoenix From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 416 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 6 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 9189 times:



Quoting Transpac787 (Thread starter):
Given the 763's relatively slow cruise speeds the route would most likely go north of 12:00 blocktime year-round, thus requiring one of the ships with crew rest bunkrooms (ships 1607 to 1613). But beyond the logistical issues of using the proper ships, is there any probability to DL starting to use 763's on SLC-NRT??

Even if a 76E can do it (and I think it can, but I did not compare performance at SLC summer conditions) the problem is equipment scheduling and rotation. Last year the flight was operated by an A332 from a large pool in NRT. There is no such pool of 76Es (in particular ones with flat crew rests). DL can rotate the equipment for the NRT flight through CDG (ATL-CDG-SLC-NRT-SLC-CDG-ATL or something similar) but this will commit a significant part of the long range 76E fleet to short range routes.

DLP


User currently offlineSlcDeltaRUmd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3364 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 6 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 9162 times:

Isn't this still just too long for the winglet 767? Especially given SLC's short runways in the summer. I don't think DL wants to not carry any cargo it can bring in quite a bit of revenue even a reduced amount of it i would imagine

Is there any major US airport that needs to lengthen its runway as much as SLC? Why don't they just do it already they are shooting themselves in the foot and making this route significantly harder to be profitable. So many airports would die to have long haul trans pacific and trans atlantic flights

Does SLC-CDG still have any problems in the summer with fuel stops? I havn't heard any recent problems. Is this route now operated with a winglet 767?


User currently offlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4477 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 9134 times:



Quoting SlcDeltaRUmd11 (Reply 2):
Is there any major US airport that needs to lengthen its runway as much as SLC? Why don't they just do it already

Well, its in the master plan. Maybe they're waiting for the economy to recover.


User currently offlineJkudall From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 615 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 9113 times:

The 763 wouldn't be able to perform on SLC-NRT because of takeoff performance and/or significant weight restrictions to a point it wouldn't be cost effective at all to operate it. Which is one reason why the A332 was chosen. DL has said the 787 could be used for this route in the future.

Quoting SlcDeltaRUmd11 (Reply 2):
Does SLC-CDG still have any problems in the summer with fuel stops? I havn't heard any recent problems. Is this route now operated with a winglet 767?

Fuel stops, no. Weight restrictions, yes, if it is over about 90 degrees F. The flight is operated mostly with non-winglet equipped aircraft but usually a winglet equipped 763 gets rotated through every week or so. Yesterday's was operated with a winglet 763.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26376 posts, RR: 76
Reply 5, posted (4 years 6 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 8766 times:



Quoting Transpac787 (Thread starter):

So far, it seems DL plans to operate the route as a summer-seasonal service. Though, I was wondering - with DL's decision to go ahead and equip the entire 767-300ER flight with winglets and refurbish their cabins with lie-flat beds in J and AVOD in Y, would a winglet 767-300ER be able to make the flight??

The 763ER, even with winglets, has shorter range than the A332.

Quoting Jkudall (Reply 4):
The 763 wouldn't be able to perform on SLC-NRT because of takeoff performance and/or significant weight restrictions to a point it wouldn't be cost effective at all to operate it.

The 763ER actually is a good performer and not at all a runway hog. That, however, isn't the issue

Quoting Jkudall (Reply 4):
DL has said the 787 could be used for this route in the future.

Of course. The 787 is perfect for the route and would not suffer range issues.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3194 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 8443 times:



Quoting DLPhoenix (Reply 1):
DL can rotate the equipment for the NRT flight through CDG (ATL-CDG-SLC-NRT-SLC-CDG-ATL or something similar) but this will commit a significant part of the long range 76E fleet to short range routes.

True enough, though they could do just one of DL's ever-popular domestic rotations. Either JFK-SLC or ATL-SLC instead.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 5):
Of course. The 787 is perfect for the route and would not suffer range issues.

For sure. Those can't come fast enough.



A340-500: 4 engines 4 long haul. 777-200LR: 2 engines 4 longer haul
User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (4 years 6 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 8296 times:



Quoting N1120A (Reply 5):
Quoting Transpac787 (Thread starter):

So far, it seems DL plans to operate the route as a summer-seasonal service. Though, I was wondering - with DL's decision to go ahead and equip the entire 767-300ER flight with winglets and refurbish their cabins with lie-flat beds in J and AVOD in Y, would a winglet 767-300ER be able to make the flight??

The 763ER, even with winglets, has shorter range than the A332.

Quoting Jkudall (Reply 4):
The 763 wouldn't be able to perform on SLC-NRT because of takeoff performance and/or significant weight restrictions to a point it wouldn't be cost effective at all to operate it.

The 763ER actually is a good performer and not at all a runway hog. That, however, isn't the issue

I think there is no reason it could not do it.

The 763ER is the best widebody there is for field performance, it has better power-weight than A332 at MTOW, though A332 has much lower wingloading.

Delta has used 763ER on 12+ hour routes successfully in several cases. On AMM-JFK, AMM is at altitude (not as high as SLC, I don't think), and this is 12+, and can certainly be hot.

Delta's wingletted, GE-powered 763ERs go as far as 763ERs can go, whereas their A332s have the less potent PW4168 engines. Whereas the A332s are more capable, my point is that it might not be by as much as one may think, and the difference is going to be largely cargo.



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (4 years 6 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8107 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 7):
The 763ER is the best widebody there is for field performance

Well, that's a lie. There are 4 aircraft which match or exceed the 763ER's field performance, including the A332 and of course the rather obvious 762ER.

[Edited 2010-01-29 02:49:19]

User currently offlineSurfandSnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2857 posts, RR: 30
Reply 9, posted (4 years 6 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8085 times:



Quoting Transpac787 (Thread starter):
I'd imagine SLC-NRT has very low cargo demand compared to both the east coast hubs and the west coast port cities of SEA, PDX, SFO, and LAX.

I'd imagine SLC-NRT has very low demand relative to all other U.S.-NRT flights, period.

Quoting Transpac787 (Thread starter):
So far, it seems DL plans to operate the route as a summer-seasonal service.

I believe the flight was originally intended to be a year-round operation, but due to low pax numbers, it was made seasonal. While CDG has done surprisingly well, NRT has done worse than expected. Of course, maybe if Delta resumed flights to some key markets from SLC (YYZ, CMH, MKE, MIA, RDU, to name a few) they might find a few more ppl on this flight...



Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3194 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (4 years 6 months 4 days ago) and read 7843 times:



Quoting RJ111 (Reply 8):
Well, that's a lie. There are 4 aircraft which match or exceed the 763ER's field performance, including the A332 and of course the rather obvious 762ER.

Incorrect. The 763ER is significantly stronger than the A332 in terms of thrust-to-weight ratio.

767-300ER: MGTOW 401,000#, 2x 60,000# thrust PW4060's. T:W ratio: 0.299
A330-200: MGTOW 513,670#, 2x 72,000# thrust Trent 772's. T:W ratio: 0.280



A340-500: 4 engines 4 long haul. 777-200LR: 2 engines 4 longer haul
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (4 years 6 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 7582 times:



Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 10):
The 763ER is significantly stronger than the A332 in terms of thrust-to-weight ratio.

Last time i checked though we were comparing field performance and not thrust-to-weight ratio.


User currently offlineFlaps30 From United States of America, joined May 2009, 283 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (4 years 6 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 7562 times:



Quoting SlcDeltaRUmd11 (Reply 2):
Isn't this still just too long for the winglet 767? Especially given SLC's short runways in the summer.

since when is a 12,000 foot runway considered "short"?



every day is a good day to fly
User currently offlinePacific From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2000, 1051 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 6 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 7001 times:

SLC is 4,200ft and temperatures go well over 90F/30c during the summer. A true "hot and high" airport.

According to the Boeing charts, a 763ER will be able to carry more payload with a longer runway, provided someone can explain what "unbalanced for brake energy" is!

On a "standard day+15c" which is 30 celcius condition (SLC temperatures go even higher in the summer), a 763ER needs a 15,500ft runway for a MTOW takeoff at 4,000ft AGL.

[Edited 2010-01-29 07:36:46]

User currently offlineFlaps30 From United States of America, joined May 2009, 283 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 6 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 6833 times:



Quoting Pacific (Reply 13):
a 763ER needs a 15,500ft runway for a MTOW takeoff at 4,000ft AGL.

There is only 1 airport I can think of that has a runway long enough for that. Denver.



every day is a good day to fly
User currently offlineWestern727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 743 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (4 years 6 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6456 times:



Quoting Flaps30 (Reply 12):
since when is a 12,000 foot runway considered "short"?



Quoting Pacific (Reply 13):
On a "standard day+15c" which is 30 celcius condition (SLC temperatures go even higher in the summer), a 763ER needs a 15,500ft runway for a MTOW takeoff at 4,000ft AGL.

12,000' is short when one factors in SLC's altitude and hot temps in the summer. Copy-paste the same runway into, say, SEA or PDX (without a summer heat wave) and it "becomes" a long runway.



Jack @ AUS
User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (4 years 6 months 15 hours ago) and read 5030 times:



Quoting N1120A (Reply 5):
The 763ER, even with winglets, has shorter range than the A332.

Not true. I believe that because DL's A332s are PW4168A powered, they have less performance/range than what it's RR powered siblings have. With the winglets, DL's 763ERs are probably pushing outwards of about ~6300nm nominal range, which I believe is about 300nm further than DL's A332s.



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26376 posts, RR: 76
Reply 17, posted (4 years 6 months 15 hours ago) and read 4998 times:



Quoting EA772LR (Reply 16):

Not true. I believe that because DL's A332s are PW4168A powered, they have less performance/range than what it's RR powered siblings have.

Well, no, it actually is true. While NW/DL may have ordered crippled A332s, the A332 definitely has the longer range. It isn't even close. Even with the range hit the NW/DL birds might take, they may still have longer range, as the delta in range between fully equipped A332s and 763ERs is around 600nm.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (4 years 6 months 15 hours ago) and read 4970 times:



Quoting EA772LR (Reply 16):
I believe that because DL's A332s are PW4168A powered, they have less performance/range than what it's RR powered siblings have.

The payload/range is largely the same at sea level with the 68k engines. But the MTOW takes quite a distinct dive when you get hotter and higher compared to the other offerings. This is of course relevent here. However the 767 is going to suffer too - looks like MTOW is going to be restricted at least 10t on a standard day. Unfortunately i can't get to the A332 charts i once could so i can't compare what would happen for their A332s.


User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (4 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4768 times:



Quoting N1120A (Reply 17):
Well, no, it actually is true. While NW/DL may have ordered crippled A332s, the A332 definitely has the longer range. It isn't even close. Even with the range hit the NW/DL birds might take, they may still have longer range, as the delta in range between fully equipped A332s and 763ERs is around 600nm.

I stand corrected. I checked DL's site and it states that their A332s have 7,767mi of range, which is about 6,700nm of range. I remember seeing on NW's press release when they ordered the A332s that it said their planes had a max range of 6,000nm. So maybe a typo in NW's release or DL's specs.



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24906 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (4 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4591 times:



Quoting EA772LR (Reply 19):
I remember seeing on NW's press release when they ordered the A332s that it said their planes had a max range of 6,000nm. So maybe a typo in NW's release or DL's specs.

NW was probably quoting real-world range taking into account winds and cargo. The more generous manufacturer numbers don't consider those things since the big numbers sound better. You have to reduce those figures by 10 to 15% to get realisitic range numbers. It's the same thing as fuel economy ratings for cars. Almost nobody achieves the numbers advertised.


User currently offlineLuckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4547 times:



Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 9):
YYZ, CMH, MKE, MIA, RDU, to name a few) they might find a few more ppl on this flight...

Why would any of those cities help that route??? There are much better (and shorter) connecting opportunities to Tokyo from Delta (don't have to say DL/NW anymore!) in ATL, DTW, MSP, and even JFK. Why would somebody from RDU connect through SLC unless the fair was low enough, which I'm sure we can all agree is counterproductive.


User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4881 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (4 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4434 times:

My take on the situation is that 767-300ER TOW would be limited to ~170t. I am going to assume the westbound ESAD at ~5200nm which requires a TOW of about 175t with DL's seat layout of 215. On that hypothesis max passenger load is not possible.
So far as the A330-200 is concerned TOW under SLC conditions would be ~215t, max passenger ZFW ( 243 seats) would be ~145t. As many of you know AirBus only show a MTOW load/range table. so it is not possible to see what the TOW would be at that ZFW. It can range from 192t to 233t. Assuming from the slope, 10000 pounds for every 500nm and the 233t version TOW would be ~219t , again something more than the 215t that mid-summer conditions in SLC would allow.

As always E & OE.


User currently offlineWesternA318 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 5647 posts, RR: 24
Reply 23, posted (4 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4337 times:



Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 9):
I'd imagine SLC-NRT has very low demand relative to all other U.S.-NRT flights, period.

Ever since the launch last summer, I've taken 6 r/t's in Biz class and have myself booked on 8 r/ts this year...lol, sometimes I think I'm the only one willing to shell out the dough to keep the 332 in SLC!



Next trip: SLC-LAX-JFK-LAX-SLC on AA, gotta say goodbye to my beloved 762!
User currently offlineAeroflot777 From Russia, joined Mar 2004, 3006 posts, RR: 27
Reply 24, posted (4 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4204 times:



Quoting WesternA318 (Reply 23):

Ever since the launch last summer, I've taken 6 r/t's in Biz class and have myself booked on 8 r/ts this year...lol, sometimes I think I'm the only one willing to shell out the dough to keep the 332 in SLC!

How were the loads on your flights? I have read somewhere that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has something to do with sponsoring the two international DL departures (CDG & NRT) out of Salt Lake City.

Aeroflot777


25 OA412 : I wouldn't doubt it considering how many missionaries the Church sends out of here.
26 Aeroflot777 : Yeah. Truly this is a place like no where else.
27 WesternA318 : There were a few missionaries on the all the flights where I got up and actually peeked my head back at the Coach section. The loads are usually prett
28 Aeroflot777 : I can only hope DL will continue to expand domestically and internationally out of SLC.
29 WesternA318 : Amen...I would hop the SLC Dept of Airports has the airport expansion back in their train of thought...we nned a bigger airport...
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...
DL SLC-NRT To Operate With Scheduled Weight Limit posted Fri May 1 2009 06:35:15 by Transpac787
UA948 Operated With Boeing 767-300ER! posted Wed Oct 4 2006 15:09:28 by CV990
DL New Nonstop SLC-NRT June 3rd posted Sun May 24 2009 20:55:14 by Flaps30
DL 727-200 With A Winglet In 1994?.. posted Thu May 14 2009 20:00:49 by STT757
AeroMexico To Fly NRT With The 767 posted Tue May 12 2009 22:48:36 by ElPelon
Media Report DL May Launch SLC-NRT posted Fri Oct 10 2008 05:07:25 by SalMonela
DL 767-300ER Exit Row Seats posted Tue Sep 30 2008 16:42:25 by Josh32121
DL Flying 767-300ER LAX-ATL..... posted Mon Sep 8 2008 21:52:37 by JKJ777
TAM First Flights With 767-300ER posted Thu Mar 20 2008 20:43:39 by LipeGIG
DL 767-300ER "Mini" Coach Cabin posted Wed Mar 5 2008 16:50:33 by Atlantaflyboy
DL 727-200 With A Winglet In 1994?.. posted Thu May 14 2009 20:00:49 by STT757
AeroMexico To Fly NRT With The 767 posted Tue May 12 2009 22:48:36 by ElPelon
Media Report DL May Launch SLC-NRT posted Fri Oct 10 2008 05:07:25 by SalMonela
DL 767-300ER Exit Row Seats posted Tue Sep 30 2008 16:42:25 by Josh32121
DL Flying 767-300ER LAX-ATL..... posted Mon Sep 8 2008 21:52:37 by JKJ777
TAM First Flights With 767-300ER posted Thu Mar 20 2008 20:43:39 by LipeGIG
DL 767-300ER "Mini" Coach Cabin posted Wed Mar 5 2008 16:50:33 by Atlantaflyboy
AeroMexico To Fly NRT With The 767 posted Tue May 12 2009 22:48:36 by ElPelon
Media Report DL May Launch SLC-NRT posted Fri Oct 10 2008 05:07:25 by SalMonela
DL 767-300ER Exit Row Seats posted Tue Sep 30 2008 16:42:25 by Josh32121
DL Flying 767-300ER LAX-ATL..... posted Mon Sep 8 2008 21:52:37 by JKJ777
TAM First Flights With 767-300ER posted Thu Mar 20 2008 20:43:39 by LipeGIG
DL 767-300ER "Mini" Coach Cabin posted Wed Mar 5 2008 16:50:33 by Atlantaflyboy