Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
DL To Increase Mgtow On 747-400 Fleet? (Rumor)  
User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3208 posts, RR: 13
Posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 19431 times:

No source on this, so take it with a grain of salt if you'd like. But just heard down from the fleet training guys that DL wants to increase the MGTOW on the 747-451's from 870,000# to the max certifiable of 875,000#. Between that and a forthcoming much lighter cabin configuration (new C-class, Y+ class), it seems DL is looking at using the 744 on much longer flights than she has traditionally been used on.

On the short-list of routes mentioned being looked at for longer-ranged 744's were DTW-PVG, LAX-SYD, and ATL-JNB.



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jjss



[Edited 2010-11-18 14:03:42 by srbmod]

79 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMadDogJT8D From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 397 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 19277 times:

Wow, this would be great news if true! I assume this mod would take place at the same time as the cabin refurbs that should be beggining shortly...

User currently offlinelucky777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 19134 times:

??? Delta's 747-400's are already capable of running LAX-SYD and DTW-PVG....but ATL-JNB ain't happenin'.

User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7063 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 19031 times:

Hopefully they will order the 747-8I, it seems that they could use it  


It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30977 posts, RR: 86
Reply 4, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 18934 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Maybe they want to improve payload performance on existing long-haul missions?

User currently offlineHNLPointShoot From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 319 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 18922 times:

Is this a paper change, or does it involving physically modifying the aircraft?

User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3208 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 18928 times:

Quoting lucky777 (Reply 2):
??? Delta's 747-400's are already capable of running LAX-SYD and DTW-PVG....but ATL-JNB ain't happenin'.

ATL-JNB is actually well-within the ability of the 744.

LAX-SYD it is indeed already capable of but a 5,000# increase would always help with cargo revenues.


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8370 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 18856 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 6):
ATL-JNB is actually well-within the ability of the 744.

Well its 8500 miles from ATL to JNB, but the 747 will have to stop coming back which a 777LR does NOT.


User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3208 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 18815 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 7):
Well its 8500 miles from ATL to JNB, but the 747 will have to stop coming back which a 777LR does NOT.

Actually during the summer, which is all the 744 would do, it is within the range and block time limits of the plane. She'd have to carry 383,000# of fuel, the max capacity on a 747-451, but it could still do it nonstop both ways. Would only take about 16+00 blocktime given the 744's higher cruise speed than the 777.


User currently offlineSESGDL From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3483 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 18756 times:

Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 8):

Actually during the summer, which is all the 744 would do, it is within the range and block time limits of the plane. She'd have to carry 383,000# of fuel, the max capacity on a 747-451, but it could still do it nonstop both ways. Would only take about 16+00 blocktime given the 744's higher cruise speed than the 777.

It has less to do with range that JNB's hot and high conditions. The 77L is currently the only aircraft that has been able to make it out of JNB nonstop all the way to the US. The 744 will not be able to fly JNB-ATL nonstop, its runway performance is too poor.

Jeremy


User currently offlineTWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 18703 times:

Man that's a beautiful shot above.... DL livery looks great on the 744. Can't wait to see the new UA/CO livery on it! Glad to hear DL is trying to make the most of the fleet. Hope new UA does the same.


An unexamined life isn't worth living.
User currently offlinelucky777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 18681 times:

I remember UAL's ORD-HKG always having issues making it nonstop....in fact, they even used to tow the aircraft out to the runway to save fuel. ATL-JNB is around 650 miles further than ORD-HKG...nevermind the higher altitude of Johannesburg's airport, 5500ft above sea level. Heck, the A340-600 has trouble making it nonstop to Washington D.C. from Johannesburg, which is actually about 250 miles shorter than ATL-JNB and has to make a fuel stop in Dakar. The 340-600 has a max range of 7800nm vs around 7300nm for the 747-400. ATL-JNB is 7350nm. Could the 747 make the ATL-JNB flight....probably. Can it make the return leg back to ATL....no way, whether it be summer, and certainly not winter. And even if it could, it would be incapable of riding any freight whatsoever. I have a feeling Delta knows this and will leave the ULH flights to the 77LR.

User currently offlineFrostbite From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 396 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 18635 times:

Quoting lucky777 (Reply 11):
Could the 747 make the ATL-JNB flight....probably.

It's not as though DL would be breaking new ground in doing so. SAA flew ATL-JNB nonstop on a 744 for many years.

I agree, though, that only the 77L can handle the westbound leg nonstop while maintaining cargo revenue.


User currently onlineFL787 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1541 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 18622 times:

What's the MGTOW for UA's 744s?


717,72S,732/3/4/5/G/8/9,744,752/3,763/4,772/3,D9S/5,M8/90,D10,319/20/21,332/3,388,CR2/7/9,EM2,ER4,E70/75/90,SF3,AR8
User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 18598 times:

Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 8):
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 7):
Well its 8500 miles from ATL to JNB, but the 747 will have to stop coming back which a 777LR does NOT.

Actually during the summer, which is all the 744 would do, it is within the range and block time limits of the plane. She'd have to carry 383,000# of fuel, the max capacity on a 747-451, but it could still do it nonstop both ways. Would only take about 16+00 blocktime given the 744's higher cruise speed than the 777.

According to Great Circle Mapper :

ATL (33°38'12"N 84°25'41"W) JNB (26°08'21"S 28°14'46"E) 101.8° (E) 13582 km

Factor in headwinds, and you'll need 14500-15000 km, which requires like a 200-pax config on the 744 plus no cargo


User currently offlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5951 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 18596 times:

Quoting FL787 (Reply 13):
What's the MGTOW for UA's 744s?

875K



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3208 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 18578 times:

Quoting lucky777 (Reply 11):
I remember UAL's ORD-HKG always having issues making it nonstop...

*le sigh*

Never a good strategy to use figments of your imagination to back up your arguments. The 744 on ORD-HKG has always done fine nonstop. As it has on LAX-MEL and JFK-HKG.... both UA routes.

Quoting lucky777 (Reply 11):
in fact, they even used to tow the aircraft out to the runway to save fuel.

That is completely false, for many reasons. None the least of which is that maximum taxi weight on a 744 is 3,000# above MGTOW, so you have to burn off that gas anyway before you can even takeoff!! But it was a nice try  

MGTOW: 875,000#
Average 747-451 OEW: 404,000#
Fuel required: 383,000#
Available payload: 88,000#

DL assumes 200# per pax, summer weight. You could take an approximate 340-350 pax with checked bags at that available payload.


User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2172 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 18303 times:

Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 16):
JFK-HKG.... both UA routes.

When did United fly this route?


User currently offlinen7371f From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1734 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 18112 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting HNLPointShoot (Reply 5):
Is this a paper change, or does it involving physically modifying the aircraft?

My understanding is nothing physical with the aircraft, engines. Some software modification to allow the P&W's higher take-off thrust settings. And, normally, an airline has to pay the aircraft manufacturer a cost per aircraft to upgrade the MTOW. I have no idea if the last element is in play or not.


User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1384 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 18026 times:

Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 16):
Quoting lucky777 (Reply 11):
in fact, they even used to tow the aircraft out to the runway to save fuel.

That is completely false, for many reasons. None the least of which is that maximum taxi weight on a 744 is 3,000# above MGTOW, so you have to burn off that gas anyway before you can even takeoff!! But it was a nice try

Joemac547 said he was towed to the runway while on UA 895. See UA's ORD-HKG Weight Restriction? (by SkyCruiser Oct 18 2006 in Civil Aviation) reply 17 and another report in reply 18.


User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5659 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 17911 times:

Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 16):
As it has on LAX-MEL

UA operated LAX-MEL non stop for a very short period. They went back to operating via SYD because the aircraft was too payload limited much of the time LAX-MEL.

It is precisely because of payload limitations on LAX-MEL that QF leaned on Boeing to produce the B744ER aircraft.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5459 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 17557 times:

What's the timeframe? DL may be smelling blood in the water on LAX-SYD. 744s would be awfully handy on that route at this exact moment.

User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 17495 times:

Very intresting thread. I have much respect for Transpac so i'll have to wait and see how this goes and possibly try to dig some info out of my sources over at DL. The whole JNB-ATL thing is also very intriguing to me.


What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlinexdlx From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 652 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 17404 times:

Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 6):

JNB-ATL is the Problem going West


User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 11
Reply 24, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 17373 times:

Quoting xdlx (Reply 25):
JNB-ATL is the Problem going West

As has been pointed out already and Transpac already acknowledged. My guess is DL would rather the extra pax lift and belly cargo even if it means a tech stop along the way. Again, i'd rather lean on what the DL 747 fleet planners think so only time will tell on this one.



What gets measured gets done.
25 Post contains images airbazar : Northern Summer is Winter in JNB. There is no "hot", only high Didn't SA fly their 744's to ATL non-stop at one point?
26 usflyer msp : I recall that It stopped in FLL in one direction.
27 Max Q : I wonder how the 747-8 would do on this route ?
28 yellowtail : Folks...who said anything about replacing the 77L on JNB-ATL....maybe they want to add a second flight...with the 744 coming one stop via DKR/LOS etc
29 mayor : Maybe it was the OP.......................
30 thegeek : DL 747s on LAX-SYD would free up 77Ls for LAX-MEL and maybe ATL-SYD. Don't know why ATL-JNB would be looked at. The LAX-SYD route would work best if t
31 FlyASAGuy2005 : I still don't see where he or his source said the route would replace the 77L. Yellowtail makes a good point. We may very well see the second daily o
32 mayor : Well, no one mentioned using the 744s on an additional route, either. Used in the context of the OP's thread, I'm assuming ( I know, not always the b
33 UAL727LHR : United flew the LAX-MEL route for quite sometime, finally abandoning it in the 2003-2004 time frame because they had replaced the 744 on the route wit
34 deltal1011man : While I wouldn't think this is likely, (I mean, wouldn't a 2nd daily n/s be better? or add n/s JFK along with ATL?) it could happen. IIRC they had to
35 Post contains links thegeek : Re: MEL-LAX Are you sure about that? Even if you are correct, wouldn't the 744 have the same problem now with ETOPS derived rules now applying to quad
36 United1 : The 777 never flew LAX-MEL nonstop it was routed LAX-AKL-MEL....UA flew the 744 nonstop LAX-MEL for a number of years and actually resurrected the ro
37 airbuske : I'm quite confident there is no truth to this rumor.
38 Post contains images gemuser : Not yet due to grandfather clause. Either 2015 or 2017 depending which source you read. The standard B744 is payload restricted LAX-MEL, that's why Q
39 thegeek : UA took enough of a restriction that the route is only seasonal now. Why o why would DL want to fly 744s LAX-MEL while it is still flying 77Ls LAX-SY
40 lucky777 : I say screw the payload restrictions and run it with a 77LR. Put a 747 back on the ATL-NRT run, which it can do all day long loaded to the gills with
41 dbo861 : Hopefully Delta and other 747-400 operators see things your way and order the 748i..maybe there are still some routes where a 744 or 748 would work o
42 lucky777 : You may be right...i just can't think of any right now.
43 gemuser : Yes SYD/MEL-LAX! (And others no doubt). Which is why I am confident that UA/DL will eventually order B748i/A380s Gemuser
44 Transpac787 : Just about anything that goes over the south pole or is performance critical.
45 FlyASAGuy2005 : The 748, sure it's possible but I don't see the A380. I can't think of one single route in DL's network that warrants the capacity.
46 thegeek : Forgot about that. Does it work the same way for US registered planes as Australian ones? Not sure about a 744 being better than a 77W for SYD-LAX th
47 flyibaby : Is DL doing THAT well on the route? I hadn't heard that they were running so full...
48 FlyASAGuy2005 : I would have figured any one of DL's hub cities-NRT before any SYD. Again, one or two routes does not warrant introducing an a/c like the A380.
49 thegeek : The point is that it is justified for QF, so if DL handle it right it may get there one day. Probably a fair point, but QF have the A380 pretty much
50 tjcab : Actually, I read the same thing in Airways Magazine a few years back. One should not forget the 3% contingency fuel required. Also they would re-disp
51 packcheer : It is likely they use that 3,000 lbs of weight for freight, and depart the gate with as much cargo as possible, and as much fuel as possible, then you
52 luckyone : The difference being Qantas exists to fly passengers to two places en masse: Los Angeles and London. Anything else for them is gravy. High capacity a
53 sunrisevalley : There is no 180min EDTO/ETOPS restriction between LAX- SYD/MEL. unless UA's 777's were not 180-min certified.
54 The777Man : This would make the most sense; fly a 744 LAX-SYD and use the /LR for something else, possibly LAX-MEL. This would make for a smoother opertion at LA
55 sunrisevalley : Sure! The regulators of both countries must approve the service, otherwise it does not operate.
56 sunrisevalley : A V-Oz PIC posted the performance of a 77W flight LAX-MEL on Pprune a while back. The payload and fuel burn were quite a bit better than what the loa
57 sunrisevalley : Trans- South Pole operations are not permitted since there are no locations to divert to . Passenger recovery is a requirement for all routes. The li
58 PSU.DTW.SCE : I can't speak to this particular rumor, but all I know is that once the 744 cabin refurbishments are completed you will to see some route swaps and in
59 FlyASAGuy2005 : I think everyone has a little 'weird' thing they do on the side as an aviation hobby. For me, I track charters. Not just DL but most of the network c
60 ual727lhr : Anything deep Pacific, North Pole, ETOPS alternates in Russia or other remote spots.....think harder.
61 ual727lhr : It was LAX-AKL on which UA used the Triple, not MEL. Sorry.
62 gemuser : Add south Indian Ocean and Great Southern Ocean (not to mention the Antarctic) Gemuser
63 thegeek : That's a little simplistic. As well as other international routes, they also have a very substantial domestic operation.
64 thegeek : I thought the convention was that the other side had to respect the approval of the operators regulator, with a few exemptions like going below 60 de
65 gemuser : Your right, for technical aspects that are within the various ICAO agreements. AFAIK, ETOPS beyond 180 is not agreed within the ICAO framework, there
66 thegeek : Which means that US registered planes would fly to different rules than Aust. registered ones. I think the grandfather clause only lasted 1 year in th
67 ZK-NBT : UA flew LAX-MEL non stop from Dec 1999 till April 2001. They announced it before QF but then QF announced it and started a few weeks before UA. Both
68 tayser : OTH, DL would only need to run 3x weekly services in to MEL to get a daily service up and running IF the VA/DL Joint venture gets up (smaller DL 77L o
69 Aesma : Isn't the fuel requirement because dual engined plane cannot maintain altitude and speed on one engine, and thus need more fuel than a quad on three
70 thegeek : While that's a good point: A quad will fly higher and faster on three engines than a twin on one, and also have better fuel economy. The problem is t
71 sunrisevalley : In answer to this specific question an official with the NZL regulator confirmed to me that any EDTO operations by NZL registered aircraft to another
72 thegeek : Sorry, are you referring to only flights which would stray outside the 180 min diversion time here, or all flights?
73 sunrisevalley : I don't know. My question was specifically on flights operating under EDTO rules as adopted by CASA and ( sometime in the future) the NZL regulator.
74 bobnwa : We are up to 73 replies, but the question , will Delta increase the MGTOW of the 747-400 has not yet been answered. We could tie this in to the rumor
75 Post contains images Transpac787 : The NW A330's are already at the max certifiable MGTOW of 513,000#. The increase was in reference to the thrust-rating of the engines, increasing the
76 EA772LR : Will this allow for any more range? I think the PW4170 burns about 1% less fuel and lower maintenance costs IIRC. I think the thrust increase will re
77 Aesma : Good point. You could also carry enough oxygen, but that might be heavier than the extra fuel, I don't know.
78 Post contains links A342 : At least the -200s could be upgraded to the 238t MTOW: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ht-hauler-a330-200f-technical.html "The freighter has t
79 thegeek : I don't believe it is done that way. I don't think pax would be very happy about having to breath through a mask for up to 3 hours, or more for fligh
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 BOD To Vote On Major Upgrades To 747-400 Fleet posted Sun Nov 15 2009 10:42:27 by DL747400
DL To Use 757 On NRT-SEA posted Sat Apr 3 2010 20:31:58 by Transpac787
BA Looking To Install Winglets On Their 763 Fleet? posted Fri Feb 12 2010 08:14:04 by EA772LR
DL To Increase LGA-MSY posted Mon Nov 2 2009 03:33:21 by MSYtristar
Air New Zealand's B 747-400 Fleet posted Mon Aug 31 2009 05:05:37 by United Airline
DL To Increase Capacity On JFK-TLV As Of 09/09? posted Wed Nov 19 2008 07:52:21 by CastropRauxel
LY To Increase Capacity On Winter Schedule posted Fri Nov 7 2008 03:53:25 by CastropRauxel
You Might Like To See This (UPS 747-400) posted Sat Aug 4 2007 16:14:10 by UPS Pilot
DL To Install Winglets On 737/757/767 posted Tue Jun 19 2007 12:25:08 by Delta4eva
Virgin, GE & Boeing To Test Biofuel On 747 In 2008 posted Tue Apr 24 2007 13:58:48 by Concorde001