Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
DL A332 N851NW Flying Nonstop SIN-ATL Ferry May 26  
User currently offlinepanamair From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4914 posts, RR: 25
Posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 18332 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Looks like N851NW is done with the flat-bed refurbishment, and is being ferried nonstop from SIN to ATL today (Sunday 26 May). It is DL9971. Has DL ever had a nonstop SIN-ATL ferry flight on the A332 or any other type before?

69 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineqantas744ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1286 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 18234 times:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL9971

18h 29m



Happiness is V1 in Lagos
User currently offlineTriple7Lr From United States of America, joined Sep 2012, 95 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 18177 times:

I don't think they've ever done that flight nonstop. The last one stopped in ANC.

User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3213 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 18086 times:

Quoting Triple7Lr (Reply 2):

I don't think they've ever done that flight nonstop. The last one stopped in ANC.

The last one was an A333, though. N801NW.


User currently offlineg500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 978 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 17659 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

if you pull the power back enough, a number of airplanes can do SIN-ATL non-stop

User currently offline71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3083 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 17615 times:

Permalink

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/D...1/history/20130526/0315Z/WSSS/KATL


So how many pilots on board?



The good old days: Delta L-1011s at MSY
User currently offlineLH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 788 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 17592 times:

The 332 has the same center tank as the 343, so when empty they can go quite far.

User currently onlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4204 posts, RR: 37
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 17440 times:

Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 5):
So how many pilots on board?

That is a 4 pilot operation.



Chicks dig winglets.
User currently onlinejporterfi From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 446 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 17115 times:

Quoting g500 (Reply 4):

They are traveling at Mach .9, so it doesn't seem like they had to pull the power back for that flight. Although the fact that it is a ferry flight means that range is automatically increased from what the aircraft could do in revenue operations.


User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 16972 times:

I wonder if a DL employee could nonrev on that flight.


Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlineyellowtail From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 6186 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 16471 times:

Quoting g500 (Reply 4):

if you pull the power back enough, a number of airplanes can do SIN-ATL non-stop

If you pull back the power enough, you will be up there forever!



When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
User currently offlinecessna2 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 338 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 16133 times:

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 9):
I wonder if a DL employee could nonrev on that flight.

If the Captain then Dispatch says yes...we can  


User currently offlinequestions From Australia, joined Sep 2011, 798 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 15883 times:

Who else is generally onboard along with the pilots (4 in this case)?

User currently offlinetrent772 From Colombia, joined Oct 2012, 121 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 15665 times:

Quoting jporterfi (Reply 8):
They are traveling at Mach .9

The MMO for the A330 is M0,86, they can't be doing M0,90.

Quoting cessna2 (Reply 11):
If the Captain then Dispatch says yes...we can

I thought pax can't be carried on ferry flights according to FAR's.



Pedaling Squares…
User currently offlinetyler81190 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 15609 times:

Quoting trent772 (Reply 13):
I thought pax can't be carried on ferry flights according to FAR's.

Employees arent passengers...

Also, it is an airline Ferry, not a mechanical, or special permit ferry. The aircraft is fully airworthy. Delta just didn't sell any seats.

[Edited 2013-05-26 17:15:34]

User currently offlinetrent772 From Colombia, joined Oct 2012, 121 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 15397 times:

Quoting tyler81190 (Reply 14):
Employees arent passengers...

I disagree, if I'm non-reving on a company airplane from point A to point B and I'm occupying a passenger seat, I'm a passenger, a company employee still but acting as a passenger.

Quoting tyler81190 (Reply 14):
it is an airline Ferry, not a mechanical, or special permit ferry. The aircraft is fully airworthy. Delta just didn't sell any seats.

I Agree.   



Pedaling Squares…
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5654 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 15209 times:

Quoting trent772 (Reply 13):
I thought pax can't be carried on ferry flights according to FAR's.

As long as the aircraft is airworthy and not on a special maintenance ferry permit, the FARs do not prohibit the carrying of revenue passengers provided there are enough flight attendants (1 for every 50 seats) and the flight is dispatched under Part 121 rules.

However, most airlines, per their FAA-approved ops-specs, allow employees to "non-rev" on Part 91 supplemental position ferries (with the captain's approval), even without flight attendants provided they are briefed on the location and operation of the emergency exits. This may or may not apply to international flights.

Quoting trent772 (Reply 15):
I disagree, if I'm non-reving on a company airplane from point A to point B and I'm occupying a passenger seat, I'm a passenger, a company employee still but acting as a passenger.

This is correct. The distinction lies in whether the passenger generates any revenue.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offline9lflyguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 167 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 15206 times:

Quoting trent772 (Reply 15):
I disagree, if I'm non-reving on a company airplane from point A to point B and I'm occupying a passenger seat, I'm a passenger, a company employee still but acting as a passenger.

Correct you are considered a passenger but you are taking the flight "at risk." The same rules do not apply. I can't count the times I've hitched a ride on a MX ferry to get to work as a non-rev. I've been the only one in the back many times.



My opinions do not represent the opinions of my company. They are solely the opinion of the poster.
User currently onlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4204 posts, RR: 37
Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 14931 times:

Quoting jporterfi (Reply 8):
They are traveling at Mach .9, so it doesn't seem like they had to pull the power back for that flight. Although the fact that it is a ferry flight means that range is automatically increased from what the aircraft could do in revenue operations.

They were likely flying on a lower cost index- probably around .83 Mach. Notice on the routing they were flying southerly to help ride better tailwinds- that is the reason for the higher groundspeed.



Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlineRobertS975 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 943 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 14350 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I suspect that the plane parks over at the DL TOC and the pilots need to be shuttled over to the CBP.

User currently offlinecopa330200 From Panama, joined Jan 2011, 208 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 13074 times:

Quoting qantas744ER (Reply 1):

18h 29m

that's a loooooooooooooooooooooong fly  Wow!



On the run !!!
User currently offlinefilejw From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 359 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 13031 times:

Quoting RobertS975 (Reply 19):

Just depends on what the need is or how fast the a/c is being turned.Iv done both.


User currently offlineSYDSpotter From Australia, joined Oct 2012, 171 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 12875 times:

Assuming time is not a critical issue, would it have been cheaper to break up the journey into different segments say:

SIN-NRT-LAX-ATL
SIN-HNL-ATL

It's wasting a lot of fuel to do it non-stop.



319_320_321_332_333_388 / 734_737_738_743_744_762_763_772_773_77W
User currently offlineGoBoeing From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2700 posts, RR: 15
Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 12799 times:

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 22):

Assuming time is not a critical issue, would it have been cheaper to break up the journey into different segments say:

SIN-NRT-LAX-ATL
SIN-HNL-ATL

It's wasting a lot of fuel to do it non-stop.

But do you think that putting the gear down a couple times and flying a final approach, followed by taxiing, APU on the ground, engine start, taxi out, takeoff, and climbout (huge gas burning time) would save any?

Being that it was completely empty other than fuel, I doubt there was a cheaper way than to takeoff and fly to ATL nonstop. Being an A-330-200 they probably went right up to FL330-350 even with 18 hours to go.


User currently offlineRobertS975 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 943 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 12798 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 22):
Assuming time is not a critical issue, would it have been cheaper to break up the journey into different segments say:

SIN-NRT-LAX-ATL
SIN-HNL-ATL

It's wasting a lot of fuel to do it non-stop.

Don't know what the ground costs would be... landing fees, catering costs,


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5654 posts, RR: 6
Reply 25, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 13651 times:

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 22):
It's wasting a lot of fuel to do it non-stop.

How so?



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineakelley728 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2193 posts, RR: 5
Reply 26, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 13738 times:

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 22):
It's wasting a lot of fuel to do it non-stop.

Umm, it's saving a lot of fuel to do it non-stop! Engines are most efficient at cruise. If you then descend and then take off 2x instead of just 1x, you're probably using 25% more fuel then if you can do it in one shot.

[Edited 2013-05-26 21:52:51]

User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4556 posts, RR: 19
Reply 27, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 13979 times:

Anyway, very cool and quite an accomplishment, very curious to know how much fuel they had left in ATL.


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineairportugal310 From Tokelau, joined Apr 2004, 3643 posts, RR: 2
Reply 28, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 13920 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 25):
Quoting akelley728 (Reply 26):

While I agree with the assessment that's its probably cheaper to ferry than make multiple stops, it DOES cost money to carry fuel around that won't be burned for some time. Especially on ULH.

So no...he's not "joking". It's a fair question.



I sell airplanes and airplane accessories
User currently offlineDreamflight767 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 13778 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Somebody please post the flight plan?

User currently offlineb787900 From Canada, joined Sep 2011, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 13844 times:

Just curious, do non-revenue flights like these carry any flight attendants to look after the pilots and provide safety evacuation in case there is an emergency?

Thanks.


User currently onlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4204 posts, RR: 37
Reply 31, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 13758 times:

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 22):

Assuming time is not a critical issue, would it have been cheaper to break up the journey into different segments say:

SIN-NRT-LAX-ATL
SIN-HNL-ATL

It's wasting a lot of fuel to do it non-stop.

Let's see. Instead of doing 1 landing and takeoff, would it have been cheaper to do 3 landings and takeoffs or 2 landings and takeoffs?

On top of that the extra crews and stopover time? It would have likely costed at least 20,000 to 50,000 extra in fuel to do what you suggsted. Not to mention many thousands of dollars of crew costs.



Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlineSXDFC From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 2364 posts, RR: 22
Reply 32, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 13618 times:

Does anyone have any pictures of this bird when she was leaving or flying around in SIN ?


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineMSJYOP28Apilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 222 posts, RR: 1
Reply 33, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 13408 times:

Quoting b787900 (Reply 30):

Typically, there are no FA's on Part 91 repositioning flights unless there is an operational need for FA's to be on there. FA's arent required on Part 91 flights so there isnt a need to have them on the flight unless it is absolutely needed.


User currently offlineSYDSpotter From Australia, joined Oct 2012, 171 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 13365 times:

Quoting airportugal310 (Reply 28):
While I agree with the assessment that's its probably cheaper to ferry than make multiple stops, it DOES cost money to carry fuel around that won't be burned for some time. Especially on ULH.

So no...he's not "joking". It's a fair question.

Thanks, that was the question I was getting at, were the penalties for hauling around extra fuel for ULH > the additional costs of landing/take offs etc.

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 31):
On top of that the extra crews and stopover time? It would have likely costed at least 20,000 to 50,000 extra in fuel to do what you suggsted. Not to mention many thousands of dollars of crew costs.

Yes but you're having to haul that additional fuel to make the ULH non-stop ferry flight. By breaking up the journey you only need to carry the fuel for that particular leg of the journey. What I didn't factor into account were things like crew costs/landing fee etc. Not sure doing ULH would save you that much in fuel...

In any case, I think in this instance, getting the bird back to ATL in the quickest time was the priority and it allows DL to deploy it for a revenue flight quicker - even if breaking the ferry flight back in segments was cheaper.



319_320_321_332_333_388 / 734_737_738_743_744_762_763_772_773_77W
User currently onlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4204 posts, RR: 37
Reply 35, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 13304 times:

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 34):
Yes but you're having to haul that additional fuel to make the ULH non-stop ferry flight. By breaking up the journey you only need to carry the fuel for that particular leg of the journey. What I didn't factor into account were things like crew costs/landing fee etc. Not sure doing ULH would save you that much in fuel...

You can't be serious.... do you really think a non-stop flight burns more fuel than multiple stops with landings and climb outs?

Think about the physics of what you suggested....

[Edited 2013-05-26 22:54:42]


Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlineSYDSpotter From Australia, joined Oct 2012, 171 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 12405 times:

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 35):
You can't be serious.... do you really think a non-stop flight burns more fuel than multiple stops with landings and climb outs?

Yes I am being serious hence my original question   

If we are talking about a normal routine mission for the A330 (e.g. a 5000nm), then absolutely, non-stop is a heck of a lot more efficient than breaking down the journey into segments. But this is a ferry flight that is stretching the A330 to the limit in terms of fuel capacity/range (it's 8657 nm !!!). My original question asked would it have been more efficient to break it into 2 or 3 segments, if you broke the journey into 2 segments, that's only 1 additional take-off and 1 additional landing. So not sure how

One of the reasons why SQ for example has had to stop it's non-stop SIN-EWR and SIN-LAX service is because of the nature of the route (ULH) where carrying so much fuel makes the flight marginal. QF could in theory fly LHR-SYD non-stop with a 77L but the cost of the route (i.e. mostly fuel) make the route uneconomic.



319_320_321_332_333_388 / 734_737_738_743_744_762_763_772_773_77W
User currently offlinephunc From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2011, 142 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 11954 times:

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 36):
One of the reasons why SQ for example has had to stop it's non-stop SIN-EWR and SIN-LAX service is because of the nature of the route (ULH) where carrying so much fuel makes the flight marginal. QF could in theory fly LHR-SYD non-stop with a 77L but the cost of the route (i.e. mostly fuel) make the route uneconomic.

Surely this has more to do with the yield of revenue from the ticket price? If those flights stopped enroute, the yield would reduce even more because of the cost of the tech stop. I think the problem SQ had was that they couldn't charge more for the price of a seat on the non stop or they'd price themselves above the market.

In terms of the A332 - it's a very capable aeroplane even before being trimmed correct in flight, kept in balance and flown at the best speed for the wing (M.81 from my experience).

I once managed to flight plan it empty LHR-SYD non-stop, with a 2/0 crew basic DOM, using RCF and I think I ditched alternate fuel. 114tonne fuel tanks can take it a long way. The A333...not as capable!


User currently offlinemodesto2 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2806 posts, RR: 5
Reply 38, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 10312 times:

As others have mentioned, employees could theoretically non-rev on the flight with CA approval. I once non-revved on a 777 being repositioned from ATL to DTW. There were two other pilots who were jumpseating on the flight, so there were a total of five people on board.

User currently offlineclydenairways From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 1235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 10047 times:

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 34):
Thanks, that was the question I was getting at, were the penalties for hauling around extra fuel for ULH > the additional costs of landing/take offs etc.

This major difference here is that on a ferry flight, no payload is being carried, just fuel. So you can't compare this operation with ULH economics.


User currently offlineN821NW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 40, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 9984 times:

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 36):
One of the reasons why SQ for example has had to stop it's non-stop SIN-EWR and SIN-LAX service is because of the nature of the route (ULH) where carrying so much fuel makes the flight marginal. QF could in theory fly LHR-SYD non-stop with a 77L but the cost of the route (i.e. mostly fuel) make the route uneconomic.

You simply can't compare a revenue flight to a ferry flight, the first one has (or should) a bunch of extra weight because of all the cargo (luggage and cargo), passengers, F/A's, catering (food, drinks,...),... where as the second has minimum weight because they only have 4 pilots, maybe one or two non-rev employees, some food and drinks for the crew and a few pieces of luggage. And there is no reason for airlines to a) Pay more landing fees then they need, b) Use more fuel, c) Take more time and d) Add extra rotations to the landing-gears.

Now I would have dreamed to have been on that flight...  


User currently offlinespeedygonzales From Norway, joined Sep 2007, 732 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 9680 times:

Didn't QF do an A330-200 delivery flight nonstop TLS-MEL once?


Las Malvinas son Argentinas
User currently offlineTWAL1011727 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 630 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 6904 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 27):
very curious to know how much fuel they had left in ATL.

This flight left SIN with 239500 lbs and arrived ATL with 20300 lbs

KD


User currently onlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4204 posts, RR: 37
Reply 43, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 6704 times:

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 36):
If we are talking about a normal routine mission for the A330 (e.g. a 5000nm), then absolutely, non-stop is a heck of a lot more efficient than breaking down the journey into segments. But this is a ferry flight that is stretching the A330 to the limit in terms of fuel capacity/range (it's 8657 nm !!!). My original question asked would it have been more efficient to break it into 2 or 3 segments, if you broke the journey into 2 segments, that's only 1 additional take-off and 1 additional landing. So not sure how

Doing it non stop saved many hours of travel time on top of what you suggested, and adding in the extra landings and takeoffs would have burned probably 50,000 pounds more fuel than just fueling up and going non-stop.

You're confusing revenue generation capability on ULR flights versus what is more efficient for the airplane.



Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlineN821NW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 44, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 6325 times:

Quoting TWAL1011727 (Reply 42):
This flight left SIN with 239500 lbs and arrived ATL with 20300 lbs

Very interesting info, could somebody please tell me for how long they could have with the remaining fuel in the tanks?


User currently offlineBigSaabowski From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 158 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 6166 times:

Quoting N821NW (Reply 44):

Very interesting info, could somebody please tell me for how long they could have with the remaining fuel in the tanks?

2 hours at cruise power setting at their (very light) landing weight.


User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3206 posts, RR: 6
Reply 46, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 6049 times:

Planes use more fuel per mile on ULH flights than on shorter flights, whether there is payload or not. Airplanes burn additional fuel just to tanker fuel, and I think that is the very valid point SYDSpotter is trying to make.

"Long flights require more fuel, which gives the aircraft more weight and, in turn, means it has to use more fuel per mile than shorter routes."
http://www.ibtimes.com/why-worlds-lo...keep-getting-canceled-good-854033#

This is magnified on ULH flights. So here we have an A332 which took off on an 18 hour flight with 240,000# of fuel. Lets say they instead planned a stop after 9 hours. Perhaps they would only need 140,000# for the first leg (just rough ballpark numbers). Think about how much extra fuel was burned to carry an extra 100,000 pounds for the first nine hours of that nonstop flight.

I would wager the cost of that extra fuel burn is much more than the cost of an extra set of landing fees or tire wear, etc. There is the point of two departures and climb outs burning more fuel, which is true. But then this is somewhat offset by having two descents at or near flight idle.

At the end of the day Delta decided to fly this nonstop, so there was obviously a reason for it. Perhaps it was the time savings. But blanket statements such as "it saved fuel flying nonstop" when the economics of fuel tankering during ULH are known to show otherwise is not showing the full picture.

[Edited 2013-05-27 14:51:04]


FLYi
User currently offlineairportugal310 From Tokelau, joined Apr 2004, 3643 posts, RR: 2
Reply 47, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 5982 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 46):

Agreed. I spend a lot of time figuring this out for my airline and it's not as "cut and dry" as a lot of people are making it out to be.

Nice summary



I sell airplanes and airplane accessories
User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25459 posts, RR: 22
Reply 48, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 5908 times:

Quoting b787900 (Reply 30):
Just curious, do non-revenue flights like these carry any flight attendants to look after the pilots and provide safety evacuation in case there is an emergency?

No.


User currently offline71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3083 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week ago) and read 5785 times:

Quoting speedygonzales (Reply 41):
Didn't QF do an A330-200 delivery flight nonstop TLS-MEL once?

Not sure, but here is a HA 332 delivery, TLS-HNL non-stop with 5 pilots.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N...A/history/20100529/0710Z/LFBO/PHNL

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 7):
That is a 4 pilot operation.

Thanks.



The good old days: Delta L-1011s at MSY
User currently offlineb787900 From Canada, joined Sep 2011, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5643 times:

Quoting MSJYOP28Apilot (Reply 33):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 48):

Thank you for clarifying.


User currently onlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4204 posts, RR: 37
Reply 51, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5306 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 46):
This is magnified on ULH flights. So here we have an A332 which took off on an 18 hour flight with 240,000# of fuel. Lets say they instead planned a stop after 9 hours. Perhaps they would only need 140,000# for the first leg (just rough ballpark numbers). Think about how much extra fuel was burned to carry an extra 100,000 pounds for the first nine hours of that nonstop flight.

Stopping, refueling back up again with reserves for the extra leg, taking off, and climbing out again would have easily burned 50,000 additional pounds of fuel on top of what they burned without stopping.



Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlineairportugal310 From Tokelau, joined Apr 2004, 3643 posts, RR: 2
Reply 52, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5145 times:

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 51):

That's ridiculous.

If anyone out there is burning 3.5 hours of fuel during one approach, 2 taxis, and a takeoff...it's time to get new engines.



I sell airplanes and airplane accessories
User currently onlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4204 posts, RR: 37
Reply 53, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5110 times:

Quoting airportugal310 (Reply 52):
That's ridiculous.

If anyone out there is burning 3.5 hours of fuel during one approach, 2 taxis, and a takeoff...it's time to get new engines.

I'm not particularly familiar with the fuel burn/hr of the 330, but the simple fact is that stopping and refueling and climbing back up again would burn a significant amount more gas than doing it non-stop.



Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3206 posts, RR: 6
Reply 54, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5106 times:

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 51):
Stopping, refueling back up again with reserves for the extra leg, taking off, and climbing out again would have easily burned 50,000 additional pounds of fuel on top of what they burned without stopping.

An A-330 will burn 5400-7000 kg during its climb depending on gross weight at ISA.

http://crew.rj.com/circulars/Cockpit..._RJA_TF_F_EU__20130312_PER_CLB.pdf
page 14.

That translates to between 11,900-15,400 pounds. Then consider that a flight idle descent will burn less gas during that portion of flight compared to cruise thrust. As mentioned, this should help offset that 11,900-15,400 pounds. Then there is the matter of carrying (in our example) 100,000 additional pounds for 9 extra hours if you do not stop. This is the equivalent of carrying an Embraer 190 for 9 hours, which is not the case if you make a tech stop.

I'm not sure how you come up with 50,000 pounds, but those numbers seem way off.

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 53):

I'm not particularly familiar with the fuel burn/hr of the 330, but the simple fact is that stopping and refueling and climbing back up again would burn a significant amount more gas than doing it non-stop.

I agree with this for short and medium haul flights. Long haul the advantage diminishes and for ULH I believe the pendulum swings the other way. You must consider the additional fuel flow for carrying a tremendous amount of extra weight for a tremendous amount of time.



FLYi
User currently onlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4204 posts, RR: 37
Reply 55, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5027 times:

Thanks, PIT.

I'd be interested to see the burn difference with a stop and without a stop. Obviously, without stopping they were able to take a more wind efficient route which was a good ways away from land as well.



Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlinecf6ppe From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 351 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4961 times:

I started this reply several replies before it got the the thread.

Interestingly, I got the following from the Great Circle Mapper

Base Distance:
SIN - ATL = 9963 mi

One Stop Distances:
SIN - NRT = 3324 mi
NRT - ATL = 6850 mi
____Total = 10174 mi (or =211 miles over base distance)

SIN - ANC= 6665 mi
ANC - ATL = 3417 mi
____Total = 10082 mi (or =119 miles over base distance)

Two Stop Distances:
SIN - NRT = 3324 mi
NRT - ANC = 3433 mi
ANC - ATL = 3417 mi
____Total = 10174 mi (or =211 miles over base distance)

For fun, I picked Narita (NRT) and Anchorage (ANC) for possible stops. I listed the total miles for the two one stoppers and the single three stopper and the difference between that and the base distance.

Maybe, someone with access to the A332 planning and performance books can tell us what the block fuel burns with the standard winds for the trip date for each of the suggested trip profiles.

Also, it would be interesting what the crew requirements for each of the suggested possibilities. I guess that crew positioning and logistics would enter into the equation.

Anyway,


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4556 posts, RR: 19
Reply 57, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4877 times:

It's really not that complicated. This was a ferry flight returning the Aircraft back into revenue service after maintenance, it's important to do that as soon as possible so it can start making, er revenue again.


There is no revenue from a ferry flight obviously, it is just a price of doing business and you want to get it over with as quick as possible so, to reiterate you can get the jet back in the air with passengers making money Asap.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently onlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4204 posts, RR: 37
Reply 58, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4855 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 57):
It's really not that complicated. This was a ferry flight returning the Aircraft back into revenue service after maintenance, it's important to do that as soon as possible so it can start making, er revenue again.


There is no revenue from a ferry flight obviously, it is just a price of doing business and you want to get it over with as quick as possible so, to reiterate you can get the jet back in the air with passengers making money Asap.

Bingo- nonstop saved a bunch of time and got it done with a minimum of crew. I'm interested to see how much more (or as some here say, less) fuel would have been burned with a stop.

If you look at the routing flown, the wind optimum routing would have required a significant diversion off route to go anywhere except stopping in NRT.



Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8508 posts, RR: 12
Reply 59, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4813 times:

I doubt that the cost delta between a nonstop versus one stop for this flight was very much and operationally the quicker nonstop flight was obviously preferred by Delta.

There is a huge difference in weight between an aircraft being ferried without pax or cargo and a normal revenue flight. The weight of the extra fuel doesn't impact the fuel efficiency of a light loaded flight as much as a heavily loaded one.


User currently offlineairportugal310 From Tokelau, joined Apr 2004, 3643 posts, RR: 2
Reply 60, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4812 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 54):

Thanks. Learned a thing from your example

Quoting Max Q (Reply 57):
Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 58):

I actually agree with both of you that it was *probably* a timing thing...get her back home. Though of course without numbers I wouldn't know. But it's all good.



I sell airplanes and airplane accessories
User currently offlineRWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3305 posts, RR: 5
Reply 61, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4562 times:

Quoting copa330200 (Reply 20):
18h 29m
that's a loooooooooooooooooooooong fly
Quoting TWAL1011727 (Reply 42):

This flight left SIN with 239500 lbs and arrived ATL with 20300 lbs
Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 49):
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N...A/history/20100529/0710Z/LFBO/PHNL

So does this qualify as any type of record for the type? Or is this HA example a longer distance or a longer journey time?



AA AC AQ AS BD BN CO CS DL EA EZ HA HP KL KN MP MW NK NW OO OZ PA PS QX RC RH RW SA TG TW UA US VS WA WC WN
User currently offlinepusserchef From Australia, joined Apr 2010, 26 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4461 times:

Quoting speedygonzales (Reply 41):
Quoting speedygonzales (Reply 41):
speedygonzales From Norway, joined Sep 2007, 672 posts, RR: 0Reply 41, posted Sun May 26 2013 13:01:57 your local time (21 hours 42 minutes 52 secs ago) and read 5275 times:Didn't QF do an A330-200 delivery flight nonstop TLS-MEL once?

Yes QANTAS did fly non-stop from TLS-MEL;

Taken from the Airbus website.....
09 Jan 2003
Qantas has made the longest flight ever by an Airbus A330-200 - nonstop from Toulouse, France, to Melbourne, Australia - covering a distance of almost 17,000 km in a flight time of 20 hours and 4 mins.
The flight is believed to have set two new records in its class ? a distance without landing of 16,910 km, and the fastest speed between Toulouse and Melbourne of 865 Km/hr.
The delivery flight of the brand-new A330-200 was flown by four Qantas pilots, carried 12 people in a fully equipped passenger cabin, and followed normal operating procedures, highlighting the fuel efficiency of Airbus aircraft.
Qantas' A330 left Toulouse on 24th December, landed in Melbourne on Christmas day.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4556 posts, RR: 19
Reply 63, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3480 times:

Quoting pusserchef (Reply 62):

Yes QANTAS did fly non-stop from TLS-MEL;

Taken from the Airbus website.....
09 Jan 2003
Qantas has made the longest flight ever by an Airbus A330-200 - nonstop from Toulouse, France, to Melbourne, Australia - covering a distance of almost 17,000 km in a flight time of 20 hours and 4 mins.
The flight is believed to have set two new records in its class ? a distance without landing of 16,910 km, and the fastest speed between Toulouse and Melbourne of 865 Km/hr.
The delivery flight of the brand-new A330-200 was flown by four Qantas pilots, carried 12 people in a fully equipped passenger cabin, and followed normal operating procedures, highlighting the fuel efficiency of Airbus aircraft.
Qantas' A330 left Toulouse on 24th December, landed in Melbourne on Christmas day

Did this ferry flight have auxiliary tanks ?



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineJohnClipper From Hong Kong, joined Aug 2005, 845 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (1 year 4 months 20 hours ago) and read 3032 times:

They probably carried some revenue cargo. DL mx flight x/China routinely carry paying cargo back to the U.S. The plane is empty so why not make some $$$.

User currently offlineBraniff747SP From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 2988 posts, RR: 1
Reply 65, posted (1 year 4 months 14 hours ago) and read 2766 times:

Quoting JohnClipper (Reply 64):

They probably carried some revenue cargo. DL mx flight x/China routinely carry paying cargo back to the U.S. The plane is empty so why not make some $$$.

I'm far from an ops expert, but I have a feeling that the flight empty was already pushing the envelope for the A332, let alone the extra weight of cargo. Don't think it could happen.



The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
User currently offlineaudidudi From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (1 year 4 months 13 hours ago) and read 2741 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 57):

Well the aircraft has been in ATL since arriving on May 26; so DL doesn't seem to be in too much of a hurry to get it back flying revenue flights! I wonder what's going on. The first DL A333 to be modded was flying revenue flights within two days of arriving back in ATL!


User currently offlineairtran737 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3704 posts, RR: 12
Reply 67, posted (1 year 4 months 11 hours ago) and read 2566 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RobertS975 (Reply 19):
I suspect that the plane parks over at the DL TOC and the pilots need to be shuttled over to the CBP.

CBP in ATL also comes to to the Delta TOC, North Cargo and South Cargo for US operators. I highly doubt the crew went the terminal.



Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
User currently offlinePSU.DTW.SCE From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 7598 posts, RR: 27
Reply 68, posted (1 year 4 months 10 hours ago) and read 2464 times:

I'm not an expert in this area, but I believe that the aircraft needs to go through a number of certification checks before it can be returned to service - particularly since this is the first aircraft of this type to complete the modification

Particularly if a new style of seat is used. If any modifications to the galley or water system were made it must pass an FDA check too.


User currently offlinethenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2515 posts, RR: 11
Reply 69, posted (1 year 4 months 10 hours ago) and read 2427 times:

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 34):
Thanks, that was the question I was getting at, were the penalties for hauling around extra fuel for ULH > the additional costs of landing/take offs etc.
Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 34):
Yes but you're having to haul that additional fuel to make the ULH non-stop ferry flight. By breaking up the journey you only need to carry the fuel for that particular leg of the journey

I'm pretty sure DL can factor in all the expenses required for a multiple stop journey. If they decided to do this leg non stop, chances are it's cheaper to do so that way.

I'm no an expert in aircraft fuel consumption rates vs a set amout of fuel on board, but in my head, landing fees, additional ATC navigation fees (which can amount to thousands of dollars per ANSP per flight), combined with the fact that you're burning extra fuel on the climbouts and final appraoches on a multiple leg journey, overall, is more $$$ spent that filling the tanks up and flying non stop on an empty ferry flight.

Thenoflyzone

[Edited 2013-06-03 06:23:00]


us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
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 125 Engine Problem, Returned To ATL Today posted Thu May 27 2010 15:45:15 by jimpop
DL 125 Engine Problem, Returned To ATL Today posted Thu May 27 2010 15:45:15 by jimpop
DL 5008/Acey 008 ATL-ORF Today posted Sat Mar 28 2009 14:42:40 by FlyASAGuy2005
DL 5008/Acey 008 ATL-ORF Today posted Sat Mar 28 2009 14:42:40 by FlyASAGuy2005
DL Started ATL-ARN Today (4june) posted Wed Jun 4 2008 03:29:24 by B747forever
DL Started ATL-ARN Today (4june) posted Wed Jun 4 2008 03:29:24 by B747forever
DL Launches ATL-LOS Today posted Mon Dec 3 2007 02:58:34 by 767-332ER
DL Launches ATL-LOS Today posted Mon Dec 3 2007 02:58:34 by 767-332ER
DL Begin New Nonstop From ATL-RNO On Dec 1, 2004 posted Mon Jul 19 2004 17:29:24 by ScottysAir
DL Begin New Nonstop From ATL-RNO On Dec 1, 2004 posted Mon Jul 19 2004 17:29:24 by ScottysAir
DL 762 Flying GYR To ATL posted Wed Jul 14 2004 22:14:08 by Pbiflyer
DL 762 Flying GYR To ATL posted Wed Jul 14 2004 22:14:08 by Pbiflyer
ORD-HKG/ ATL-JNB/CPT Still Flying Nonstop? posted Mon Dec 9 2002 04:12:48 by Airplanetire
DL LIT-ATL Canceled Today, Anyone Know Why? posted Wed Oct 16 2002 08:19:02 by 727_Gal
ORD-HKG/ ATL-JNB/CPT Still Flying Nonstop? posted Mon Dec 9 2002 04:12:48 by Airplanetire
DL 767-400 LAX-VCV-MEM-ATL Today? posted Mon Jun 24 2002 06:27:53 by Big777jet
DL To Replace MD88's With MD90's ATL-ROC posted Tue May 7 2013 14:02:30 by United_fan
DL LIT-ATL Canceled Today, Anyone Know Why? posted Wed Oct 16 2002 08:19:02 by 727_Gal
DL 767-400 LAX-VCV-MEM-ATL Today? posted Mon Jun 24 2002 06:27:53 by Big777jet
DL To Replace MD88's With MD90's ATL-ROC posted Tue May 7 2013 14:02:30 by United_fan