Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
DL757NYC wrote:I know they must be saving a ton on fuel. I was flying JFK-NRT-MNL on the 744 we had to return to the gate to top off with fuel because we taxied too long and we couldnt make it to NRT with the fuel on board.
timh4000 wrote:DL757NYC wrote:I know they must be saving a ton on fuel. I was flying JFK-NRT-MNL on the 744 we had to return to the gate to top off with fuel because we taxied too long and we couldnt make it to NRT with the fuel on board.
That sounds like to me they were already cutting it a bit close, unless you were sitting on the taxiway for a very long time. You don't often hear of planes that have to go back to top off because they used up all their taxi fuel and were into trip fuel.
DL757NYC wrote:I know they must be saving a ton on fuel. I was flying JFK-NRT-MNL on the 744 we had to return to the gate to top off with fuel because we taxied too long and we couldnt make it to NRT with the fuel on board.
strfyr51 wrote:My Nephew works for Delta and he claims they're quite enamored with it. I would think they would be if for No other reason than Airbus is kissing their Butts about now because they do NOT want to see them with buyers remorse for the A321's the A330's or the A350's especially seeing as how they still have Boeing as a supplier as well.
DGVT wrote:Delta is going to get rid all of them because the Anet rumor that it can't do LAX-SYD is true.
Casablanca wrote:strfyr51 wrote:My Nephew works for Delta and he claims they're quite enamored with it. I would think they would be if for No other reason than Airbus is kissing their Butts about now because they do NOT want to see them with buyers remorse for the A321's the A330's or the A350's especially seeing as how they still have Boeing as a supplier as well.
didn't they just defer new orders?
HIA350 wrote:yes they are scrapping them, sell them to coke and pepsi to become soda cans
avier wrote:DL's sensible to have realised there are better products coming of Airbus' shelf. So their recent love for A350's and A321's. Maybe even A220's soon ( though it's much less of an Airbus)
DL757NYC wrote:I know they must be saving a ton on fuel. I was flying JFK-NRT-MNL on the 744 we had to return to the gate to top off with fuel because we taxied too long and we couldnt make it to NRT with the fuel on board.
timh4000 wrote:Hmmm, I wonder of it's a jfk thing. In an interview with the famous and recently retired kennedy Steve, he did say that jfk has some of the worst taxiways. Something I didn't know was that he worked all aspects of ATC, not just ground, although he preferred working ground. A quick side note, his favorite plane to work with on arrivals was the 757 because of its versatility with being able to fly very slow and that it can turn tighter than most other aircraft... but I've had a a few occasions as I'm sure we all have where we spend more time taxiing than what was planned for. Flying back from Vegas, hD taken a standby as it bumped us to FC. We were several back in line on a 727 at ord. I had a great view of the arrivals and without an apparant reason I watched a go around. Good weather, looked to be coming in the same as all the rest. Shortly after the captain comes on and announces problems with the runway lights. Being in F the FA breaks out out the beverages. We waited about a good hr. Earlier this year flying home from FLL TO ALB ON JET BLUE A320, We had to wait in the terminal for quite some time as they shut down operations due to severe thunderstorms. Finally we board,push back and then another wave strikes. That was at least a 45 min wait. When I was doing one of my several ALB-PHL Trips on an erj 145, we are 3rd in line vxx when the captain comes on and apologized for a lengthy delay but
it was on philly's side. Come to find out PHL had closed off operations while Trumps secret service rolled in for about an hr. Longer than the flight itself. So theres 3 examples of taxiing taking a good hr.
Taxi fuel is accounted for.
Michiganatc wrote:My friend works for DL in the ATL flight planning/dispatch department and he say’s his department is disappointed in the A350 payload ability with it being frequently weight restricted. He tells me that on flights such as DTW-PVG/PEK it often can’t take a full load of passengers and cargo. So if the flight is full of revenue passengers then some cargo is left behind and if the flight has non-rev’s then cargo goes and non-rev’s frequently get left behind.
Aside from what he is telling me, I have another Delta friend who experienced this exact situation. Last summer she was trying to fly PEK-DTW and the flight was showing 55 open seats with a mix between J and Y class open. She was shocked to learn that they couldn’t take a single non-rev on this flight and it left with 62 open seats so it could take all of its cargo. This seems a bit extreme to me. I’ve heard of leaving a few non-rev’s behind but 62 is crazy.
I don’t know the technical aspects of the A359 but are there different variations of this aircraft with different payloads abilities? To put it simply: Did Delta buy the cheap A359’s to get a deal? (Obviously the word “cheap” is relative so please no snarky comments about symantics). I ask this because I don’t recall hearing Delta’s 77L’s ever being weight restricted, except for maybe ATL-JNB occasionally in the summer.
DL757NYC wrote:I know they must be saving a ton on fuel. I was flying JFK-NRT-MNL on the 744 we had to return to the gate to top off with fuel because we taxied too long and we couldnt make it to NRT with the fuel on board.
Michiganatc wrote:My friend works for DL in the ATL flight planning/dispatch department and he say’s his department is disappointed in the A350 payload ability with it being frequently weight restricted. He tells me that on flights such as DTW-PVG/PEK it often can’t take a full load of passengers and cargo. So if the flight is full of revenue passengers then some cargo is left behind and if the flight has non-rev’s then cargo goes and non-rev’s frequently get left behind.
Aside from what he is telling me, I have another Delta friend who experienced this exact situation. Last summer she was trying to fly PEK-DTW and the flight was showing 55 open seats with a mix between J and Y class open. She was shocked to learn that they couldn’t take a single non-rev on this flight and it left with 62 open seats so it could take all of its cargo. This seems a bit extreme to me. I’ve heard of leaving a few non-rev’s behind but 62 is crazy.
I don’t know the technical aspects of the A359 but are there different variations of this aircraft with different payloads abilities? To put it simply: Did Delta buy the cheap A359’s to get a deal? (Obviously the word “cheap” is relative so please no snarky comments about symantics). I ask this because I don’t recall hearing Delta’s 77L’s ever being weight restricted, except for maybe ATL-JNB occasionally in the summer.
jagraham wrote:Michiganatc wrote:My friend works for DL in the ATL flight planning/dispatch department and he say’s his department is disappointed in the A350 payload ability with it being frequently weight restricted. He tells me that on flights such as DTW-PVG/PEK it often can’t take a full load of passengers and cargo. So if the flight is full of revenue passengers then some cargo is left behind and if the flight has non-rev’s then cargo goes and non-rev’s frequently get left behind.
Aside from what he is telling me, I have another Delta friend who experienced this exact situation. Last summer she was trying to fly PEK-DTW and the flight was showing 55 open seats with a mix between J and Y class open. She was shocked to learn that they couldn’t take a single non-rev on this flight and it left with 62 open seats so it could take all of its cargo. This seems a bit extreme to me. I’ve heard of leaving a few non-rev’s behind but 62 is crazy.
I don’t know the technical aspects of the A359 but are there different variations of this aircraft with different payloads abilities? To put it simply: Did Delta buy the cheap A359’s to get a deal? (Obviously the word “cheap” is relative so please no snarky comments about symantics). I ask this because I don’t recall hearing Delta’s 77L’s ever being weight restricted, except for maybe ATL-JNB occasionally in the summer.
DL has 268t A359s. They can fly far OR can carry heavy payloads, but can't do both. Ironically, because they are more fuel efficient, each ton of fuel traded for payload hurts the A359 more than the 77E.
Note also that Delta rates the A359 for 8000 sm (7000 nm). That's pax and bags. The 77E (with RR engines) is rated for 8700 sm, while the 77L is 10375 sm. The 77L is the best for carrying heavy loads long distances; it can fly with max payload for almost 8000 sm. Of course that uses 48000 gallons of fuel, versus about 37000 gallons max in an A359. So for flights that aren't all that far, the A359 carries a lot and saves fuel. But if DL wants to carry full loads from the eastern US to Asia all the time, they need more 77Ls.
jagraham wrote:The 77L is the best for carrying heavy loads long distances; it can fly with max payload for almost 8000 sm. Of course that uses 48000 gallons of fuel, versus about 37000 gallons max in an A359. So for flights that aren't all that far, the A359 carries a lot and saves fuel. But if DL wants to carry full loads from the eastern US to Asia all the time, they need more 77Ls.
Michiganatc wrote:My friend works for DL in the ATL flight planning/dispatch department and he say’s his department is disappointed in the A350 payload ability with it being frequently weight restricted. He tells me that on flights such as DTW-PVG/PEK it often can’t take a full load of passengers and cargo. So if the flight is full of revenue passengers then some cargo is left behind and if the flight has non-rev’s then cargo goes and non-rev’s frequently get left behind.
Aside from what he is telling me, I have another Delta friend who experienced this exact situation. Last summer she was trying to fly PEK-DTW and the flight was showing 55 open seats with a mix between J and Y class open. She was shocked to learn that they couldn’t take a single non-rev on this flight and it left with 62 open seats so it could take all of its cargo. This seems a bit extreme to me. I’ve heard of leaving a few non-rev’s behind but 62 is crazy.
I don’t know the technical aspects of the A359 but are there different variations of this aircraft with different payloads abilities? To put it simply: Did Delta buy the cheap A359’s to get a deal? (Obviously the word “cheap” is relative so please no snarky comments about symantics). I ask this because I don’t recall hearing Delta’s 77L’s ever being weight restricted, except for maybe ATL-JNB occasionally in the summer.
JerseyFlyer wrote:jagraham wrote:
I don't see Delta sacrificing 11,000 gallons of fuel in order to accommodate non-revs!
rufusmi wrote:jagraham wrote:Michiganatc wrote:My friend works for DL in the ATL flight planning/dispatch department and he say’s his department is disappointed in the A350 payload ability with it being frequently weight restricted. He tells me that on flights such as DTW-PVG/PEK it often can’t take a full load of passengers and cargo. So if the flight is full of revenue passengers then some cargo is left behind and if the flight has non-rev’s then cargo goes and non-rev’s frequently get left behind.
Aside from what he is telling me, I have another Delta friend who experienced this exact situation. Last summer she was trying to fly PEK-DTW and the flight was showing 55 open seats with a mix between J and Y class open. She was shocked to learn that they couldn’t take a single non-rev on this flight and it left with 62 open seats so it could take all of its cargo. This seems a bit extreme to me. I’ve heard of leaving a few non-rev’s behind but 62 is crazy.
I don’t know the technical aspects of the A359 but are there different variations of this aircraft with different payloads abilities? To put it simply: Did Delta buy the cheap A359’s to get a deal? (Obviously the word “cheap” is relative so please no snarky comments about symantics). I ask this because I don’t recall hearing Delta’s 77L’s ever being weight restricted, except for maybe ATL-JNB occasionally in the summer.
DL has 268t A359s. They can fly far OR can carry heavy payloads, but can't do both. Ironically, because they are more fuel efficient, each ton of fuel traded for payload hurts the A359 more than the 77E.
Note also that Delta rates the A359 for 8000 sm (7000 nm). That's pax and bags. The 77E (with RR engines) is rated for 8700 sm, while the 77L is 10375 sm. The 77L is the best for carrying heavy loads long distances; it can fly with max payload for almost 8000 sm. Of course that uses 48000 gallons of fuel, versus about 37000 gallons max in an A359. So for flights that aren't all that far, the A359 carries a lot and saves fuel. But if DL wants to carry full loads from the eastern US to Asia all the time, they need more 77Ls.
Or they could just get 280t A350s... no need for 77Ls.
Does converting a 268t variant to a 280t require hardware changes or can it be done with a check to Airbus and a new piece of paper?
rufusmi wrote:jagraham wrote:Michiganatc wrote:My friend works for DL in the ATL flight planning/dispatch department and he say’s his department is disappointed in the A350 payload ability with it being frequently weight restricted. He tells me that on flights such as DTW-PVG/PEK it often can’t take a full load of passengers and cargo. So if the flight is full of revenue passengers then some cargo is left behind and if the flight has non-rev’s then cargo goes and non-rev’s frequently get left behind.
Aside from what he is telling me, I have another Delta friend who experienced this exact situation. Last summer she was trying to fly PEK-DTW and the flight was showing 55 open seats with a mix between J and Y class open. She was shocked to learn that they couldn’t take a single non-rev on this flight and it left with 62 open seats so it could take all of its cargo. This seems a bit extreme to me. I’ve heard of leaving a few non-rev’s behind but 62 is crazy.
I don’t know the technical aspects of the A359 but are there different variations of this aircraft with different payloads abilities? To put it simply: Did Delta buy the cheap A359’s to get a deal? (Obviously the word “cheap” is relative so please no snarky comments about symantics). I ask this because I don’t recall hearing Delta’s 77L’s ever being weight restricted, except for maybe ATL-JNB occasionally in the summer.
DL has 268t A359s. They can fly far OR can carry heavy payloads, but can't do both. Ironically, because they are more fuel efficient, each ton of fuel traded for payload hurts the A359 more than the 77E.
Note also that Delta rates the A359 for 8000 sm (7000 nm). That's pax and bags. The 77E (with RR engines) is rated for 8700 sm, while the 77L is 10375 sm. The 77L is the best for carrying heavy loads long distances; it can fly with max payload for almost 8000 sm. Of course that uses 48000 gallons of fuel, versus about 37000 gallons max in an A359. So for flights that aren't all that far, the A359 carries a lot and saves fuel. But if DL wants to carry full loads from the eastern US to Asia all the time, they need more 77Ls.
Or they could just get 280t A350s... no need for 77Ls.
Does converting a 268t variant to a 280t require hardware changes or can it be done with a check to Airbus and a new piece of paper?
rufusmi wrote:jagraham wrote:Michiganatc wrote:My friend works for DL in the ATL flight planning/dispatch department and he say’s his department is disappointed in the A350 payload ability with it being frequently weight restricted. He tells me that on flights such as DTW-PVG/PEK it often can’t take a full load of passengers and cargo. So if the flight is full of revenue passengers then some cargo is left behind and if the flight has non-rev’s then cargo goes and non-rev’s frequently get left behind.
Aside from what he is telling me, I have another Delta friend who experienced this exact situation. Last summer she was trying to fly PEK-DTW and the flight was showing 55 open seats with a mix between J and Y class open. She was shocked to learn that they couldn’t take a single non-rev on this flight and it left with 62 open seats so it could take all of its cargo. This seems a bit extreme to me. I’ve heard of leaving a few non-rev’s behind but 62 is crazy.
I don’t know the technical aspects of the A359 but are there different variations of this aircraft with different payloads abilities? To put it simply: Did Delta buy the cheap A359’s to get a deal? (Obviously the word “cheap” is relative so please no snarky comments about symantics). I ask this because I don’t recall hearing Delta’s 77L’s ever being weight restricted, except for maybe ATL-JNB occasionally in the summer.
DL has 268t A359s. They can fly far OR can carry heavy payloads, but can't do both. Ironically, because they are more fuel efficient, each ton of fuel traded for payload hurts the A359 more than the 77E.
Note also that Delta rates the A359 for 8000 sm (7000 nm). That's pax and bags. The 77E (with RR engines) is rated for 8700 sm, while the 77L is 10375 sm. The 77L is the best for carrying heavy loads long distances; it can fly with max payload for almost 8000 sm. Of course that uses 48000 gallons of fuel, versus about 37000 gallons max in an A359. So for flights that aren't all that far, the A359 carries a lot and saves fuel. But if DL wants to carry full loads from the eastern US to Asia all the time, they need more 77Ls.
Or they could just get 280t A350s... no need for 77Ls.
Does converting a 268t variant to a 280t require hardware changes or can it be done with a check to Airbus and a new piece of paper?
rufusmi wrote:Or they could just get 280t A350s... no need for 77Ls.
Michiganatc wrote:I also mentioned that the 77L doesn’t have this problem.
727200 wrote:I have heard this as well from DL internals that the plane isn't living up to expectations and Airbus claims that were made to get the contracts signed. It seems it can fly far or carry a heavy load but it can't do both at the same time.
jagraham wrote:DL has 268t A359s. They can fly far OR can carry heavy payloads, but can't do both.
DL757NYC wrote:I know they must be saving a ton on fuel. I was flying JFK-NRT-MNL on the 744 we had to return to the gate to top off with fuel because we taxied too long and we couldnt make it to NRT with the fuel on board.
scbriml wrote:DL would have know exactly what the weight variant they selected could do and its performance guarantees would have been written in the contract. If they didn't, then they were dumber than dumb.
DL would not be the first airline to regret buying lower weight variants of a plane. You get what you pay for.
BoeingGuy wrote:The A350 is an excellent machine, but it’s not “better” than the competing Boeing products.
scbriml wrote:rufusmi wrote:Or they could just get 280t A350s... no need for 77Ls.
Michiganatc wrote:I also mentioned that the 77L doesn’t have this problem.
While burning $$$$s more fuel.727200 wrote:I have heard this as well from DL internals that the plane isn't living up to expectations and Airbus claims that were made to get the contracts signed. It seems it can fly far or carry a heavy load but it can't do both at the same time.
DL would have know exactly what the weight variant they selected could do and its performance guarantees would have been written in the contract. If they didn't, then they were dumber than dumb.jagraham wrote:DL has 268t A359s. They can fly far OR can carry heavy payloads, but can't do both.
DL would not be the first airline to regret buying lower weight variants of a plane. You get what you pay for.
Michiganatc wrote:My friend works for DL in the ATL flight planning/dispatch department and he say’s his department is disappointed in the A350 payload ability with it being frequently weight restricted. He tells me that on flights such as DTW-PVG/PEK it often can’t take a full load of passengers and cargo. So if the flight is full of revenue passengers then some cargo is left behind and if the flight has non-rev’s then cargo goes and non-rev’s frequently get left behind.
Aside from what he is telling me, I have another Delta friend who experienced this exact situation. Last summer she was trying to fly PEK-DTW and the flight was showing 55 open seats with a mix between J and Y class open. She was shocked to learn that they couldn’t take a single non-rev on this flight and it left with 62 open seats so it could take all of its cargo. This seems a bit extreme to me. I’ve heard of leaving a few non-rev’s behind but 62 is crazy.
I don’t know the technical aspects of the A359 but are there different variations of this aircraft with different payloads abilities? To put it simply: Did Delta buy the cheap A359’s to get a deal? (Obviously the word “cheap” is relative so please no snarky comments about symantics). I ask this because I don’t recall hearing Delta’s 77L’s ever being weight restricted, except for maybe ATL-JNB occasionally in the summer.
Casablanca wrote:At my airline the 350 has quite a bad rep with stay passengers....often has 50-100 seats open and can't accommodate staff, or if you get on the latest issue has been a downgrade from business to Y class due to weight and balance issues, needing more aft cg......while common on small turbo props I have never seen this in wide body ac.
But back to original post, it is kind of interesting that Delta is enamored with the 350 and at same time deferring deliveries?
BoeingGuy wrote:avier wrote:DL's sensible to have realised there are better products coming of Airbus' shelf. So their recent love for A350's and A321's. Maybe even A220's soon ( though it's much less of an Airbus)
What exactly are you trying to say? That Delta understands that Airbus makes a good airplane, or that Delta understands that Airbus makes a better airplane than Boeing? The first part of the sentence is correct. The second is not, especially not for twin aisle airplanes. The A350 is an excellent machine, but it’s not “better” than the competing Boeing products.
My observation from meetings and stuff is that Boeing is very well aware of the excellent capability of the A321, and has a healthy respect for the A350 and C-series also.
727200 wrote:[I have heard this as well from DL internals that the plane isn't living up to expectations and Airbus claims that were made to get the contracts signed. It seems it can fly far or carry a heavy load but it can't do both at the same time. As such DL is disappointed in its performance and trying to get Airbus to change the rating on the plane. The issue is the DL feels that Airbus should do it for free and Airbus wants DL to pay for it. So until that happens, its SOP.
Michiganatc wrote:Mrakula:
It’s a little obtuse of you to think that an A350 Load Optimization Planner at Delta in ATL is not a “trustworthy” source...it’s kind of their job. Plus, read the other posts above this that mention the DL internal rumblings about it’s MTOW concerns.
avier wrote:DL's sensible to have realised there are better products coming of Airbus' shelf. So their recent love for A350's and A321's. Maybe even A220's soon ( though it's much less of an Airbus)
Mrakula wrote:There should be other operational rasons or your source is not thrust worthy
BoeingGuy wrote:avier wrote:DL's sensible to have realised there are better products coming of Airbus' shelf. So their recent love for A350's and A321's. Maybe even A220's soon ( though it's much less of an Airbus)
What exactly are you trying to say? That Delta understands that Airbus makes a good airplane, or that Delta understands that Airbus makes a better airplane than Boeing? The first part of the sentence is correct. The second is not, especially not for twin aisle airplanes. The A350 is an excellent machine, but it’s not “better” than the competing Boeing products.
My observation from meetings and stuff is that Boeing is very well aware of the excellent capability of the A321, and has a healthy respect for the A350 and C-series also.
Mrakula wrote:Michiganatc wrote:My friend works for DL in the ATL flight planning/dispatch department and he say’s his department is disappointed in the A350 payload ability with it being frequently weight restricted. He tells me that on flights such as DTW-PVG/PEK it often can’t take a full load of passengers and cargo. So if the flight is full of revenue passengers then some cargo is left behind and if the flight has non-rev’s then cargo goes and non-rev’s frequently get left behind.
Aside from what he is telling me, I have another Delta friend who experienced this exact situation. Last summer she was trying to fly PEK-DTW and the flight was showing 55 open seats with a mix between J and Y class open. She was shocked to learn that they couldn’t take a single non-rev on this flight and it left with 62 open seats so it could take all of its cargo. This seems a bit extreme to me. I’ve heard of leaving a few non-rev’s behind but 62 is crazy.
I don’t know the technical aspects of the A359 but are there different variations of this aircraft with different payloads abilities? To put it simply: Did Delta buy the cheap A359’s to get a deal? (Obviously the word “cheap” is relative so please no snarky comments about symantics). I ask this because I don’t recall hearing Delta’s 77L’s ever being weight restricted, except for maybe ATL-JNB occasionally in the summer.
Hard to believe. Zeke reported on inaugural flight HKG-EWR:
last year
The EWR flight with the A359 is planned at over 33 tonnes less fuel and about half hour quicker than the 77W (over that range it lifts about 5 tonnes more total payload than a 77W). The SFO flight is 23 tonnes less fuel.
Even if it is for 275t variat is still almost 1000sm furter then DTW-PVG!
There should be other operational rasons or your source is not thrust worthy