Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Judge1310
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:55 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 1:24 am

catiii wrote:
cbphoto wrote:
catiii wrote:

ATL-JNB-CPT-ATL? Or ATL-JNB-CPT-JNB-ATL?


Why would it go back to JNB if the altitude and density altitude are performance limiting on the 350? The route proposed makes sense, ATL-JNB-CPT-ATL. Not to mention I’m guessing Delta can’t fly passengers between JNB and CPT, so that wouldn’t make sense financially either.


Crew considerations. Single layover city as I assume the JNB-CPT crew will fly one leg and then layover in CPT. This way they fly the CPT-JNB-CPT turn with the same JNB layover, then take the n/s to ATL the next day.

Not dissimilar to the old UA IAD-DXB-KWI-DXB-IAD.


What you've proposed would make sense if the entry point to ZA were CPT -- it will be JNB, however. Don't over think the pairing logistics:
Duty Day 1: ATL-JNB ; ~24hr layover
Duty Day 2: JNB-CPT; ~24hr layover
Duty Day 3: CPT-ATL; home

This would equate to a 4- or 5-day pairing depending on departure and arrival times.
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 1:50 am

United857 wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
FSDan wrote:

Well, right now I believe DL has at most 2 of the high-MTOW A359s that could serve these routes (and a Glen Hauenstein quote from the TPG article makes it sound like all 13 of their current 359s are the low-MTOW version, although I'm not sure which is accurate). So DL won't be able to restart all these routes at the same time. I'd guess ATL-PVG might be gone longer term since there are plenty of other ways to get to PVG in DL's network. A return to South Africa, India, or Australia will depend on when those governments relax restrictions, among other things.

I think only the first few are below 275t. I think what he meant was the next batch is being delivered at 280t. And I think you are right, we have 2 or 3 280t versions already. Im not totally sure.

Only the frames with the updated wing twist, which also means the taller winglets (N512DN/N513DZ), are capable of 280t. The rest are pre wing-twist frames that max out at 275t.

Yeah I added that in the DL network thread, thanks for pointing it out here.
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 1:53 am

Okcflyer wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
FSDan wrote:

Well, right now I believe DL has at most 2 of the high-MTOW A359s that could serve these routes (and a Glen Hauenstein quote from the TPG article makes it sound like all 13 of their current 359s are the low-MTOW version, although I'm not sure which is accurate). So DL won't be able to restart all these routes at the same time. I'd guess ATL-PVG might be gone longer term since there are plenty of other ways to get to PVG in DL's network. A return to South Africa, India, or Australia will depend on when those governments relax restrictions, among other things.

I think only the first few are below 275t. I think what he meant was the next batch is being delivered at 280t. And I think you are right, we have 2 or 3 280t versions already. Im not totally sure.


280T vs 275T doesn’t help JNB-ATL. It’s weight restricted because of altitude density because it hot and high. A higher weight frame with the same wing/engine isn’t going to magically lift more from the same weight restricted airport. It’s wing/engine limited almost always in such cases.

The later frames with the wing twist and winglet change does help, slightly, due to lower burn enroute. And while these could be rated to 280T, it doesn’t hurt them if they’re at 275T for this particular route (JNB-ATL)

Now, the 280T would help with a stop in CPT as they likely could take off at full 280T there. That would leave more payload weight available for cargo if needed.

Yes, N512DN and beyond are the only ones that'll help out of JNB. Obviously that point is null now with the stop. Only slight difference is the newer ones might be a ton or two lighter. But either way now DL can carry a hefty load to JNB with zero issues from ATL, and also carry a hefty load back to Atlanta from CPT.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2862
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 2:17 am

Judge1310 wrote:
What you've proposed would make sense if the entry point to ZA were CPT -- it will be JNB, however. Don't over think the pairing logistics:
Duty Day 1: ATL-JNB ; ~24hr layover
Duty Day 2: JNB-CPT; ~24hr layover
Duty Day 3: CPT-ATL; home

This would equate to a 4- or 5-day pairing depending on departure and arrival times.


Using your example how long before theater acclimation come into play for the flight crew?

If the crew becomes acclimated what impact would that have on the CPT-ATL leg of the trip.
 
Judge1310
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:55 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 2:31 am

jayunited wrote:
Judge1310 wrote:
What you've proposed would make sense if the entry point to ZA were CPT -- it will be JNB, however. Don't over think the pairing logistics:
Duty Day 1: ATL-JNB ; ~24hr layover
Duty Day 2: JNB-CPT; ~24hr layover
Duty Day 3: CPT-ATL; home

This would equate to a 4- or 5-day pairing depending on departure and arrival times.


Using your example how long before theater acclimation come into play for the flight crew?

If the crew becomes acclimated what impact would that have on the CPT-ATL leg of the trip.


A good question. When I get into work tomorrow I'll have more time to review the particular restrictions for FAR 117. :)
 
xwb565
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 3:11 am

All the DL a350's which are not at 617k(280t) are at 606k(275t). These are upgrade able to 277t if DL wants them. I am not at all sure what DL's oew is. However the newest a350s in a configuration somewhat similar to Dl are around the 135-136t mark. The a359 burns 6-6.2t of fuel per hour at heavier landing weights on very long sectors depending on msn number and mods. I have no idea what DL company rules are with regards to reserves bit you can do the rough payload math with the numbers I have given. What the DL exec was referring to in his talks is something only a DL insider can clarify. All the DL a350's should be able to fly Lax-Syd with full pax,bags and some cargo against the worst winter winds. JNB is always the joker because of the other complications involved.
 
User avatar
Web500sjc
Posts: 859
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:23 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 3:18 am

Judge1310 wrote:
jayunited wrote:
Judge1310 wrote:
What you've proposed would make sense if the entry point to ZA were CPT -- it will be JNB, however. Don't over think the pairing logistics:
Duty Day 1: ATL-JNB ; ~24hr layover
Duty Day 2: JNB-CPT; ~24hr layover
Duty Day 3: CPT-ATL; home

This would equate to a 4- or 5-day pairing depending on departure and arrival times.


Using your example how long before theater acclimation come into play for the flight crew?

If the crew becomes acclimated what impact would that have on the CPT-ATL leg of the trip.


A good question. When I get into work tomorrow I'll have more time to review the particular restrictions for FAR 117. :)



72 hours In Theater Or 36 hours free from duty in the region is the “standard” trigger that would cause a FAA flight crew to re-aclimitize.

I wonder how the schedule will be modified on the ZA to accommodate the JNB-CPT leg. The rotation on 12AUG20 is currently scheduled

DL200 ATL-JNB Dep 1955-Arr 1735
3h20 min turn
DL201 JNB-ATL Dep 1955-Arr 552

JNB-CPT is blocked at about 2h10m by current airlines. I wonder how much time they provide for pax to clear customs in JNB. Additionally, I believe ZA has outbound immigration, so I wonder if they have to provide time in CPT for JNB passengers to go through the outbound customs (does ZA allow passengers to remain “international” on domestic tags?). I think it is likely the aircraft doesn’t have a long sit in either of the ZA airports, as it would be harmful to passengers terminating in CPT and JNB originating passengers. Do you think they try and favor the current ATL arrival or departure time, or do they entirely retime the service because of the JNB-CPT leg?
Boiler Up!
 
maverick4002
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2015 2:14 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 3:26 am

jayunited wrote:
Judge1310 wrote:
What you've proposed would make sense if the entry point to ZA were CPT -- it will be JNB, however. Don't over think the pairing logistics:
Duty Day 1: ATL-JNB ; ~24hr layover
Duty Day 2: JNB-CPT; ~24hr layover
Duty Day 3: CPT-ATL; home

This would equate to a 4- or 5-day pairing depending on departure and arrival times.


Using your example how long before theater acclimation come into play for the flight crew?

If the crew becomes acclimated what impact would that have on the CPT-ATL leg of the trip.


What is theater acclimation exactly?
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 4:36 am

xwb565 wrote:
All the DL a350's which are not at 617k(280t) are at 606k(275t). These are upgrade able to 277t if DL wants them. I am not at all sure what DL's oew is. However the newest a350s in a configuration somewhat similar to Dl are around the 135-136t mark. The a359 burns 6-6.2t of fuel per hour at heavier landing weights on very long sectors depending on msn number and mods. I have no idea what DL company rules are with regards to reserves bit you can do the rough payload math with the numbers I have given. What the DL exec was referring to in his talks is something only a DL insider can clarify. All the DL a350's should be able to fly Lax-Syd with full pax,bags and some cargo against the worst winter winds. JNB is always the joker because of the other complications involved.

Great to know this, thank you for sharing.
 
DCA350
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat May 04, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 4:55 am

catiii wrote:
cbphoto wrote:
catiii wrote:

ATL-JNB-CPT-ATL? Or ATL-JNB-CPT-JNB-ATL?


Why would it go back to JNB if the altitude and density altitude are performance limiting on the 350? The route proposed makes sense, ATL-JNB-CPT-ATL. Not to mention I’m guessing Delta can’t fly passengers between JNB and CPT, so that wouldn’t make sense financially either.


Crew considerations. Single layover city as I assume the JNB-CPT crew will fly one leg and then layover in CPT. This way they fly the CPT-JNB-CPT turn with the same JNB layover, then take the n/s to ATL the next day.

Not dissimilar to the old UA IAD-DXB-KWI-DXB-IAD.


I remember that. I think they also did a DOH tag around then. Was that also with DXB or with Bahrain?
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 5:53 am

Okcflyer wrote:
280T vs 275T doesn’t help JNB-ATL. It’s weight restricted because of altitude density because it hot and high. A higher weight frame with the same wing/engine isn’t going to magically lift more from the same weight restricted airport. It’s wing/engine limited almost always in such cases.

The later frames with the wing twist and winglet change does help, slightly, due to lower burn enroute. And while these could be rated to 280T, it doesn’t hurt them if they’re at 275T for this particular route (JNB-ATL)

Now, the 280T would help with a stop in CPT as they likely could take off at full 280T there. That would leave more payload weight available for cargo if needed.

JNB's longest runway is 14,495ft/4,421m long - that is 2,105ft/645m longer than the longest runway at ATL. Is that enough to overcome the A359's hot/high deficiencies in wing/engine performance?
 
ILikeTrains
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 3:18 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 6:05 am

flee wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:
280T vs 275T doesn’t help JNB-ATL. It’s weight restricted because of altitude density because it hot and high. A higher weight frame with the same wing/engine isn’t going to magically lift more from the same weight restricted airport. It’s wing/engine limited almost always in such cases.

The later frames with the wing twist and winglet change does help, slightly, due to lower burn enroute. And while these could be rated to 280T, it doesn’t hurt them if they’re at 275T for this particular route (JNB-ATL)

Now, the 280T would help with a stop in CPT as they likely could take off at full 280T there. That would leave more payload weight available for cargo if needed.

JNB's longest runway is 14,495ft/4,421m long - that is 2,105ft/645m longer than the longest runway at ATL. Is that enough to overcome the A359's hot/high deficiencies in wing/engine performance?


Judging by the charts in the ACAPS, they’re limited to ~272T, drops to ~265T at ISA+15c. I don’t imagine they would be limited at all at ATL.
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3698
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 7:11 am

winginit wrote:
I am told today that during an internal employee townhall Ed said that when JNB comes back on the 359 it will be to/from ATL and will be included in a CPT rotation as a result of the 77L retirement and lack of high and hot legs on the 359:

ATL-JNB-CPT-ATL

No timeline given as to when service would actually restart.


Fixes the obvious plane performance issue that prevents a nonstop JNB-ATL. But it creates a higher economic hurdle to clear for viability. I could see this proposal remain in the rumor mill for some time. It would be a tough route to justify economically.
 
Williamsb747
Posts: 143
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 9:14 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 7:30 am

MSPNWA wrote:
winginit wrote:
I am told today that during an internal employee townhall Ed said that when JNB comes back on the 359 it will be to/from ATL and will be included in a CPT rotation as a result of the 77L retirement and lack of high and hot legs on the 359:

ATL-JNB-CPT-ATL

No timeline given as to when service would actually restart.


Fixes the obvious plane performance issue that prevents a nonstop JNB-ATL. But it creates a higher economic hurdle to clear for viability. I could see this proposal remain in the rumor mill for some time. It would be a tough route to justify economically.


It's not a rumour.
B747>A340>A350>B777>MD11>B767>B757>MD88/90>B787>A380>A330>A220>A320>B737.
CPT JNB
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1901
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 7:31 am

MSPNWA wrote:
Fixes the obvious plane performance issue that prevents a nonstop JNB-ATL. But it creates a higher economic hurdle to clear for viability. I could see this proposal remain in the rumor mill for some time. It would be a tough route to justify economically.



Larger aircraft that is lighter and burns a lot less fuel. Better premium product as a benefit to your customers as well and premium economy instead of just extra legroom for added revenue. I think they can make the economics work.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19111
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 7:39 am

moyangmm wrote:
Delta lists A350-900's range as 7275 mi (6321 nmi)

https://www.delta.com/us/en/aircraft/airbus/a350

We also know they have 275t MTOW variant currently. It doesn't seem to be able to cover these flights previously served by 77L:

Atlanta – Johannesburg: 8,439 miles
Atlanta – Shanghai: 7,659 miles
Los Angeles – Sydney: 7,488 miles
New York JFK – Mumbai: 7,799 miles

It's also interesting that DL's figure departs so much from Airbus', 6321 nmi vs 8100 nmi.

Meanwhile, the 77L's range is 9890 mi (8594 nmi)
https://www.delta.com/us/en/aircraft/boeing/777-200lr

And 77E is 8542 mi (7422 nmi)
https://www.delta.com/us/en/aircraft/boeing/777-200er


And yet DL has already announced the A359 is replacing the 777.

MSPNWA wrote:
Fixes the obvious plane performance issue that prevents a nonstop JNB-ATL. But it creates a higher economic hurdle to clear for viability. I could see this proposal remain in the rumor mill for some time. It would be a tough route to justify economically.


And yet DL has already announced the A359 is replacing the 777.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3698
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 8:00 am

Williamsb747 wrote:
It's not a rumour.


The "rumor" I'm talking about is the actual return of the proposed JNB route, not the current internal proposal. I feel like this is one we'll talk about for a while about a potential return.

enzo011 wrote:
Larger aircraft that is lighter and burns a lot less fuel. Better premium product as a benefit to your customers as well and premium economy instead of just extra legroom for added revenue. I think they can make the economics work.


The larger aircraft is actually a slight negative on the demand side with more seats to fill. Also, the 77L now has the latest D1 seats, Premium Select, and retained Comfort+. There's no advantage there for the A359.

Look at it from a network cost perspective. Costs are on a collective basis. For example, let's go back to pre-crisis, and let's assume that the A359 had the range for a nonstop JNB-ATL. If DL had replaced the 77L with an A359 (and moved the 77L to the former A359 route), it would have saved on trip cost on the JNB run. However, in order to retain the same network capacity, the former A359 route now has higher trip costs with the 77L. It's essentially a wash. There was no "savings" with the switch to the A359. Now add in a tech stop for the A359, and we can assume a switch to the A359 is worse economically than a 77L. It's not using your fleet to their strengths. Another indication of that? DL had no plans of moving the 77L off the route.

In the short-run this won't be a major factor as airlines won't be at pre-crisis capacity, but eventually it will be a factor again, and it could come sooner for DL by retiring 18 long-range aircraft. The options for long-haul routes has shrunk. The CPT tech stop will strip away a portion of the A350 trip cost savings, and it requires a more capital-intensive newer airplane. If DL has to acquire airplanes to service this route and the others it plans for, the math is very tough. This route will compete with other routes for the services of two A359s, and I can see this not coming back for a while.

scbriml wrote:
And yet DL has already announced the A359 is replacing the 777.


No, that's not quite accurate.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1901
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 8:20 am

MSPNWA wrote:
The larger aircraft is actually a slight negative on the demand side with more seats to fill. Also, the 77L now has the latest D1 seats, Premium Select, and retained Comfort+. There's no advantage there for the A359.

Look at it from a network cost perspective. Costs are on a collective basis. For example, let's go back to pre-crisis, and let's assume that the A359 had the range for a nonstop JNB-ATL. If DL had replaced the 77L with an A359 (and moved the 77L to the former A359 route), it would have saved on trip cost on the JNB run. However, in order to retain the same network capacity, the former A359 route now has higher trip costs with the 77L. It's essentially a wash. There was no "savings" with the switch to the A359. Now add in a tech stop for the A359, and we can assume a switch to the A359 is worse economically than a 77L. It's not using your fleet to their strengths. Another indication of that? DL had no plans of moving the 77L off the route.

In the short-run this won't be a major factor as airlines won't be at pre-crisis capacity, but eventually it will be a factor again, and it could come sooner for DL by retiring 18 long-range aircraft. The options for long-haul routes has shrunk. The CPT tech stop will strip away a portion of the A350 trip cost savings, and it requires a more capital-intensive newer airplane. If DL has to acquire airplanes to service this route and the others it plans for, the math is very tough. This route will compete with other routes for the services of two A359s, and I can see this not coming back for a while.



The larger and lighter aircraft is a negative? I am down a rabbit hole now. Even if you use the Wikipedia OEW, the A350 has the same OEW as the 77L. It seats more passengers in total and more premium passengers. To fly those passengers the same distance will cost less due to the lighter weight and newer engines, but you have more revenue potential because you have more seats in total and more premium seats you can sell. Also, you have more LD3 space for cargo as well in the A350 compared to the 77L. The 77L for DL does have 90 extra leg room seats in Y.

Well the airline is replacing the 77L with a A350 on the route. So they see the route as viable and they are replacing the aircraft they have been using. The 77L could be a victim of the 777 deficiencies in the airline as the positive of the specific frame is not enough to offset the costs of keeping the family of aircraft.

Adding the CPT leg could be a way of making lemonade out of lemons for DL. But it seems they will keep the route by adding a leg and replace the aircraft. All of this coming out of the pandemic crises, makes you think they see sense of both the route and the aircraft they will use, even if it cannot outperform the 77L out of JNB.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2646
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 10:41 am

MSPNWA wrote:
scbriml wrote:
And yet DL has already announced the A359 is replacing the 777.


No, that's not quite accurate.


DL is retiring the 777, and the A350 will take over on the majority, if not all routes the 777 operated. In what world is that not replacing the 777?
 
jfk777
Posts: 7353
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 10:59 am

Hoping the 10 777-200LR's find good homes as they still have lots if flying left to do. Why didn't Delta ditch the 8 older -200ER with Rolls engines and keep the 10 777-200LR's ?
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 11:07 am

jfk777 wrote:
Why didn't Delta ditch the 8 older -200ER with Rolls engines and keep the 10 777-200LR's ?

DL has already stated that their new A350s can fly their routes at more than 20% cost savings. Also, demand for flights is very low right now and many aircraft will be grounded even when DL resumes flying. Do note that DL are only flying their most efficient aircraft (e.g. A220) on whatever flights that are operated right now to slow down the cash burn. Old inefficient aircraft have been grounded.
 
User avatar
InnsbruckFlyer
Posts: 277
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:35 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 11:20 am

Do we know if JNB-CPT will be a fifth freedom route? A domestic South African route on an American airline would be pretty cool...
Last flown aircraft: DH8D OE-LGN < DH8D OE-LGI < E195 OE-LWE < DH8D OE-LGI < A320 D-AIUR < A320 D-AIZM < B738 PH-HZJ < B737 PH-XRD < B772 N766AN < B738 N855NN < B788 N45905 < A319 N808UA < A320 N482UA < B752 N19117
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 11:31 am

flee wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:
280T vs 275T doesn’t help JNB-ATL. It’s weight restricted because of altitude density because it hot and high. A higher weight frame with the same wing/engine isn’t going to magically lift more from the same weight restricted airport. It’s wing/engine limited almost always in such cases.

The later frames with the wing twist and winglet change does help, slightly, due to lower burn enroute. And while these could be rated to 280T, it doesn’t hurt them if they’re at 275T for this particular route (JNB-ATL)

Now, the 280T would help with a stop in CPT as they likely could take off at full 280T there. That would leave more payload weight available for cargo if needed.

JNB's longest runway is 14,495ft/4,421m long - that is 2,105ft/645m longer than the longest runway at ATL. Is that enough to overcome the A359's hot/high deficiencies in wing/engine performance?

From what I recall from something Zeke posted, it might be an obstacle. SA prints money for DL, and this minor inconvenience will mean big profits as the 359 saves a lot.
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 11:34 am

MSPNWA wrote:
Williamsb747 wrote:
It's not a rumour.


The "rumor" I'm talking about is the actual return of the proposed JNB route, not the current internal proposal. I feel like this is one we'll talk about for a while about a potential return.
Have you been in a cave when DL have printed straight gold on this route ever since it launched? If Delta are investing in putting their flagship on this route don’t you think there’s a chance it would be possible. JNB is not a route that is marginally profitable, it is one of the MOST.
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 11:48 am

Something about the ATL-JNB-CPT-ATL route:
https://thepointsguy.com/news/delta-cap ... rbus-a350/
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19998
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 1:17 pm

flee wrote:
jfk777 wrote:
Why didn't Delta ditch the 8 older -200ER with Rolls engines and keep the 10 777-200LR's ?

DL has already stated that their new A350s can fly their routes at more than 20% cost savings. Also, demand for flights is very low right now and many aircraft will be grounded even when DL resumes flying. Do note that DL are only flying their most efficient aircraft (e.g. A220) on whatever flights that are operated right now to slow down the cash burn. Old inefficient aircraft have been grounded.

Another way to look at this, from other threads the A359 will fly the route with 35T of payload. That is about 7500nm by air. At 7500nm the 77L could fly 50 to 55T payload. As that would be cargo, how much money would DL make? I do not believe enough, with volume limitations, to overcome the cost difference.

Only to Australia and South Africa would DL possibly have a business case to keep the 77L. Considering the costs involved, the 77L needs to go.

Lightsaber
Flu+Covid19 is bad. Consider a flu vaccine, if not for yourself, to protect someone you care about.
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 8048
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 1:57 pm

flee wrote:
jfk777 wrote:
Why didn't Delta ditch the 8 older -200ER with Rolls engines and keep the 10 777-200LR's ?

DL has already stated that their new A350s can fly their routes at more than 20% cost savings. Also, demand for flights is very low right now and many aircraft will be grounded even when DL resumes flying. Do note that DL are only flying their most efficient aircraft (e.g. A220) on whatever flights that are operated right now to slow down the cash burn. Old inefficient aircraft have been grounded.

There are aircraft parked/in-storage currently from every fleet type including A220, A339, and A350s since the schedule is so low and the need to curtail spending.
That they are removing the MD88, MD90 and now the 777. They want to get the new, fuel efficient aircraft back in the schedule when they can.

With the current recovery projections, DL would be operating at highly sub-optimal levels of flying across all of their widebody fleet types for several years.
They would be operating with a number of parked aircraft in two small fleet types of the A350 and 77E/77L with additional A350 deliveries pending.

At least with the A332/333/339 they have the ability to scale back flying since that is a larger fleet type, commonality between the sub-fleets, and common pilot group.

The biggest driver is the 777 removes a lot of structural fixed costs from removing 1 fleet type with 2 small subfleets.

These saving aren't realized to the extent by removing just individual frames or really any other widebody subfleets at this time.
 
grjplanes
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 5:52 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 2:04 pm

Web500sjc wrote:
Judge1310 wrote:
jayunited wrote:

JNB-CPT is blocked at about 2h10m by current airlines. I wonder how much time they provide for pax to clear customs in JNB. Additionally, I believe ZA has outbound immigration, so I wonder if they have to provide time in CPT for JNB passengers to go through the outbound customs (does ZA allow passengers to remain “international” on domestic tags?). I think it is likely the aircraft doesn’t have a long sit in either of the ZA airports, as it would be harmful to passengers terminating in CPT and JNB originating passengers. Do you think they try and favor the current ATL arrival or departure time, or do they entirely retime the service because of the JNB-CPT leg?


The domestic tag will stay "international"...ATL-CPT bound pax can remain onboard in JNB and clear customs at CPT, similarly JNB-ATL pax clear customs in JNB and then can remain onboard in CPT.
SQ does SIN-JNB-CPT, gets handled as international flights in CPT, CPT bound pax remain onboard in JNB.
As it was, the DL flight is on the ground for around 3 to 4 hours in JNB...so I guess if it spends 1h15 to 1h30 on the ground at each JNB and CPT, then it could not too far off current arrival and departure times at ATL?
 
flyinghippo
Posts: 768
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:48 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 2:27 pm

grjplanes wrote:
Web500sjc wrote:
Judge1310 wrote:


The domestic tag will stay "international"...ATL-CPT bound pax can remain onboard in JNB and clear customs at CPT, similarly JNB-ATL pax clear customs in JNB and then can remain onboard in CPT.
SQ does SIN-JNB-CPT, gets handled as international flights in CPT, CPT bound pax remain onboard in JNB.
As it was, the DL flight is on the ground for around 3 to 4 hours in JNB...so I guess if it spends 1h15 to 1h30 on the ground at each JNB and CPT, then it could not too far off current arrival and departure times at ATL?


I think passengers on ATL-CPT will need to get off at JNB to pass immigration. If for nothing else, the plane needs to be cleaned and serviced after 15 hr flight from ATL-JNB and they can't do that with passengers onboard.

For reference - When CI/BR flew from TPE-JFK with a stop at ANC, all passengers deboarded and passed through immigration at ANC.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10633
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 2:29 pm

flyinghippo wrote:
grjplanes wrote:
Web500sjc wrote:


The domestic tag will stay "international"...ATL-CPT bound pax can remain onboard in JNB and clear customs at CPT, similarly JNB-ATL pax clear customs in JNB and then can remain onboard in CPT.
SQ does SIN-JNB-CPT, gets handled as international flights in CPT, CPT bound pax remain onboard in JNB.
As it was, the DL flight is on the ground for around 3 to 4 hours in JNB...so I guess if it spends 1h15 to 1h30 on the ground at each JNB and CPT, then it could not too far off current arrival and departure times at ATL?


I think passengers on ATL-CPT will need to get off at JNB to pass immigration. If for nothing else, the plane needs to be cleaned and serviced after 15 hr flight from ATL-JNB and they can't do that with passengers onboard.

For reference - When CI/BR flew from TPE-JFK with a stop at ANC, all passengers deboarded and passed through immigration at ANC.


We have to wait and see if DL even offers CPT as a sales possibility. Theoretically they can just use CPT as a fuel stop with no passengers allowed off or on there.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1101
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 2:42 pm

DL717 wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
What is the fascination with JNB and SYD?

Both can be served with some modifications as needed.

It’s certainly not enough to warrant a separate fleet type.

If they told you tomorrow that both cities are being dropped… You wouldn’t even blink an eye. It would be a totally realistic action given the current situation

Actually JNB is one of DL’s most profitable routes. Delta prints gold both ways on this route, we shouldn’t be surprised if this route actually returns July 2nd like it says in the system.


Not anymore they don’t. Not for quite a while. With the 777’s retired, they don’t think so either.


The timing of the retirements suggests that DL believes it can get 278t or 280t A359s in time to support WFU 77Ls
 
jagraham
Posts: 1101
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 2:45 pm

lightsaber wrote:
flee wrote:
jfk777 wrote:
Why didn't Delta ditch the 8 older -200ER with Rolls engines and keep the 10 777-200LR's ?

DL has already stated that their new A350s can fly their routes at more than 20% cost savings. Also, demand for flights is very low right now and many aircraft will be grounded even when DL resumes flying. Do note that DL are only flying their most efficient aircraft (e.g. A220) on whatever flights that are operated right now to slow down the cash burn. Old inefficient aircraft have been grounded.

Another way to look at this, from other threads the A359 will fly the route with 35T of payload. That is about 7500nm by air. At 7500nm the 77L could fly 50 to 55T payload. As that would be cargo, how much money would DL make? I do not believe enough, with volume limitations, to overcome the cost difference.

Only to Australia and South Africa would DL possibly have a business case to keep the 77L. Considering the costs involved, the 77L needs to go.

Lightsaber


BOM too. But friends suggests when the time comes, the A359s that will be used will carry more than 5T of cargo (plus 30T pax and bags). Not as much as the 77L, but enough to warrant eliminating the 77L
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 2:51 pm

jagraham wrote:
DL717 wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
Actually JNB is one of DL’s most profitable routes. Delta prints gold both ways on this route, we shouldn’t be surprised if this route actually returns July 2nd like it says in the system.


Not anymore they don’t. Not for quite a while. With the 777’s retired, they don’t think so either.


The timing of the retirements suggests that DL believes it can get 278t or 280t A359s in time to support WFU 77Ls

They have 4 on property now, N512DN, N513DZ, N514DN,N515DN. These 4 have the latest wing twists, they are lighter, so the fuel burn is slightly better. All of the others that we have are 275t rated and are slightly heavier as they are older.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1101
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 3:02 pm

DylanHarvey wrote:
jagraham wrote:
DL717 wrote:

Not anymore they don’t. Not for quite a while. With the 777’s retired, they don’t think so either.


The timing of the retirements suggests that DL believes it can get 278t or 280t A359s in time to support WFU 77Ls

They have 4 on property now, N512DN, N513DZ, N514DN,N515DN. These 4 have the latest wing twists, they are lighter, so the fuel burn is slightly better. All of the others that we have are 275t rated and are slightly heavier as they are older.


Good point. But 4 is not enough for the 3 ULR routes. Will DL get 2 more in time or will DL sacrifice cargo on one of the routes?
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 3:10 pm

jagraham wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
jagraham wrote:

The timing of the retirements suggests that DL believes it can get 278t or 280t A359s in time to support WFU 77Ls

They have 4 on property now, N512DN, N513DZ, N514DN,N515DN. These 4 have the latest wing twists, they are lighter, so the fuel burn is slightly better. All of the others that we have are 275t rated and are slightly heavier as they are older.


Good point. But 4 is not enough for the 3 ULR routes. Will DL get 2 more in time or will DL sacrifice cargo on one of the routes?

Thats the key factor here, also I think they don't need the 280t spec'd ones for PVG, SYD will just increase the cargo since they carried close to 50t of payload on average some months there. BOM and JNB are the ones that most benefit from the 280t ones since 16+hrs isn't out of the realm of posibilities. I honestly think it all depends when the governments open these respective countries.
 
777Mech
Posts: 959
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 10:54 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 3:19 pm

flee wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:
280T vs 275T doesn’t help JNB-ATL. It’s weight restricted because of altitude density because it hot and high. A higher weight frame with the same wing/engine isn’t going to magically lift more from the same weight restricted airport. It’s wing/engine limited almost always in such cases.

The later frames with the wing twist and winglet change does help, slightly, due to lower burn enroute. And while these could be rated to 280T, it doesn’t hurt them if they’re at 275T for this particular route (JNB-ATL)

Now, the 280T would help with a stop in CPT as they likely could take off at full 280T there. That would leave more payload weight available for cargo if needed.

JNB's longest runway is 14,495ft/4,421m long - that is 2,105ft/645m longer than the longest runway at ATL. Is that enough to overcome the A359's hot/high deficiencies in wing/engine performance?


From what I understand is that limitation of the 777 was that the max wheel speed would be exceeded prior to V1 in JNB, it wasn't so much as an engine or wing performance.
 
User avatar
AECM
Posts: 317
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:52 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 3:25 pm

DylanHarvey wrote:
jagraham wrote:
DL717 wrote:

Not anymore they don’t. Not for quite a while. With the 777’s retired, they don’t think so either.


The timing of the retirements suggests that DL believes it can get 278t or 280t A359s in time to support WFU 77Ls

They have 4 on property now, N512DN, N513DZ, N514DN,N515DN. These 4 have the latest wing twists, they are lighter, so the fuel burn is slightly better. All of the others that we have are 275t rated and are slightly heavier as they are older.


I believe that N514DN is conducting Flight Testing in TLS and N515DN is still in the FAL.
 
Lootess
Posts: 454
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 6:15 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 3:31 pm

DylanHarvey wrote:
jagraham wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
They have 4 on property now, N512DN, N513DZ, N514DN,N515DN. These 4 have the latest wing twists, they are lighter, so the fuel burn is slightly better. All of the others that we have are 275t rated and are slightly heavier as they are older.


Good point. But 4 is not enough for the 3 ULR routes. Will DL get 2 more in time or will DL sacrifice cargo on one of the routes?

Thats the key factor here, also I think they don't need the 280t spec'd ones for PVG, SYD will just increase the cargo since they carried close to 50t of payload on average some months there. BOM and JNB are the ones that most benefit from the 280t ones since 16+hrs isn't out of the realm of posibilities. I honestly think it all depends when the governments open these respective countries.


They would need 4 A350s to run BOM and JNB alone, Glen announcing the route at town hall means they likely planned this out with incoming LATAM orders, and as those countries re-open.

Regardless, every 777 route staying intact is very reassuring. Just took a bit of a pivot, since they likely planned on LATAM's A350 order for near future expansion.
 
TropicalSky
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 1:37 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 3:34 pm

777 Mech ...... didn't DAL team up with a tire company to have some special tires made a few yrs back to aid performance out of Jo'Burg or I'm dreaming that happened

777Mech wrote:
flee wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:
280T vs 275T doesn’t help JNB-ATL. It’s weight restricted because of altitude density because it hot and high. A higher weight frame with the same wing/engine isn’t going to magically lift more from the same weight restricted airport. It’s wing/engine limited almost always in such cases.

The later frames with the wing twist and winglet change does help, slightly, due to lower burn enroute. And while these could be rated to 280T, it doesn’t hurt them if they’re at 275T for this particular route (JNB-ATL)

Now, the 280T would help with a stop in CPT as they likely could take off at full 280T there. That would leave more payload weight available for cargo if needed.

JNB's longest runway is 14,495ft/4,421m long - that is 2,105ft/645m longer than the longest runway at ATL. Is that enough to overcome the A359's hot/high deficiencies in wing/engine performance?


From what I understand is that limitation of the 777 was that the max wheel speed would be exceeded prior to V1 in JNB, it wasn't so much as an engine or wing performance.
 
User avatar
AECM
Posts: 317
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:52 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 3:47 pm

TropicalSky wrote:
777 Mech ...... didn't DAL team up with a tire company to have some special tires made a few yrs back to aid performance out of Jo'Burg or I'm dreaming that happened

777Mech wrote:
flee wrote:
JNB's longest runway is 14,495ft/4,421m long - that is 2,105ft/645m longer than the longest runway at ATL. Is that enough to overcome the A359's hot/high deficiencies in wing/engine performance?


From what I understand is that limitation of the 777 was that the max wheel speed would be exceeded prior to V1 in JNB, it wasn't so much as an engine or wing performance.


I think you are mentioning this

https://www.bridgestone.com/products/speciality_tires/aircraft/whatsnew/20040120_01.html
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3698
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 3:48 pm

enzo011 wrote:
The larger and lighter aircraft is a negative? I am down a rabbit hole now. Even if you use the Wikipedia OEW, the A350 has the same OEW as the 77L. It seats more passengers in total and more premium passengers. To fly those passengers the same distance will cost less due to the lighter weight and newer engines, but you have more revenue potential because you have more seats in total and more premium seats you can sell. Also, you have more LD3 space for cargo as well in the A350 compared to the 77L. The 77L for DL does have 90 extra leg room seats in Y.

Well the airline is replacing the 77L with a A350 on the route. So they see the route as viable and they are replacing the aircraft they have been using. The 77L could be a victim of the 777 deficiencies in the airline as the positive of the specific frame is not enough to offset the costs of keeping the family of aircraft.

Adding the CPT leg could be a way of making lemonade out of lemons for DL. But it seems they will keep the route by adding a leg and replace the aircraft. All of this coming out of the pandemic crises, makes you think they see sense of both the route and the aircraft they will use, even if it cannot outperform the 77L out of JNB.


Larger is a slight negative from a demand perspective, yes. More seats equal more demand needed for optimal economics. Just because you have a lower per-seat and trip cost doesn't mean it's okay to not fill as many seats. You still want to fill the airplane as other routes will compete for the services of the two frames needed for JNB. I didn't say lighter was a negative. I inferred quite the opposite, and it's a known fact.

It goes back to what I said earlier. If new A359s was truly the best fit for this route, there would have been plans for this in place already. Instead DL just sunk millions into new interiors for the 77Ls. That tells us what the best plan was going forward. And when you move to a suboptimal solution, it does call into question how viable the route is. I think you need to be careful with the word viable. This is from an often unreliable internal message without any definitive timeline for resumption. Just like when the pilot memo said they plan to return to JNB. I said it wouldn't be in it's current capacity and people were making wrong assumptions about the memo. Winginit's report says I was right. Use the same caution again.

MrHMSH wrote:
DL is retiring the 777, and the A350 will take over on the majority, if not all routes the 777 operated. In what world is that not replacing the 777?


I don't think you're understanding the post chain. All of what you just said is known and understood by everyone without any debate.

DylanHarvey wrote:
Have you been in a cave when DL have printed straight gold on this route ever since it launched? If Delta are investing in putting their flagship on this route don’t you think there’s a chance it would be possible. JNB is not a route that is marginally profitable, it is one of the MOST.


I don't have any particular interest in whether it was or wasn't one of the most profitable routes. I think there's a good chance it was. So let's assume it was, and it's not some A.net myth. If it was printing gold and was of the most profitable routes, what do you think about it having no current timeline to resume service when other international routes are planning to return?
 
FARmd90
Posts: 367
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 9:49 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 3:50 pm

https://thepointsguy.com/news/delta-cap ... T5SQ3uwLS4

I guess we now know how delta is planning on serving JNB....they will be returning to CPT with the 350 on a ATL-JNB-CPT-ATL routing. SYD/PEK/BOM have no changes planned.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24313
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 3:56 pm

Okcflyer wrote:
280T vs 275T doesn’t help JNB-ATL. It’s weight restricted because of altitude density because it hot and high. A higher weight frame with the same wing/engine isn’t going to magically lift more from the same weight restricted airport. It’s wing/engine limited almost always in such cases.

The later frames with the wing twist and winglet change does help, slightly, due to lower burn enroute. And while these could be rated to 280T, it doesn’t hurt them if they’re at 275T for this particular route (JNB-ATL)

Now, the 280T would help with a stop in CPT as they likely could take off at full 280T there. That would leave more payload weight available for cargo if needed.

Seems most people are not taking this information into account. The extra MTOW isn't going to enable a JNB-ATL nonstop, because MTOW is not the limiting factor. Once you decide it needs to be JNB-CPT-ATL, then the extra MTOW may help you make more revenue but 275T ship will work for CPT-ATL if I understand earlier posts correctly. They will be getting more 280T ships over time so it'll be less of a problem over time, but it's already not a big problem.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
TropicalSky
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 1:37 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 3:57 pm

Thanks for your response.....wanted to be sure I wasn't dreaming lol

AECM wrote:
TropicalSky wrote:
777 Mech ...... didn't DAL team up with a tire company to have some special tires made a few yrs back to aid performance out of Jo'Burg or I'm dreaming that happened

777Mech wrote:

From what I understand is that limitation of the 777 was that the max wheel speed would be exceeded prior to V1 in JNB, it wasn't so much as an engine or wing performance.


I think you are mentioning this

https://www.bridgestone.com/products/speciality_tires/aircraft/whatsnew/20040120_01.html
 
winginit
Posts: 2863
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:23 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 4:02 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
I said it wouldn't be in it's current capacity and people were making wrong assumptions about the memo. Winginit's report says I was right. Use the same caution again.


I mean, let's not gloss over the fact that you were pushing the narrative that JNB might be served from JFK instead of ATL. That proved incorrect.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19111
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 4:09 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
It goes back to what I said earlier. If new A359s was truly the best fit for this route, there would have been plans for this in place already. Instead DL just sunk millions into new interiors for the 77Ls.


Everything was different pre-Covid - then it made perfect sense for DL to keep the 77Ls on the routes which best suited them while using newer, more efficient A350s to other places. With air travel having crashed over the Covid cliff, everything is up for grabs in a new World. DL has clearly decided it wasn't worth retaining the 777s at all, despite having spent $ millions refurbishing the interiors.

Pre-Covid plans have just been shredded.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
flyinghippo
Posts: 768
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:48 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 4:14 pm

MSPNWA wrote:

Larger is a slight negative from a demand perspective, yes. More seats equal more demand needed for optimal economics. Just because you have a lower per-seat and trip cost doesn't mean it's okay to not fill as many seats. You still want to fill the airplane as other routes will compete for the services of the two frames needed for JNB. I didn't say lighter was a negative. I inferred quite the opposite, and it's a known fact.

It goes back to what I said earlier. If new A359s was truly the best fit for this route, there would have been plans for this in place already. Instead DL just sunk millions into new interiors for the 77Ls. That tells us what the best plan was going forward. And when you move to a suboptimal solution, it does call into question how viable the route is. I think you need to be careful with the word viable. This is from an often unreliable internal message without any definitive timeline for resumption. Just like when the pilot memo said they plan to return to JNB. I said it wouldn't be in it's current capacity and people were making wrong assumptions about the memo. Winginit's report says I was right. Use the same caution again.


DL upgraded their 77Ls because the passenger demand pre-Covid warranted the continued usage of 77Ls, and new A359s are for expansion. Since expansion plans are now on hold, the right thing to do is move the newer, more efficient planes to replace the 77Ls. DL's primary objective right now is to reduce cash burn. The millions already spent on the new interiors do not impact the cash flow today, tomorrow, or the end of 2020. Removing retiring 777s from their fleet reduces the cash burn and using A350 on 77L routes accomplishes that. It's a very simple concept.

MSPNWA wrote:
I don't have any particular interest in whether it was or wasn't one of the most profitable routes. I think there's a good chance it was. So let's assume it was, and it's not some A.net myth. If it was printing gold and was of the most profitable routes, what do you think about it having no current timeline to resume service when other international routes are planning to return?


What do I think about it having no current timeline? It has nothing to do with how it was performing pre-Covid, it has everything to do with the new reality of travel restrictions from the flying public, the new norm of remote working, as well as restrictions each country placed on international arrivals...
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 4:17 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
The larger and lighter aircraft is a negative? I am down a rabbit hole now. Even if you use the Wikipedia OEW, the A350 has the same OEW as the 77L. It seats more passengers in total and more premium passengers. To fly those passengers the same distance will cost less due to the lighter weight and newer engines, but you have more revenue potential because you have more seats in total and more premium seats you can sell. Also, you have more LD3 space for cargo as well in the A350 compared to the 77L. The 77L for DL does have 90 extra leg room seats in Y.

Well the airline is replacing the 77L with a A350 on the route. So they see the route as viable and they are replacing the aircraft they have been using. The 77L could be a victim of the 777 deficiencies in the airline as the positive of the specific frame is not enough to offset the costs of keeping the family of aircraft.

Adding the CPT leg could be a way of making lemonade out of lemons for DL. But it seems they will keep the route by adding a leg and replace the aircraft. All of this coming out of the pandemic crises, makes you think they see sense of both the route and the aircraft they will use, even if it cannot outperform the 77L out of JNB.


Larger is a slight negative from a demand perspective, yes. More seats equal more demand needed for optimal economics. Just because you have a lower per-seat and trip cost doesn't mean it's okay to not fill as many seats. You still want to fill the airplane as other routes will compete for the services of the two frames needed for JNB. I didn't say lighter was a negative. I inferred quite the opposite, and it's a known fact.

It goes back to what I said earlier. If new A359s was truly the best fit for this route, there would have been plans for this in place already. Instead DL just sunk millions into new interiors for the 77Ls. That tells us what the best plan was going forward. And when you move to a suboptimal solution, it does call into question how viable the route is. I think you need to be careful with the word viable. This is from an often unreliable internal message without any definitive timeline for resumption. Just like when the pilot memo said they plan to return to JNB. I said it wouldn't be in it's current capacity and people were making wrong assumptions about the memo. Winginit's report says I was right. Use the same caution again.

MrHMSH wrote:
DL is retiring the 777, and the A350 will take over on the majority, if not all routes the 777 operated. In what world is that not replacing the 777?


I don't think you're understanding the post chain. All of what you just said is known and understood by everyone without any debate.

DylanHarvey wrote:
Have you been in a cave when DL have printed straight gold on this route ever since it launched? If Delta are investing in putting their flagship on this route don’t you think there’s a chance it would be possible. JNB is not a route that is marginally profitable, it is one of the MOST.


I don't have any particular interest in whether it was or wasn't one of the most profitable routes. I think there's a good chance it was. So let's assume it was, and it's not some A.net myth. If it was printing gold and was of the most profitable routes, what do you think about it having no current timeline to resume service when other international routes are planning to return?

Do you think it has anything to do with the fact the South African government has given no timeline as to when their country will be open.
 
panamair
Posts: 4326
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 2:24 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 4:29 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
If it was printing gold and was of the most profitable routes, what do you think about it having no current timeline to resume service when other international routes are planning to return?


Actually, ATL-JNB, like many other transatlantic routes DL has the intention of resuming once government restrictions are lifted, has been on a rolling monthly delay and is now slated to return Aug 1. It’s for sale on delta.com.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2862
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: DL to permanently retire entire 777 fleet

Thu May 21, 2020 4:31 pm

flee wrote:
JNB's longest runway is 14,495ft/4,421m long - that is 2,105ft/645m longer than the longest runway at ATL. Is that enough to overcome the A359's hot/high deficiencies in wing/engine performance?


You are forgetting to take into account max tire speed. The length of the runway is but one factor but the fact remains the aircraft has to be off the ground before reaching max tire speed.

The highest max tire speed that I've seen is 214 MPH or 344 KPH, on some aircraft even some wide-bodies max tire speed is lower than 214 MPH. So the length of the runway is one factor, another factor is how much performance does that engine loose in a ISA+ environment, also how much performance is lost do to density altitude. I'm not 100% sure what max thrust is on the A359s RR engines, the last thing I can remember hearing was around 84,000 pounds of thrust for the A359, but that number is at sea level. However with JNB altitude being over 5,000 feet density altitude is a problem and if your in ISA+ territory that becomes a double negative. The air at altitude is less dense which effects lift and the engines performance is reduced.

Also keep in mind we are talking about a twin engine aircraft therefore engine failure safety after V1 comes into play as well. When a dispatcher sends a captain their performance data the captain can have confidence that engine failure safety after V1 has been accounted for. If a fully loaded (passengers, bags, and cargo) A359 flying JNB-ATL experienced an engine failure after V1 taking off can the one remaining engine take over and get that aircraft safely in the air under those conditions because you may not have enough concrete in front of you to safely stop the aircraft.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos